Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Schooling and Language Minority Students - A Theoretical Framework
Schooling and Language Minority Students - A Theoretical Framework
scHooLlNG
AND
LANGUAGE
MINoRITY
STUDENTS:
A THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
Developed by
California State Department of Education
Off ice of Bilingual Bicultural Education
sacramento, cal if ornia
Published by
Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment center
California State University, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California
=
;ffi;;:^\tgtbb
j uczpt ltłłHn ;,
Developed by
oFFlcE oF BlLlNGUAL BlcULTURAL EDUcATloN
California State Depańment of Education
sacramento, calif ornia a-sr.:
H^ -
Published and Disseminated by
EVALUATIoN, DlSsEMlNAT|oN AND AssEsSMENT cENTER
California State University, Los Angeles
P!
Los Angeles, California
Printed in USA 1981
^l
Second Printing 1982
Third Printing 1982 LU; .: :
rames cummins
'l1r . :ęople have contributed to the present paper through comments on previous ver-
::,,.: rhe theoretical framework which it elaborates. I would like to thank Michael
_.:_-.-:. Steve Chesarek, Lily Wong Fillmore, Fred Genesee, Steve Krashen, John Oller
, -\l:riel Saville-Troike, Bernard Spolsky, Merrill Swain, Rudolph Troike, and Benji
* a.: :or their constructive criticisms. The suggestions of the editorial team for the pre-
:-:-: ,,.,ume have also been extremely useful and for this I would like to thank David
]._ ,::. \{aria Ortiz, Dennis Parker, and Fred Tempes of the Office of Bilingual-
i ;_-:,:lal Education, California State Department of Education.
Schouilng and Language Minority Students: ,łł 1'|6651911111,6114 ] ,1,_*
trt
How Misconceptions About English proficiency create Academic Jlłllłii]]l|lli1 .1i1 ił,, Ń,id, ],,P
The rationale for bilingual education in the united states (united ]lłMtrłilłłilłillilr,yi11l1111ł|lflli11
'"]]funrlłull
States Commission on Civil Rights,1975), as it is understood *lluumnun:, -..*lrr
by most ,- -
policy makers and practitioners, can be stated as follows: ::lułr i,,,,:::lltlll!,_:,ll.:, ,,, *,- _,,,
an all-English program, since limited Engliśh proficiency wiit -'lłflll"* lt * ' ,,lll, * ,* *
no longer impede their academic progress. ]!i f}1,1]]łs;]iril,ll|]ii yllłlfl Jlłillll§'|]llil:
Despite its intuitive appeal, there are serious problems with this |ufll]l8" r,, tiiĘlłl,iiill]łiiii,,.l"|f:,] 1,
ra-
tionale. First, it ignores the sociocultural determinants of minority "],i.h.rrnłłłi§,łtT,. §,,fili|i;.,||li11;1r,,,,11111
students' school failure which, it will be argued, are more fundamental ;l[l/M Jlluąl|[i-,]llllł]&l n'j1LL ],""",]],"
than linguistic factors. second, an inadequate understanding of what ";. ,]3[l!l!l]ll]' i|UillŃ'% J', llUUn
is
meant by "English proficiency" is likely to result in the creation iln mil*łtf
of
l]iilii,illiól1]ll|iiilfilli";i
some concrete examples will help illustrate how this process operates. Ąil ill|łlłł,s *,,łmt
These examples are taken from a canadian study in which the teacher llfill!@ 9ł, fi ,łt',I
referral forms and psychological assessments of over 400 language 'ił]]l]i]]lł/ill,il *łll]]tr
|linlufri]lilł
minority students were analyzed (Cummins, l980c). Throughout the 'łrlillllllllił: ]'ffłllli_, ]111lili!łłl]]]],1!llllł]l|",
teachers' referral forms and psychologists' assessment relorts ,i]/lllllllł[ {i'lllłłlllfłł]ryłĄ lilłild4
are ,'r.mililFiii,'ilł# łlłl1|,,o11i11,
references to the fact that children's English communicative skiils
appear
considerably better developed than their academic language skills. The 'łlifllt Mfiltllmnufii]rilN llłlł.tl]óll,mit
following examples illustrate this point: 10ilmMirqmffi: ulłł]llilnm ]i:|illllł|, iii:lll|1]]lll]E
PS (094), Referred for reading and arithmetic difficulties in 'i:,lllliiiltnr,r*lrryg,,plp1111, *''l,illuttllł ||:
grade one in ltaly, I think his main problem is tangui§i, łUM& ,!, 'llfiilll"' :r'".!ilruUnnll|n_-
'-
although he understands and speaks English quite weil.'''-'
* ,.rh"ł,lł4,il*
GG (l84). Although he had been in Canada for less than a .Jl]lłMliit0{ł]]fl nffiłil||łl n|il,i
year, in November of the grade one year, tie teacher com- i
łłilillud, łilł]]ixililP] lłłlP|plllillill]i
mented that "he speaks ltalianfluentty and English as we:ll.''
]]
iiliill'l|flilliil|ililłł'-,liililflłll1tlttilłt'
one proqram" and s.he, wondered if he had ''specffic teńning
disabilities or if he is just a very lóng way beńtnd cnitaren ń
ii]]l.ijl1ólt]il]lllillłłllll l
a second grade class; three years later in fi,fth giade, her ']ilflq U|]]|l]]lll l] illi illllllli|iłlll ,"i]l]lilllllii, 1|]'' |'ll]|lł l ,*
score that "her development has not progressed at a normal rate'' and to Sll&i&rr l
advise the teacher to set low academic expectations for the child since she
"will continue to experience much difficulty in school." There is ample
Hn*t ilfrlli|lll lililil
evidence from many contexts (Mercer, l973) of how the attribution of ;;i"illilnmllllfifiM
deficient cognitive skills to language minority students can become self-
nt|lmll]Miwllm
ffinflIilmffiilimm
fulfilling.
In many of the referral forms and psychological assessments analyzed
ffifitiil
in this study, the following line of reasoning was invoked:
iliIMl łłll ]
above, as well as the research evidence reviewed in the remainder of this numei ffiil |lllilOitll
paper, strongly suggest that this misconception operates to impede the ffififi$' rnmnlln
academic progress of language minority students. To understand the
nature of this misconception, it is necessary to consider the question of
what is meant by "English proficiency.''
nfir|llilfriilffi (Ili"d[
llutffisllrll,filllllilllillilll,
l This process is, in many respects, ]illm
the opposite of the attribution of deficient cognitive or ""|hnuf|
linguistic ability on the basis of surface structure dialectal differences (Shuy, 1977). In ilfillffimńiilimilnilillL
the present situation, the presence of adequate surface structure leads teachers to
m!ilłififlillillilill| llllllI
eliminate "lack of English proficiency" as an explanatory variable with the result that
llfrh l Wfdfilil§tilllul llt
low academic performance is attributed to deficient cognitive abilities in language
L,,
nil,, łlllllllffilflłllllillillł
minority students.
A Theoretical Framework
2Although language can be used for purposes not overtly communicative, e.g.,
problem-solving (Canale and Swain, 1980), these "analytic" (Bruner, 1975) language
skills develop within a matrix of human interaction; thus, for purposes of this paper,
the terms "language proficiency" and "communicative proficiency" are being
used synonymously.
3It should be noted that Ol|er (1979) leaves open the possibility that there may be smaller
specific components of language proficiency that are not encompassed by the global pro-
ficiency dimension,
Schooling and Language Minority Students:
There are two major problems in applying this or any other theoretical
framework for communicative competence to minority students' acquisi-
tion of English proficiency. First, these theories tend to be static since the
developmental aspects of communicative competence in L1 and L2 are
left vague; second, in general, little consideration has been given to the
role of specific acquisition contexts in determining the interrelationships ,(
and development of different aspects of communicative competence T"'T" _ "ł:| '
(however, see Canale, l98l). In particular, the nature of the com-
municative demands of schooling (e.g., processing language outside of ]- .""]f, T""- , ,il, 1 i
one-to-one, face-to-face situations) has not been considered. The łi - - -]||'::lll1" *' ]l||i
relevance of these problems can be seen by examining the development of ]]l|l-'.!t,]', ' ] ,,,Jiłl . r:-
"species minimum" involving the phonological, syntactic, and semantic ;i, ,llll,ill,]li 1.1*l l li fi| iiiil llllil1]Lilllll,]
skills that most native speakers have acquired by age six (there is little l1lllllll|lil]],']]l]]| ii]llllli :::
fourteen-year-old). similarly, mastery of basic syntax approaches .,||i|llllllll]i ,1, li||nlflliil | 'LlL
instrument, and recipient of action are present at a very early age. Trl" ]]]11 l'|]l|l1]lillllll! ]]]i l '|""||l"'"
throughout the school years and beyond. obvious examples are literacy- rlll1]]llll|l|ll|ll1ll|lrru]]]łllll]ll
,nil il]il||llll|ill|
related language skills such as reading comprehension, writing ability, ],! tli, ]ł ",]l] ll|illl|]]] lil|lł|l]]lilllilI l]l|lilill,
and vocabulary,/concept knowledge. Within each of the four com_ r]lll|,*, łnr]1]]]Lllllllł,]]]li* L|||l|t ii|llł|||ll||
For example, within grammatical competence virtually all native full]l]]lllltttttuttiulłlttttluirłmlll tłillr* ]l]]lil
speakers master pronunciation before spelling. similarly, some aspects lfll]illlilililłlllllfillllllllllll]l ;1l,iL lL|||[
However, within a second language context very different relation- i||ł$|Ąłl|||ll]]]lllll|]1lllllr]il||lnll.n"ilillłrrll, Lilr
slrips may exist among the various subskills, depending upon the specific ]lill|l|Hlilf iLi|ili ]ilłlll|lłliĘl]llll|l]]||l]]]f
acquisition context, e.g., formal L2 classroom vs. real life exposure, or nflltltttlullllltl1tłtuutlltlltttll,u,,łl l*tł illil]]]]l
pre-school immigrant children vs. adolescent immigrant children whose ffi
Ll literacy skills are well developed. Also, the relationship of language
f,|l1]1]l1ll]]lll1
.,(il|||l11l||!r,,.l1||||lllll]|ill
]rillil Lllillitłliliiitllill|]l]lll|,,ll||illfilillrłl1il]illlllN
proficiency to cognitive and academic variables will vary both between ,{Ill11lllllllllIlil,,łl]$lllllilllillllllłl1,Illłlllł|lll]rur
Ll and L2 contexts and also within L2 contexts, depending upon the con- rlfililj rrlilillllifllllllllllllll] lslllp| iliiiill]
A Theoretical Framework
Grade Mean
Unit
Normal
slt
,lllillll
liffiffiuml
Deviates
Below ilfililNi]lllilmil uul
Grade
Mean _l mffiilJlllllluer ffiilil
tuMłIruruullllllil[
|lffiml il[llil ]r,nmffiil
ll
|trłtl16;pfl|lllllllillllillllill,,,
ffiiilllłfini[rr lill||||||ul|
nMil|frililllillililł Irfi
ff iilllfi iiliililmfiiillll,,ńrŃ]
12-13
,rl
mlfiffi illllllffil,,uffiliil],ll
14_15 ,mrill
Wl|] ililIlilfllłl
llllnn"lmffitttllllill, tlltlll
:ill]l lłflmmMlllllllllllllll$ll
llilll[n@llil,,, ][§i
lfrf,Mi ],|ililllłiilllllflill1lu
municative skills continue to develop throughout the school years; but fuMlfiun,łrurul
lml|,rłmilljlllll ililł]
the data considered above suggest that these are not particularly salient
hl|lill,,f,lL'lilllllMili
for teachers and psychologists.
