Citation
Talking and learning in an ESOL program

Material Information

Title:
Talking and learning in an ESOL program an ethnographic analysis
Creator:
Ernst, Gisela
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiii, 216 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Classrooms ( jstor )
Ethnography ( jstor )
Foreign language learning ( jstor )
Language ( jstor )
Language teachers ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Second language learning ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Curriculum and Instruction thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- UF
English language -- Study and teaching -- Foreign speakers ( lcsh )
Interaction analysis in education ( lcsh )
Linguistic minorities -- Education ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1991.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 208-215).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Gisela Ernst.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Gisela Ernst. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
026528821 ( ALEPH )
25248344 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









TALKING AND LEARNING IN AN ESOL PROGRAM:
AN ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS













BY


GISELA ERNST


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1991


!UNIVERSITY OF [LOR!A L!WSRARIE
































Copyright 1991

by

Gisela Ernst
































In memory of my father,

Hubert A. Ernst, whom I dearly miss.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I wish to thank my committee members for all their assistance and especially for their thoughtful comments, constructive advice, and unconditional support. Dr. Ruthellen Crews provided kindness, understanding, and a down-to-earth perspective as I moved through the various phases of my doctoral program. Her warmth and pertinent insights were welcomed and helpful. Dr. Clemens L. Hallman has been my chief source of information and advice about critical issues surrounding the lives and education of children from other cultures. In working with Dr. Hallman I got first hand experience in the complex world of bilingual education. Dr. Allan Bums encouraged my research interests and offered the right blend of humor, encouragement, advice, and criticism. Dr. Jacqueline Comas continually expressed interest in my endeavors and offered many important insights that helped clarify my thinking about multicultural issues.

My deepest and sincere thanks go to my committee chairperson and great friend, Dr. Ginger Weade, for her consistently sound advice and guidance. Her trust, patience, and wisdom were constant and unfailing and especially appreciated during times of deadlines. Her unswerving support was a major positive factor throughout my doctoral studies.

I thank my parents and the rest of my family for their tenacious support and

everlasting expression of faith and encouragement. My appreciation is also extended to Kay Hodnett Nufiez for her warmth, acceptance, and unselfish contribution to my doctoral education.

My greatest indebtedness is to the staff and children in the ESOL program at Arthur Elementary school, who must remain anonymous. Their willingness in having me









observe, their readiness in accepting me into their world, their patience in answering my questions, and thoughtfulness in sharing their feelings and views about everyday school life made this study possible.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................. xi

A B STR A C T ....................................................................................... xii

CHAPTERS
BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY .......................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ...................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ........................................................... 2
Rationale for the Study ....................................................... 3
Review of Procedures ......................................................... 7
Significance of the Study ....................................................... 11
Definition of Terms ............................................................. 12
Organization of the Report .................................................. 13
N otes ........................................................................... 14

2 REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE ................................ 15

Introduction ................................................................... 15
Bilingual Education in the United States ................................... 16

Historical Background .................................................. 16

English as a second language instruction ............................ 18
Recent bilingual instruction ........................................ 19
Federal legislation .................................................... 20
A landmark court decision: Lau v. Nichols (1974) ................ 22

Educational Programs for Language Minority Students ............ 23

Transitional bilingual education .................................... 24
Maintenance bilingual education ...................................... 24
Two-way enrichment bilingual education ......................... 25
Immersion bilingual education ..................................... 25
Structured immersion education ................................... 26
English as a second language (ESL) or English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) .......................................... 26








CHAPTERS Page

Alternative Perspectives on the Study of Second Language
Teaching and Learning .................................................. 28

First and Second Language Acquisition .............................. 28

Linguistic competence vs. performance ............................. 30
Acquisition versus learning ........................................ 31
Individual learner factors .............................................. 32
Social setting factors ................................................... 34
The role of input ...................................................... 34
Interaction ............................................................ 35

Characteristics of the interaction between a native-speaker and the learner ................................ 35
How interaction aids second language acquisition ............. 37

Input and interaction in classroom settings .......................... 38
Teacher-talk ........................................................... 39

A Sociolinguistic Approach to the Study of Language Use in the
C lassroom ................................................................ 42

Communicative competence ........................................ 43
Language use in educational settings ............................. 45
Assumptions and constructs ........................................ 47

Classrooms are communicative environments .............. 48
Teachers orchestrate different levels of participation .......... 51 Students are active participants in learning environments ..... 53 Learning materials introduce an overt structure of their own. 54 Face-to-face interaction between teacher and students and among students is governed by context-specific rules .... 55 Contexts are constructed during interactions ................... 57
Meaning is context specific ..................................... 58
Inferencing is required for conversational comprehension.... 59

Sum m ary ....................................................................... 60

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................. 63

Introduction ................................................................... 63
Research Perspective ......................................................... 64
Approaches to Ethnographic Research .................................... 64
The Present Study ............................................................... 68
Methods and Procedures ....................................................... 69
Entry and Access ........................................................ 71
D ata C ollection .......................................................... 73
D ata A nalysis .............................................................. 74

Microanalysis of classroom conversations .......................... 75
Analysis of students' work ......................................... 80
Triangulation ......................................................... 81








CHAPTERS











4


Page

Exiting the Field .......................................................... 83
Presentation of Findings ................................................... 84

Selected Methodological Issues ............................................. 86

Reliability and Validity ..................................................... 86
Interobserver Agreement ................................................. 87
Theory Development .................................................... 88

Sum m ary ....................................................................... 90

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT ..................................................... 91

Introduction ................................................................... 91
Arthur Elementary School ...................................................... 93
The ESOL Program ........................................................... 96

ESOL Classroom 1 ....................................................... 96
ESOL Classroom 2 ........................................................ 100

Participan ts ...................................................................... 102

Staff ......................................................................... i0 2
Students ..................................................................... 102
A Day in the School Life of an LEP Student ........................... 106

Assessment and Placement Procedures ...................................... 107

Entry C riteria ............................................................... 108
Exit C riteria ................................................................. 109
G ro up in g .................................................................... 111

English language proficiency level .................................. 112
G rade level ............................................................. 112
Language skill areas ................................................... 112
Homeroom schedule .................................................. 112

Scheduling .................................................................. 113

Program Description ........................................................... 116

Conversational English Class............................................ 117
A Day at Aithurs' ESOL Conversational Class ........................ 124
The ESOL Reading Class ................................................. 137
The ESOL Mathematics Class ........................................... 140

Sum m ary ........................................................................ 142
N o te s ............................................................................. 145








CHAPTERS

5


TALK AND INTERACTION IN THE CONVERSATIONAL ENGLISH CLASSROOM .................................................. 146

Introduction ..................................................................... 146

Talking Circle: Structural Phases ........................................ 148

Classrooms are communicative environments ..................... 152
Contexts are constructed during interactions ....................... 152
Segment 1: Phase 3 or "Core" ..................................... 155
Segment 2: Phase 4 or "Teacher's Agenda" ...................... 157


Topic Development ........................................................ 159
Social Demands ................. ..................165
Communicative Dimension ............................................... 175

Sum m ary ...................................................................... 192

6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .................................. 196

Introduction ..................................................................... 196
C onclusions ..................................................................... i97

Key Factors Associated with Assessment and Placement
Procedures ................................................................ 198
The ESOL Program Provides a Support System for LEP
Students ................................................................... 199
Successful Participation in the Second Language Classroom Involved Awareness of the Specific Social and Academic
D em ands ................................................................... 200
Importance of Talk and Interaction in Second Language Learning .. 201

Im plications ..................................................................... 202

R EFER EN CE S ................................................................................... 208

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................................................... 216














LIST OF TABLES


Table Lae2.1 Constructs Underlying the Study of Classroom Processes from a Sociolinguistic Perspective .................................................................... 49

3.1 Variations in Scope of Research Studies ............................................. 67

3.2 Analytic Steps Used in Mapping Instructional Conversations ..................... 76

3.3 Percentage of Interobserver Agreement Message Units ............................ 89

3.4 Percentage of Interobserver Agreement Interaction Units .......................... 89

4.1 ESOL Students Grouped by Home Language, Country of Origin, and Grade L evel ..................................................................................... 103

4.2 Typical Daily Schedule Month: November ........................................... 114

4.3 ESOL Weekly Themes Arthur Elementary School ................................... 122

5.1 Students Participating in "Talking Circle" ............................................ 150

5.2 Talking Circle's Phase Structure, Topical Development, and Social Demands... 154 5.3 Distribution of Teacher and Student Talk by Time ................................... 177

5.4 Communicative Features of Teacher and Adult Messages: Frequency and P ercen tage ............................................................................... 179

5.5 Communicative Features of Student Messages: Frequency and Percentage ...... 181













LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

3.1 The Ethnographic Cycle of Inquiry .................................................... 70

4.1 Arthur Elementary School .......................................................... 94

4.2 ESOL Classroom 1: Conversational English ..................................... 97

4.3 ESOL Classroom 2: Reading and Math .......................................... 98

5.1 Seating Arrangements During Talking Circle ....................................... 149














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor in Philosophy
TALKING AND LEARNING IN AN ESOL PROGRAM: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

By

Gisela Ernst

August, 1991

Chairperson: Dr. Regina Weade
Major Department: Instruction and Curriculum

The primary purpose of this study was to explore the nature of second language teaching and learning as social processes in an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program for elementary students. Of special concern was how a group of students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds learned a second language and culture through everyday interactions with teachers and peers. A second purpose was to produce a comprehensive and systematic description of the instructional, organizational, and physical characteristics of an elementary ESOL program and of the actions and interactions of participants within the program.

/Data were gathered during approximately six hundred hours of participant

observation during the 1989-90 school year. Other data-gathering techniques included formal and informal interviews, detailed fieldnotes, video and audiotaping, examination of documents and records, and analysis of students' work.

Findings of this study can be summarized as follows. First, several factors that go beyond the linguistic realm need to be considered when assessing, placing, and exiting limited English proficient (LEP) students. Second, the ESOL staff played an important role in providing a supportive system in which LEP students' whole array of linguistic,









academic, social, and emotional needs was bolstered and integrated. Third, successful participation in the language classroom entailed more than the willingness to use the second language; it involved increasing awareness of the specific academic, social, and communicative demands required across different classroom events and throughout phases within one event. Fourth, talk and interaction provided the best opportunities for students to hear and practice the new language, to test out their hypotheses about how the second language works, and to get useful feedback.

Although findings in this study do not provide causal explanations or ways of generalizing about ESOL events and classrooms, they do explain what happened within and across particular events. By using a systematic and theoretically based approach to the study of the social interactions between teachers and students, it was possible to go beyond surface level descriptions. Ethnographic findings of this type provide insights about the nature of language learning as it occurs in classrooms and the ways students use language to learn language.














CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY


Statement of the Problem

When language minority children arrive at school for the first time they face

two major problems. First, they must acquire fluency and learn to interact in English in different settings; and second, like all children, non-English-speaking children must learn and use the different rules and language patterns appropriate for the classroom and school environments. Not all children are able to accomplish these two goals in the same manner, nor will all succeed. Clearly, language minority students face a high risk of failing in school and thus, present a challenge to educators and to the educational system.

Different language programs and approaches (e.g., bilingual, immersion, English for Speakers of Other Languages [ESOL]) have been designed to help students accomplish these two goals. How programs are organized for instruction can influence the way in which teachers and students interact with one another; how language is used in the classroom can have a major effect on the learning of the conversational rules needed to participate in different settings.

Although in recent years there has been a growing number of studies on second language acquisition, ESOL programs have received little attention. Information is not available on how these approaches for teaching English help students cope with learning the language and culture of the school. As stated by Watson-Gegeo (1988)

Second language teaching occurs in a wide spectrum of institutional
contexts .... Second language learning occurs in an even wider spectrum
of contexts, including family and community settings. Yet so far we have few careful studies characterizing these contexts and the teaching-learning
interactions taking place within them. (p. 585)









For the purposes of this study, language minority children in the United States are those youngsters whose language at home is not English and whose home culture is different from the majority culture. They may speak Vietnamese, Kiowa, Spanish, Polish, Kanjobal Mayan, or another language. They may be Native-Americans, Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, or recent immigrants from diverse regions. Regardless of the difficulties in defining this important sector of the population, a significant number of students from language minority backgrounds are presently served by U.S. schools.


Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study was to explore the nature of second language teaching and learning as social processes in an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program for elementary students. Of special concern was how a group of students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds learned a second language and culture through everyday interactions with teachers and students.

A second purpose was to document part of the experiences of students in ESOL elementary programs. Documentation is important for at least two reasons. First, generalizations are made too frequently about the processes that take place in a range of educational programs that include a second language. Regardless of their instructional model and educational goals, a number of diverse programs involving a second language have been clustered under the label of bilingual. In addition, important factors affecting educational processes, such as the needs of the student population served and the status of the language/s used, are often ignored. This results in a morass of confusion in the field of second language teaching and learning and suggests the need to more adequately account for variations in the social, political, linguistic, and instructional factors that influence language educational programs. Second, given the contemporary controversy and political debate surrounding the education of language minority students, it is important to have






3


grounded descriptions of what actually occurs in second language educational programs so that political deliberation and policy decision-making can be properly informed.

In sum, a central goal of the present investigation was to produce a comprehensive and systematic description of participants' actions and interactions in an elementary ESOL program. Specific objectives of the study were as follow:

1. to identify selected regularities and routines of classroom organization and interaction within and across classroom events,

2. to identify the different demands for participation placed on students (how, when, where, with whom to talk, and for what purpose) throughout selected classroom events,

3. to identify the types of communicative patterns shown by students and teachers during selected events in their ESOL classroom, and

4. to document how different ways of organizing classroom interactions can enhance or constrain students' opportunities for language use and language learning.


Rationale for the Study

A survey conducted in 1976 by the National Center for Educational Statistics showed that approximately 28 million persons (one in eight) in the United States had non-English language backgrounds (Cummins, 1984). The projected population of students aged 5-14 who could be characterized as "limited English proficient" was estimated at 2.5 million for 1976, 2.8 million in 1990, and 3.4 million in 2000 (Oxford, Pol, Lopez, Stupp, & Peng, 1981). These numbers, although informative, do not present a clear picture of the language minority community. They do not take into consideration the large number of undocumented immigrants, nor do they suggest the heterogeneous composition of the language minority population. For instance, among the Hispanic group there are dialect variations of Spanish. Moreover, some members of the Hispanic community are monolingual Spanish speakers; others are monolingual English speakers;









others are bilingual in Spanish and English. Thus, specific examples can aid understanding of the growth in the minority language student population. In 1980, Mexican students constituted 74% of the total pupil count in San Antonio and 45% in Los Angeles (DelgadoGaitan, 1987); in 1987, 32% of the student body population in Florida were identified as limited English proficient (Shermyen, 1989).

If these statistics are analyzed in conjunction with poor achievement and dropout rates of language minority students, the challenge that this sector of the student population presents to educators appears to be obvious. For example, as early as 1966, the Coleman report showed that grade 12 Hispanic students were about three and a half years behind national norms in academic achievement (see Cummins, 1984). In a recent review of research, Wong-Fillmore and Valadez (1986) pointed out that Mexican-American students have lower scores on achievement tests and higher dropout rates than their English speaking counterparts. Furthermore, over 45% of the Hispanic students in grades 9-12 drop out before completing high school (Delgado-Gaitan, 1987).

A central issue for educators is to understand the causes of language minority students' low academic achievement. In the past, it was assumed that academic "deficiencies" originated in cultural or economic aspects of the students' backgrounds (Gibson, 1987; Ogbu, 1978, 1981; Trueba, 1988a, 1988b). Reasons for failure were considered beyond the control of the school or of the teacher. As a result, very little was done in developing rational and well-rounded solutions.

The discussion thus far suggests that new approaches are required. One alternative is to gain an understanding of how different instructional strategies affect different groups and then, based on those findings, recommend new ways of improving educational practices. In other words, if some improvement is to be made in the education of language minority students, we need to (a) address the needs of these children; (b) refine our understanding of the different processes that take place in educational settings; (c) understand how these processes affect students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds;










and (d) use these findings to design, implement, and evaluate programs and educational practices.

Information reported in recent research indicates that any discussion concerning the education of language minority children must address their particular needs and social circumstances (Goldman & Trueba, 1987; Moll & Diaz, 1987; Trueba, 1987, 1988b; Trueba, Guthrie, & Au, 1981). It is no longer possible to assume that the skills, knowledge, and language that English-speaking children bring to the schools are transferable to non-English-speakers by means of regular schooling. For the latter group, opportunities to learn in the educational system are not equal, either at the point of entry in school or any time thereafter, even if both English- and non-English-speaking children are exposed to the same instructional process (Trueba, 1987). The language, culture, and values acquired at home have a direct impact on children's school learning activities and successful adaptation.

In the last two decades, the study of classroom processes has shown that the ways students and teachers use language in classrooms can contribute to children's acquisition of both social and academic skills (Cazden, 1986; Green, 1983; Green & Wallat, 1981; Green, Weade, & Graham, 1988; Weade & Green, 1985). This body of research on language use in the classroom has been built, in part, upon Hymes' (1974) concept of communicative competence. Its focus is more on the uses to which language is put and the social functions it serves than on strictly linguistic aspects of language. Hymes proposed the notion of communicative competence to account for the fact that, to be effective in everyday social settings, speakers and listeners depend on knowledge that goes beyond the mastery of particular phonological and grammatical aspects of language. How teachers and students use language, rather than particular linguistic aspects of their speech, may be more important in understanding the way children learn, and the miscommunication, misunderstanding, and educational difficulties students encounter (Gumperz, 1981; Guthrie & Guthrie, 1987; Hymes, 1974).









The acquisition of communicative competence becomes more complex when it has to be accomplished in a second language. Many children from non-English language backgrounds begin school with a limited knowledge of English and must learn not only new rules for interaction in different school settings but also new rules in a new language. Thus, if there is a discontinuity between the students' home language use and that required for success at school, the opportunities for success for these students are reduced (Heath, 1983; Philips, 1983; Guthrie, 1985).

Although in recent years the growing amount of research that focuses on language minority students and school and home socialization appears to be encouraging, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) programs have received little attention. Information is not available on how these approaches for teaching English help students cope with learning the language and culture of the school. As mentioned earlier, variations in the student composition of ESOL classrooms and programs make these settings extremely diverse. Some classrooms may have students with common linguistic and ethnic backgrounds and a bilingual teacher able to understand students' first language. Other classes may be multiethnic, with a teacher who has no knowledge of students' first language. Some programs may include students from different grade levels in one classroom according to their English level of proficiency. Thus, it is not surprising that information of what takes place in these types of settings is not available. Most of the studies on how language minority students learn a second language have been done in monolingual classrooms with English-speaking or MexicanAmerican teachers (Fishman, 1977) or in bilingual classrooms where two different languages are used for instruction (Troike, 1981). Moreover, there have been very few longitudinal studies that present a detailed picture of the development profile of classroom learners over time (Ellis, 1984). In most of these studies the student population shared a common linguistic background. For example, Guthrie (1985) focused on the development of a bilingual program in a Chinese community in San Francisco; Philips' (1983) research









in the Warm Springs Indian Reservation looked at the interaction patterns between NativeAmerican and Anglo students. With the exception of work by Moll (1987) and Trueba (1988a) in California, studies of programs and schools with a diverse ethnic and linguistic student body have been ignored. As a result, little information has been found regarding how children from diverse linguistic backgrounds and their teachers construct meaning in educational programs.

It becomes clear that a starting point in the study of educational programs for

students of diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds is to analyze those differences so often seen as "deficits." How are educational programs dealing with the particular needs of this sector of the student population? What do these students need to know in order to successfully participate in school activities? Research is needed to identify the actions and interactions in school settings that may contribute to both the successes and failures of language minority students, and examine those socialization and interaction patterns at home that may contribute to successes and failures in school.


Review of Procedures

Although in the last years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of pilot programs designed for language minority students, these students are still experiencing severe academic difficulties (Gibson, 1987; Trueba, 1988b; Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). Since 1970 considerable funds have been allocated to the development of programs and materials to serve language minority students. Funded research has tended to focus on exploring certain discrete linguistic variables involved in language learning. WongFillmore and Valadez (1986) suggested that in the search for solutions to the many pedagogical problems presented by language minority students, little support has been given to well-rounded research efforts.

In general terms, research in the area of language minority students has moved in new directions, all of which will contribute to a more complete picture of the relationship









between the minority child and the school. Most of these studies can be classified in one of three categories: (a) second language acquisition research, (b) demographic analyses and correlational studies, and (c) ethnographic studies and microanalyses of the interactions of language minority students in school and home settings.

There has been no shortage of theorizing about second language acquisition (SLA). The research literature abounds in approaches, theories, laws, principles, and models. By far, the greatest number of studies of second language acquisition have been undertaken by researchers in the areas of psychology and linguistics who borrowed methodology and theory of research from first language acquisition. It is therefore not surprising that SLA research has focused on investigating how learners develop grammatical knowledge. In other words, because traditional linguistics has given priority to the study of discrete linguistic variables, the focus on SLA has been on the products of language. Consequently, attention to the processes of second language acquisition and the influence of different learning contexts has been neglected.

Macroanalyses, that is, studies of broad, global trends and issues in educational policy, have mostly addressed demographic aspects of the language minority population. One form of macroanalyses has focused on the demographic aspects of both the language minority population and the schools serving these students. As a result, in the past 10 years, the proliferation of information concerning the existence and achievement of language minority students in schools has been extensive. Researchers have identified a series of demographic, economic, and educational characteristics of minority children. However, one major problem underlying these studies is the lack of consensus on what variables need to be included and how to measure them in regards to the language minority population. Different definitions have produced very different estimates. For instance, according to 1980 census data, 9.7% of the total school population speak a language other than English at home. However, results of a 1978 survey conducted by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education indicate that only 2.2% of the students









in public schools speak a primary language other than English (Pallas, Natriello, & McDiil, 1989).

A second type of macroanalysis has involved comparisons of educational programs based on a limited number of quantifiable variables. Mehan (1981) pointed out that the traditional correlational method, so widely used in the study of the effects of schooling, has also been predominant in the evaluation and assessment of educational programs for language minority children. In this type of design, social and historical contexts and aspects of students' lives are treated as input variables. Other factors, such as students' achievement and economic success, are treated as output variables. The purpose of these correlational studies is to test the strength of the relationship between these two types of variables. One of Mehan's major concerns was that process-product research designs do not capture the actual processes that take place in programs designed for language minority students. Although these studies have provided valuable demographic and educational information, more data are needed to understand the differences and similarities between programs. Hence, the research agenda needs not only to focus on what takes place between schools, but also, on what takes place within the schools.

In the last decade the value of ethnographic research in understanding second

language acquisition, bilingual education, and in general, educational processes has been recognized by members of the educational research community. Researchers using ethnographic methods have begin to investigate issues difficult to address through experimental research, such as sociocultural processes in language learning, how institutional and societal pressures are played out in moment-to-moment classroom interaction, and how to gain a more holistic perspective on teacher-student interactions (Watson-Gegeo, 1988).

Originally developed in the field of anthropology to describe "ways of living" of a community (Heath, 1982), ethnography, in Hymes (1981) words,








is a disciplined way of looking, asking, recording, reflecting, comparing and reporting. It mediates between what members of a given community
know and do, and accumulates comparative understanding of what members of communities generally have known and done. (p.57)

The ethnographer's goal is to provide a description and an interpretative account of what people do in a setting (e.g, community, school, classroom), the outcomes of their interactions and the meaning those interactions have for them.

Ethnography, then, represents an important alternative to other research methods because it allows the exploration of fundamental issues in second language teaching and learning. One such basic question has to do with how everyday life unfolds in second language programs. As stated earlier, second language teaching and learning occurs in a wide spectrum of settings (e.g., bilingual, ESOL, English as a Foreign Language) with an even wider range of students (immigrants, refugees, foreign language learners, native Americans), yet the literature available does not always address--let alone document--these important variations among programs.

Ethnographic methods allow for a systematic examination and documentation of teaching and learning interactions in rich, contextualized detail with the aim of developing grounded theory (Watson-Gegeo, 1988). This is, precisely, the attempt in this study. In order to examine and document how second language teaching and learning takes place in an elementary ESOL program, two distinct, but complementary, data collection procedures were used during the 1989-1990 school year. The study began with the observation of general characteristics of the school and elementary ESOL program, participants and activities. Examination of the macrofeatures of this elementary program provided a framework in which microfeatures of naturally occurring events (e.g., "talking circle," story reading, writing) were situated and analyzed in detail. Stated differently, the first phase of this ethnographic project included a study of theoretically salient aspects of setting, participants, and activities. Second, based on findings from this first stage, specific classroom events were identified, videotaped, and analyzed. Microanalyis of these









data was guided by an interactive sociolinguistic perspective (Boggs, 1985; Gumperz, 1981, 1982; Hymes, 1974, 1981; Trueba, Guthrie, & Au, 1981).


Significance of the Study

This study had both a descriptive and theory building intent. A review of the literature in the area of second language teaching and learning suggested the need for a study of a single ESOL program over an extended period of time. Because most of the research in SLA takes place in university-based laboratory centers or in school settings that are not representative of everyday life in schools, there is no body of literature describing the complexities of teaching and learning processes that take place in second language programs. The purpose of this study was to provide a detailed description and analysis of an ESOL program and the interaction that took place within it.

In addition, a grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of the interface of setting, participants, and activities was developed. The term grounded is used to refer to theory based in, and derived from, data and arrived at through systematic process of induction (Watson-Gegeo, 1988). Results of this study may contribute to the body of knowledge about classroom processes and second language acquisition in educational settings by (a) identifying, describing, and analyzing the nature of everyday life in an ESOL program from the perspective of the participants; and (b) providing implications and recommendations for both practice and policy. In addition, this research seeks to inform curriculum decisions in ESOL programs. By providing a more thorough knowledge of the processes by which students learn English as a second language in the school setting, teachers can adapt instructional practices to meet the needs of these particular students.

Finally, understanding the complexities of school processes and the different learning styles of language minority students enriches our knowledge of teaching and learning. From a cross-cultural perspective, learning about language minority students--in contrast with English-speaking children--can aide us in understanding all children (Hymes,









1981, Trueba, 1987). By the same token, the study of bilingual and ESOL programs can lead to better understanding the wide range of educational contexts. Ultimately, through the study of different classrooms, programs, and school settings, alternatives options and concrete recommendations for improvement can be proposed.


Definition of Terms

The literature on language minority and bilingual education can be extremely

confusing when it comes to naming and defining the multiple variations in program design. Researchers, administrators, practitioners, and politicians have used a wide variety of, at times, conflicting terms and acronyms to refer to different programs and participants. The terms and definitions which follow have been chosen as those most widely used and accepted in the field and the most relevant to the purposes in this study.

Bilingual education refers to "the use of two languages, one of which is English, as mediums of instruction" (Bilingual Education Act of 1968). Within this broad concept, a variety of different options are possible. Troike (1981) mentions one restriction--that a bilingual program must utilize both the student's native language and English. The amount and balance between them is a matter that deserves further consideration.

English as a second language (ESL) instructional approaches acknowledge the linguistic ability differences between the students' native language and English, and incorporate English instructional activities to enhance school language learning (see Note at end of chapter).

English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) constitute alternative approaches of instruction for teaching English as a second language. The focus is less on the language itself than on providing hands-on activities which require language use for communicative purposes rather than just talking about language. As students increase their mastery of English, they are gradually moved into academic classes with native speakers of English.









Immicuants are those persons born outside the United States who have come to live permanently in the United States.

Languaae minority students are those students who (a) are characterized by

substantive participation in a non-English-speaking social environment, (b) have acquired the functional communicative abilities of that social environment, and (c) are exposed to substantive English-speaking environments during the formal educational process (August & Garcia, 1988).

Limited in English proficiency (LEP) students are those students who on school entry lack the necessary English skills for immediate success in an all-English curriculum.

Native English speakers are those persons whose first, or native, language is English.

Non-English-speakers (NES) are those persons who are speakers of other languages and have limited English skills.


Organization of the Report

A review of selected literature is presented in Chapter 2. The methodology used in this study is addressed in Chapter 3. In the next two chapters different levels of analysis and findings are presented. In Chapter 4, a thorough description of salient aspects of the school, ESOL program, participants, and activities is presented. In Chapter 5 the focus shifts to the social and communicative characteristics of face-to-face interactions of teacher and students within selected classroom practices. A summary of the findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations are presented in Chapter 6.









Notes

Although ESL and ESOL are often times used interchangeably, the distinction between these two acronyms can best be explained in historical terms. The usage has moved from a more general approach, that is English as a second language (ESL), to one that is more specific, such as English for speakers of other languages (ESOL).
During the 1950s and 1960s, the profession of teaching ESL began to expand in response to increasing numbers of immigrant and refugee children entering the United States, as well as the growing numbers of international students coming from abroad. A reflection of this growth was the establishment of TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) in 1966. Because the acronym ESL could be used to refer to different learners (foreign or native born) and locations (teaching English overseas or in the United States), the newly founded professional organization made a distinction between English as a foreign language (EFL), and English for speakers of other languages (ESOL).
The purpose, then, was to use ESOL when referring to teaching English to nonnative speakers who are North American citizens or permanent residents of the United States, usually children in elementary and secondary schools enrolled in domestic programs. Hence, the new acronym ESOL represents the development of the profession from one whose major concern was foreign students to one whose primary focus is domestic learners of English who cannot accurately be described as foreigners. Furthermore, the new acronym, ESOL, reflects programmatic directions and policies toward deemphasis on grammar and increased appreciation of the complexity of language learning within the context of schooling. Although theoretically ESL and ESOL represent different programs or approaches, in practice both acronyms are used as analogous terms encompassing a broad and far from unified set of theories and practices regarding the teaching and learning of a second language.













CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE

Introduction

The purpose of this review of the literature is to provide a context for discussion of the conceptual issues and research findings for the phenomena investigated in this study. In the first section, selected historical events that led to the development of bilingual education in the United States are reviewed. As noted earlier, any discussion dealing with instructional issues concerning language minority students needs to be framed within this larger context, otherwise these issues "tend to get lost in discussions of bilingual education which are often emotional and philosophical rather than substantive" (Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986, p. 653).

In the second section, the nature and developments of first and second language

acquisition research are addressed. Also, a selection of relevant issues related to individual learner and social settings factors is presented in this section. In particular, it will be argued that language learning is as much a social process as it is a cognitive one. Although most of the topics and concepts in this section have emerged from the fields of linguistics and cognitive psychology, they are critically discussed in light of a broader framework. That is, the examples presented serve to illustrate the utility of the concepts by going beyond theoretical considerations to find their application in concrete instructional situations.

In the last section of this chapter, an alternative approach to the study of second language learning is considered. A brief discussion of the notion of communicative competence proposed by sociolinguists and ethnographers of communication is presented. This discussion is then extended to include the application of communicative competence as it relates to the study of everyday life in the classroom. The chapter is concluded with a









discussion of some of the main constructs that provide a framework for understanding the nature of the classroom as a communicative environment and teaching and learning as linguistic processes. Selected constructs are examined in light of concrete examples that illustrate their application in the study of second language learning. A summary of the review of the literature concludes the chapter.


Bilingual Education in the United States

It is not possible to study bilingual education in the United States without mention of the historical development and rationale of the bilingual movement. Dramatic changes in language policies have taken place in this country during the last two decades, and at present the education of language minority students is extremely controversial. Researches who propose to examine an elementary English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program cannot ignore the social and political issues that are at the heart of the contemporary bilingual education movement in the United States.


Historical Background

The United States is a multilingual nation and, like many other nations of the world, has a long history of linguistic diversity. Throughout its history, this country has probably been the home of more groups speaking different languages than any other nation in the world (Grosjean, 1982). Although each new group of immigrants brought their own language, many later witnessed the erosion of that language in the face of an implicitly acknowledged official language, English (Hakuta, 1986). In the following discussion an overview of the major events that have influenced bilingual and ESL education in the United States over the last decades is provided.

The United States has not always been a nation where English was the only

language taught in schools. During the 18th and 19th centuries, immigrants with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds settled throughout the country. Since then, immigrants









have formed cultural and linguistic clusters throughout the nation (Grosjean, 1982). For instance, it was not unusual for a Chinese immigrant to seek to settle in a Chinatown in San Francisco or New York or for a German family to find its way to Wisconsin. Studies on the history of immigrant communities in the United States (Grosjean, 1982; Kloss, 1977) suggest that schools in this country have not always been the primary agents for assimilation of language minority groups. During the 19th century many public and private schools used other languages, in conjunction with English or without it, for instruction. Ovando and Collier (1985) reported that in 1900 in the Midwest, at least 231,700 children were studying German in public elementary schools, and in New Mexico, either Spanish or English or both could be the language of the school. During the second half of the 19th century, bilingual or non-English language instruction was provided in some form in several public schools. German, for example, was taught in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, and Oregon; French in Louisiana; and Spanish in the Southwest (Crawford, 1989; Ovando & Collier, 1985).

In a slow progression and under pressure from state legislation and from parents who wanted to help their children assimilate, schools became bilingual and children were taught in both the minority language and in English (Grosjean, 1982). By the end of the 1800s, there was a call for all immigrants to become assimilated into one cultural and linguistic mold. The preservation of a strong European identity by some immigrant communities was perceived as threatening to national interests, and the need to "assimilate" those communities into the Anglo-American society emerged. In this context, schools were given the task of "Americanizing" all immigrants, and many state laws were passed calling for English-only instruction. This push to impose the English language and Anglo culture became a pattern within the schools during the first half of the twentieth century. Further, three additional factors have been suggested by Ovando and Collier (1985) to explain this English-only phenomenon: the need for national unity during the two world wars, the









standardization and bureaucratization of urban schools, and the desire to centralize and solidify national gains around unified goals for the country.

After several decades of all-English instruction, the second World War exposed the lack of foreign-language skills among the people of the United States. As a result of the controversy raised by Sputnik, the National Defense Education ACT (NDEA) of 1958 provided federal money for the expansion of foreign-language teaching (Ovando & Collier, 1985). Although the latter was a great step forward, it did not solve the two conflicting approaches prevalent in U.S. policy which remain to this day. On one side, the recognition by the federal government of the need to develop and support foreign-language instruction for the sake of improved international relations and national security; on the other side, language, a valuable resource, is lost as immigrant children become assimilated through the educational system. These two conflicting trends have resulted in two different approaches to dealing with the needs of language minority students: Bilingual and ESL instruction. Some of the differences and similarities in these approaches will be discussed below.


English as a second language instruction

The profession of teaching English to speakers of other languages began to expand as a result of the arrival of new students from different countries. In addition to the new waves of immigrant and refugee children arriving during the 1950s, increasing numbers of international students came with their children to attend North American universities. This expansion was also manifested in three other ways: the establishment of the professional organization TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) in 1966, the increased demand for courses in English as a second language (ESL) methodology, and the development of ESL textbooks and programs of study.

A new approach for teaching English to language minority children was a clear

indication of changes in school policies. At the beginning of the century a "sink-or swim" approach rested on the belief that by teaching language minority students in English, the









school was providing them with the means to learn the language itself (Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). Some students survived the experience and, after they learned English, they had the linguistic tools to deal with school and take advantage of the educational opportunities available. But not all students were able to learn English just by being immersed in an English-speaking classroom. Some students were never able to catch up with their English-speaking peers, or, what is worse, were not able to get much out of their educational experiences.

Although ESL instruction has received a great deal of criticism, this approach has greatly improved the process of teaching English to non-English speakers. When ESL approaches first appeared in the United States, students were given instruction in special pullout programs with lessons of 45 minutes to a half a day in length. The emphasis of these seminal programs was on the instruction of discrete linguistic skills. Although ESL instruction has gradually moved away from dwelling on grammatical knowledge, this form of instruction has continued to generate adverse opinions. One of the major arguments against ESL instruction, as reported by Wong-Fillmore and Valadez (1986), is that ESL only deals with the problem of teaching the language of the school but does not help students acquire basic skills and subject matter. This argument may still hold true for some programs, even though at present most ESL or ESOL instruction reflects a more holistic approach that integrates language, subject matter, and culture.


Recent bilingual instruction

Bilingual education was reactivated in the United States with the arrival of Cuban refugees into Florida in the late 1950s. As Cubans poured into Miami, they established private schools where all instruction was given in Spanish. As time went by and their hopes to return to the island vanished, this new group began to influence the public schools to establish bilingual classes where English and Spanish were used as media of instruction. In 1963 an experimental program funded by the Ford Foundation was set up in the Coral










Way Elementary School in Miami. Its main goal was the enrichment of the child's linguistic and cultural experiences (Hakuta, 1986). Because the program was judged successful, several other bilingual programs were established in Dade County, Florida.

In 1964 following Florida's example, Texas began to experiment with some bilingual instruction in two school districts. By 1968 bilingual education was being provided in at least 56 locally initiated programs in 13 states, and, although most of the programs were Spanish-English, six other languages were also represented (Ovando & Collier, 1985).

Although the increase in student enrollments in bilingual programs in Dade County was impressive, educational opportunity was still not available to everyone. Hakuta (1986) reported that in 1975 the school system identified 16,046 students who were considered of non-English-speaking or limited-English-speaking ability. Most of these students were not in bilingual programs but in ESL programs, that is, in programs designed for non-English speakers where all instruction was in English. Under these circumstances, bilingual education in Dade County, which had so far been the result of local initiatives, came into contact with the efforts of the federal government in bilingual education.


Federal legislation

The passage of the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 under Title VII of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act created a significant change in the education of language minority students. The political effervescence of the 1960s created a context to support changes in educational policies. Minority groups, encouraged by the black civil rights movement, reacted against the assimilation processes of North American society. These groups wanted to express their ethnic and language identity and demanded that their languages and cultures be respected and maintained. Their efforts led some authorities to accept the fact that public schools were not meeting the needs of all children. Hence, the passage of the Bilingual Education Act in 1968 was a response to political pressures and









represented the first national recognition of the particular needs of language minority children.

Through the 1968 bill legislators made funds available to local educational agencies to start and test bilingual programs in their schools. These local agencies had to compete for funds, and programs were entirely voluntary. There was no federal requirement that programs be adopted, although it was expected that local funding for successful programs would be at possible once federal support was no longer available (Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986).

One important requirement of this legislation was that experimental programs were intended to serve the special educational needs of children of "limited-English-speaking ability" (LES)--especially those from families with incomes below $3,000 per year (Hakuta, 1986). The 1974 amendments changed the law to include all LES children, ending the low-income requirement. In 1978 the definition was expanded further to include children of limited English proficiency (LEP). This last change allows students to remain in a program until they reach full proficiency in English rather than requiring that they be tested and exited solely on the basis of oral skills (Ovando & Collier, 1985).

Ovando and Collier (1985) identified three main purposes of the 1968 Act: (a) to increase English language skills, (b) to maintain and increase mother-tongue skills, and

(c) to support the cultural heritage of the student. The amendments of 1974 and 1978 emphasized the importance of mastery of English-language skills as the main purpose of the bill. The 1978 amendments also allowed participation of English-speaking children in bilingual programs funded by Title VII. The latter represented an important step toward the recognition of the value of two-way integrated programs. The inclusion of Englishspeaking students meant that it provided funding for both English-language instruction for linguistic minorities and foreign-language for English-speaking children.

The training of bilingual personnel through grants, contracts, and fellowships to local and state educational agencies was provided for in the 1968 legislation and further









expanded in 1974 and 1978. Funds for research were not provided until 1978. Researchers were charged with the task of providing answers to Congressional questions for reauthorization in the following years. In 1979, as part of the total research effort, a National Center for Bilingual Education was established in Los Alamitos, California (Ovando & Collier, 1985).


A landmark court decision: Lau v. Nichols (1974)

With the passage of the 1968 Bilingual Education Act, the U.S. Government

endorsed bilingual education as a means of assisting minority language children in attaining equality of educational opportunity. However, it was not until after the Supreme Court decision in the Lau v. Nichols case in 1974 that bilingual programs expanded across the nation.

In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that 1800 Chinese
students in San Francisco were not being provided an equal educational
opportunity compared with their English-speaking peers.There is no
equality of treatment merely by providing students with the
same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do
not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful
education.

Basic English skills are at the core of what public schools teach. Imposition
of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the
education program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to
make a mockery of public education. We know that those who do not
understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly
incomprehensible and in no way meaningful. (quoted in Ovando & Collier,
1985, p. 34)

Although Lau v. Nichols did not have a direct and immediate impact on the growth of the bilingual education movement, the decision legitimated and gave impetus to the movement for equal educational opportunities for students who do not speak English. Moreover, the case

raised the nation's consciousness of the need for bilingual education,
encouraged additional federal legislation, energized federal enforcement
efforts, led to federal funding of nine regional 'general assistance Lau
centers,' aided the passage of state laws mandating bilingual education, and
spawned more lawsuits. (Teitelbaum & Hiller, 1977, p. 139)









The Lau decision was later translated into federal policy when the U.S. Office of Education recruited a group of experts to develop informal policy guidelines for school districts judged to be out of compliance with Title VI and the Lau decision. In their document, commonly called the "Lau Remedies," school boards were directed to identify students with a primary or home language other than English and to assess their relative proficiency in English and their native language (Hakuta, 1986).

In sum, in the previous discussion two of the more important judicial rulings related to language minority students have been highlighted. These decisions have promoted major changes at federal, state, and local levels with regard to provision of educational services to students who do not speak English. At present, school systems are obliged to identify all limited-English-proficient students by language and national origin and to state the kinds of services they are providing for these students. Schools are now providing at least classes of English for speakers of other languages, rather than merely offering a sinkor-swim approach to language learning for language minority students. Bilingual programs are being implemented in many states in a wide variety of languages and programs designs. Funding is also available for inservice programs for teachers and administrators and also for research efforts.


Educational Programs for Language Minority Students

Educational programs for language minority children have taken on a variety of forms. Based on the assessment of different variables, several typologies have been proposed (August & Garcia, 1988; Grosjean, 1982; Mackey, 1970; Ovando & Collier, 1985; Ramirez, 1985). The result has been a broad and, at times, confusing variety of program models and terms. For example, Grosjean (1982) limited his discussion to two types of programs: those that lead to linguistic and cultural assimilation and those that lead to linguistic and cultural diversification. August and Garcia (1988) distinguished two









main categories of educational programs: additive and substractive. On the one hand, additive program developers utilize the students' native language and enhance their ability to utilize that language along with English. Substractive program developers, on the other hand, may or may not use the students' language and serve to enhance English without regard for the development of their native language. The subsequent program descriptions appear to be most widely accepted by the community of practitioners and researchers. They are based on a typology suggested by Ovando and Collier (1985).


Transitional bilinual education

In these programs, the native language is used as a bridge to the total submersion of the student in English. Native-language instruction is provided to avoid loss of grade-level skills while mastery of second language is taking place. As soon as students are considered proficient enough in English to work academically in all-English classes, they are moved from the bilingual program into monolingual classes with English-speaking students. One major problem associated with this type of program is that transitional classes tend to be perceived, by regular staff and students, as a lower track for slow students. It is, at times, seen as a type of segregated, remedial, or compensatory program.


Maintenance bilingual education

Within this model, there is less emphasis in exiting students from the program as soon as possible. Students in bilingual classes receive content-area instruction in both languages for as many years as the school system can provide the service. The most important concern in these types of programs is that students receive a solid academic curriculum with support for reaching full English-language proficiency without negating their first language in the process.









Two-way enrichment bilingual education

Two-way programs have an integrated model in which speakers of both languages are placed together in a bilingual classroom to learn each others' language and work academically in both languages. This approach can function as an effective means of teaching a second language to native-English-speakers as well as providing an integrated class for language minority students. It is the only model which places both groups at the same starting point and thus sensitizes English speakers to the complex process of learning a second language. In Canada, for example, French-speaking and English-speaking students attend the same program where half of the instruction is given in French and the other half in English (August & Garcia, 1988). For French-speaking students, special attention is paid to developing the native language while acquiring English. For students whose native language is English, particular attention is given to developing the second language.


Immersion bilingual education

These programs are used extensively in Canada but have not yet been tried

extensively in the United States. In Canadian programs, emphasis in the early grades is placed on French for native English speakers or on English for French native speakers. Students enter kindergarten or first-grade classes that are conducted by monolingual French-speaking teachers in the first case or by monolingual English-speaking teachers in the second case. This early immersion into a second language is kept rather exclusive until the second or third grade, when first language instruction in the form of a language arts program is introduced for one period per day. By sixth grade, however, both languages share near instructional parity.










Structured immersion education

In this model language minority students receive instruction totally in an ESL format, with native language tutoring support as needed during the first year or two. Teachers in such a program are bilingual and accept students' responses in first language but respond only in English. Ovando and Collier (1985) suggested that this model is very similar to many transitional bilingual and ESL-only programs but has just been given a new label.


English as a second laniage (ESL) or English for speakers of other languages (ESOL)

In these programs linguistic ability differences between student's native language and English are acknowledged. The method of teaching English does not focus on language per se in a traditional, direct instruction mode. Rather, the approach is "handson," interactive, and experiential. As students become more proficient in English, they are gradually "immersed" in regular classes with native English speakers.

Originally ESL programs were developed as an integral component of transitional, maintenance, and two-way bilingual education. In these instances, ESL instruction included English taught from a second-language point of view in language arts classes and content-area instruction in English, provided at students' level of English proficiency. In the last years, a variety of ESL-only programs has been developed in public schools to meet the needs of international students who do not share a common language. These ESL-only programs may function as pullout programs in which students receive from one hour to a half a day of instruction in separated centers or classrooms. Some school districts have all-day or half-day intensive ESL classes which introduce content-area subjects at the level of the student's English proficiency. These special ESL classes may be called High-Intensity Language Training (HILT), ESL clusters, or alternative ESL programs.









The above outline has shown some of the most common program models for teaching English in the United States. Although programs that serve language minority students have the same goal for helping children acquire the necessary English proficiency to succeed in school, it is clear that there are major differences in the manner in which they incorporate the native language of the student. To illustrate how one broad educational goal (i.e., second language teaching and learning) is translated into different program models, two distinct programs will be briefly discussed. The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate how a series of contextual factors need to be accounted for when analyzing diverse second language educational programs.

Although an immersion program for Cambodian refugee children and a French

foreign language program for English-speaking students both include teaching and learning a second language, there might be fundamental differences at several levels. On the one hand, the program for Cambodian children might follow a sink-or swim approach where students are "submersed" all day in a classroom with monolingual English-speaking students and teachers without a native-language support or appropriate second language instruction. The French program, on the other hand, might include 45 minutes of daily instruction in French to English-speaking students in order to enhance their education. Thus, differences between these two programs in terms of language of instruction, populations served, and program models appear more clearly. Furthermore, and in relation to federal and state legislations, both programs might be treated rather differently. For example, while the program for Cambodian students might be considered as "remedial," the other one may be part of an "enrichment" school program. Thus, taking into account a variety of contextual factors such as the type of population served, languages taught, certification requirements for teachers, instructional approaches, federal and state legislations, among others, is a sine qua non when discussing, analyzing, and designing second language educational programs.








Alternative Perspectives on the Study of Second Language Teaching and Learning

The literature on second language teaching and learning is abundant. Over the past two decades findings from empirical studies in second language acquisition have provided a great deal of detailed information on the development of grammatical skills. Yet, questions about the interactive processes of teaching and learning and of the particularities of the context remain largely unanswered. The following discussion of different perspectives in the study of second language teaching and learning includes a small sample of the myriad of issues found in the literature. Different concepts and issues were selected on the basis of their relevance for the purposes of this study. Although teaching and learning a second language are generally treated as separated areas of research, in this review they will be integrated. The main reason to do so is the underlying belief that teaching and learning are integrally related.

Teaching and learning a second language are not uniform and predictable

phenomena. There is no single way in which learners acquire a knowledge of a second language nor "one-right-way" to teach it. Teaching and learning a second language involves many factors pertaining to the social settings in which language programs are conducted, instructional processes, and the learners themselves. It is important, therefore, to start by recognizing the complexity and diversity that results from the interaction of these three sets of factors. Different learners in different settings and situations learn a second language in different manners.


First and Second Language Acquisition

The history of second language (L2) acquisition research has developed as an echo to research in first language (Ll) acquisition. Traditionally, the inclination in second language acquisition research has been to understand the process of first language acquisition in monolingual children before trying to understand second language acquisition, and to understand both of these before trying to understand second language









acquisition in bilingual education classrooms (Hakuta, 1986). It is not surprising that, at present, one of the major debates in the field of linguistics involves the extent to which second language acquisition (SLA) and first language acquisition are similar or different processes.

Researchers on the recently emerging field of L2 research have tended to follow the footsteps of Li acquisition researchers, both in methodology and in many of the issues treated. Although this body of research has grown considerably in the last decades, "very little is known about how learners develop a knowledge of a second language in the classroom" (Ellis, 1984, p. 5). In his book, Classroom Second Language Development (1984), Ellis stated two major reasons to explain the low number of studies in this area: First, second language learning has been looked at as a direct result of what is taught. That is, learning a second language is viewed as more successful and at a faster rate when the teaching content is optimally ordered and optimally taught. Thus, discussions regarding second language learning have generally focused on issues such as what to include in the language teaching syllabi. As a result, little consideration has been given to the processes of how learning a second language takes place in the classroom setting. One reason that research on L2 learning in classrooms has been neglected, then, is because of the belief that linguistics could simply specify what teachers should teach, and that learning would automatically follow.

The second major reason that research on L2 learning in classrooms has been neglected has to do with the recent history of language acquisition theory and research (Ellis, 1984). The influence of behavioristic approaches, so in vogue until the 1960s, led to the belief that learning a second language was a result of stimulus-response links that were developed through imitation, practice, and reinforcement. The processes of learning a second language in classroom settings was "treated as a known factor, despite the fact that there had been hardly any empirical study of language development in classrooms" (Ellis, 1984, p. 6). It was not until the publication of Chomsky's (1959) critical review of









Skinner's Verbal Behavior, that the behavioristic view of language acquisition was seriously questioned and a new approach suggested. Chomsky's main argument was that behavioral psychology could not hope to account for linguistic behavior, especially given the creativity involved in generating new words. The creative aspects of language development implied that the human mind had a "language acquisition device" involved in deep processing of meaning and was not simply producing strings of learned responses to a particular set of stimuli. Chomsky argued that the child comes equipped with a "language acquisition device" which is mainly constituted by a set of very general rules which can be found in all languages. This new approach generated an increase in the number of studies on second language learning as researchers set about to identify and describe the immutable order of these sets of innate universal rules. However, because this cognitive perspective held the assumption that language is acquired by the organism in a context-independent fashion, research was mainly done in university and language laboratories and not in classrooms. It is not surprising then, that although with Chomsky's revolution in linguistics the number of studies on language acquisition increased, these empirical studies did not address the situated nature of acquiring a second language in educational settings.

In sum, two arguments have been set forth to explain why this new mentalist approach resulted in a neglect of research in classroom L2 learning. On the one hand, processes of second language learning were assumed to follow the same footsteps of first language acquisition, and on the other hand, the learning environment was treated as having little influence on language acquisition.


Linguistic competence vs. performance

An important distinction in the study of language acquisition is that between

competence and performance. For Chomsky (1965), competence consisted of knowledge of the system of the language, including rules of grammar, vocabulary, and how linguistic elements can be combined to form acceptable sentences. Performance, in contrast, refers to









the comprehension and oral or written production of language. Although language acquisition theory has especially dealt with how competence is developed, the focus of research has been on the examination of learner's performance. In other words, because the rules internalized by the learner (competence) are not open to direct inspection, studies on both first and second language acquisition have looked at learners' production (performance). Hence, one of the major problems in second language acquisition research has been the extent to which linguistic competence can be inferred by examining performance.


Acquisition versus learning

Krashen (1982) suggested a model of second language learning whereby

individuals may acquire a second language or they may learn it. Those who acquire a second language "pick up" the rules of the language subconsciously as they interact in communicative situations. Acquisition requires meaningful natural interaction in the new language while focusing on the content of the message rather than on the form. This type of learning is associated with how children learn their first language and with how adults learn L2 in informal settings. Learning a second language, in contrast, is a conscious process which involves learning the rules of language by studying and practicing those language rules.

This learning-acquisition distinction has several implications that involve both research and practices of teaching and learning L2. As mentioned earlier, the focus of second language acquisition research has been until recently on the internalization of grammatical rules and morphemes. L2 acquisition in the classroom was an extrapolation of the theory of second language acquisition in natural settings. Thus, teaching L2 in the classroom meant helping students acquire the knowledge of morphemes and linguistic rules. Krashen's distinction questioned this traditional view by suggesting two ways of acquiring a second language and by emphasizing the differences between learning in the









classroom as opposed to acquiring language in natural settings. Moreover, Krashen's model minimizes the influence of grammar while emphasizing the role of the communicative environment.

Implications of the learning-acquisition distinction also involve the way teaching and learning L2 need to be considered. For instance, young children acquire language naturally; therefore, the environment in formal settings such as schools, should simulate natural environments. Further, because adults and older children have developed more cognitive skills, they will most of the time acquire cognitively demanding aspects of L2 faster than younger children. Krashen's position is especially relevant in a foreignlanguage class where the teacher may be the only model for the students' exposure to the L2. In ESOL, ESL, or bilingual classrooms, the situation is quite different. In these settings, students are also acquiring the language outside of the formal classroom through interaction with peers, older students, teachers, and staff in the school and through immersion in a second language environment. It follows, then, that in a setting such as an ESOL program, the need to control the structures introduced in class or to follow a rigid order of grammatical rules presented by the teacher, appears to be of secondary importance.


Individual learner factors

Variations in the ways individuals acquire a second language are due to a multitude of factors, including age, cultural background, the strength of the native language, home language environment, personality, attitude, and aptitude for learning a second language. With no doubt, no two learners learn a L2 in exactly the same way (Hatch, Gough, & Peck, 1985; Wong-Fillmore, 1979; Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). Although there are a series of documented cases of children who learn a language in a short period of time, they constitute exceptions to the rule. There are tremendous variations across different children in the rate at which they learn the second language, and the process is not as









painless as it is often assumed (Hakuta, 1986; Hatch, Gough, & Peck, 1985). In fact, it is not unusual to find in the same classroom considerable variations in how much learners can get out of the same exposure to English. Wong-Fillmore (1979) observed five Spanishspeaking children playing with their English-speaking friends during one whole school year in order to discover the social processes that might be involved in learning a second language through social interaction. Although all the second language speaking children attended the same academic activities and were at the same zero level of proficiency in English at the beginning of the year, important differences in the level of English proficiency were noticeable after three months. In this case, individual differences were mainly manifested in two ways: (a) how children were able to figure out ways of initiating social contacts with others, and (b) in the application of a variety of cognitive strategies to discover and understand patterns and rules in the language. Whereas Wong-Fillmore's (1979) findings indicated that learner variables such as sociability, outgoingness, and talkativeness were characteristics associated with successful language learning, there are other variables to be considered. For example, in another study, Wong-Fillmore (1982) found that none of these characteristics alone can be determinant in the process of learning a second language. Other important factors include the kind of input learners have to work with, the persons available to interact with, and the kind of situation in which learners find themselves. The importance of these factors in second language learning will be considered in the next sections.

These findings indicate that any language program designed to serve the needs of language minority students must have the flexibility to adjust to these large individual variations. Furthermore, educators need to accept the fact that some students will require language instruction for relatively long periods of time. Others, for whom the individual and cultural factors contribute to optimal conditions for second-language learning, may exit the program rather early.









Social setting factors

Language learning is as much a social process as it is a cognitive one (WongFillmore & Valadez, 1986). It takes place in social settings that allow learners to come into contact with speakers of the target language and thus aid the teaching and learning processes. The study of social factors influencing the quality and quantity of exposure and opportunities to use the target language in language learning has focused primarily on two related aspects: (a) the study of input, that is the language addressed to the L2 learner either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner; and (b) the study of interaction, that is the discourse jointly constructed by the learners and their interlocutors.


The role of input

A central role in SLA is the role played by input. Input constitutes the language to which the learner is exposed, whether in the form of exposure in natural settings or formal instruction. It can be spoken or written. Input serves as the data which the learner must use to determine the rules of the target language.

The role of input is of particular importance in learning a second language insofar as it relates to the different types of teaching and learning interactions in educational contexts. In other words, learners in ESOL programs need to hear and practice the language in order to learn it. Native speakers in a program, that is teachers, staff, and native-English speaking peers can help in the process by talking to the L2 learner. Nevertheless, mere exposure to a second language is not enough to bring about learning of a second language. There is no agreement about what precisely constitutes optimal input. Practitioners have suggested that input, selected and graded accordingly to formal and logical criteria, constitutes an appropriate input (Ovando & Collier, 1985). Krashen (1982) suggested that the key to acquisition is a source of L2 input which is understood, natural, interesting, and meaningful to the student, and is roughly one step beyond the student's present level of competence in L2. Language, in this view, works as input when it serves a genuine










communicative function, and when the message that is being communicated can be understood from the context.


Interaction

Investigations of the relationship between interaction and second language learning have, again, followed the footsteps of first language acquisition development. Two main topics in this area are relevant to this study: (a) characteristics of the interaction between a native-speaker and the learner; and (b) how interaction aids L2 learning.

Characteristics of the interaction between a native-speaker and the learner. When interaction occurs between two conversational partners who do not share similar levels of proficiency in the language, speakers often make adjustments in their speech in an apparent effort to be understood. Adjustments made by the more proficient, or native speaker have been referred to as "foreigner talk." This set of adjustments constitutes a special speech register that is comparable to "motherese"--the set of adjustments made by caretakers when they talk to young first language learners. In general terms, foreigner talk is characterized by an exaggerated enunciation, greater overall loudness, the use of full forms rather than contractions, reduction of inflections and a special lexicon (Hakuta, 1986; Wong-Fillmore, 1982; Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). Another characteristic of the speech is a high proportion of topic-incorporation devices such as expansions, repetitions, clarifications and paraphrases and some topic simplification.

Nonetheless, native-speakers are not the only ones who adapt their speech.

Learners also use a variety of strategies to maximize their potential for communicating in a second language. In fact, foreigner talk and learner talk share similar features. When there is a communicative problem the solution is not sought separately by the native-speaker; rather it is sought jointly by the native speaker and the learner working together to establish and maintain the dialogue. What is important, therefore, is how agreement on meaning is negotiated. In order to study this negotiation it is necessary to look at the joint









contributions of native-speaker and learner by considering the dialogue they construct or as Ellis (1984) stated: "it is through discourse analysis that the characteristics of nativespeaker-learner interaction can be established" (p. 91).

The following exchange between two friends--a native speaker (NS) and a nonnative speaker (NNS)--from Schumann's 1975 transcripts, cited by Varonis and Gass (1986) shows how both speakers make adjustments in their speech in order to negotiate meaning.

1 NS: What's the movie tonight?
2 NSS: I don't know.
3 NS: What was it last week?
4 NSS: Yesterday?
5 NS: yeah.
6 NSS: Em, ah, no me no, no looked, no?
7 NS: You didn't look at it?
8 NSS: No, eh, eh, I look play.
9 NS: You play?
10 NSS: No, I look play hockey? The game. 11 NS: You play hockey? You play the game? 12 NSS: No! In the television. 13 NS: Uh huh?
14 NSS: I'm looking one game. 15 NS: At a game, you looked at a game on television. What kind of a game? 16 NSS: Hockey.

This dialogue exemplifies some of the characteristics of foreigner talk such as

clarifications, confirmations, repetitions, and expansions. As seen in the above exchange, the native-speaker is not the only one who adapts his speech in an attempt to understand his non-native speaker friend. The non-native speaker also makes adjustments in his language in order to facilitate communication.

Line 3, in the above segment, shows how the native speaker changes his original question in order to continue the dialogue. However, the non-native speaker either did not hear or did not understand his friend's previous question and seeks clarification. Again the native speaker changes his original question (line 5). The non-native speaker attempts to give an answer (line 6). On line 7, the native speaker rephrases his friend's previous question in an attempt to clarify its meaning. This is followed by an answer and further









expansion by the non-native speaker (line 8) which in turn is followed by another question from the native speaker (line 9). In the next exchanges both speakers attempt to clarify the misunderstanding which continues until the native speaker realizes that his friend watched a game on television (line 15). Thus, the dialogue is constructed by contributions of both participants, and by the negotiations of agreements on intended meanings.

How interaction aids second language acquisition. Interaction can contribute to language development because it is the means by which the learner is able to "crack the code." As stated by Ellis (1984), "when a learner is interacting naturally with a fully competent speaker (or even another learner) he is trying to use language to accomplish actions. Linguistic knowledge, therefore, is a by-product of communicative competence" (p. 95). When learners can infer what is meant even though the message contains linguistic items that are not yet part of their competence and when learners can use their speech to modify or supplement the linguistic knowledge already available, second language learning is facilitated. In other words, learners acquire the principles and grammar of L2 when they feel the need and desire to communicate.

In a recently completed study of 40 children's first encounters with a second

language, Saville-Troike (1988) found that although toddlers were able to follow directions in L2, there was little indication that they understood the words that were being used. The children understood the situation and evidenced a well-developed script for "follow the leader." This was graphically illustrated when one of the English-speaking participants unconsciously scratched her ear while she was leading a group activity, not as part of the routine, but because it itched. All of the children and even some of the mothers followed suit.

The children in Saville-Troike's study were able to understand the situation because both physical and human surroundings were familiar to them, and the same kind of behaviors were expected on each occasion. In other words, meaning was inferred from highly contextualized communicative events, that is, events which included participants









who were familiar to the children, sequences of events that were recognizable, and knowledge of the norms of interaction.


Input and interaction in classroom settings

Classrooms can be ideal settings for language learning because they bring together learner and speakers for extended periods of time, and because the participants have ample reason to communicate with one another (Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). Language use in classrooms is an important source of input for the learner, and if participants in these settings are motivated to interact, language learning can be increased. If instructional arrangements are carefully organized, language can serve two purposes: that of communication and for language learning as well.

In an observational study of four bilingual kindergarten classrooms, WongFillmore (1982) found that the language used by teachers serves a double function: It conveys the subject matter to be learned, and it provides an important source of the input such students need in order to learn the school language. However, Wong-Fillmore pointed out that instructional language does not always work in this manner. Success in learning L2 occurred in (a) classes with high numbers of L2 learners in which the classroom organization was teacher-directed, and (b) classes with mixed L2 learners and native-speaking children, but with an open classroom organization. In contrast, little SLA took place in (c) classes with high numbers of L2 learners but with an open organization, and (d) classes with mixed L2 learners and and native-speaking children but teacheroriented organization. Wong-Fillmore explained these results in terms of the type of input which was received in the different classrooms. In (a) the teacher served as the main source of input; and because there were high numbers of L2 learners, she was able to ensure that the input was comprehensible. In (b) the learners obtained negotiated input both from the teacher and also from the native-speaking children. But in (c) the pupils did not receive much teacher input and tended to use the Li when talking among themselves;









and in (d) the teachers found it difficult to tailor their language to suit the L2 learners, so that little comprehensible input was available. Fillmore's study indicated that the rate of second language acquisition is, to a great degree, influenced by both the quantity and the quality of input as a function of the relative homogeneity or heterogenity in language among the learners.

In the classroom, both the language of the teacher and the particular ways in which classroom interaction takes place have an important role in promoting second language learning. The manner in which second language programs (e.g., ESOL programs) are organized may influence the ways in which teachers and students communicate with one another. Similarly, language use in the program can have a major effect on the learning of language and academic skills necessary for success in school.


Teacher-talk

Researchers who have studied teacher-talk in classrooms have found that the special language used by the teacher when addressing L2 learners in the classroom shares a number of common characteristics with foreigner-talk. In Ellis' (1984) observations, teacher-talk was usually characterized by adjustments to both language form and language function. In terms of formal adjustments, there is a systematic simplification of teacher's utterances that include lexical, phonological, and grammatical modifications. For example, in terms of lexical modifications, language teachers tend to use a restricted vocabulary size. In relation to functional adjustments, Kramsch (1987) pointed out that second language teachers' speech is characterized by constant rephrasing, restating, echoing, acknowledging, generalizing, adding specifications, and gaining time to elicit responses. The following example, presented by Kramsch (1987), shows several of these characteristics in the interactional work of a secondary English teacher in Germany.








Teacher: Does anybody know how we call this part of the dog [points to picture]? Can you see it? This part.

Student: Tail.

Teacher: Yes, it's the tail of the dog. And what is Toby doing with his tail? Can you see this? This part.

Student: He is waving with his tail.

Teacher: Well, he isn't waving--he is--well, the correct word is "he is wagging his tail." [Writes on blackboard: to wag his tail] So who can give me a definition of "to wag a tail?" What does a dog do if he wags a tail?--wags a tail? Although it is clear that the special language used by teachers when addressing L2 learners shares a number of common characteristics with foreigner-talk (i.e., repetitions, expansions, clarifications, restatements), there are important differences in terms of social and communicative demands. Verbal exchanges in natural settings (see conversational segment between a native-speaker and a non-native speaker presented earlier) take place in situations in which the social distance between speakers is minimal and their respective power is symmetrically distributed (Kramsch, 1987). In other words, participants in natural settings have equal rights to the floor, choice of topics, and the allocation of turns.

The dialogue in the example presented above is asymmetrical, not only because the teacher talks more than the students, but more importantly, because the teacher has control of the topic, turns, management, and direction of the conversation. These differences in terms of roles and participation between students and teachers in the classroom will be discussed more thoroughly in the following sections.

In conclusion, second language learning is both a social and a cognitive process. Students cannot learn a language without the help of the native speakers. In order to hear the language and to use it, the environment must provide the opportunities for learners and speakers to interact, to communicate with each other. Different educational settings, such as the playground, lunchroom and gym, among others, offer opportunities to promote









these interactions, although the place par excellence seems to be the classroom. Not all classrooms promote language learning, however. There must be a careful organization of the instructional environment so that language serves not only the purposes of communication and instruction, but of language learning as well. That is, if in addition to the teacher, second language learners can interact with other students and other teachers who speak the target language, L2 learners will have more opportunity to interact and thus, more opportunities to practice and increase their knowledge of the L2.

The intent in the previous discussion of issues in second language learning and

teaching has been to critically review some important concepts and theoretical assumptions that serve to better understand the processes of learning a second language. These same concepts, generated primarily from the perspective of psychology and linguistics, have influenced the educational treatment of language minority students. Furthermore, this brief review of the literature also provides a comparative backdrop against which it can be argued that the study of second language teaching and learning needs to go beyond understanding individual characteristics, mental processes, and psychological factors. In other words, research in this area needs to examine language learning in its situated contexts--that is in classroom and school environments, and in relation to cultural and societal factors that support or constrain opportunities for language learning.

In the remainder of this chapter a different approach to the study of second language learning will be addressed; one that includes the study of language use in context. It will be demonstrated that in order to understand what people talk, and what it means when they do, it is necessary to move beyond reliance on linguistics or psychology only. In order to understand the meaning of human communication in the full social context in which it takes place, a broad range of concepts from disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, literary criticism, and social psychology, among others, needs to be considered.









A Sociolinguistic Approach to the Study of Language Use in the Classroom

In this last section an alternative approach to the study of second language learning will be considered. A brief discussion of the notion of communicative competence proposed by sociolinguists and ethnographers of communication will be presented. The discussion will be extended to include the application of communicative competence as it relates to the study of everyday life in educational settings. Finally, a set of constructs that provide a framework for understanding the nature of the classroom as a communicative environment and teaching and learning as linguistic processes will be presented. Selected constructs will then be reviewed and illustrated to demonstrate their relevance for the study of second language learning.

In contrast to the literature on second language acquisition, which derives mainly from linguistics and cognitive psychology, is a body of work in which teaching and learning a second language are perceived rather differently. Gaining import in the last 20 years or so, this alternative perspective has been influenced by the work of Gumperz (1981, 1982) and Hymes (1974, 1981, 1982). The models they propose have drawn scholars from fields such as anthropology, linguistics, education, sociology, sociolinguistics, and communication on the nature of teaching and learning processes. The focus of this work is on how people learn a language, learn through language use, and learn about a language in educational settings (Green, 1983). More specifically as indicated by Green (1983)

Research in this area is concerned with how language in the form of
interactions between teachers and students, among peers, and between
children and adults functions in classrooms, on playgrounds, at home, and
in the community in support of the acquisition and development of other
types of knowledge (e.g., academic content, social cognition, and
knowledge of procedures for participation in ongoing events). (p. 168)

Thus, in this study, the ethnographic perspective on language learning assumes that language is learned through interaction with others. The focus is on language socialization rather than on acquisition. The substitution of socialization for acquisition places language









learning within the more comprehensive domain of socialization--the lifelong process through which individuals are initiated into cultural meanings and learn to perform the activities, tasks, roles, and identities expected by whatever society or societies they may live in (Watson-Gegeo, 1988).



Communicative competence

The notion of communicative competence was originally proposed by sociolinguists to account for the fact that, to be effective in everyday social settings, speakers and listeners depend on knowledge that goes beyond grammatical rules of phonology, syntax, and semantics (Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1982). For Hymes (1974) and others, language use is governed by culturally, subculturally, and context-specific norms which constrain both choice of communicative options and interpretation of what is said.

During the 1970s, the concept of communicative competence emerged as a response to the Chomskyan definition of linguistic competence. At that time, the predominant theories in linguistics drew a sharp distinction between linguistic competence and performance. As mentioned earlier, these theorists saw competence as the mental representation of linguistic rules which constitute the speaker-hearer's internalized grammar. Performance, on the other hand, was used to refer to the comprehension and production of language.

A different approach was suggested by sociolinguists and ethnographers of communication. They applied the term competence to communication rather than to language as such. By doing so these scholars made clear that variations in speech are rulegoverned and not completely random. These variations could be explained according to considerations such as who is saying what to whom in what circumstances and under what conditions. Socioeconomic status of the listener and speaker, age, topic, context, and channel are other factors that intervene in the choice of codes, styles, or registers to be used. A response may be "correct" in a grammatical sense, but socially inappropriate when









other factors are taken into consideration. Therefore, to communicate appropriately speakers need to have some kind of information about the setting, speaker, and situation. Knowledge of that code has been called communicative competence (Hymes, 1974).

Communicative competence, then, refers to all kinds of communicative knowledge that individual members of a cultural group need to acquire in order to interact with one another in ways that are both socially appropriate and strategically effective. Gumperz (1982) highlighted three aspects of communicative knowledge as particularly important:

(a) knowledge of the shared set of implied assumptions about what are the proper and expectable ways for people to interact in different social occasions, (b) possession of the verbal and nonverbal performance skills necessary for producing communicative action that is appropriate and effective in a given situation, and (c) possession of the interpretative skills necessary to understand the communicative intentions of others within a given situation.

What this suggests is that the communicative competence necessary to participate in face-to-face interaction with others is an extremely complex package of knowledge and skills. This shared knowledge varies from one group to the next and applies not only among large groups, such as ethnic groups, social classes, or nations, but also among smaller groups such as families, classrooms, and neighborhoods (Gumperz, 1982; SavilleTroike, 1982; Shultz, Florio, & Erickson, 1982).

Thus far, it has been mentioned that communicative competence is culturally based and varies from one group and social setting to another. The situated meaning of competence, then, depends on whatever the individual's practical knowledge is about how, when, and where to communicate and for what purposes. What is of interest in the study of schooling processes is not so much a matter of which students are more communicatively competent in the classroom than others? Likewise, questions about where students are most competent, in the playground or in their English classroom seem to be unimaginative. Rather, what is important to understand are the patterns of









communicative competence shown by non-English speaking elementary students in a variety of school settings (e.g., homeroom classroom, playground, ESOL classroom). Once a series of patterns have been identified, it is possible to understand how these students gain communicative competence for participating and learning, both within and across the contexts of schooling.


Language use in educational settings

Learning to use a language in social situations is the focus of the language and communicative development of school-age children (Wilkinson, 1982). Research on teaching and learning processes has indicated that successful participation in classroom learning necessitates the acquisition of a set of social and linguistic rules required for that particular communication setting (e.g., how to successfully relate with teachers and others in order to gain access to knowledge; when and under what conditions a turn can be successfully negotiated; how to deal successfully with a particular assignment, etc.). Different contexts require understanding of different "rules" for appropriate social participation. For instance, what is required of people as they shop in a grocery store, attend an athletic event, or a church service are each different from what is required for participating in a classroom. Students differ in their communicative competence, particularly in terms of the different phases and activities that are part of everyday life in their classroom. Not all students are able to learn the characteristics of classroom interaction as soon as they arrive. For some students, it might be a long and unfruitful process. Hence, inadequate learning of the rules and expectations that govern classroom activities can affect their academic performance and their overall adjustment to school (Bloome, 1987; Cazden, 1986; Green & Weade, 1988; Wallat & Green, 1979; Weade & Green, 1989).

Thus, the notion of communicative competence seems particularly relevant to the educational arena. Work in this area has questioned the standard language bias that in the









past has shaped most research in education. For example, it has demonstrated that minority groups who do not do well in school had access to consistent traditions and value systems of their own (Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1982). Furthermore, researchers in this tradition argue that differences in language use, learning styles, and cultural behaviors should not be analyzed in terms of deficits. Rather, they should be seen as instances of variability. An example presented by Gumperz (1981), illustrates the value of this approach in revealing previously unnoticed features of communication that affect classroom learning.

The example involves a reading lesson in which children seated in an informal

group arrangement are successively called on to read sentences in a story. At one point a Black child fails to make a phonetic distinction between the vowels in pen and pin. The teacher, who had recently attended a lecture on Black dialect had learned that (a) failure to make this distinction is a feature of the dialect of many low-reading Black children, and (b) proper pronunciation is a precondition to reading. Thus, the teacher writes the two words on the board and asks the child to pronounce the two words. When the child does not make a distinction, the teacher removes him from the group and asks him to join another low reader in the comer of the room, telling him to practice his letters. After some minutes, the two children in the comer took a reading game and started to work enthusiastically, making considerable noise, whereupon the teacher asked them to stop playing and start working.

In his analysis, Gumperz noted that the failure to distinguish between pen and pin is characteristic of 80 percent of the Black children and 40 percent of the Anglo children in California. He also highlighted that in the group there was an Anglo child, also unable to distinguish between the two vowels, but perhaps because of the association of ethnicity with the phonetic feature involved, the teacher failed to notice this. In any case, Gumperz suggested that the child who was asked to leave the group probably understood the reason for his being singled out as discriminatory. It is important to mention that although the









teacher was aware of language differences among different cultural groups, the actions taken to help the child learn his letters were unsuccessful. By focusing on a reading group event in light of a larger framework, it is possible to answer questions such as: (a) what are the assumptions participants hold about rules and expectations for participating? (b) what are the verbal and nonverbal skills required to appropriately participate in the reading group? and (c) what are the frames of references provided by a reading activity that enables students and teacher to understand what needs to be done, when, where, with whom, and how?


Assumptions and constructs

In the last decades, researchers from a sociolinguistic perspective have explored everyday life in the classroom. Their goal is to investigate and understand the social and academic demands for participation and learning from the point of view of the participants. In other words, researchers in this field seek to understand what students and teachers in a classroom need to know, understand, produce, predict, and evaluate in order to participate appropriately and gain access to learning (Green & Weade, 1987; Weade & Green, 1989). In order to gain an understanding of the social and academic demands for learning from the perspective of the participants, researchers in this area use analytic approaches such as conversational analysis, discourse analysis, ethnography of communication, and sociolinguistics to explore the nature of everyday life in classrooms. In the area of literacy, for example, researchers using this approach have explored issues such as how literacy defines the community and how the community defines literacy (Green & Weade, 1987; Heath, 1983; Moll & Diaz, 1987; Philips, 1983); how instruction defines literacy events (Bloome, 1987; Delgado-Gaitan, 1989; Edelsky, 1989; Golden, 1988); the meaning of teacher-student-text interactions (Barr, 1987; Golden, 1988). Another area of research has focused on the ways in which language use of children and teachers can contribute to children's acquisition of both social and academic skills (Cazden 1986; Green and Wallat,









1981; Trueba, Guthrie, & Au, 1981). When this work (in addition to other studies following this same perspective on language use) is considered collectively, a set of constructs or assumptions about the nature of everyday life in the classroom can be extracted that contribute to define the nature of classrooms as communicative settings. Green and Weade (1987) indicated that these constructs

provide a framework for understanding the nature of the classroom as a
communicative environment and teaching and learning as linguistic
processes. These constructs also form the basis of a language that can
describe unfolding educational events and tasks; identify the regularities and
routines in educational settings and tasks; explore multiple levels of
classroom context; and examine ways in which social and academic context
of lessons influence what occurs and what is learned. In addition, these
constructs lay the foundation for understanding how this perspective differs
from other approaches to the study of classroom processes. (p. 5)

Table 2.1 presents a synthesis of the main categories of constructs that define and guide this body of research. They have been identified by Green (1983) in a review of the studies funded by National Institute of Education in 1978. This set of constructs represent the assumptions that underlie the present study. In Green's synthesis of ten studies that focus on teaching as a linguistic process, eight were done in basically monolingual school settings and two in educational settings dealing with more than one language. The grouping of constructs in clusters in Table 2.1, although useful in demonstrating the diversity of constructs, is not meant to be an all-inclusive list. Rather, this list is meant to be representative of assumptions that were held in common across the different studies reviewed by Green (1983). Their usefulness in understanding classroom processes has been highlighted by other researchers (Bloome, 1987; Bloome & Theodorou, 1988; Cazden, 1986; Green & Weade, 1987; Green, Weade, & Graham, 1988). The discussion that follows is organized around these constructs as they relate to studies of cultural and language differences in educational settings.

Classrooms are communicative environments. Everyday activities in the classroom are organized around different kinds of situations and events. Throughout the school day,









TABLE 2.1
Constructs Underlying the Study of Classroom Processes from a Sociolinguistic Perspective


1. Classrooms are communicative environments
Differentiation of roles exist betweeen teachers and students; relationships are
assymetrical
Classrooms are differentiated communication environments
Lessons are differentiated communicative environments
Communicative participation affects student achievement

2. Teachers orchestrate different levels of participation
Class
Group
Individual
Teachers evaluate student ability from observing performance during interactions
Demands for participation co-occur with academic demands
Teachers signal their theory of pedagogy from their behaviors
Teachers' goals can be inferred from behaviors

3. Students are active participants in learning environments
Students acquire understandings of demands for participation by participating and
by observing participation of others
Peer groups may mediate the individual's participation
Student verbal and nonverbal participation influences the teacher's and other
students' evaluations of student performance and ability
Mis-match between student and teacher interaction styles can lead to frame clashes
and to inaccurate assessment of student performance, learning and growth

4. Learning materials introduce an overt structure of their own

5. Face-to-face interaction is a rule-governed phenomenon
Rules or norms for behavior are constructed as part of academic and social
interactions in classrooms
Rules of conversational participation are learned through interaction
Rules of conversational participation are culturally determined

6. Contexts are constructed during interactions
Activities have participation structures Contextualization cues signal meaning
Rules for participation are implicit
Behavior expectations are constructed as part of interactions

7. Meaning is context specific
All instances of a behavior are not equal
Meaning is signaled verbally and nonverbally
Contexts constrain meaning
Meaning is determined by and extracted from observed sequences of behavior
Communicative competence is reflected in appropriate behavior


(Continued)








Table 2.1--Continued



8. Inferencing is required for conversational comprehension
Frames of reference guide participation of individuals
Frame clashes result from differences in perception
Communication is a rule-governed activity
Frames of reference are developed over time
Form and function in speech used in conversations do not always match



Source: "Research on Teaching as a Linguistic Process: A State of the Art" by Judith L.
Green, 1983.




students move from one activity to another and also from one setting to another. These different situations (e.g., opening morning activities, letter writing, reading circles, show and tell, tests, etc.) represent different types of communicative events undertaken for communicative purposes.

The kind of competence required to participate in these different events is specific, although it may share some general characteristics with communicative competencies in contexts such as the neighborhood. However, classroom communication differs from other types of communicative events because of the goals and demands that are involved and the conversational inferences required for appropriate participation. Perhaps one of the most obvious features that differentiates the classroom, and indeed educational settings in general, from other communicative environments is the differentiation of roles between teachers and students. As mentioned earlier when referring to teacher-talk, students and teachers have an unequal status. Cazden (1986) pointed out that one salient characteristic of communication in the classroom is the concern of one of the participants, that is the teacher, to control the behavior and talk of others. By the same token, Kramsch (1987) indicated that second language teachers in their classrooms talk more than their students and have control of the topic, turns, management and direction of the activities. Green and









Weade (1988) argued that in classrooms questions are not only asked to find information or to check students' knowledge. Questions can also be forms of conversational management. These authors mentioned how, after an in-depth examination of a lesson, it was clear that the teacher used questions not only to check for academic knowledge but as a form of conversational management. The teacher in this account often asked questions that appeared to have no academic purpose after a long sequence of interaction with a particular segment of the text. These questions serve to re-establish group participation in an indirect manner and therefore serve social purposes. Green and Weade (1988) also indicated that in classrooms, students see questions as providing information, as testing, and as "not real."

In contexts other than educational settings (i.e., bus station, grocery store,

newspaper stand, etc.), the role of participants is not necessarily as asymmetrical as in the classroom. Issues of who controls turn-taking, topic, and behaviors are more the result of negotiations than of an assumed differentiation of roles. In these settings, the function of questioning is not to serve academic and social purposes to the same extent as in the classroom, but mostly to obtain information.

Teachers orchestrate different levels of participation. Within lessons, teachers not only present academic content but must also orchestrate the structure of the activities, distribute turns to speak, and maintain order and flow of activity. From this perspective, teachers must, therefore, simultaneously organize academic content, management, and discipline aspects of lessons. Communication is the main vehicle through which this organization is created.

Green (1983) suggested that by observing teachers' actions as they work with

others, students can figure out the expectations for their behavior. These expectations are closely related to both teachers' perceptions of the situation and the teachers' expectations for performance. Furthermore, perceptions and expectations are indicative of the teacher's goals for the situation and of the teacher's theory of pedagogy. This was demonstrated in a









recent study set out to discover how the classroom literacy instruction was organized in a bilingual elementary program (Delgado-Gaitan, 1989). The study revealed the differential treatment of students depending on their reading ability group. On the surface, children appeared to receive similar types of instruction. However, a close examination of student-teacher interactions and students' written works indicated that the teacher evaluated the writing acts differently for low and high groups. Students in high groups had the opportunity to express their higher thinking skills; whereas, children in the lower group were expected to give factual responses based on the text.

How teachers organize instruction has to do with their assumptions about teaching and learning. In the above bilingual program, one strategy to help students learn was establishing reading groups according to students' abilities. Setting ability groups is not unusual since it has become an important part of the organization of classrooms, particularly in the early years of schooling. The rationale behind the division of children in terms of ability is that it allows instruction to be tailored to the students' aptitudes and needs. For Collins (1983), this practice represents a very inflexible classifying procedure that allows little movement into or out of the groups, once ability-status has been assigned. The Delgado-Gaitan (1989) example, presented above, indicated that low-ability students are given different instruction than their counterparts in the higher groups. The differential treatment by group is due, in part, to the teacher's expectations, but also to the organization of the activity. The way teachers perceive a situation such as reading groups, and the expectations they hold for their students, are manifested in the different classroom arrangements. These arrangements, in turn, reflect a way of thinking about teaching and learning. Thus, by observing how the learning context is organized it is possible to identify situations like this one in which the actions of the teacher differ radically for students classified in different ways and, in turn, influence students' chances for success in school.









Students are active participants in learning environments. Within this cluster of constructs (see Table 2.1), the cultural differences explanation needs to be highlighted. Anthropologists and linguists have proposed the notion that subtle cultural differences between the school and the home led to interactional difficulties, misunderstanding, and negative perceptions between teachers and students in the school environment. The differences lie mainly in implicit assumptions about how to appropriately participate in faceto-face interactions.

The work of Mehan (1979) follows this line of thought. Mehan's examination of question-answer sequences, in school lessons, indicated the tremendous complexity involved in managing such conversations. His detailed analysis suggested the possibility of miscommunication due to different cultural expectations for the "fine-tuning" required for classroom communication. Moreover, other aspects of interaction patterns, that differed between home and school, were identified. These factors seem to be related to the ethnicity, race, and social class of students. Children can act in ways that are judged appropriate at home, yet they may be seen as inappropriate by the classroom teacher.

In the last decade, work in this area has increasingly included observations both at home and at school. One of the first studies in this area was that of Philips (1983) who studied Native American Indian children in classroom situations and in their homes. As reported earlier, Philips identified one possible source of school failure for the children in the Warm Springs reservation--their apparently minimal talk during classroom lessons. However, a close examination of the children's interactional styles both at home and at school made clear the difference in the social demands required for each setting. Philips noted that the social conditions that define when a person uses speech in Indian situations are present in classroom situations in which Indian students use speech a great deal, and absent in the more prevalent situations in which they fail to participate verbally. Her findings are supported by several other studies where learning or failure to learn have been attributed to discontinuities between the participant structures of the home and community









and those of the school (Au & Jordan, 1981; Boggs, 1985; Erickson & Mohatt, 1981; Gumperz, 1981; Heath, 1983; Shultz, Florio, & Erickson, 1982).

Learning materials introduce an overt structure of their own. In educational settings learning materials contribute to the content of the talk between participants. As suggested by Barr (1987), teachers do not create instruction from scratch. The conditions of the class such as the students and their competencies, the instructional time available, and the curricular materials contribute both opportunities and limitations within which teachers and students work. Although teachers using the same materials will show variations in terms of time allocated to different sections, emphasis on concepts and their interpretation of the content, Barr (1987) indicated that teachers tend to adhere very closely to the content and sequence of their textbooks.

Delgado-Gaitan (1989) provided an example of the different expectations between one teacher of Mexican descent and Mexican students in terms of a workbook exercise. In this case, the second grade teacher assigned a workbook lesson after a group discussion of one story. The task was to tell how the chicken was important to the story. Students' responses were generally typical of the way they usually answered workbook questions. That is, in this classroom, students generally try to address the question with facts and then add a personal anecdote or feeling. One student's answer was as follows:

La gallina era [como] oro porque les acia [hacia] compafiia y cuando la
mataron estaban triste. Mis gallinas en Mejico eran mis amigas tambi6n por
eso mi [me] gusto esta gallina hasta que la mataron.

The chicken was like gold to them because it kept them company and when they killed it they were lonely. My chickens in Mexico were my friends too
that is why I liked this chicken until they killed her. (p. 292)

The teacher wrote "wrong" on the student's paper, with no other comments. DelgadoGaitan mentioned that the teacher explained that students needed to learn to answer the question asked in the textbook, and that she was not going to accept anything less. Her evaluation, thus, reflected her belief that there was only one correct answer--the one that appeared in the teacher's manual. The student, however, appeared to be responding










personally to the question since he related the subject of the story to his own personal experience. In this case, it is clear that there was a difference of interpretation as to what the question allowed. The teacher expected to get answers similar to those in the teacher's manual; whereas students often included aspects of their previous experience when answering the question. As in this case where the teacher limits students' responses following the content of the teacher's manual, it is possible that some teachers use textbooks, handbooks, and teacher's manuals as general guidelines. At any rate, whether teachers closely adhere to the content and sequence of curricular materials or not, instructional materials appear to be central components in teaching and learning processes.

Face-to-face interaction between teacher and students and among students is

governed by context-specific rules. That is, expectations for performance are culturally determined and guide participation and constrain the options for what will or can occur. The communicative competence required to participate in face-to-face interaction with others involves a variety of social and communicative knowledge and skills.

Several studies focusing on literacy skills development and participation in literacy events of members of ethnic minority and language minority communities, have provided evidence that individuals must not only learn structural features of a language, but also expectations about how to participate effectively in situations demanding the use of literacy. Examples of relevant studies include the work of Au and Jordan (1981) on the reading behavior of Hawaiian children; Heath (1983), comparing literacy practices in southern black and white working-class communities; and the research of Delgado-Gaitan (1989) on classroom literacy activities for Spanish-speaking students.

The Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP) for low achieving Hawaiian children is one of the best examples of such a work (Au & Jordan, 1981; Boggs, 1985). KEEP has designed a successful reading program described by Cazden (1986) as "a hybrid of home and school participation structures, and its also an example of the principle of









simplifying the participation structure in order to enhance children's attention to the academic task" (pp. 445-446).

At the time of the inception of KEEP in the early 1970s, one of the most popular explanations among educators for the failure of Hawaiian children to learn to read was that they were unmotivated; that is, they and their parents were uninterested in educational matters (Au & Jordan, 1981). KEEP approached the problem from a different perspective. Previous research on adult Hawaiian's storytelling had led to the identification of certain patterns of interaction which included active audience participation in storytelling. In other words, participants' styles and mode for interaction in this event were characteristic of Hawaiians' extended oral culture and history. Based on this knowledge, investigators discovered that conducting part of the reading lessons at school in a manner that resembled storytelling in community environments, facilitated children's participation in reading lessons. For instance, before reading a story, children actively discuss the possible topic and content. Like storytelling in the community, the event includes interruptions, contributions, and comments, and there is little control by the main story teller, that is the teacher. Thus, KEEP's approach allows children to rely on familiar communicative styles, while at the same time familiarizing them with academic activities. In terms of language use, pidgin English is accepted during the discussion that precedes the story. However, because children are exposed to standard English in the materials they read or in what they hear being read by their teachers, they are also able to succeed in academic activities that demand a mastery of standard English.

The success of KEEP can be succinctly explained in terms of the nature of face-toface interaction. As a result of exploratory studies done by the KEEP multidisciplinary team, changes in modes of interaction during reading sessions were suggested. When children were allowed to use overlapping speech (characteristic of storytelling events in the community) while discussing stories in small reading groups, their mastery in reading increased.









Contexts are constructed during interactions. In the same way in which

conversations are constructed by the actions of participants, contexts are constructed by people as they engage in face-to-face interactions (Green, 1983). Activities have participation structures, with rights and obligations for participation. Many of the rules for participation are implicit, conveyed, and learned through interaction. However, it is important to note that some activities can become routines and therefore behaviors might be somewhat limited and predictable. For example, in one of the ESOL classrooms in this study, students have "game day" on Fridays. Children are aware that every Friday at a particular time and in a particular setting, they can play with games. In this case, the overall structure (time, place, and activity) generally remains the same. What students do not know, when they first arrive, is the kind of game they are going to play, with whom, for how long, and what type of actions will be required. On some occasions, students come on Friday ready to play a particular game, but the teacher has selected a different game, one related to the main theme of the week. Although students at first may express disappointment or may try to negotiate with the teacher the right of choosing a game, at the end, they generally accept the game, and even enjoy it. Thus, in this case, there is general agreement of what the main activity will be (games), but then, the students and the teacher have to negotiate particular aspects of the activity. Continuing with this example, while some students communicate that they do not want to play with the game chosen by the teacher, the teacher reminds them of the rules and/or poses an argument to convince them. Thus, students and teacher have to constantly establish, negotiate, and re-establish the structure of the activity and the rules for participation. Stated differently, in teaching and learning situations, it is clear that participants must constantly monitor what is occurring in order to gain access to information, to present the information in meaningful ways, and to participate in, or conduct, activities (Green, Weade, & Graham, 1988).

The notion of contexts as constructed by participants is particularly important in

analyses that focus on language use in educational settings. Starting from the activity as a









whole, the analytic task is to determine the junctures between phases of the activity, the cues that mark the junctures, and the participation structure in each phase (Cazden, 1986). By studying activities such as whole group meetings or short events such as how two students make decisions about who will first use the computer, it is possible to learn about the importance of nonverbal as well as verbal cues, demands on children's interactional competence, a relationship between participation structure and the academic content of a lesson, and evidence for the ways in which activities are constructed by the joint contributions of the participants.

Meaning is context specific. All instances of a behavior are not functionally

equivalent, and single messages can serve multiple functions. Thus, conversations are constrained by the definitions people construct for what is occurring, by the particular history that evolves during a conversation, and by the rules of conversational participation and discourse processes (Green, 1983). In other words, the meanings of teacher's and students' messages are interpreted in relation to the social and communicative context constructed through face-to-face interactions. The interpretation of activities, tasks, messages, and nonverbal signals will depend on the social and communicative context created. The degree of similarity between the teacher's and student's interpretations is related to the degree of shared understanding of the communicative context, and can be inferred on the basis of how participation evolves.

An interesting account presented by Saville-Troike (1988) illustrates how meaning is determined and extracted from the context. The example, reported earlier in this chapter, involved a group of toddlers who were able to follow directions in their second language even though they were not able to understand the words being used. This was demonstrated by an incident in which the leader scratched her ear and the children as well as some of the adults did the same motion, even though it was not an expected response. In this case, the context--that is, that participants were supposed to be following directions









--was providing the meaning, even though the leader's words and actions (i.e., ear scratching) did not necessarily match with the intended meaning.

Inferencing is required for conversational comprehension. Students' and teachers' comprehension of classroom activities, tasks, behavior, and messages depends on the frame of reference brought into the classroom and modified within the classroom. In other words, understanding classroom events requires that participants process information across various channels (verbal and nonverbal) and within frames developed across time-through participating in everyday school activities. A clear example of how meaning of a message depends on how it is delivered and on the situation in which it is delivered is presented by Green and Weade (1987). They indicated that the meaning of "OK" can provide feedback about the appropriateness of a message or action. It can also mean "Get ready; listen": as in, "OK, now" expressed as a unit. It can also be said slowly while a person who is speaking, thinks about what to say next; this use can be interpreted as a place holder, meaning "Don't go away; I'm about to finish what I was saying." In all of these instances, the lexical term is the same in form but the way it is delivered conveys a different meaning. To decide on which interpretation, participants must first make a preliminary interpretation, that is listen to speech, form a hypothesis about what routine is enacted and then rely on social background knowledge and co-occurrence expectations to evaluate what is being intended and what attitudes are being conveyed (Gumperz, 1982).

To summarize, a diverse set of constructs have been presented and illustrated in

light of specific applications to the analysis of language use in educational settings. While not all-inclusive, this list is representative of the main premises that underlie the study of classroom processes. Analysis of this list suggests two things. First, the constructs provide a framework for observing and exploring teaching and learning in educational settings as communicative processes. Second, taken together, these constructs present educational settings as dynamic environments in which participants are constantly interacting, interpreting, negotiating, and monitoring a complex set of rules and









expectations in order to participate in socially appropriate ways and to gain access to knowledge.


Summary

In the preceding discussion an account of the historical background, instructional practices and the use of language in the education of language minority students has been presented. It has been argued that the study of second language teaching and learning needs to go beyond understanding individual characteristics, mental processes, and psychological factors. That is, research on teaching and learning a second language needs to be examined within the conditions of a particular setting and framed in a larger societal context, one that includes culture.and environment.

As background to the general argument, three main areas have been discussed.

They include issues concerning (a) the historical context of the bilingual movement in the United States, (b) research on first and second language acquisition, and (c) a sociolinguistic approach in the study of language use in classroom settings. In the first section, some of the salient social, political, and historical events surrounding the developments of instructional programs for language minority students were reviewed. This literature documents the tensions found in theory, research, practice, and policies related to the education of language minority students that can, indeed, be extended to second language learning in general. It should be noted that this is in no way a comprehensive review of the literature surrounding "the debate of bilingualism," paraphrasing Hakuta (1986). The literature that has been examined is that which pertains to issues at hand and relevant to the present study.

In the second section in this chapter, selected concepts and issues in the study of first and second language acquisition were reviewed. The selection of these concepts reflects two central concerns. On the one hand, they are relevant to the purpose of the study in terms of their utility in studying classroom discourse and, hence, in understanding









classroom processes. On the other hand, they illustrate how the field of second language teaching and learning has been, and somewhat still is, determined by approaches derived from cognitive psychology and linguistics. As a result of this emphasis on the individual and cognitive aspects involved in language learning, relevant social dimensions of language learning have seldom been considered and their importance has been underrepresented.

Concepts such as performance, competence, acquisition, and learning have been discussed because they not only represent important concepts in linguistic theory and jargon, but mainly, because in some cases they represent points of departure for new approaches in the study of classroom discourse. This was shown in the case of the term, competence. As noted earlier, the concept of linguistic competence, coined by Chomsky (1965), refers to knowledge of the system of the language, including rules of grammar, vocabulary, and how linguistic elements can be combined to form acceptable sentences. Hymes' (1974, 1981) reaction to this limited, cognitive view of what was involved in human communication led to the creation of the term communicative competence to include knowledge of sociolinguistic rules, or the appropriateness of an utterance, in addition to knowledge of grammar.

The discussion of the concept of communicative competence was used to introduce the study of language use in the final section of this chapter. In this section, an alternative approach to the study of second language learning was considered. In contrast with the focus on cognitive and individual aspects involved in second language teaching and learning, this emerging perspective focuses on how language in the form of interactions between teachers and students, among peers, and between children and adults functions in school settings in support of the acquisition and development of social and academic knowledge. In other words, within this perspective classrooms are considered as communicative environments and teaching and learning as linguistic processes.

In order to understand how classrooms and school settings can be studied by

observing communicative events, a set of constructs has been presented, some of which









have been discussed at some length. The discussion emphasizes the theoretical and methodological importance of this work. This framework not only makes visible the ordinarily invisible social processes of everyday life in school environments, but also provides a systematic approach to the analysis of classroom processes grounded in principles from interactional sociolinguistics and the ethnography of communication. Furthermore, these constructs represent the main assumptions guiding the analysis of selected classroom events in this study. The discussion of these assumptions has been extended to include examples of their application in concrete educational situations. It has been argued, that, taken together, these constructs provide a conceptual framework within which to situate a more detailed analysis of communicative processes in language programs for minority students.














CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY


Introduction

In the first section of this chapter a discussion of relevant aspects of the research perspective that underlies the investigation of the nature of second language teaching and learning in an elementary ESOL program is presented. Because a central goal in this study is to document the daily happenings within an elementary ESOL program and the meaning of those happenings from the perspectives of the participants, the study calls for a holistic approach that allows for a detailed study ofjnteraction pattems in light of a broader context. Thus, an ethnographic approach is appropriate for the purposes of the present investigation. An overview of different ethnographic approaches is also included in this section.
The second section begins with a review of the particular characteristics of the

investigation in terms of theory and method. The use of two distinct but complementary data collection procedures in this study will be highlighted.

In the next section issues of method are considered. There is a section on entry and access, data collection, and a section on data analysis. Throughout the discussion it will be argued that data analysis is inherent in the data collection phase of research as well as in the reporting phase.

There is a final section in which methodological issues are discussed. This is not a comprehensive review of the research concerns that affect the process of "doing ethnography." Rather it represents a selection of issues regarding reliability, validity, the role of generating theory, and testing theory as they relate to ethnographic research. Finally, the chapter concludes with a summary.









Research Perspective

Ethnography literally means "description of individual cultures." The goal of

ethnography, in Malinowski's (1922) words, is "to grasp the native's point of view, his relation to life, to realize his vision of his world" (p. 24). As a discipline,

ethnography adds a body of concepts and techniques that direct attention, relate observations, more systematically than community members would
normally have occasion for doing; that provide for making explicit
relationships and patterns that members leave implicit; that provide for
interpreting patterns in the light of a comparative knowledge of other ways
of life to which a community member would not usually have access.
(Hymes, 1981, p. 57)

Ethnography, therefore, is not only a way of collecting information and reporting findings; rather, it is a theoretically driven process that involves a systematic and comprehensive way of observing, recording, engaging in the daily life of another culture, writing accounts of this culture and emphasizing descriptive detail (Marcus & Fisher, 1986). Thus, the results of such a process are primarily written accounts of what happened in the field, what was learned from the people studied, and the researcher's personal and theoretical assumptions about the culture studied and inquiry process.


Approaches to Ethnographic Research

Few will argue against the statement that ethnography is a description of a culture. There is also common agreement that fieldwork involves gathering data by becoming a participant-observer in a community or society other than one's own. But lying behind these "general agreements" are divergences in opinions as to what constitutes an ethnography, how long the researcher should stay in the field, what is the focus of the study, and how findings should be presented. Ellen (1984) stated that clarification of some of these issues is problematic because few fieldworkers anywhere (whether in their ethnographic reports or in their theoretical writings) make explicit the precise model, orientation, or style of fieldwork they are employing.









In the following section some leading examples of different approaches for "doing ethnography" will be described. Determination of which approach or style to use is not only a matter of the personality and personal taste of the researcher. It also has to do with the nature of the phenomenon being studied, the questions being asked, and the theoretical, ideological, and philosophical orientation of the researcher (Ellen, 1984).

Despite the increasing amount of information about how to approach ethnographic studies, most texts and reports illustrated that there is no single way of observing, doing, and presenting ethnographic work. Because ethnography is a "highly particular and hauntingly personal" (Van Maanen, 1988, p. ix) way of representing the social reality of others, differences are found among ethnographic works. For instance, decisions about the style and narrative used to report findings are, primarily, a matter of personal preference. In Tales of the Field (1988), Van Maanen discussed seven different types or genres of ethnographic narrative. He first introduces the matter-of-fact, realistic report of classical ethnography, then the self-absorbed confessional tale of the participant-observer, and finally the dramatic vignette of the new impressionistic style. The other four styles described in his book are the critical, formal, literary, and jointly told tales. These ethnographic narratives represent different ways in which authors exhibit their own perspective and voice.

How an approach or style for doing ethnography is selected, however, is not

merely a matter of personal nuances or taste. Rather, it also reflects theoretical intentions, ideological presuppositions, and philosophical orientation of the researcher doing an ethnography. As mentioned above, ethnographies need to go beyond the pure "thick description," paraphrasing Geertz (1973). An ethnographic study should include an acknowledgement of the theory used to guide data collection or to provide meaning or understanding of the data collected (Lutz, 1981). Conceptual notions and personal assumptions guide the researcher throughout the research process by suggesting ways in which data will be collected, coded, analyzed, and presented. Zaharlick and Green (in









press), pointed out how a theory of culture frames a general attitude about how cultural phenomena are to be studied and explained

Just as a photographer must aim and focus a camera in order to capture a scene, so too must an ethnographer focus on what the theory suggests is
important in order to describe, and possibly explain, some particular aspects
of culture or evfendefine what constitutes a holistic description of the culture. Thus a theory can be thought of as a lens through which the
etiiographer views the everyday life of participants in a social group, and the occurrence and interpretation of social events. The value of the lens is
the degree to which it permits the ethnographer to see and record the
particular aspects of interest. (p. 5)

In terms of the nature of the problem, ethnographies can be classified according to their theoretical focus (Hymes, 1982) or the scope of the research (Erickson & Mohatt, 1981; Mehan, 1981; Spradley, 1980). Hymes (1982), for instance, classified ethnographic studies as comprehensive, that is, those which seek to describe the total way of life in a community; hypothesis-oriented, which are those that start out with a set of hypotheses generated from previous work on a particular culture; or topic-oriented, which focus on selected aspects in the culture of a community. All three types of ethnographic inquiry continue to coexist.

Spradley (1980) proposed a system for classifying ethnographic studies according to the scope of research and the social units studied. That is, studies can range along a continuum from macroethnography to microethnography. Table 3.1 shows the different approaches in relation to the size of the social unit. One example of a macroethnography is the research done by Malinowski (1922) in the Western Pacific during World War I. Malinowski remained in the islands studying the Trobiands for more than four years. Along this continuum, a well known ethnography of a single group can be situated; Lewis's La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty (1966), is an example of an ethnography focusing on a single institution. He spent several years studying a single family. A microethnographic study, located at the end of this continuum, can focus on a single social situation. Such is the case of work by Tannen (1984) who analyzed in detail the patterns of communication of a group of friends during a Thanksgiving dinner.









TABLE 3.1
Variations in Scope of Research Studies


Scope of Research Social Units Studied

Macroethnography Complex society
Multiple communities
A single community study
Multiple social institutions
A single social institution
Multiple social situations
Microethnography A single social situation

Source: Spradley, 1980.


Recent advancements in technology in the audiovisual field have helped

ethnographers to refine their methodology. Educational researchers like Erickson and Shultz (1981) and Mehan (1981), suggested that a microethnography is more focused, has a narrow scope, and includes an extremely fine-grained analysis. Researchers using this approach have captured very subtle and usually out-of-awareness aspects of classroom interaction and communication (Bloome, 1987; Bloome & Theodorou, 1988; Green, 1983; Green & Wallat, 1981; Green, Weade, & Graham, 1988). In order to examine language, language use, and nonverbal communication in educational settings, microethnographers "freeze" (using audio or videotapes) student-teacher and student-student interactions. Records can later be analyzed in detail in order to make visible the ways in which participants in the interaction allocate and negotiate turns, maintain the floor, and alter and coordinate their postures. The usefulness of this approach in understanding the classroom and school experiences of minority language students and indeed of students in general, has been discussed in the foregoing chapters. A variety of studies using this microethnographic focus have been conducted, for example with Odawa Indians (Erickson & Mohatt, 1981), "Warm Springs" Indians (Philips, 1983), Hawaiian, (Au & Jordan,









1981; Boggs, 1985; Watson-Gegeo & Boggs, 1977), African-Americans (Heath, 1983; Labov, 1972), Chinese (Guthrie, 1985; Guthrie & Guthrie, 1987), and Hispanic children (Moll, 1987; Trueba, 1987).

One final approach to ethnography has been discussed by Ogbu (1981). He

advocated for a multilevel ethnography. That is, the researcher needs to acknowledge the fact that an analysis at one level will only provide a partial view of the phenomena studied. Factors that remain outside the interactions of teachers and students are essential to a full understanding of minority children's education. Thus, several settings, dimensions, and levels of the social system need to be considered in order to understand complex interactions and the broader context in which any human group is embedded.



The Present Study

The present study falls into Ogbu's (1981) conceptualization of a multilevel

ethnography. It is not confined to an analysis of student-teacher interactions or to one classroom or teacher, but it attempts to cut through and link different levels of a social context that influence the experiences of children in school. Observations were done in different settings in and outside an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program; open-ended interviews were held with students, teachers, staff, and others in the school. Students' work and school documents were also inspected. This first level of the study provided information about the general characteristics of how life looks for participants in an ESOL program. Examination of the macrofeatures of this elementary program provided a framework in which microfeatures were situated and analyzed. That is, based on the general ethnographic study, specific classroom events (e.g., "talking circle," story reading, writing) were identified and videotaped. The microanalysis of videotapes of students' interactions in different settings and during specific recurrent events was based on recent work in the analysis of classroom face-to-face interaction in classrooms (Bloome, 1987; Cazden 1986; Green & Wallat, 1981; Green, 1983; Gumperz,









1982; Philips, 1983; Weade & Green, 1989). The detailed analysis of participants' interactions in naturally occurring events provided a means for extracting patterns of social and interpersonal behavior within the ESOL program. These patterns were later analyzed in order to understand how language in the form of interactions between teachers and students, among peers, and between children and adults functioned in support of the acquisition and development of social, linguistic, and academic knowledge. In sum, by using two different lenses, that is macro and microethnographic perspectives, detailed interactions were situated and analyzed in light of a broader framework.

In Hymes' (1982) terms, the present ethnographic study is topic-centered. That is, it focuses on selected aspects of the culture in a community. In this study the focus is on the education of a group of language minority students, what happens in their ESOL classroom and in various school settings, how the classes and program are organized and conducted, and how these students interact with others in different settings. In short, this study's main goal is to explore and document the nature of second language teaching and learning as social processes in an ESOL program.


Methods and Procedures

In the course of doing fieldwork, ethnographers frequently revise and reformulate their field of inquiry. Unexpected developments or discoveries make such modifications almost impossible to avoid. Thus, ethnographers, as opposed to other researchers, follow a cyclical pattern of inquiry rather than a linear one. A linear research design begins with a well defined problem and hypotheses, definitions are then operationalized and research instruments designed. These steps take place even before entering the field or knowing the subjects. After collection of data, conclusions are drawn and results reported. Spradley (1980) pointed out that an ethnography seldom fits this linear sequence of research. Instead, the main activities follow a cyclical pattern, repeated over and over again, until the project is concluded. Figure 3.1 illustrates the cyclical pattern of research activities in this














































Piigure 3.1
The Ethnographic Cycle of Inquiry (Adapted from Spradley, 1980)









ethnographic study. Each of these activities will be explained in detail in the following sections.


Entry and Access

There were several reasons for choosing the setting for data collection for the

present study. First, choice was limited by the fact that there are only two ESOL programs for elementary students in the school district.

Given my interest in understanding the teaching and learning processes of language minority students, either program presented a wealth of opportunities for this type of study. Arthur was ultimately selected because the name of the program coordinator had been suggested and thus, represented a starting point for gaining access. Second, much of the research on second language acquisition has been done in settings that are not directly comparable to the experiences of students and teachers in ESOL programs. For instance, much of the research has taken place in artificial settings (e.g., university laboratories). When in public school settings, most research has taken place in monolingual classrooms where students are immersed and expected to learn the language by exposure to it, and in bilingual classrooms where instruction is given in two languages. In choosing an ESOL program, I hoped to work with a linguistically and ethnically heterogeneous student population.

A last factor in the selection of this particular program had to do with opportunity and accessibility. Six weeks before the study began and after several phone conversations, I had an interview with the program coordinator. At that time, I explained my intent to study over an extended period of time an ESOL program for elementary students. The general purpose of the study was stated in an open-ended fashion: "To inquire about the ways in which students act, learn, and interact in an ESOL program." The program coordinator, who had just returned from a one-year teaching sabbatical overseas, was very









enthusiastic about the topic. Because she was interested in exploring the degree of integration of ESOL students with monolingual students and staff in all aspects of school life she agreed to bring my research request to the principal and to the program staff. From the very beginning the Program Coordinator stated that I could have access to all parts of the daily events in her classroom and in general in the ESOL program.

Although the first step in the process of gaining access had been granted by the

program coordinator and fieldwork had already been initiated, several other steps had to be followed in order to gain and/or maintain both formal and informal access. A second step in this constant process of negotiating access (Zaharlick and Green, in press) was to gain permission from the three other teachers who are part of the ESOL program. This step was facilitated by the program coordinator who, during the second day of planning, introduced me as a doctoral student interested in studying the ESOL program. Later on, and on a oneto-one basis, I explained the purpose of the study to each of the teachers. A third step had to do with access being granted from the school principal. During the first week of the school year, I was briefly introduced to the principal as a doctoral student from the university. One month later a meeting was arranged to inform the school principal of the purposes of the study. Pending district approval for conducting a study, informal permission to continue observation and participation in the ESOL program was granted.

The next step had to with two additional levels of institutional approval: the university and the district. Once the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (UFIRB) approved the project, a different set of application forms had to be sent to the research department of the school district for their approval. After the local district school board had cleared the project, consent forms were sent to the ESOL students' parents for their approval.

Although the description above shows the different steps followed in order to gain formal and informal entry to the school, it does not represent the whole process. An important aspect in gaining access to a setting involves a process of negotiation and









renegotiation that takes place between the researcher and the participants. Throughout the process, aspects related to time commitment, access to documents, approaches to be used, rights and obligations of the researcher and issues of confidentiality, reciprocity, and ethics were discussed with the program coordinator. This is what Zaharlick and Green called "a social contract for... relationships within and across aspects of research from entry to presentations of findings" (p. 41). In sum, the process of gaining access is more than obtaining physical entry into a room or school. Access also involves issues of roles and relationships among multiple groups of people (students, teachers, parents, program staff, school administrators, university personnel, researcher, district personnel). Each role and relationship entails rights and obligations for the researcher. As Zaharlick and Green (in press) stated, access "is a socially constructed process that must be established, monitored, maintained, and reestablished over the course of the context of discovery as well as the context of presentation" (p. 44).


Data Collection

Several data-gathering techniques were used to obtain the information on which the analysis was based. However, the method par excellence that characterizes the study is participant observation. This term is used here to refer to the type of fieldwork in which the object is to study not only the place itself (i.e., village, neighborhood, school, classroom), but more importantly, what happens within it. Heath (1982) stated what can be accomplished by being a participant observer in a social group as follows:

By becoming a participant in the social group, an ethnographer attempts to record and describe the overt, manifest, and explicit behaviors and values
and tangible items of the society and structures and functions of cultural
components, before attempting to recognize patterns of behavior that may be covert, ideal and implicit to members of the culture. Ethnographers attempt to learn the conceptual framework of members of the society and to organize
materials on the basis of boundaries understood by those being observed
instead of using a predetermined system of categories established before the
participant-observation. (p.34)









To accomplish the latter, the participant observer must take up residence among the people being studied. Thus, the researcher must not only observe the physical environment, the people and the activities, but also, needs to participate in everyday activities and learn to act as a member of the community insofar as possible.

Data for this study were gathered during one whole school year through classroom observations, observation of students in various school settings (cafeteria, homeroom classroom, ESOL classroom, playground), formal and informal interviews with participating teachers, students, parents and school staff; examination of students' work; and audio and videotaping of students' interactions during different classroom events. Detailed fieldnotes of observations, transcriptions of interviews, audio and videotapes, maps, and other records (i.e., schedules, report cards, students' works and files), were kept and constitute the bulk of the data.


Data Analysis

In this type of ethnographic study, data analysis is not an independent stage in the research cycle (Spradley, 1980). Rather data collection and analysis of data proceed simultaneously in a dialectical manner: as observations, interviews, and examination of records and materials generate descriptive categories; the categories are analyzed for emerging patterns (Zaharlick & Green, in press). These patterns then influence the next steps in data gathering.

In ethnographic studies, original questions are subject to revision and modification as a result of issues, problems, and new insights or directions that emerge throughout the process. In the present study prime emphasis was placed on detailed, comprehensive description and the use of participants' perspectives for data generation and validation. Consequently, the cyclical nature of the ethnographic methodology required a research routine whereby data collection, analysis, synthesis, and interpretation were part of a multistage, integrated, and ongoing process.









As mentioned earlier, based on the first stage of the investigation, that is the study of the macrofeatures of the ESOL program, specific naturally occurring classroom events such as writing, introduction of a theme for the week, and "talking circle" were identified as recurrent events that take place within the classroom. Occasions for student-to-student interaction both inside and outside the classroom were also identified. Selected events were videotaped and subsequently analyzed from a sociolinguistic perspective. The intention was to observe these events in order to find out how different processes (e.g., social and conversational norms, management of activities, differentiation of roles) evolved over time.


Microanalysis of classroom conversations

In Table 3.2 a system for microanalysis of videotapes of classroom interactions grounded in sociolinguistic principles is presented. The system which is based on recent work in the analysis of face-to-face interaction, especially recent work within sociolinguistic ethnographyo(Erickson & Shultz, 1981; Green & Wallat, 1981; Green & Weade, 1987; Gumperz, 1981, 1982; Weade & Green, 1989) provided a principled approach for freezing, reconstructing, and analyzing conversations in educational settings.

As shown in Table 3.2, the microanalysis of classroom events required a series of steps. The first involved making a transcript of the activity based on narrative records, video, and/or audiotapes. The second step involved the construction of "maps" based on the the identification of interactional rules for participation in the activity. These maps are representative of, and help to organize face-to-face interactions in classroom settings according to messages, topics, themes, and units. The third step involved the analysis of maps. Following a brief explanation of these three steps, a segment of a conversation in an ESOL classroom will be presented. This example illustrates a systematic way in which face-to-face interactions in classrooms can be transcribed, organized, and mapped for later










TABLE 3.2
Analytic Steps Used in Mapping Instructional Conversation



Step 1. Transcription

Typescript is prepared from videotape. Transcript lines are assigned, numbering
from 1-n on each page.

Transcript is segmented into message units through audio and video observation of
verbal and nonverbal cues.

Step 2. Map Construction

Interaction units, e.g., sequences of tied or cohesive message units are determined
post hoc on the basis of prosodic cues and the social and conversational
demands made and/or responded to by participants.

Instructional sequence units, e.g., sequences of tied interaction units are determined
post-hoc on the basis of thematic cohesion.