In a previous section, it was pointed out that failure to distinguish
these two dimensions of English proficiency can result in educational
deficits for language minority students. At this point, it may be helpful
to describe this distinction more completely and place it into a broader 3,
theoretical framework so that it can be used to examine the developmen-
tal relationships between Ll and L2 proficiency within bilingual educa-
tion programs.
----
-
A Theoretical Framework 11
A Theoretical Frameworka
To recapitulate, three minimal requirements for a theoretical
framework of communicative proficiency relevant to bilingual education
in the United States have been outlined: First, such a framework must in_
corporate a developmental perspective so that those aspects of com-
municative proficiency mastered early by native speakers andL2learners
can be distinguished from those varying across individuals as develop_
ment progresses; second, the framework must permit differences
between the linguistic demands of school and those of interpersonal con-
texts outside the school to be described; and third, the framework must
allow for the developmental relationships between Ll and L2 proficiency
to be described.
The framework developed in response to these requirements is
presented in Figure 2. The framework proposes that in the context of
United States bilingual education, communicative proficiency can be
conceptualized along two continuums. A continuum related to the range
of contextual support available for expressing or receiving meaning is
described in terms of "context_embedded" versus "context_reduced"
communication. The extremes of this continuum are distinguished by the
fact that in context-embedded communication the participants can ac_
tively negotiate meaning (e.g., by providing feedback that the message
has not been understood) and the language is supported by a wide range
of meaningful paralinguistic (gestures, intonation, etc.) and situational
cues; context-reduced communication, on the other hand, relies primari_
ly (or at the extreme of the continuum, exclusively) on linguistic cues to
meaning and may, in some cases, involve suspending knowledge of the
,,real,, world in order to interpret (or manipulate) the logic of communi_
cation appropriately.5
In general, context-embedded communication derives from interper-
sonal involvement in a shared reality that reduces the need for explicit
linguistic elaboration of the message. Context-reduced communication,
on the other hand, derives from the fact that this shared reality cannot be
assumed and thus linguistic messages must be elaborated precisely and re
explicitly so that the risk of misinterpretation is minimized. It is impor-
aThis theoretical framework should be viewed within a social context, The language profi-
ciencies described develop as a result of various types of communicative interactions in
home and school. The nature of these interactions is, in turn, determined by broader
societal factors, as,described later in this paper.
5The term ,,context-reduced" is used rather than "disembedded" (Donaldson, 1978) or
::
,,decontextualized" because there is a large variety of contextual cues available to carry
out tasks even at the context_reduced end of the continuum, The difference, however, is
that these cues are exclusively linguistic in nature.
=
l2 Schooling and Language Minority Students: mmmffiillli&lilli, "i*"i
Figure 2 nM Ll ilflllililil|1ll||||ill]łl|ili|lll
]filtil!,ł||[illlil|l] ]l]llillllll,!
RANGE OF CONTEXTUAL SUPPORT AND DEGREE OF ffiiil]||||ffi;
COGNITIVE INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNICATIVE
1|lllllllll||ll]
;lilfiilll l Lillll
ACTIVITIES
]]]llilllill],
flh ,flłflelltililttlilililMlł
hi,,,,,,illllli . ul ,, ttlUumml
illlruilfrilrur łrulfllmu
;1ltrtrlg1 tlt'liłil|tillfillllll[
A c f, ]||rl|lilik,, |||||||fiłllilltlil{łlllilłllllł
MllIlfiff tllllll]lllllllllllililllll
illl[illlr |ilill|il!ffif,
m ill[liillllliii, l$
ffiffilllltll łnilililm]ililll
rufl;illltr lilillll x[
tant to emphasize that this is a continuum and not a dichotomy. Thus,
lfimn@il!, lłł|illl0
examples of communicative behaviors going from left to right along the
nffinffifirr fi[flllltffil!ffi
continuum might be: engaging in a discussion, writing a letter to a close
ilifi§mfit l]rfilr],illilf-:ill
friend, and writing (or reading) an academic article. clearly, context-
mmmmur,,
embedded communication is more typical of the everyday world outside
LLrulllmrutli]]]
reflect communication that is closer to the context-reduced end of the §ll|frlil|frilil rr]llllll lllllllllf,łm
tilllfiillllill,łlllll _.,.,,
continuum. Recent research, reviewed by Tannen (1980), suggests that
lłłMłil
part of minority students' failure in mainstream classrooms may derive ||]|ifil[llllrfl il|Iltilmf,,
from application of context-embedded strategies in the school setting fil łtlltn illillilillllll{lll]lilfifi
lilim,,ł/fl lllllllfiłxl|ll!
where context-reduced strategies (e.g., responding in terms of the logic
l,,illfuiilmil
of the text rather than in terms of prior knowledge) are expected and flllllillllulllfi
rewarded.
mi!l,łnlli],1iiiinilOiillfi fi
The vertical continuum is intended to address the developmental
i]
mfilfilillMfilr ill'|lltt
aspects of communicative competence in terms of the degree of active h/] iłrffiililfriil]Illl,lilii
cognitive involvement in the task or activity. cognitive involvement can |plr{tńńłi,,1lffilłflillilfi]llil|]
łłńli§l|r:xlllMlli, l|||lń
6Bereiter and Scardamalia (1980) point out that as children learn to write, the progressive
automatization of lower level skills (e.g., handwriting, spelling of common words, punc-
tuation, common syntactic forms, etc.) releases increasingly more mental capacity for
higher level planning of large chunks of discourse. To illustrate what writing must be like
for a young child, they suggest trying to do some original writing with the wrong hand. It
is likely to be difficult to think much beyond the word being written.
l4 Schooling and Language Minority Students: tMmffiuuntt m
of literacy tasks that place them towards the context-reduced end of the llIlllililllllllllllllil
horizontal continuum, most theorists would agree that the more reading mnilllliiilluffi
cessful it is likely to be. As the papers (this volume) by Krashen (l98l) 1I|||fr|lilOn|tll]11||||illllł .]ill
and Terrell (l98l) emphasize, the same principle holds for second §Offilllllllfillll|l iil§l|l
cessful
npcoflll in ultimately developing IL2^ skills
in ,,lłi-^+^l*,,ł^.,^l^-:-^ -l_:ll-
j,_
in context-reduced situations.
_ ffitffin&b |ilm nilm
milffiffiilfinil ililililll||lil
the
of context-embeddedness. ffi łlttffi lurn"l tl]|mrrłnńillluulu
In terms of the vertical continuum, developmental relationships be- iill|||]]]lllii|illlMll rflill' lllll$llfl!
tween cognitive ability and reading performance can be readily inter- i*łfrilttr.łłtlfllliltutturt, łtltll
preted. Singer (1977) reviews data that show a change between grades 1 "UmnfrłfrittUłtffilłfl
rlliiłłlttttllltlłł
tasks located close to the top of the vertical continuum for native speakers may llllffiffiffilli;
be close fiill||]1lllllfln$iliil
to the bottom for L2 learners. Also, acquisition contexts may vary between Lż l.".rr..,
lffi lltllfi ililllllllluul|l 8muruNml
and native speakers. For example, skills acquired in context-embedded situations by
native speakers may have been learned in context-reduced situations {&0&ilnlilfillll|l1...,tull,]l@!]
classrooms) by L2 learners. This would also result in variable ,.t"tlorrrnfr,
1e.!., iormal
u,.'ong ,MMi!, ;łmuu wĘli:
language skills between native speakers and L2 learners. Thus, an i.ń.turrt ifułmllii,|fi!ffiM ,|llWlllł
characteristic of the theoretical framework is that although communicaiiue tasks'and
ac-
tivities can be mapped onto it in a general way (e.g., inńerent text characteristics &luTillltitff|lffi' lll8llllltł
make
reading and writing less context-embedded than faóe-to-face communication), the m]flliU]llllMu lrłullllullli lilnllml
exact
location of any particular task on the horizontal and,ertical continuums *ifae|ena
the individual's or group's proficiency level and acquisition context. Thus, for
on ilMmmMh.,,ilr filM
i*-igrunt lllllililfit,,jLLllllli rIffi
students in the host country for two years, academic tasks in L2 are likely to be more iill|l!,il|lll!
space does not permit the question of individual differences in learning styles among
L2 ]i11|llfrfil!',illlilill' ;illl|I]lll1!|illl|lll t!|!
high levels of academic skills is because their inittal instructlon has em_
phasized context_reduced communication, since instruction has been
through English and unrelated to their prior out-of-school experiences.
Attempts to teach English through context-reduced audiolingually_based
ESL may very well have been counter-productive in some respects
(Legarreta, l979).
However, another contributing factor to minority students, academic
failure, and one which is still operating eyen in the context of bilingual
programs, is that many educators have a very confused notion of what it
means to be proficient in English. If language minority students manifest
proficiencies in some context_embedded aspects of English (quadrant A),
they are often regarded as having sufficient English proficiency both to
follow a regular English curriculum and to take psychological and educa_
tional tests in English. what is not realized by many educators is that
sclearly, the relationships between IQ and early reading achievement may vary as a func_
tion of the instructional approach.