Themes, e.g., topic threads, are designated post-hoc in hierarchial units to
characterize an interaction unit, a series of interaction units, instructional
sequence units, a lesson phase, event, etc. Step 3. Analysis

Bases of inference are recorded where necessary throughout the mapping process.

Questions and issues for triangulation are recorded as they arise throughout the
mapping process.

Source: "In Search of Meaning: A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Lesson Construction
and Reading" by J. L. Green and R. Weade, 1987.

analysis. By analyzing a series of ordinary conversations and recurrent events in the classroom, it is possible to understand what students and teachers need to know, understand, produce, predict, and evaluate in order to participate appropriately and gain access to learning (Green & Weade, 1987; Weade & Green, 1989).

The first step in mapping instructional conversations (see Table 3.2) involved the development of detailed transcriptions including paralinguistic information (e.g. pitch, stress, pauses) of the unfolding interactions among participants. The transcripts reflect a









view of the classroom as a communicative environment with asymmetrical relationships between teacher and student. Events in the classroom are orchestrated by the teacher (teacher talk is capitalized at the margin while student talk is in lowercase and indented below the teacher talk). Thus, in this study transcription was a theoretically driven process (Ochs, 1979). That is, transcription was based on the theoretical constructs derived from recent classroom research within the fields of sociolinguistics, linguistics, anthropology, and psychology discussed earlier in chapter 2.

Step 2 involved the construction of detailed maps of interactions. These maps served to facilitate the identification and examination of particular variables such as the establishment of norms and expectations for participation, topics of discussion, and emerging and recurring themes, among others. The maps also provided a representation of classroom events in terms of hierarchical units. Units reflected on the maps include message units, interaction units, and instructional sequence units. Message units are minimal units of meaning and were determined by considering delivery (e.g., pitch, intonation, stress, pauses, nonverbal behaviors). Interaction units (IU) are sequences of conversationally tied message units. Phase units (PU) are pedagogically tied instructional sequence units (e.g. question-response segment, story discussion segment). As stated by Green and Weade (1987), instructional activities are constructed during interaction and are a product of the activity between teacher and students. Maps were constructed by observing the conversational work of participants as they cooperate (or fail to cooperate) in "lesson" construction.

Step 3 involved analysis of maps. Once a map was constructed, it was possible to explore frozen actions and talk for recurrent patterns. The following segment of a transcript includes detailed transcription including paralinguistic information of the interaction between a volunteer teacher and six children in an ESOL classroom. Message units (each of the transcript lines), in this example, altogether constitute one interactional unit.









Whereas maps of lesson structures (built upon transcripts) constituted the basis for the analysis, the original broader records (e.g., videotape, audiotape, narrative record) were used to provide a context for the information presented. In this way data reduction, although kept to a minimum, facilitated the analytic search and interpretation.

The following segment is an example of representative talk during a cut-and-paste activity.


Transcript Line

101 Tim 102 Teacher 103 Tim

104 Teacher 105 Tim 106
107
108
109 students


Message Unit

how do you spell mister M R


THAT'S VERY GOOD then
here Grandmother and all teachers see Mrs. S Mrs. G Mr. H Mrs. H and grandmother


Contextual Information

fto teacher I
{ checks how student writes it) {student wrote "MR." with a
period at the end)




{ students and teacher look at
Tim's work. In each heart
Tim had written the name of one of the adults in the
classroom I


30 seconds later...


for who to your brother and coach right yes, I know mister coach mister coach /laugh/
HOW DO YOU CALL HIM MISTER COACH no, coach {looking at Tim) no mister no mister, only coach why
WELL IT'S LIKE YOU CAN JUST CALL HIM
like you always call grandmother not misses grandmother /laugh/


115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131


Tim Hans

Tim

Raul group Teacher

Raul Hans Tim Teacher

Raul

group








132
133 Tim {writes "coach" on his heart) The interaction takes place in the ESOL classroom 1 (conversational English) during the month of February. Thirteen students came daily to this classroom for their 45-minutes English class. Although students in this group were in different grade levels (1 to 4), they were all at similar English proficiency levels. That is, they spoke little or no English at the beginning of the school year.

After a discussion among participants (students, classroom teacher, and four

volunteer teachers) about the meaning of friendship, the group was divided in five small groups. Each group had one teacher and at least one student. The task, announced by the teacher for all the groups, was to cut a series of four hearts and decorate them "anyway you like" with construction paper, crayons, or markers.

The above segment represents a conversation between six students (2 fourth

graders and 4 third graders) and a volunteer teacher sitting around a rectangular table on one side of the classroom. In this group, three students were from Korea, two from Taiwan and one from Switzerland. The video camera recorder was set up two feet away from the table.

By transcribing and organizing verbal and nonverbal behaviors, a conversational map was created for this "cut-and-paste" activity. This map provided a source for exploring the way in which interactions took place during this event. However, in order to identify the interactional rules for appropriate participation in this classroom, a series of ordinary conversations--embedded in everyday activities--were videotaped, transcribed, mapped, and analyzed. As mentioned earlier, in face-to-face interactions, participants have expectations for how each should act. Determining the rules for appropriate participation involved identifying those recurrent or divergent patterns that take place within and across ordinary events.










To summarize, the systematic approach used in this study for the in-depth analysis of language use in classrooms has been presented. Microanalysis of classroom events involved a series of steps that began with videotaping (and/or audiotaping and/or taking notes) followed by transcribing, mapping, and analyzing classroom talk. This whole process was guided by theoretical constructs derived from sociolinguistics, anthropology, linguistics, psychology, and research on teaching and learning processes. By freezing actions and talk, it was possible to systematically search for recurrent or divergent patterns of interaction within and across activities, classrooms, and teachers.


Analysis of students' work

Samples of students' work were analyzed in conjunction with other data sources to provide information about literacy events in the classroom. In the preceeding segment, analysis not only included transcription of talk and description of actions during one cutand-paste activity, but also consideration of students' writings (see lines 103, 109 and 133). As shown in this segment, inclusion of the written outcomes in the analysis is of prime importance in understanding how issues got resolved. In other words, the discussion in the above segment was centered around whether Tim should call the school coach, "coach" or "Mr. Coach" (lines 115 to 130). The end of this particular interactional unit (IU) is not signaled by an oral utterance, but by a written account (line 133).

Thus, the inclusion of writing samples collected during ordinary events, and over time, enhanced the data analysis process. The next example can help understand how writing activities were considered in relation to oral events.

During the second and third weeks of January a group of "beginning" ESOL

students (they spoke little or no English at the beginning of the school year) learned nursery rhymes. During their 45-minute ESOL conversational class, each student recited one rhyme learned the day before; then students read (aloud and silently) a new rhyme from a ditto sheet. Afterwards, they colored the picture--relative to the rhyme--in the ditto sheet.










Students were asked by the teacher to take home this sheet for practice. During the second week of studying nursery rhymes, children were given 15 minutes to make a birthday card for their ESOL teacher. Hyun-Tae, a fourth grade student from Korea, wrote the following message in his card:

Dear Mrs. S
Happy Birthday
Mrs. S.
I love this classroom.
I'm a sheep
You are
a Little Bo Peep.
I'm a dog
You are
a old mather Houber [mother Hubbard]
Have a good day
January 1990, 18, Thursday

Hyun-Tae's card shows quite clearly that part of the content, vocabulary, and language structure included in his card was similar to those in the nursery rhymes he had memorized. Most importantly, this example shows how writing arises from and relates to current, ongoing interests as children talk, read, and in this case, practice nursery rhymes.

Although the specific goals of this study did not include the study of children's textforming strategies or writing development, the analysis of writing samples, such as the above, provided fuller and more complete explanations of the factors that contribute in learning a second language. Thus, the analysis of writing samples can increase our understanding of the ways in which oral language activities can contribute to children's literacy development.


Triangulation

One important issue that needs to be included in this section has to do with the basic units of data analysis. The basic units in the process of data analysis were instances of action in classroom events between participants and instances of comments on the









significance of these commonplace actions--and on broader aspects of meaning and belief-from the perspectives of the various actors involved in the events (Erickson, 1986).

The instances of actions were derived from a systematic review of fieldnotes, audio and videotapes (e.g., students are organized small groups). The instances of comments were derived from analysis of formal and informal interviews with participants (e.g., teacher explains how small group arrangements help students feel at ease and promotes language use for communicative purposes). In addition, other units of analysis included information gathered through written materials, students' and teachers' records, maps, and the like. By using these different processes of data collection, I was able to contrast, compare, and verify the accuracy of the patterns and impressions being developed. This process of data collection and verification has been called triangulation (Zaharlick & Green, in press). Through informal and formal interviews it was possible to obtain the participants' perspectives about an issue, topic, or event. This insider's view was then compared and contrasted with other units of analysis such as those derived from the analysis of fieldnotes and audio and videotapes. If consistent similarities were found between both of these views, I felt reasonably sure that a "piece of cultural knowledge" had been identified and that the information gathered could be used to guide a stranger's understanding of the culture (Zaharlick & Green, in press). If there was not a match, the next step was to gather more information and re-examine the data previously collected to see whether there were different perspectives or whether the analysis was inaccurate or incomplete. In other words, by systematically reviewing and comparing different assertions that emerged from the full set of data (e.g., fieldnotes, interview notes, audiotapes, site records, and audiovisual recordings) I sought to test the validity of the assertions generated by confirming and disconfirming evidence.









Exiting the Field

Determination of when sufficient data have been collected to answer the questions guiding a study is often problematic. Zaharlick and Green (in press) stated that in school ethnographies the naturally occurring breaks in the school calendar may influence when the investigator leaves the field. The end of the school year may indicate the time to conclude fieldwork, although this may not always be the case. It is not uncommon for researchers to exit the field and then re-enter in order to collect more information. In this case, the end of the 1989-90 school year marked the conclusion of my role as participant observer in this ESOL program; it did not mark, however, a definite exit from the field. As the analysis and writing process evolved, and after the "official" conclusion of data collection, I occasionally visited the program and attended meetings with teachers and students. Also, some more records were examined (e.g., teachers' lesson plans, students' documents and works) after the school year was over. At least three reasons can be set forth to explain my return to the site. First, I had to review some documents (e.g., students' cumulative files) not available until several weeks after the school year was over. Second, on several occasions, I felt the need to verify with some of the teachers, mainly with the conversational ESOL teacher, some selected or problematic instance or conclusion. Also, after a year, I went back to interview some of the children that I had monitored closely during my one-year data collection period. A third reason for returning to the program is not related with data collection nor data analysis, but with the personal and professional bonds that long-term fieldwork can help establish. The year following the data collection period, students and teachers invited me to attend special events (e.g., birthdays, Halloween, graduation day) which I did with pleasure. It was during these sporadic visits that I realized that some students considered me as one of their ESOL teachers. This was corroborated by the conversational ESOL teacher who mentioned that at the beginning of the year, students frequently asked for me. Thus this is an example where the distinction between my roles as observer (e.g., researcher) and participant (e.g., teacher) was blurred.










At the professional level, the conversational ESOL teacher and I have kept an ongoing dialogue about theoretical, practical, and policy issues. For example, we copresented two workshops for ESOL teachers wherein data from this study (e.g., videos, transcripts) were discussed. What, I believe, was most salient about these two meetings was the interactive character of the presentations. During these meetings, practitioner, researcher, data, theory, and audience were all part of a collaborative effort to better understand second language teaching and learning in context. Rather than having a researcher report findings of a study, teacher and researcher were, together, engaged in a collegial exploration of classroom processes. In addition, other interactions at local or state meetings have facilitated this ongoing professional relationship. Thus, exiting the field was not a one-step process. The thin arrow depicted in Figure 3.1 indicates that the stage of writing the ethnography is not necessarily a final stage after exiting the field. Rather, the researcher may re-enter the field after the writing process has been initiated.


Presentation of Findings

Two main aims need to guide the presentation of findings of the fieldwork: to make clear to the reader what is meant by the various assertions, and to display the evidentiary warrant for the assertions (Erickson, 1986). In order to achieve both goals, the written or oral report needs to include particular and general descriptions.

The first aim, that is clarification was achieved in this study by presenting assertions supported by particular descriptions. In other words, transcriptions of conversations among participants, direct quotes from interviews, and analytic narrative vignettes explained and clarified patterns of meaning contained in the assertions. For example, when describing a particular event in the classroom such as making assertions about what counts as writing in that setting and the purposes it serves, descriptions were explained and reported in terms of the definitions and understandings of participants. The









inclusion of direct quotes and narrative vignettes served this purpose. As stated by Erickson (1986), the narrative vignette represents a vivid portrayal of the conduct of an event of everyday life, in which the sights and sounds of what was being said and done are described in the natural sequence of their occurrence in real time and place. The momentto-moment description that characterizes the narrative vignette helps the reader or audience get a better sense of how life looks in that particular context. By the same token, direct quotes from participants, whether from interviews or observations, are other ways in which the reader can get a sense of both the point of view of participants and the interaction patterns among them.

However, rich descriptive vignettes or detailed transcripts of conversations are not valid ethnographic accounts on their own. Rather, it is the combination of richness and interpretative perspective that makes the account valid (Erickson, 1986). Thus, ethnographic accounts in this study include two dimensions: a descriptive one, in detail and content; and an analytical one, that examined events in light of broader interpretive and theoretical frameworks.

The second aim that guided the presentation of findings, that is, providing

evidentiary warrant for the assertions, is achieved by reporting both particular and general descriptions. The illustrative examples presented in this study are the result of a systematic selection among representative examples, in which both variation and central tendency or typicality in the data are reflected (Watson-Gegeo, 1988).

In sum, the presentation of findings includes both particular and general descriptions. The purpose of particular descriptions such as narrative vignettes, transcriptions of conversations, or quotes of participants was to show that a certain meaning is held by participants or that a certain pattern of interaction happened in the setting. The purpose of general descriptions, on the other hand, was to link those particular events with others like it or different from it in order to establish some kind of generalizability of patterns.









Selected Methodolozical Issues



Reliability and Validity

As stated in the preceding sections, the task of ethnographers is to observe

everything that occurs in the social life of a cultural group, their public transactions and personal ways of dealing with everyday life. Researchers doing ethnographic research need to record their observations systematically and clearly. To assure credibility of their observations, social scientists have dealt with issues concerning objectivity.

One device first used in psychometrics (the field of tests and measurements) is the division of objectivity into two main components: validity and reliability. Loosely speaking, reliability is the extent to which a measurement procedure yields the same answer however and whenever it is carried out; validity is the extent to which it gives the correct answer. To illustrate, Kirk and Miller (1987) discussed the validity of a thermometer reading in light of a physical theory. The thecry must posit not only that mercury expands with temperature, but that water in fact boils at 100' C. With such a theory, a thermometer that reads 900 C when the water breaks into a boil can be judged as inaccurate. Yet if the theory asserts that water boils at different temperatures under different ambient pressures, the same measurement may be valid under different circumstances. In the case of qualitative research, and for that matter of ethnography, "the issue of validity is not a matter of methodological hair-splitting about the fifth decimal point, but a question of whether the researcher sees what he or she thinks he or she sees" (Kirk & Miller, 1987, p. 21). In the case of participant observation, the main approach used in this study, questions were constantly being raised and tested in stronger and stronger ways in the pragmatic routine of everyday life. In other words, simply by virtue of "being in the field"--in territory controlled by the investigatees rather than by the investigator--qualitative research possesses certain kinds of validity, in particular ecological validity, that are not ordinarily possessed by methods that are not qualitative (Kirk & Miller, 1987).









In relation to reliability in ethnographic studies, researchers are mainly concerned with the accuracy and comprehensiveness of their data. Qualitative researchers tend to view reliability as a fit between what they record as data and what actually takes place in the setting under study, rather than the literal consistency across two different observations (Bogdan & Biklen, 1986). Two researchers studying a single setting may collect different types of data and reach different conclusions. For example, a sociologist and a psychologist may spend time in the same classroom and produce different findings. This can happen because their focus and area of inquiry is different. The sociologist may have been looking at how roles and functions are established among students while the psychologist was looking at children's moral development. In this case, both studies can be reliable. Reliability of one or both studies might be questioned if their results were incompatible (Bogdan & Biklen, 1986).


Interobserver A areernent

In order to determine the consistency of use of the framework by different observers, interobserver agreement was measured. This procedure dealt with the percentage of agreement in relation to establishing boundaries of message and interaction units. The following two-phase procedure was used.

The first involved learning a system for analyzing videotapes of classroom

interactions. This process had started two years earlier when I was part in a study of teaching and learning processes within the context of preservice teachers' weekly seminars (Weade, 1989). For this purpose, observers were trained by an expert observer in the following manner. They viewed a videotaped segment of a classroom event and then prepared a transcript that included the identification of message and interaction units. Transcripts were then checked against the expert's transcript and points of disparity discussed. The selected videotaped segment was then viewed and further discussed on several instances until agreement was reached. The process was then repeated with




Full Text

PAGE 1

TALKING AND LEARNING IN AN ESOL PROGRAM: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS BY GISELA ERNST A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY OF FLORIDA 1 99 1 'UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA USRARIES

PAGE 2

Copyright 1991 by Gisela Ernst

PAGE 3

In memory of my father, Hubert A. Ernst, whom I dearly miss.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my committee members for all their assistance and especially for their thoughtful comments, constructive advice, and unconditional support. Dr. Ruthellen Crews provided kindness, understanding, and a down-to earth perspective as I moved through the various phases of my doctoral program . Her warmth and pertinent insights were welcomed and helpful. Dr. Clemens L. Hallman has been my chief source of information and advice about critical issues surrounding the lives and education of children from other cultures. In working with Dr. Hallman I got fIrst hand experience in the complex world of bilingual education. Dr. Allan Burns encouraged my research interests and offered the right blend of humor, encouragement, advice, and criticism. Dr. Jacqueline Comas continually expressed interest in my endeavors and offered many important insights that helped clarify my thinking about multicultural issues . My deepest and sincere thanks go to my committee chairperson and great friend, Dr. Ginger Weade, for her consistently sound advice and guidance . Her trust, patience, and wisdom were constant and unfailing and especially appreciated during times of deadlines. Her unswerving support was a major positive factor throughout my doctoral studies. I thank my parents and the rest of my family for their tenacious support and everlas t ing expression of faith and encouragement. My appreciation is also extended to Kay Hodnett Nunez for her warmth, acceptance, and unselfish contribution to my doctoral education . My greatest indebtedness is to the staff and children in the ESOL program at Arthur Elementary school, who must remain anonymous. Their willingness in having me IV

PAGE 5

observe, their readiness in accepting me into their world, their patience in answering my questions , and thoughtfulness in sharing their feelings and views about everyday school life made this study possible. v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................... xi ABSTRACT ....................................................................................... xii CHAPTERS 1 BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY .......................................... 1 Statement of the Problem ......................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study .............................................................. 2 Rationale for the Study ........................................................... 3 Review of Procedures ............................................................ 7 Significance of the Study ....................................................... 11 Definition of Terms ............................................................. 12 Organ i zation of the Report ..................................................... 13 Notes .............................................................................. 14 2 REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE ................................... 15 Introduction ................................ ............................. ......... 15 Bilingual Education in the United States .......................... ............ 16 Historical Background ......................... .. .......................... 16 English as a second language instruction ............................ 18 Recent bilingual instruction ........................................... 19 Federal legislation .............................................. ........ 20 A landmark court decision: Lau v. Nichols (1974) ................ 22 Educational Programs for Language Minority Students ................ 23 Transitional bilingual education ....................................... 24 Maintenance bilingual education ...................................... 24 Two-way enrichment bilingual education .................... ....... 25 Immersion bilingual education ........................................ 25 Structured immersion education ...................................... 26 English as a second language (ESL) or English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) ............................................. 26 V1

PAGE 7

CHAPTERS Alterna tive Perspectives on the Study of Second Language Teaching and Learning .... .. ................................ " ............. 28 First and Second Language Acquisition ............... . ............. . .... 28 Linguistic competence vs. performance .. ........................... 30 Acquisition versus learning ........................................... 31 Individual learner factors .............................................. 32 Social setting factors ................................................... 34 The role of input ........................................................ 34 Interaction ............................... , ............................... 35 Characteristics of the interaction between a native-speaker and the learner. ................................................... 35 How interaction aids second language acquisition ............. 37 Input and interaction in classroom settings .......................... 38 Teacher-talk: ................................... " .. , ... '" ............... 39 A Sociolinguistic Approach to the Study of Language Use in the Classroom ................................................................... 42 CommUniC
PAGE 8

CHAPTERS Exiting the Field ........................................ . ............ . ..... .. 83 Presentation of Findings ................................................... 84 _Selected Methodological Issues ....... ..... ..... .... ...... ................... . . 86 Reliability and Validity ..................................................... 86 Interobserver Agreement.. ................................................. 87 Theory Development ....................................................... 88 S urnrnary ...................................................................... . 90 4 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT ..................................................... 91 Introduction ...................................................................... 91 Arthur Elementary School ...................................................... 93 The ESOL Program ............................................................. 96 ESOL Classroom 1 ......................................................... 96 ESOL Classroom 2 ........................................................ 100 Participan ts ...................................................................... 102 Staff ......................................................................... 102 Students . . .. . .. ................. ............................................. 102 A Day in the School Life of an LEP Student ........................... 106 Assessment and Placement Procedures ...................................... 107 Entry Criteria ............................................................... 108 Exit Criteria ............................................................... .. 109 Grouping .................................................................... 111 English language proficiency level .................................. 112 Grade level ............................................................. 112 Language skill areas ................................................... 112 Homeroom schedule .................................................. 112 Scheduling .................................................................. 113 Program Description ........................................................... 116 Conversational , _ ,-'......................................... 117 --A Day ' afATThurs' ESOL Conversational Class ........................ 124 The ESOL Reading Class ................................................. 137 The ESOL Mathematics Class ...... ............................... ...... 140 Surnrnary .. . ........................................... .......................... 142 Notes ............................................................................. 145 viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTERS Page 5 TALK AND INTERACTION IN THE CONVERSATIONAL ENGLISH CLASSROOM .................................................. 146 Introduction ..................................................................... 146 Talking Circle: Structural Phases .. ............ .......................... 148 Classrooms are communicative environments ..................... 152 Contexts are constructed during interactions ......... . ............. 152 Segment 1: Phase 3 or "Core" ...................................... 155 Segment 2: Phase 4 or "Teacher's Agenda" ....................... 157 Topic Development .......... . ............................................. 159 Social Demands .......................................................... " 165 Communicative Dimension ............................................... 175 Summary ..... ................................................................. 192 6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .................................. 196 Introduction ..................................................................... 196 Cone I usions ..................................................................... 197 Key Factors Associated with Assessment and Placement Procedures ................................................................ 198 The ESOL Program Provides a Support System for LEP Students ................................................................... 199 Successful Participation in the Second Language Classroom Involved Awareness of the Specific Social and Academic Demands ................................................................... 200 Importance of Talk and Interaction in Second Language Learning .. 201 Implications ..................................................................... 202 REFERENCES ................................................................................... 208 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....... .. . ............ ............................................. 216 IX

PAGE 10

LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Constructs Underlying the Study of Classroom Processes from a Sociolinguistic Per spective .................................................................... 49 3. 1 Variations in S cope of Research Studies ................... . ......................... ... 67 3.2 Analytic Steps Used in Mapping Instructional Conversations ........................ 76 3.3 Percentage of Interobserver Agreement Message Units ............................... 89 3.4 Percentage of Interobserver Agreement Interaction Units ............................. 89 4 . 1 ESOL Students Grouped by Home Language, Country of Origia, and Grade I...evel ..................................................................................... 103 4.2 Typical Daily Schedule Month: November ........................................... 114 4.3 ESOL Weekly Themes Arthur Elementary School ................................... 122 5.1 Students Participating in "Talking Circle" ............................................. 150 5.2 Talking Circle's Phase Structure, Topical Development, and Social Demands ... 154 5.3 Distribution of Teacher and Student Talk by Time ................................... 177 5.4 Communicative Features of Teacher and Adult Messages: Frequency and Percen tage ............................................................................... 179 5.5 Communicative Features of Student Messages: Frequency and Percentage ...... 181 x

PAGE 11

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3.1 The Ethnographic Cycle of Inquiry ..... .. ...................... ......... ... ........... 70 4.1 Arthur Elementary School.. .... ......................................................... 94 4.2 ESOL Classroom 1: Conversational English ......................................... 97 4.3 ESOL Classroom 2: Reading and Math ............................................... 98 5.1 Seating Arrangements During Talking Circle ....................................... 149 Xl

PAGE 12

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor in Philosophy TALKlNG AND LEARNING IN AN ESOL PROGRAM: AN ETHNOGRAPIDC ANALYSIS By Gisela Ernst August, 1991 Chairperson: Dr. Regina Weade Major Department: Instruction and Curriculum The primary purpose of this study was to explore the nature of second language teaching a n d learning as sucial proceSs(;!S in an Enf;lish for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program for elementary students. Of special concern was how a group of students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds learned a second language and culture through everyday interactions with teachers and peers. A second purpose was to produce a comprehensive and systematic description of the instructional, organizational, and physical characteristics of an elementary ESOL program and of the actions and interactions of participan t s within the program. / Data were gathered during approximately six hundred hours of participant observation during the 1989 90 school year. Other data gathering techniques included formal and informal interviews, detailed fieldnotes, video and audiotaping, examination of documents and records, and analysis of students' work. Findings of this study can be summarized as follows. First, several factors that go beyond the linguistic realm need to be considered when assessing, placing, and exiting limited English proficient (LEP) students. Second, the ESOL staff played an important role in providi n g a supportive system in which LEP students' whole array of linguistic, Xli

PAGE 13

academic , social, and emotional needs was bolstered and integrated. Third, successful participation in the language classroom entailed more than the willingness to use the second language; it involved increasing awareness of the specific academic, social, and communicative demands required across different classroom events and throughout phases within on e event. Fourth, talk and interaction provided the best opportunities for students to hear an d practice the new language, to test out their hypotheses about how the second language works, and to get useful feedback. A l though findings in this study do not provide causal explanations or ways of generalizing about ESOL events and classrooms, they do explain what happened within and acros s particular events. By using a systematic and theoretically based approach to the study of t h e social interactions between teachers and students, it was possible to go beyond surface level descriptions. Ethnographic findings of this type provide insights about the nature of l anguage learning as it occurs in classrooms and the ways stud e nts use language to learn language. Xlll

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY Statement of the Problem When language minority children arrive at school for the fIrst time they face two major problems. First, they must acquire fluency and learn to interact in English in different settings; and second, like all children, non English speaking children must learn and use the different rules and language patterns appropriate for the classroom and school environments. Not all children are able to accomplish these two goals in the same manner, nor will all succeed . Clearly, language minority students face a high risk of failing in school and thus, present a ch&llenge to educators and to the educational system. Di f ferent language programs and approaches (e . g., bilingual, immersion, English for Speakers of Other Languages [ESOL]) have been designed to help students accomplish these two goals . How programs are organized for instruction can influence the way in which teachers and students interact with one another; how language is used in the classroom can have a major effect on the learning of the . conversational r.ules needed to participate in different settings. Al t hough in recent years there has been a growing number of studies on second language acquisition, ESOL programs have received little attention. Information is not available on h0Vi-these approaches for teaching English help students cope with learning the language and culture of the school. As stated by Watson-Gegeo (1988) Second language teaching occurs in a wide spectrum of institutional contexts .... Second language learning occurs in an even wider spectIlfm of contexts, including family and community settings. Yet so far we have few careful studies characterizing these contexts and the teaching-learning interactions taking place within (p. 585) 1

PAGE 15

2 For the purposes of this study, language minority children in the United States are those youngsters whose language at home is not English and whose home culture is different from the majority culture . They maY, speak Vietnamese, Kiowa, Spanish, Poli sh, Kanjobal M ayan, or another language . They may be Native Americans, Asian Americans , Mexican Americans, or recent immigrants from diverse regions. Regardless of the difficulties in defming this important sector of the population, a significant number of students f rom language minority backgrounds are presently served by U.S. schools. Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to explore the nature of second language teaching a nd learning as social processes in an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program for elementary students. Of special concern was how a group of studellts ___ _ . ' ---. with dive r se linguistic and cultural backgrounds learned a second l a nguage and culture through e v eryday interactions with teachers and students. A second purpose was to document part of the experiences of students in ESOL elementary programs. Documentation is important for at least two reasons. First, generaliz a tions are made too frequently about the processes that take place in a range o f educational programs that include a second language. Regardless of their instructional model and educational goals, a number of diverse programs involving a second language have bee n clustered under the label of bilingual. In addition, important factors affecting educational processes , such as the needs of the student population served and the status of the }angu a ge/s used, are often ignored. This results in a morass of confusion in the fiel d of second la n guage teaching and learning and suggests the need to more adequately account for variat i ons in the social, political, linguistic, and instructional factors that influence language educational programs . Second, given the contemporary controversy and politic a l debate surrounding the education of language minority students, it is important to have

PAGE 16

3 grounded descriptions of what actually occurs in second, language educational programs so that political deliberation and policy decision making can be properly informed. In sum, a central goal of the present investigation was to produce a comprehensive and systematic description of participants' actions and interactions in an elementary ESOL program. Specific objectives of the study were as follow: 1. to identify selected regularities and routines of classroom organization and interaction within and across classroom events, 2. to identify the different demands for participation placed on students (how, when, where, with whom to talk:, and for what purpose) throughout selected classroom events, 3. to identify the types of communicative patterns shown by students and teachers during selected events in their ESOL classroom, and 4 . to document how different ways of organizing classroom interactions can enhance or constrain students' opportunities for language use and language learning. Rationale for the Studv A survey conducted in 1976 by the National Center for Educational Statistics showed that approximately 28 million persons (one in eight) in the United States had non-English language backgrounds (Cummins, 1984). The projected population of students aged 5 14 who could be characterized as "limited English proficient" was estimated at 2.5 million for 1976,2.8 million in 1990, and 3.4 million in 2000 (Oxford, Pol, Lopez, Stupp, & Peng, 1981). These numbers, although informative, do not present a clear picture of the language minority community. They do not take into consideration the large number of undocumented immigrants, nor do they suggest the heterogeneous composition of the language minority population. For instance, among the Hispanic group there are dialect variations of Spanish. Moreover, some members of the Hispanic communi t y are monolingual Spanish speakers; others are monolingual English speakers;

PAGE 17

4 others are bilingual in Spanish and English. Thus, specific examples can aid understanding of the growth in the minority language student population. In 1980, Mexican students constituted 74% of the total pupil count in San Antonio and 45% in Los Angeles (Delgado Gaitan,1987); in 1987,32% of the student body population in Florida were identified as limited English proficient (Shermyen, 1989). If t hese statistics are analyzed in conjunction with poor achievement and dropout rates of la n guage minority students, the challenge that this sector of the student population presents to educators appears to be obvious. For example, as early as 1966, the Coleman report showed that grade 12 Hispanic students were about three and a half years behind national norms in academic achievement (see Cummins, 1984). In a recent review of research, W ong-Fillmore and Valadez (1986) pointed out that Mexican-American students have lower scores on achievement tests and higher dropout rates than their English speaking counterparts. Furthermore, over 45% of the Hispanic students in grades 9-12 drop out before completing high school (Delgado-Gaitan, 1987). A central issue for educators is to understand the causes of language minority students' low academic achievement. In the past, it was assumed that academic "deficienc i es" originated in cultural or economic aspects of the students' backgrounds (Gibson, 1 987; Ogbu, 1978, 1981; Trueba, 1988a, 1988b) . Reasons for failure were considered beyond the control of the school or of the teacher. As a result, very little was done in d e veloping rational and well-rounded solutions. The discussion thus far suggests that new approaches are required. One alternati v e is to gain an understanding of how different instructional strategies affect different groups and then, based on those findings, recommend new ways of improving educational practices. In other words, if some improvement is to be made in the education of language minority s tudents, we need to (a) address the needs of these children; (b) refine our understanding of the different processes that take place in educational settings; (c) under stand how these processes affect students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds;

PAGE 18

and (d) us e these findings to design, implement , and evaluate programs and educational practices. 5 Information r e ported in recent research indicates that any discussion concerning the education of language minority children must address their particular needs and social circumstances (Goldman & Trueba, 1987 ; Moll & Diaz, 1987; Trueba, 1987, 1988b; Trueba, Guthrie, & Au, 1981) . It is no longer possible to assume that the skills, knowledg e , and language that English speaking children bring to the schools are transferab l e to non English speakers by means of regular schooling . For the latter group, opportunities to learn in the educat i onal system are not equal, either at the point of entry in school or a ny time thereafter, even if both English and non-English-speaking children are exposed to the same instructional process (Trueba, 198 7 ) . The language, culture, and values acq uired at home have a direct impact on children's school learning activities and successful adaptation. In the last two decades, the study of classroom processes has shown that the ways students a n d teachers use language in classrooms can contribute to children's acquisition of both soci al and academic skills (Cazden, 1986 ; Green, 1983; Green & W allat, 1981; Green, W e ade, & Gr a ham, 1988; Weade & Green, 1985). This body of research on language u se in the classroom has been built, in part, upon H ymes' (1974) concept of communi c ati v e competence . Its focus is more on the uses to which language is put and the social functions it serves than on strictly linguistic aspects of language . Hymes propose d the notion of communicative competence to account for the fact that, to be effective in everyday social settings, speakers and listeners depend on knowledge that goes beyond the mastery o f particular phonological and grammatical aspects of language. How teachers and students use language, rather than particular linguistic aspects of their speech, may be more important in understanding the way children learn, and the miscommunication, misunder s tanding, and educational difficu l ties students encounter (Gumperz, 1981; Guthrie & Guthri e , 1987; Hymes, 1974).

PAGE 19

6 The acquisition of communicative competence becomes more complex when it has to be accomplished in a second language . Many children from non-English language backgrounds begin school with a limited knowledge of English and must learn not only new rules for interaction in different school settings but also new rules in a new language. Thus, if there is a discontinuity between the students' home language use and that required for success at school, the opportunities for success for these students are reduced (Heath, 1983; Philips, 1983; Guthrie, 1985). Al t hough in recent years the growing amount of research that focuses on language minority students and school and home socialization appears to be encouraging, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) programs have received little attention. Information is not available on how these approaches for teaching English help students cope with learning the language and culture of the school. As mentioned earlier, variations in the student composition of ESOL classrooms and programs make these settings extremely diverse. Some classrooms may have students with common linguistic and ethnic backgrounds and a bilingual teacher able to understand students' first language. Other classes may be multiethnic, with a teacher who has no knowledg e of students' first language. Some programs may include students from different grade levels in one classroom according to their English level of proficiency . Thus, it is not surprising that information of what takes place in these types of settings is not availa b le. Most of the studies on how language minority students learn a second language have been done in monolingual classrooms with English speaking or Mexican American teachers (Fishman, 1977) or in bilingual classrooms where two different languages are used for instruction (Troike, 1981) . Moreover, there have been very few longitudinal studies that present a detailed picture of the development profile of classroom learners o ver time (Ellis , 1984) . In most of these studies the student population shared a common linguistic background . For example, Guthrie (1985) focused on the development of a bilingual program in a Chinese community in San Francisco; Philips' (1983) research

PAGE 20

in the Wann Springs I ndian Reservation looked at the interaction patterns between Native American and Anglo srudents. With the exception of work by Moll (1987) and Trueba (1988a) in California, studies of programs and schools with a diverse ethnic and linguistic student body have been ignored. As a result, little information has been found regarding how children from diverse linguistic backgrounds and their teachers construct meaning in education a l programs. 7 It becomes clear that a starting point in the srudy of educational programs for students o f diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds is to analyze those differences so often seen as "deficits." How are educational programs dealing with the particular needs of this sector of the srudent population? What do these students need to know in order to successfully participate in school activities? Research is needed to identify the actions and interactions in school settings that may contribute to both the successes and failures of language minority srudents, and examine those socialization and interaction patterns at home that may contribute to successes and failures in school. Review of Procedures Although in the last years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of pilot programs designed for language minority srudents, these students are still experiencing severe academic difficulties (Gibson, 1987; Trueba, 1988b; Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). Since 1970 considerable funds have been allocated to the development of programs and materials to serve language minority students. Funded research has tended to focus on exploring certain discrete linguistic variables involved in language learning. Wong Fillmore and Valadez (1986) suggested that in the search for solutions to the many pedagogical problems presented by language minority students, little support has been given to w ell-rounded research efforts. In general terms, research in the area of language minority students has moved in new directions, all of which will contribute to a more complete picture of the relationship

PAGE 21

8 between the minority child and the school. Most of these studies can be classified in one of three categories: (a) second language acquisition research, (b) demographic analyses and correlational studies, and (c) ethnographic studies and microanalyses of the interactions of language minority students in school and home settings. There has been no shortage of theorizing about second language acquisition (SLA). The research literature abounds in approaches, theories, laws, principles, and models. By far, the greatest number of studies of second language acquisition have been undertaken by researchers in the areas of psychology and linguistics who borrowed methodology and theory of research from fIrst language acquisition. It is therefore not surprising that SLA research h a s focused on investigating how learners develop grammatical knowledge. In other words, because traditional linguistics has given priority to the study of discrete linguistic v ariables, the focus on SLA has been on the products of language. Consequently, attention to the processes of second language acquisition and the influence of different learning contexts has been neglected. M a croanalyses, that is, studies of broad, global trends and issues in educational policy, ha v e mostly addressed demo,brraphic aspects of the language minority population. One form of macroanalyses has focused on the demographic aspects of both the language minority population and the schools serving these students. As a result, in the past 10 years, the proliferation of information concerning the existence and achievement of language minority students in schools has been extensive. Researchers have identified a series of demographic, economic, and educational characteristics of minority children. However, one major problem underlying these studies is the lack of consensus on what variables need to be included and how to measure them in regards to the language minority population. Different defInitions have produced very different estimates. For instance, according to 1980 census data, 9.7% of the total school population speak a language other than Engl i sh at home. However, results of a 1978 survey conducted by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in the U .S. Department of Education indicate that only 2.2% of the students

PAGE 22

9 in public schools speak a primary language other than English (Pallas, Natriello, & McDill , 1989). A second type of macroanalysis has involved comparisons of educational programs based on a limited number of quantifiable variables . Mehan (1981) pointed out that the traditional correlational method, so widely used in the study of the effects of schooling, has also been predominant in the evaluation and assessment of educational programs for language minority children. In this type of design, social and historical contexts and aspects of students' lives are treated as input variables. Other factors, such as students' achievement and economic success, are treated as output variables. The purpose of these correlational studies is to test the strength of the relationship between these two types of variables. One of Mehan's major concerns was that process product research designs do not capture the actual processes that take place in programs designed for language minority students. Although these studies have provided valuable demographic and educational information, more data are needed to understand the differences and similarities between programs. Hence, the research agenda needs not only to focus on what takes place between schools, but also, on what takes place within the schools . In the last decade the value of ethnographic research in understanding second language acquisition, bilingual education, and in general, educational processes has been recognized by members of the educational research community. Researchers using ethnographic methods have beg'tn to investigate issues difficult to address through expetimental research, such as sociocultural processes in language learning, how institutional and societal pressures are played out in moment-to-moment classroom interaction, and how to gain a more holistic perspective on teacher student interactions (Watson-Gegeo, 1988) . Otiginally developed in the field of anthropology to desctibe "ways of living" of a communi t y (Heath, 1982), ethnography, in Hymes (1981) words,

PAGE 23

is a disciplined way of looking, asking, recording, reflecting, comparing and reporting . It mediates between what members of a given community know and do , and accumulates comparative understanding of what members of communities generally have known and done. (p.57) The ethnographer's goal is to provide a description and an interpretative account of what people do in a setting (e.g, community, school , classroom), the outcomes of their interactio n s and t he meaning those interactions have for them. Et h nography, then, represents an important alternative to other research methods because it allows the exploration of fundamental issues in second language teaching and learning. One such basic question has to do with how everyday life unfolds in second l a nguage p rograms. As stated earlier, second language teaching and learning occurs in a 10 wide spec t rum of settings (e.g., bilingual, ESOL, English as a Foreign Language) with a n even wid e r range o f students (immigrants, refugees, foreign language learners, native Americans), y et the literature available does not always address--let alone documentthese importan t v ariations among programs. E t hnographic methods allow for a systematic examination and documentation of teaching a nd learning interactions in rich, contextualized detail with the aim of developing grounded theory (Watson-Gegeo, 1988). This is, precisely, the attempt in this study. In order to examine and document how second language teaching and learning takes place i n an elementary ESOL program, two distinct, but complementary, data collection procedures were use d during the 1989-1990 school year. The study began with the observation o f general c h aracteristics of the school and elementary ESOL program, participants and activities . Examinat i on of the macrofeatures of this elementary program provided a framewo r k in which rnicrofeatures of naturally occurring events (e.g., " talking c i rcle," story rea d ing, writing) were situated and analyzed in detail. Stated differently, the fIrst phase of t his ethnographic project included a study of theoretically salient aspects of setting, participants , and activit i es. Second, based on fIndings from this fIrst stage, specifIc classroom events were i dentifIed, videotaped, and analyzed. M icroanalyis of these

PAGE 24

data was guided by an interactive sociolinguistic perspective (Boggs, 1985; Gumperz, 1981,1982; Hymes, 1974, 1981; Trueba, Guthrie, & Au, 1981). Significance of the Study 11 Thi s study had both a descriptive and theory building intent. A review of the literature in the area of second language teaching and learning suggested the need for a study of a single ESOL program over an extended period of time . Because most of the research in SLA takes place in university based laboratory centers or in school settings tha t are not representative of everyday life in schools, there is no body of literature describing the complexities of teaching and learning processes that take place in second language programs. The purpose of this study was to provide a detailed description and analysis of an ESOL program and the interaction that took place within it. In addition, a grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of the interface of setting, participan ts, and activities was developed. The term grounded is used to refer to theory based in, an d derived from, data and arrived at through systematic process of induction (Watson-Gegeo, 1988). Results of this study may contribute to the body of knowledge about classroom processes and second language acquisition in educational settings by (a) identifying, describing, and analyzing the nature of everyday life in an ESOL program from the perspective of the participants; and (b) providing implications and recommendations for both pract i ce and policy. In addition, this research seeks to inform curriculum decisions in ESOL programs. By providing a more thorough knowledge of the processes by which students learn English as a second language in the school setting, teachers can adapt instructional practices to meet the needs of these particular students . Finally, understanding the complexities of school processes and the different learning s tyles of language minority students enriches our knowledge of teaching and learning. From a cross-cultural perspective, learning about language min0l1ty students--in contrast with English-speaking children--can aide us in understanding all children (Hymes,

PAGE 25

12 1981, Trueba, 1987). By the same token, the study of bilingual and ESOL programs can lead to better understanding the wide range of educational contexts. Ultimately, through the study of different classrooms, programs, and school settings, alternatives options and concrete recommendations for improvement can be proposed. Definition of Tenns The literature on language minority and bilingual education can be extremely confusing when it comes to naming and defining the multiple variations in program design. Researchers, administrators, practitioners, and politicians have used a wide variety of, at times, conflicting terms and acronyms to refer to different programs and participants. The terms and definitions which follow have been chosen as those most widely used and accepted in the field and the most relevant to the purposes in this study. BiEn gual education refers to "the use of two languages, one of which is English, as mediums of instruction" (Bilingual Education Act of 1968) . Within this broad concept, a variety of different options are possible. Troike (1981) mentions one restriction -that a bilingual program must utilize both the student's native language and English. The amount and balance between them is a matter that deserves further consideration. English as a second language (ESL) instructional approaches acknowledge the linguistic ability differences between the students' native language and English, and incorpora t e English instructional activities to enhance school language learning (see Note at end of ch a pter). Enlish for speakers of other lanuaes (ESOL) constitute alternative approaches of instruction for teaching English as a second language. The focus is less on the language itself than on providing hands on activities which require language use for communicative purposes ra ther than just talking about language. As students increase their mastery of English, they are gradually moved into academic classes with native speakers of English.

PAGE 26

13 Immifants are those persons born outside the United States who have come to live permanent l y in the United States. LanguaQ:e minority students are those students who (a) are characterized by substantive participation in a non English-speaking social environment, (b) have acquired the functional communicative abilities of that social environment, and (c) are exposed to substantive English-speaking environments during the formal educational process (August & Garcia, 1988). Limited in En2:lish proficiency (LEP) students are those students who on school entry lack t he necessary English skills for immediate success in an all English curriculum. Na t ive EnQ:lish speakers are those persons whose first, or native, language is English. Non-En2:lish speakers (NES) are those persons who are speakers of other languages and have limited English skills. Organization of the Report A r eview of selected literature is presented in Chapter 2. The methodology used in this study i s addressed in Chapter 3. In the next two chapters different levels of analysis and findings are presented. In Chapter 4, a thorough description of salient aspects of the } school, ESOL program, participants, and activities is presented. In Chapter 5 the focus shifts to the social and communicative characteristics of face-to-face interactions of teacher and students within selected classroom practices. A summary of the findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations are presented in Chapter 6.

PAGE 27

Although ESL and ESOL are often times used interchangeably, the distinction between these two acronyms can best be explained in historical terms. The usage has moved from a more general approach, that is English as a second language (ESL), to one that is more specific, such as English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) . 14 During the 1950s and 1960s, the profession of teaching ESL began to expand in response to increasing numbers of immigrant and refugee children entering the United States, as well as the growing numbers of international students coming from abroad. A reflection of this growth was the establishment of TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) in 1966. Because the acronym ESL could be used to refer to different learners (foreign or native born) and locations (teaching English overseas or in the United States), the newly founded professional organization made a distinction between English as a foreign l anguage (EFL), and English for speakers of other languages ( ESOL). The purpose, then, was to use ESOL when referring to teaching English to non native speakers who are North American citizens or pern1anent residents of the United States, usually children in elementary and secondary schools enrolled in domestic programs. Hence, the new acronym ESOL represents the development of the profession from one whose major concern was foreign students to one whose primary focus is domestic l earners of English who cannot accurately be described as foreigners. Furthermore, the new acronym, ESOL, reflects programmatic directions and policies toward deemphasis on grammar and increased appreciation of the complexity of language learning within the context of schooling. Although theoretically ESL and ESOL represent different programs or approaches, in practice both acronyms are used as analogous terms encompassing a broad and far from unified set of theories and practices regarding the teaching and learning of a second language.

PAGE 28

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE Introduction The purpose of this review of the literature is to provide a context for discussion of the conceptual issues and research findings for the phenomena investigated in this study. In the first section, selected historical events that led to the development of bilingual education in the United States are reviewed. As noted earlier, any discussion dealing with instructional issues concerning language minority students needs to be framed within this larger context, otherwise these issues "tend to get lost in discussions of bilingual education which are often emotional and philosophical rather than substantive" (Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986, p. 653). In the second section, the nature and developments of first and second language acquisition research are addressed. Also, a selection of relevant issues related to individual learner and social settings factors is presented in this section. In particular, it will be argued tha t language learning is as much a social process as it is a cognitive one. Although most of the topics and concepts in this section have emerged from the fields of linguistics and cognitive psychology, they are critically discussed in light of a broader framework. That is, the examples presented serve to illustrate the utility of the concepts by going beyond theoretical considerations to find their application in concrete instructional situations. In the last section of this chapter, an alternative approach to the study of second language learning is considered. A brief discussion of the notion of communicative competence proposed by sociolinguists and ethnographers of communication is presented. This discussion is then extended to include the application of communicative competence as it relates to the study of everyday life in the classroom. The chapter is concluded with a 15

PAGE 29

16 discussion of some of the main constructs that provide a framework for understanding the nature of the classroom as a communicative environment and teaching and learning as linguistic processes. Selected constructs are examined in light of concrete examples that illustrate their application in the study of second language learning. A summary of the review of the literature concludes the chapter. Bilingual Education in the United States It is not possible to study bilingual education in the United States without mention of the historical development and rationale of the bilingual movement. Dramatic changes in language policies have taken place in this country during the last two decades, and at present the education of language minority students is extremely controversial. Researches who propose to examine an elementary English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program cannot ignore the social and political issues that are at the heart of the contemporary bilingual education movement in the United States. Historical Background The United States is a multilingual nation and, like many other nations of the world, has a long history of linguistic diversity. Throughout its history, this country has probably been the home of more groups speaking different languages than any other nation in the world (Grosjean, 1982). Although each new group of immigrants brought their own language, many later witnessed the erosion of that language in the face of an implicitly acknowledged official language, English (Hakuta, 1986). In the following discussion an overview of the major events that have influenced bilingual and ESL education in the United States over the last decades is provided . The United States has not always been a nation where English was the only language taught in schools. During the 18th and 19th centuries, immigrants with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds settled throughout the country. Since then, immigrants

PAGE 30

17 have formed cultural and linguistic clusters throughout the nation (Grosjean, 1982). For instance, i t was not unusual for a Chinese immigrant to seek to settle in a Chinatown in San Francisco or New York or for a German family to find its way to Wisconsin. Studies on the history of immigrant communities in the United States (Grosjean, 1982; Kloss, 1977) suggest that schools in this country have not always been the primary agents for assimilation of language minority groups. During the 19th century many public and private schools used other languages, in conjunction with English or without it, for instruction. Ovando and Collier (1985) reported that in 1900 in the Midwest, at least 231,700 children were studying German in public elementary schools, and in New Mexico, either Spanish or English or both could be the language of the school. During the second half of the 19th century, bilingual or non-English language instruction was provided in some form in several public schools. German, for example, was taught in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, and Oregon; French in Louisiana; and Spanish in the Southwest (Crawford, 1989; Ovando & Collier, 1985). In a slow progression and under pressure from state legislation and from parents who wanted to help their children assimilate, schools became bilingual and children were taught in both the minority language and in English (Grosjean, 1982) . By the end of the 1800s, there was a call for all immigrants to become assimilated into one cultural and linguistic mold. The preservation of a strong European identity by some immigrant communities was perceived as threatening to national interests, and the need to "assimilate" those communities into the AngloAmerican society emerged. In this context, schools were given the task of "Americanizing" all immigrants, and many state laws were passed calling for English-only instruction. This push to impose the English language and Anglo culture became a pattern within the schools during the first half of the twentieth century. Further, three additional factors have been suggested by Ovando and Collier (1985) to explain this English-only phenomenon: the need for national unity during the two world wars, the

PAGE 31

standardization and bureaucratization of urban schools, and the desire to centralize and solidify na t ional gains around unified goals for the country. 18 After several decades of all English instruction, the second World War exposed the lack of foreign language skills among the people of the United States. As a result of the controversy raised by Sputnik, the National Defense Education ACT (NDEA) of 1958 provided federal money for the expansion of foreign language teaching (Ovando & Collier, 1985). Al t hough the latter was a great step forward, it did not solve the two conflicting approaches prevalent in U.S. policy which remain to this day. On one side, the recognition by the federal government of the need to develop and support foreign-language instruction for the sake of improved international relations and national security; on the other side, language, a valuable resource, is lost as immigrant children become assimilated through the educational system. These two conflicting trends have resulted in two different approaches to dealing with the needs of language minority students: Bilingual and ESL instruction. Some of the differences and similarities in these approaches will be discussed below. English as a second language instruction The profession of teaching English to speakers of other languages began to expand as a result of the arrival of new students from different countries. In addition to the new waves of immigrant and refugee children arriving during the 1950s, increasing numbers of international students came with their children to attend North American universities . This expansion was also manifested in three other ways: the establishment of the professional organization TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) in 1966, the increased demand for courses in English as a second language (ESt) methodology, and the development of ESL textbooks and programs of study. A new approach for teaching English to language minority children was a clear indication of changes in school policies. At the beginning of the century a "sink-or swim" approach rested on the belief that by teaching language minority students in English, the

PAGE 32

19 school was providing them with the means to learn the language itself (Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). Some students survived the experience and, after they learned English, they had the linguistic tools to deal with school and take advantage of the educational opportunities available. But not all students were able to learn English just by being immersed i n an English-speaking classroom. Some students were never able to catch up with their English-speaking peers, or, what is worse, were not able to get much out of their educational experiences. Although ESL instruction has received a great deal of criticism, this approach has greatly imp roved the process of teaching English to non-English speakers. When ESL approaches fIrst appeared in the United States, students were given instruction in speci a l pullout programs with lessons of 45 minutes to a half a day in length. The emphasis of these seminal programs was on the instruction of discrete linguistic skills. Although ESL instructio n has gradually moved away from dwelling on grammatical knowledge, this form of instruct ion has continued to generate adverse opinions. One of the major arguments against ESL instruction, as reported by Wong-Fillmore and Valadez (1986) , is that ESL only deals with the problem of teaching the language of the school but does not help students acquire basic skills and subject matter. This argument may still hold true for some programs, even though at present most ESL or ESOL instruction reflects a more holistic approach that integrates language, subject matter, and culture. Recent bilingual instmction Bilingual education was reactivated in the United States with the arrival of Cuban refugees into Florida in the late 1950s. As Cubans poured into Miami, they established private sc h ools where all instruction was given in Spanish. As time went by and their hopes to return to the island vanished, this new group began to influence the public schools to establish bilingual classes where English and Spanish were used as media of instruction. In 1963 an experimental program funded by the Ford Foundation was set up in the Coral

PAGE 33

Way Elementary School in Miami. Its main goal was the enrichment of the child's linguistic and cultural experiences (Hakuta, 1986). Because the program was judged successful, several other bilingual programs were established in Dade County, Florida. In 1 964 following Florida's example, Texas began to experiment with some bilingual instruction in two school districts. By 1968 bilingual education was being provided in at least 56 locally initiated programs in 13 states, and, although most of the programs were Spanish English, six other languages were also represented (Ovando & Collier, 1985). 20 Although the increase in student enrollments in bilingual programs in Dade County was impressive, educational opportunity was still not available to everyone . Hakuta (1986) reported that in 1975 the school system identified 16,046 students who were considered of non English speaking or limited-English-speaking ability . Most of these students were not in bilingual programs but in ESL programs, that is, in programs designed for non-English speakers where all instruction was in English. Under these circumstances, bilingual education i n Dade County, which had so far been the result of local initiatives, came into contact with the efforts of the federal government in bilingual education. Federal legislation The passage of the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 under Title 9f the Elementary and Secondary Education Act created a significant change in the education of language minority students. The political effervescence of the 1960s created a context to support changes in educational policies. Minority groups, encouraged by the black civil rights movement, reacted against the assimilation processes of North American society. These groups wanted to express their ethnic and language identity and demanded that their languages and cultures be respected and maintained. Their efforts led some authorities to accept the fact that public schools were not meeting the needs of all children. Hence, the passage of the Bilingual Education Act in 1968 was a response to political pressures and

PAGE 34

represented the fIrst national recognition of the particular needs of language minority children. 21 Through the 1968 bill legislators made funds available to local educational agencies to start and test bilingual programs in their schools. These local agencies had to compete for funds, and programs were entirely voluntary. There was no federal requirement that programs be adopted, although it was expected that local funding for successful programs would be at possible once federal support was no longer available (Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). One important requirement of this legislation was that experimental programs were intended to serve the special educational needs of children of "limited-English-speaking ability" (LES)--especially those from families with incomes below $3,000 per year (Hakuta,1986). The 1974 amendments changed the law to include all LES children, ending the low-income requirement. In 1978!he . was expanded further to include ch i ldren of limited English profIciency (LEP). This last change allows students to remain in a program until they reach full profIciency in English rather than requiring that they be tested and exited solely on the basis of oral skills (Ovando & Collier, 1985). Ovando and Collier (1985) identifIed three main purposes of the 1968 Act: (a) to increase English language skills, (b) to maintain and increase mother-tongue skills, and (c) to support the cultural heritage of the student. The amendments of 1974 and 1978 emphasized the importance of mastery of English-language skills as the main purpose of the bill. T h e 1978 amendments also allowed participation of English-speaking children in bilingual programs funded by Title VII. The latter represented an important step toward the recognitio n of the value of two-way integrated programs. The inclusion of English speaking students meant that it provided funding for both English-language instruction for linguistic minorities and foreign-language for English-speaking children. The training of bilingual personnel through grants, contracts, and fellowships to local and state educational agencies was provided for in the 1968 legislation and further

PAGE 35

22 expanded in 1974 and 1978. Funds for research were not provided unti11978. Researchers were charged with the task of providing answers to Congressional questions for reauthorization in the following years. In 1979, as part of the total research effort, a National Center for Bilingual Education was established in Los Alamitos, California (Ovando & Collier, 1985). A landmark conrt decision: Lan v. Nichols (1974) Wit h the passage of the 1968 Bilingual Education Act, the U.S. Government endorsed b i lingual education as a means of assisting minority language children in attaining equality of educational opportunity. However, it was not until after the Supreme Court decision in the Lau v. Nichols case in 1974 that bilingual programs expanded across the nation. In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that 1800 Chinese students in San Francisco were not being provided an equal educational opportunity compared with their English-speaking peers.There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education. Basic English skills are at the core of what public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the education program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education . We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful. (quoted in Ovando & Collier, 1985, p . 34) Although Lau v . Nichols did not have a direct and immediate impact on the growth of the bilingual education movement, the decision legitimated and gave impetus to the movement for equal educational opportunities for students who do not speak English. Moreover, the case raised the nation's consciousness of the need for bilingual education, encouraged additional federal legislation, energized federal enforcement efforts, led to federal funding of nine regional 'general assistance Lau centers,' aided the passage of state laws mandating bilingual education, and spawned more lawsuits. (Teitelbaum & Hiller, 1977 , p. 139)

PAGE 36

The Lau decision was later translated into federal policy when the U.S. Office of Education r ecruited a group of experts to develop informal policy guidelines for school districts judged to be out of compliance with Title VI and the Lau decision. In their document, commonly called the "Lau Remedies," school boards were directed to identify students with a primary or home language other than English and to assess their relative proficiency in English and their native language (Hakuta, 1986). 23 In sum , in the previous discussion two of the more important judicial rulings related to language minority students have been highlighted. These decisions have promoted major changes at federal, state, and local levels with regard to provision of educational services to students who do not speak English. At present, school systems are obliged to identify alllimited-English-proficient students by language and national origin and to state the kinds o f services they are providing for these students. Schools are now providing at least classes of English for speakers of other languages, rather than merely offering a sink or-swim approach to language learning for language minority students. Bilingual programs are being implemented in many states in a wide variety of languages and programs designs. Funding is a lso available for inservice programs for teachers and administrators and also for researc h efforts. Educationa l Programs for Language Minoritv Students Ed u cational programs for language minority children have taken on a variety of forms. Based on the assessment of different variables, several typologies have been proposed (August & Garcia, 1988; Grosjean, 1982; Mackey, 1970; Ovando & Collier, 1985; Ram ir ez, 1985). The result has been a broad and, at times, confusing variety of program models and terms. For example, Grosjean (1982) limited his discussion to two types o f programs: those that lead to lingu i stic and cultural assimilation and those that lead to linguistic and cultural diversification. August and Garcia (1988) distinguished two

PAGE 37

24 main categories of educational programs: additive and substractive. On the one hand, additive pro gram developers utilize the students' native language and enhance their ability to utilize that language along with English . Substractive program developers, on the other hand, mayor may not use the students' language and serve to enhance English without regard for th e development of their native language. The subsequent program descriptions appear to be most widely accepted by the community of practitioners and researchers. They are b a sed on a typology suggested by Ovando and Collier (1985). Transition a l bilingual education In t hese programs, the native language is used as a bridge to the total submersion of the student in English. Native-language instruction is provided to avoid loss of grade-leve l skills whil e mastery of second language is taking place. As soon as students are considered proficient enough in English to work academically in all English classes, they are moved from the bilingual program into monolingual classes with English-speaking students. One major problem associated with this type of program is that transitional classes tend to be perceived, by regular staff and students, as a lower track for slow students. I t is, at times, seen as a type of segregated, remedial, or compensatory program. Maintenance bilingual education Wit hin this model, there is less emphasis in exiting students from the program a s soon as possible. Students in bilingual classes receive content area instruction in both languages f or as many years as the school system can provide the service. The most important concern in these types of programs is that students receive a solid academic curriculum with support for reaching full English-language proficiency without negating their first l a nguage in the process.

PAGE 38

25 Two-way enrichment bilingu a l education Two-way progr a ms have an integrated model in which speakers of both languages are placed together in a bilingual classroom to learn each others' language and work academically in both languages . This approach can function as an effective means of teaching a second language to native-English-speakers as well as providing an integrated class for language minority students. It is the only model which places both groups at the same starting point and thus sensitizes English speakers to the complex process of learning a second language . In Canada, for example, French-speaking and English-speaking students attend the same program where half of the instruction is given in French and the other half in English (August & Garcia, 1988). For French-speaking students, special attention is paid to developing the native language while acquiring English. For students whose native language is English, particular attention is given to developing the second language. Immersion bilingual education These programs are used extensively in Canada but have not yet been tried extensively in the United States. In Canadian programs, emphasis in the early grades is placed on French for native English speakers or on English for French native speakers. Students enter kindergarten or fIrst-grade classes that are conducted by monolingual French-speaking teachers in the fIrst case or by monolingual English-speaking teachers in the second case. This early immersion into a second language is kept rather exclusive until the second or third grade, when fIrst language instruction in the form of a language arts program is introduced for one period per day. By sixth grade, however, both languages share near instructional parity.

PAGE 39

26 Stmctured immersion education In this model language minority students receive instmction totally in an ESL fonnat, with native language tutoring support as needed during the fIrst year or two. Teachers in such a program are bilingual and accept students' responses in first language but respond only in English. Ovando and Collier (1985) suggested that this model is very similar to many transitional bilingual and ESL-only programs but has just been given a new label. English as a second language (ESL) or English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) In these programs linguistic ability differences between student's native language and English are acknowledged. The method of teaching English does not focus on language per se in a traditional, direct instmction mode. Rather, the approach is "hands on," interactive, and experiential. As students become more proficient in English, they are gradually "immersed" in regular classes with native English speakers. Originally ESL programs were developed as an integral component of transitional , maintenance, and two way bilingual education. In these instances, ESL instmction included English taught from a second language point of view in language arts classes and content-area instmction in English, provided at students' level of English proficiency. In the last years, a variety of ESL-only programs has been developed in public schools to meet the needs of international students who do not share a common language. These ESL-only programs may function as pullout programs in which students receive from one hour to a half a day of instmction in separated centers or classrooms. Some school districts have all-day or half day intensive ESL classes which introduce content-area subjects at the level of the student's English proficiency. These special ESL classes may be called High-Intensity Language Training (HILT), ESL clusters, or alternative ESL programs.

PAGE 40

27 The above outline has shown some of the most common program models for teaching English in the United States. Although programs that serve language minority students have the same goal for helping children acquire the necessary English proficiency to succeed in school , it is clear that there are major differences in the manner in which they incorpora t e the native language of the student. To illu s trate how one broad educational goal (i .e., second l anguage teaching and learning) is translated into different program models , two disti nct programs will be briefly discussed . The purpose of this discussion is to demonstr a te how a series of contextual factors need to be accounted for when analyzing diverse second language educational programs . A lt hough an i mmersion program for Cambodian refugee children and a French foreign language program for English-speaking students both include teaching and learning a second l anguage, there might be fundamental differences at several levels. On the one hand, the program for Cambodian children might follow a sink -or swim approach where students are "submersed" all day in a classroom with monolingual English speaking students and teachers without a native-language support or appropriate second l anguage instructio n . The French program, on the other hand, might include 45 minutes of daily instructio n in French to English-speaking students in order to enhance their education. Thus, differences between these two programs in terms o f language of instruction, populatio n s served, and program models appear more clearly. Furthermore, and in rel a tion to federal and state legislations, both programs might be treated rather differently. For example, while the p r ogram for Cambodian students might be considered as "remedial," the other one may be part of an "enrichment" school program . Thus, taking into account a variety of contextual factors such as the type of population served, languages taught, certification requirements for teachers, instructional approaches, federal and s t ate legislatio n s, among others, is a sine qua non when discussing, analyzing, and designing second la n guage educational programs .

PAGE 41

Alternative Perspectives on the Studv of Second Language Teaching and Learning 28 The literature on second language teaching and learning is abundant. Over the past two decades findings from empirical studies in second language acquisition have provided a great deal of detailed information on the development of grammatical skills. Yet, questions a bout the interactive processes of teaching and learning and of the particularities of the con t ext remain largely unanswered. The following discussion of different perspectives in the study of second language teaching and learning includes a small sample of the myriad of issues found in the literature. Different concepts and issues were selected on the bas i s of their relevance for the purposes of this study. Although teaching and learning a second language are generally treated as separated areas of research, in this review they will be integrated. The main reason to do so is the underlying belief that teaching and learning are integrally related. Teaching and learning a second language are not uniform and predictable phenomena. There is no single way in which learners acquire a knowledge of a second language nor "one-Tight-way" to teach it. Teaching and learning a second language involves many factors pertaining to the social settings in which language programs are conducted , instructional processes, and the learners themselves. It is important, therefore, to start by r ecognizing the complexity and diversity that results from the interaction of these three sets of factors. Different learners in different settings and situations learn a second language in different manners. First and Second Language Acquisition The history of second language (L2) acquisition research has developed as an echo to research in first language (LI) acquisition. Traditionally, the inclination in second language acquisition research has been to understand the process of first language acquisition in monolingual children before trying to understand second language acquisition , and to understand both of these before trying to understand second language

PAGE 42

acquisition in bilingual education classrooms (Hakuta, 1986). It is not surprising that, at present, one of the major debates in the field of linguistics involves the extent to which second language acquisition (SLA) and first language acquisition are similar or different processes. 29 Researchers on the recently emerging field of L2 research have tended to follow the footsteps of L1 acquisition researchers, both in methodology and in many of the issues treated. Although this body of research has grown considerably in the last decades, "very little is known about how learners develop a knowledge of a second language in the classroom" (Ellis, 1984, p. 5). In his book, Classroom Second Language Development (1984), Ellis stated two major reasons to explain the low number of studies in this area: First, second language learning has been looked at as a direct result of what is taught. That is, learning a second language is viewed as more successful and at a faster rate when the teaching content is optimally ordered and optimally taught. Thus, discussions regarding second language learning have generally focused on issues such as what to include in the language teaching syllabi. As a result, little consideration has been given to the processes of how learning a second language takes place in the classroom setting. One reason that research on L2 learning in classrooms has been neglected, then, is of the belief that linguistics could simply specify what teachers should teach, and that learning would automatically follow. The second major reason that research on L2 learning in classrooms has been neglected has to do with the recent history of language acquisition theory and research (Ellis, 198 4). The influence of behavioristic approaches, so in vogue until the 1960s, led to the belief that learning a second language was a result of stimulus-response links that were developed through imitation, practice, and reinforcement. The processes of learning a second language in classroom settings was "treated as a known factor, despite the fact that there had been hardly any empirical study of language development in classrooms" (Ellis, 1984, p. 6 ) . It was not until the publication of Chomsky'S (1959) critical review of

PAGE 43

30 Skinner's Verbal Behavior, that the behavioristic view of language acquisition was seriously questioned and a new approach suggested. Chomsky ' s main argument was that behavioral psychology could not hope to account for linguistic behavior, especially given the creativ i ty involved in generating new words. The creative aspects of language development implied that the human mind had a "language acquisition device" involved in deep processing of meaning and was not simply producing strings of learned responses to a particular set of stimuli. Chomsky argued that the child comes equipped with a "language acquisition device" which is mainly constituted by a set of very general rules which can be found in a ll languages. This new approach generated an increase in the number of studies on second l anguage learning as researchers set about to identify and describe the immutable order of these sets of innate universal rules. However, because this cognitive perspective held the as s umption that language is acquired by the organism in a context independent fashion, research was mainly done in university and language laboratories and not in classrooms. It is not surprising then, that although with Chomsky's revolution in linguistics th e number of studies on language acquisition increased, these empirical studies did not address the situated nature of acquiring a second language in educational settings. In sum , two arguments have been set forth to explain why this new mentalist approach r e sulted in a neglect of research in classroom L2 learning . On the one hand, processes of second language learning were assumed to follow the same footsteps of first language acquisition , and on the other hand, the learning environment was treated as having little influence on language acquisition . Linguistic competence vs. perfonnance An important distinction in the study of language acquisition is that between competenc e and performance. For Chomsky (1965), competence consisted of knowledge of the system of the language, including rules of grammar, vocabulary, and how linguistic elements can be combined to fonn acceptable sentences. Perfonnance , in contrast, refers to

PAGE 44

31 the comprehension and oral or written production of language. Although language acquisition theory has especially dealt with how competence is developed, the focus of research has been on the examination of learner's performance. In other words, because the rules internalized by the learner (competence) are not open to direct inspection, studies on both first and second language acquisition have looked at learners' production (performance). Hence, one of the major problems in second language acquisition research has been the extent to which linguistic competence can be inferred by examining performance. Acquisition versus learning Kr a shen (1982) suggested a model of second language learning whereby individuals may acquire a second language or they may learn it. Those who acquire a second language "pick up" the rules of the language subconsciously as they interact in communicative situations. Acquisition requires meaningful natural interaction in the new language while focusing on the content of the message rather than on the form. This type of learning is associated with how children learn their first language and with how adults learn L2 in informal settings. Learning a second language, in contrast, is a conscious process wh i ch involves learning the rules of language by studying and practicing those language rules. This learning-acquisition distinction has several implications that involve both research and practices of teaching and learning L2. As mentioned earlier, the focus of second language acquisition research has been until recently on the internalization of grammatic al rules and morphemes. L2 acquisition in the classroom was an extrapolation of the theory of second language acquisition in natural settings. Thus, teaching L2 in the classroom meant heJping students acquire the knowledge of morphemes and linguistic rules. Krashen's distinction questioned this traditional view by suggesting two ways of acquiring a second language and by emphasizing the differences between learning in the

PAGE 45

classroom as opposed to acquiring language in natural settings. Moreover, Krashen's model minimizes the influence of grammar while emphasizing the role of the communicative environment. 32 Implications of the learning-acquisition distinction also involve the way teaching and learni n g L2 need to be considered. For instance, young children acquire language naturally; t herefore, the environment in formal settings such as schools, should simulate natural envi ronments. Further, because adults and older children have developed more cognitive skills, they will most of the time acquire cognitively demanding aspec t s of L2 faster than younger children. Krashen's position is especially relevant in a foreign language class where the teacher may be the only model for the students' exposure to the L2. In ESOL, ESL, or bilingual classrooms, the situation is quite different. In these settings, st u dents are also acquiring the language outside of the formal classroom through interaction wi t h peers, older students, teachers, and staff in the school and through immersion in a second language environment. It follows, then, that in a setting such as an ESOL program, the need to control the structures introduced in class or to follow a rigid order of gra mmatical rules presented by the teacher , appears to be of secondary importance. Individual l earner factors Variations in the ways individuals acquire a second language are due to a multitude of factors, i ncluding age, cultural background, the strength of the native language, home language e n vironment, personality, attitude, and aptitude for learning a second language. With no doubt, no two learners learn a L2 in exactly the same way ( Hatch, Gough, & Peck, 1985 ; Wong-Fillmore, 1979; Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). Although there are a series of d ocumented cases of children who learn a language in a short period of time, they consti t ute exceptions to the nIle. There are tremendous variations across different children in t he r a te at which they l earn the second language, and the process is not a s

PAGE 46

33 painless as it is often assumed (Hakuta, 1986; Hatch, Gough, & Peck, 1985). In fact, it is not unusual to find in the same classroom considerable variations in how much learners can get out of the same exposure to English. Wong-Fillmore (1979) observed five Spanish speaking children playing with their English-speaking friends during one whole school year in order to discover the social processes that might be involved in learning a second language t hrough social interaction. Although all the second language speaking children attended the same academic activities and were at the same zero level of proficiency in English a t the beginning of the year, important differences in the level of English proficiency were not i ceable after three months. In this case, individual differences were mainly manifested in two ways: (a) how children were able to figure out ways of initiating social contacts with others, and (b) in the application of a variety of cognitive strategies to discover an d understand patterns and rules in the language. Whereas Wong-Fillmore's (1979) findings indicated that learner variables such as sociability, outgoingness, and talkativeness were characteristics associated with successful language learning, there are other variables to be considered. For example, in another study, Wong-Fill more (1982) found tha t none of these characteristics alone can be detenninant in the process of learning a second language. Other important factors include the kind of input learners have to work with, the persons available to interact with, and the kind of situation in which learners find themselves. The importance of these factors in second language learning will be considered in the next sections. These findings indicate that any language program designed to serve the needs of language minority students must have the flexibility to adjust to these large individual variations. Furthemlore, educators need to accept the fact that some students will require language i nstruction for relatively long periods of time. Others, for whom the individual and cultural factors contribute to optimal conditions for second-language learning, may e xit the progr a m rather early.

PAGE 47

34 Social settin2: factors Language learning is as much a social process as it is a cognitive one (Wong Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). It takes place in social settings that allow learners to come into contact with speakers of the target language and thus aid the teaching and learning processes. The study of social factors influencing the quality and quantity of exposure and opportunit i es to use the target language in language learning has focused primarily on two related aspects: (a) the study of input, that is the language addressed to the L2 learner either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner; and (b) the study of interaction, that is the discourse jointly constmcted by the learners and their interlocutors. The role of input A central role in SLA is the role played by input. Input constitutes the language to which the l earner is exposed, whether in the form of exposure in natural settings or formal instruction . It can be spoken or written. Input serves as the data which the learner must use to determine the rules of the target language. The role of input is of particular importance in learning a second language insofar as it relates to the different types of teaching and learning interactions in educational contexts. In other words, learners in ESOL programs need to hear and practice the language in order to learn it. Native speakers in a program, that is teachers, staff, and native-English speaking peers can he l p in the process by talking to the L2learner. Nevertheless, mere exposure to a second language is not enough to bring about learning of a second language. There is no agreement about what precisely constitutes optimal input. Practitioners have suggested that input, selected and graded accordingly to formal and logical criteria, constitutes an appropriate input (Ovando & Collier, 1985). Krashen (1982) suggested that the key to a cquisition is a source of L2 input which is understood, natural, interesting, and meaningfu l to the student, and is roughly one step beyond the student's present level of competence in L2. Language, in this view, works as input when it serves a genuine

PAGE 48

communicative function, and when the message that is being communicated can be understood from the context. I nteractio n 35 In v estigations of the relationship between interaction and second language learning have, again, followed the footsteps of fIrst language acquisition development. Two main topics in this area are relevant to this study: (a) characteristics of the interaction between a native-speaker and the learner; a nd (b) how interaction aids L2learning. Characteristics of the interaction between a native-speaker and the learner. When interactio n occurs between two conversational partners who do not share similar levels of proficienc y in the language, speakers often make adjustments in their speech in an apparent effort to be understood. Adjustments made by the more proficient, or native speaker have been refe rred to as "foreigner talk." This set of adjustments constitutes a special speech register th a t is comparable to "motherese"the set of adjustments made by caretakers when they talk t o young first language learners. In general terms, foreigner talk is characterized by an exaggerated enunciation, greater overall loudness, the use of full forms rather than contractio n s , reduction of inflections and a special lexicon (Hakuta , 1986; Wong-Fillmore, 1982; Won g-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). Another characteristic of the speech is a high proportion of topic-incorporation devices such as expansions, repetitions, clarifIcations and paraphrases and some topic simplifIcation. Nonetheless, native-speakers are not the only ones who adapt their speech. Learners a l so use a variety of strategies to maximize their potential for communicating in a second language. In fact, foreigner talk and learner talk share similar features. When there is a comm u nicative problem the solution is not sought separately by the native-speaker; rather it is sought jointly by the native speaker and the learner working together to establish and maint a in the dialogue_ What is important, therefore, is how agreement on meaning is negotiated . In order to study this negotiation it is necessary to look at the joint

PAGE 49

36 contributions of native-speaker and learner by considering the dialogue they construct or as Ellis (1984) stated: "it is through discourse analysis that the characteristics of nativespeaker-learner interaction can be established" (p. 91). The following exchange between two friends -a native speaker (NS) and a non native speaker (NNS) -from Schumann's 1975 transcripts, cited by Varonis and Gass (1986) shows how both speakers make adjustments in their speech in order to negotiate meaning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NS: NSS: NS: NSS: NS: NSS: NS: NSS: NS: NSS: NS: NSS: NS: NSS: NS: NSS: What's the movie tonight? I don't know. What was it last week? Yesterday? yeah. Em, ah, no me no, no looked, no? You didn't look at it? No, eh, eh, I look play . You play? No, I look play hockey? The game . You play hockey? You play the game? No! In the television. Uh huh? I'm looking one game. At a game, you looked at a game on television . What kind of a game? Hockey. Thi s dialogue exemplifies some of the characteristics of foreigner talk such as clarifications, confirmations, repetitions, and expansions. As seen in the above exchange, the native-speaker is not the only one who adapts his speech in an attempt to understand his non native speaker friend . The non-native speaker also makes adjustments in his language in order to facilitate communication. Line 3, in the above segment, shows how the native speaker changes his original question in order to continue the dialogue. However, the non native speaker either did not hear or did not understand his friend's previous question and seeks clarification. Again the native speaker changes his original question (line 5). The non native speaker attempts to give an answer (line 6). On line 7, the native speaker rephrases his friend's previous question in an attempt to clarify its meaning . This is followed by an answer and further

PAGE 50

37 expansion by the non-native speaker (line 8) which in turn is followed by another question from the n a tive speaker (line 9) . In the next exchanges both speakers attempt to clarify the misunders t anding which continues until the native speaker realizes that his friend watched a game on television (line 15). Thus, the dialogue is constructed by contributions of both participan t s, and by the negotiations of agreements on intended meanings. How interaction aids second language acquisition. Interaction can contribute to language d evelopment because it is the means by which the learner is able to "crack the code." As stated by Ellis (1984), "when a learner is interacting naturally with a fully competent speaker (or even another learner) he is trying to use language to accomplish actions. Linguistic knowledge, therefore, is a by-product of communicative competence" (p.95). When learners can infer what is meant even though the message contains linguistic items that are not yet part of their competence and when learners can use their speech to modify or supplement the linguistic knowledge already available, second language leaming is facilitated. In other words, learners acquire the principles and grammar of L2 when they feel the ne e d and desire to communicate. In a recently completed study of 40 children's first encounters with a second language, Saville Troike (1988) found that although toddlers were able to follow directions in L2, there was little indication that they understood the words that were being used. The children understood the situation and evidenced a well developed script for "follow the leader." This was graphically illustrated when one of the English speaking participants unconscio u sly scratched her ear while she was leading a group activity, not as part of the routine, b u t because it itched . All of the children and even some of the mothers followed suit. The children in Saville Troike ' s study were able to understand the situation because both physical and human surroundings were familiar to them, and the same kind of behaviors w ere expected on each occasion. In other words, meaning was inferred from highly con t extualized communicative events, that is, events which included participants

PAGE 51

who were familiar to the children, sequences of events that were recognizable, and knowledge of the norms of interaction. Input and interaction in classroom settings 38 Classrooms can be ideal settings for language learning because they bring together learner and speakers for extended periods of time, and because the participants have ample reason to communicate with one another (Wong-Fillmore & Valadez, 1986). Language use in classrooms is an important source of input for the learner, and if participants in these settings are motivated to interact, language learning can be increased. If instructional arrangements are carefully organized, language can serve two purposes: that of communication and for language learning as well. In an observational study of four bilingual kindergarten classrooms, Wong Fillmore (1982) found that the language used by teachers serves a double function: It conveys the subject matter to be learned, and it provides an important source of the input such students need in order to learn the school language. However, Wong-Fillmore pointed ou t that instructional language does not always work in this manner. Success in learning L2 occurred in (a) classes with high numbers of L2 learners in which the classroom organization was teacher-directed, and (b) classes with mixed L2 learners and native-speaking children, but with an open classroom organization. In contrast, little SLA took place i n (c) classes with high numbers of L2 learners but with an open organization, and (d) classes with mixed L2 learners and and native-speaking children but teacher oriented organization. Wong-Fillmore explained these results in terms of the type of input which was received in the different classrooms. In (a) the teacher served as the main source of input; and because there were high numbers of L2 learners, she was able to ensure that the input was comprehensible. In (b) the learners obtained negotiated input both from the teacher and also from the native speaking children. But in (c) the pupils did not receive much teacher input and tended to use the L1 when talking among themselves;

PAGE 52

39 and in (d) the teachers found it difficult to tailor their language to suit the L2 learners, so that little comprehensible input was available. Fillmore ' s study indicated that the r a te of second la n guage acquisition is, to a great deb'Tee, influenced by both the quantity and the quality of i nput as a function of the relative homogeneity or heterogenity in language among the learne rs. In the classroom, both the language of the teacher and the particular ways in which classroom interaction takes place have an important role in promoting second language learning. The manner in which second language programs (e.g., ESOL programs) are organized may influence the ways in which teachers and students communicate with one another . Similarly, language use in the program can have a major effect on the learning of language and academic skills necessary for success in school. Teacher-ta lk Re s earchers who have studied teacher-talk in classrooms have found that the special language used by the teacher when addressing L2 learners in the classroom shares a number of common characteristics with foreigner-talk. In Ellis' (1984) observations, teacher-talk was usually characterized by adjustments to both language form and language function. I n terms of formal adjustments, there is a systematic simplificat i on of teacher ' s utterances th at include lexical, phonological, and grammatical modifications. For example , in terms of lexical modific a tions, language teachers tend to use a restricted vocabulary size. In relation t o functional adjustments, Kramsch (1987) pointed out that second language teachers' s p eech is characterized by constant rephrasing, restating, echoing, acknowledging, generalizing, adding specifications, and gaining time to elicit responses. The follow i ng example, presented by Kramsch (1987), shows several of these characteris t ics in the interactional work of a secondary English teacher in Germany.

PAGE 53

Teacher: Student: Teacher: Student: Teacher: Does anybody know how we call this part of the dog [points to picture]? Can you see it? This part . Tail. Yes, it's the tail of the dog. And what is Toby doing with his tail? Can you see this? This part. He is waving with his tail. Well, he isn't waving -he is -well, the correct word is "he is wagging his tail." [Writes on blackboard: to wag his tail] So who can give me a definition of "to wag a tail?" What does a dog do if he wags a tail?--wags a tail? 40 Although i t is clear that the special language used by teachers when addressing L2 learners shares a number of common characteristics with foreigner talk (i.e., repetitions, expansions, clarifications, restatements), there are important differences in terms of social and communicative demands. Verbal exchanges in natural settings (see conversational segment between a native speaker and a non native speaker presented earlier) take place in situations in which the social distance between speakers is minimal and their respective power is s y mmetrically distributed (Kramsch, 1987). In other words, participants in natural settings have equal rights to the floor, choice of topics, and the allocation of turns. Th e dialogue in the example presented above is asymmetrical, not only because the teacher talks more than the students, but more importantly, because the teacher has contro l of the topic, turns, management, and direction of the conversation . These diffe r ences in terms of roles and participation between students and teachers in the classroom will be discussed more thoroughly in the following sections . In c onclusion, second language learning is both a social and a cognitive proGess. Students c a nnot learn a language without the help of the native speakers. In order to hear the langua g e and to use it, the environment must provide the opportunities for learners and speakers to interact, to communicate with each other. Different educational settings, such as the playground, lunchroom and gym, among others, offer opportunities to promote

PAGE 54

41 these interactions, although the place par excellence seems to be the classroom. Not all classrooms promote language learning, however. There must be a careful organization of the instruc t ional environment so that language serves not only the purposes of communication and instruction, but of language learning as well. That is, if in addition to the teacher, second language learners can interact with other students and other teachers who speak the target language, L2 learners will have more opportunity to interact and thus, more opportunities to practice and increase their knowledge of the L2. The intent in the previous discussion of issues in second language learning and teaching h a s been to critically review some important concepts and theoretical assumptions that serve t o better understand the processes of learning a second language. These same concepts, generated primarily from the perspective of psychology and linguistics, have influenced the educational treatment of language minority students. Furthermore, this brief review of the literature also provides a comparative backdrop against which it can be argued that the study of second language teaching and learning needs to go beyond understanding individual characteristics, mental processes, and psychological factors. In other words, research in this area needs to examine language learning in its situated contextsthat is in classroom and school environments, and in relation to cultural and societal factors that support or constrain opportunities for language learning. In the remainder of this chapter a different approach to the study of second language learning w i ll'be addressed; one that includes the study of language use in context. It will be demonstra ted that in order to understand what people talk, and what it means when they do, it is necessary to move beyond reliance on linguistics or psychology only. In order to understand the meaning of human communication in the full social context in which it takes place, a broad range of concepts from disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, literary criticism, and social psychology, among others, needs to be considered.

PAGE 55

42 A Sociolinguistic Approach to the Study of Langua\!e Use in the Classroom In t his last section an alternative approach to the study of second language learning will be considered. A brief discussion of the notion of communicative competence proposed by sociolinguists and ethnographers of communication will be presented. The discussion will be extended to include the application of communicative competence as it relates to the study of everyday life in educational settings. Finally, a set of constructs that provide a f r amework for understanding the nature of the classroom as a communicative environmen t and teaching and learning as linguistic processes will be presented. Selected constructs will then be reviewed and illustrated to demonstrate their relevance for the study of second l a nguage learning. In contrast to the literature on second language acquisition, which derives mainly from lingu i stics and cognitive psychology, is a body of work in which teaching and learning a second language are perceived rather differently. Gaining import in the last 20 years or so, this alternative perspective has been influenced by the work of Gumperz (1981,1982) and Hymes (1974,1981,1982). The models they propose have drawn scholars from fields such as anthropology, linguistics, education, sociology, sociolingui s tics, and communication on the nature of teaching and l earning processes. The focus of th i s work is on how people learn a language, learn through language use, and learn about a language in educational settings (Green, 1983). More specifically as indicated by Green (1983) Res e arch in this area is concerned with how language in the form of inte r actions between teachers and students, among peers, and between childre n and adults functions in classrooms, on playgrounds, at home, and in the community in support of the acquisition and development of other types of knowledge (e.g., academic content, social cognition, and know ledge of procedures for participation in ongoing events). (p. 168) Thus, in thi s study, the ethnographic perspective on language learning assumes t ha t language is learned through interaction with others. The focus is on language socialization rather than on acquisition. The substitution of socialization for acquisition places language

PAGE 56

learning within the more comprehensive domain of socialization -the lifelong process through which individuals are initiated into cultural meanings and learn to perform the activities, tasks, roles, and identities expected by whatever society or societies they may live in (Watson Gegeo, 1988). Communi c ative competence 43 The notion of communicative competence was originally proposed by sociolinguists to account for the fac t that, to be effective in everyday social settings, speakers and listeners depend on know l edge that goes beyond grammatical rules of phonology, syntax, and semantics (Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1982). For Hymes (1974) and others, language use is gov e rned by culturally, subculturally, and context-specific norms which constrain both choice of communicative options and interpretation of what is said. During the 1970s, the concept of communicative competence emerged as a response t o the Chomskyan definition of linguistic competence. At that time, the predominant theories in linguistics drew a sharp distinction between linguistic competence and performance. As mentioned earlier, these theorists saw competence as the mental representa t ion of linguistic rules which constitute the speaker-hearer's internalized grammar. Performance, on the other hand, was used to refer to the comprehension and productio n of language. A different appro a ch was suggested by sociolinguists and ethnographers o f communication. They applied the term competence to communication rather than to language a s such. By doing so these scholars made clear that variations in speech are rule governed a nd not completely random. These variations could be explained according to considerat i ons such as who is saying what to whom in what circumstances and under what conditions . Socioeconomic status of the listener and speaker, age, topic, context, and channel ar e other factors that intervene in the choice of codes, styles, or registers to be used. A response may be "correct" in a grammatical sense, but socially inappropriate when

PAGE 57

other factors are taken into consideration. Therefore, to communicate appropriately speakers need to have some kind of information about the setting, speaker, and situation. Knowledge of that code has been called communicative competence (Hymes, 1974). 44 Communicative competence, then, refers to all kinds of communicative knowledge that individual members of a cultural group need to acquire in order to interact with one another in ways that are both socially appropriate and strategically effective. Gumperz (1982) highlighted three aspects of communicative knowledge as particularly important: (a) knowledge of the shared set of implied assumptions about what are the proper and expectable ways for people to interact in different social occasions, (b) possession of the verbal and nonverbal performance skills necessary for producing communicative action that is appropriate and effective in a given situation, and (c) possession of the interpretative skills necessary to understand the communicative intentions of others within a given situation. What this suggests is that the communicative competence necessary to participate in face-to-face interaction with others is an extremely complex package of knowledge and skills. This shared knowledge varies from one group to the next and applies not only among large groups, such as ethnic groups, social classes, or nations, but also among smaller groups such as families, classrooms, and neighborhoods (Gumperz, 1982; Saville Troike, 1982; Shultz, Florio, & Erickson, 1982). Thus far, it has been mentioned that communicative competence is culturally based and varies from one group and social setting to another. The situated meaning of competence, then, depends on whatever the individual's practical knowledge is about how, when, and where to communicate and for what purposes. What is of interest in the study of schooling processes is not so much a matter of which students are more communic ati vely competent in the classroom than others? Likewise, questions about where students are most competent, in the playground or in their English classroom seem to be unimaginative. Rather, what is important to understand are the patterns of

PAGE 58

communicative competence shown by non-English speaking elementary snldents in a variety of school settings (e . g., homeroom classroom, playground, ESOL classroom). Once a series of patterns have been identified, it is possible to understand how these students gain communicative competence for participating and learning, both within and across the contexts of schooling. Language use in educational settings 45 Learning to use a language in social situations is the focus of the language and communicative development of school-age children (Wilkinson, 1982) . Research on teaching and learning processes has indicated that successful participation in classroom learning necessitates the acquisition of a set of social and linguistic rules required for that particular communication setting (e.g., how to successfully relate with teachers and others in order to gain access to knowledge; when and under what conditions a turn can be successfully negotiated; how to deal successfully with a particular assignment, etc.). Different contexts require understanding of different "rules" for appropriate social participation. For instance, what is required of people as they shop in a grocery store, attend an a t hletic event, or a church service are each different from what is required for participating in a classroom. Students differ in their communicative competence, particularly in terms of the different phases and activities that are part of everyday life in their classroom. Not all students are able to learn the characteristics of classroom interaction as soon as t hey arrive. For some students, it might be a long and unfruitful process. Hence, inadequate learning of the rules and expectations that govern classroom activities can affect their academic performance and their overall adjustment to school (Bloome, 1987; Cazden, 1986; Green & Weade, 1988; Wallat & Green, 1979; Weade & Green, 1989). Thus, the notion of communicative competence seems particularly relevant to the educational arena. Work in this area has questioned the standard language bias that in the

PAGE 59

46 past has shaped most research in education . For example, it has demonstrated that minority groups who do not do well in school had access to consistent traditions and value systems of their own (Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1982) . Furthermore, researchers in this tradition argue that differences in language use, learning styles, and cultural behaviors should not be analyzed in terms of deficits. Rather, they should be seen as instances of variability. An example presented by Gumperz (1981), illustrates the value of this approach in revealing previously unnoticed features of communication that affect classroom learning. The example involves a reading lesson in which children seated in an informal group arrangement are successively called on to read sentences in a story. At one point a Black child fails to make a phonetic distinction between the vowels in pen and pin . The teacher, who had recently attended a lecture on Black dialect had learned that (a) failure to make this distinction is a feature of the dialect of many low-reading Black children, and (b) proper pronunciation is a precondition to reading. Thus, the teacher writes the two words on the board and asks the child to pronounce the two words. When the child does not make a distinction, the teacher removes him from the group and asks him to join another low reader i n the corner of the room, telling him to practice his letters. After some minutes, the two children in the corner took a reading game and started to work enthusiastically, making considerable noise, whereupon the teacher asked them to stop playing and start working. In his analysis, Gumperz noted that the failure to distinguish between pen and pin is characterist i c of 80 percent of the Black children and 40 percent of the Anglo children in California. He also highlighted that in the group there was an Anglo child, also unable to distinguish between the two vowels, but perhaps because of the association of ethnicity with the phonetic feature involved, the teacher failed to notice this. In any case, Gumperz suggested that the child who was asked to leave the group probably understood the reason for his being singled out as discriminatory. It is important to mention that although the

PAGE 60

47 teacher was aware of language differences among different cultural groups, the actions taken to help the child learn his letters were unsuccessful. By focusing on a reading group event in light of a larger framework, it is possible to answer questions such as: (a) what are the assumptions participants hold about rules and expectations for participating? (b) what are the verbal and nonverbal skills required to appropriately participate in the reading group? and (c) what are the frames of references provided by a reading activity that enables students and teacher to understand what needs to be done, when, where, with whom, and how? Assumptions and constructs In the last decades, researchers from a sociolinguistic perspective have explored everyday life in the classroom. Their goal is to investigate and understand the social and academic demands for participation and learning from the point of view of the participants. In other words, researchers in this field seek to understand what students and teachers in a classroom need to know, understand, produce, predict, and evaluate in order to participate appropriately and gain access to learning (Green & Weade, 1987; Weade & Green, 1989). In order to gain an understanding of the social and academic demands for learning from the perspective of the participants, researchers in this area use analytic approaches such as conversational analysis, discourse analysis, ethnography of communication, and sociolinguistics to explore the nature of everyday life in classrooms. In the area of literacy, for example, researchers using this approach have explored issues such as how literacy defines the community and how the conununity defines literacy (Green & Weade, 1987; Heath, 1983; Moll & Diaz, 1987; Philips, 1983); how instruction defines literacy events (BIoome, 1987; Delgado-Gaitan, 1989; Edelsky, 1989; Golden, 1988); the meaning of teacher-student-text interactions (Barr, 1987; Golden, 1988). Another area ofresearch has focused on the ways in which language use of children and teachers can contribute to children's acquisition of both social and academic skills (Cazden 1986; Green and Wallat,

PAGE 61

1981; Trueba, Guthrie, & Au, 1981). When this work (in addition to other studies following this same perspective on language use) is considered collectively, a set of constructs or assumptions about the nature of everyday life in the classroom can be extracted that contribute to define the nature of classrooms as communicative settings. Green and Weade (1987) indicated that these constructs provide a framework for understanding the nature of the classroom as a communicative environment and teaching and learning as linguistic processes. These constructs also form the basis of a language that can describe unfolding educational events and tasks; identify the regularities and routines in educational settings and tasks; explore multiple levels of classroom context; and examine ways in which social and academic context of lessons influence what occurs and what is learned. In addition, these constructs lay the foundation for understanding how this perspective differs from other approaches to the study of classroom processes. (p. 5) 48 Table 2.1 presents a synthesis of the main categories of constructs that define and guide this body ofresearch. They have been identified by Green (1983) in a review of the studies funded by National Institute of Education in 1978. This set of constructs represent the assumptions that underlie the present study. In Green's synthesis of ten studies that focus on teaching as a linguistic process, eight were done in basically monolingual school settings and two in educational settings dealing with more than one language. The grouping o f constructs in clusters in Table 2.1, although useful in demonstrating the diversity of constructs, is not meant to be an all-inclusive list. Rather, this list is meant to be representative of assumptions that were held in common across the different studies reviewed by Green (1983). Their usefulness in understanding classroom processes has been highlighted by other researchers (BIoome, 1987; BIoome & Theodorou, 1988; Cazden, 1986; Green & Weade, 1987; Green, Weade, & Graham, 1988) . The discussion that follows is organized around these constructs as they relate to studies of cultural and language differences in educational settings. Classrooms are communicative environments. Everyday activities in the classroom are organized around different kinds of situations and events. Throughout the school day,

PAGE 62

TABLE 2.1 Constructs Underlying the Study of Classroom Processes from a Sociolinguistic Perspective 1. Classrooms are communicative environments Differentiation of roles exist betweeen teachers and students; relationships are assymetrical Classrooms are differentiated conununication environments Lessons are differentiated conununicative environments Conununicative participation affects student achievement 2. Teachers orchestrate different levels of participation Class Group Individual Teachers evaluate student ability from observing performance during interactions Demands for participation co-occur with academic demands Teachers signal their theory of pedagogy from their behaviors Teachers' goals can be inferred from behaviors 3. Students are active participants in learning environments 49 Students acquire understandings of demands for participation by participating and by observing participation of others Peer groups may mediate the individual's participation Student verbal and nonverbal participation influences the teacher's and other students' evaluations of student performance and ability Mis-match between student and teacher interaction styles can lead to frame clashes and to inaccurate assessment of student performance, learning and growth 4. Learning materials introduce an overt stmcture of their own 5 . Face-to-face interaction is a rule-governed phenomenon Ru l es or norms for behavior are constructed as part of academic and social interactions in classrooms Ru l es of conversational participation are learned through interaction Ru l es of conversational participation are culturally determined 6. Contexts are constructed during interactions Activities have participation structures Contextualization cues signal meaning Rules for participation are implicit Behavior expectations are constructed as part of interactions 7. Meaning is context specific All instances of a behavior are not equal Meaning is signaled verbally and nonverbally Contexts constrain meaning Meaning is determined by and extracted from observed sequences of behavior Conununicative competence is reflected in appropriate behavior (Continued)

PAGE 63

Table 2.1--Continued 8. Inferencing is required for conversational comprehension Frames of reference guide participation of individuals Frame clashes result from differences in perception Communication is a rule governed activity Frames of reference are developed over time Form and function in speech used in conversations do not always match Source: "Research on Teaching as a Linguistic Process: A State of the Art" by Judith L. Green, 1983. students move from one activity to another and also from one setting to another. These so different situations (e.g . , opening morning activities, letter writing, reading circles, show and tell, tests, etc.) represent different types of communicative events undertaken for communic a tive purposes . The kind of competence required to participate in these different events is specific, although it may share some general characteristics with communicative competencies in contexts such as the neighborhood. However, classroom communication differs from other types of communicative events because of the goals and demands that are involved and the conversational inferences required for appropriate participation. Perhaps one of the most obvious features that differentiates the classroom, and indeed educational settings in general, from other communicative environments is the differentiation of roles between teachers and students. As mentioned earlier when referring to teacher talk, students and teachers have an unequal status. Cazden (1986) pointed out that one salient characteristic of communication in the classroom is the concern of one of the participants, that is the teacher, to control the behavior and talk of others. By the same token, Kramsch (1987) indicated that second language teachers in their classrooms talk more than their students and have control of the topic, turns, management and direction of the activities. Green and

PAGE 64

51 Weade (1988) argued that in classrooms questions are not only asked to find information or to check students' knowledge. Questions can also be forms of conversational management. These authors mentioned how, after an in-depth examination of a lesson, i t was clear that the teacher used questions not only to check for academic knowledge but as a form of conversational management. The teacher in this account often asked questions that appeared t o have no academic purpose after a long sequence of interaction with a particular segment of the text. These questions serve to re establish group participation in an indirect manner and therefore serve social purposes. Green and Weade (1988) also indicated tha t in classrooms, students see questions as providing information, as testing, and as "not real." In contexts other than educational settings (i.e., bus station, grocery store, newspaper stand, etc.), the role of participants is not necessarily as asymmetrical as in the classroom. Issues of who controls tum-taking, topic, and behaviors are more the result of negotiations t han of an assumed differentiation of roles. In these settings, the function o f questioning is not to serve academic and social purposes to the same extent as in the classroom, but mostly to obtain information. Teachers orchestrate different levels of participation. Within lessons, teachers no t only present academic content but must also orchestrate the structure of the activities, distribute turns to speak, and maintain order and flow of activity. From this perspective, teachers must, therefore, simultaneously organize academic content, management, and discipline aspects of lessons. Communication is the main vehicle through which this organization is created. Green (1983) suggested that by observing teachers' actions as they work w i th others, students can figure out the expectations for their behavior. These expectations are closely related to both teachers' perceptions of the situation and the teachers' expectations for performance. Furthermore, perceptions and expectations are indicative of the teacher ' s goals for t h e situation and of the teacher ' s theory of pedagogy. This was demonstrated in a

PAGE 65

recent study set out to discover how the classroom literacy instruction was organized in a bilingual e l ementary program (Delgado Gaitan, 1989). The study 52 revealed the differential treatment of students depending on their reading ability group . On the surface, children appeared to receive similar types of instruction. However, a close examination of student-teacher interactions and students' written works indicated that the teacher evaluated the writing acts differently for low and high groups. Students in high groups had the opportunity to express their higher thinking skills; whereas, children in the lower group were expected to give factual responses based on the text. How teachers organize instruction has to do with their assumptions about teaching and learning. In the above bilingual program, one strategy to help students learn was establishing reading groups according to students' abilities. Setting ability groups is not unusual since it has become an important pan of the organization of classrooms, panicularly in the early years of schooling. The rationale behind the division of children in terms of ability is that it allows instruction to be tailored to the students' aptitudes and needs. For Collins (1983), this practice represents a very inflexible classifying procedure that allows little movement into or out of the groups, once ability status has been assigned. The Delgado Gaitan (1989) example, presented above, indicated that low-ability students are given different instruction than their counterparts in the higher groups. The differential treatment by group is due, in part, to the teacher's expectations, but also to the organization of the activ i ty. The way teachers perceive a situation such as reading groups, and the expectations they hold for their students, are manifested in the different classroom arrangements. These arrangements, in tum, reflect a way of thinking about teaching and learning. Thus, by observing how the learning context is organized it is possible to identify situations like this one in which the actions of the teacher differ radically for students classified in different ways and, in turn, influence students' chances for success in schooL

PAGE 66

53 Students are active participants in learning environments. Within this cluster of consuucts (see Table 2.1 ) , the cultural differences explanation needs to be highlighted. Anthropo l ogists and linguists have proposed the notion that subtle cultural differences between the school and the home led to interactional difficulties, misunderstanding, and negative perceptions between teachers and students in the school environment. The differences lie mainly in implicit assumptions about how to appropriately participate in face to-face interactions. The work of Mehan (1979) follows this line of thought. Mehan' s examination of question-answer sequences, in school lessons, indicated the tremendous complexity involved in managing such conversations. His detailed analysis suggested the possibility of miscommunication due to different cultural expectations for the "fine tuning" required for classroom communication. Moreover, other aspects of interaction patterns, that differed between home and school, were identified. These factors seem to be related to the ethnicity, r ace, and social class of students. Children can act in ways that are judged appropriate at home, y et they may be seen as inappropriate by the classroom teacher. In t he last decade, work in this area has increasingly included observations both a t home and at school. One of the first studies in this area was that of Philips (1983) who studied N a tive American Indian children in classroom situations and in their homes. As reported e ar lier, Philips identified one possible source of school failure for the children i n the Warm Springs reservation -their apparently minimal talk during classroom lessons . However, a close examination of the children ' s interactional styles both at home and at school made clear the difference in the social demands required for each setting. Philips noted that the social conditions that define when a person uses speech in Indian situations are presen t in classroom situations in which Indian students use speech a great deal, and absent in t h e more prevalent situations in which they fail to participate verbally. Her findings are supported by several other studies where learning or failure to learn h a ve been attributed to discontinuities between the participant suuctures of the home and community

PAGE 67

and those of the school (Au & Jordan, 1981; Boggs, 1985; Erickson & Mohatt, 1981; Gumperz, 1981; Heath, 1983; Shultz, Florio, & Erickson, 1982). 54 Learning materia1s introduce an overt structure of their own. In educational settings learning materials contribute to the content of the talk between participants. As suggested by Barr (1987), teachers do not create instruction from scratch. The conditions of the class such as the students and their competencies, the instructional time available, and the curricular materials contribute both opportunities and limitations within which teachers and students work. Although teachers using the same materials will show variations in terms of time allocated to different sections, emphasis on concepts and their interpretation of the content, Barr (1987) indicated that teachers tend to adhere very closely to the content and sequence of their textbooks. Delgado-Gaitan (1989) provided an example of the different expectations between one teacher of Mexican descent and Mexican students in terms of a workbook exercise. In this case, the second grade teacher assigned a workbook lesson after a group discussion of one story. The task was to tell how the chicken was important to the story. Students' responses were generally typical of the way they usually answered workbook questions. That is, in this classroom, students generally try to address the question with facts and then add a personal anecdote or feeling. One student's answer was as follows: La gallina era [como] oro porque les acia [hacia] compania y cuando la mataron estaban triste. Mis gallinas en Mejico eran mis amigas tambien por eso mi [me] gusto esta gallina hasta que la mataron. The chicken was like gold to them because it kept them company and when they killed it they were lonely. My chickens in Mexico were my friends too tha t is why I liked this chicken until they killed her. (p. 292) The teacher wrote "wrong" on the student's paper, with no other comments. DelgadoGaitan mentioned that the teacher explained that students needed to learn to answer the question asked in the textbook, and that she was not going to accept anything less. Her evaluation, thus, reflected her belief that there was only one correct answer--the one that appeared in the teacher's manual. The student, however, appeared to be responding

PAGE 68

55 personally to the question since he related the subject of the story to his own personal experience. In this case, it is clear that there was a difference of interpretation as to what the question allowed. The teacher expected to get answers similar to those in the teacher ' s manual; whereas students often included aspects of their previous experience when answering the question. As in this case where the teacher limits students' responses following the content of the teacher's manual, it is possible that some teachers use textbooks , handbooks, and teacher's manuals as general guidelines . At any rate, whether teachers closely adhere to the content and sequence of curricular materials or not, instructional materials appear to be central components in teaching and learning processes. Face-to-face interaction between teacher and students and among students is governed bv context specific nlles. That is, expectations for performance are culturally determined and guide participation and constrain the options for what will or can occur. The communicative competence required to participate in face-to face interaction with others involves a variety of social and communicative knowledge and skills. Se v eral studies focusing on literacy skills development and participation in literacy events of members of ethnic minority and language minority communities, have provided evidence that individuals must not only learn structural features of a language, but also expectations about how to participate effectively in situations demanding the use of literacy. Examples of relevant studies include the work of Au and Jordan (1981) on the reading behavior o f Hawaiian children; Heath (1983), compruing literacy practices in southern black and white working class communities; and the research of Delgado-Gaitan (1989) on classroom l iteracy activities for Spanish-speaking students. The Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP) for low achieving Hawaiian children is one of the best examples of such a work (Au & Jordan, 1981; Boggs, 1985) . KEEP has des i gned a successful reading program described by Cazden (1986) as "a hybrid of home and school participation structures, and its also an example of the principle of

PAGE 69

simplifying the participation structure in order to enhance children's attention to the academic t a sk" (pp. 445 446). 56 At t he t ime of t he inception of KEEP in the early 1970s, one of the most popular explanatio n s among educators for the failure of Hawaiian children to learn to read was that they were u nmotivated; that is, they and their parents were uninterested in educational matters (A u & Jordan, 1981). KEEP approached the problem from a different perspective. Previous research on adult Hawaiian's storytelling had led to the identification of certain patterns of i nterac t ion which included active audience participation in storytelling. In other words, participants' styles and mode for interaction in this event were characteristic of Hawaiians' extended oral culture and history. Based on this knowledge, investigators discovered th at conducting part of the reading lessons at school in a manner that resembled storytelling in community environments, facilitated children's participation in reading lessons. For instance, before reading a story, children actively discuss the possible topic and content. Like storytelling in the community, the event includes interruptions, contributio n s, and comments, and there is little control by the main story teller, that is the teacher. Thus, KEEP's approach allows children to rely on familiar communicative styles , while at the same time f amiliarizing them with academic activities. In terms of language use, pidgin E nglish is accepted during the discussion that precedes the story. However, because chi l dren are exposed to standard English in the materials they read or in what they hear being r e ad by their teachers, they are also able to succeed in academic activit i es that demand a mastery of standard English. The success of KEEP can be succinctly explained in terms of the nature of face to face interaction. As a result of exploratory studies done by the KEEP multidisciplinary team, changes in modes of interaction during reading sessions were suggested. When children we r e allowed to use overlapping speech (characteristic of storytelling events in the community ) while discussing stories in small reading groups, their mastery in reading increased.

PAGE 70

57 Contexts are constructed duri n!! interactions. In the same way in which conversations are constructed by the actions of participants, contexts are constructed by people as t hey engage in face-to face interactions (Green, 1983). Activities have participation structures, with rights and obligations for participation. Many of the rules for participation are implicit, conveyed, and learned through interaction. However, it is important to note that some activities can become routines and therefore behaviors might be somewhat limited and predictable . For example, in one of the ESOL classrooms in this study, students have "game day" on Flidays. Children are aware that every Friday at a particular t ime and in a particular setting, they can play with games. In this case, the overall structure (time, place, and activity) generally remains the same. What students do not know, when they first arrive, is the kind of game they are going to play, with whom, for how long, and what type of actions will be required. On some occasions, students corne on Friday ready to playa particular game, but the teacher has selected a different game, one related to the main theme of the week. Although students at fIrst may express disappointment or may try to negotiate with the teacher the right of choosing a game, at the end, they generally accept the game, and even enjoy it. Thus, in this case, there is general agreement of what the main activity will be (games), but then, the students and the teacher have to negotiate particular aspects of the activity. Continuing with this example, while some students communicate that they do not want to play with the game chosen by the teacher, the teacher reminds them of the rules and/or poses an argument to convince them. Thus, students and teacher have to constantly establish, negotiate, and re-establish the structure of the activity and the rules for participation. Stated differently, in teaching and learning situations, it i s clear that participants must constantly monitor what is occurring in order to gain access to information, to present the information in meaningful ways, and to participate in, or conduct, activities (Green, Weade, & Graham, 1988). The notion of contexts as constructed by participants is particularly important in analyses that focus on language use in educational settings. Starting from the activity as a

PAGE 71

58 whole, the analytic task is to detennine the junctures between phases of the activity, the cues that mark the junctures, and the participation structure in each phase (Cazden, 1986). By studying activities such as whole group meetings or short events such as how two stude n ts make decisions about who will fIrst use the computer, it is possible to learn about the importance of nonverbal as well as verbal cues, demands on children's interaction al competence, a relationship between participation structure and the academic content of a lesson, and evidence for the ways in which activities are constructed by the joint contributions of the participants. Meaning is context specific. All instances of a behavior are not functionally equivalent , and s i ngle messages can serve multiple functions. Thus, conversations are constraine d by the definitions people construct for what is occurring, by the particular history tha t evolves during a conversation, and by the rules of conversational participation and disco u rse processes (Green, 1983). In other words, the meanings of teacher's and students' messages are interpreted in relation to the social and communicative context constructe d through face-to-face i nteractions. The interpretation of activities, tasks, messages, and nonverbal signals will depend on the social and communicative context created. The degree of similarity between the teacher's and student's interpretations is related to t h e degree of shared understanding of the communicative context, and can be inferred on the basis of how participation evolves. An interesting account presented by Saville Troike (1988) illustrates how meaning is detennined and extracted from the context. The example, reported earlier in this chapter, involved a group of toddlers who were able to follow directions in their second language even though they were not able to understand the words being used. This was demonstrat e d by an incident in which the leader scratched her ear and the children as well as some of t he adults did the same motion , even though it was not an expected response. In this case , the context--that is, that participants were supposed to be following directions

PAGE 72

--was pro v iding the meaning, even though the leader's words and actions (i.e., ear scratching) did not necessarily match with the intended meaning. 59 In f erencing is required for conversational comprehension. Students ' and teachers ' comprehe n sion of classroom activities, tasks, behavior, and messages depends on the frame of r e ference brought into the classroom and modified within the classroom. In other words, understanding classroom events requires that participants process information across various channels (verbal and nonverbal) and within frames developed across timethrough participating in everyday school activities. A clear example of how meaning of a message d e pends on how it is delivered and on the situation in which it is delivered is presented b y Green and Weade (1987). They indic a ted that the meaning of "OK" can provide fee dback about the appropriateness of a message or action. It can also mean "Ge t ready; list e n": as in, "OK, now" expressed as a unit. It can also be said slowly while a person who is speaking, thinks about what to say next; this use can be interpreted as a place hold e r, meaning "Don't go away; I'm about to finish what I was saying." In all of these instances, the lexica l term is the same in form but the way it is delivered conveys a different meaning. To decide on which interpretation, participants must first make a preliminary interpretation, that is listen to speech, form a hypothesis about what routine i s enacted an d then rely on social background knowledge and co-occurrence expectations to evaluate w h at is being intended and what attitudes are being conveyed ( Gumperz, 1982) . To summarize , a diverse set of constructs have been presented and illustrated in light of specific applic a tions to the an a lysis of language use in educational settings. While not all-inclusive, this list is representative of the main premises that underlie the study of classroom p rocesses. Analysis of this list suggests two things. First, the constructs provide a f r an1ework for observing and exploring teaching and learning in educational settings as c ommunicative processes. Second, taken together, these constructs present educational settings as dynamic environments in which participants are constantly interacting , interpreting, negotiating, and monitoring a complex set of rules and

PAGE 73

expectations in order to participate in socially appropriate ways and to gain access to knowledge. Summary 60 In t he preceding discussion an account of the historical background, instructional practices and the use of language in the education of language minority students has been presented. It has been argued that the study of second language teaching and learning needs to go beyond understanding individual characteristics, mental processes, and psychological factors. That is, research on teaching and learning a second language needs to be examined within the conditions of a particular setting and framed in a larger societal context, one that includes culture . and environment. As background to the general argument, three main areas have been discussed. They include issues concerning (a) the historical context of the bilingual movement in the United Sta t es, (b) research on fIrst and second language acquisition, and (c) a sociolingu i stic approach in the study of language use in classroom settings . In the fIrst section, some of the salient social, political, and historical events surrounding the developments of instructional programs for language minority students were reviewed. This literature documents the tensions found in theory, research, practice, and policies related to the education of language minority students that can, indeed, be extended to second language learning in general. It should be noted that this is in no way a comprehensive review of the literature surrounding "the debate of bilingualism," paraphrasing Hakuta (1986). The literature that has been examined is that which pertains to issues at h a nd and relevant to the present study. In t he second section in this chapter, selected concepts and issues in the study of fIrst and second language acquisition were reviewed. The selection of these concepts reflects two central concerns . On the one hand, they are relevant to the purpose of the study in terms of their utility in studying classroom discourse and, hence , in understanding

PAGE 74

61 classroom processes. On the other hand, they illustrate how the field of second language teaching and learning has been, and somewhat still is, determined by approaches derived from cognitive psychology and linguistics. As a result of this emphasis on the individual and cognitive aspects involved in language learning, relevant social dimensions of language learning have seldom been considered and their importance has been underrepresented. Concepts such as performance, competence, acquisition, and learning have been discussed because they not only represent important concepts in linguistic theory and jargon, but mainly, because in some cases they represent points of departure for new approaches in the study of classroom discourse. This was shown in the case of the term, competen ce. As noted earlier, the concept of linguistic competence, coined by Chomsky (1965), re f ers to knowledge of the system of the language, including rules of grammar, vocabulary, and how linguistic elements can be combined to form acceptable sentences. Hymes' (1974, 1981) reaction to this limited, cognitive view of what was involved in human communication led to the creation of the term communicative competence to include knowledg e of sociolinguistic rules, or the appropriateness of an utterance, in addition to knowledg e of grammar. The discussion of the concept of communicative competence was used to introduce the study of language use in the final section of this chapter. In this section, an alternative approach to the study of second language learning was considered . In contrast with the focus on cognitive and individual aspects involved in second language teaching and learning, this emerging perspective focuses on how language in the form of interactions between teachers and students, among peers, and between children and adults functions in school set ti ngs in support of the acquisition and development of social and academic knowledge. In other words, within this perspective classrooms are considered as communicative environments and teaching and learning as lingui s tic processes. In order to understand how classrooms and school settings can be studied by observing communicative events, a set of constructs has been presented, some of which

PAGE 75

62 have been discussed at some length. The discussion emphasizes the theoretical and methodological importance of this work. This framework not only makes visible the ordinarily i nvisible social processes of everyday life in school environments, but also provides a systematic approach to the analysis of classroom processes grounded in principles from interactional sociolinguistics and the ethnography of communication. Furthermo r e, these constructs represent the main assumptions guiding the analysis of selected cl a ssroom events in this study. The discussion of these assumptions has been extended to include examples of their application in concrete educational situations. It h a s been argued, that, taken together, these constructs provide a conceptual framework within which to situate a more detailed analysis of communicative processes in language programs for minority students.