16 Schooling and Language Minority Students: ]ĘnnŃilill]lu1lilll ,i,l
English curriculum and psychological assessment procedures are con- ffilMfiilllM, |illfllłillililll!
ii] /ll
Figure 3 E6 om$]llile
*l[lffiltfilllfilil lfi&lł
LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE AGE- frM tutli]]tmm
APPROPRIATE LEYELS OF CONTEXT-EMBEDDEń AND
CONTEXT-REDUCED COMMUNICATIVE PROFICIEŃCi lfrillum rlflill
urumłllllllilłłmul
llłllll|il lllll!ffilll il
illlll!frl ] jlllllllil] llil|lfr
rulllllfimail
millL
H'''llh;;nl
lfu$t Mlltłmunnm
lltit ,łrueu!łum]
o a finlufrl|ll ,ttinmm
o
9
o mffiMł riillllllll]lllllllll
o o ful nililltltllttlltullltlutllrut
Ą H
nh''ilfrfi"! Mill
o o millMmngnmlll,mrł
o o
o o
,.] F.]
ł|B'll|ir ]lll1r
nlililńmtłm{
rumilil|ii lłlll|l
nnilillmilil
Context-Embedded Face-to-Face Context-Reduced (Academic) illillltlliilll[f: łmn
Communicative Proficiency Communica( ive Proficiency m]]r,ll|:||
ffimm ilt
łli{ullllllil${ff
f,il{frtlllllllilfin
ltllillllfri ]i
ffi §]LLLill[
9Native-speakers also, of course, filili$
take much longer to develop proficiency in processing 1]]llfrfililllll|
Ł-:- j
A Theoretical Framework
f* ""*]
In summary, I have tried to show how certain misconceptions
garding the notion of language proficiency are currently contributing t ,, UCZELN|ANA
§
*, (l)
the academic failure of language minority students. To more *
t
ferences both within and between socio-economic groups in the extent to
which this dimension of communicative proficiency is developed.10 In
the remainder of this paper, the dimension of language which is strongly
related to literacy skills will be termed "context-reduced language profi-
11
ciency. "
In the next section, several theoretical distinctions similar to those
developed in the present framework are briefly discussed in order to
further elaborate the characteristics of context-reduced language
proficiency.
Related Theoretical Frameworks
Several theorists interested primarily in the development of first
language academic skills have similarly argued for the necessity to
distinguish between the processing of language in informal everyday in-
terpersonal situations and the language processing required in most
academic situations (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 198l; Donaldson, 1978;
Olson, 1911), In concrete terms, it is argued that reading a difficult text
or writing an essay make fundamentally different information processing
toWells (l979), in a ten-year longitudinal study, has identified two broad types of home
communicative activities that strongly predict the acquisition of reading skills in school,
One is the extent to which there is "negotiation of meaning" (i.e., quality and quantity
of communication) between adults and children, the other is the extent to which literacy-
related activities are promoted in the home, e.g., reading to children). There is no clear-
cut relationship between socio_economic status (sEs) and the former, but a strong rela-
tionship between SES and the latter.
l1In previous articles I have contrasted cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP)
with basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) in order to make the same point;
namely, academic deficits are often created by teachers and psychologists who fail to
realize that it takes language minority students considerably longer to attain grade/age-
appropriate levels in English academic skills than it does in English face-to-face com-
municative skills, However, because this distinction was not explicitly integrated into a
more general theoretical framework, misinterpretation occurred. Hence, the attempt to
lt , ,,,"''
definJsuch a framework in this paper, ,, ,.
',: .;,,,
,,_ 1,.t:-
-, ;
| - .. '' i'it,:,
1 ,,.t n
,==
,-:i"#'f
=
l8 Schooling and Language Minority Students:
Teach English to Anglicize minority Even more intense The failure of these
minority children children because efforts by the efforts only serves
in order to create a linguistic and cul- school to eradicate to reinforce the
harmonious society tural diversity are the deficiencies in- myth of minority
with equal oppor- seen as a threat to herent in minority group deficiencies.
tunity for all. social cohesion. children.
I
I
in 1. 1. 1, Bilingualism
schools and make eradicaterl because I language and causes confusion
children reject their it will interfere i culture. in thinking, emo-
..;}L the r^^-_:_-
with +L^ learning tional insecurity,
own culture and
|
-
This table reflects the assumptions of North American school systems in the first half of
this century. However, similar assumptions have been made about minority language
children in the school systems of many other countries.
22 Schooling and Language Minority Students:
Figure 4
The second implication of the SUP model follows from the first, that
if Ll and L2 proficiency are separate, then content and skills learned
through Ll cannot transfer to L2 and vice versa. In terms of the balloon
metaphor illustrated in Figure 4, blowing into the Ll balloon will succeed
in inflating Ll but notL2. When bilingual education is approached with
these "common-sense" assumptions about bilingual proficiency, it is not
at all surprising that it appears illogical to argue that one can better in-
flate the L2 balloon by blowing into the Ll balloon.
However, despite its intuitive appeal, there is not one shred of evidence
to support the SUP mode1.12 In order to account for the evidence re-
viewed, we must posit a CUP model in which the literacy-related aspects
t2 Macnamara (l970) points out that a strict interpretation of a SUP model would leave the
bilingual in a curious predicament in that "...he would have great difficulty in 'com-
municating' with himself. Whenever he switched languages he would have difficulty in
explaining in L2 what he had heard or said in Ll" (pp. 25-26). It is not surprising that
the SUP model is not seriously proposed by any researcher. Nevertheless, it is important
to examine the research evidence in relation to this model, since many educators and
policy-makers espouse positions in regard to bilingua| education which derive directly
from this implicit model.
24 Schooling and Language Minority Students:
Ll
of a bilingual's proficiency in and L2 arę seen as common or in-
terdependent across languages. Two ways of illustrating the cup model
(the Interdependence Hypothesis) are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Figure 5
Ą"-- ;-
Figure 6
=
26 Schooling and Language Minority Students: -_ l. :,, -:*. _i, ;"
English reading by the end of sixth grade despite intensive teaching of i-:- : - _- !: i n.:: .
English as a second language. The bilingual program used Navajo -. i-:- ' :*:i"
as the major initial medium of instruction and continued its use :,t- -; ;" !:j :
_
1
were performing slightly above United States grade norm§ in English -;:
reading despite considerably less exposure to English than previously
(Rosier and Farella, l976).
Santa Fe Bilingual Program, In the schools involved in this program,
Spanish was used for between 30 and 50 percent of the school day
throughout elementary school. It was found that children enrolled in the
bilingual program consistently performed significantly better than the
control group (in an English-only program) in both reading and
mathematics. Children enrolled continuously in the bilingual program -" ," ": -
despite the fact that at least 37 percent of the comparison group were ];
=
30 Schooling and Language Minority Students:
Figure 7
demanding aspects of L2, In 89 of these, older learners performed i ] *- ,,* ,,,, ,,,, ,,,,,,
15
better. llllflil]|ililn fl]| l,]li"l ]il ,
tion. However, a major reason for the advantage is obvious when the data are viewed |]lilfiLi] ,ilLLL]l{l* ,: l
from within the context of the CUP model. For example, in learning the term ]nłL]" il]r ]ill| ]] x
"democracy" the task for a l4-year-old immigrant child consists of acquiring a new
]
learners lies in the interdependence of conceptual knowledge across languages. iłl ]ll]llll|-]] lłl ,|l ]i.ili ]il
A Theoretical Framework 3l
=
32 Schooling and Language Minority Students:
17In addition to the studiesconsidered in the text, studies carried out by carey and cum-
mins (1979), Ramirez and Politzer (1976), and Yee and La Forge
1tózł) *itt minority
francophone, Hispanic, and chinese §tudents, respectively, show that, in itself, the use
of a minority Ll in the horne is not an impediment to the acquisition of L2 academic
skills in school. These findings, of course, create problems of tńe ..linguistic mismatch''
rationale for bilingual education, namely, that minority students fail in school because
their home language is different from that of the school.
lEChesarek (1981)
Points out there was very little bilingual activity in the classroom since
the major efforts were being, devoted to developing an ortńography and teaching
materials as well as training aides to assume instruĆtional activitiei.
A Theoretical Framework 33
for the data. If acculturation were the major factor at work, we would
expect those minority students who used only English at home to per_ 'l ,,ii .. q
form better academically than those who maintained the use of at Ll iilllllllti.Lll
home. In fact, as the studies by Chesarek (l98l) and Bhatnagar (1980) .].i
proficiency developed in .
łĆuńrnlnr, 1979a) and it has bein róported that Spanish reading
ll ł|]]] l] |ll]] L ,, |i] ]l
u uitingu"i p.og.i- is the most stible predictor of English reading proficiency levels ,]]]l]LliLli,i].,,
studenis develop after transferring from the bilingual program (Fischer and Cabello, ] l,,lLLllli]llL]] ]]]]
l978).
lll|||
Experimental studies of bilingual information processing have consistently shown that
] ]] ||]]]ł]l
,
bilinguals process semantic mimory information in the same way in their two languages
,
] l LLLiLi :||lilll
and in the same way as monolinguals (Caramazza and Brones, 1980; Enriquez, 1980;
Kolers, 1968; Landry, 1978, 1980; McCormack, t974). In other words, bilinguals have .,l|lll"l,i
only one semantic memory system that can be accessed via two languages. The studies
(Chu_
cited above have been carried out with adult bilinguals; however, a lecent study ]lllii] |l|]l
Chang, 198l) carried out with Chinese elementary school students has reported similar
.esulti. she Óoncludes that, at the input and conceptual level, the two languages of the illllł ] ]iil l, L
aj* ays) show lower levels of English academic achievement than students
* ho continue to use their Ll at home and maintain their allegiance to the
:ome culture.21
An examination of the sociocultural characteristics of minority groups
:hat tend to perform poorly in L2-only school situations suggests that the
attitudes of these groups towards their own identity may be an important
iactor in interaction with educational treatment. specifically, groups
.uch as Finns in Sweden, North American Indians, Spanish-speakers in
:he U.S., and Franco-Ontarians in Canada all tend to have ambivalent or
negative feelings towards the majority culture and often also towards
:heir own culture. This pattern has been clearly documented for Finnish
immigrants in Sweden by Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukomaa (1976). For
erample, Heyman (l973) concludes:
Many Finns in Sweden feel an aversion, and sometimes even
hostility, towards the Swedish language and refuse to learn
it,..under protest. There is repeated evidence of this, as there
b, on the other hand, of Finnish people-children and
adults-who are ashamed of their Finnish language and do
not allow it to live and develop. (p. 131)
The same pattern of ambivalence or hostility towards the majority
cultural group and insecurity about one's own language and culture is
found, to a greater or lesser extent, in other minority groups that have
tended to perform poorly in school. For example, many Franco-
ontarians tend to regard their own dialect of French as inferior and to
show low aspirations for social and economic mobility in the majority
anglophone culture. In contrast, minority groups that do well in school
tend to be highly motivated to learn the majority language and often
(though not always) have a strong sense of pride in their own cultural
backgrounds.