PAGE 76

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY I ntroduction In the fIrst section of this chapter a discussion of relevant aspects of the research perspective that underlies the investigation of the nature of second language teaching and learning i n an elementary ESOL program is presented. Because a central goal in this study is to document the daily happenings within an elementary ESOL program and the meaning of those h a ppenings from the pe r spectives of the participants, the study calls for a holistic approach t hat allows for a detailed study ofl meraction patterns , in light of a broader conte xt. Thus, an ethnographic approach is appropriate for the purposes of the present investigation. An overview of different ethnographic approaches is also included in this section. The second section begins with a review of the particular characteristics of the investigat i on in terms of theory and method. The use of two distinct but complementary data collection procedures in this study will be highlighted. I n the next section issues of method are considered. There is a section on entry and access, da t a collection, and a section on data analysis. Throughout the discussion it will be argued that data analysis is inherent in the data collection phase of research as well as in the reporting p hase. There is a final section in which methodological issues are discussed. This is not a comprehe n sive review of the research concerns that affect the process of "doing ethnograp h y." Rather it represents a selection of issues regarding reliability, validity, the role of ge n erating theory, a nd testing theory a s they r e late to ethnographic research. Finally, the chapter concludes w i th a summary. 63

PAGE 77

Research Perspective Ethnography literally means "description of individual cultures." The goal of ethnography, in Malinowski's (1922) words, is "to grasp the native's point of view, his relation to life, to realize his vision of his world" (p. 24). As a discipline, ethnography adds a body of concepts and techniques that direct attention, re l ate observations, more systematically than community members would normally have occasion for doing; that provide for making explicit re l ationships and patterns that members leave implicit; that provide for in t erpreting patterns in the light of a comparative knowledge of other ways of life to which a community member would not usually have access. (Hymes, 1981, p. 5 7 ) Ethnography, therefore, is not only a way of collecting information and reporting 64 findings; rather, it is a theoretically driven process that involves a systematic and comprehensive way of observing, recording, engaging in the daily life of another culture, writing accounts of this culture and emphasizing descriptive detail (Marcus & Fisher, 1986). Thus, the results of such a process are primarily written accounts of what happened in the field, what was learned from the people studied, and the researcher's personal and theoretical assumptions about the culture studied and inquiry process. Approaches to Ethnographic Research Few will argue against the statement that ethnography is a description of a culture. There is also common agreement that fieldwork involves gathering data by becoming a participan t -observer in a community or society other than one's own . But lying behind these "general agreements" are divergences in opinions as to what constitutes an ethnograp hy, how long the researcher should stay in the field, what is the focus of the study, and how findings should be presented. Ellen (1984) stated that clarification of some of these is s ues is problematic because few field workers anywhere (whether in their ethnographic reports or in their theoretical writings) make explicit the precise model, orientation, or style of fieldwork they are employing.

PAGE 78

65 In t he following section some leading examples of different approaches for "doing ethnography" will be described. Determination of which approach or style to use is not only a mat ter of the personality and personal taste of the researcher. It also has to do with the nature of the phenomenon be i ng studied, the questions being asked, and the theoretical, ideologica l , and philosophical orientation of the researcher (Ellen, 1984). De s pite the increasing amount of information about how to approach ethnographic studies, most texts and reports illustrated that there is no single way of observing, doing, and presen ti ng ethnographic work. Because ethnography is a "highly particular and hauntingly personal" (Van Maanen, 1988, p. ix) way of representing the social reality of others, differences are found among ethnographic works. For instance, decisio n s about the style and narrative used to report findings are, primarily, a matter of personal preference. In Ta1es of the Fie1d (1988), Van Maanen discussed seven different types or genres of e t hnographic narrative. He first introduces the matter of-fact, realistic report of classical et h nography, then the self-absorbed confessional tale of the participant-observer, and finally t he dramatic vignette of the new impressionistic style. The other four styles described in his book are the critical, formal, literary, and jointly told tales. These ethnograph i c narratives represent different ways in which authors exhibit their own perspective and voice. Ho w an approach or style for doing ethnography is selected, however, is not merely a m a tter of personal nuances or taste. Rather, it also reflects theoretical intentions, ideological presuppositions, and philosophical orientation of the researcher doing an ethnograph y . As mentioned above, ethnographies need to go beyond the pure "thick description," paraphrasing Geertz (1973). An ethnographic study should include an acknowledgement of the theory used to gu i de data collection or to provide meaning or understand in g of the data collected (Lutz, 1981). Conceptual notions and personal assumption s guide the r esearcher throughout the research process by suggesting ways in which data w ill be collected, coded, analyzed, and presented. Zaharlick and Green (in

PAGE 79

press), pointed out how a theory of culture frames a general attitude about how cultural phenomena are to be studied and explained Jus t as a photographer must aim and focus a camera in order to capture a sce n e, so too must an ethnographer focus on what the theory suggests is important in order to describe, and possibly explain, some particular aspects of culture or eyen _ define what constitutes a holistic description of the .. Thus a theory can be thought of as a lens through which the emnographer views the everyday life of participants in a social group, and the occurrence and interpretation of social events. The value of the lens is the degree to which it permits the ethnographer to see and record the particular aspects of interest. (p. 5) 66 In terms of the nature of the problem, ethnographies can be classified according to their theoretical focus (Hymes, 1982) or the scope of the research (Erickson & Mohatt, 1981; Mehan, 1981; Spradley, 1980). Hymes (1982), for instance, classified ethnographic studies as comprehensive, that is, those which seek to describe the total way of life in a community; hypothesis oriented, which are those that start out with a set of hypotheses generated from previous work on a particular culture; or topic oriented, which focus on selected aspects in the culture of a community. All three types of ethnographic inquiry continue to coexist. Spradley (1980) proposed a system for classifying ethnographic studies according to the scope of research and the social units studied. That is, studies can range along a continuum from macroethnography to microethnography. Table 3.1 shows the different approaches in relation to the size of the social unit. One example of a macroethnography is the researc h done by Malinowski (1922) in the Western Pacific during World War I. Malinowski remained in the islands studying the Trobiands for more than four years. Along this continuum , a well known ethnography of a single group can be situated; Lewis's La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty (1966), is an example of an ethnography focusing on a single institution . He spent several years studying a single fam i ly . A microethnographic study, located at the end of this continuum, can focus on a single social situation. Such is the case of work by Tannen (1984) who analyzed in detail the patterns of communication of a group of friends during a Thanksgiving dinner.

PAGE 80

TABLE 3.1 Variations in S cope of Research Studies Scope of Research Macroethnography Microethnography Source: Spradley, 1980. Social Units Studied Complex society Multiple communities A single community study Multiple social institutions A single social institution Multiple social situations A single social situation Recent advancements in technology in the audiovisual field have helped ethnographers to refine their methodology. Educational researchers like Erickson and 67 Shultz (1981) and Mehan (1981), suggested that a microethnography is more focused, has a narrow scope, and includes an extremely fine-grained analysis. Researchers using this approach have captured very subtle and usually out-of-awareness aspects of classroom interaction and communication (Bloome, 1987; Bloome & Theodorou, 1988; Green, 1983; Green & Wallat, 1981; Green, Weade, & Graham, 1988). In order to examine language, language use, and nonverbal communication in educational settings, microethnographers "freeze" (using audio or videotapes) student-teacher and student-student interactions. Records can later be analyzed in detail in order to make visible the ways in which participants in the interaction allocate and negotiate turns, maintain the floor, and alter and coordinate their postures. The usefulness of this approach in understanding the classroom and school experiences of minority language students and indeed of students in general, has been discussed in the foregoing chapters. A variety of studies using this microethnographic focus have been conducted, for example with Odawa Indians (Erickson & Mohatt , 1981), "Warm Springs" Indians (Philips, 1983), Hawaiian, (Au & Jordan,

PAGE 81

68 1981; Boggs, 1985; Watson-Gegeo & Boggs, 1977), African Americans (Heath, 1983; Labov, 1972), Chinese (Guthrie, 1985; Guthrie & Guthrie, 1987), and Hispanic children (Moll, 1987; Trueba, 1987). One final approach to ethnography has been discussed by Ogbu (1981). He advocated for a multilevel ethnography. That is, the researcher needs to acknowledge the fact that an analysis at one level will only provide a partial view of the phenomena studied. Factors that remain outside the interactions of teachers and students are essential to a full understanding of minority children's education. Thus, several settings, dimensions, and levels of the social system need to be considered in order to understand complex interactions and the broader context in which any human group is embedded. The Present Study The present study falls into Ogbu's (1981) conceptualization of a multilevel ethnography. It is not confined to an analysis of student-teacher interactions or to one classroom or teacher, but it attempts to cut through and link different levels of a social context that influence the experiences of children in school. Observations were done in different settings in and outside an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program; open-ended interviews were held with students, teachers, staff, and others in the school. Students ' work and school documents were also inspected. This first level of the study prov i ded infonnation about the general characteristics of how life looks for participants in an ESOL program. Examination of the macrofeatures of this elementary program provided a framework in which microfeatures were situated and analyzed. That is, based on the general ethnographic study, specific classroom events (e.g., "talking circle," story reading, writing) were identified and videotaped. The microanalysis of videotapes of students' interactions in different settings and during specific recurrent events was based on recent work in the analysis of classroom face-to-face interaction in classrooms (BIoome, 1987; Cazden 1986; Green & Wall at, 1981; Green, 1983; Gumperz,

PAGE 82

69 1982; Philips, 1983; Weade & Green, 1989). The detailed analysis of participants' interactions in naturally occurring events provided a means for extracting patterns of social and interpersonal behavior within the ESOL program. These patterns were later analyzed in order to understand how language in the form of interactions between teachers and students, among peers, and between children and adults functioned in support of the acquisition and development of social, linguistic, and academic knowledge. In sum, by using two different lenses, that is macro and microethnographic perspectives, detailed interactio n s were situated and analyzed in light of a broader framework. In Hymes' (1982) terms, the present ethnographic study is topic-centered. That is, it focuses on selected aspects of the culture in a community. In this study the focus is on the education of a of language minority students, what happens in their ESOL classroom and in variou , s school settings, how the classes and program are organized and conducted, and how these students interact with others in different settings. In short, this study's m a in goal is to explore and document the nature of second language teaching and learning a s social processes in an ESOL program. Methods and Procedures In t he course of doing fieldwork, ethnographers frequently revise and reformulate their field of inquiry. Unexpected developments or discoveries make such modifications almost imp ossible to avoid. Thus, ethnographers, as opposed to other researchers, follow a cyclical p attern of inquiry rather than a linear one. A linear research design begins with a well defin e d problem and hypotheses, definitions are then operationalized and research instrumen t s designed . These steps take place even b e fore entering the field o r knowin g t he subjects. A fter collection of data, conclusions are drawn and results reported. Spradley (1980) pointed out that an ethnography seldom fits this linear sequence of research. Instead, the main activities follow a cyclical pattern, repeated over and over again, until the project is concluded. Figure 3.1 illustrates the cyclical pattern of research activities in this

PAGE 83

Selecting an Ethnographic Project Entry and Access Asking Ethnographic Questions Presenting Findings Exiting the Field Collecting Data Figure 3.1 Analyzing Data The Ethnographic Cycle of Inquiry (Adapted from Spradley, 1980) Making an Ethnographic Record 70

PAGE 84

ethnographic smdy. Each of these activities will be explained in detail in the following sections. Entry and Access 71 There were several reasons for choosing the setting for data collection for the present study. First, choice was limited by the fact that there are only two ESOL programs for elementary smdents in the school district Given my interest in understanding the teaching and learning processes of language minority s t udents, either program presented a wealth of opportunities for this type of study. Arthur was ultimately selected because the name of the program coordinator had been suggested and thus, represented a starting point for gaining access. Second, much of the research on second language acquisition has been done in settings that are not directly comparable to the experiences of students and teachers in ESOL programs. For instance, much of the research has taken place in artificial settings (e.g., university laboratories). When in public school settings, most research has taken place in monolingual classrooms where students are immersed and expected to learn the language by exposure to it, and in bilingual classrooms where instruction is given in two languages. In choosing an ESOL program, I hoped to work with a linguistically and ethnically heterogeneous smdent population . A last factor in the selection of this particular program had to do with opportunity and accessibility. Six weeks before the study began and after several phone conversations, I had an interview with the program coordinator. At that time, I explained my intent to study over an extended period of time an ESOL program for elementary smdents. The general purpose of the study was stated in an open-ended fashion: "To inquire about the ways in which smdents act, learn, and interact in an ESOL program." The program coordinator, who had just returned from a one-year teaching sabbatical overseas, was very

PAGE 85

72 enthusiast i c about the topic. Because she was interested in exploring the degree of integratio n of ESOL students with monolingual students and staff in all aspects of school life she agreed to bring my research request to the principal and to the program staff. From the very b e ginning the Program Coordinator stated that I could have access to a ll parts of the daily e v ents in her classroom and in general in the ESOL program. Although the fIrst step in the process of gaining access had been granted by the program coordinator and fieldwork had already been initiated, several other steps had to be followed i n order to gain and/or maintain both formal and informal access. A second step in this con s tant process of negotiating access (Zaharlick and Green, in press) was to gain permissio n from the three other teachers who are part of the ESOL program. This step was facilitated b y the program coordinator who, during the second day of planning, introduced me as a do c toral student interested in studying the ESOL program. Later on, and on a one to-one bas i s, I explained the purpose of the study to each of the teachers. A third step had to do with a ccess being granted from the school principal. During the first week of the school ye ar , I was briefly introduced to the principal as a doctoral student from the university. One month later a meeting was arranged to inform the school principal of the purposes o f the study. Pending district approval for conducting a study, informal permission to continue observation and participation in the ESOL program was granted. Th e ne x t step had to with two additional levels of institutional approval: the university a nd the district. Once the University of Florida Institutional Re v iew Board (UFIRB) a p proved the project, a different set of application forms had to be sent to the research de p artment of the school district for their approval. After the local distr i ct school board had cleared the project, consent forms were sent to the ESOL students' parents for their appro v al. Although the description above shows the different steps followed in order to gain formal and i nformal entry to the school, it does not represent the whole process. An important a s pect in gai n ing access to a setting involves a process of negotiation and

PAGE 86

73 renegotiat i on that takes place between the researcher and the participants. Throughout the process, aspects related to time commitment, access to documents, approaches to be used, rights and obligations of the researcher and issues of confidentiality, reciprocity, and ethics were discussed with the program coordinator. This is what Zaharlick and Green called "a social contract for ... relationships within and across aspects of research from entry to presentations of findings" (p. 41). In sum, the process of gaining access is more than obtaining p hysical entry into a room or school. Access also involves issues of roles and relationships among multiple groups of people (students, teachers, parents, program staff, school administrators, university personnel, researcher, district personnel). Each role and relationsh i p entails rights and obligations for the researcher. As Zaharlick and Green (in press) stated, access "is a socially constructed process that must be established, monitored, maintained, and reestablished over the course of the context of discovery as well as the context of presentation" (p. 44). Data Collection Se v eral data-gathering techniques were used to obtain the information on which the analysis was based. However, the method par excellence that characterizes the study is participant observation. This term is used here to refer to the type of fieldwork in which the object is to study not only the place itself (i.e., village, neighborhood, school, classroom ) , but more importantly, what happens within it. Heath (1982) stated what can be accomplished by being a participant observer in a social group as follows: By becoming a participant in the social group, an ethnographer attempts to record and describe the overt, manifest, and explicit behaviors and values and tangible items of the society and structures and functions of cultural components, before attempting to recognize patterns of behavior that may be co v ert, ideal and implicit to members of the culture. Ethnographers attempt to l earn the conceptual framework of members of the society and to organize materials on the basis of boundaries understood by those being observed instead of using a predetermined system of categories established before the participant-observation. (p.34)

PAGE 87

74 To accomplish the latter, the participant observer must take up residence among the people being studied. Thus, the researcher must not only observe the physical environment, the people and the activities, but also, needs to participate in everyday activities and learn to act as a membe r of the community insofar as possible. Data for this study were gathered during one whole school year through classroom observation s, observation of students in various school settings (cafeteria, homeroom classroom, ESOL classroom, playground), formal and informal interviews with participating teachers , students, parents and school staff; examination of students' work; and audio and videotaping of students' interactions during different classroom events. Detailed fieldnotes of observations, transcriptions of interviews, audio and videotapes, maps, and other records (i.e . , schedules, report cards, students' works and files ) , were kept and con stitute the bulk of the data. Data Analysis In this type of ethnographic study, data analysis is not an independent stage in the research cycle (Spradley, 1980). Rather data collection and analysis of data proceed simultaneously in a dialectical manner: as observations, interviews, and examination of records and materials generate descriptive categories; the categories are analyzed for emerging p a tterns ( Zaharlick & Green, in press). These patterns then influence the next steps in data gathering. In et h nographic studies, original questions are subject to revision and modification as a result o f issues, problems, and new insights or directions that emerge throughout the process. In t he present study prime emphasis was placed on detailed, comprehensive description and the use of participants' perspectives for data generation and validation. Consequently, the cyclical nature of the ethnographic methodology required a research routine whereby data collection, analysis, synthesis, and interpretation were part o f a multi stage, integr a ted, and ongoing process.

PAGE 88

75 A s mentioned earlier, based on the first stage of the investigation, that is the stud y of the ma c rofeatures of the ESOL program, specific naturally occurring classroom events such as wri ting, introduction of a theme for the week, and "talking circle" were identified as recurre nt events that take place within the classroom. Occasions for student-to-studen t interactio n bo t h i nside and outside the classroom were also identified. Selected events were videotaped and subsequently analyzed from a sociolinguistic perspective. The intention was to ob s erve these events in order to find out how different processes (e.g., social and conversational norms, management of activities, differentiation of roles) evolved over time. Microanalysis of classroom conversations In Table 3.2 a system for microanalysis of videotapes of classroom interactions grounded i n sociolingu i stic principles is presented. The system which is based on recent work in the analysis of face-to-face interaction, especially recent work within ethnography _ (Erickson & Shultz, 1981; Green & Wallat, 1981; Green & Weade, 1987; Gumperz , 1981, 1982; Weade & Green, 1989) provided a principled approach f or freezing, reconstructing, and analyzing conversations in educational settings. As shown in Table 3.2, the microanalysis of classroom events required a series o f steps. The first invo l ved making a transcript of the activity based on narrative records, video, and/or audio t apes. The second step involved the construction of "maps" based on the the ide n tification of interactional rules for participation in the activity. These maps are representative of, and help to organize face to-face interactions in classroom settings according to messages, topics, themes, and units. The third step involved the analysis of maps. Foll o w i ng a brief explanation of these three steps, a segment of a conversation in an ESOL clas s room will be presented. This example illustrates a systematic way in which face to-fac e interactions in classrooms can be transcribed, organized, and mapped for later

PAGE 89

TABLE 3.2 Analytic Steps Used in Mapping Instructional Conversation Step 1. Transcription Typescript is prepared from videotape. Transcript lines are assigned, numbering from 1-n on each page. 76 Transcript is segmented into message units through audio and video observation of verbal and nonverbal cues. Step 2. M a p Construction Int e raction units, e.g., sequences of tied or cohesive message units are determined post hoc on the basis of prosodic cues and the social and conversational demands made and/or responded to by participants. Ins tr uctional sequence units, e.g., sequences of tied interaction units are determined post-hoc on the basis of thematic cohesion. Themes, e.g., topic threads, are designated post-hoc in hierarchial units to characterize an interaction unit, a series of interaction units, instructional sequence units, a lesson phase, event, etc. Step 3. A n alysis Ba s es of inference are recorded where necessary throughout the mapping process. Questions and issues for triangulation are recorded as t hey arise throughout the ma p ping process. Source: " I n Search of Meaning: A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Lesson Construction an d Reading" by J. L. Green and R. Weade, 1987. analysis. By analyzing a series of ordinary conversations and recurrent events in the classroom, it is possib l e to understand what students and teachers need to know, understand , produce , predict, and evaluate in order to participate appropriately and gain access to learning (Green & Weade, 1987; Weade & Green , 1989). Th e first step in mapping instructional conversations (see Table 3.2) involved the development of detailed transcriptions including paralinguistic information (e.g. pitch, stress, pauses) of the unfolding interactions among participants. The transcripts reflect a

PAGE 90

77 view of the classroom as a communicative environment with asymmetrical relationships between teacher and student. Events in the classroom are orchestrated by the teacher (teacher talk is capitalized at the margin while student talk is in lowercase and indented below the teacher talk). Thus, in this study transcription was a theoretically driven process (Ochs, 1979). That is, transcription was based on the theoretical constructs derived from recent classroom research within the fields of sociolinguistics, linguistics, anthropology, and psychology discussed earlier in chapter 2. Step 2 involved the construction of detailed maps of interactions. These maps served to facilitate the identification and examination of particular variables such as the establishment of norms and expectations for participation, topics of discussion, and emerging and recurring themes, among others. The maps also provided a representation of classroom events in terms of hierarchical units. Units reflected on the maps include message units, interaction units, and instructional sequence units. Message units are minimal units of meaning and were determined by considering delivery (e.g., pitch, intonation , stress, pauses, nonverbal behaviors). Interaction units (IU) are sequences of conversationally tied message units. Phase units CPU) are pedagogically tied instructional sequence units (e.g. question-response segment, story discussion segment). As stated by Green and Weade (1987), instructional activities are constructed during interaction and are a product of the activity between teacher and students. Maps were constructed by observing the conversational work of participants as they cooperate (or fail to cooperate) in "lesson" construction. Step 3 involved analysis of maps. Once a map was constructed, it was possible to explore frozen actions and talk for recurrent patterns. The following segment of a transcript includes detailed transcription including paralinguistic information of the interaction between a volunteer teacher and six children in an ESOL classroom. Message units (each of the transcript lines), in this example, altogether constitute one interactional unit.

PAGE 91

78 Whereas maps of lesson structures (built upon transcripts) constituted the basis for the analys i s, the original broader records (e.g., videotape, audiotape, narrative record) were used to provide a context for the information presented. In this way data reduction, although kept to a minimum, facilitated the analytic search and interpretation. The following segment is an example of representative talk during a cut-and-paste activity. Transcript Line 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 Tim Te a cher TIm Te a cher Tun students 30 seconds later ... 115 Tun 116 H a n s 117 118 Tim 119 120 Rau l 121 group 122 Teacher 123 124 Rau l 125 Hans 126 Tun 127 Teacher 128 129 Rau l 130 131 group Message Unit how do you spell mister M R THAT'S VERY GOOD then here Grandmother and all teachers see Mrs. S Mrs. G Mr. H Mrs. H and grandmother for who to your broth e r and coach r i g ht yes, I know mister coach mister coach /laugh! HOW DO YOU CALL HIM MISTER COACH Contextual Information {to teacher} {checks how student writes it } {student wrote "MR." with a period at the end} {students and teacher look at Tim's work. In each heart Tim had written the name of one of the adults in the classroom} no, coach {looking at Tim} no mister no mister, on ly coach why WELL IT'S LIKE YOU CAN JUST CALL HIM like you always call grandmother not misses grandmother /laugh!

PAGE 92

132 133 Tim {writes "coach" on his heart} The interaction takes place in the ESOL classroom 1 (conversational English) during the month of F ebruary. Thirteen students came daily to this classroom for their 45-minutes 79 English class. Although students in this group were in different grade levels (1 to 4), they were all at similar English proficiency levels. That is, they spoke little or no English at the beginning of the school year. After a discussion among participants (students, classroom teacher , and four volunteer t eachers) about the meaning of friendship, the group was divided in five small groups. Ea ch group had one teacher and at least one student. The t a sk , announced by the teacher for all the groups, was to cut a series of four hearts and decorate them "anyway you like" with construction paper, crayons, or markers. The above segment represents a conversation between six students (2 fourth graders and 4 third graders) and a volunteer teacher sitting around a rectangular table on one side o f the classroom. In this group, three students were from Korea, two from Taiwan and one from Switzerland. The video camera recorder was set up two feet away from the table. By transcribing and organizing verbal and nonverbal behaviors, a conversational map was created for this "cut-and-paste" activity. This map provided a source for exploring t h e way in which interactions took place during this event. However, in order to identify.the interactional rules for appropriate participation in this classroom, a series of ordinary conversations--embedded in everyday activities--were videotaped, transcribed, mapped, and analyzed. As mentioned earlier, in face-to face interactions, participants have expectations for how each should act. Determining the rules for appropriate participation involved identifying those recurrent or divergent patterns that take place within and across ordinary events.

PAGE 93

80 To summarize, the systematic approach used in this study for the in-depth analysis of language use in classrooms has been presented. Microanalysis of classroom events involved a series of steps that began with videotaping (and/or audiotaping and/or taking notes) followed by transcribing, mapping, and analyzing classroom talk:. This whole process w a s guided by theoretical constructs derived from sociolinguistics, anthropology, linguistics , psychology, and research on teaching and learning processes. By freezing actions an d talk, it was possible to systematically search for recurrent or divergent patterns of interact i on within and across activities, classrooms, and teachers. Analysis o f students' work Samples of students' work were analyzed in conjunction with other data sources to provide infonnation about literacy events in the classroom. In the preceeding segment , analysis no t only included transcription of talk: and description of actions during one cut and paste activity, but also consideration of students' writings (see lines 103, 109 and 133). As s h own in this segment, inclusion of the written outcomes in the analysis is of prime importance in understanding how issues got resolved. In other words, the discussion i n the above segment was centered around whether Tim should call the school coach, "coach" or "Mr. Coach" (lines 115 to 130). The end of this particular interactional unit (IU) is not signaled by an oral utterance, but by a written account (line 133). Thus, the inclusion of writing samples collected during ordinary events, and over time, enhanced the data analysis process. The next example can help understand how writing acti v ities were considered in relation to oral events. During the second and third weeks of J a nuary a group of "beginning" ESOL students (th e y spoke little or no English at the beginning of the school year) learned nursery rhymes . During their 45-rninute ESOL conversational class, each student recited one rhyme learned the day before; then students read (aloud and silently) a new rhyme from a ditto sheet. Afterwards , they colored the picture--relative to the rhyme -in the ditto sheet.

PAGE 94

81 Students were asked by the teacher to take home this sheet for practice. During the second week of studying nursery rhymes, children were given 15 minutes to make a birthday card for their ESOL teacher. Hyun Tae, a fourth grade student from Korea, wrote the following message in his card: Dear Mrs. S Happy Birthday Mrs. S. I love this classroom. I'm a sheep You are a Little Bo Peep. I'm a dog You are a old mather Houber [mother Hubbard] Have a good day January 1990, 18, Thursday Hyun Tae's card shows quite clearly that part of the content, vocabulary, and language structure included in his card was similar to those in the nursery rhymes he had memorized. Most importantly, this example shows how writing arises from and relates to current, ongoing interests as children talk, read, and in this case, practice nursery rhymes. Although the specific goals of this study did not include the study of children's text forming strategies or writing development, the analysis of writing samples, such as the above, provided fuller and more complete explanations of the that contribute in learning a second language. Thus, the analysis of writing samples can increase our understanding of the ways in which oral language activities can contribute to children's literacy development. Triangulation One important issue that needs to be included in this section has to do with the basic units of data analysis. The basic units in the process of data analysis were instances of action in classroom events between participants and instances of comments on the

PAGE 95

82 significance of these commonp l ace actionsand on broader aspects of meaning and belief-from the perspectives of the various actors involved in the events (Erickson, 1986). The instances of actions were derived from a systematic review of fieldnotes, audio and video t apes (e.g., students are organized small groups). The instances of comments were deri v ed from analysis of formal and informal interviews with participants (e.g., teacher explains how small group arrangements help students feel at ease and promotes language u se for communicative purposes). In addition, other units of analysis included information gathered through written materials, students' and teachers' records, maps, and the like. By using these different processes of data collection, I was able to contrast, compare, a nd verify the accuracy of the patterns and impressions being developed. This process of data collection and verification has been called triangulation (Zaharlick & Green , in press). Through informal and formal interviews it was possible to obtain the participan t s' perspect ives about an issue, topic , or event. This insider's view was then compared and contrasted with other units of analysis such as those derived from the analysis of fieldnotes and audio and videotapes . If consistent similarities were found between both of these views, I felt reasonably sure that a "piece of cultural knowledge" had been identified and that the information gathered could be used to guide a stranger's understanding of the culture (Zaharlick & Green , in press). If there was not a match, the next step was to gather more information and re-examine the data previously collected to see whethe r there were different perspectives or whether the analysis was inaccurate or incomplete. In other words, by systematically reviewing and comparing different assertions that emerged from the full set of data (e. g., fieldnotes, interview notes, audiotapes , site records, and audiovisual recordings) I sought to test the validity of the assertions generated by confirming and disconfirming evidence.

PAGE 96

83 Exiting the Fjeld Determination of when sufficient data have been collected to answer the questions guiding a study is often problematic . Zaharlick and Green (in press) stated that in schoo l ethnograp h ies the naturally occurring breaks in the school calendar may influence when the investigator leaves the field. The end of the school year may indicate the time to conclude fieldwork , although this may not always be the case. It is not uncommon for researchers to exit the field and then re-enter in order to collect more information. In this case, the end of the 1989 90 school year marked the conclusion of my role as participant observer in this ESOL program; it did not mark, however, a definite exit from the field . As the analysis and writin g process evolved, and after the "official" conclusion of data collection, I occasiona ll y visited the program and attended meetings with teachers and students. Also, some more records were examined (e.g., teachers' lesson plans, students' documents and works) aft e r the school year was over. At least three reasons can be set forth to explain my return to t h e site. First, I had to review some documents (e . g . , students' cumulative files ) not available until several weeks after the school year was over. Second, on several occasions, I felt the need to verify with some of the teachers, mainly with the conversational ESOL teacher, some selected or problematic instance or conclusion . Also, after a year , I went back to i nterview some of the children that I had monitored closely during my one-year data collection period. A third reason for returning to the program is not related with data collection nor data analysis, but with the personal and professional bonds that l ong-term f i eldwork can help establish . The year following the data collection period, students and teachers invited me to attend special events (e.g., binhdays, Halloween , graduation day) which I did with pleasure. It was during these sporadic visits that I realized that some students considered me as one of their ESOL teachers. This was corroborated by the conversational ESOL teacher who mentioned that at the beginning of the year, st u dents frequently asked for me. Thus this is an example where the distinction between m y roles as observer (e.g., researcher) and participant (e.g., teacher) was blurred.

PAGE 97

84 At the professional level, the conversational ESOL teacher and I have kept an ongoing dialogue about theoretical, practical, and policy issues. For example, we copresented two workshops for ESOL teachers wherein data from this study (e.g., videos, transcripts) were discussed. What, I believe, was most salient about these two meetings was the interactive character of the presentations. During these meetings, practitioner, researcher, data, theory, and audience were all part of a collaborative effort to better understand second language teaching and learning in context. Rather than having a researcher report fmdings of a study, teacher and researcher were, together, engaged in a collegial exploration of classroom processes. In addition, other interactions at local or state meetings have facilitated t his ongoing professional relationship. Thus, exiting the field was not a one-step process. The thin arrow depicted in Figure 3.1 indicates that the stage of writing the ethnography is not necessarily a final stage after exiting the field. Rather, the researcher may re-enter the field after the writing process has been initiated. Presentation of Findings Two main aims need to guide the presentation of findings of the fieldwork: to make clear to the reader what is meant by the various assertions, and to display the evidentiary warrant for the assertions (Erickson, 1986). In order to achieve both goals, the written or oral report needs to include particular and general descriptions. The first aim, that is clarification was achieved in this study by presenting assertions supported by particular descriptions. In other words, transcriptions of conversatio n s among participants, direct quotes from interviews, and analytic narrative vignettes explained and clarified patterns of meaning contained in the assertions. For example, when desclibing a particular event in the classroom such as making assertions about what counts as writing in that setting and the purposes it serves, descriptions were explained and reported in terms of the definitions and understandings of participants. The

PAGE 98

85 inclusion of direct quotes and narrative vignettes served this purpose. As stated by Erickson (1986), the narrative vignette represents a vivid portrayal of the conduct of an event of e v eryday life, in which the sights and sounds of what was being said and done are described i n the natural sequence of their occurrence in real time and place . The moment to-momen t description that characterizes the narrative vignette helps the reader or audience get a bette r sense of how life looks in that particular context. By the same token, direct quotes from participants, whether from interviews or observations, are other ways in which the r eader can get a sense of both the point of view of participants and the interaction patterns among them. Ho w ever, rich descriptive vignettes or detailed transcripts of conversations are not valid ethnographic accounts on their own. Rather, it is the combination of richness and interpretati v e perspective that makes the account valid (Erickson, 1986). Thus, ethnographic accounts in this study include two dimensions: a descriptive one, in detail and content; and an analytical one, that examined events in light of broader interpretive and theoretical frameworks. The second aim that guided the presentation of findings, that is, providing evidentiary warrant for the assertions, is achieved by reporting both particular and general description s . The illustrative examples presented in this study are the result of a systematic selection among representative examples, in which both variation and central tendency or typicality i n the data are reflected (Watson-Gegeo, 1988). In s u m, the presentation of findings includes both particular and general description s . The purpose of particular descriptions such as narrative vignettes, transcriptio n s of conversations, or quotes of participants was to show that a certain meaning is h eld by participants or that a certain pattern of interaction happened in the setting. The purpose of general descriptions, on the other hand, was to link those particular e v ents with others like it or different from it in order to establish some kind of generalizability of patterns.

PAGE 99

86 Selected Methodological Issues Reliabilitv and Validity As sta ted in the preceding sections, the task of ethnographers is to observe everything that occurs in the social life of a cultural group, their public transactions and personal ways of dealing with everyday life. Researchers doing ethnographic research need to record their observations systematically and clearly. To assure credibil ity of their observatio n s, social scientists have dealt with issues concerning objectivity. One device fIrst used in psychometrics (the fIeld of tests and measurements ) is the division of objectivity into two main components: validity and reliability. Loosely speaking, r e liability is the extent to which a measurement procedure yields the same answer however and wheneve r it is carried out; validity is the extent to which it gives the correct answer. T o illustrate, Kirk and Miller (1987) discussed the validity of a thermometer reading in light of a physical theory. The theory must posit not only that mercury expands with tempe r ature, but that water in fact boils a t 100 C. With such a theory, a thermometer that reads 9 0 C when the water breaks into a boil can be judged as inaccurate. Yet if the theory asse rts that water boils at different temperatures under different ambient pressures, the same measurement may be valid under different circumstances. In the case of qualitative research, and for that matter of ethnography, "the issue of validity is not a matter of methodo l ogical hair-splitting about the fIfth decimal point, but a question of whether t he researcher sees what he or she thinks he or she sees" (Kirk & Miller, 1987, p. 21). I n the case of part i cipant observation, the main approach used in this study, questions were constantly being raised and tested in stronger and stronger ways in the pragmatic routine o f everyday life. In other words, simply by virtue of "being in the fIeld"--in territory controlled b y the investigatees rather than by the investigator--qualitative research possesses ce rt ain kinds of validity, in particular ecological validity, that are not ordinarily possessed b y methods that are not qualitative (Kirk & Miller, 1987).

PAGE 100

87 In relation to reliability in ethnographic studies, researchers are mainly concerned with the accuracy and comprehensiveness of their data. Qualitative researchers tend to view reliability as a fit between what they record as data and what actually takes place in the setting under study, rather than the literal consistency across two different observations (Bogdan & Biklen, 1986). Two researchers studying a single setting may collect different types of data and reach different conclusions. For example, a sociologist and a psychologist may spend time in the same classroom and produce different findings. This can happen because their focus and area of inquiry is different The sociologist may have been looking at how roles and functions are established among students while the psychologist was looking at children's moral development. In this case, both studies can be reliable. Reliability of one or both studies might be questioned if their results were incompatible (Bogdan & Biklen, 1986). Interobserver Agreement In order to determine the consistency of use of the framework by different observers, interobserver agreement was measured. This procedure dealt with the percentage of agreement in relation to establishing boundaries of message and interaction units. The following two-phase procedure was used. The first involved learning a system for analyzing videotapes of classroom interactions. This process had started two years earlier when I was part in a study of teaching and learning processes within the context of preservice teachers' weekly seminars (Weade, 1989). For this purpose, observers were trained by an expert observer in the following manner. They viewed a videotaped segment of a classroom event and then prepared a transcript that included the identification of message and interaction units. Transcripts were then checked against the expert's transcript and points of disparity discussed. The selected videotaped segment was then viewed and further discussed on several instances until agreement was reached. The process was then repeated with

PAGE 101

different segments. The second phase, basically, included the calculation of a percentage of agreem e nt among observers. 88 Fo r this study interobserver agreement was also measured following the procedure described a bove. In this case three segments, of 180 seconds each, of a writing event were selected at random from one videotape. These segments were viewed by both expert and novice obs e rvers on separate instances. As they observed this event, both observers marked bo u ndaries of message and interaction units in a prepared typescript of the segments. On few instances, minor additions, corrections, and deletions were made on typescripts . Percentage of agreement was determined by comparing observers' allocation of message and interaction units. Results presented in Tables 3.3 and 3.4 suggest that there was a high percentage of agreement among both observers as to how to identify message a n d interaction units. Theory Deve10pment Wit h regard to the role of generating theory, ethnography with its in-depth, fIrsthand, l o ng-term observation provides the researcher with a wealth of descriptive materials covering a w i de range of phenomena. The ethnographer in the field has the opportunity to get to know the total context of a group's customs by directly asking the participants about those customs and by observing the actions and interactions which appear to be associated with those practices. In addition the ethnographer who develops a set of explanations for some activity can verify that hunch by collecting new information related to it. One way in which an ethnographic study can be used as a crucial test of a theory is if that case may refute a theory which is assumed to be universal. For instance, in her field work in Samoa, Margaret Mead (1973) collected enough data to lead to rejection of the traditional theory that adolescence was always accompanied by psychological stress. In this same lin e, Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) provided examples of the way in which

PAGE 102

Segment A B C Total TABLE 3.3 Percentage of Interobserver Agreement Message Units Number of MUs* (Observer AI) 78 78 49 205 Disparity (Observer B) 6 7 7 20 *MUs == Message Units 1 Expert Segment A B C Total TABLE 3.4 Percentage of Interobserver Agreement Interaction Units NumberofIUs* Disparity (Observer AI) (Observer B) 21 5 18 3 14 4 53 12 * IUs == Interaction Units 1 Expert Percentage of Agreement 92.3 91.0 85.7 90.2 Percentage of Agreement 76.2 83.3 71.4 77.4 89

PAGE 103

90 ethnography can be used to test theory. These authors discussed three different studies on student orientations to school in Great Britain. The studies proposed that the way in which schools differentiate students on academic and behavioral criteria, especially via streaming and tracking, polarizes them into proand anti-school subcultures. This theory was tested in three studies, and although they did not provide conclusive proof, they suggested that the theory was well founded (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983). Summary In this chapter a review of basic issues of theory and method in doing ethnographic research has been presented. A discussion of theoretical issues opened the chapter. This section was included because ethnographic research is not only a way of collecting information, but is also a theoretically driven process that includes a systematic and comprehensive way of studying everyday life of a culture. A second section dealt with considerations about the focus and different levels of the study. The study was presented as a topic-centered, multilevel ethnography in light of Hymes' (1982) and Ogbu's (1981) conceptualizations of ethnographies. In other words, this study combined close analysis of fine details of behavior and meaning in selected events and settings with analysis of the wider school context within which face-to-face interaction takes place. In the methods and procedures section, a description of the different steps taken throughout the study was presented. The study was described in terms of two broad phases: the first one generated a rich description of the macrofeatures of the ESOL program tha t functions as a background in which microfeatuxes of situated events were analyzed. In the last section of this chapter, selected methodological issues were identified and discussed.

PAGE 104

CHAPTER 4 TIlE SOCIAL CONTEXT Introduction In this chapter, general features of the school and selected aspects of the ESOL program will be examined. This analysis of macrofeatures will serve as a prolegomenon to a more detailed examination of participants' everyday interactions within selected classroom practices, presented in the following chapter. There are at least two reasons for presenting results of the ana l ysis in separate chapters. The foremost is that ethnographic work is holistic in nature; any aspect of a culture or behavior has to be described and explained in relation to the whole system of which it is part (Watson Gegeo, 1988) . Thus different levels of analysis are required in order to first identify the patterned ways of classroom and program organization, and second to describe and understand those recurrent instances of face-to face in t eraction that define the larger context. Wi l kinson's and Silliman ' s (1990) description of an observational approach as analogous to taking pictures with a camera serves well to illustrate this multilevel characteristic of ethnographic work. They suggested that at least four different levels of information can be selected and filtered according to a series of different lenses used. In essence, each of these l enses purveys a particular view -a wide angled lens captures the contextual landscape in which interaction takes place, a regular lens defines how a particular c l assroom event is set up, a close -up lens provides a detailed analysis of patterns of interaction within an event, and a microclose-up lens focuses on a more detailed level such as sources of breakdown in interaction. In this chapter a first level of analysis will be presented--one that includes a general overview of the school and ESOL program. A second reason for describing, in the words of Wilkinson and Silliman (1990), the • 91

PAGE 105

92 contextual landscape of the ESOL program before examining the interactions therein, is the need to contextualize information regarding second language programs to avoid sweeping generalizations so much a characteristic of the literature in second language teaching and learning. In order to provide a framework in which selected classroom practices can be situated and later analyzed in chapter 5, a description of the setting, participants, and program organization is provided in this chapter. The chapter opens with a brief description of Arthur Elementary School in terms of its history, location, and organization. Next, physical and organizational characteristics of the two classrooms that comprise the program, referred to as ESOL classroom 1 and ESOL classroom 2, are presented. This is followed by a review of significant characteristics of the participants in the ESOL program, staff and LEP students. The different criteria used for assessment, placement, and grouping o f students in the program are also addressed in this section . The chapter ends with a description of selected aspects of the three main components of the ESOL program: conversational English, reading instruction, and mathematics instruction. To illustrate the nature of everyday events within the conversational English class, an extensive excerpt has been included. This narrative presents the actions and conversations of teachers and students embedded in a detailed recount of unfolding classroom events in a typical school day. The intention is to place the readers, unfamiliar with the program, into the setting and allow them , as far as possible, to see, hear, and feel the sounds and images of the moment by moment life in an elementary second language program. Finally, it should be noted that throughout the chapter interpretative accounts and explanations by teachers and students of the events in the ESOL program are interwoven with the des c riptive text. The intent is not only to present a detailed account of what participants do day in and day out within the school setting, but to display the meanings and thoughts that those everyday events have for those involved in the ESOL program.

PAGE 106

93 The idea then is to offer the practices as well as perspectives of the participants in Arthur's ESOL program. Arthur Elementary School Arthur Elementary school (pseudonym) is located in an economically depressed neighborhood in a mid sized city in north-central Florida. The area, predominantly Black, is not a compact neighborhood. Some blocks are completely filled with residences, but there are many with vacant lots. Houses vary in size, age, and quality. However, a great majority of houses in the neighborhood tend to be "modest" two-bedroom houses built more than t hree decades ago. An extensive open, grass-covered field located to the south of the school separates Arthur Elementary School from Roosevelt Middle School (pseudonym). Arthur Elementary School opened in 1938, as indicated in the 1990 Parent and Student Handbook. Although the original building was destroyed by a fire one year later, part of the present structure was built during the 1939 1940 school year. In the last two decades the main buildings have been renovated and several structures, such as a Media Center and portable classrooms, have been added. As shown in Figure 4.1, the physical plant of the school campus is composed of 4 one-story buildings and 10 portable classrooms . Building 1 functions as the central building--connected to the other buildings via several hallways . This building houses the ESOL program, computer laboratory, gifted program, teacher's lounge, and 10 classrooms. In addition, in this building there are several offices: principal, curriculum resource teacher (CRT), and other staff. The cafetorium, so named to reflect its double purpose as a cafeteria and auditorium, is also connected to this building. Whereas Building 3 contains classrooms, Buildings 2 and 4 house the Media Center and the Art and Music classrooms, respectively. A Head Start program is located in two of the portable classrooms. The rest of the portable buildings house the fourth and fifth grade classrooms.

PAGE 107

Small Parking Lot Kitchen Circle Drive Fence I seci,;ty 1\ Portables To Playground > 1\ DD 1\ 1\ B D BUILDING 4 1\ Mus i c BUILDING 1 Lounge I ESOL t I ESOL21 I Media Center Gifted I Lab Main Entrance .. " Class ro oms Fence Large Parking Lot Figure 4.1 Arthur Elementary School CRT BUILDING 2 BU ILD ING3 Clas sro oms -94

PAGE 108

95 The interior of the school is in good repair and appears clean and neat. The floors are gray linoleum tile , the walls are off-white, and doors are painted in bright blue. Fluorescent lamps in the ceiling provide ample lighting throughout the building . Large bulletin boards in the hallways periodically contain displays related to special events, schoolwork, or holidays. During the 1989-90 school year Arthur Elementary School enrolled 602 students , approxima t ely 12% of whom were enrolled in the ESOL program. Approximately 54% of the studen t population was Black, 32% Caucasian, 7% Asian, and 7% Hispanic. Two federally-funded programs were in operation at Arthur Elementary School. Beginning the 1989-90 school year, the school became part of a three year funded Chapter I program. As stated by Smith (1989), director of compensatory education for the school district, Chapter I is a federally funded program for elementary school youngsters from low soc i oeconomic families and those who are six months to a year or more (ac a demically) below their grade level. Chapter I gives them supplementary instruction to catch them up in basic skills so they can function at grade level. They are also selected based on low California Achievement Test sco r es, classroom performance and teacher recommendation (pp. 1,4). Because of the characteristics of most of the students (low academic achievement and low socioeconomic status), Arthur has been classified a Chapter IJ"total" school. A Foreign Languages in the Elementary School (FLES) program was introduced at the beginning of the 1986-87 school year. FLES, considered an enrichment program , is a means of exposing young English-speaking children to foreign languages. At Arthur Elementary School, Spanish is taught daily to all students. The Spanish teacher and her aide visit each classroom five times per week for class periods of twenty minutes. The focus of these classes is most often the second language and its culture.

PAGE 109

96 The ESOL Program Arthur Elementary School houses one of the two English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) elementary programs in the school district. During nine years the ESOL program has served every year a population ranging from 60 to 100 non-English speaking e lementary students living in university housing apartments and surrounding areas. The program i s housed in two classrooms in Building 1 (see Figure 4.1 ) . Figures 4.2 and 4 .3 depict ESOL 1 and ESOL 2 classrooms, respectively. The focus of the ESOL 1 classroo m is on practicing formal and informal conversation. The ESOL 2 classroom is for reading and math instruction. What follows is a description of selected physical and organizational charac t eristics of the two ESOL classrooms. Instructional and interactiona l features w ill be e x amined in a later section. ESOL Classroom 1 ESOL 1 looks different from other classrooms in the school. Differences are clear in at least three ways: patterns of interaction between teachers and students , physical arrangeme nt , and materials. First, in the conversational ESOL class, there is often more than one a d ult present in this classroom. In addition to Terri, the classroom teacher, and Grandma ( see Note at end of chapter), there are often other adults actively involved with the students. T hese adults include parents of students who sometimes visit the classroom , "Bilingual Buddies," volunteers that come once a week on a regular basis , or someone from the u n iversity involved in some research project. A retired couple, Mr. H and Ms. H , are "permanent" volun t eers in the program since its creation; they come once a week and spend half a day in the conversational English class. Generally , these adults participate in whole grou p activities (e.g., "talking circle," story time) or work with students individuall y or in small groups. Whether Terri is alone or with other adults in her classroom, students are generall y gathered in small groups in different parts of the classroom.

PAGE 110

:',:',:',:',:', Screen 1...-_...---.-....1 Bulletin Board/Chalkboard Compute Record Player Shelves with Games Dictionaries 0 0 0 0 Talking 0 Circle I Books Chart c:::::J Stand T able File D oor Cabinet P l ayground -0 0 Listening Center 0 Storage Figure 4 , 2 English Teacher 0 o E SO L Clas s room 1 : Convers a tion a l E nglish Des k Door Hallway " " " Tab l e o o Kitchen Area World Map " " " " " " " " " 9 7

PAGE 111

Table File Cabinets Coach's Desk D oor P layground Chalkboard/Bulletin Board o o 0 0 0 Stand Book Shelves Coach's Locker o o Figure 4.3 ESOL Cl a ssroom 2: Reading and Math Desk Door Hallway o Chalkboard :. Bulletin Board : o I: Desk 9 8

PAGE 112

99 This classroom is constantly filled with different sounds and movements as teacher and students are conferring what they will do, when, how, with whom, and for how long. Thus, one salient characteristic of this classroom is the constant buzz of activity, referred to by some as "creative noise . " In relation to movement, s tudents seem to be in constant motion around the room (e.g., from one center to the other, to share their drawing with Grandma, t o ask the teacher a question about spelling, to sharpen a pencil). The teacher is always doing many things in many parts of the room; she is seldom in one place for more than ten minutes. In addition, there is a constant flow of teachers and aides that enter the conversational English class to request information or materials from the teacher, to discuss some prob lem about a student in the program, or to pick up a child for testing or some special activity . The physical arrangement of the conversational ESOL classroom is indeed very different from most of the other classrooms in the school, arranged in a "lock step" fashion with desks facing the teacher. In this classroom chairs and tables are mostly arranged in small clusters. There are two desks both of which are used as tables for materials. There are around twenty four chairs; half of them are blue and sized for elementary children, others are different sizes, colors, and types . Chairs are being constantly moved around the classroom . For example, after talking circle, students carry their chairs to one of the tables or centers. If later they go to a different center, they will generally bring their chairs with them, unless there are some already available there. During the first weeks of classes, moving chairs around the classroom was a dangerous procedure--not to say noisy--because children carried them upside down or pushed them around the room. Learning to carry a chair was part of the "survival" skills students practiced during the first two weeks of classes. There are two big kidney-shaped tables: one for Terri and one for Grandma. Grandma s i ts at her table most of the time, except during selected instancessuch as talking circlewhen she joins the group . Unlike Grandma, Terri does not spend much time at her

PAGE 113

100 table, she uses it only when working with students or after school hours, when she works on grading, planning, or the like. In ESOL 1 there are two permanent learning centers: a computer center and a listening center. In addition, there are several "floating" centers for writing, art projects, and games. These floating centers may be in operation for a limited time only--ranging from a week to a couple of months -depending on the type of activities required for a particular group of students, topic, or unit. These centers are often organized in different parts of the classroom. For example, Grandma's table often functions as the art project table while Terri's becomes the writing table . Two squared tables placed together in the center of the classroom function, at times, as "Gisela's table" or on other occasions, as a "special project table." Every Friday most tables in the room become "game tables" and students in pairs or small groups sit around them to play Bingo, Uno, Michigan Rummy, or Hot Air Balloon, among others. In regard to materials and equipment, this classroom is filled with an abundance of print, ranging from signs and labels to books of all levels and dictionaries in a variety of languages. There are also plenty of world maps, pictures, posters, photographs of children from different ethnic groups and cultures, paper flags--made by Grandmarepresenting students' countries, and all sorts of displays containing students' works. If children are not present , it is not hard to envision who the students in this classroom are and what they do while in the ESOL room. Also, there is an abundance of realia and paper scraps that Terri proudly calls "useful junk." Headphones, tape recorders, a record player, and a magnetic card reader are constantly used. ESOL Classroom 2 Unlike ESOL 1 where there is only one teacher, in ESOL 2 there are three teachers: Alma, Jackie, and Susan. Alma and Jackie are reading teachers and occupy half of the classroom. Susan, the math teacher, shares the other half with the school coach. Although

PAGE 114

the room is divided in two by a long, hollow book shelf containing assorted books and materials , it is possible to observe ongoing events on the other side of the room. 101 Teachers in ESOL 2 sit at one of the three kidney-shaped tables in the room. Each teacher generally works with three to six students at a time--although sometimes they may have mol'e thaIl len sludenls . In one w a y this clas sr oom looks similar to other classrooms in the school because students are generally working on "skill packs" or ditto sheets. However , the continual buzzing of children reading, "thinking" aloud, explaining, asking and answering questions, in addition to that of the teachers, constantly clarifying, repeating , explaining, directing, and giving examples, makes this classroom unique. During my first visits I was confused by the simultaneous ongoing conversations around different subject matters. My confusion increased when I realized that students were working at different levels within each table. It did not take me long, however, to get familiar with this arrangement and to realize that what had first appeared to be a "jumblement" was simply the result of a careful orchestration of teachers, students, purposes, and activities. My own experience was not unlike that of newly arriving students w ho generally spend their first days monitoring ongoing events at other tables. After the f irst weeks they begin to shift their focus to the events at their own table. U n like ESOL 1, packed with pictures, posters, and materials, this classroom has some bare spaces in the walls. Bulletin boards, however, are covered with children's work or material relevant to the unit or topic they are studying. Dictionaries, reading textbooks, and story books fill the shelves in the reading section. Math books, manipulatives, scales, blocks, and several commercial and teacher-made clocks are carefully displayed on the shelves in the math section. On one of the corners of the reading section there is a small round tab l e with headphones, tape-recorders, and sets of cassettes and books for students to read along as they listen to a narrated version of a story . Students can use this equipmen t once they finish their assignment, or on some special "free choice" days when they can choose what activity to do during their reading class.

PAGE 115

102 Participants The ESOL staff consists of a program coordinator/English teacher, two reading teachers, a nd one math teacher. Since its establishment in 1979, the program staff has also included a Foster Grandmother. Two of the teachers, although fluent in English, are non native English speakers; one teacher is monolingual (English) and the program coordinator is a native English speaker but also fluent in Spanish . The program coordinator has over 15 years of experience in teaching non-English speakers in the United States and abroad. With the exception of one of the reading teachers who has 7 years of teaching experience, all other ESOL teachers have over 10 years of experience working with children in second language programs. Shldents During the 1989 90 school year, 98 students from 30 different countries, speaking over 19 d i fferent languages, were enrolled in the ESOL program. Table 4.1 contains a list of students who attended the program that year. They have been grouped according to their primary home language. Information regarding country of origin and grade level of each student is also presented. In i tially there were 63 students and by the end of the school year there were 64 studen ts. Throughout the year, however, several students exited the program and some new students arrived. This constant flow of students in and out of the program is related to the fact that a great majority of students' parents are associated with a large state university located in the city. As a result, entries and exits of students in the program parallel transitions in the university'S academic calendar.

PAGE 116

TABLE 4.1 ESOL Students Grouped by Home Language, Country of Origin, and Grade Level Home Language Spanish Chinese Name * Erika Fernando Liza A. Tomas Marie Anne **Aura MariaA. Alvaro Hector *Pedro Juan A. *Jose M . Evelyn **Gabriel **Rafael * Lara Jesus *Enrique **Jose Maria **Carnila Erica *Ana **Oumen Janet An-Chi Nannan Lydia **Zong Borui Marcos Sun Yan Jei-Yie Ru Chi Tony Fei Licheng Wei-Jue National Origin Bolivia Colombia Costa Rica Colombia Puerto Rico Venezuela Argentina Colombia Honduras Spain Argentina Cos ta Rica Peru Bolivia Bolivia Costa Rica Venezuela Bolivia Bolivia Bolivia Peru Spain Bolivia China Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan China Taiwan China Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan China China Taiwan (Continued) Grade K K K K K K 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 K K K K K 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 103

PAGE 117

104 Table 4 . 1--Continued Home National Language Name Origin Grade Korean Sun Joo Korea K Sun-Min Korea K Hyung Bim Korea K Andy Korea 1 *Ji Sun Korea 1 Jeen Korea 1 San-Ha Korea 2 Ji-Hae Korea 3 Hye Kang Korea 4 Hyun-Tae 4 Portuguese Philippe Brazil K Patrick Brazil 1 Rafael Brazil 1 Marcus Brazil 3 ':'Henrique Brazil 4 Manuela Brazil 4 *Elize 5 Aline Brazil 5 Indonesian Szuli Indonesia 1 Ganesha Indonesia 2 Api Indonesia 4 Aswin Indonesia 5 German Rolf Sw i tzerland 4 *Guido Germany K Hungarian Adrienn Hungary 1 Gabor Hungary 5 Polish Michal Poland 1 Szymon Poland K Sinhala Hasitha Sri Lanka 2 Sandani Sri Lanka K Arabic *Sarah Sudan 1 *Ahmed Jordan 4 Bulgarian **Lubomira Bu l garia 4 (Continued)

PAGE 118

Table 4 .l-continued Home Language Name Chichew a Chimwemwe Farsi Neda Hindi **Ravi Luvenda **Tshilidzi Ja12anese **Miho Russian *Misha Serbo-Croatian **Vojtech **Jan Creole English Kimberly * Left before end of school year ** Arrived after school year started National Origin Malawi Iran India Luanda Japan Russia Czechoslovakia Czechoslovakia Belize 105 Grade 2 2 K 1 4 1 1 5 1 Students in this program generally live with their families in one of several housing complexes owned by the University. These units are designed to serve the needs of married students and their families. Most of the families in these complexes are from foreign countries, with the largest numbers from Latin America , Korea , Taiwan, and Arabic-speaking nations. F a thers of the children enrolled in the program are generally pursuing graduate degrees a t the university. These adults generally speak enough English to pass Test of English a s a Foreign Language (TOEFL) enrollment requirements, and are generally quite consumed by their work at the University for the duration of their residence, which

PAGE 119

106 averages t wo years. The mothers of the ESOL students generally have a high school diploma, but speak little English. Most of the mothers stay at home while their children go to school and their husbands to the university. These women generally have few contacts other than with other women who live in the same housing complex. With few exceptions, English is not used in the home by adults. A Dav in t he School Life of an LEP Student In the process of learning a second language, LEP students have to keep up with the academic requirements of all subjects that are part of their program of studies. In addition to, and as a result of, these linguistic and academic tasks, LEP students must also learn how to function around a very complex timetable. Because each LEP child comes to Arthur wi t h a unique set of characteristics and needs (e.g., grade, English language proficiency level, linguistic and cultural background), an individualized program of activities i s tailored by the ESOL staff for each new student. For a new LEP student this individual i zed timetable, although designed to provide support in required areas, can in effect add more pressure and complexity to an already busy set of tasks. Further, it can lead to feelings of marginalization and neglect, because in fact, with the exception of the ESOL sta f f and the student, no one else in the school is able to keep up with the constant changes sustained by students' individual schedules. So if a student gets confused with t he new arran g ement and cannot find any of the ESOL teachers to help him or her out, those feelings o f isolation and marginality can, and do in fact, emerge. HyunTae, a fifth grade student completing his second year at Arthur elementary, reflects about his initial troublesome experience of learning when, and how, to go from one classroom to another: Yeah it was like, wow all messy, sometimes I really forget about those different times and to go to ESOL and when I first got here I didn ' t even know those words, I only knew those words like 'hi' you know " hello." If I forgot something Ijust sat there and someone in the ESOL had to come and get me.