According to this interpretation, part of the reason bilingual education
is successful in promoting minority students' academic progress is that
by validating the cultural identity of the students (as well as that of the
community), it reduces their ambivalence towards the majority language
and culture. Older immigrant students often fare better than minority
students born in the host country because they haye not been subject to
the same ambivalence towards both cultural groups in their pre-school
and early school years and, hence, approach the task oflearning L2 with
a secure identity and academic self-concept, similarly, the exclusive use
of L2 rather than Ll in the home is likely both to reflect and contribute
to minority students' ambivalence towards L2.
children's cuj:::
count for the data better than a simple "acculturation'' explanation and
also provide the basis for a more adequate rationale for bilingual educa-
municatil e l:;:.
English cornp:3_-
tion than "linguistic rnismatch" between home and school.
in relation to .:_
How does the operation of sociocultural factors relate to the linguistic
perience acac.:-
factors (e.g., interdependence between Ll and L2) described earlier? The
spite of socio;:.,
development of communicative proficiency in Ll and L2 canbe regarded
In Summa:.,. ,
as an intervening variable mediating the effects of the sgciocultural con-
tribute direc:.,,
text on achievement. For example, sociocultural factors are likely to af-
minority stuCg..:
fect patterns of parent/child interaction that will influence the develop-
deficits (e,g.. .:,
ment of communicative proficiency (as described in Figure 2) in Ll
only as a resu.. :
and/ or L2 that will, in turn, influence children's ability to benefit from
sociocultura] a::
instruction. Thus, if parents are ambivalent about the value of their
In this se.,:: : -
cultural background or feel that they speak an inferior dialect of Ll, they
sidered as a c.:Ę
may not strongly encourage children to develop L1 skills in the home.
tional factors. B.
They may tolerate (or even encourage) children to watch television for a
as an interven::,;
considerable portion of the day on the grounds that this will help them to
ment of co_sn::.,,:
learn English and do well at school. This attitude may be encouraged by
some teachers who believe that children should be exposed to as little Ll
patterns of :._ : ,
from intera.-:: :
as possible.
_-
sidered in lhe::,
compare this situation to that of language minority parents who feel a
strong sense of pride in their cultural background and are eager to Bilingual Prof lcr
transmit this cultural heritage to their children. They are likely to spend Hy,pothesis
more time "negotiating meaning" (in Ll) with their children, which ac- It rł,as po;l:::
cording to Wells' (1979) findings, is a strong predictor of future performed ;:. :: -
academic succes§. If we assume that those a§pects of communicative pro- l,erbal-acad e::_;
ficiency most relevant to academic success develop largely as a result of aS a CaUSe O: ..:
quality and quantity of communication with adults, then children in the more recent i:..:.:
second situation will come to school better prepared to handle the have reponec :-- .
context-reduced communicative demands of school than children in the :ain respects . ;
first situation, despite the fact that they may know little or no English rnonolingua: : :, , ;
(Chesarek, 198l). As the research reviewed in the context of the CUP ;lude on the :., .
model clearly shows, communicative proficiency already developed in Ll Bilingu;,: -
can readily be transferred to L2, given motivation to learnL2 and ex- cerebra..:,-:
posure to L2. linguis::: j
How do school programs interact with sociocultural and linguistic fac- audito,.,
tors? As outlined in Table l, schools have contributed directly to minori- e,. , :ł .
clear
ty children's academic difficulties by undermining their cultural identity, skills. t: -:
attempting to eradicate their Ll, and exposing them to incomprehensible These finc..-..,
context-reduced input in English. Recent evaluations of bilingual educa- bilingual chi_;:=:
in anal;,zing a":
A Theoretical Framework 37
r-
in both languages.
These data have led to the hypothesis that there may be threshold
levels of linguistic proficiency bilingual children must attain in order
to
avoid cognitive deficits and allow the potentially beneficial aspects of
becoming bilingual to influence cognitive growth. The Tńreshold
Hypothesis assumes that those aspects of bilingualism that might
positively influence cognitive growth are unlikely to come into
effect un-
til children have attained a certain minimum or threshold level of profi-
ciency in the second language. similarly, if bilingual children attain only
!-
a very low level of proficiency in one or both of their languages, their
in-
teraction with the environment through these languages botń in terms of
input and output, is likely to be impoverished.
The form of the Threshold Hypothesis that seems to be most consis-
tent with the available data is that there are two thresholds (cummins,
1976; Toukomaa and Skutnabb-Kangas, 1977). The attairrment of
a
lower threshold level of bilingual proficiency would be sufficient to
avoid
'Adapted from Toukc.:
A Theoretical Framework 39
A. ProJicientbilingualbm Positive
both
High levels in mgrritive
larrguages effect§
Higher threshold
B. Partial bilingualbm Neither positive level of bilingual
Native-like level in nor nąative prolrcierrcy
one of the languages cogrritive effects
Lower threshold
level of bilingual
C. Limited bilingualbm Nąative proficienry
Low level in both cognitive effects
languages (may be
bąlanced or dominant)
Syntax Meą-.i,: I
cient (LEP) students. Arguing on the basis of the Linguistic Mismatch
moderate rela:_: :,,
Hypothesis, Dulay and Burt suggest that ''English-superior'' LEP
and Duncan, ]9-:
students should receive instruction primarily through English, "primary.
Given that ::_:
language superior" LEp students should receive bilingual education, :
while "limited balanced" (i.e., equally limited in Ll and L2) students ment of stuCs:.,_:
assumed, *,ii, :e::
should be taught through whichever language is spoken at home. The
perative that :,:: :ł
analysis and research reviewed in this paper shows that this suggestion
In other *,or;,. ,,.
re
Given that the purpose of language proficiency assessment is place-
ment of students in classes taught through the language which, it is
assumed, will best promote the development of academic skills, it is im- re
perative that the test have predictive validity for academic achievement.
In other words, the test must assess aspects of language proficiency
related to the development of literacy. If it does not, then its relevance to
:
M Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretica, F
REFERENCES
Albert, Martin L., and Loraine K. Obler. The Bilingual Braln. New York: Academic
Press, 1978.
Anderson, James G., and William H. Johnson. "Stability and Change Among Three
Generations of Mexican-Americans: Factors Affecting AchievemenL," American
Educational Reseorch Journal, VIII, No. 2 (March, 1971),285-309.
Baral, David P. "Academic Achievement of Recent Immigrants from Mexico," N,4B.E
Journal, III (l979), 1-13,
Bereiter, Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia, "Does Learning to Write Have to Be So Dif-
ficult?,, Unpublished manuscript. ontario Institute for Studies in Education, l980.
and _. "From Conversation to Composition: The Role of Instruction in
a Developmental Process,,, Advances in Instructional Psycholo8y, ed. Robert Glaser.
Vol. 2. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 198l.
Bethell, Tom. "Against Bilingual Education: Why Johnny Can't Speak English,"
Harper's, CCLVIII, (February, 1979), 30-33,
Bhatnager, Joti. "Linguistic Behavior and Adjustment of Immigrant Children in French
and English Schools in Montreal," International Journal of Applied Psychology,
xxlx (1980), 141-158.
Bruner, Jerome Seymour, "Language as an Instrument of Thought," Problems oJ
Language and Learning, ed. A, Davies. London, England: Heinmann, 1975.
Burt, Marina K., Heidi C. Dulay, and Eduardo Hernandez_Chavez. Bilingual Syntax
Measure (BSM,/, New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1975.
Canale, Michael. "From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language
Pedagogy," Language and Communication, eds., J. Richard, and R. Schmidt. New
York: Longman, 1981.
and Merrill Swain. "Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to
Second Language Teaching and Testing," Applied Linguistics, I (l980), 1-47.
Caramazza, Alfonso, and Isabel Brones. "Semantic Classification By Bilinguals,"
Canadian Journal of Psychology, XXXIV, No. 1 (March, 1980), 77-81.
Carey, Steven T., and James Cummins. "English and French Achievement of Grade 5
Children from English, French and Mixed French-English Home Backgrounds
Attending the Edmonton Separate School System English-French Immersion
Program." Report submitted to the Edmonton Separate School System, 1979.
Carter, Thomas P , Mexican-Americans in School: A History of Educational Neglecl. New
York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1970.
Chesarek, Steve. "Cognitive Consequences of Home or School Education in a Limited
Second Language: A Case Study in the Crow Indian Bilingual Community." Paper
presented at the Language Proficiency Assessment Symposium, Airlie House,
Virginia, March, 1981.
Chomsky, Carol. "Stages in Language Development and Reading Exposure," Harvard
Educational Review, XLII, No. 1 (February, 1972), I,32.
Chu-Chang, Mae. "The Dependency Relation Between Oral Language and Reading in
Bilingual Education," Journal of Education, CLXIII (1981), 30-57,
Cummins, James. ..Age on Arrival and Immigrant Second Language Learning in Canada:
A Reassessment." Applied Linguistics, II, No. 2 (198l), 132-149.
Bilingual Education and
Second Language Acquisition Theory*
Stephen D. Krashen
Introduction
T"" IMpRESSION oNE GETS from the popular press is that bi-
lingual education is a mess. We are told that "basic disagreements range
across the entire field of bilingual education" (Trombley, l980a), that
the experts disagree on which programs are best, that those who are sup-
posed to benefit from bilingual education often oppose it, that there is
little information about how second languages are acquired, and that
basic research on all of these issues is either contradictory or lacking.
While we cannot cover the entire field of bilingual education, we will
examine some of these disagreements, certain central issues in bilingual
education that appear to be unresolved. In the first section, we will brief-
ly describe the issues, the points of contention. Following this, we will
review what is known today about the process of second language ac-
quisition. A third section will show how this new information, along with
a considerable amount of excellent thinking and research in bilingualism
and bilingual education, helps to reslove some of the issues facing
parents and educators today. We will see that while bilingual education
does have many unresolved problems, the situation is not nearly as bad
as it may appear. Basic research and theory already exist that speak to
many of the issues in the field today.
The Issues
The aim of this section is merely to present the issues. This is no easy
task. There appear to be a bewildering variety of options and programs,
each with its supporters and detractors. I will try to present some of these
options and some of the points of debate. This will not be a complete
survey; it will, however, cover those questions upon which current
research and theory can shed some light. The presentation is in the form
of definitions, done in the hope that consistent use of terms will alleviate
at least some of the confusion that exists in bilingual education today.
'This paper owes a tremendous debt to the research and thinking of James Cummins. I
would also like to thank Professors Merrill Swain and John Oller for a very helpful discus-
sion of Professor Cummins' ideas and their relationship to second language acquisition
theory, and to Robin Scarcella for her comments.
52 Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical F
Bilingual Education Programs
while we could use bilingual education as a cover term for practically Alternatives to l
all of the programs described below, it will be useful 1, Submerslon t
to rimii iiiere. si
li-ngyaleducatioJlgf In submersioi
ęrsł9§i!9ąl1,9.!,ŁllyŁ,_.łsl@ classroom as nl
$!lŁ93!ch !p. rnrr r. rrÓ : .'Bi- followed. There
lingual Education x,int.nĘF e"ffiiua.n* nit o ro.*litir.'o.fi tron sl§&rąjl
often try to do s
, Many people l
(September 4, l980b, p. l). The tt ułina uitiĘ*GaGffi is that the two most co
it allows non-English proficient "o.y
(NB-PI children tó t..p op ii-ruuj".t posed to bilingui
matter while acquiring English as a second language. a. Clearl1,, "S
There are, of course, many varieties of bilinguaieducation. Ritingual the more €xposu
.
cent letters to :i
It is possibió to preserrt lingual educatiL]I
.r^@.
me tlrst language and leave it up to the English
subject matter in
to provide a fui,
as a secónd La-"guug.
(ESL) component to provide practice in English (bilingual full economic a::
education +
EsL). Most programs provide at least some subjeci matter in b. Many peo:
both
languages, and there are several ways this can be done. S!4pe, they had tc
some |rovide
some subjects in English and others in the first language; or so the argume
othersu-se both
languages for the samę subject. Here again, there are several we will returll
possibilities. A
common method is speaking ń riirt on" language
ana
the empirical res:
the other; an explanation is given in both the first
l_hel laneuige'ana i, lrr§u!11ęlsion -
English during the same class hour. This is known as concurrent This option l,
transla-
tion, misnomer, since
2, Amount of each laneuaee used. Not all programs provide
]
I
A Theoretical Framework 53
I
54 Schooling and Language Minority Students:
A Theoretica] l
ferent popuia::c:
legislators and some members of the communities who are supposedly NEP children
served by bilingual education. According to Trombley:
.
Table 1
people are often not aware that they are acquiring a language while they employ a grarni
are doing so. What they are aware of is using the language for some com-
The Monitor H
municative purpose. Also, they are often not aware of what they have ac-
quired; they usually cannot describe or talk about the rules they have ac- The Acquis:::
quired but they have a "feel" for the language. Language learning is processes for lh,
different. It is knowing about language or formal knowledge of a Monitor Hl,po:
language. Language learning is thought to profit from explicit presenta- learning. It see::
tion of rules and from error correction. Error correction, supposedly, for our fluencl :
helps the learner come to the correct conscious mental representation of fortably. Con_.c
a rule. There is good evidence, however, that error correction does not has only one fu:
help subconscious acquisition (Brown et al., 1973). Iustrated in Fi5.
In everyday terms, acquisition is picking up a language. Ordinary
equivalents for learning include grammar and rules.
The Natural Order Hypothesis
.ĄCQ
The Natural Order Hypothesis states that students acquire (not learn)
grammatical structures in a predictable order; that is, certain gram-
matical structures tend to be acquired early and others, late. For English,
a very well-studied language, function words (grammatical morphemes)
such as -ing (as in: John is going to work now.) and plura|/s/ (as in: two Acquisition-
boys) are among the earliest acquired. The third person singular ending
We use cons.-:
/s/ (as in: He lives in New Jersey.) and the possessive /s/ (as in: John's
of the acquireC
hat) are acquired much later (in children's first language acquisition,
,
speak or write r,
possessive and third person endings may come as much as one year later).
l
I
A Theoretical Framework 57
Figure 1
Ącquisit output
Studies done over the last few years (reviewed in Krashen, 198l) sug-
Our usual ap;
gest that it is not easy to use the
Monitor efficiently. In order to use the the Input Hi,po
Monitor Hypothesis, three necessary conditions need to be met. These
opposite: [-e i
conditions are necessgry but not sufficient; that is, even if they are met,
second language users may not use the monitor very well.
practice in "u:
Hypothesis, on
(l) Time, In order to use conscious rules, the performer has to have
structure but _h}
enough time. In normal conversation, there is rarely enough time to con-
The Input Hr-
sult conscious rules.
ly, Rather, spea
(2) Focus on form. In order to use conscious rules, just having time
is to'lteach" spea
not enough. The second language performer must also be focused on
prehensible inpu
form (Dulay and Burt, 1978) or thinking about correctness. Research has
readiness state a
indicated that even when performers have time, as when they are writing,
they may not fully use the conscious grammar, since they are more con-
Also, early spe
develops or,er :i;
cerned with what they are expressing rather than how they are expressing
A third pan C
it.
should not be
(3) Know the rule. This is a formidable condition, considering our in-
deliberatel;'- air:
complete knowledge of the structure of language. Linguists concede that
attempt to do ih:
they have described only fragments of natural languages, and only a few
day's lesson is ;c
languages have been worked on to any extent. Teachers and students, of
feel that the ain
course, have access to only a fraction of the linguists' descriptions.
the day's stn]c:L
These three conditions place tremendous limits on the use of conscious
Hypothesis clalr:
grammar-and, again, all three must be met to allow effectivę grammar
may even be ha:
use-but even this is no guarantee. Research strongly suggests [krashen,
cę_§§lul 9oĘInu::
l98l; in press (b)] that conscious grammar use is surprisingly light on
contained in the
anything short of a grammar test.
right quantitie:.
The Input Hypothesis .
practice of a si:_-
A Theoretical Framework 59
Table 2
THE INPUT HYPOTHESIS
l. We acquire (not learn) language by understanding input that contains structures that are
just beyond our current level of competence (i + 1).
2. Speech is not taught directly, but "emerges" on its own. Early speech is typically not
grammatically accurate.
3. If input is understood, and there is enough of it, i + l is automatically provided. We do
not have to deliberately program grammatical structures into the input,
1
"Instrumental" motivation is defined as wanting to acquire another language for some
practical purpose, e. g., for a profession. "Integrative" motivation occurs when the
language is acquired in order to feel a closer sense of identity with another group.
62 Schooling and Language Minority Students:
A Theoretical Fr
iii
acquisition
o,","
'
Input Competence
|-
development, ale ],
----f--j__}___-;>| , sentences into cc:
o'learner"
can use
when the filter is "up," input may be understood but will not reach the language acquisi- begin speaking fa::.
tion device; it will not strike "deeply" (Stevick, l976). While this systern j:
The Causative Yariable in Second Language Acquisition ing and vigilance. ::
We can gu-mlnar!ąe ltle fivę hypotheseg with a single claim: ,P,-ę-op-lq g-ę: tion early and ob:a.
quire seqond ląlguages when they obtain comprehensible input and when Recent evidence ł
their affective filters are low enougĘ to allow- the input in. In other acquirers are mo:e
words, comprehensible input is the only causative variable in second younger acquirers g:
language acquisition. All other factors thought to encourage or cause better able to make
second language acquisition only work when they are related to com- for more help, are :
prehensible input. Older acquirers a.
This hypothesis resolves many problems in the professional literature. world-greater c.!
For example, some studies seem to show that language teaching is (Cummins, l980), T
beneficial, while others show that real-world use of the second language acquirers a greater ;:
is superior [for a review, see Krashen, in press (b)]. This conflict is re- of school.
solved by positing that łanguage teaching helps second language acquisi- An explanation :i
simply that the stle.
A Theoretical Framework 63
(adults are faster than children; older children acquire faster than
younger children), but (2) _children outperform adults in the long run
(Krashen et al.,1979), It usually takes children about six months to one
year to catch up to older acquirers (Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle, l978).
A possible explanation for these findings is as follows: Older acquirers
are faster because they can use production strategies younger acquirers
do not usually have. Specifically, older acquirers are able to "beat the
system" and perform using a combination of the first language and the
conscious grammar, as described earlier. While children also show oc-
casional first language interference, adults appear to be more able to use
the first language syntax as a strategy, and with their superior cognitive
development, are better able to use the conscious grammar to bring their
sentences into conformity with second language patterns. A good
o'learner" can use a combination of the first language and monitor to
begin speaking fairly complex sentences very early, in a matter of hours.
While this system has real drawbacks, i. e., it requires constant monitor-
ing and vigilance, it allows the older acquirer to participate in conversa-
tion early and obtain more input.
Recent evidence also suggests (Scarcella and Higa, in press) that older
acquirers are more proficient at conversational management. While
younger acquirers get what looks like simpler input, older performers are
better able to make the input comprehensible; they ask native speakers
for more help, are better at keeping the conversation going, etc.
Older acquirers also have the advantage of greater knowledge of the
world-greater cognitive,/academic language proficiency (CALP)
(Cummins, l980). This additional extralinguistic information gives older
acquirers a greater chance to understand what they hear, both in and out
of school.
An explanation for children's superiority in ultimate attainment is
simply that the strength of the affective filter is sharply increased at
F
64 Schooling and Language Minority Students:
A Theoretica
pubelty; adults may get sufficient quantities of input, but it does not
all
get in. The increase in filter strength at this time is due to the Many diff
biological
and cognitive changes the adolescent is going through at puberty quirements. .l
[Elkind, gestopedia, T
l970; Krashen, in press (a)].
Table 3 summarizes explanations for age differences in second
by Winitz art
language acquisition. addition, ser t
ple, successlu
Table 3
to acquire ma
AGE DIFFERENCES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
modifying hi:
l. older acquirers are faster.in the early stages of second language acquisition because:
a.They are better at obtaining_comprehensible input (conversalionai management). theory, acqui:
b.They have superior knowledge of the world, which helps to make lnpii from what na
hensible. "o.pre- tribution to a.
_ c. They can participate in conversation earlier, via use of first language syntax.
reading or rea
of proficiency in s"Jon j lańguages than
2. younger acquirers tend. to attain higher levels
adults in the long run due to a lower affective filier. supplying the
Second Language Teaching Subject Matte
Before proceeding on to the implications of second language theory Another cle
for bilingual education, it will be useful to examine the implications of matter classro,
theory for language teaching, since language teaching is usually con- language as a
sidered one of the goals of bilingual education. while theory should not Simply, the
be the only element considered in language teaching practice in subject mai
in [krashen,
press (b)], the five hypotheses given in the previous section have some follow and un
very clear implications. They predict that any successful second language prehension u l,
teaching program will have these characteristics: gested, for era
l, I,t wi! supply input in the second language that is, first of all, com- the second lan
prehensible and, second, interesting and relevańt to students. As dis- tralinguistic he
cussed earlier, th.e goal of this input wili not UÓ tÓ-ńi;iaó piactice on of verbal respi
§pg_c,,1"fj9 pglJtl§_ 9_|€!?gĘąr*__Ęlt t o tra n smi t me S s age s o f in t eres t.