PAGE 120

107 But once Hyun-Tae learned his schedule and how to move throughout the different events of everyday life at Arthur, this is how he described a "typical day" in school: A t 7:05 I wait for the bus at the village, I ride bus number 8 and I directly go to the media center I mean to the cafetorium to eat breakfast and then I go to my post because I am a patrol until 8 o'clock and then I go to my cl a ssroom, do spelling and then after that at 9 o'clock I go to ESOL to reading. Well, on Thursday, I mean on Wednesday and Thursday after reading I have to, on Wednesday ... I have to go to ESOL on Thursday I h a ve to go to Art Club at 9:40 after reading and every day I have to go to some place like Spanish, computer, PE, at 9:40 until 10:00 o'clock. Like PE on Tuesdays and Thursdays but Thursday I don't go because I have Art C l ub. I have lunch at 11:47 every day and it ends at 12:21. Well ... on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays I go and Thursdays too I go to ESOL for maybe [one period] to Mrs. S's class and after that I have to go to my post again in the afternoon and then I go back to my home with the bus. I usually have t o do [math] fast because people in my classroom they do it from 1 o ' clock 'til the end of the school and I have to go to ESOL until 1:30 so I couldn't do it. I only have like 15 minutes to do it, I have to do it fast. HyunTae's account graphically describes some of the complexity of his life as an LEP student in a North American school in Central Florida. The point here is not that Arthur ' s ESOL program organizes LEP students' learning experiences around exhausting timetables--although that may be the case. Rather it is that in order to understand the different d imensions of teaching and learning that are part of the schooling processes of LEP students, we need to look at the whole ensemble of experiences. It is not enough to look only at the cognitive and linguistics aspects of the educational experience of these students. The social and emotional dimensions involved must also be taken into consideration. Assessment and Placement Procedures In any analysis of second language programs, issues regarding the adequacy of assessment and placement procedures of LEP students need to be considered. Like most programs within formal education systems, ESOL programs also rely heavily on tests and standardized measures for assessing, placing, and exiting students. As will become evident, Arthur is no exception. One main problem that arises by using standardized

PAGE 121

108 measures in the assessment of culturally and linguistically different students is that test scores are often interpreted without considering student performance within the context of culture, language, home, and community environments (Cummins, 1982) . As a result, not only is the r e a greater probability of inappropriate placements, but instructional recommendations may be tainted with a misperception of what the problem is, as well as how it might be corrected. The above concerns are shared by the ESOL teachers at Anhur, and indeed by most of the ESOL teachers in the district. During formal and informal meetings these teachers are continually discussing inherent shortcomings of the procedures used in assessing their students, sharing "horror stories" about how students are misplaced, and arguing for the use of methods of informal assessment. Bearing in mind the myriad of issues involved in the assessment of LE P students, the following section presents an overview of the curren t placement procedures at Arthur's ESOL program. EntrY Criteria A ll students entering Anhur-or any school in the district--for the fIrst time, are required to complete a Student Survey for Language Information (SSIL). This form includes t h ree questions to be answered by the student or guardian regarding the students ' home language: W h at is your native or fIrst acquired language? W h at language do you speak: most often? What language is spoken most often in your home? The district's LEP Program Plan 09901993) states that if "a response to any of the three questions [ indicates language other than English], parents and child are referred to the [board of education building] where appropriate staff members verify citizenship or immigration status and administer language profIciency measures" (p. 5). These initial measures of assessment for elementary level students include the Dade County Test of Aural Comprehension, used as a measure of aural language proficiency and

PAGE 122

109 The Arlington County Oral Proficiency Test, used as a measure for oral proficiency. Other criteria considered in the district's plan include: a subjective analysis of the child by the test administr a tor, the natural reticence of the child placed in a new situation, the language environment of the home, other siblings also in the ESOL program, and the optimum l earning situation and best interest of the child. Some teachers think that these measures are not always adequate or reliable when assessing LEP elementary students. For instance, one ESOL teacher shared her concern about givi ng several tests to recently arrived non-English speaking elementary students: Testing little kids is not easy, you know they get frightened . It's sad and t ak es lots of time, lots of time .... It takes forever to get the results and sometimes they are [not useful] .... It's hard to test these little kids and I don ' t always trust their results. There are some tests out there, they hmm. Y e ah, I think it is better ... to let the child come to the program and and observe him, see what happens and ask and talk with his teacher .... Exit Criteria A s stated by the ESOL teachers and confIrmed by school records, most LEP students spend one to three years in the ESOL program. Students in the ESOL program at Arthur, as well as in the other ESOL programs in the district, are tested annUally. All students w ho have been enrolled for more than one semester are retested, usually in May, by the ESOL staff. The same instruments used for placement purposes are used for this assessme nt. When results of these language proficiency measures indicate that the student no longer needs to attend the program, and when the homeroom teacher advises that the student h a s been successful in the regular classroom, the student is exited from the program. But teachers do not necessarily rely exclusively on test results to exit a student. Sometimes, as expressed by one of the ESOL teachers, tests are administered "because you need a nu m ber in the student's file," and not because teachers find it necessary to assess students' progress . Some teachers like the ESOL program coordinator have no doubts that informal a ssessment by classroom teachers can provide very reliable measures:

PAGE 123

You know, you know when kids are ready you would never have to give them a test or evaluate their English you just have to listen to what they say when kids are ready to go .... I don't know that I have ever released a kid that I knew he was not ready and part of what they do is either tell you the same story because they picked it up entirely from their classroom teacher or the other thing is they start asking: "Do I have to come to ESOL?" "Do I ha v e to come today?" "My class is doing such and such," "I don't want to come any more." And at first I was crushed ... my ego was just crushed. Terri's belief that there might be other ways of assessing students' progress, 110 especially in language related areas, is not unusual. In the past decade there has been a resurgence of literature suggesting that methods of informal assessment should be gathered for final interpretation, placement, and recommendation procedures . This body of literature does not suggest that standardized instruments be eliminated completely but rather that informal procedures be used to augment data gained through the use of tests (Cummins, 1984; McLaughlin, 1982; Padilla et al., 1991). These authors assert that traditional assessmen t procedures, which rely on standardized tests, often misidentify culturally and linguistically different students as learning disabled. Because the vast majority of tests are not designed to evaluate whether low performance is due to sociocultural factors or disability, LEP students are overwhelmingly misplaced in "special" classrooms. The dangers of labeling LEP students as learning disabled or low achievers through use of formal assessment procedures that are external to the child and classroom is clearly illustrated in Terri's recount of Bouzid's case: Bouzid is sitting in a third grade classroom and has been lost for two weeks. He came two weeks ago and he was the one that Kay, the speech teacher [brought] him in ... saying that he was going to be put ... in a special school, and found out that English was his second language, but because all the papers came from London, the secretary at the county office wrote English as his native language. Well then I talked to the psychologist who tested him. All of this was happening on Friday .... And then on Monday the school psychologist from [the special school] was called over to test the child and she did some non verbal WISC testing and ... talked to Kay and she had not even heard about an ESOL program, didn't know the r e was one in the county, had no idea there was one at Arthur .... Our guidance counselor had brought it to the attention of the psychologist so it was rather weird but after she found out there was an ESOL program, she agreed with Kay ... to put this child in ESE [Exceptional Student Education] in our school combined with ESOL. So the school psychologist thought that was good. So then the next day I was back in the office and I saw the school psychologist coming out with Bouzid again and she said she

PAGE 124

was called back to do further testing. I was thinking when are they going to come out with the results and with a placement for this student? So I tested him ... during my lunch time. . .. He scored 13 out of 22 and 10 out of 16, and our kids score perfect when they exit the program or maybe 20 out of 22. So he looks like he is right in the middle of some proficiency continual .... So then of course, when I was [testing] him I ... thought why do I have to wait to staff him in my program while they are waiting for some kind of another decision. So I am picking him up tomorrow. And he, poor guy, he is, I don't know he is very mellow and I am going to pick him up at 8: 15 and I am going to try to hold him with the second group because when I went to his classroom the teacher, she was "Oh thanks God." She was just "thank God you are taking him for some amount of time" because I found her later down at the first grade trying to find ma t erials for him. 111 Because o f the pervasive emergence of this type of problem when assessing LEP students, it is not surprising that the ESOL staff at Arthur have mixed feelings when they have to send one o f their students for psychological assessment. But Terri and her team of ESOL teachers are not alone when facing this type of dilemma. In a thorough study, in which psycholog i cal assessments of over 400 minority language students were analyzed, Cummins ( 1982) found out that bilingual and ESOL teachers were reluctant to send their students to the psychologist. Even though these teachers suspected that some of their students were having learning disabilities and could benefit from appropriate diagnosis and remediation, they refused to send students for psychological assessment. In Cummins' (1982) words, "the teachers know that the students will return with a permanent label and a one way ticket to a monolingual English special education class" (p. 1). Grouping Organizing the leaming experiences of LEP students in an ESOL pull-out program can be problematic. Clearly, when a program is composed by students of mixed cognitive levels and diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, multiple factors need to be considered . In order to support students' social and academic experiences in the school, grouping for language instruction the ESOL program staff at Arthur Elementary considers the following factors: English language proficiency level, grade level, skill areas (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), special needs (i . e., a student experiencing difficulty

PAGE 125

during the initial adjusting period, exceptionalities), and schedule requirements (i.e., articulation with other content areas). Each is discussed separately below. English la n guage proficiency level 112 This is perhaps the most important factor considered by the staff at Arthur ESOL and local district when grouping students. The Dade County Test of Aural Comprehension is used as a measure of aural language proficiency for students. In addition, other variables such as the ESOL and homeroom classroom teachers' informal observations are considered in the placement process. Grade level Another criteria for student placement is based on the student's grade level. However t his may not always be the case. For example when Tshilidzi, a kindergarten student, joined the program in late November she was placed in a small group with second and third graders. The coordinator's reasoning was that it would be easier to observe Tshilidzi i f she placed her in the smaller group. Language skill areas Former school records, recommendations of the LEP Committee, content area teachers' observations, and the ESOL teacher's assessment constitute important sources of information about students' individual needs in the language skills areas of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Homeroom schedule Arthur's ESOL staff tries to schedule ESOL math and reading instruction at the same time that those content areas are instructed in their homeroom classroom. This is not always possible but the program staff strives to avoid disruptions in the regular flow of

PAGE 126

113 students' homeroom activities . Because teachers in this ESOL program strongly believe that children make and consolidate relationships begun on the playground and in the lunchroom, time slots that remain unaltered are lunchtime and, if applicable, recess. In addition, the staff considers that music, art and physical education should not be forfeited because they could be particularly helpful for LEP students in various ways : to encourage interactions with English speaking classroom peers; to allow students to perform at the same leve l as their peers; and to allow students to share some of their background, language, and culture with members of their classes. In other words, activities such as music, art, and physical education are considered ideal contexts where LEP students can succeed w i th or without English. Scheduling During my one year stay at Arthur's ESOL, I observed that a significant portion of the conversation during faculty meetings and lunchtime was spent deliberating about how to rearrange or improve students' schedules. Throughout the school year, group composition and time distribution for instruction were changed on countless occasions. These changes were due to several reasons: the arrival or exit of one or several new students, t h e need to provide special assistance to a particular student or group of students, or to improve schedule arrangements for one or several students. Table 4.2 depicts time arrangeme n ts for the conversational ESOL class during the month of November. Although groups we r e defined as beginners, intermediates, and advanced, it was not unusualas in the case of Tshilidzi , mentioned above--to find a beginning student in a group of intermediat es, or an intermediate student in an advanced group . As mentioned earlier, there were other fac t ors, in addition to level of English proficiency, that were taken into accoun t when designing group arrangements. After the third week of classes -with the exception of

PAGE 127

114 TABLE 4.2 Typical Daily Schedule Month: November Home Time Group Name Grade Language 8:15 9:00 1** Jose 2 Spanish Jesus 4 Spanish Lara 3 Spanish Marcus 3 Portuguese Manuela 3 Portuguese Henrique 4 Portuguese Neda 2 Farsi Hasitha 2 Sanhala 9:00 9:45 II* Andy 1 Korean San-Ha 2 Korean Ji-Hae 3 Korean Hye-Kang 4 Korean Hyun-Tae 4 Korean Borni 1 Chinese Marcos 1 Chinese Ru-Chi 3 Chinese Tony 3 Chinese Rolf 4 German Michal 1 Polish Evelyn 2 Spanish Misha 2 Russian 9:45-10:30 III** Yan Sun 1 Chinese Jei-Yie 2 Chinese Sarah 1 Arabic Chimwemwe 2 Chichewa Kimberly 1 Creole English Adrienn 1 Hungarian Zuly 1 Indonesian Patrick 1 Portuguese Hector 1 Spanish Ji-Sun 2 Korean 10:30 -11:1 5 IY*** Aline 5 Portuguese Elize 5 Portuguese Enrique 5 Spanish Erica 5 Spanish Wei-Jue 5 Chinese Aswin 5 Indonesian Gabor 5 Hungarian (Continued)

PAGE 128

115 Table 4 . 2Continued Home Time Group Name Grade Language 1l:15 12: 00 V* Sun Min K Korean Sun-Joo K Korean An-Chi K Chinese Guido K German Szumon K Polish 12:00 12: 30 Lunch 12:30-1:10 VI* Fernando K Spanish Tomas K Spanish Lisa K Spanish Aura K Spanish Erika K Spanish Marie Ann K Spanish Nannah K Chinese Lydia K Chinese Hyung Bin K Korean Philippe K Portuguese Sandari K Sinhala 1:10 1:50 VII** Api 2 Indonesian Gane s ha 2 Indonesian Rafael 1 Portuguese Alvaro 1 Spanish * Beginners * * In t ermediates *** A d vanced kindergarteners--all students knew quite well where to go, at what time, and with whom for their ESOL class. If a student was transferred to another group, both student and group were informed about the change. Throughout the year, whenever new students arrived, "experienced" LEP students were assigned to guide these newcomers through these, at times, bewildering routines . In general terms, the ES OL staff at Arthur made exceptional efforts in organizing each stud e nt's schedule so ESOL classes would not interfere with the students'

PAGE 129

116 participation in the full academic life of the schooL Some of the troublesome problems that ESOL teachers tried to overcome included cases in which an LEP student did not mix with English speaking peers, was isolated in the homeroom class, was missing music class, or consisten tl y arrived early to ESOL. These teachers are very much aware that timetables as entangled as Hyun Tae's, discussed earlier, can become a burden for some students or, what is worse, can cause deep feelings of isolation in students. Program Description Arthur's ESOL program as well as the three other ESOL programs in the Hubert school district use a "pullout" modeL That is, students at all grade levels receive instruction in English from regular classroom teachers, and support and individualized instruction in reading a n d math an d , occasionally, in other subject matters from the ESOL staff. Every day most of the students enrolled in the program spend three 45-minute periods in their ESOL classrooms. In other words, students leave their homeroom classroom daily to attend one conversational English class in the ESOL 1 classroom (Figure 4 . 2), one math class in the ESOL 2 classroom (Figure 4.3), and one reading class in this same classroom. Instructio n in all three areas takes place in English. Before discussing the programmatic and instructional aspects of the three components of the ESOL program, a review of the goals and objectives is in order. In the Hubert School District Limited English Proficient (LEP) Program Plan 0990-1993), the ESOL program's main objectives are listed under Section 1. A. LEP Program Philosophy: ... to provide systematic instruction in English designed to develop LEP students' English language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing), to promote intra and cross cultural awareness, and to provide opportunities for cognitive and affective development necessary for successful m a instreaming into the regular school programs. (p. 1)

PAGE 130

117 An examination of this official statement reveals that the main objective is to help students learn English so they can be mainstreamed. Not surprisingly, all the ESOL teachers in the program considered the acquisition of English the top priority for their LEP students. As Terri, the ESOL program coordinator at Arthur, emphatically put it: I think that the one goal is to help kids learn English and I think another goal is that they learn to to function in an American culture. And then I see it as our role to support them through that whole process that can, you know, can have its ups and downs. So probably those, if I just say them off the top of my head and by learning English I think it means all four skills listening, speaking, reading, writing. With these broad goals in mind, the focus can narrow to the distinctive objectives and characteristics of each of the three components of the ESOL program at Arthur elementary school. Infonnation regarding the conversational, reading, and math ESOL classes is presented here so that an overall picture of the classes and the way they operate may become clear. Also included in this section, is a description of a typical day in the conversational ESOL class. This recount of the nature of day to-day life within one class, will provide the reader with a view of the program from the perspective of the participants. Conversa t ional English Class One of the main objectives of the conversational component of the ESOL program at Arthur elementary is to provide opportunities for learners to engage in conversational interaction in English through the use of communicative activities. When asked about the main goals of this class, Terri, the program coordinator and teacher answered: To help kids learn English, to encourage them to talk to communicate as much, to communicate with others. In their classrooms, poor guys, in their classrooms they are all quiet all the time .... Well I really don't know, I can't say . . . maybe not. On another occasion, Terri commented: When our kids come here they are dying to talk:. You can see it in their faces, so ... here we try to, everything here [is to] encourage them to communicate. Everything we do is because we want to help them talk.

PAGE 131

118 Although the focus of this ESOL component is on conversation, students work on a variety of activities that include reading, writing, computer literacy, and art among others. For example, in relation to writing activities, students do creative writing, journal writing, poetry, letter writing, composition, and publishing. In terms of reading, students work on reading and telling stories, poems, myths, tales, and legends. In addition, mechanical aspects of language, such as grammar, phonetics, punctuation, and spelling are also practiced. On occasions teacher and students review selected or problematic topics from the conten t areas. Other classroom practices include the use of permanent learning centers, such as the computer and listening centers, as well as floating centers for art projects, writing, and games. Talking circle, plays, skits, and role-playing are also recurrent activities in this classroom. For the most part, the majority of activities in ESOL 1 require that students work in pairs and small groups. Unlike some traditional second language classrooms where reading, writing, speaking, and listening are "taught" as separated skills, language experiences in Terri's classroom are integrated. Both oral and written experiences are provided together and used to support one another. The following account suggests a case in point. During the last week in October, most activities for beginning students in Group II were developed around the topic "house." The first day, while in a circle, Terri showed a book cover portraying a house to introduce a new set of key words. These words included parts of, and objects in, a house or apartment. After students practiced the new words with Terri, they went to their tables to work on their key words. Each child had a ditto sheet with sixteen different objects associated with a house. Their task was to copy from the chalkboard the name of each object and try to remember its meaning. Once they were done they could color the pictures, if they so desired, and take their sheets home to "study" their new words. It t ook these students, in grades 1 to 4, about seventeen minutes to complete copying the set of sixteen words. Some of them had to copy letter by letter since they were still learning the Latin alphabet. Students did, however, take this activity very seriously.

PAGE 132

This was evidenced by the attention they paid to details as they were writing, by their attempts to remember the meaning of each word as they were spelling it, and by their eagerness to get the right pronunciation as they repeated word after word. 119 Ne x t day after talking circle, the teacher played a record with the song "Show Me. " This activit y required that children sing along and point at the objects as they were being named. St u dents seemed to enjoy the activity; they sang along and pointed at objects and when the song was over they asked to play it again. And so Terri played it five times. By the last rou n d, students knew almost all the objects in the song and were able to predict which obje c t was going to be mentioned next. Th e next activ ity, that same morning, entailed drawing their house in Florida and their house i n their home country. They were to draw each house on one half of their paper . Aft e r students finished their drawings, they labeled some of the objects in their pictures (e . g., door, window, curtains). Although students basically labeled objects included i n t heir sLxteen-word list, they also asked for some new words. The next step involved s h aring with their group one thing about either house. Some students were brief in their comments, such as Ji-Hae, who said: "house in Korea many many flowers," whereas ot h ers like Rolf said: "my house here is nice, do not have one pond and fish. M y house in S w itzerland have one pond . " It is important to note, that almost all students in this group l ooked at their drawings as they talked. For example, when Ji-Hae shared her comment she was looking at her picture as she mentioned the word "flowers." Prior to this exchange, J i-H a e had asked me for the English words for some of the objects she had in her drawing and were not included among the key words. So, as she pointed at objects in her picture, I named them: "flowers," "stairs," "curtains," and "door bell." Afterwards, a s I wrote them on a piece of scrap paper, Ji Hae repeated each word after me. Then she added the new labels to her drawing by copying them from the scrap paper.

PAGE 133

120 There is certainly an important process in this sequence. Ji Hae had (a) elicited a key word ( flower), (b) learned its meaning, (c) practiced how to pronounce it, (d) written the new word, (e) used the word within an oral context, and (f) read it aloud. In short, Ji Hae was beginning to speak, read , and write in a second language; she was becoming literate in English. And all this was happening within a context that emphasized learning through language. Students like Ji-Hae were already using their recently acquired language skills as a r esource--to communicate (orally and through print) their own experiences. The speech addressed to students (e.g., throughout the story, by discussion of the book's cover, in t h e song "Show Me," during small group work) provided them with a considerable amount of evidence about the way in which the second language system works. During the small group activity, most of the talk was about the ongoing activity; language w as being used by students not only to learn new words, but, for the most part, as instrumental to the task in hand. As the example shows, Ji-Hae and her peers were learning that they could use their second language to meet their needs, to learn, and to communicate with others . And this process was taking place within a social context, carefully c r eated, implemented, and monitored by the teacher. The language context, the environment, and the climate of the classroom are important factors that influence how students will use language (Pinnell, 1985). In this conversational English class, activities are design e d to encourage holistic language developmentnot just speaking. Reading, listening, a nd writing are equally important and provide a supportive, integrated framework for second language teaching and learning. Th i s linkage between the oral language and written language is what Enright and McCloske y (1988) call the "speech-print connection." They highlight the importance of providing L EP students w i th meaningful and interesting learning activities that allow for this type o f connection. Students like Ji-Hae bring with them a baggage of oral experiences and abilities in both English and in their fIrst language. This wealth of experiences can be

PAGE 134

121 used as vehicles for integrating oral and written discourses in their second language. Cook Gumperz and Gumperz (1981) highlight the importance of this kind of oral-written connection when discussing first language speakers' "transitions to literacy": Children need experiences in school that favor the learning of written culture through the medium of the oral culture, thus building on the interpretative skills and linguistic understandings that children bring to the school experience, as a basis for further reading. . .. In fact, children need a saturation experience of orally transformed 'written prose' in as many cu l turally 'neutral' ways as possible (such as through the teaching of sc i ence) in order to transform, for themselves, the rhythms of spoken language into the written modes. (pp. 107 108) Like their native English-speaking peers, LEP students also need the kinds of oralwritten connections that Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz (1981) call for. That is, the kind of meaningful and interesting learning activities that allow students like Ji-Hae to integrate their new experiences (e.g., house in Florida) and past experiences (e.g., house in Korea), with oral and written activities in a second language. The topical content of Terri's conversational class is developed around a series of designated themes that change weekly. As described in Table 4.3, these topics range from those dealing with key terms, such as, "house," "schools," and "directions" to more complex topics, such as "cities" and "means of communication." Initially, students begin working on each theme around a basic set of words. As in the above account, when talking about "the house" Ji-Hae's group worked with a basic vocabulary list provided by the teacher (i.e., the sixteen words in their worksheets) and added to this basic list by requesting more words as they discovered needs to communicate meaning. This "general key vocabulary" idea was first proposed by Ashton-Warner (1963) in her book describing the literacy instruction of Maori children in New Zealand. Whether these sets of key words are provided by the teacher or requested by the children themselves, this strategy facilitates students' transition to literacy because it provides them with a set of basic tools for meaning making in a second language. In Ashton-Warner's (1963) view:

PAGE 135

122 TABLE 4.3 ESOL Weekly Themes Arthur Elementary School Month Topic Theme No. A u gust 1 Survival for Teachers and Students 2 Introductions 3 Survival Skills September 4 School Vocabulary Rules 5 Body PartslBasic Moves/Shapes 6 Food 7 Clothing O c tober 8 S igns/S ymbols/S ports 9 Animals as Pets;Zoo Animals 10 Halloween 11 H ouses N o vember 12 Voting 13 Directions 14 I ndi an sIN ature 15 Thanksgiving 16 Weather December 17 The Five Senses 18 Toys/Games/Hobbies 19 Winter Jolidays Around the WorldlPeace January 20 Calendar/Seasons 21 Time 22 Fairy Tales/Rhymes 23 Money/Buying/Selling/Trading 24 Backgrounds of our People F e bruary 25 Feelings 26 Friendship/valentine's Day 27 Communication 28 International Culture Festival M arch 29 Growth and Change 30 Country 31 City 32 The MarketlPrice Comparison A p ril 33 Spring Holidays 34 MenuslN utrition 35 Health/Medical 36 Transportation M ay 37 Occupations/Tools 38 Water!Ecology 39 Americana/Folk HeroeslFolk Songs J u ne 40 Endings (Saying Goodbye)

PAGE 136

Back to these fIrst words. To these fIrst books. They must be made out of the stuff of the child itself. I reach a hand into the mind of the child, bring out a handful of the stuff I fInd there, and use that as our fIrst working material. Whether it is good or bad stuff, violent or placid stuff, colored or dun. To effect an unbroken beginning. And in this dynamic material, within the familiarity and security of it, the Maori finds that words have intense meaning to him, from which cannot help but arise a love of reading. Fo r it's here, right in this fIrst word, that the love of reading is born, and the longer his reading is organic, the stronger it becomes, until by the time he arrives at the books of the new culture, he receives them as another joy rather than as a labor. I know all this because I've done it. (p. 34) It is within this organic and creative world of educational practices described by Ashton Warner (1963), and constructed in Terri's classroom that we now tum to an 123 account of the day-to-day life in Terri's classroom. The type of integration between written and oral discourses, the degree of interaction among teacher and students and among students; the emphasis on meaningful conversations; the variety of cross-cultural experiences; and the support, care, and laughter that are so much a characteristic of this class will become visible as the account unfolds . What follows is a description of the moment by moment actions of Terri, the ESOL conversational English teacher, and her students throughout a typical school day. This account is drawn primarily from fIeldnotes taken on Monday October 2, 1989. The narrative form marks a sharp contrast in comparison with the more traditional writing style used up to this point. At least two differences contribute to the contrast. First, the narrative is presented in the active voice (e.g., they do this now). This adjustment, characteristic in ethnographic studies, is referred to as writing in the "ethnographic present" (VanMaanen, 1988). The purpose of doing so is to situate the reader in the present action instead of looking back at some singular instance that belongs to the past. That is, events are represented not as a character of some particular historically situated instance existing at the time o f the study, but rather as a timeless episode in this ESOL program. Second, the narrative description does not include citations, parenthical interpretations, or footnote references . These language conventions of written textso much a characteristic of

PAGE 137

scholarly reports of research--are abandoned here so that the natural flow of recounted events is not interrupted. And now the day begins. A Dav at Arthurs' ESOL Conversational Class As Terri turns into the parking lot at 7:20 a.m., she waves at Carmen, the Spanish teacher, who is getting out of her car. A few minutes after Terri has opened the back door of her classroom, Grandma arrives. Terri starts getting out her les son plan book and some papers from the cloth bag she brought from home, and Grandma starts talking about having car trouble. Terri participates in Grandma's narration by saying, at several points: "wow," "oh no," "yes," and the like. Terri then goes to the teacher's lounge to check her mailbox. On her way back she receives some complaints from Ms . W, a first grade teacher. Gabriel, a Bolivian student, is constantly forgetting his lunch money. Terri responds that she will talk to his parents. When she comes back, at 7:42, Lisa's parents are waiting in the room. Although they have recently arrived from Costa Rica, they are qu i te fluent in English. They want to talk with Terri because their daughter, a bubbling kindergartener, does not want to come to ESOL anymore. Lisa had told her parents that in ESOL students don't speak English. After parents and teacher talk for about fifteen minutes, the young couple leaves with smiling faces. Later, Terri mentioned that it is not unusual that some kindergarten children, when they first arrive, don't want to come to ESOL. "They are trying to learn rules and routines in their classroom and then when we pick them up, we disrupt their day," she said. She also added that she would only bring Lisa to the ESOL class twice a week until she felt more comfortable. 124

PAGE 138

By now it is almost 8:00 and Terri literally runs to her closet and br i ngs some construction paper. The theme for this week is "farm animals." As she goes through her file cabinet as though searching for something, Douan , a former ESOL student, stops by and says "hi" and from a distance, shows Terri his new braces. Terri greets the student with a big smile as she grabs some papers from her files and puts them on a table in the back part of the room. Marcus, a third grader arrives at 8:08 for his 8:15 class. It is not unusual that students come early to their ESOL class. Terri says that as the year goes by, students become more at ease and come earlier and earlier. Marcus says hello to the three of us and sits at Grandma's table. Grandma is making some flags out of construction paper. She has an encyclopedia and a book with pictures of flags from all over the world. Marcus points out to a flag and says "Brazil, this is my." To which Grandma adds: "oh thi s is the flag of Brazil, it's very pretty and different from the others." Marcus responds "yes" and then points at other flags as he names the different countries. At once, six students enter the classroom through both doors. Most of them surround Grandma and Marcus and start talking and pointing at some flags in both books. While two other students move toward Terri who cheerfully welcomes them, Neda, a student from Iran, gets a book from the shelves. At 8:1 8 Terri calls the students for talking circle. Students grab their chairs and form a circle. Like other days, Grandma and I join the circle. Marcus and Henrique, both from Brazil, are still talking in Ponuguese while Jose and Lara, brother and sister from Nicaragua, speak Spanish. The other children in this group are Neda from Iran, Hasitha from Sri Lanka, 125

PAGE 139

Manuela from Brazil, and Jesus, from Venezuela. For most of these students, this is their second year at Arthur. "Well hello, it's good to see you again" says Terri. After some informal greetings among teachers and students, Terri asks: "what did you do over the week end? I'll start telling you about my trip to Ohio and then you can tell me, okay." Terri talks for a minute or so about her trip. She talks slowly, using lots of gestures, and changes in intonation, and children focus on her throughout her talk . As typical on other Mondays, students are eager to talk about their week-ends, and each child gets one or two opportunities to talk. For the most part, turns are assigned by Terri in a roundrobin fashion. At 8:43, Terri whispers to me, "some of these kids can talk all day." Then she says to the group: "two more stories and then I will read you a story and then we will work on our puppets." Two turns later, and after interrupting Marcus and Manuela who wanted another chance to talk, Terri tells the group what they are going to do today and tomorrow. Today they will read a story about animals and later they will work on their puppets so tomorrow they can put on a puppet show . After Terri reads Patrick's Dinosaurs the circle dissolves and students, as instructed by Terri, go to the table in the back part of the room. Each of them selects a ditto sheet with one of five animals on it for their puppets and chooses a place to sit. They can sit at Terri's, Grandma's, or my table. Four students sat with Terri while Grandma and I each had two students. After Terri and I distribute cr a yons, markers, and color pencils, we each sit at our tables. As students co lor their puppets, they are constantly comparing their animals, asking for m at erials, or making funny remarks about them. They often engage in 126

PAGE 140

spontaneous conversations with each other or a teacher. In general, everyone laughs a lot. As often happens , two students from the next group arrive at 8:55 a.m . Like students in the previous group, they stand up next to Grandma's ta b le and watch how other students work on their puppets. By now, most st u dents are almost done with coloring, cutting, and pasting their puppets on brown bags . Terri reminds them to clean up their place before leaving, bu t most of them are already standing and role playing dialogues with their puppets. There is lots of talking. Students from the next group keep arriving. Terri tells students in Group I: "it's time to go, you need to leave your puppets here ... tomorrow we ' ll practice some more." While Terri st a nds by the door, I remind some Group I students that it is time to go. As students leave, Terri says something to each student: "you did a good job to d ay," "what a pretty bow you have today Manuela," or, "when are you going to Disneyworld Marcus?" At 9:06, there are already six students in the classroom. Four of th e m are around Grandma ' s table who keeps working on her flags. St u dents point at flags from their countries. There is some talking among students, mainly in Korean--four students in this class are from Korea. St u dents in this group are beginners; they speak very little English, almost none at all. Terri asks me if I can pick up a new student who is from R u ssia. So I go to Ms. Jones' first grade classroom. When I get there, the new child is sitting at his desk working on some math problems. His te a cher brings him to me and says "this is Michael." As I hold his hand, I sa y "my name is Gisela" and point at my chest. Then I ask: "what is your name" while pointing at his chest and he responds: "my name is Misha." W h en we get to ESOL 1 Terri, Grandma, two volunteers, and the children 127

PAGE 141

are already settled and talking circle has already begun. Terri, then, introduces Misha to the group as "Mikhael," and I add "you can call him Misha." In a roundrobin fashion , children and adults introduce themselves, in t um, by saying their name, grade, and country of origin. Students seem to l ike this routine. Whenever there is a new student or a guest they do this "ri t ual." Sometimes they add variations by saying one thing about their co u ntry, or what food they like, or how old they are . After these introductions, Terri plays a record with the sounds of dif f erent animals and asks students to identify them. Students participate actively in this event by naming the animals and repeating their onomatopoeic sounds: "moo" utters the cow, "roar" howls the lion, and "miaou" makes the cat. Once this is over, Terri talks about the activities for to d ay and tomorrow. She also mentions the puppets and shows them some models done by students in past years. She then gives directions as to who is g oing to work with whom and what has to be done first, second, and so on . She repeats her instructions a couple of times and then asks questions to check if students understand her explanation. After this review, she ca lls, one by one, each of her students, and indicates where they should go. Some students smile while others clap their hands. As students move to different tables, Evelyn, a first grader from Peru tells me, in Spanish, that last night she studied with her mom all the animal words in her worksheet and also the words in two other worksheets (clothing and school objects) . Then she adds , still in Spanish, that while in the mall she used English t o tell her mom that she wanted a red skirt: "fuimos al Oaks Mall y en vez de decir quiero u na falda roja dije, I want red skirt" [we went to the Oaks Mall and instead of saying in Spanish, I want a red skirt, I said it in English]. I giv e Evelyn a hug and congratulate her. She then walks to Grandma's table 128

PAGE 142

and so does Borui. Rolf, Michael, Ji-Hae, and Ru Chi sit with Ms. H, Andy with Mr. H, and Hyun-Tae, Marcos, Misha, Tony, San-Ha and Hye-Kang sit with Terri. I didn't have a group, so I decided to move around among the different tables. As students are coloring their puppets they are constantly repeating words such as different colors, names of animals, and parts of the face, among others. Adults are also constantly talking. We can "listen in": Teacher Tony Teacher Tony Teacher DO YOU WANT TO CUT THIS PART ugh DO YOU WANT TO CUT HERE yes cut YOU NEED TO CUT YOUR FISH SO YOU CAN PASTE IT WITH GLUE {pointing at student's fish} {looking at teacher} {hands scissors to student} {Teacher points where to cut} ON THIS BROWN BAG {shows bag} SEE HOW IT LOOKS AFTER YOU CUT IT AND PASTE IT HERE IS THE GLUE THEN YOU HAVE A PUPPET FISH PUPPET TONY Tony yeah puppet This class ends at 9:45. So at 9:46, or thereabout, I take Misha back to his classroom. He is smiling as we walk back to his class. At one point he says "green frog and laughs." As we approach his classroom, Ms. Jones comes to greet us and asks me where he is from. I say "Russia" and added that his name is Mikhael but he wants to be called Misha. She responds with a "hmm" and then she asks "do you also speak Russian?" I say no and leave. I get back to ESOL 1. It is now 9:51 and some students from Group II are still here . Terri asks me if I can take Marcos, a first grader, back to his class. She had gone earlier but they were having a test and she couldn't interrupt. So Marcos and I leave. Back in the classroom, some students from Group III are gathering their chairs around the circle. Adrienn and Szuli come running and give me 129

PAGE 143

a hug. We all join talking circle. "Conversation day," announces Terri and then goes on to explain that everyone can say one thing about their week-end. She, again, starts by talking about her trip to Ohio and then gi v es each child a chance to talk. Terri assigns turns as a result of students' bi ds. The talk is lively; children not only talk a lot but they also ask questions of the speaker in turn, and also laugh a lot. They all seem to foll ow the ongoing discussion as indicated by the relevance of their qu e stions to the topic being discused and their focus on different speakers. When this phase of talking circle is over, Terri explains what they will be do i ng to d ay and tomorrow. At the outset of this talking circle , she directs st u dents t o their tables: "Alvaro will work with Mr. H, Szuli, Jin and H e ctor with Grandma, Ji-Sun and JeiYi with Gisela, Adrienn, Sarah and Kim with me, and, let's see, Chimwemwe with Ms. H." By now it is already 10: 13 a .m. Students choose a ditto sheet with the face of one animal. There are chickens, frogs, cows, fish, and horses. JeiYie and Ji S u n sit with me. Ji-Sun, a second grader who has been in t he ESOL program for a year and a half, tells me she doesn't want to make puppets: " w e've done this before ... I hate puppets." I try to convince her that these ar e different puppets and that we are going to use them to set up a play. A f ter my long spiel, both girls say "okay" and both of them get their sheets w ith chickens. Throughout the remainder of the period, as Ji-Sun and Jei Y i e work on their puppets, they don't stop talking. Their talk includes similarities and differences between the way they were coloring their p u ppets, and abou t the different anim a ls they had seen. Although I am an activ e panicipant in this conversation, the students do most of the talking. T h e same is happening in the other groups. 130

PAGE 144

At one point the school principal comes in with the curriculum resource teacher (CRT) and with a tall man in a three-piece suit. She says hello to Terri, walks around as she talks with her guest, and then leaves. La ter Terri and I laugh together about how perfectly organized the class looked during their visit, unlike most of the time. It is the end of the period, and we are not succeeding in sending this group of students back to their classrooms. Some students are still finishing their puppets while others are role playing with them. Terri does no t seem to be bothered, although she reminds them that if they don't leave no w, some of them will be late for their lunch time. She then stands at the door and dismisses one by one all her students giving an enthusiastic hug to so m e and affectionate touching to others while always saying something to ea c h student such as: "see you tomorrow," "hurry, you'll be late for lu n ch, "or "I like the way you colored your frog." She has not yet finished di s missing students in Group III when fifth graders start arriving for the next group. Usually Terri and I have to spend some minutes "helping" students in the previous group get ready to go. These children enjoy the class v ery m u ch. As Chimwemwe's comment illustrates: "I wish I could come all day to Ms. S ' s class. I wish I could be Ms. S's daughter so I can stay here for ever." The next class "officially" begins at 10:30, although it generally starts later. This class is the only group of advanced students in the program. There are six fifth grade students in this group, all of them in at lea st their second year in the ESOL program. At around 10:42 we all sit around Terri's table. After some brief gr e etings and some "catching up," Terri talks about what they are going to do today. As she speaks, Gabor and Wei-Jue engage in a discussion about 131

PAGE 145

their science class. As they become excessively loud, Terri stops talking and looks at them. Once they get quiet , Terri continues with her explanation about how to do their book reports. A minute later, both students resume their earlier argument. In response, Terri asks them to share their problem with the group. In a nutshell, Gabor reported that he was upset because W e i-Jue's group got an easier assignment than his group. After several exc hanges in which all students with the exception of Elize are participating, th e impasse gets cleared. A consensus is reached suggesting, first, that it is nobody's fault that one group got an easier assignment and, second, that sometimes Gabor' s group gets an easier task. Throughout the discussion , is s ues regarding fairness, relativism, and competition are examined. The students are completely involved in the discussion; their arguments are farrea ching. This type of interaction is not unusual in this group . Topics such as animal rights, racial issues, war, and the need to preserve tropical f o r ests, have triggered interesting and lengthy debates. By now i t is about 11 o'clock and the group disbands. In the remainder of the period, Elize sits with Ms. H at a small table. Elize, from B r azil, does not want to speak English, although she seems to understand it pretty well. She is able t o do her assignments alone and to follow all sorts o f directives. Terri says she respects her "silent period," but sometimes w i shes she could "open up." Ms. Hand Elize seem to work well together. E l ize enjoys listening to Ms. H as she reads a story, but also she seems to e njoy reading for Ms. H . Gabor goes with Mr. H to another table. As soon as they sit down, Gabor begins to read. He reads well and Mr. H helps him by pronouncing some words for Gabor, or explaining their meaning. Gabor then taught Mr. 132

PAGE 146

H h ow to say "hello," "good-bye," and "thank you" in Hungarian. Gabor ' s instruction is given in English. In the meantime, Terri is working with Aline from Brazil, Erica from Peru, Wei Jue from Taiwan, Aswin from Indonesia, and Enrique from Bolivia. They are negotiating aspects of their book contracts. Once agreement is reached, each student signs a contract with Terri stating how many books they will read per month. It takes them a while to negotiate the nu m ber and t ypes of books. These contracts are sponsored by Pizza Hu t as part of a special reading campaign. If students follow through with their promises, they earn free pizzas. Students are discussing how to write a book review and what to include in it: title and author, character you liked best, would you recommend the book? how did the book made you feel? Erica and Aswin go t o the media center to get some books. Although Terri is doing most of the talking, the students are continually asking questions or extending what the te a cher is saying. Afterwards, Gabor and Elize join the table again, and Terri praises Enrique because he had already read 38 pages. Because Terri stated that for their contract they could read in English or in t heir native lan g uage, Gabor is reading a book in Hungarian. She shows it to the group and t hen reads one paragraph. Students agree that Hungarian is a difficult lan g uage. During the last few minutes Terri writes some sentences on the board for students to edit. Students seem to like this very much. They wo r k on each sentence as a group; they look for errors in grammar, spe lli ng, and punctuation. They don't have to participate if they don't feel like it, a nd they don't have to do any writing. Aline says: "I like this, is a game, like a game and I learn many things of English, of writing in English." 133

PAGE 147

The Hs are the first to leave; they won't come again until mid November. They are going to Colorado to visit their son. The fIfth graders start leaving, walking very slowly with their books and backpacks. Grandma follows them on her way to the lunchroom. Daily at 11: 15 or thereabout, Terri goes to three kindergarten classrooms to pick up her five students from Group V. Today I go with her . When we come back we all sit on the floor and Terri shows them a big pos ter with farm animals. She first asks the children if they know the name of each animal. If they name the animal, she repeats it with the students; if the y don't know the name, she says it and then asks students to repeat it. After several of these rounds she mentions one thing about each animal, suc h as: "the cow gives us milk . " Terri then asks one by one each of her students to point at an animal and say its name. She lets students comment on a ny of the animals if they want to. Terri tells students to choose one animal that they want to draw. After students have chosen their animal we all go to Terri's table . As students work on their animals, Terri and I talk constantly with them. Although they only use short phrases or repeat what we are saying, lots of English is being used. For instance, students often request this or that color marker, glue, or an eraser. The content of their talk is primarily about animals (e.g. , cow, hair, bird, wings) and about the acti v ities they are involved in (e.g., cut, paste, scissors) . Once they fInish their animals, they paste them on a big piece of paper and then start coloring the background . "This is our own poster," Terri says, as students work on it. T wo students say they don't want to color so Terri asks them if they want puzzles . Students rush to get the puzzles. When the school year began Terri had only one group for all kindergarteners, but now she has split them in two. After lunch she will 134

PAGE 148

work with the other eleven kindergarteners. This first group is small because, as Terri states: "there are a couple of kids that need lots of attention and have been having some problems in their classrooms and in here. I think it is because they feel frustrated not being able to communicate, but they are doing much better now." At 12:03 Terri and I walk the students back to their classrooms. Grandma has left already; she only stays until 12 p.m. Now it is lunchtime so I go to the teachers' lounge toget my yogurt. Like other days, Susan, Jackie, and Alma are already sitting around Terri's kidney-shaped table. The conversation during lunch is lively; we talk about films, cars, and students. Teachers are concerned about JiHae. She cried last week on three occasions. Then Alma and Susan mention the need to separate Borui from the other two first graders--Andy and Marcos--during reading and ma th. When the three of them are together they don't work at all, they just want to play. By now it is 12:30 and our lunch break is over. Some minutes after 12:30 Terri and I go to pick up her Group IV. It is not easy to walk in an orderly manner with these eleven energetic kindergarteners from four different classrooms. No wonder Terri calls them, affectionately, her "albatrosses." After some minutes of "give and take" we all sit on the floor in a sort of funny-shaped circle. Each of us has a child on our laps. Sometimes this is the only way to help them calm down. From here on everything goes smoothly--as smoothly as it can go with eleven six-year olds from 8 countries, speaking 5 different languages, and just beginning to learn English. As with the earlier kindergarten group, Terri talks with them about farm aninlals. Then she divides the group in two and assigns six students to herself and five to me. We encourage students to draw and cut their animals and then to work on the poster. In 135

PAGE 149

this group there is a lot of interaction, more so than the previous group. Some students go back and forth from one table to the other to check what and how their friends are doing. At 1 :08 Terri and I each take a group of students back to their classrooms. There are only four students in Group VII, the last of the day. As Terri and I walk: to pick up Ganesha and Api, we see Misha, the new Russian student. We discuss how sad it is that this teacher has had him for three days and didn't know his country or how to say his name. When we see Misha working on some math problems, as he had been earlier in the da y , Terri comments: "He probably has been doing that all day, poor guy." Then she adds: "let's take Misha also." Terri enters to Ms. Jones' classroom and walks directly towards Misha's desk. She then touches the ch i ld's arm and with her hand signals him to follow her as she says "come Misha." Misha smiles and follows Terri. Ganesha and Api are behind us. Then we all go to get Rafael, a first grader from Brazil. Once in ESOL 1 we sit around Terri's kidney-shaped table and while Terri works with Rafael, Api, and Ganesha on their animal puppets, I work with Misha checking his basic English vocabulary (e.g., colors, greetings, simple objects). Misha knows a few words and smiles whenever I praise him. At one point, Misha shows me something from his pocket. It's a small toy airplane. I say "airplane, this is an airplane, say with me Misha, airplane," and he says "airplane" twice . At 1 :50 I take the four boys back to their classrooms. We first take Rafael to his classroom. Then Api and Ganesha run ahead while I walk with Misha. When we get to his classroom, I say "good bye Misha, bye, I'll see you tomorrow." He responds: "yeah airplane." At 2:00 the bell rings and all students rush to their buses, except for those in the after school program who walk slowly towards the cafetorium. 136

PAGE 150

While Terri is cleaning up her classroom and preparing some materials for tomorrow, she makes a couple of phone calls and sets up two parent conferences with Ji Hae's and Borui's parents. Later she also talks with tw o teachers about changing some students' times for ESOL. At 3:30 Terri he a ds for the parking lot, closing her day in school. The ESOL Reading Class 137 Bas ic reading instruction through the ESOL program is planned in accordance with the district adopted reading materials. ESOL teachers adapt the use of these materials to the specific needs of each LEP student. During reading activities, ESOL teachers encourage the lively i n teraction of reader and text, that is, interpretation, expansion, and discussion of alternative possibilities or other possible conclusions. Everyday most students enrolled in the ESOL p rogram attend one 45 minute period of reading instruction with one of the two ESOL rea d ing teachers -Alma and Jackie. Generally each group of three to six students sits with o n e of the reading teachers to practice particular decoding and encoding skills and/or to w ork on the district-adopted reading materials. On e other important function served by this component of the ESOL program has t o do with he l ping students cope with mechanical aspects of reading and writing. Because many students come from diverse language groups (such as Persian, Chinese , or Arabic), they are no t always familiar with the Latin alphabet. Their writing system may be completely different (e.i . , ideographic, pictographic, logographic); the language may be written from right to-left and top to bottom; letters may be written to extend both above and below the li ne; or, letters may not be joined and punctuation not always precise. For many o f these LEP students, transition to the Latin alphabet causes considerable confusion. ESOL teac h ers agree that it is especially problematic for those students who have to move from rightl eft orientation to left-right. In these cases, students' specific needs are a ddressed by the ESOL reading teachers at Arthur during one-to one or small group

PAGE 151

138 reading and writing instruction. For example, it is not unusual to find teacher and students playing Bi n go in order to deal with difficulties in directionality (e.g., letters that can be reversed). For instance, teacher-made Bingo cards with words that have the letters "b" or "d" and "p" or "q" might be used. Because this approach seems to successfully combine the motiva ti onal aspects of a game with the practice of specific decoding skills, students benefit at t w o levels: they can feel relaxed and at ease while in their ESOL reading class and they are learning mechanical aspects of their new language. The tr a nsition from oral contexts to the more abstract ones of written communic a tion can also be problematic. It entails mastery of a new coding system as well as learning to construct meaning without the benefit of the additional cues that are available during face-to-face interactions (Enright & McCloskey, 1988). In order to help students who are just beginning to read in the second language, the ESOL reading teachers a t Arthur use a variety of activities. For example as students begin practicing in their first level workbook, the teacher repeats selected words, such as "cat," "soap," and "truck " in order to allow students t o match initial sounds with corresponding letters. The next step is to ask students to think of words that begin with those same sounds or to locate them in their workbook s . It is not unusual that students who have acquired reading skills in their first language are able, after a short time, to read in a second language. At Arthur, it is not uncommon to see LEP students in their homeroom classrooms following the text and being able to pick up wherever the last reader left off. However, this does not necessaril y mean that they ar e able to understand what they are hearing or "reading." Part of the work in the ESOL reading class consists of helping students with the meaning, pronunciation , and spelling of w ords in their reading texts and workbooks. Ru-Chi, a fourth grader, makes a distinction between reading in her ESOL class and in her homeroom classroom: "See we have to write the vocabularies [in ESOL reading] and so I learn the vocabularies there but in my classroom they don't have time to do the vocabularies. We go very fast." In t his class

PAGE 152

139 at Arthur, when students need help with some words they can consult a dictionary, or they can always ask their peers or the teacher to spell, explain, or pronounce a word. Ji-Hae, a fourth grader, explains how she learned to read in this class: Up to about when she [the ESOL reading teacher] was telling me almost all the words ... I sort of liked it but now I love it, I like to read all the time so when Ms. V [Alma] was reading she helped me read because I couldn't read really good and then when I was in level four I loved it. ... I like the part when she was helping me read. I was reading and she [would] hold the same book I had and if I get a word wrong or didn't know then she tells me . So now I read really well. Completio n of one reading level in the ESOL program is significant. It means that students are able to spell and understand the words they read. The level number (e.g., level 7, level 11) is also i mportant to the students for another reason, especially when the number is lower than that of their English-speaker peers. The number is a public marker of not only reading ab i lities, but also peer standing. Both ESOL reading teachers believe that some of the practices that they use in their classroom are viewed by others as dull and mechanical. However, they also believe that these pract i ces support student learning in two important ways: first, "they help students associate sounds with words," and second, "they help students get a sense of accomplishment" because they are able to complete their worksheets and become familiar with their w orkbooks. After gaining confidence with this initial practice, students later move on to more creative writing activities in this class or, more frequently, in the conversational English class. Most LEP students feel that it is important to improve their reading ski ll s so they can move faster throughout the different reading levels. A fourth grader, in his second year at Arthur, described what he learned in his ESOL reading class as follows: We can do lots of reading and catch-up with the other persons like in our classroom. When we are not in the grade level you have to catch up like that cause like when you are only like in level five ... everybody makes fun of you. Like when they ask me what level I am in I say like I am in level seven and then they say "ha ha Hyun-Tae is in level seven" you know and everybody says "I'm in level eleven" you know.

PAGE 153

140 The ESOL Mathematics Class The focus of ESOL math is twofold: on the one hand, it is designed to help students develop and enhance their problem-solving skills, and on the other, to help them deal with and learn the highly specialized and complex language of mathematics. As stated by Susan, t he math teacher: "sometimes students know how to do everything, all the calculations , but their problem [is] that they can't they don't understand a problem when they read i t , or worse yet, when they hear a problem they can't [understand], it's hard." As in reading, basic math instruction in the ESOL program also follows the district's curriculum guidelines. Most LEP students in this school attend one 45-minute class of basic math per day . Average size for basic math instruction ranges from one-to one instruction to groups of four to six students. As students arrive at Susan's table, they get their workbooks and whatever materials they need (e.g., manipulatives, rulers, blocks), sit around Susan's table and start working where they left off the day before. If they had homework , they show it to the ESOL teacher who starts reviewing it. Feedback is often given immediately; if there are mistakes, the teacher points them out and asks the child how that result w as obtained. If the error is due to miscalculation, the child is asked to redo the problem; if it is the result of using a wrong operational or conceptual procedure, the teacher works with the student, explaining and illustrating until the child is able to solve similar problems a lone. Students are generally quiet in this class, although they can interact with their peers. It is not unusual to find all students in one group working at different levels. Although attempts are done to group them according to level, it is not al ways possible. And even if it happens to work out that way, students tend to move at different rates of speed within the same level. Thus, in this ESOL math class, each child does, indeed, receive individualized instruction. At the same time, however, students benefit from other students' experiences. Not only do they ask their peers for help, they also learn from their mistakes. One fourth grade student expressed his feelings about his experience in ESOL math:

PAGE 154

I like about studying with the older kids. I study with Aswin and Erica [at that time in fifth grade]. I can't remember very well .... I learned some English there and hard words. Very hard, like maybe like "train" maybe those written questions that you have "plus" and "add" and those words I couldn't know I had to ask Ms. C some of those words I don't know. 141 Although conversations in students' native languages are not encouraged, it is not surprising t o hear students and teacher using Spanish to get through a concept or procedure. Much the same happens among students who speak the same language, mostly when the teacher requests that one of them translate a term or explanation. English is typically used throughout the day in this classroom, but math lessons are often cause for temporary recourse to the native language. Students generally work fast in this classroom. The ESOL teachers agree that students probably "feel very good" about themselves once they finish a page or a unit. "And even better if they can get everything right." As one of the ESOL teachers puts it: "they are so smart, but they can't work out those problems without help. Unless we tell ... them, it's too hard, pobrecitos ellos [poor guys]." On some days, especially on Fridays, if children finish their assignment early, they play with math games, or color some of the illustrations in their workbooks. Homework is given individually and generally right before the period ends. Sometimes students ask for more homework so they can move faster through the different math levels. Susan is not always willing to give them too much homework; she believes it can be frustrating if they do not have anyone at home to help them. Typically students stay in the Math ESOL program less than two years. Students are generally exited once they reach their grade level and, when teachers "can be sure that they will finish the year at the same level as their class." Because of this criteria, once students are exited, they generally do very well in math in their homeroom class. Children appeared to be very fond of math and their math teacher, as expressed by Ji-Hae when talking about Ms. C:

PAGE 155

Ms. C. she been teaching me math so much so I'm good at math, better than my class ... It's good math [because] there Ms. C. tells me to do something and we can go faster than my class. That's what I like. 142 This high motivation to succeed in math, and to do it faster and better than their English speaking peers has been discussed by others (Guthrie, 1985; Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). One argument supporting this need for success is provided by Tony when he says: "they say I am dumb, he they say my I don't speak English. I know good math, I'm go fast, he they slower." Summary In t h is chapter a general view of the school and ESOL program has been presented. Along with descriptions of setting, characteristics of teachers and students, and the discussion o f selected day-to-day routines, pedagogical and organizational features of the program, and the opinions and feelings expressed by participants have been included. Throughou t this general exploration, or what Spradley (1980) calls a "grand tour" of the program, three points stand out. First, because of the heterogeneous composition o f the student population at Arthur's ESOL program--in terms of fluency in English, grade levels, linguistic a n d cultural backgrounds--the organization of learning experiences for language minority st u dents is mediated by a multiplicity of factors. Seco nd, the consequences of not being able to communicate appropriately in English go b eyond a linguistic realm. The inability to communicate in the new language--to learn the lo c ation of classrooms, school buses, or office bringing with it problems of survival--is a very obvious cause of stress in students . At the same time students are detached from emotional support and friendship, a factor which is the most openly avowed cause of un h appiness mentioned by students: I do n' t have any friends. I can't play with anyone, talk to anyone, and I hav e to sit in my desk and do nothing 'cause I don't know how to do my homeroom work .... So the first years are really boring cause I c a n't do any t hing .... See, when somebody hit me or something I can 't tell my teac her I can't communicate then. You see when I fIrst came to school I

PAGE 156

was very shy but I could talk with Ms. S [ESOL teacher], I could communicate with Ms. S. And the one that I like is that Meylin was helping. If it wasn't for her I wouldn't understand anything .... I was almost to cry, yeah I was I was sad 'cause I didn't understand English. I always cried at home when I [went] back from school. 143 In order to help LEP students cope with these feelings of isolation and to encourage them to participate, inasmuch as possible, in the whole array of school experiences, the ESOL staff carefully designs a schedule for each student. The result of this attempt of accommodating both the ESOL and the content-areas courses is a very complex timetable that, paradoxically, can increase those feelings of isolation. Third, and closely related to the above, the ESOL staff at Arthur plays an important role in providing a supportive system, a scaffold, in which LEP students' whole array of linguistic, academic, social, and emotional needs can be bolstered and integrated. The typical scaf f old used by construction workers when erecting buildings is a useful metaphor to explain this important function of the ESOL program at Arthur. In Greenfield's (1984) words: The scaffold, as it is know in building construction, has five characteristics: it provides a support; it functions as a tool; it extends the range of the worker; it allows the worker to accomplish a task not otherwise possible; and it is used selectively to aid the worker where needed. (p. 118) Continuing with this metaphor the role of Arthur's ESOL program is fundamental because it: (a) provides instructional support for language minority students in conversational English, reading, and math; (b) functions as a hub around which students' schooling experiences are organized; (c) extends and enhances students' learning experiences in a second lang ua ge and culture by providing a context wherein their previous native language and culture experiences are valued; (d) allows students to appropriately participate in everyday events by helping them learn the social and communicative demands of everyday life in a North American school; and (e) supports students ' academic, social, and emotional needs whenever needed.