Applied lin,r
2. It will not fóóe;tudó;riioipeak Ńfore*thą;a;iaJr;;; wiil br both the adra
tq!gą4!,of e=ry,orq in early gpeech. The theory impiies that we ińprove in means of enco,.
grammatical accuracy by obtaining more input, not by error coirection. mersion studer
[Although error correction will work for some people (monitor users) able to follorł
some of the time (when they have time to think about form) and for some subject matteI
easy-to-1earn rules.] also do far be:
3-I_t_ ld:!l_uł!gą$"l,_ĘgJ tl*lts_p19p9l_p_lecę. study the secol
S om e ad u l t s, and very f ew
children, are able to use conscious grammir rules to increase the gram- to point out. h,
matical accuracy of their output; and even for these people, very strict levels in speak::
conditions need to be met before the conscious knowledge of grammar students to alia
can be applied, given the Monitor Hypothesis presented above. ćhildr.n
(see e. g., L:
have very little capacity for conscious language learning and may also classroom, thus
have little need for conscious learning, since ihey can come clóse to ly from the tea,
native speaker preformance standards using acquisition alone. certain kinds c:
filter.
A Theoretical Framework 65
=
66 Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretica] t
Subject matter teaching, thus, has both advantages and limitations. It language acquis
can provide comprehensible input and help second language acquisition; There are ser
students exposed to the subject matter alone can achieve high levels of children. The ol
proficiency in certain kinds of second language usage. This takes time, the theory preC:
however, and such students do not typically reach the native speaker prehensible inpu
level. amazingly litile
Before proceeding to implications, one major point about the success grammar-tranSi:
of immersion programs needs to be made. Cohen and Swain (1976) point practical expen.
out that one of the reasons immersion programs succeed, where some quisition; and g
kinds of bilingual programs fail, is because the immersion students are are even less ei:
"segregated." In early immersion, they note, "all kindergarten pupils when it supplie:
are unilingual in the Ll. In essence, the successful program starts out as a sources of inpur
segregated one linguistically" (p. 4'7).This linguistic segregation raises be done).
the chances of students receiving comprehensible input. The presence of _Ą_second sou:
native speakers in a class (submersion) ensures that a good percentage of tion with other .
the language heard by the non-native speaker will be incomprehensible, neighborhood.1
since teachers naturally will gear much of their speech to the native be the case tha:
speakers in a native to native rather than a native to non-native speaker cess of man!, pe,
register. It should be p
Cohen and Swain (19'16) point out several other factors that, in our tion, acquisitior
terms, lead to a lower affective filter in immersion programs. The tioned earlier, c:
linguistic segregation "eliminates the kind of ridicule that students exert period and mar
on less proficient performers" (p. 47), teachers have positive expecta- the best conditli
tions, and the program is voluntary. Also, "in kindergarten, the children A third possi:
are permitted to speak in the Ll until they are ready to speak in the L2'' discussed in the ;
Anyone who has attempted to acquire a second language has had ex- college. . .
the powerful effect context and background knowledge have on our 1972).
ability to understand a partially acquired language. The major point here 3. Cummin.
is that understanding is a prerequisite for acquisition. Thus, the more matter and ni;
context or background we can provide, the more acquisition will take develop high i:
place. to develop no:
children who are behind in subject matter and weak in the second first langua,ee t
language face double trouble. Their failure to understand will not only ty to "use langl
cause them to fall further behind but they will also fail to make progress cognitive ope:a
in second language acquisition. knowledge of subject matter, tirus, has lack of der eloi
an indirect but very powerful effect on second language acquisition plain problem:
despite the fact that it may be provided in the students' first language. language is no:
Finally, it can be argued that maintaining subject matter, whether in ported at schci
the first or second language, leads to a better attitude toward school in exert "a limit::
general and higher self-esteem, factors that contribute to a lower
affec-
Majority lan_eu
tive filter and better acquisition of English, especially when Enllish is problem, since
presented in a school situation. (Cummins, l9-
we can also suggest a third requirement for bilingual programs, not Cummins ar9
one motivated by considerations of second language acquisition but by (Cognitive,z.Ąca
independent motivations. As we shall see, this requirement may be met language cont;:
is, someone u h
A Theoretical Framework 69
developed an ability that will be useful in using any other language for
academic purposes.
Arguments against first language maintenance have, in general, at-
tempted to counter any of the above arguments but usually insist that
since English is the official language of the United States, taxpayers
should not have to §upport the maintenance or development of minority :Z
<a
languages.
Another Look at the Options z (., <
z,_
We can now ask to what extent different programs meet the conditions ź
r-1 _:-
described in the previous section. In this section, we will see that both ,J
theoretical predictions and empirical evidence show that some programs
9
do satisfy the requirements while others do not and that this success or l
the lack of it depends not only on the program but also on the
zF] -_:
characteristics of the students. Most important, it will show that research ź
exists, is not conflicting, and that real generalizations can be made about
l*a z
what works and what does not work in bilingual education. Table 4 aż
presents this analysis. E5
<-
Ua
_-l
6ól
o5l
o
o )łł
o.i
'(, dl o !
O bq
Ęl
,ńl (6
iŃ
o
;tr
-lZ .o
<o O
o!
o
zri \J<
za
-iD
o
ó
ź
d\
O
! ^E
9c
=^
ófi -d
oi
j o,= ź
L6 o "rll cr)
e7 oś. 9- d
(.)
OF o }b
tr
ri
z
(B
.:ó
bo.o;
ź o oO 9 B §ą E
o
5 ł 1H P
ża o
ś§*H
o:
33 v) o
(§
o
o.Bo=
.Ędaź
JF
źE
ż*
źY
o
=auóq
o§ F.l
oH E tr 3o €
too9,::
o _:
a ?E §,: Ę
łaż
60
2
o oo o o
ilg 36 F
tr(B ! t e
€ E)
o *§ -
:Aź ż.
a
..]
6 =,E
8ś! H
-olłĘ-9ź
fr g §
a
.o
;=S,:;ł
riQ 4§=Ei-e
rJ]
o 2
o
.. + a6 ź.
a^ b0
.= -E - ó "
Hz zż L
9GHE€ .E
a;
P
re< Y} 3
Ęg§i;g
U !9-yL!=
.- ao l 3 b
0'6 aB ^
lr
-
o
o
5o §
r, >\J x Oc.
ad
e=H.16 q E
E E:.Eg x 1 E
q: b0
ó}4
H Ąztr
zt-] óóT 8 El".E € ecź
(B
§ 9 Ń
.
Ł, lr
'- e
ż oo
o
o
EF; E§
r F i -H=
o o
ti
ź o Z Ni
o
q * t=q
o tr a -' -
! -.
i
=
p J4 _
?§ §} $ r śg€
l E:
a l} Ex aEł5.E
EH,Eć
ź
i!ʧ żg E ź źf;aE
r.]
I
l}
j
o
J9>o-ótró
lc
c:E ó
EE l: fr EśE E g+ E
sa,^,:ixlĘ=U l
o l!v
ź' ^; ,e.,
g.E 9 c
.. cE o
E,6 ąP
ló
s6 g g E's=
i
D^
tr9> |ą !o ,-,§iO.;Ęri=Ę
,do-ń-ć F; E Ef ó - \: t
n .. o ź q^ .ż
;§8..;§>,, -
v ń 9
-'a
ó.Fś >=:E l,Ę
lF
I.,
(B
E3
&ź.o -; ói =>€
<; § 3OEoqv*ó
72 Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretica]
students. This helps to satisfy the first and second requirements. The em- second langua
pirical evidence from the research programs evaluating immersion classes
As Cohen (l9'
done over the last decade confirms that immersion children develop high
levels of competence in the second language and do as well as monol- People o1
one could argue that a solution for NEp children is an adaptation of repeated in the
the immersion model. This would entail a completely separate cur- quirement fol :
riculum, all taught in English, to groups consisting only of NEP the explanatio:
children. Assuming all children start at the same time and on an equal motivation for
footing with respect to English competence, it would appear to have the language. Lega
linguistic advantage of having a better chance of supplying comprehensi-
gram, "Teachl
ble input as compared to "Sink or Swim." Thus, theoretically, we could English and rł;
expect progress both in language acquisition (first requirement) and sub-
(This phenome:
ject matter (second requirement) even if little or no contact with English- lingual TV to :
speaking children outside of school was possible. Judging from reports character rłill s:
from majority immersion, we would not expect completely nativełike follow the sto:
English. predicts that Ą:
It can be maintained, however, that many ''Sink or Swim'' programs from the pract:.
are already de facto immersion programs in that they often involve a ma- fahrenheit. \1i
jority of NEP children and, in some cases, are composed entirely of NEP understand,) Ci
children (e. g., in certain inner city areas and on American Indian ręser- and third requi:
vations). These programs do not report overwhelming success. There in the first lan;
may be good reasons why, however, reasons that explain why minority- maintenance. lr
child immersion may look good on paper but may not always work. meet these requ:
rent translatio;:
First, NEp students who enter immersion programs late will face near-
materials are in
ly the same problems they face in ''Sink or Swim''; they will not under- ]
under-trained al
stand and may thus fall behind in subject matter and not improve in
the children's t]:
English. (Late entering bilingual education students will not have this
The Ideal Bili:
problem; they can be taught in the first language at least until their
matter is taughi
English develops sufficiently.)
sible input in rhe
Also, minority immersion teachers may not have the same kinds of ex-
pectations as do majority immersion teachers. They may be less able or
ESL or compre:
the balanced bii_
willing to make input comprehensible and may set higher standards for
the potentiai fo:
l
A Theoretical Framework 73
F
74 Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretica
have little access to English outside of school. Balanced bilingual pro- 2. The balanc
grams will be successful according to the predictions of the theory, both the st
especially if the subject matter classes given in the second language are
3. "Sink or l
those where more extra-linguistic context is available to aid comprehen_
ESL on lis:
sion (e. g., math), while those dealing with more abstract topics-topics
sational co
that typically employ fewer physical props (e. g., social science and
language arts)-are taught at first in the primary language (Cazden, Legarreta {
duced, with k-
Legarreta (1979) examined the acquisition of English in kindergarten
tion in Nar a1o
children in three kinds of bilingual programs (balanced, concurrent jo. Third rhrc
translation, and concurrent translation + ESL) and two kinds of "Sink
English. Engl:
or Swim" programs [with and without ESL where the ESL component and Rosier. l!
consisted of "daily, sequenced lessons in English structure and use,
lingual Educa:
presented orally to small groups" (p. 523)]. The overall exposure time
Analysis of
was seven months-relatively short for this kind of study, as Swain quirements: Si
(l979) points out-and the number of subjects involved was not large.
first language,
The results, however, are very interesting.
reading test of
l. Children in all bilingual education programs outperformed "Sink or posure to Eng.