PAGE 157

144 The supportive function of the ESOL program is, thus, quite visible. Although it is clear that these ESOL teachers are successful in their attempts to create a context that can bolster and integrate LEP students' experiences, it is not so clear how such a context gets constructed. Successful orchestration of these students' everyday lives in school seems to require more than just a group of willing teachers well prepared in planning, organizing, and managing the program. Classroom and school contexts--and for that matter contexts in general--are constructed through everyday interactions. And it is through these face-to face interactions, across events and over time that relationships get established and contexts created. Throughout this process different rules and expectations for participation are constantly being established, negotiated, and restablished. Thus one way to explore the supportive and dynamic nature of school contexts like Arthur's ESOL is to closely monitor how those rules and expectations get established. By examining recurrent classroom events in the program and the interactions therein, it is possible to identify how those "invisible" social processes of everyday life at Arthur get constructed. The exploration and identification of those not-so-visible patterns of social interaction is the focus of the next chapter. From the analysis of the macrocontexts, the focus now shifts to the analysis of microcontexts in order to identify (a) how everyday events at Arthur ESOL program are constructed and interpreted by teachers and students during social interactions, and (b) the ways in which teachers and students use language to negotiate e v eryday life in the conversational English class.

PAGE 158

145 Grandma has been working with the ESOL program since its inception in 1980. She is part of the district's special Foster Grandparent Program which places selected retired people in the school system. Grandma works daily from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. in the conversational English class. She participates in whole f,'TOUp activities, works with small groups of L EP students, or at times with only one child. Grandma also assists the teacher in preparing materials and decorating the classroom.

PAGE 159

CHAPTERS TALK AND INTERACTION IN TIIE CONVERSATIONAL ENGLISH CLASSROOM Introduction In the preceding chapter a detailed description and analysis of selected aspects of the ESOL program at Arthur elementary school was presented. Attention was given to instructional, organizational, and physical features of the ESOL program--in particular to the often complex and problematic procedures involved in assessing, placing, and grouping LEP students. Narrative vignettes, moment-by-moment accounts, and quotes of teachers and students provided a vivid portrayal of how schooling events were organized and the meanings they had for participants in this setting. It was suggested that the program not only assists LEP students in learning English, but most importantly, it provides a support system for students' social, academic, and emotional schooling experiences. Next to be considered is the analysis of the talk and interactive work that takes place in the conversational English class. For this purpose one selected practice is examined in relation to the specific social and academic requirements that constrain or enhance language use and language learning. More specifically, a description of the structural and communicative characteristics of "talking circle" is included. It will be argued that successful participation in a second language classroom entails more than the Willingness to talk in a second language. Successful participation also involves increasing awareness of the differing social and academic demands required across different classroom events, and across different phases within each event. This will be evidenced as the following in-depth analysis of a selected talking circle unfolds. The systematic exploration of three interrelated and interdependent levels of classroom interaction--topical, social, and communicative--will be approached following 146

PAGE 160

147 the analogy between observation and taking pictures (Wilkinson & Silliman, 1990) discussed earlier. It was said that four obselvationallevels filter infonnation in different ways so th a t only selected factors can be seen through the lens used. Outcomes of this process are different sets of data representing different aspects of an event. Thus far, a fIrst level of an a lysis , which includes general features of the setting and participants, has been presented i n chapter four. In this chapter, three other levels will be presented in the following order: the regular len s , the close-up lens, and the microclose up lens. This order is not arbitrary. Rather, it responds to a deliberate increase in the power of magnifIcation. In this sense, the "regular le ns" allows for exploration of the overt and manifest aspects of classroom interaction s uch as the content of t a lk. The focus at this level will be on the examination of topic initiation, development, and change. A second level of exploration includes the application of a close-up lens. This level of analysis permits a detailed examination of more complex an d not so visible infonnation. That is, the analysis of social demands for appropriate participation in classroom events. The fInal component of this multilevel exploration is provided by the use of a microclose-up lens . This most detailed level of analysis allows for the exploration of different communicative features that characterize the discourse used by participants throughout the event. An al ysis of these social and communicative aspects of instructional discourse represents one way of exploring the nature of classroom events. By focusing on these three levels, it is possible to identify the different demands placed on students for participation ( how, when, where, with whom to talk, and for what purpose ) ; to recognize the regularities and routines within and across classroom events; and to explore how different wa y s of o r ganizing interactions can enhance or constrain the quality and quantity of language u se and language learning.

PAGE 161

148 Talking C i rcle: Strucrural Phases "Talking circle" (so named by the participants in this study) is a total group activity that, generally, takes place at the beginning of the 45 minute conversational English class . Almost every day teacher and students gather in talking circle to share and discuss experiences, anecdotes, news, special events, introduce the weekly theme, and the like. Although the teacher might open the discussion by suggesting a general topic, the overriding assumption is that talking circle provides a place and an audience for students to discuss an y thing of interest to them . For example, after a holiday, most students want to talk about w hat they did on that day. The teacher provides a main theme and the srudents, their anecdotes, feelings, and insights. The purpose of this everyday event is, as stated by the teacher, "to help children talk." In o t her words, talking circle, as conceived by the ESOL program coordinator, assists LEP students in the development of language conversational forms by exchanging and reques t ing information, asking and answering questions, and elaborating and repairing oral discourse. Thi s sixteen-minute talking circle was videotaped on April 30, 1990. A camera was placed in the back part of the classroom and aimed at the participants gathered in a circle in the center of the classroom. Videotaping had previously occurred in the classroom almost dail y for approximately four months, so students were used to having a camcorder in their classroom. Once the camcorder was setup, it operated on its own . By using a wide-angled lens it was possible to capture the broad classroom context in which interactions and activities were taking place. Figure 5.1 illustrates location of camera and seating arra n gements of participants. Ten elementary LEP students from diverse linguistic and culrural backgrounds participated in this activity as part as their regular conversational ESL class. The children described i n T a ble 5 .1, 4 first graders, 4 second graders, 3 third graders, and 3 fourth graders , we r e all "beginners;" that is they spoke little or no English at the beginning of the

PAGE 162

08abrie188 Hyun-Tae JACKIE 8dY 8 8 V 8 . 8 Figure 5.1 Seating Arrangements During Talking Circle 149

PAGE 163

150 TABLE 5.1 Students Participating in "Talking Circle" Home Name Grade Language Sex Andy 1 Korean M Borui 1 Chinese M Marcos** 1 Chinese M Michal** 1 Polish M Gabriel* 2 Spanish M San-Ha** 2 Korean M Evelyn* 2 Spanish F Misha* ** 2 Russian M Ji-Hae 3 Korean F Ru-Chi 3 Chinese F Tony 3 Chinese M Hye-Kang 4 Korean M Hyun Tae 4 Korean M Rolf 4 German M * Arrivcd after the school year had started. ** Were not present on this day. school year . Three adults participated throughout the whole "talking circle" activity: the English teacher, the Foster Grandmother, and myself. Jackie, one of the ESOL reading teachers, also participated during the initial minutes of the activity. In o r der to sytematically describe the structure of classroom events within and across different classrooms in this program, a type case analysis procedure was used (Erickson & Schultz, 1981; Green & Weade, 1987). That is, one videotaped talking circle was selected for in-depth analysis from a total of sixteen videotaped talking circles collected throughout t he school year. Two main reasons supported this selection. First, because unlike most other talking circles -:.organized by Terri to provide a context for students to use language fo r communicative purposes--on this day the teacher also had important information to deliver. That is, a second purpose of this activity, as stated by the teacher,

PAGE 164

151 was "to in form students about a new classroom arrangement." Another reason for selecting t h is particular talking circle is because boundaries between each phase were clearly evident. That is, even a quick review of the videotape revealed clear differences in terms of participation structures (e.g., turn-taking, quantity and quality of teacher and student talk) among segments. Ex p loration of this event was guided by a system of classroom discourse analysis grounded in a social interactive perspective (Green & Wallat, 1981). This approach involves the systemat i c observation, recording, transcription, analysis, and interpretation of everyday classroom practices. Activities are then reconstructed in the form of maps of unfolding classroom events. These maps serve as the basis for retrospective exploration of patterns of interactions (Green & Weade, 1987) . By comparing and contrasting these different p a tterns within and across talking circles and across other types of activities (e.g. , creative writing sessions , games, art projects), similarities and differences in instructional processes can be identified and explored (Green & Weade, 1987). The way in which classroom events are defined and classroom life is viewed influence what will be identified, observed, recorded, analyzed, and interpreted (Weade & Green, 1989 ) . A set of constructs have provided a framework for observing and exploring teaching and learning in educational settings as communicative processes. These constructs or premises present cl a ssrooms as dynamic environments in which participants are constantly i nteracting, interpreting, negotiating , and monitoring a complex set of rules and expectations in order to participate in socially appropriate ways and to gain access to knowledge . Wh a t follows is a brief overview of two such premises: (a) the nature of classrooms as communicative environments, and (b) classroom contexts are constructed during inter a ctions. These theoretical premises will provide a useful grounding in which a selected cla s sroom pra ctice--talking circle--can be analyzed.

PAGE 165

152 Classrooms are communicative environments Throughout the school day, students move from one activity to another and also from one setting to another. These different situations (e.g., letter writing, talking circle, etc.) represent different types of communicative events undertaken for communicative purposes. The kind of competence required to participate is specific and differs from other types of communicative events because of the goals and demands that are involved and the conversational inferences required for appropriate participation. One of the most obvious features is the differen t iation of roles between teachers and students. In contexts other than educationa l settings (i.e., park, grocery store, etc . ), the role of participants is not necessarily as asymmetrical as in the classroom. Issues of who controls turn-taking, topic , and behaviors are more the result of negotiations than of an assumed differentiation of roles. Contexts are constmcted during interactions. In the same way in which conversations are constructed by the actions of participants , contexts are constructed by people as they engage in face to-face interactions (Green , 1983). Activities have participation structures , with rights and obligations for participatio n . Many of the rules for participation are implicit, conveyed, and learned through interaction. Starting from the activity as a whole, the analytic task is to determine the junctures between phases of the activity, the cues that mark the junctures, and the participatio n structure in each phase. Then , the importance of nonverbal as well a s v erbal cues, demands on children's interaction a l competence, and the relationship between participatio n structure and the academic content of a lesson, becomes visible. The f ollowing description of one talking circle exemplifies this interactional structure. Boundaries of this whole event in terms of where it begins and ends and in relation to it s sequential components or phases are marked by the shifts in verbal , kinesic , and paralinguistic behavior of teacher and students. For example, t he starting point of this

PAGE 166

153 activity is marked by a fourth grader's question to the teacher, "how many chairs in the circle?" When the student asked this question the teacher was standing next to her desk talking with two students: Andy and Ru-Chi. Less than a minute earlier she had greeted these same students at the door as she was dismissing students from the earlier group. The teacher's response stating the number of chairs needed in the circle and the fact that other participants started moving towards the section of the room where the activity generally takes place are indicative that today's talking circle event had begun. By the same token, boundaries between phases of the talking circle were marked by participants ' interactional work and by subtle shifts in verbal behaviors (e.g. control of interactions, turn allocation , quantity and quality of teacher and students' talk:, topics discussed, rights and obligations for participation) and nonverbal behaviors (e.g., proxemic shifts, gestures). In other words, the presentation of this activity in a five phase structure is the result of a posteriori analysis that takes into consideration the differentiation of topics and the particular social and communicative demands placed on participants in each phase. As illustrated in Table 5.2, talking circle can be described, structurally, in terms of five phases : "getting ready," "entry," "core," "teacher's agenda," and "moving on." While the data--presented in Table 5.2 and discussed in what followsdescribes one selected talking circle, this five-phase structure is representative of other talking circles as well. As will become evident in the following section, each phase has been labeled according to the central focus of participants' talk and actions. For example, the initial phase, getting ready, begins when students arrive to the classroom and ends when students and teachers assemble w i th their chairs around a circle. In o r der to explore the opportunities for language use and language learning available fo r students during talking circle, the analysis will focus on three interrelated and interdependent aspects: topic development, social demands, and communicative features.

PAGE 167

154 TABLE 5.2 Talking Circle's Phase Structure, Topical Development, and Social Demands Phase Topical Development Social Demands 1. Getting Ready How many chairs; Bring chair to circle; haircut; talk with others if you want; where are the students; join circle; how long in the circle; sit down. chair for Marcos. 2. Entry Jumped out of the bathtub; Talk when designated; chair for Gisela; stay in the circle; jumped out of the bathtub; listen to speaker; what is bathtub; ask questions if you want; everyone got a haircut; say something if you want; about this week-end; talk with others if you want; everyone got a haircut; listen as teacher explains term; yellow hair. respond when called on. 3. Core Go swimming-getting a Say something if you want; tan; listen to speaker; you have a dinosaur; continue talking; getting a tan; ask/say something related to go swimming; speaker's talk if you want; Nintendo; talk one at a time; a say anything you want when go sWImmmg. called on by teacher. 4. Teacher's Five groups will be called: Listen when teacher talks; Agenda green, blue, brown, look at chart held by the purple and yellow; teacher; Groups will work on centers: allow others to view chart; listening, writing, art answer questions when called project, computer and on; project/game; hold your questions for later; about chart; give group response to theme for the week is "Cities"; teacher's question; review of groups/centers; volunteer by raising hand; story: City Mouse Country respond when designated; Mouse. clarify last comment; say one sentence about story. 5. Moving On Transition to centers. Move to designated place; walk quietly; take your chair with you.

PAGE 168

155 For students to participate appropriately, they must understand the cue s available to them a t these three levels. That is, they not only n e ed to know what thematic information is being discussed ( topical), but also, what are the appropriate ways of part i cipating (social) and what type of linguistic elements they have available (communicative) at any given moment during different classroom events. The acquisition of knowledge in anyone of these componen t s is a complex process. The complexity is magnified because these components often co o c cur in actual practice (Green & Harker, 1982). In other words, as instructional topics evo lve, students are also receiving information regarding the social and conversational demands for participation . To facilitate the discussion of topical, soc i al, and communicative dimensions of classroom interaction, two segments are presented below . They are representative of the type of interaction that took p l ace during phases 3 and 4the two longest and markedly different phases of this talking circle activity (see Table 5.2). Both segments will be further explored a s the analysis unfolds . Segment 1 : Phase 3 or "Core" The following verbatim transcript can be used to illustrate the nature of the interaction d uring phase 3 of talking circle. The information presented in this segment includes, from left to right: line numbers that facilitate reference to particular interactions, speaker's n a me, message unit (teacher'S talk is in upper case letter s), and nonverbal informatio n within braces -{ }. In addition, text w i thin brackets indicates approximate transcriptio n . Inaudible messages are indicated by a blank space within brackets. The initiation of this phase was signaled by Hyun Tae ' s succesful attempt to gain the group's a ttention. He initiated his talk by first narrating an anecdote about his sister " going swimming " and "then she's black . " At the point when this segment begins Hyun Tae was shar ing his second anecdote -very much related to the first topic -a bout being " very white " when he w as born.

PAGE 169

138 Hyun Tae 139 Te a cher 140 Hyun-Tae 141 Gisela 142 Borni 143 Grandma 144 Hy u n-Tae 145 Ru-Chi 146 147 Hy u nTae 148 Ru-Chi 149 Hyun Tae 150 Hy u n Tae 151 JiH ae 152 Teacher 153 H y u n-Tae 154 Hyun-Tae 155 Teacher 156 Grandma 157 Andy 158 Teacher 159 160 161 162 Rol f 163 Tony 164 Ru-Chi 165 Grandma 166 Teacher 167 168 Ji H ae 169 Born i 170 Ru C hi 171 1 7 2 Tea c her 173 174 175 Ton y 176 Teacher 177 Ton y 1 7 8 Teacher 179 Ton y 180 181 Teacher 182 Ton y 183 HyunTae 184 Ton y 185 Teacher 186 187 Ton y 188 189 190 Teac her umm my mother says when I was a baby YEAH when I was born [ ] [ ] [ ] /laughs/ when I was born [when I go to the pool] this is black when I was born my m o ther says this is very white I was very white my mother went to the hospital me too /laughs / 156 OH BECAUSE YOU WERE SO WHITE SHE WAS WORRIED yeah yeah UM-HUH /LAUGHS/ /laughs / just like I [ ] DO YOU KNOW WHAT DO YOU KNOW THAT'S CALLED WHEN WE GO TO IN THE SUN AND OUR AND OUR SKIN TURNS BROWN IS CALLED TAN GETTING A TAN right [ like Wei-Jue ] my and it's very unpleasant AND IT IS YEAH THAT'S RIGHT IN FLORIDA THE SUN I S VERY STRONG {Andy raises arm} Misses S Misses S (stands up} my my my my father WAIT WAIT A MINUTE HONEY TONY (LOOKING AT JH} LET'S TAKE DO IT ONE AT A TIME TONY in Taiwan in the summer time I go to a swimming UM-HUH urn umm a teacher teach me swimming UM-HUH and then you in the I am I am I go umm morning six o'clock go swunmmg SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING GO SWIMMING and that ' s cold and and and urn at nine o'clock go home OHWOW UM-HUH and and then night nine o'clock some people go there I see I see these umm eyes at a circ l e looks like [sunglasses] you got the sun (pointing at his eyes} UGH

PAGE 170

191 Gr a ndma 192 Te a cher 193 To n y 194 Te a cher 195 196 To n y 197 students 198 Gra ndma 199 Te a cher 157 wears his glasses OH AND THIS WAS ALL UH {POINTS AT HER FACE } black BLACK AND HIS EYES WERE [ WHITE ] /LAUGHS/ [ looks like sunglasses] /laughs/ that's good OKAY ANDY Segment 2 : Phase 4 or "Teacher's Agenda" This second segment has been taken from the middle section of phase 4 . The shift f rom phase 3 to p hase 4 was marked by the teacher's announcement "we are going to start a ne w plan." Thi s was immediately followed by a long explanation of a new classroom arrangeme nt. The te a cher explained that activities in the conversational English class were going to be organized around five centers (see Table 5.2). Then she briefly mentioned some of the activi t ies for each center. When this segment begins the teacher is holding a chart displ a ying this new classroom arrangement (centers, groups of students by color, and days of the week) . As she speaks she consistently points at parts of the chart relevant to her explan a tion. 344 Tea c her 345 3 4 6 347 348 349 350 Ton y 351 Tea c her 352 353 Rol f 354 RuC hi 355 Teacher 356 357 RuC hi 358 Tea c her 359 360 Hyu n -Tae 361 Teacher 362 HyunTae 363 Teacher 364 365 Hyu n -T a e UH OKAY I COMPLETED THE CHART FOR MONDAY AND I M ADE A MISTAKE IN MAKING THE CHART AND THAT IS I PUT YOUR GROUP COLORS HERE WHEN I REALLY MEANT TO PUT IT IT DOWN HERE SO SO THIS LINE HERE AND I'LL PROBABLY FIX IT IS THE GAME OR PROJECT BOX oughh {while yawning } ALRIGHT SO ON MONDA Y WHAT GROUP IS IN THE LISTENING CENTER Hyun-Tae Hyun-Tae Rolf Tony WHA T'S THE NAME WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE GROUP purple ALLRIGHT THE PURPLE GROUP AND THAT'S HYUN-TAE ROLF AND TONY Rolf and Tony ALLRIGHT y eahhhhh {as he agitates arms in the air } ON MONDAY WHA T GROUP IS IN IS GOING TO BE AT THE COMPUTER yellow

PAGE 171

366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 396a 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 416 417 418 419 Ru-Chi Hyun-Tae Ru-Chi Ji -Hae Teacher students Hyun-Tae Teacher Ru-Chi Hyun-Tae Teacher students Teacher students Hyun-Tae Teacher Hyun-Tae Ru-Chi Hyun-Tae Hyun-Tae Ru-Chi students Teacher Teacher Hyun-Tae Teacher Ru-Chi Teacher Ru -Chi Hyun-Tae Ru -Chi Teacher Ru-Chi Hyun-Tae Teacher Hyun-Tae Teacher Ji-H a e Ru Chi Teacher yellow Evelyn and Andy Evelyn and Andy /laughs / EVELYN AND ANDY /laughs / hem hem OKAY 158 ON MONDAY WHAT [GROUP] IS GOING TO GRANDMA'S brown Ji brown BROWN JI-HAE RU-Cm Ji -Hae Ru-Chi and Hye-Kang /laughs / {HT's voice is louder} AND HYE-KANG /laughs / two girls and one boy /laughs / OKAY UHHH WHO IS G OING TO BE AT MY TABLE TODAY umm Borui and Borui Gabriel Gabriel WHAT WHAT GROUP blue blue blue OKAY JI -HAE CAN YOU SIT DOWN SO EVELYN CAN SEE THANK YOU ALRIGHT THE BLUE GROUP BORUI AND GABRIEL ARE GOING TO BE AT MY TABLE ALRIGHT AND THE PROJECT OR GAME TABLE IS GOING TO BE green green GREEN green AND WHO IS IN THE GREEN GROUP San-Ha San-Ha Marcos AND Mich Michal and Marcos Marcos AND MARCOS ON WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY [ ] WHO LET ME SEE MICHAL AND SAN-HA AND THEY ARE BOTH today we have Grandmother {claps hands} ON A FIELD TRIP TODAY SO THEY ARE THE GREEN GROUP IS NOT EXISTENT UMM AND THE THEME OR IDEA FOR THIS WEEK IS GOING TO BE THE CITY

PAGE 172

420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 440 441 442 443 444 445 445a Grandma stu d ent Teacher Hy u n Tae Teacher Rol f Hyun-Tae Rol f Teache r 159 [] {to Tony who is jumping on his chair} the city TIrE CITY SOUHH WHAT THE ART PROJECT IS GOING TO BE IS YOU GRANDMA WILL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU BUT YOU ARE GOING TO SET STREETS ON A CITY AND YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE YOUR OWN CITY AND what city AND INSTEAD OF GAMES THIS WEEK you don't know what city is {Teacher looks at Rolf} I know city {Teacher looks at Hyun Tae } yes city [ inaudible] OKAY UGH UHH SO HYUN-TAE WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE CITY IN OTHER WORDS WHEN YOU COME TO THE WRITING TABLE WHEN IS YOUR DAY TO COME TO TIrE WRITING TABLE WE ARE GOING TO WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT A CITY Topic Deve l opment One important dimension of classroom activities is the content of instructional talk. Academic demands are made clear through the content of the interactions and, thus , depend on which topics are emphasized, accepted , discussed, or abandoned by participants. In other words , t he content of talk provides a signal to students, and all participants as well, as to what is i mportant to know, what to do, say, or perform in order to appropriately participate i n classroom events . The latter does not mean that the content of classroom talk is defmed e x clusively by the teacher or only by the materials. The content of the talk during this talking circle, and indeed in any classroom event, is constructed by the joint contribution of teachers and students (Weade & Green, 1989) . Although the teacher on this day had a particular topic she wanted to discussdealing with organizational aspectsstudents also contributed to what got discussed and in what ways. In re tr ospect , the existence of topics, sub-topics, topic boundaries, and the like, can be explored t hrough the analysis of classroom transcript s . These topics, however, a re not brought along to an interaction ready made for the participants to introduce into the interaction a t some appropriate moment. Rather, topic initiation, development, and change

PAGE 173

160 are processes which are negotiated and jointly constructed by the participants in the course of an inter a ction (Nunan, 1989) . This constructed and dynamic nature of content will become evident as different types of demands placed on the students across activity phases are examined. As illustrated in Table 5. 2 , the content of teacher and students' talk, that is the different topics discussed , vary from phase to phase. For example, in phase 1 or "getting ready" while some participants moved towards the center of the room where talking circle generally takes place, othe r s were already arranging the chairs in a circle. This "getting ready" behavior was also e v idenced in the content of students talk (e.g.,"how many chairs in the circle," "this [chair ] is for Marcos" ) and teacher talk (e.g., "Michal and San -Ha are not coming," "we are just going to be in the circle for a short while "). Although other topics were part of the conversa t ion (e.g., "she did have a haircut," "they are going on a field trip"), most of the talk had to do with procedural matters. In this phase, then, the emphasis of interactions was placed on seeking or providing information about organizational aspects of t h e activity . I n the second phase , after adjustments in physical arrangements had been made and most participants were settled in a circle , a series of verbal exchanges between two or more participants was initiated. The range of topics discussed was broad. For example , one student was telling the teacher that someone "jumped out the bathtub." Later the t eacher asked one of the reading teachers--who had just opened the door--if she got a haircut. Also, two students were discussing whether a third student got a haircut. It appeared th a t this phase of talking circle was a "warm up" period. In general, topics of conversation did not have a procedural focus as in the earlier phase but, mainly, an expressive one. Students mostly talked about things of interest to them such as participants ' changes in appearance (e.g . , getting a tan, getting a haircut). A lthough there were severa l conversations emerging at the same time, three factors were common across subgroups: t he discuss i on of topics was brief, the content of conversations changed several times, and topics discussed had an expressive focus. Throughout this phase topics

PAGE 174

161 were brought up alternatively by teacher and students alike. In one way, the teacher's role was similar to that of other participants; that is, at times a speaker, at o t hers part of the audience . In another way, the teacher's participation was supporting students' conversations by encouraging, acknowledging, and extending their contributions. The third, or "core," phase is different from earlier phases. Unlike phases 1 and 2 where the content of simultaneous conversations shifted quickly from one topic to another, in the core phase, there was often a sustained focus on a single topic and single speaker. One important difference between this phase and the former ones is given by students' contribution o f topics. That is, in this phase topics of discussion were suggested almost exclusively by students. Hence, like in the second phase, the content of talk dealt mainly with students' personal interests, experiences, or concerns. Two topics were recurrent throughout : "going swimming" and "getting a tan." For example, during Hyun -Tae' s extended turn (see segment 1, lines 138 154 for part of his talk) he talked about "go to swimming " and "getting black." Tony followed by narrating an incident in Taiwan when he goes "to swimming" and "got t he sun" (lines 174 198) . These same topics were discussed by other students. For instance, RuChi mentioned t hat her "father if he go to swimming he urn he like after swimming when we go home then h e go out the bathtub and then black like a black man . " The teacher's response to Ru-Chi's comment, "oh really he was very tan huh," represents the second instance, during this t alking circle, where she extends students' comments and introduces the term " tan." In the next example , Ji-Hae extends the discussion on the topic "going swimming" by sharing two accounts. She begins by narrating one anecdote in Korea when she is swimming a nd the water was "too higher." 222 Teacher 223 Ji-H a e 22 4 Teacher 225 Ji-H a e JI-HAE you know I'm I swi I umm in Korea UM-HUH I'm going to the swimming pool

PAGE 175

226 227 228 brother 228a Teacher 229 brother 230 Teacher 231 Ji-Hae 232 233 Teacher 234 Ji-Hae 235 236 Teacher 237 bro t her 238 Ji-Hae 239 Teacher 240 241 242 243 Borui 244 Jie H ae 245 246 247 Teacher 248 students 249 Teacher 250 Ji Hae 251 Teacher they have many people but maybe may be we not the pool YEAH we don't go pool we went beach TO THE BEACH urn-huh too too SHALLOW too higher UM-HUH too deep they I I know how to swim right YES and I can go to the too higher it's too higher augh brother brother help me [ ] my brother is going t o swim 162 {hands one on top of the other within a one feet distance} and my brother is going to push me like that {moves hands as she were pulling a rope} OHH /laughs ! AND IT you know what I did YES What follo wed after line 251 is Ji-Hae ' s second recount. In this instance, she went to the swimming p ool and found out that her "swim sweater" was too small. As evidenced in the above segment, students are contributing freely from their own experiences. As Ji-Hae narrates her story, her brother extends or clarifies the information provided (lines 228, 229, 237). The teacher contributes to the conversation by listening and supporting student's narratives (lines 224, 228a, 230, 233, 236, 239) . In addition, b y acknowledging students' messages (e.g., "urn-huh," "yeah"), repeating ( " to the beach"), or extendin g (e.g., "shallow" ) previous comments, she indicates to students that w hat they have to say i s important -that sharing personal experiences is of value. Thus, one important characteristic here is that students had ownership of the topics they talked about. Because the y were encouraged to freely express and share their own experiences, the fear of being wrong, of not knowing the "right" answer , was avoided. This phase ends after Ji Hae's second account when the teacher announces "we are going to start a new plan."

PAGE 176

163 An analysis of the themes and interactions in phase 4, or "teacher's agenda," suggests a sharp contrast between this and the preceding phases. The fIrst and most obvious di f ference is the content of talk. Unlike phase 3 where the focus of the discussion was an expressive one, in phase 4 the discussion turns on to procedural aspects. In other words, although in the previous phase the topics discussed were derived from students' experiences, feelings, and anecdotes, in this phase the discussion deals, basically, with classroom management issues. The presentation of a "new plan," that is, a different way of organizing classroom activities became--all at once--the dominant topic. This new organization included having students divided into fIve groups, with each group working on a different learning center. Thus, as the teacher had mentioned the night before, her agenda for t his day included informing students of this new arrangement, to let them know which group they have been assigned to (e.i., group color , members, activities throughout the week, and adult in charge, if any), and helping students learn how to read a chart where all this information was presented. The amount of detailed information that needed to be discussed was indeed extensive and complex--all the more so if we consider that these students were in the initial stages of learning English. The teacher followed her agenda quite succesfully, as evidenced by the fact that she was able to go over all the areas she had previously planned to cover. Table 5.2 illustrates the order of topics covered. This can also be observed when considering students' "correct" responses to the review questions at the outset of this phase, as evidenced in segment 2. At the point where this segment begins, the teacher had already introduced each of the fIve learning centers, their representative colors, activities for each center, and how to read the chart. Now the teacher starts asking questions regarding the content of her previous ex p lanation. Another important difference between this phase and the preceding ones can be noted in relation to topic control. Although in phases 1 and 2 topics were brought up alternatively by teacher and students alike and almost exclusively by students during

PAGE 177

164 phase 3, in this phase , topics are controlled solely by the teacher. Because the teacher wants to prov i de her students with infoffilation about a particular topic -that is, a new classroom arrangement--she does not allow for students' contributions as in earlier phases. Because she has to cover a fairly large amount of information, opportunities for students to take some share of the responsibility for generating the topics for discussion are constraine d . In s um, the focus of the talk: in this fourth phase has been quite different from those in previous phases. These differences were visible in at least two levels: content of talk: and topic control. First, the content of talk: during this phase was, for the most part, related to procedural matters. That is , the main topics discussed -"new plan , " "centers," and "theme for the week"--all deal with organizational ways of arranging classrooms, students, and learning experiences. Second, unlike previous phases, where themes were brought up alternatively by teacher and students alike (phases 1 and 2), or almost exclusively by students (p h ase 3), in this phase the teacher is the only one generating topics and the content of s tudents' talk: surrounds these preselected topics. The closing phase , named "moving on," is filled with directives from the teacher. The conten t of her talk indicated to students which center to go to, with whom, and, in some cases , what procedural actions were required (e.g . , teacher explaining to students th a t they need to show the media staff "a yellow frog permit" in order to have access to t he computer: "if you go to the media center you need to get a yellow frog"). As students ' names were mentioned and directives given, students proceded to carry their chairs and settled arou n d their designated table or center. As d escribed above, the content of talk: varied throughout the five different phases of this even t . Each phase had a different set of participation demands marked by the content of the interactions. The analysis indicated that in the first two phases, where control of t o pics was equally shared by teacher and students, the kinds of themes discussed had both a procedural and expressive focus . Phases 1 and 2, which served as a w arm-up

PAGE 178

period for the next phase, were characterized by students' control of topics and interactions. The change from topics that are clearly student-generated to topics that are clearly tea c her generated marks the boundaries between the core and teacher's agenda phases. Although the stated purpose of talking circle is, as explained by the teacher, an expressive one whereby "students can talk about anything and everything," this purpose was far away from be i ng achieved in phases 4 and 5. Indeed, not only were topics controlled b y the teacher, but also the purpose on these two final phases was "informational" and "procedural," that is, telling students about the new classroom arrangeme n t and what to do. 165 This section has highlighted the complexity faced by teachers and students in structuring and participating in instructional conversations. For LEP children to partic i pate appropriate l y, t hey must understand the cues signaled in the talk of participants, as well as in the thema tic information exchanged . But realization of the evolving text is not enough to understand the complex demands of unfolding instructional events. In the next section, another clas sroom dimension will be explored--that is, the social requirements for participatio n in classroom events. Social Dem a nds So far the analysis indicates that content of instructional talk provides a signal to students about what is important to know. Topics, therefore, develop in relation to what is emphasized , accepted, or rejected. By the same token, the social norms of the event, derived from participants ' actions--mainly from the teacher--as to who can talk, when , where, for how long, and for what purposes, gets established and restablished as the event unfolds. Analysis of the social demands for this activity began with examination of the rules and ex p ectations for participating that developed across phases. This aspect of the activity was identified by repeated observation of the videotape in conjunction with the exploration o f structural "maps" of conversations. By analyzing message and interaction

PAGE 179

166 units (see chapter 3 for explanation of procedures), indicators of who was permitted to talk, in what ways, about what, when, for how long, and with what outcome became visible. In other words, by exploring the talk and actions of participants, the analysis of social demands revealed what was socially appropriate for teachers and students in the activity and how students were to participate throughout the lesson (e.g., get a turn, ask questions, respond to t eacher). One aspect of particular importance in understanding social demands is the notion of "floor." That is, the right of access by an individual to a turn at speaking that is attended to by other i ndividuals who occupy at that moment the role of listener (Shultz, Florio, & Erickson, 1982), Simply talking, alone, does not constitute having the "floor." The floor is produced through interactions; speakers and hearers must work together at maintaining it. If hearers stop attending a speaker or if a speaker is speaking without being attended by any audience, then, there is no longer a floor. In the first phase of talking circle (see Table 5.2), participants informed one another about organizational aspects of the activity, such as, who was to participate in the activity, why some students were not coming on that day to the English conversational class, how many chairs were needed in the circle, and how long was the activity going to last. As participants worked on the necessary physical arrangemen t s required for this activity (e.g., bring chair to circle, join the circle, sit down) they also ch a tted with one another. In the second phase social demands shifted. Ru-Chi, a third grader, sat next to the teacher and gained her attention by saying "teacher." The teacher's acknowledgement of this request a t a verbal level (saying "yes") and nonverbal level (turning her body towards Ru Chi and l ooking at her) , gave the student the floor, or right to speak. Ru-Chi proceded to tell her about someone who "jumped out of the bathtub." Immediately after, Andy "tuned in" the conversation. At the same time, Grandma addressed Gabriel who went to get another chair. Two students, Tony and HyunTae, constitued the audience for this second conversation; they had been focusing first on Grandma and then on Gabriel as he

PAGE 180

167 moved around the room. A third dialogue was then initiated by Ji-Hae who asked me to sit next to he r in the circle. In this phase, then, there was not one but several conversation a l floors. That is, multiple conversations were taking place at the same time. The analysis indicated that , at times, there were not only several participants talking simultaneously but also several audiences. Participants were attending to, and participating in, different floors. For example, during the episode mentioned earlier, where one of the reading teachers entered the classroom and was asked by the teacher if she had gotten a haircut, several other conversations developed. Interestingly, however, the content of some of these overlapping conversations dealt with topics related to "haircut" (e.g . , "did you cut it yourself," " Marcos got a haircut," "my hair is pretty," "planning to do something wild wit h my hair"). Th i s is an i ndic a tion of how students were participating simultaneously in different conversations. It also raises questions about the teacher's influence, whether intentional or unintentional, on the topical content of student to -s tudent interactions. In phase 2, then, there were not only several overlapping conversations, but also multiple audiences and multiple ways of listening and participating. For example, students could liste n to or talk to the teacher, other students, or other adults present in the setting. They could remain silent and maintain eye contact, or not, with the speaker or speakers . Students could also intervene with brief comments that overlapped the talk of other simultaneous speakers . In sum, in the entry phase, there seemed not only to be several speakers at the same time, but also several audiences and ways of participating. Hence, multiple co n versational floors were appropriate and overlapping talk was accepted. Unlike the previous phase characterized by the development of multiple conversational floors -with, at times, simultaneous conversations--phase 3 is characterized by a predominance of one single conversational floor. In other words , there was typically one speaker at a time, while others paid attention and intervened with brief comments or questions . P articipants no longer fom1ed small posturally-defined subgroups but rather oriented tow ard the primary speaker. Turns were generally long and allocated by the

PAGE 181

168 teacher--partially in response to students' bids. Students' bids, that is, students' attempts to gain access to either the teacher or the group discussion at times other than their designated turn at talk or at times when the floor was open to anyone (Green & Harker, 1982), we r e basically of three types: by raising one arm, by calling the teacher's name, or by initiating talk. However, and as indicated in the following segment, self-initiated talk ceased after the teacher restated the rules for participation: 164 Ru-Chi 168 Ji H ae 169 Borui 170 Ru-Chi 171 172 Teacher 173 174 my Misses S Misses S my my my my father WAIT WAIT A MINUTE HONEY TONY LET'S TAKE DO IT ONE AT A TIME TONY And so To n y begins his turn, shown in full in segment 1 (lines 174-198). As illustrated in this segme nt, although Ru-Chi attempts on three occasions to get the teacher's attention by initiating t alk (lines 164,170,171), Ji-Hae and Borui used a different strategy; they tried t o get the teacher's attention by calling her name (lines 168, 169). Students' attempts to gain access eith e r to the group discussion by calling the teacher's name or by self-initiating talk were disco n tinued once norms for participation were announced by the teacher (see lines 172 174). The shift to the core phase, or talking circle's raison d'etre, was signaled by one student's successful endeavour in getting not only the teacher's attention but the whole group's attention. That is, the student apparently wanted access not only to one of the various floors, but access to a single unified floor. As the following excerpt illustrates, HyunTae made several attempts to gain the attention from all participants in the group even after the teacher's face and eyes were focused on him. 111 112 113 114 114a Hyun-Tae Gisela Hyun Tae my sister go swimming no I am a little bit conversative I come from a developing country {to Teacher} my sister went to swimming and she has a {student raises voice; Teacher looks at HyunTae}

PAGE 182

115 Ru-Chi 116 Hyun Tae 117 Ru-Chi 118 Teacher 119 Gisela 120 Ji-H a e 121 Hyu n -Tae 122 Grandma 123 124 Ji H a e 126 Hyu n Tae 127 128 Teacher 129 lie-Hae 130 Teacher 131 132 Hyu n -Tae 132a 169 Gisela let me see your dinosaur here swimming umm urn (looks at Gisela's dinosaur } {pointing at his torso} you put it on BATHING SUIT (nods yes, looking at Ru-Chi} ohh look at his face (looking at Gisela's blouse } yeah yes and she's put and then she's put and then she's black go and put {whispering to Borui} that on the table look at his face and my my mother saw she's umm chase and she's white SHE'S WHITE AND SHE'S TURNING BROWN /laughs/ ONLY ONLY HER BATHING SUIT IS WHITE AND HER ARMS AND LEGS ARE BROWN urn-huh I'm going swimming pool too but I'm I'm not gett i ng umm black After HyunT ae increased his volume and sat more erectly on his chair (line 114), the teacher focu s ed on him. Then, most students fIrst turned to look at the teacher and then looked at HyunTae. Except for Grandma's brief call to Borui (line 122) and for Ru-Chi and Ji-Hae's interactions (lines 115, 117, 120, 124), the rest of participants--including Jackie, the reading teacher standing next to Tony--sustained their attention on Hyun-Tae. Once HyunTae obtained the whole group ' s attention (line 114), he went on narrating his anecdote. During the remainder of his tum, there were two instances with overlapping conversations: one brief comment by Borui aluding to Gisela's dinosaur and a series of interactions between Ru-Chi and Ji-Hae about getting a tan which is, indeed, the topic of Hyun-Tae's t alk. In addition, there were instances when the teacher or other participants " pitched in" b rief comments to Hyun-Tae's talk. But these were rare occurrences that, in fact, did not a ppear as interruptions. During HyunTae's turn, as well as in other instances throughout t hi s phase, this form of pitching in did not seem to affect the audience's focus of attention; n or did it cause changes in the floor. Thus , the commencement of a student's extended tum dealing with a personal experience marked the initiation of this phase. To further explore the social requirements for participat i on in this phase, a segment from this talking circle event is presented below. This segmen t represents a typical student tum in this phase and illustrates the different

PAGE 183

170 contributions and ways of participating of teacher and students. In the following analysis attention will be given to students' bids, turn allocation, length of turns, and teacher's responses. 167 168 Ji Hae 169 Borui 170 Ru Chi 171 172 Teacher 173 174 175 To n y 176 Teacher 177 To n y 178 Teacher 179 Tony 180 181 Teacher 182 Tony 183 Hyun-Tae 184 Tony 185 Teacher 186 187 Tony 188 189 190 Tea c her 191 Grandma 192 Tea c her 193 Tony 194 Teacher 195 196 Tony 197 students 198 Grandma 199 Tea c her VERY STRONG {Andy raises arm} Misses S Misses S my my my my father {stands up} WAIT WAIT A MINUTE HONEY TONY LET'S TAKE DO IT ONE AT A TIME TONY {LOOKING AT JH} in Taiwan in the summer time I go to a swimming UM-HUH urn umm a teacher teach me swimming UM-HUH and then you in the I am I am I go umm morning six o'clock go sWlmrrung SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING GO SWIMMING and that ' s cold and and and urn at nine o'clock go home OHWOW UMHUH and and then night nine o ' clock some people go there I see I see these umm eyes at a circle looks like [sunglasses] you got the sun {pointing at his eyes } UGH wears his glasses OH AND THIS WAS ALL UH {POINTS AT HER FACE} black BLACK AND HIS EYES WERE [ WHITE] /LAUGHS/ [ looks like sunglasses] /laughs / that's good OKAY ANDY In this segment several students had made either verbal or nonverbal bids for access, that is, they attempted to get the right to speak, by fIrst getting the teacher ' s attention. Examples of verbal bids were calling the teacher's name (lines 168 and 169), repeating one word (line 170), or just initiating talk (line 171) . Nonverbal bids were generally si g naled by raising one arm (line 167) or standing up (line 169). Turns to speak were assigned when the teacher designated a speaker by calling the student's name (as in line 174) or by looking at one student at the same time she nodded or

PAGE 184

171 said "okay." Unlike other phases where turns were brief, in this phase, students' assigned turns were l onger. As illustrated in the excerpt when Tony was speaking, all others were listening (see lines 174-198). This can be concluded because other participants were not speaking and because their faces and eyes were directed towards the speaker. Thus, while in previous phases talking while others were talking seemed appropriate, in this phase overlapping talk was not accepted. This was clearly established by the teacher at the onset of this phase (lines 172-174). From time to time the teacher's response provided "continuance." That is, a type of verbal or nonverbal message (e.g. nods, gaze, "yes," "go ahead," "urn-huh"), that supplies a cue to the speaker that the listener is following the speaker's message and may continue speaking (Green & Wallat, 1981). Lines 176, 178, and 185-186, from the above segment, exemplify this type of feedback, very much a characteristic of this phase. Although another characteristic of this phase is the presence of one speaker and the rest of participants being attenders, students could participate by asking questions or making comments in relation to the speaker ' s previous remarks (lines 183, 191). Students' turns seemed to extend either as long as s t udents had something to say and others were listening or insofar as the teacher did not assign another speaker. In sum, characteristics of the core phase included a predominance of one single conversational floor and one speaker (generally a student), long turns allocated by the teacher, and continual feedback from the teacher for students to continue talking. Boundaries between phases 3 and 4 are quite clear, as evidenced by the teacher's announcement of the shift in social and participation demands in the following segment (lines 273-276). Prior to this instance, while Ji-Rae was completing her talk about having a small "swim sweater," several students were raising their hands in an attempt to get a tum to speak. As in the core, this phase too was characterized by the predominance of one single conversational floor. Unlike the earlier phase, however, where several students had access to the floor, in this phase the primary speaker was the teacher. Throughout this

PAGE 185

172 phase students had to predominantly listen to the teacher's explanation and observe the chart she w as holding. 273 Te a cher 274 275 276 277 students 278 To n y 279 Te a cher 280 OKAY LET ME SEE ANDY IN JUST A MINUTE YOU CAN TELL US BUT UH WE ARE GOING TO START A NEW PLAN UMMTODAY OKAY new plan [ ] AND THIS IS IT I'LL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU And so the interaction continues in phase 4 with the teacher doing most of the talking, and the students doing most of the listening. As in the preceding phase, in phase 4, speakers' turns were long and comments or questions of those attending were typically brief. One main difference, however , was that the floor w a s held almost exlusively by the teacher throughout the entire phase . Another difference was that unlike other phases where questions coming from the audience were generally responded to, or at least acknowledged, in this phase the teacher did not answer some of the students ' questions. Her responses to students' inquiries seem to indicate that her concern, at that moment, was to complete her explanation regarding the new classroom arrangeme n t and not to discuss some of the students' concerns. This can be noted in the follow i ng segment. 418 Teacher 419 420 Grandma 421 student 422 Teacher 423 424 425 426 427 428 Hyu n Tae 429 Teacher 430 Rolf 431 Hyu n Tae 432 Rolf UMM AND THE THEME AND IDEA FOR THIS WEEK I S GOING TO BE THE CITY [] {to Tony who is standing in chair} city THE CITY SOUHH WHAT THE ART PROJECT IS GOING TO BE IS YOU GRANDMA WILL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU BUT YOU ARE GOING TO SET STREETS ON A CITY AND YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE YOUR OWN CITY AND what city AND INSTEAD OF GAMES THIS WEEK y ou don't know what city is {Teacher looks at Rolf} I know city {Teacher looks at H yunTae } y es city [ inaudible]

PAGE 186

173 440 Teacher OKAY 441 UGH UHH SO HYUN TAE 442 443 444 445 445a WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE CITY IN OTHER WORDS WHEN YOU COME TO THE WRITING TABLE WHEN IS YOUR DAY TO COME TO TIm WRITING TABLE WE ARE GOING TO WRITE SOMETillNG ABOUT A CITY Although the teacher acknowledges Hyun-Tae's question (teacher focused on student, line 428,440-442) and the responses it provoked (teacher looks at both students, lines 430432), she chose not to clarify Hyun-Tae's concern and to continue with her explanation. Unlike prev i ous phases where students were required to make bids in order to get a turn assigned by the teacher, in the second part of this phase students often responded in unison to questions asked by the teacher (segment 2, lines 365-8, 386-387, 389-91). In sum, in phase 4 students's opportunities to talk and participate became highly constrained. This phase was marked by students rearranging themselves into a sitting position, turning their faces and eyes toward the teacher, and by the commencement of the teacher's visual scannings around the circle as she initiated the discussion regarding the new classroom organization. At the outset of this phase and, perhaps, as the result of the teacher "reading" students' cues (e.g., increased body movement, constant interruptions, overlapping talk, increase in noise level, individualization of students' eyes-gazes), there is a shift in the activity. The teacher invited students to bid for the floor and, again, began allocating turns by nominating individual students to "say one thing" about the City Mouse, Country Mouse story. Thus, in this instance, the teacher responded to students' signs of lack of invo lvement by announcing a shift in participatory demands. The latter demonstrates that the organization of the classroom is not unidimensional, with actions and interactions originating only from the teacher and flowing toward the students, but is multidimensional (Mehan, 1981), with students and teacher jointly contributing to the flow of the activi ty. In the final phase, moving on, students sit up more erectly as the teacher gives directions about who is going with whom and to which center. During the delivery of

PAGE 187

174 these messages, the teacher became the single focus of attention and the primary speaker. Then, as students began to move t o their centers, several simultaneous conversations arose, as in the first phase. Multiple floors had, in fact, been reestablished. What on the surface might appeared to be a "single" classroom event was, in fact, composed of "multiple" parts. The exploration of social demands supported the analysis of the general structure presented in Table 5.2 and provided further information about how interactions were constructed through the talk and actions of teachers and students. Analysis o f the talk and actions of participants showed that social demands varied across the different phases of the event. In the core phase, for example, students had to first get the teacher ' s attention in order to get a turn to speak; during the teacher's agenda, in order to speak, students needed to call out their answers. Thus, in order to participate in talking circle, it was not enough to have something to say, want to say it, or know the linguistic elements to express it. Succesful participation in this event required that students learn how to gain the right to speak: (e.g., calling the teacher's name), how to get and maintain the teacher's and students ' attention (e.g., using place holders), how and when to change the topic, and s o on. It is important to emphasize, therefore, that when designing, planning, implementing, and assessing classroom practices, global descriptors--of what on the surface ma y appear to be "single" events--need to be avoided. As described above, talking circle--conceived to st i mulate students' active use of orallanguage--was shown to have more than one set of rules for participation. Furthermore, not all these different rules encouraged talking, but on the contrary, limited students' participation to the role of passive listeners. I n structional events are thus more than individual units of work designed to be followed as rote scripts. Classroom events are, like conversations, constructed by the joint interaction of participants. And, in fact, it is through conversations that teaching and learning come about. Whatever the approach, method, or technique followed when organizing classroom activities, the quality of teaching and learning will be strongly

PAGE 188

175 affected by the quality of the interaction. The discussion now turns to the analysis of, precisely, t h e different communicative features that characterize teacher and students' talk during this same talking circle. Communic a tive Dimension In the preceding discussion the analysis indicated that social rules guided participatio n during talking circle. Face-to-face interaction, however, is also influenced by the differen t communicative strategies used by participants. This section explores the quality and quantity of language use in relation to activity phases, themes, and rules for participatio n within the same talking circle activity . Because one important object i ve o f the conversatio n al ESOL class is to help students develop and extend their linguistic and participatory repertoire, events in a second language classroom need to be explored in ligh t of the support or constraint they present for language use and language learning. Thus, a comparison of t wo of t h e more extended and dramatically different phases of this even t-phases 3 an d 4, will follow. The core and teacher's agenda phases will be explored in t erms of the opportun i ties or constraints they offer for language use to second language learners participating in the activity. In particular this discussion considers (a) the amount of teacher talk as compared with student talk, (b) the different communicative features o f language us e d by teachers and students , and (c) the opportunities for student-initiated interactions . Research in fIrst language classrooms has revealed that teachers tend to do most of the talking ( F landers , 1970; Mehan, 1979). In most educational settings the t eacher sets the same instructional pace and content for everyone, by lecturing, explaining a grammatica l rule, leading drill work , or asking questions to the whole class. When i nstructional activities are organized in this manner, teachers tend to talk for about two thirds of the a vailable class time, leaving just a third for the learners. In other words , the

PAGE 189

176 amount of talk allocated per student averages between 20 and 30 seconds per class period (Long & Porter, 1985). Research in second language classrooms tends to support similar conclusions. In terms of qu a ntity of teacher talk it has been shown that in some language classrooms teachers talk for up to 89 percent of the available time (Nunan, 1989). In terms of the quality, tha t is the opportunity to use a variety of speech acts, there are also serious limitations. Second language classrooms have been found to be characterized by a predominance of "display" questions that is questions which require the learner to demonstrate knowledge of something (Long & Sato, 1983), an extremely high proportion of teacher initiated interactions (Bialystok, Frohlich, & Howard, 1978), and a high number of imperatives relating to classroom management and disciplinary matters and explanations (Ramirez & Merino, 1990). Thus, the quality and quantity of participation of students in the second l anguage class is indeed very limited . As Sinclair and Brazil (1982) pointed out, "the pupils have a very restricted range of verbal functions to perform. They rarely initiate, and never follow up . Most of their verbal activity is response, and normally confined strictly to the terms of the initiation" (p. 58). In this section, the core and teacher's agenda phases are compared. These two strikingly different phases, identified previously as the most complex in terms of topic development and requirements for participation, will be compared in terms of the kinds of language learning opportunities they provide. The analysis will demonstrate that different phases with in one instructional event may render very different results in exposure to, and practice, of the second language. Table 5.3 shows the distribution of teacher and students talk for all five phases of this talking circle. The information presented was derived from detailed "maps" of ongoing instructiona l events. These maps, as explained in chapter 3, were constructed based on transcripts o f the conversation segmented into message and interaction units. For this table, message units, that is minimal units of meaning determined by considering verbal

PAGE 190

TABLE 5.3 Distribution of Teacher and Student Talk: by Time Teacher Student Activ ity Phase Seconds Percentage Seconds Percentage 1. Ge t ting Ready 25.5 (58.6) 18.0 (41.4) 2. Entry 71.5 (64.7) 39.0 (35.3) 3. Co r e 65.5 (28.6) 163.5 (71.4) 4. Teacher's Agenda 311.0 (63.1) 182.0 (36.9) 5. Moving On 42.5 (85.0) 7.5 (15.0) Total 516.0 (55.7) 410.0 (44.3) Total Seconds 43.5 110.5 229.0 493.0 50.0 926.0 177 and nonver b al aspects of the delivery (e.g., stress, intonation, pauses, relationship to previous and following items, gestures), were timed in seconds (rounded to the nearest half-second). After all messages were timed they were summed by speaker (e.i., teacher or student) and phase. Overlapping messages were coded independently. For example, when three students gave responses in unison during a two-second time span, each message was accounted for two seconds. As indicated in Table 5.3, the distribution of talk between teacher and students over the full cou r se of this sixteen-minute talking circle, was nearly even (516 sec./teacher, 410 sec./students). However this average does not reveal the high level of variation that took place a cross phases. It is only by comparing time allocations for speakers within each phase that time differences become visible. During the first two phases--getting ready and entry--there were several shon exchanges taking place at the same time. When the frequencies of student and teacher talk are compar e d (see Tab l e 5.3), the teacher talked slightly more in these two initial phases than her students (58.6% to 41.4 % in phase 1, and 64.7% to 35.3% in phase 2).