Swim" children in listening comprehension and conversational com- comprehensib.l
petence2 tests of English, despite the fact that the "Sink or Swim" Some as 1,et
children had more exposure to English. even more con
Carey an
"rhe test of conversational competence asked children to use the |anguage in real com-
munication; it thus demands more than knowledge of vocabulary and grammar but also from Fre
tests abilities such as "the ability to be only as explicit as a situation demands, to Catholic
elaborate, to make inferences about a situation, to be sensitive to social rules of French, )
discourse..." (Legarreta, 1979, p. 525). level in E
A Theoretical Framework 75
I
'16 Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretica
"sink or swim" with EsL will fare somewhat better but will work
state of helple
progress, adding
only if children acquire English fast enough, before they are hopelessly :
this knowledge to
behind in subject matter. It may be that in most cases where ''Sink or
come after them,
Swim" worked, children had rich comprehensible input from playmates
outside the classroom.
3. How Should ESL be Taught?
Second language acquisition research §trongly sugge§ts that
methodology per se is not the issue: By whatever name, children need
comprehensible input to acquire English. This can come in the form of
A Theoretical Framework ,I7
ESL classes taught according to a method that provides such input (e. g.,
Terrell's Natural Approach) or subject matter taught in comprehensible
English.
4. Is There a Place for Immersion for NEP Children?
Theoretically, immersion for NEP children appears to meet the three
requirements. Yet, results of de facto immersion programs in the United
States are not encouraging. This could be due to several factors, in-
cluding inadequate development of the first language, as suggested by
Cummins (1978), differing teacher expectations, the failure of late-
entering students to obtain comprehensible input, and inappropriate
materials.
5. Which Bilingual Education Options are Better for Language Acquisi-
tion?
There are several bilingual education options that will satisfy the re-
quirements given in Table 4 and earlier in the paper. Balanced bilingual
education programs will do this as long as those subjects taught in the
second language are comprehensible. There is nothing magic, however,
in the 50 percent figure: It need not be the case that exactly one-half of
the program be in one language and one half in the other. What counts is
that the requirements are met and that NEP students receive enough
comprehensible input to improve in their weaker language. This has hap-
pened with as little as 20 percent input in the second language in some
programs.
Several issues of course remain unsolved, and in a real sense they
always will be. As is typical of scientific reasoning, we have discussed
hypotheses and some evidence that supports them. We have not provided
proof, nor can we. What we have tried to show is that there is substantial
information available about how language is acquired, that it is certainly
enough to formulate hypotheses, that these hypotheses shed light on
some of the basic issues in bilingual education, and that the field is not in
a state of helpless confusion. Researchers are evaluating children's
progress, adding to their knowledge of language acquisition, and using
this knowledge to better serve the children they study and those who will
come after them.
:
=
THE NATURAL APPROACH IN
BILINGUAL EDUCATION
Tracy D. Terrell
Introduction
Aa"*O^CHES To SECoND LANGUAGE instruction today may
be classified as communicative or grammar based. In communicative-
based instruction, goals, teaching techniques, and student evaluation are
all based on behavioral objectives defined in terms of abilities to com-
municate messages. For example, can the students describe the place
where they live? Or, can they recount an incident that took place before
they arrived at school? In grammar-based instruction, goals, teaching
techniques, and student evaluation are defined in terms of accuracy in
grammar usage; for example, can the students correctly use the two
forms of the verb be in the past tense? Or, can the students form tag
questions?
Grammar-based approaches are most succe§sful in contexts in which
the goal is either a knowledge of grammar or the ability to produce gram-
matically correct sentences in a limited communicative context.
Grammar-based approaches such as grammar translation, audio-
lingualism, or cognitive-code have been overwhelming failures in prepar-
ing students to function in normal communicative contexts. This has led
the profession to modify the use of these approaches in the direction of
communicative-based approaches, especially when teaching a second
language to language minority children. In these cases, English as a
second language (ESL) instructors, for example, are aware that the in-
structional goals must be immediately relevant to the functional language
needs of their students in learning to live in a different language environ-
ment.
Several communicative approaches have been reported in the profes-
sional literature: Lozanov's Suggestopedia (Bancroft, 7978; Lozanov,
l9'7 5, l97 8), Curran's Community Counseling-Learning (Curran, 1 976;
LaForge, l97l; Stevick, 19'73, 1980), Galyean's Confluent Education
(Galyean, 1976; 1977), and Terrell's Natural Approach (Terrell, 1977,
1980, in press; Krashen and Terrell, in press) to mention those most
widely used. All are derived from the same philosophical position
regarding language instruction: that the ability to communicate messages
in spoken or written form is the primary goal of instruction and that
classroom activities, textbooks, and other materials (as well as the
evaluation of student progress) are formulated in communicative rather
l18 Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretic
than grammatical or structural terms. In addition, they are based the term acq
implicitly (or sometimes explicitly) on the same theory of second- without cons
language acquisition, namely, that in order to acquire language, students developntent
need a rich acquisition environment (Blair, in press) in which they are cessible knov
receiving "comprehensible input" in low anxiety situations (krashen, those two rnc
19771'1978; l979; 198l; in press). way, i,e., acc
unfortunately, the specific techniques of both suggestopedia and learned rules
community counseling-Learning are not easily applicable to normal and perhaps i
elementary and secondary classroom situations; and I will not discuss tion in all lan
them further here. Galyean's humanistic techniques, on the other hand, mittent and 1
are entirely consistent with the philosophy and practice of the Natural In the Nat
Approach. [See Galyean (1976) and Moscowitz (1978) for other sources recognized, a
of communicative-based classroom activities.] facilitate this
The Natural Approach, however, is not simply a series of specific are not a par
classroom techniques but also a philosophy of goals in language teaching that of acqui
based on a theory of second-language acquisition, which predicts how techniques fo
these goals might be met. All human beings possess the ability to acquire some conscio,
second languages if they can receive ''comprehensible input'' in low- For the sa
anxiety situations. children acquire second-language competence slowly stages: L Sur
but in the long run are nearly indistinguishable from native speakers. beginning lite
Adults, if they receive "comprehensible input,'' acquire language quite consists of tht
rapidly at first but often have far more difficulty interacting within a new tion Skills (BI
culture. This, in turn, increases difficulty in obtaining "comprehensible Language Prc
input" and limits the degree to which native speaker levels of competence simply the tral
can be achieved. This does not mean, however, that adults cannot Stages I and Il
become quite comfortable in their normal daily functioning in the second acquisition of
language. It does mean that native levels of grammatical accuracy, There are t,
especially phonological accuracy, with few exceptions, will not Basic Interper
be achieved. directly but ra
The techniques and specific classroom practices of the Natural Ap- low-anxiety er
proach are designed, then, to facilitate the natural acquisition process. (Terrell, in pre
Ąthough there is a basic unity to the approach, there will be some dif- The first pnl
ferences in its application to children as opposed to adolescents or adults. to speak, sten
we will be concerned specifically in this paper with the application of the language acqu
Natural Approach to second (as opposed to foreign) language English in- worry about t
struction in bilingual-bicultural education programs, kindergarten how each chilc
through eighth grade. met, acquirers
Principles of the Natural Approach terpersonal Co
Following Kl
The evidence from research in second-language acquisition supports
conditions that
the notion that there are two rather different ways of internalizing
language. Following the terminology of Krashen(t977; l978) and others,
l. The acquirł
hear (or in t
*
:5-l
A Theoretical Framework 119
ł
l
t
l
120 Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretica]
hours to several months. children acquiring second languages usually their children
need a longer pre-speech stage (three to six months) than adults (several first words. il:
hours to several weeks). (For evidence supporting a pre-production caretakers do :
stage, see Asher, 1969; Davies, 7976; Nord, 1980; Postovsky, 1974; for the most p
Winitz and Reeds, 1973.) interactions rł,i
speech emerges slowly but naturally at different moments for different caretakers ni
individuals. The first natural speech to emerge usually consists of single- cises for thern.
word responses, of short fixed phrases, cr routine expressions. These are attempts to p:,
usually words and phrases the acquirers have heard and comprehended sidered to be s
in many contexts and feel confident enough to produce. It may consist of make the bares
single-word items such as yes, no, me, play, go, pencil, and, paper; or expectations fc
routine expressions such as thank you, I'm fine, what you doing? and so language at n;
A Theoretical Framework lżl
pre-
forth. The transition to the single-word production stage from the
without any
speech stage to early production should occur spontaneously
c-oersion on the part of the instructor. Forcing
production before the
reliance
u"qui.., is ready will ai best delay language acquisition and force
material, and at wor§t may create blocks to
on patterns andother learned
could prove to be
the acquisition of the new language, blocks which later
quite difficult to remove.
If the acquirer continues to receive sufficient "comprehensible input"
and the affective conditions for acquisition are met, speech
will continue
fluency and correctness. Acquirers will slowly expand their
to improve in
phrases as they begin
lexicón and grammar, producing longer and longer
refer to
io u.quir. the rules of biscourse and the broad range of skills we
however, that
as communicative competence. It should be remembered,
forcingstudentstoproducespeechthatismorecomplexthantheir
process,
acquired competence will only slow down the
.it. important point is that the instructor,s primary responsibility is
not to force speech production but rather to create the necessary
condi
to take place. speech will emerge when the acquirer
tions for acquisition
i, giu." the opportunity and need to speak in non_coersive, low_anxiety
situations.
Natural Language Acquisition Situations
taken
Let us consider briefly informal evidence for the above claims
fromnaturallanguageacquisitionsituations.Wewillexaminechildren
and adults in first- and second-language acquisition contexts,
children, when acquiring their first language, are in optimal situations
that
for language acquisition. Those who take care of children assume
a few
they wi]l acqui.e language without any explicit teaching although
p.opr. have the mistaten belief that they teach their children to speak.