PAGE 191

178 Differences between the amount of teacher and student talk: become more evident in the next three phases. Whereas in phase 3, the teacher talked considerably less than her students (28.6% to 71.4%), in phase 4, she talked almost as twice as much as her students (63.1 % to 36.9%). The last phase, "moving on," although brief (50 seconds), was characterized by a prepon derance of teacher talk (85.0% to 15.0%). The exploration of Table 5.3 has uncovered important differences in time allocation across phases. Although this information demonstrates that a classroom event is composed of multiple parts or phases, each with its own set of characteristics and demands, it does not provide information as to what can be accounted for those, at times, striking differences between phases. Obviously, time was not interesting in and of itself, but only a systematic index for e x loring students' and teachers' contributions to the evolving and unfolding conversation. Therefore, questions emerged about what communicative strategies were being used by teachers and students that contributed to the differences in time allocation across phases. To understand those differences, the exploration of teacher and student talk needs to go one step further. In other words, the analysis of quantitative differences has pointed out differential patterns of verbal participation within phases. However these data does not provide information as to what accounts for these differences. To understand the differences between phases, an analysis of qualitative aspects of language use needs to be considered. Information in Tables 5.4 and 5.5 is based primarily on the communicative features of verbal messages and strategies used by teachers and students throughout this talking circle. Tab l e 5.4 presents the frequency of occurrence of communicative features for each of the teacher's message units. Table 5.5. presents the frequency of occurrence of communicative features characteristic of students' messages. For this analysis every message unit in the maps of ongoing instructional events was categorized according to source (teacher or student) and to communicative feature or purpose. For example, a message such as: "Allright so on Monday what group is in the listening center?" (see

PAGE 192

TABLE 5.4 Communicative Features of Teacher and Adult Messages: Frequency and Percentage by Activity Phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Total Teacher Other Adults Messages f % f % f % f % f % f % f % TOTAL Explaininga 1 ( 3.7) --( -) 2 ( 7.4) 22 (81.5) --( -) 25 (92.6) 2 ( 7.4) 27 Continuancefi --( -) 3 (13.6) 14 (63.6) 4 (18.2) --( -) 21 (95.4) 1 ( 4.6) 22 Clarification Request' --( -) 4 (18.2) 6 (27.2) 8 (36.4) 1 ( 4.6) 19 (86.4) 3 (13.6) 22 Directing! --( -) 1 ( 4.8) 1 ( 4.8) 6 (28.6) 6 (28.5) 14 (66.7) 7 (33.3) 21 Responses (extensive)f 1 ( 4.8) 1 ( 4.8) 2 ( 9.5) 7 (33.3) 1 ( 4.8) 13 (57.2) 9 (42.8) 21 Holding! --( -) --( -) --( -) 18 (100.) --( -) 18 (100.) --( -) 18 Display QuestionsB , --( -) --( -) 1 ( 5.9) 16 (94.1) --( -) 17 (100.) --( -) 17 Repeatingfi --( -) 1 ( 6.3) 3 (18.7) 11 (68.7) --( -) 15 (93.7) 1 ( 6.3) 16 Expandingi --( -) 4 (26.7) 4 (26.7) 6 (54.5) --( ) 14 (93.4) 1 ( 6.6) 15 Referential Questionsi 1 ( 7.1) 5 (35.7) 1 ( 7.1) 6 (42.9) --( -) 13 (92.8) 1 ( 7.2) 14 RepairingK. --( -) --( -) 1 ( 8.3) 10 (83.4) 1 ( 8.3) 12 (100.) --( -) 12 Assigning Tums{ 1 ( 9.1) --( -) 3 (27.3) 6 (54.5) --( -) 10 (90.9) 1 ( 9.1) 11 Extending/Elaboratingm 2 (20.0) 2 (20.0) --( -) 5 (50.0) --( -) 9 (90.0) 1 (10.0) 10 Responses (minimal)n 1 (11.1) 1 (11.1) 4 (44.5) 1 (11.1) --( -) 7 (77.8) 2 (22.2) 9 FeedbackO --( -) --( -) --( -) 5 (71.4) 1 (14.3) 6 (85.7) 1 (14.3) 7 Free Commentp --( -) 1 (14.3) --( -) --( -) --( -) 1 (14.3) 6 (85.7) 7 Othersq 1 (11.1) --( -) 4 (44.5) 1 (11.1) --( -) 6 (66.7) 3 (33.3) 9 Laughing ( ) 2 (16.6) 2 (16.7) ( -) --( -) 4 (33.3) 8 (66.7) 12 Not Clear --( -) --( -) --( -) --( -) --( -) --( -) 12 (100.) 12 Total 8 ( 2.8) 25 ( 8.9) 48 (17.0) 132 (46.8) 10 ( 3.6) 223 (79.1) 59 (20.9) 282 ,..... -..J \0

PAGE 193

Codes, Definitions, and Examples of Message Units a Exchanges which can provide information (e. g . , "we are going to start a new plan today"). 6 Verbal or nonverbal message (e.g., "yes," "go ahead, " "urn huh") which can provide a cue to the speaker that the listener is following the speaker ' s message and may continue his turn (Green & Wallat, 1981). C Messages to bring about explanations or redefinitions of preceding message. May take the form of a question or a response (e.g., "very very big?" ) . a Messages concerned with the control of the interaction and /or behavior of participants (e.g., " let's do it one at a time") e Responses in a complete sentence or more (e . g., "bathtub is you sit in the water and you wash yourself") . f Messages (e.g., " OK", "well," "alright") that enable a speaker to maintain a turn. B Requests for information already known by teacher (e.g., "on Monday what group is going to the listening center? ' ) . Ii. Exact repetition of previous message unit either partial or full. i Messages that modify partially or totally a portion of previous speaker's message by providing additional or new information. For example, a student says: "in here sun hurts" to which the teacher responds with: "that's right in Florida the sun is very strong." j Requests for information not known by teacher (e.g. , "were you with your fat her?"). K. Messages that indicate shifts or changes in content or form after the original message began. False starts and words such as "uh," "urn," act to hold place within a message . { Verbal or nonverbal messages to assign a turn in the conversation (e.g., "OK Ru-Chi"). m Modifying partially or totally a portion of previous speaker's message by providing additional or new information. n Responses in one clause or one word (e . g., "eleven I t h ink"). o Comments about student previous participation (e.g . , "that was a great story Tony "). P Self-initiated talk not tied with previous interactions . q Messages (e.g . , modeling, paraphrasing, nonverba ls) not coded in one of the other categories. r Messages t hat modify partially or totally a portion of previous message by providing additional or new information (self) . S Self-initiated talk. t Verbal or nonverbal message intended to get the teacher's attention (e.g., raising hand, calling teacher's name, one word). U Message intended to alter or rectify previous speaker's message (e.g., "not too higher, you say too deep"). v Messages (e.g., holding, nonverbals) not coded in one of the other categories. ....-. 00 o

PAGE 194

TABLE 5.5 Communicative Features of Student Messages: Frequency and Percentage by Activity Phase Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Messages f % f % f % f % f % Responses (rninimal)n 1 ( 1.2) 1 ( 1.2) 10 (11.7) 69 (81.2) 4 ( 4.7) ExtendinglElaboratingr --( -) 2 ( 4.8) 28 (66.6) 12 (28.6) --( -) Self-initiated turnS 2 ( 6.1) 9 (27.3) 11 (33.3) 10 (30.3) 1 ( 3.0) Repeatingli 1 ( 3 . 0) 2 ( 4.8) 3 ( 9.1) 27 (81.8) -( -) Attention Gettert 1 ( 7.1) 2 (14.3) 5 (35.7) 6 (42.9) --( -) Clarification RequestC 2 (14.3) 3 (21.4) 3 (21.4) 6 (42.9 --( -) Explaininga ( -) 2 (15.4) 9 (69.2) 2 (15.4) ( ) RepairingK.. --( -) --( -) 6 (54.5) 5 (45.5) --( -) Responses (extensive)e 1 (10.0) 1 (10.0) 4 (40.0) 4 (40.0) --( -) EditingU --( -) --( -) 4 (44.4) 5 (55.6) --( -) Directing' --( -) 2 (40.0) 2 (40.0) 1 (20.0) --( -) Expandingi --( -) 2 (50.0) 1 (25.0) 1 (25.0) --( -) Continuance6 --( -) --( -) 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7) --( -) Otherv --( -) --( -) 5 (50 . 0) 5 (50.0) --( -) Laughing --( -) --( -) 5 (38 . 5) 8 (61.5) --( -) Not clear 2 ( 8.0) 7 (28.0) 11 (44.0) 5 (20.0) --( -) Total 10 (3.1) 33 (10.1) 108 (33.3) 168 (51.9) 5 ( 1.5) TOTAL 85 42 33 33 14 14 13 11 10 9 5 4 3 10 13 25 324 ......... 00 .........

PAGE 195

Codes, Definitions, and Examples of Message Units a Exchanges which can provide information (e.g., "we are going to start a new plan today"). 6 Verbal or nonverbal message (e.g., "yes," "go ahead," "urn-huh") which can provide a cue to the speaker that the listener is following the speaker's message and may continue his turn (Green & Wal1at, 1981). C Messages to bring about explanations or redefinitions of preceding message. May take the form of a question or a response (e.g., "very very big?") . tf Messages concerned with the control of the interaction and/ or behavior of participants (e.g., "let's do it one at a time") e Responses in a complete sentence or more (e.g . , "bathtub 'is you sit in the water and you wash yourself"). f Messages (e.g., "OK", "well," "alright") that enable a speaker to maintain a turn. S Requests for information already known by teacher (e.g., "on Monday what group is going to the listening center?'). Ii. Exact repetition of previous message unit either partial or full. i Messages that modify partial1y or totally a portion of previous speaker ' s message by providing additional or new information. For example, a student says: "in here sun hurts" to which the teacher responds with: "that's right in Florida the sun is very strong." ' j Requests for information not known by teacher (e.g., "were you with your father?"). t Messages that indicate shifts or changes in content or form after the original message began. False starts and words such as "uh," "urn," act to hold place within a message. { Verbal or nonverbal messages to assign a turn in the conversation (e.g., "OK Ru-Chi") . m Modifying partially or totally a portion of previous speaker's message by providing additional or new information. n Responses in one clause or one word (e.g., "eleven I think"). o Comments about student previous participation (e.g., "that was a great story Tony " ) . P Self-initiated talk not tied with previous interactions. q Messages (e.g., modeling, paraphrasing, nonverbals) not coded in one of the other categories. r Messages that modify partially or total1y a portion of previous message by providing additional or new information (self). S Self-initiated talk. t Verbal or nonverbal message intended to get the teacher's attention (e.g., raising hand, calling teacher ' s name, one word). u. Message intended to alter or rectify previous speaker's message (e.g., "not too higher, you say too deep"). v Messages (e.g., holding, nonverbals) not coded in one of the other categori e s . ....... 00 N

PAGE 196

183 segment 2, lines 351-352) has a source (teacher) and a purpose (question). Some messages were also classified in tenns of fonn. This is the case of questions asked by the teacher which were categorized according to whether the teacher knew the infonnation requested (display) or not (referential). Responses to direct interrogations were also categorized according to whether they were given in one clause or word (minimal) or in a more elaborated way (extended). A complete set of possible characteristics for each message and pertinent examples is presented at the end of Tables 5.4 and 5.5. Before discussing frequencies and percentages of communicative features of teacher's and adults' messages, two additional factors need to be discussed. First, categorizat i on of message units is done, on a post hoc basis, by isolating their contextual surroundin gs. However, given that a conversation unfolds on a message-by-message basis (Green & Wall at, 1981), consideration of message context and contextualization cues are critical aspects in this analysis. Therefore, in order to perform this analysis, videotapes , transcripts, and structural maps were revisited to account for prosodic cues (e.g., pitch , stress, intonation, timing) and nonverbal cues (e.g., kinesic, proxemic). The second point that needs to be mentioned has to do with the multiple functions that each message may serve. For example the message "brown Ji-hae Ru-Chi" (segment 2, line 377) includes an exact repetition of the previous message (repeating) and, also, modifies it by providing additional infonnation (expanding). Determination of these features was obtained from analysis of contextualization cues and participants' actions. Thus in some instances more than one communicative feature has been recorded for one message unit. In addition to the frequencies of communicative features of teacher talk per phase Table 5.4 includes infonnation for other adults (Grandma, one reading teacher, and myself) participating in the activ ity. However, this infonnation only covers the total numbers for each feature but not across phases, as is the case for the teacher. When considering the highest freq uencies of communicative functions in relation to the total number of messages used by the teacher (223), important patterns become visible.

PAGE 197

184 Three features were pervasive in the teacher's talk throughout this phase: explaining (25), continuance (21), and clarification requests (19). This suggests that although a great amount of her talk was to provide information (explaining), she was also being supportive of students' talk by listening and prompting speakers to continue (continuance) and by soliciting students to explain or redefine their previous message (clarification). There is no argument here that language use is being promoted either by providing students with a considerable amount of second language input (explaining) or by encouraging student participation in the ongoing conversation (continuance and clarification). Not only are there a range of communicative strategies being adopted, a range of potential meanings are being contructed simultaneously. As indicated in Table 5.4, most of the teacher's messages were delivered during phases 3 and 4 (17.0% in phase 3 and 46.8% in phase 4). Other phases, in comparison, were brief in duration (see Table 5.3) and, altogether, only accounted for 15.4% of the teacher's messages. Bu t before comparing and contrasting the two longest phases within this activity, two observations are noteworthy. The first has to do with including information about other adults. As indicated in Table 5.4, the pattern in terms of the messages given by other adults is different from those of the teacher. From a total of 59 messages by other adults, 9 were to provide responses in at least a complete sentence (extended responses), 7 to control the interac t ion and/or behavior of students (directing), and 6 to initiate a turn not directly tied with p r evious interaction (free comments). What this suggest is that the majority of free comments (6 out of 7) and almost half of the extended responses came from other adults. In addition, two thirds of the directives given to children came from these same adults. Altogether, these data suggest that although adults' messages were considerably fewer than the teacher's, they constitued an additional source of language input for the second language learner.

PAGE 198

185 The second observation, tied to the latter discussion, has to do with the category "laughing" at the bottom of Table 5.4. This category includes instances where the only response given by a participant was a laugh (verbal expression). Although the teacher "laughed" on many instances during this activity, in 4 instances it was the only response given. Other adults, on the other hand, chose this response on 8 out of a total of 59 messages. Hence, at this level , other adults' participation was active in, and supportive of, the ongoing conversation. Thu s far, data in Table 5.4 indicate important differences in the distributions of communic a tive features across phases 3 and 4 . These differences are further heightened when frequencies within each phase are considered. In phase 3, for example, the highest frequencies were for continuance (14 out 48) and for clarification requests (6 out of 48). In other words, almost half of the teacher's comments supported students' talk by listening and promp t ing students to continue talking (continuance) or by soliciting speakers to elucidate some aspect of their message (clarification request). These features constitute comparative evidence that the teacher's role in phase 3 was decisive in providing students with an interactional scaffold; she was not only an attentive listener, by acknowledging students' comments and prompting them to continue, but also a collaborator supporting students' participation. The quality of teacher talk in phase 4 is very different when compared to previous phases. In t he first place, the frequency of teacher messages increases considerably, from 48 in phase 3, to 132 in this phase. Second, higher frequencies were for explaining (22), holding (18), and asking display questions (16). Given that teacher talk was dominated by these three features, it is not surprising that students' opportunities to talk were seriously reduced. T h e type of talk predominant in this phase was either to provide information (explaining) or to maintain the floor (holding). In addition, most of the questions asked by the teacher were display questions, that is requests for information known by the teacher.

PAGE 199

186 Other predominant features of teacher talk in this phase included partial or total repetitions of previous messages (repeating) and shifts or changes in form and content of original message (repairing). Separately, any of these five features (explaining, holding, asking display questions, repeating, and repairing) does not promote participation. On the contrary, they function as devices to control the interaction. Altogether, when these features are dominan t in the speech of one conversational partner, the quality of the interactio n is strongly affected. The conversation no longer is a negotiated process where participan t s share roles and responsibilities, but a unidirectional process wherein, as in this case, the teacher does the talking and the student the listening. And although listening is crucial fo r language acquisition, and indeed for learning in general, when students are left with the role of listeners only, they are denied a major part in the conversation: their role as speakers. Consequently, this kind of teacher talk limits substantially students' opportuni t ies to experiment with a range of ways of talking. In the last phase , as illustrated in the segment below, more than half of the teacher ' s messages ( 6 out of 10) were to control the behavior of students (directing). This phase begins when the teacher begins assigning students to different centers (line 573). 573 Teacher 574 575 576 577 Ji-Hae 578 G r andma 579 Tony 580 G r andma 581 582 OKA Y LET'S TRY THIS THEN UHM FOLKS BORUI AND GABRIEL YOU CAN GO TO MY TABLE UM JI-HAE AND RU-CHI AND HYE-KANG YOU CAN GO TO GRANDMA'S TABLE ughh ughhhh sshhh Hye-Kang Take your chair UMM HYUNTAE AND TONY AND ROLF YOU CAN GO TO YOUR STATION Thus in this phase the teacher was, basically, giving directions for students to follow with actions (li nes 573-576, 581-582). But going back to the comparison of phases 3 and 4, the previous analysis has indicated substantial differences between phases in terms of the quality of the teacher's speech. W hereas in phase 3 the overall purpose of teacher's messages was supportive of

PAGE 200

187 students' talk, in phase 4, most of her messages were either to provide information or to keep the floor. Another important difference between these two phases can be identified when the l ength of turns is considered . In phase 3, where most of the teacher's messages were to prompt students to continue talking and to request clarification, the teacher's turns were comparatively brief. In phase 4, on the other hand, the teacher's turn were generally sustained. Th i s point can be made most forcibly by comparing excerpts from both phases. During ph a se 3, as exemplified in segment 1, the teacher's messages were mostly provided in one or t w o words or in short sentences (see for example, lines 139, 155, 176, 178, 181). I n addition, if students' talk is viewed as the background in this transcript, and teacher's talk as the foreground , the teacher's messages appear to be few and far between. A differen t picture appears when viewing segment 2, from the fourth phase (e . g., "teacher's a genda"). I n this case, the teacher's messages are not only longer, but they also outnumbe r those of students. Al t ogether, exploration of Tables 5.3 and 5.4 uncovered a series of patterns across phases 3 and 4. In phase 4, not only did the teacher spend considerably more time talking than her students but, in most instances, she also initiated the conversation. Consequently, most of th e topics, in addition to dealing with procedural aspects, were teacher generated. This is not surprising since it is the initiator who generally signals the topic. Furthermore, the teache r tried to hold the attention, asked most of the questions, particularly display questions, and used a heap of repetitions. But how does this enhance or constrain student talk? How does teacher talk translate into language use and language learning for LEP students? Answers are to be found by looking at the other participants in the setting. Because classrooms are communicative contexts constructed by the joint contributions of teacher and students, the study of instructional events needs to include the interactional level. Thus , t h e focus of the analysis now turns to student talk.

PAGE 201

188 Table 5.5 presents frequencies and percentages of the communicative features of students' verbal messages throughout talking circle. Data in this table are organized according to phases. Analysis of the higher frequencies reveals that more than one fourth of students' messages (85 out of 324) were minimal responses, that is responses in one word or one clause. As evidenced in segment 2 (e.g., lines 357, 360, 365 368), this type of response generally followed a display question. The next two predominant categories , however, are more student controlled. Extending/elaborating, the second higher category, comprised a total of 42 messages. Messages coded under this category included those that modify, partially or totally, a portion of the previous message by providing additional or new information. Students' self-initiated turns and repetitions of previous messages (partial or total) comprised 33 messages each. This suggests that even though a proportionately high number of messages were basically brief responses, there were also opportunities for students to initiate their turns and to extend and elaborate the content of t heir own talk. Other categories included in Table 5.5 are attention getters (14), clarification requests (14), explaining (13), repairing (11), and responding in at least one sentence (10). Editing, directing, expanding, and continuance came further behind. Further examination of Table 5.5 reveals a series of patterns across phases. Most of the messages were produced in phase 4 (51.9%) and phase 3 (33.3%), which comes as no surprise considering that they were the longest phases (see Table 5.3). Phase 2 followed with 10.1 %; phase 1 with 3.1 %; and phase 5 with the remaining 1.5%. Analysis of the predominant category throughout the whole activity, that is, minimal responses, indicates that 81.2% of these messages were given in phase 4. Another high frequency throughout the activity, with a high concentration on one phase, is the category of extending/elaborating (66.6%) found in phase 3. Although repetitions of previous messages were pervasive in phase 4 (81.8%), messages providing information were frequent in phase 3 (69.2%). What the above suggests is that messages that involve a more active role in the conversation, and a considerable amount of language use (such as

PAGE 202

explaining and extending/elaborating), were concentrated in phase 3. By contrast, messages t hat are the result of students' more passive role in the interaction, and that involve simple and fragmentary utterances (such as minimal responses and repetitions), were clus t ered in phase 4. 189 Differences between phases are further heightened when Tables 5.3 and 5.5 are analyzed in conjuntion. There was a different set of communicative demands required for students' participation for each phase . As indicated in Table 5.3, during phase 4 students talked co n siderably less than their teacher, got fewer turns, used shorter and less complex messages , made fewer requests, and initiated a much smaller proportion of turns. In relation to the expectations for students' participation, the differences between phases are also evident when excerpts of both phases are compared. In phase 3 (see segment 1), students' messages were longer and more abundant. Although students made use of severa l turns to make their points, participation of other students or adults was frequent t h roughout. For instance, in Tony's tum (see segment 1, lines 174-198) as he explains h is experience of going swimming "in Taiwan in the summer time," he has several opportuni t ies to extend and elaborate his own speech. It is here when Tony has a chance to try out recently acquired vocabulary, to discover new ways of deploying his communi c ative resources, or to discover how the new language sounds when he speaks it. In all this process, the audience plays a fundamental role. Comments like Hyun Tae's (line 183): "th a t's cold" can be indicative to Tony that he has interested listeners who are following and understanding his point. Furthermore, with the teacher as an attentive listener and occasional prompter (e.g . , lines 176, 178, 181, 185 186, 190), Tony is encouraged to further develop his topic and to tryout new linguistic means without the fear of being w rong. It is in communicative contexts like this one, where interactions are promoted and collaboration among participants is encouraged, that students' opportunities for using a nd practic i ng a new language for communicative purposes are, certainly, enhanced .

PAGE 203

190 Thi s type of meaningful conversation is what All wright (1979) has called "real attempts a t communication." He suggests that the benefit of this type of engagement for language learning is not only for the participating speaker but also for those listening. By listening to other students, learners can observe, and later practice, different communicative strategies used by other students to keep the flow of the conversation. In addition, by listening to different topics brought up by other students, the second language learner is practicing how to follow the flow of a topic in everyday conversation. The type of interaction characteristic of phase 4, or teacher's agenda, is quite different from the above, as evidenced by segment 2 and Tables 5.4 and 5.5. Differences are given not only in terms of the organization of turns, topic control, quantity and quality of teacher and student talk, but also in terms of the opportunities available for ways of communicating and negotiating meaning. As reflected in segment 2, this phase is characterized by teacher-dominated exchanges in which the teacher explains the new classroom arrangement (lines 344-49, 422-427, 441-445a) and then asks display questions to check for understanding (lines 351 52, 356-7, 363 64, 374, 383, 388). On the other hand students' responses, although abundant in number, are generally brief (one or two words), constitued by mere repetitions, and little elaboration (see lines 353, 354, 365, 367, and 387). It is not surprising, then, that in contexts where teacher talk overpowers students' talk, where the "agenda" to cover takes over the content of the conversation, and where procedural instructions need to be "transmitted," students' possibilities to engage in conversations is relatively constrained. In sum, the contrast between phases 3 and 4 is quite evident. Although many factors remained the same throughtout phases (e.g . , participants, activity, physical arrangement, medium), the opportunities to participate and to try out a variety of linguistic forms, changed dramatically. While in the core phase (phase 3) students bring the themes for discussion, in phase 4, the teacher has a preselected message she wants to communicate. Although, as shown in Table 5.3, student talk was dominant in the core

PAGE 204

1 91 phase (71.4%) in the following phase it is the teacher who does most of the talking (63.1 %). The fact that students talked considerably less than their teacher during phase 4 (see Table 5.2) is not surprising considering that in most classrooms , teachers talk for about two thirds of the available class time (Long & Porter, 1985; Mehan, 1979) . But not only did s t udents speak less during phase 4, they also got fewer turns, expressed a narrower r ange of meanings, and in general used shorter and less complex messages. They also asked fewer questions, made fewer requests, and initiated a smaller proportion of turns. In light of this , it may appear surprising that in the core phase the picture is so strikingly different. The abundance of self-initiated turns, the opportunities to inform the audience a bout some topic of personal interest, and the possibility for students to extend and elabo r ate their own messages stands in sharp contrast when compared with phase 4. Part of the explanation is that, as discussed earlier, classroom events are composed by different phases, each possessing a unique organi z ation and purpose. A n other explanation is the role played by the teacher throughout the activity. In this case, t he teacher allowed various forms of participation and encouraged a wide range of ways o f talking . By doing so, she was supporting students' discussion of their immediate interests, she was facilitating students' exploration of their communicative abilities i n the second language; and, mostly, she was facilitating students' active involvement in the teaching and learning process. When students discover that their incipient linguistic development allows them to talk about their small "swim sweater" or "getting b l ack after sun," and, in addition, when they are able to receive "wow!s," o r "really! s" from an attentive audience, then their sense of competence (both communicative and lingui s tic ) increases. This sense of confidence, in turn , increases students' willingness to communicate in the second language and to take risks in testing out new hypotheses about how this new l a nguage works.

PAGE 205

192 Clearly, language use and student participation can be facilitated or restricted not only by the content of the talk, but also by the accompanying patterns of address. Where the teache r occupies the role of initiator and the students, the role of respondents, there are comparati v ely fewer opportunities for the learners to "test" the limits of their communicative and linguistic competence. However, if instructional events offer students a chance to actively participate and to express their meanings and intentions, authentic opportunities for extending receptive and productive competence can arise. Summary The analysis presented in this chapter illustrates what can be learned by in-depth exploration of everyday interactions within an ESOL elementary classroom. The analysis was guided by a sociolinguistic/ethnographic perspective that views language teaching and learning as dynamic and interactive processes embedded in complex social contexts. The exploration focused on one recurrent event--talking circle--used by the teacher to assist students in the development of second language conversational forms. What appeared t o be a simple classroom event, was indeed, a complex process composed of different parts--each one with different demands for participation. Not all phases provided similar opportunities for students to participate, nor did they all encourage students to experiment in the second language and thus discover how the new language works. To explore the opportunities for language use and language learning available for LEP students during this talking circle activity, three different although interrelated and overlapping dimensions of classroom talk and interaction were analyzed--topic development, social demands, and communicative features. For students to participate successfully in classroom events, they must know the content of the talk (topical), the appropriate ways of participating (social), and the different linguistic elements available to them (communicative). These different requirements for participation were made visible in

PAGE 206

193 the talk and actions of teachers and students throughout the different phases of this event and across other talking circles. The content of the talk during this talking circle has principally been related to procedural matters and to students' personal experiences. It is in the discussion of students' inmediate interests that this classroom is intriguing. Distinctive features of student talk are visible at least in three levels: topics discussed have largely been personal experience s , accounts of events that featured summer activities, or discussion of individua l traits; contributions to the talk very frequently took the form of narratives--experiences were reconstructed in order to share them; and speakers seemed more concerned with conveying meaning than with presenting linguistically "correct" information. Although these three c haracteristics might not be considered as top priority in traditional discussions of second l a nguage acquisition, they, nevertheless, are as relevant to and as true of language learning as they are of students' needs to communicate. What is important here is that these common characteristics create opportunities for verbal interaction, on the one hand, and for practicing different communicative strategies, on the other. Both are appropriate material for the second language classroom. This comes as no surprise because children learn their fIrst language not by practicing structured drills, trying to get a sentence right, or communing with a book, but by using language as a means to learn about and act in and on the world around them. Children then learn their first language not as an end in itself but as a means to communicate with real people and in real situations. The same can be said for l earning a second language. Talking circle, as well as any other activity in this ESOL classroom (e.g., letter writing, story time), is a communicative event with specific demands and participation rules. As the analysis of this activity has highlighted, the different communicative strategies required to gain access to the discussion were somewhat determined by the p h ase of the activity. In the core phase, for example, students had to first get the teacher's attention in order to be assigned to speak; during the teacher's agenda, in order to

PAGE 207

194 speak, students needed to call out their answers. Thus, succesful participation in talking circle entailed more than just having something to say, wanting to say it, or knowing the linguistic elements to say it. Succesful participation in talking circle required that students learn how t o gain the right to speak (e.g . , calling the teacher ' s name), how to get and maintain t h e teacher's and students' attention (e.g . , using place holders ) , how and when to change the topic, and so on. In sum, participation in the classroom involved awareness of the differing rules and demands for social interaction required across different activity phases. As t he analysis has indicated, the different communicative features that characterized teacher talk across different phases of the activity rendered very different results in s t udents talk. When the teacher assumed the role of initiator, students assumed the role of respondents; when the teacher asked display questions, students' responses were brief, mere repetitions and with little elaboration. Clearly, student participation and language use were restricted or facilitated depending on the type of questions asked by the teacher, the type of feedback offered, the extension and organization o f t urns, and who had control of the topics. Because of this unequal status of teachers and students in terms of the language medium ( academic) and in terms of control of topic, turns, and direction of interactions (social), the role of teachers in second language classrooms can be decisive in enhancing or constraining language use and language learning. It is not enough to simply allow conv e rsation in the classroom; talking has to be encouraged. Classrooms need to become supportive social environments where students who lack language proficiency can interact with others. If s t udents are t o learn how to use their new language and how to succeed in the new school and culture, they need abundant practice in taking turns, interrupting, and listening actively. They need to know how to hold back the more talkative members and draw out the shy or self-conscious ones. They need to know how to request clarifications , how to ask for repetitions, how to slow down, and how to explain. In addition, students

PAGE 208

195 need to know how to gain time to think, change the topic, and how to look attentive to keep the conversation going. In sum, students need to hear and practice the new language in order to learn it. The teacher's stated goal for this activity was to encourage students to talk in the second language. It seems that this goal was being met. In this talking circle event, where implicit and explicit notions about correctness of language usage were absent and where the audience w as eager to listen and participate, children were able to practice their recently acquired l an guage skills and to learn from one another. They were free to tryout new ways with new words and t hey were allowed to talk about the past , the present, or the future without having to focus on the appropriateness of the tense. What is clear from the classroom event analyzed here -and of others similar to this one--is that students are fully demonstrating their developing oral language skills and, by doing so, they are using language, t o learn about themselves, about each other, and about their new culture. Most importantl y , they are using language to learn language.

PAGE 209

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Introduction The primary purpose of this study was to explore the nature of second language teaching and l earning as social processes in an English for Speakers of Other Languages -'. (ESOL) program for elementary students. Of special concern was how a group of students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds learned a second language and culture through everyday interactions with teachers and peers. A second purpose was to produce a comprehensive and systematic description of the instructional, organizational, and physical characteristics of an elementary ESOL program and of the actions and interactions of participants within the program . Specific objectives of the study included (a) to identify selected regularities and routines within and across a selected classroom event, (b) to identify different demands for participation placed on students (when, w h ere, with whom to talk, and for what purposes) throughout selected events, (c) to identify different kinds of communicative patterns shown by students and teachers in the ESOL classroom, and (d) to document how different ways of organizing clasroom interactions can enhance or constrain students' opportunities for language use and language learning. The present study falls into Ogbu's (198 1 ) conceptualization of a multilevel ethnography . It is not confined to an analysis of student-teacher interactions only nor to one classroom or teacher, but it attempts to cut through and link different levels of a social Context that influence the experiences of children in school. The investigation was conducted on two levels . First, a general ethnographic study of ESOL classrooms, program, and school was conducted. Second, based on the analysis of macrofeatures, 196

PAGE 210

197 everyday events in the conversational ESOL classroom (e.g . , writing , storyreading, discussion, talking circle ) were identified and videotaped. Microanalysis of videotapes was based on recent work in the analysis of face to face interaction (Bloome, 1987; Gumperz; 1 982; Green, 1983; Gre e n & Wallat, 1981; Philips, 1983; Weade & Green, 1985). The s y stem provided a principled approach for freezing , reconstructing, and anal y zing students ' and teachers' i nteraction s within the ESOL classroom. Data were gathered during a p proximatel y six hundred hours of panicipant observation in one elementary ESOL program during the 1989 90 school year. Other data-gathering technique s included formal and informal interviews, detailed fieldnotes, video and audiotaping, examination of documents and records, and analysis of students' work. In this chapter , the major findings of this study will be summarize, and implications for educational practices and further r es earch in second language classrooms will be suggested . Conclusjons Results of thi s study can be summarized as follow s : 1 . Multiple factors, including factors that go beyond the lingu i stic realm, influence a s sessment, placement, and exiting limited English proficient (LEP) students. 2. The ESOL staff at Arthur Elementary School played an important role in providing a s upportive system, a scaffold, in which LEP students' whole array of linguistic, academic, social , and emotional needs could be bolstered and integrated. 3. Successful panicipation in the second language classroom entailed more than the Willingness to use the second language; it involved increasing awareness of the specific thematic, social, and communicative demands required across different classroom events and across different phases within each event.

PAGE 211

198 4. Talk and interaction between teachers and students provided opportunities for students to hear and practice ways of using the new language, to test out their hypotheses about how th e second l anguage works, and to get useful interactive feedback. Kev Factors Associated with Assessment and Placement Procedures Like most programs within formal education systems, ESOL programs also rely heavily on tests and standardized measures for assess ing, placing, and exiting students. As a result of using standardized measures in the assessment of culturally and linguistically different students, tests scores are often interpreted without considering student performance within the context of culture, language, home, and community environments (Cummins, 1986). Such assessment procedures unquestionably thwart the academic progress of la nguage minority students. The ESOL staff at Arthur is very much aware of the problems that may arise when using culturally-biased assessment procedures--such as the incorrect identification of LEP students as learning disabled or language impaired. And even though standardized measures are required by the district's guidelines, ESOL teachers at Arthur use different methods of informal assessment before sending their students for psychological assessment. Organizing the learning experiences of LEP students at Arthur's ESOL pull-out program is a complex process. Because this program is composed of students from over thirty different countries, speaking nineteen different languages, and of mixed cognitive levels, severa l factors are considered. In order to support students' social and academic experiences in the school, grouping for langua ge instruction consider s the following factors: English language proficiency level (beginners, intermediates , or advanced); grade level; langua ge skill areas (liste ning, speaking, reading, and writing); special needs (e.g., exceptionalities, difficulties experienced by the student during the initial adjusting period); and schedule requirements.

PAGE 212

199 Throughout the school year group composition and time distribution for instruction changed countless occasions. These changes were due arrival or exit of new students ; need to provide special assistance to a particular student or group of students, or to improve schedule arrangements for students . For the most part, the ESOL staff made exceptional efforts in tailoring each student ' s schedule so ESOL classes would not interfere with students' participation in the full academic life of the school. The ESOL Program Provides a Support System for LEP Students The consequences of not being able to communicate appropriately in English extend beyond a linguistic realm. The inability to communicate in the new language--to learn the location of classrooms, school buses, or office bringing with it problems of survival--is a very obvious cause of stress in students. At the same time students are d.etB. ched from emotional support and friendship. In order to help LEP students cope with these feelings of isolation and to encourage them to participate, inasmuch as possible, in the whole array of school experiences the ESOL staff carefully designs a schedule for each student. The result of this attempt to accommodate both the ESOL and the content area courses is a very complex timetable that , paradoxically, can increase those feelings of isolation. The ESOL staff at Arthur plays an important role in providing a supportive system, a scaffold in which LEP students' whole array of linguistic, academic, social, and emotional needs can be bolstered and integrated. The program is fundamental because it (a) provides instructional support for language minority students in conversational English, reading, an d math; (b) functions as a hub around which students' schooling experiences are organized; (c) extends and enhances students' learning experiences in a second language and culture by providing a context wherein their previous native language and culture experiences are valued; (d) allows students to appropriately participate in everyday events by helping them learn the social and communicative demands of everyday life in a North

PAGE 213

200 American school; and (e) supports students' academic, social, and emotional needs whenever needed. Successful Participation in the Second Lan guage Classroom Involved Awareness of the Specific Social and Academic Demands Everyday activities in the ESOL classroom were organized around different kind of situations and events. Throughout the school day, students moved from one activity to another and also from one setting to another. These different situations (e.g., opening morning activities, letter writing, reading circles, show and tell , tests, etc.) represented different types of communicative events und ertaken for communicative purposes. Talking circle as well as other activities in this ESOL program , was shown to be a communicative event with specific demands and rules for participation. As the analysis highlighted, t he different communicative strategies required to gain access to the talk or discussion were somewhat determined by the particular phase of the activity. For example during phase 3, students had to first get the teache r's attention in order to be assigned to speak, in phase 4 in order to speak students needed to call out their answers. Thus successful participation in talking circle required more than just having something to say, wanting to sa y it, or knowing the linguistic elements to say it. Successful participation in talking circle required that students learn how to gain the right to speak., how to get and maintain the teacher's and students' attention, and how and when to change the topic. Thus, what on the surface appeared to be a "single" classroom event was in fact composed of "multiple" parts--each one with specific social and academic demands. Furthermore, not all phases encouraged students' participation, nor did they all allow for students to use a range of language functions.

PAGE 214

201 Importance of Talk and Interaction in Second Language Learning Contrary to the usual assumption that children learn language mainly from peers otuside the classroom and not from teachers (Wong-Fillmore, 1985), for many of these LEP students the only place in which they come into regular contact with English speakers is at the school. Furthermore, the ESOL program appears to be a primary place within the school where they can practice their newly acquired linguistic skills. In their homeroom classrooms they are generally quiet and do not interact with their English-speaking peers. In contexts such as the playground, lunchroom, or the music room, if they interact with other students, is typically with other LEP students. Language learning, for these students, if it is going t o take place at all, is going to happen mainly at school (Wong-Fillmore, 1985). The ESOL classroom can be an ideal place to learn English if it allows students to be in close and continuous contact with teachers and students, and if language is used for communicative purposes. For s t udents at Arthur's ESOL program, instructional talk served several purposes: it indicated to them what was important to do and know, and it provided an important source of how this new language functions. Furthermore, the content of classroom talk was of particular importance because topics were principally related to students' interests. If topics are not related to the students' experiences or immediate speech situation, they tend to be avoided or misunderstood by learners (Ellis, 1986). When the topics discussed are of interest to the students, when students can use their recently acquired language skills to express thoughts and feelings, when students can have a say in what is being discussed, when the conversation offers students a tight relationship between what is being said and the situation i n which is being said; then, classroom talk can be conducive to language learning.

PAGE 215

2Q2 Implications There are several implications which can be drawn from the findings of this study. There are implications for planning and implementation of programs for language minorit y students, for curriculum theo ry and development, and for research in second language classrooms . In the past decade, classrooms across the United States have radically changed. The influx o f refugee s from Asia, Latin America, and Arabic nations have painted our classrooms with multicultural tones. Schools have suddenly been challenged with having t(o provide more and improved services for this increasing sector of the population . .t-\lthough in recent years an increasing amount of studies that focus on LEP student s and <,i;chool and home socialization appears to be encouraging , ESOL programs have received EttIe attention. Most of the research efforts have targeted bilingual settings--where two l anguages are used for instruction, teaching methodologies, or program development. "Nh at is lacking however is infomlation regarding how schooling experiences are organized f or students from diverse lingu i stic and cultural backgrounds immersed in one same ]program or classroom. What i s needed then are careful studies characterizing ESOL p rograms and the teaching and leaming interactions taking place within them (Watson Gegeo, 1988). This study is a response to that need. It attempts to provide a detailed description o f teachers and students interactions within an elementary ESOL program and a m oment by-moment account o f cla s sroom talk and actions. In addition to the lack of studies addressing the needs of LEP students in similar p rograms other factors, such as the absence of guidelines as to how to organize this kind of program and the inadequacy of assessment procedures, have posed serious problem s to the already difficult quest of improving the educational services for LEP students. The educational needs of these students go far beyond just learning a second language; their needs also include coping with a new environment and culture, with stress and daily

PAGE 216

203 challenges, and with the need to bridge what they already have and know with what is required in school. Simply teaching English to these students is not enough. As was evident in this study, organizing everyday schooling experiences for LEP students is far from being a simple process. A multiplicity of linguistic, cultural, instructional, and emotional factors need to be taken into consideration. Clearly, a relatively small ESOL program like Arthur's with as many as nineteen languages representedincluding Chichewa, Luvenda, Sinhala, and Serbo Croatian, as well as the more predictable Spanish, Chinese, Po r tuguese, and Korean -and more than thirty nationalities included, had indeed major challenges to confront. One other aspect that has contributed to the lack of studies in ESOL settings and thus deserves special consideration, is related to recent findings that favor bilingual programs o ver any other type of language program. Work of Crawford (1989), Cummins (1982, 1984), Trueba (1987, 1988a, 1988b), and most recently Ramirez, Yuen, and Ramey (1991), have documented the success of maintenance bilingual programs. The goal of these programs is additive bilingualism, that is, continued development of the child ' s first and second languages. Additive bilingualism contrasts sharply with substractive bilingualism, which attempts to replace the child's native language with the second language as soon as possible . The latter is the case of ESOL programs. Findings in these studies indicated that students in bilingual maintenance programs do not fall back in subject matter, but rather, develop self esteem, avoid culture conflict, and when allowed to reach higher levels of proficiency in both their two languages, they are able to gain certain advantages in cognitive development (Crawford, 1989; Cummins, 1984; Haku t a, 1986). The point here is not whether maintenance bilingual programs are better programs than ESOL. By now, few should have doubts about that. The argument here is that ESOL programs are indeed necessary in places where there are not enough qualified bilingual teachers or where too many students speak different primary languages.

PAGE 217

.,..-204 And this i s precisely the case of Arthur's ESOL program, and of other second language programs l ocated in small districts, with a small population of LEP students but with a proportion a lly large number of primary languages. Clearly, in such cases, bilingual education i s not always feasible, and ESOL is a reasonably alternative. Findings of this study, then, can contribute to the ongoing discussion, not by arguing in favor of ESOL approache s over others, but by providing a detailed descriptive and interpretative account of an ESOL program in a district where the implementation of a bilingual program is not a viable alternative. second implication involves taking into consideration what these students bring • \. ,,_ •. .. , ••. _-" ..... ......... ...--"",. ..... ___ -./ _____ --.,--_ '" with them, that is , focusing on what they have rather than on what they the program is ESOL or bilingual, schooling experiences for LEP children need to consider and, if possible, incorporate the wealth of experiences these students bring with them. Teaching and learning can be extended and enhanced when participants' own experiences are mixed w ith those generalizations and conceptualizations offered by schooling. The culture and language of children's homes have major effects on their world views, and they will make d ifferent connections with new school experiences according to their different pre-exisiting experiences. If LEP students are to come to terms with what school o f fers, they need to perceive the significance of what they have and know w ith what their new school, language, and culture offers them. A airn . s _ to _ encourage _teachin-K-a}l
PAGE 218

Providing equal opportunities for all students depends essentially on the degree to which classroom teachers are able to institut e classroom practices and curriculum development which systematically respond to the diversity represented in their classrooms . But implementation of these practices is in fact dependent upon supportive school staff and programs, d istrict guidelines, and state language policies which recognize diversity as an asset and not a handicap. A third implication, related to the latter, is the importance of talk and inter action in second language classrooms--and for that matter in all classrooms as well . It is clear that LEP students in the process of d eve loping English as a second language gain from working in classrooms where talk and interaction are regarded as integral to the process of negotiating knowledge, exchanging personal experiences and thoughts, and the developmen t of langu age and literacy abilities . Such language-rich contexts have high potential as realistic starting points for learning English as a second language and for learning in, and about, schools. For all students talk and interaction are of prime importance for working towards understandings of new concepts and as a basis for l earn ing through the other language modes of reading and writing. Through talking and listening to each other (not only to the teacher) and working on activities involving reading and writing (not only their own), they are able both to develop increasing facility in all modes and increasing control over their use for social interaction, learning, and thinking . An interactive environment is important by virtue of providing opportunities to interact by whatever means support communication and learning. In addition, it is also important to ensure the interaction of all four language abilities (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and to conceive of them as interdependent. This is not to say that the weig h t given to each of these areas will not differ according to learning stages and needs. For LEP students, an interactive environment should acknowledge the value of interaction between speakers in their own languages, and

PAGE 219

206 also acknowledge the values of students' literacy in their own languages. It is often only . . such acknowledgement and interaction that stimulates learning and helps students construct meanings by making connections between what they already know and what the new environment offers them. A fourth implication deals with the constructed nature of classroom events. Variations in terms of the content of discussion, social demands for participation, and quantity and quality of verbal functions across phases--within the same activity, with the same participants, and in the same setting--are indicative of the complex nature of second language teaching and learning. Classrooms events are not only the result of what is planned by the teacher, suggested by the materials, or outlined by the district curriculum guidelines. Rather, classroom events are constructed by the joint contribution of teacher and stud e nts . A view o f teaching and learning as constructed demands something much more flexible than a traditional output model of curriculum--a prescribed set of topics and objectives to be accomplished during instruction. What can be planned in advance is an outline of resources and possibilities which mayor may not be put into effect. Pre planning is always limited because students have a say in what gets accomplished and how it gets accomplished. By the same token, second language teaching techniques and approaches can be useful insofar as they are considered as possible practices and do not limit the range of instructional activities. When classroom events combine pre-planned activities and approaches with topics and practices suggested by students then teaching and learning are enhanced. Curriculum, viewed in this way, is not simply a given, but is constructed by the joint contribution of teachers and students as they work together to accomplish the everyday activities that make up life in classrooms (Weade & Green, 1989). A final imphc ation involves specific recommendations for further research in second language classrooms. Careful attention needs to be paid to what actually happens in

PAGE 220

207 second language classrooms. Patterns of talk and interaction during classroom activities and the roles that the teacher ascribes to the students are dominant factors not only in determining how much language is used by students, but also how much learning is occurring. T he manner in which the teacher speaks, asks questions, and especially, listens to students; the kinds of activities, attitudes, and support that teachers provide in their classrooms; the kind of interactions between teacher and students and between students themselves; t he way in which the classroom is decorated and organized; and the way in which LEP students learning experiences are distributed throughout the day may either support or impede language use and language learning. Although findings in this study do not provide causal explanations or ways of generalizing about ESOL events and classrooms, they do explain what happens w i thin and across particular events . By using a systematic and theoreti.cRlly driven appro a ch to the study of soc i al interactions between teachers and students, it is possible to go beyond surface leve l descriptions. Ethnographic findings of this type can also provide theoretical .. ... ;, . . , insights that can be relevant to different classrooms and programs. This is only one way of analyzing events in second l anguage classrooms. However, this type of research allows educators (researchers and practitioners as well) to view classrooms and students i n new ways and th u s to explore new or alternative actions to fulfill the needs of students in second language instructional settings.

PAGE 221

REFERENCES Allwright, R. (1979). Language learning through communication practice. In. C. Brumf it, & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teachin2:. Oxford, Great Britain : Oxford University Press. Ashton Warner, S. (1963) . Teacher. New York: Simon & Schuster. Au, K. H., & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a culturally appropriate solution. In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie & K. H. Au (Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnographv (pp. 139 152 ) . Rowle y , MA: Newbury House . August, D . , & Garcia , E. (1988). Lan2:ua2:e minoritv education in the United States: Research, policv and practice. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publisher. Barr, R. ( 1 987). Classroom interaction and curricular content. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and Schoolil1g (pp. 150 168). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bialystok, E., Frohlich, M., & Howard, J. (1978). The teaching and learning of French as a se c ond language in two distinct learning settings. (Project Report). Toronto: Ontari o Institute for Studies in Education, Modern Language Center. Bilingual E ducation Act. 1968. United States Statuses at Large, 81, p. 817. BIoome, D. (1987). (Ed.), Literacy and schooling . Norwood, NJ: Ablex . BIoome, D., & Theodorou, E. (1988). Analyzing teacher-student and student-student discourse . In J. L. Green & 1. O. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 219-248). Norwood, NJ : Ablex. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1986). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Boggs, S. T. (1985). Speakin and learning: A study of Hawaiian children at home and at school. Norwood, NJ : Ablex. Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp . 432-463). New York : Macmillan Publishing Co. Chomsky , N. (1959 ) . Review of verbal behavior by B.F. Skinner. Language, 35,2658. Chomsky , N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of svntax . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clifford, J., & Marcus, G . (1986). Writin2: culture: The poetics a nd politics of ethnographv . Be r keley, CA: University of California Press . 208

PAGE 222

209 Collins, J. P. (1983). A linguistic perspective on minority education: Discourse analysis and early literacy . (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley). Dissertation Abstracts International, 5, DEQ84-02222. Cook-Gumperz, J., & Gumperz, 1. (1981). From oral to written culture: The transition to literacy. In M. F. Whiteman (Ed.), Variation in writing: Functional and linguistic cultural differences (pp. 89-109). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cook Gumperz, J., & Gumperz, J. (1982). Communicative competence in educational perspective. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 13-24) . New York: Academic Press. Crawford, J. (1989) . Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. Trenton, NJ: Crane. Cummins, J. (1982). Tests, achievement, and bilingual students. Focus, 9, 1 -8. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilin2:ualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press. Delgado -Gaitan, C . (1987). Mexican adult literacy: New directions for immigrants. In S . R. Goldman & H. T. Trueba, (Eds.), Becoming literate in English as a second langu age (pp . 9-32). Delgado -Gaitan, C. (1989) . Classroom literacy activity for Spanish speaking students. Lingu i stics and Education, 1,285-297. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Edelsky, C. (1989). Writing in a bilingual program: Habfa una vez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex . Eli'en, R. (1984). Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. London, Great Britain: Academic Press. Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second langua2:e acquisition. Oxford, Great Britain: Pergamon Press. Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding second lan2:ua2:e development. Oxford, Great Britain : Oxford University Press. Enright, D. S., & McCloskey, M. L. (1988). Integrating English: Developing English langu age and literacy in the multilingual classroom. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing, Co. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119 161). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co . Erickson, F., & Mohatt, G. (1981). Cultural differences in teaching styles in Odawa schoo l : A sociolinguistic approach. In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie & H. H . Au (Eds . ) , Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 105 119). Rowley, MA : Newbury House. '

PAGE 223

210 Erickson, F., & Schultz, J. (1981). When is context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of social competence. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 147-160). Norwood, NJ: Ab1ex. Flanders, N. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, Co. Fishman, J. A. (1977). The social science perspective. Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives, 1. Arlington, V A: Center for Applied Linguistic. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. Gibson, M. (1987). The school performance of immigrant minorities: A comparative view. Anthropology and Education Quarterlv, l8.(4), 262-275. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discoverv of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Golden, J. (1988). The construction of literary text in a story reading lesson. In J. L. Green & J. Q. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp.71-106). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Goldman, S. R., & Trueba, H. T. (1987). Becoming literate in English as a second language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Green, J. L. (1983, April). Research on teaching as a linguistic process: A state of the art. In E. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education, 10 (pp. 151-252). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Green, J. L., & Harker, J. O. (1982). Gaining access to learning: Conversational, social and cognitive demands of group participation. In L.c. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communication in the classroom (pp. 183-219). New York: Academic Press. Green, J. L., & Wallat, C. (1981). Ethnographv and language in educational settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Green, 1. L., & Weade, R. (1987). In search of meaning: A sociolinguistic perspective on lesson construction and reading. In D. BIoome (Ed.), Literacv and schooling (pp. 3-34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Green, J. L., & Weade, R. (1988). Teaching as conversation and the construction of meaning in the classroom. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Green, 1. L., Weade, R., & Graham, K. (1988). Lesson construction and student participation: A sociolinguistic analysis. In J. L. Green & 1. O. Harker (Eds.), MUltiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 11-47). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 117 38). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

PAGE 224

211 Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two langua2:es : An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, J . J. (1981). Conversational inference and classroom learning. In 1. L. Green and C. Wall at (Eds.), Ethnographv and lanQ:uage in educational settings (pp. 3-23). Norwood, NJ: Ablex . Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. London: Cambridge University Press. Guthrie, G . P. (1985). A school divided: An ethnography of bilingual education in a Chinese community. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Guthrie, L., & Guthrie, G. P . (1987) . Teacher language use in a Chinese bilingual classroom. In S. R. Goldman & H. T. Trueba, (Eds .), Becoming literate in English as a second language (pp. 205 231). Norwood, NJ : Ablex. Hakuta, K. (1986). The mirror of language : The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London, Great Britain: Tavistock Publications. Hatch, E., Gough, J., & Peck, S. (1985). What case studies reveal about system, sequence, and variation in second language acquisition. In M. Ceice-Murcia, (Ed.), Bevond bnsics: Issues and in TESOL (pp. 37-59). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Heath, S. B. (1982) . Ethnography in education: Defining the essentials. In P. Gilmore and A . A . Glatthom (Eds.), Children in and out of school : Ethnography and education (pp.33-58). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press . Hymes, D. (1981). Ethnographic monitoring. In H . T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie & H. H . Au (Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 36-55). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Hymes, D. (1982). What is ethnography? In P. Gilmore and D. Smith (Eds.), Children in and out of school: Ethnography and education (pp. 2132). Washington, D.C.: Cente r for Applied Linguistics. Kirk, J., & Miller, M. (1987). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications . Kloss, H . (1977). The American bilin2:ual tradition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Kramsch, C. L. (1987). Socialization and literacy in foreign language learning: Learning through interaction. Theorv into Practice, 26(4),243-250.

PAGE 225

212 Krashen, S . (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Labov, W. (1972). On the mechanism of lingusitic change. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds . ), Directions in sociolinguist i cs: The ethnography of communication (pp. 512 538). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Lewis, O. ( 1966). La vida: A Puerto Rican familv in the culture of povertv--San Juan and New York. New York: Random House. Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985) . Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Ouarterlv, 19,207-228. Long, M. H., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: fonns and functions of teacher's questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268 285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Lutz, F. W. (1981). The holistic approach to understanding schooling. In J . L. Green and C. Wallat (Eds . ), Ethnography and languae:e in educational settings (pp .5163). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Mackey, W. (1970). A typology of bilingual education. In T . Andersson & M. Boyer (Eds.), Bilingual schooling in the United States. Austin, TX: South West Educational Developmen t Laboratory . Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul L t d. Marcus, G., & Fischer, M. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences . Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. McLaughlin, B. (1982). Children's second language learning. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Mead, M. (1973). Coming of age in Samoa . New York: American Museum of Natural History. Mehan, H . (1979). Learning lessons . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mehan, H. (1981). Ethnography of bilingual education. In H. T . Trueba, G . P . Guthrie & H. H. Au, (Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp . 36-55) . Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Mehan, H. (1982) . The structure of classroom events and their consequences for student perfonnance. In P. Gilmore & A. A. Glatthorn (Eds.), Children in and out of school: Ethnography and education (pp. 59-87) . Washington, DC: Center for Applied Lingu i stics. Moll, L. c., & Diaz, R. (198 7). Teaching writing as communication: The use of ethnographic findings in classroom practice . In D. Bioome (Ed.), Literacy and schoo l ing (pp. 193 221). Norwood, NJ: Ablex .

PAGE 226

213 Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classrooms. London, Great Britain: Prentice Hall. Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Scheffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43-72). New York: Academic Press. Ogbu, J.U. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in crosscultural perspective. New York: Academic Press. Ogbu, J.U . (1981). School ethnography: A multilevel approach. Anthropology and Education Ouarterly, 12(1), 13-24. Ovando, c., & Collier, V. (1985). Bilingual and ESL classrooms. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company. Oxford, R., Pol, L., Lopez, D., Stupp, P., Gendell, M., & Peng, S. (1981). Projections of non-English language background and limited English proficient persons in the United States to the year 2000: Educational planning in the demographic context. NABE Journal, 2, 1-30. Padilla, A. M., Lindholm, K. J., Chen, A., Duran, R . , Hakuta, K., Lambert, W., & Tucker, R. (1991). The English-only movement: Myths, reality, and implications for psychology. American Psvchologist, 46(2), 120 30. Pallas, A. M., Nau' iello, G., & McDill, E. L. (1989). The changing nature of the disadvantaged population: Current dimensions and furture trends. Educational Researcher, 1.8.(5), 16-22. Philips, S. U. (1983). The invisible culture: Communicating in classroom and community on the Wann Springs Indian Reservation. New York: Longman. Pinnell, O. S. (1985). Ways to look at the functions of children's language. In A. Jagger & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Observing the language learner. (pp.57-62). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ramirez, A. (1985). Bilingualism through schooling: Cross cultural education for minority and majority students. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ramirez, J. D., & Merino, B. J. (1990). Classroom talk in English immersion, early-exit and l a te-exit transitional bilingual education programs. In R. Jacobson & C. Faltis, (Eds. ) , Langua!!e distribution issues in bilingual schooling (pp. 61-103). Clevedon, Great Britain: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Longitudinal studv of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. SavilleTroike, M. (1982). The ethnographv of communication. Oxford, Great Britain: Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited. Saville-Troike, M. (1988). From context to communication: Paths to Second Language Acquisition. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding (pp. 249 268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

PAGE 227

214 Schultz, J. 1., Florio, S., & Erickson, F. (1982). Where's the floor? Aspects of the cultural organization of social relationships in communication at home and school. In P. Gilmore and D. Smith (Eds.), Children in and out of school: Ethnographv and education (pp. 88-123). Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Shermyen, A . H. (Ed.). (1989). Florida statistical abstract (23rd ed.). Gainesville, FL: The Un i versity Presses of Florida. Sinclair, J., & Brazil, D. (1982). Teacher Talk. Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press. Smith, E. (1989, September 10). [Interview with Susan Williams, correspondent of Issues Q & A]. Gainesville Sun, pp. 1,4. Spradley,1. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Teitelbaum , H., & Hiller, R. (1977). Bilingual education: The legal mandate. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 138-170. Troike, R. C. (1981). Synthesis of research on bilingual education. Educational Leader s hip, 38(6), pp. 498-504. Trueba, H. T. (1987). Success or Failure? Learning and the language minority student. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Trueba, H. T. (1988a). English literacy acquisition: From cultural trauma to learning disabili t ies in minority students. Linguistics and Education, 1(2), 125-151. Trueba, H. T. (1988b). Culturally based explanations of minority students' academic achievement. Anthropology and Education Ouarterly, 12., 270-287. Trueba, H. T., Guthrie, G.P., & Au, H. H. (Eds.). (1981). Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnographv. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press. Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1986). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotia t ion of meaning . Applied Linguistics, Q(1), 71-90. Wallat, c., & Green, J. L. (1979). Social rules and communicative contexts in kindergarten. Theory into Practice, 275-284. Watson-Gegeo , K.A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Ouarterlv, 22(4), 575-592. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. , & Boggs, S. T. (1977). From verbal play to talk history: The role of routines in speech events among Hawaiian children. In S. Ervin-Tripp & c. Mitche ll -Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse (pp. 67-90). New York: Academic Press.

PAGE 228

215 Weade, R. (1989, April). Reflection. socialization and the professional cultures of teaching . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Weade, R., & Green, J . L. (1985). Talking to learn: Social and academic requirements for classroom participation. The Peabody Journal of Education, 62(3), 6-19. Weade, R. , & Green, 1. L. (1989). Reading in the instructional context: An interactional sociolinguistic/ethnographic perspective. In e. Emihovich (Ed.), Locating learning across t he curriculum: Ethnographic perspectives on classroom research (pp. 1756). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Wilkinson , L. e. (1982). (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom. New York: Academic Press. Wilkinson, L. e., & Silliman, E. R. (1990). Sociolinguistic analysis: Nonformal assessment of children's language and literacy skills. Linguistics and Education, 2.(3), 109-125. Wong-Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition . In e. J. Fillmore, W. S. Wang, and D. K. Kempler (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp . 203-228). New York: Academic Press. Wong-Fillmore, L. (1982). Instructional language as linguistic input: Second language learning in classrooms. In L. e. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp.283-296.). New York: Academic Press. Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S.M. Gass, and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 17-50). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Wong Fillmore, L., & Valadez, e. (1986). Teaching bilingual learners. In M.e. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 648-685). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Zaharlick , A., & Green, 1. L. (in press). Ethnographic research. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp & 1. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research in teaching the English language arts. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

PAGE 229

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Gis e la Ernst is a native of Lima, Peru. She holds a Bachelor of Sciences degree in clinical psychology from the Universidad Cat6lica del Peru and a Master of Sciences degree in internationa l intercultural development education from Florida State University. She has studied bilingual and foreign language education, anthropology, and linguistics i n her doctoral program at the University of Florida. In addition to her doctoral studies at t h e University of Florida, she has supervised student teachers, taught graduate and undergraduate courses , conducted research, produced educational videotapes, and has been i nv ol ved in proposal and report writing. He r professional career has included teaching and investigating programs in early childhood education . She was cofounder and director of a day care center in Lima, Peru. She also participated in a multidisciplinary team conducting assessment of rural preschool centers in p easant communities in Puno, Peru . She has presented papers at annual meetings o f the American Educational Research Association, the American Anthropological Association, the F lorida Foreign Language Association, and Gulf TESOL. Following graduatio n, she will begin working as an Assistant Professor in the Department o f Elementary and Secondary Educat i on at Washington State University. 216

PAGE 230

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards o f scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy_ R gin eade, Chair ASSOCIate Professor of Instruction and Curriculum I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertatio n for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy_ Professor of Instruction and Curriculum I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy_ Clemens L. Hallman Professor of Instruction and Curriculum

PAGE 231

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy_ Assistant Professor of Instruction and Curriculum I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy_ Allan F. Burns Professor of Anthropology Th i s dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy_ August, 1991 Dean, College of Education Dean, Graduate School