ćniia..r, are given a long pre_production period: Caretakers speak to
utter their
their children seeking to convey messagęs long before they
first words. In addition, all of the conditions for acquisition are
met:
convey messages;
caretakers do not speak to children aimlessly but try to
in their
for the most part, these messages are important to the children
environment.
interactions with their environment and the people in their
Caretakers neither drill children nor create grammatical
exer_
;
l22 Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretic
petence) but are accepting ofimperfect stages in the process. This accep-
Adults ar,
tance of errors and incomplete utterance encourages children to continue
more difficu
to interact with success in the language they are acquiring. This is the
level of gran
case in spite of the fact that many caretakers mistakenly believe that they
ing of inadel
indeed do correct children's errors and that it is this correction that leads
do not over
to language acquisition. Finally, children are immersed in "comprehensi-
more than t]
ble input" from many sources for many hours of the day. It is no wonder
In conclui
that the acquisition process works so well in child first-language
of a first or
acquisition.
language acc
In situations of child second-language acquisition, conditions may not
acquirers, th
be as optimal as in first-language acquisition, since children are usually
aware that they cannot interact in the new language as can native Te
speakers of their same age. This can inhibit them, especially in initial The primi
stages of seeking and obtaining contacts with other children and adults. basic interpi
However, in most cases, children acquiring second languages are allowed children in E
a pre-production period in which they begin to comprehend but are re- English; ofti
quired to say very little. In their early attempts at speech production, therefore use
children will make many grammatical errors; however, these are normal- children rece
ly accepted by native speaker peers and adults without too much fuss. In- cess can be p
deed, since children are usually allowed to respond or even initiate con- an English-s
versations with very short utterances, errors are not as apparent as they responsibiliti
might be were the child to be forced to produce large amounts of speech. that the acqu
If the child continues to obtain "comprehensible input," progress in sion of suffi,
fluency and accuracy in the second language is steady. so that child
Adults in natural second-language acquisition contexts, for example, would includ
immigrants to another culture, experience many more difficulties in ob- teachers, ad
taining "comprehensible input" under optimal conditions. First of all, speaking pee
although we simplify our speech in order to make less competent non- tage of sourc
native speakers understand, it is difficult to judge the necessary level of the progress
the non-native speakers until we have interacted with them for more than In the cla
a few initial moments. It is not always easy for non-native speakers to in- munication
tegrate themselves into the new society in such a way as to make friends modify (sim1
who will be interested enough in communicating with the acquirers to There are se,
take the time and trouble to talk to them over extended periods of time, to children c
making their speech comprehensible. In addition, the process of speech that are help
simplification so nece§sary for making the input comprehensible is not as Before ere
easy in the case of adults as it is for children, since adults tend to be in- should be str
terested in more complex topics of conversation and have communicative is nol necest
needs that require much more sophisticated levels of language than do cumstances,
children. Thus, adults who have to deal with the difficulties of living in a that has not
new culture will tend to concentrate on being in the company of those repeating the
who speak their language. This modific.
t:,
A Theoretical Framework 123
-.!
l24 Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theo;
will achieve input at the correct (i + l) level (Krashen, 198l). If instruc- Finallr
tors resort to translation through their own knowledge of the students' prehende
languages or through native speaker teacher's aides, the input has not displacen
been made comprehensible; rather, the message has been transmitted via means us
another medium, i. e., the first language. Consequently, the most impor- mean§ av
tant part of the input process has been eliminated. Indeed, the process of tralinguis
modification and simplification in order to ensure comprehension of the nerł, l
some message is always more important in terms of acquisition than is Concer
the message itself. If opportunities for "comprehensible input'' are lost avoiding l
because of frequent translation, acquisition will be severely retarded. very natu]
what is it, then, that instructors can do to ensure comprehension conveyed
through speech modification and simplification? First, it should be em- sorts of a
phasized that the modifications of speech necessary for comprehension proach.) l
by an acquirer cannot be consciously controlled to a high degree. Thus, cises fail
the following discussion is meant to be a description of what will happen message! I
messages to children with limited English competence. Again, this obser- ble input"
vation only underscores the importance of maintaining the focus of both anxiety sitl
instructor and students on the communication of messages rather than must strir,
linguistic form and correctness of those message§. several gul
Hatch (1979) reports the general modifications to speech that may help tions: (l) t
acquirers (see also Krashen, 1980). The first is to talk slower to acquirers. communicl
This does not mean the speech is distorted nor is it exaggeratedly slow. desires as il
For English, this means clearer articulation [fewer reduced vowels, fewer and encoul
consonants deleted, fewer contractions, fewer fused forms (do you want should be l
to rather than "jew wanna"), longer pauses at natural breaks, etc.]. Also Since it l
helpful is increased volume on key words and exaggerated intonation ac- communica
companied by appropriate body language and movement. Vocabulary child's nati
can be modified to include high frequency words with fewer idioms and and,/or the
less slang. The use of pronouns can be reduced in favor of using specific speaker of t
names of the intended referents instead of one, he, her, us, their, etc. An by conveliI
attempt to clarify the meaning of possibly unfamiliar words within the shown acci
speech context should be made. For example, a mother might say to a should take
chi|d, "Where's your new domino game? You know, those little black ical items tc
things with white dots?" vocabulary acquisition is aided by the use of In classes
visuals, the objects themselves, pictures, and/or gestures that aid in by the instn
clarification. language u i,
The syntax of speech addressed to learners is often simpler. sentences Ll instructo
are usually shorter, with less compounding and subordination of clauses. tion in the p
New information in each sentence is reduced. often, key topics can be In additio
repeated: Did you have a good weekend, you know, Friday, Saturday? structor mu
Speech is no,
I
A Theoretical Framework l25
There are other activities for the pre-production period that can be
to be incll
done with visuals or objects involving association of language with par-
comparati
ticular children in the classroom, thereby facilitating retention of new
corner, ur
meanings. The simplest of these techniques is to name objects from the -forth.
classroom, passing them out to the children one by one. The key question
is Who has the_2 The following is an example of possible ''com-
After ti
prehensible input" for beginners. Recall that the children will not com- classroom
some pro\-
prehend every word, only the messages. (Words essential for comprehen-
entities no
sion are emphasized.)
stage. This
This is a pencil. It's a yellow pencil. Who wants the yeltow from maga
pencil? |picking student who has raised his / her hand| Do you encompa5S
want the pencil, Melissa? Good, here you are, Thank you, ings, land:
Now, class, who łas the pencil? Does Melissa have the pencil?
teacher at
IMost of the class will say Melissa.] Yes, that's rŁłl. Melissa merciall.v f
has the pencil.
collections,
Note that to comprehend the activity the children need only to com- students ea
prehend the wordspencil, yellow, who, and yoł if they attend to the con-
structor u,i
text provided by the instructor's actions and gestures. The same sequence
Pictures
is then repeated with different objects until everyone in the group has an
structor de
item. Typical input would sound like this: description
Where's the sma|| box? [Students point.l Now where's the Here'
large box? |Students point.l That's right, Jaime has it. Who waitir,
has the plastic pencil sharpener? |Juan.| And who has the Ama
chalk? [Ester.| Does Linda have a piece o/ paper? |Students woma
either nod heads or answer yes/no.| ftloint
This technique with classroom objects can be combined with TPR, as IJohn,
illustrated in the following sequence. and th.
pictur,
Who has the rubber band? {Linda.] O.K., Linda give your
has th
rubber band to Louis. Does Louis have a rulet? |Students nod
no.] Does he have a board eraser? |Students nod yes,l O,K.,
In this par:
Louis, give your blackboard eraser /o Linda. words relai:
girl, bab1,. e
A combination of TPR and the naming technique should be used until
tionships: f;
the children can recognize all important words used daily in the
As compr
classroom situation. It is particularly important for the instructor to
clude more .
realize that children can quite quickly acquire enough vocabulary at a
prehension c
recognition level to follow all instructions and even begin to comprehend
those in rł,hl
some peer talk in the classroom without having produced a single word in
school:
English. I hue
The first language functions using TPR and the children's names will girl rs;
have as early goals the identification of classroom objects and people, |Reme,
and the performance of actions in the classroom. Other important goals comprź
dinate
A Theoretical Framework l29
picture of the little girl playing baseball? Who has the picture to time insert
of the little boy watching the little girl play basebal/? Where r The same ol
the picture with the baseball? tions may be l
This technique is limited only by the teacher's imagination and the referring to de
students' attention span. In a single session, young children usually pay What is
attention to ten pictures or so. Older children may learn to identify up to hair? [.l1,
20 before they tire of the activity. Often, adolescents or adults can do 30 in the clt
or more in a single session. The content is also unlimited. One can give name? V
"comprehensible input" in such semantic fields as community profes- white stI
sions, clothing, food, geography, and with many other items not easily Melinda.
transportable to the classroom. pair oJ t
pair of u
The pre-production stage can last as long as is needed. children should
not be forced to speak before the acquisition process has had a chance to ftlointing
begin developing. Earlier, I suggested that with rank beginners, this may when studenti
take from three to six months. In the case of students who have some or person beir
competence in English, some responses will be made from the beginning. Secondly, /
This is not harmful; it should, however, not be taken as a sign that they classroom or i
do not need to receive the input described in this section but rather that Who łc,.
the interchanges may take the form described in the next section. Does Lis
In summary, I have suggested three primary techniques for the pre- INo.] Th
production stage: (l) TPR, (2) TPR combined with naming objects, and have the
(3) pictures. Responses to check on comprehension are: (l) movement,
Finally, here-r
(2) pointing, (3) nodding one's head, and (4) saying the name of a stu-
dent. In the next section, we will consider how using these same techni- Who ła:
ques can facilitate the transition into speaking. And v,hę
daughtel
Transition into production
and her ,
The primary question, of course, is how can the instructor know when with hs
children are ready to make the transition into speech production?
With yes-no a
Theoretically, this question is somewhat difficult to answer; in practice,
tending their l
there are certain techniques that greatly facilitate the instructor's task.
are still in the
Essentially, the answer is to use the pre-production activities as usual
rea|ize the1, ca
but to integrate slowly two sorts of questions: yes-no and here-there.
of being corre,
Everyone look at lłls picture. What do we see? |Without it is probable :
waiting for response.| There is 4 man looking in the window. English, This :
Is there also a woman in this picture? Do you also see a i. e., the ins::
woman? |Some students will answer yes.| Yes, that's right.
return later tc
There is a man looking in the window, and a woman. What ls
/łe woman doing? |No pause.l Is she looking at the man? acquired enou
[No.]Ną sże's reading a newspaper. The remed1,. c
production,:.
The idea is not to begin suddenly to ask a series of yes-no questions but
rors, will be r;
to continue with the pre-production interactions as usual and from time
to children's :
I
A Theoretical Framework 13l
;
l32 Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theor
may be.
Usually tl
The next step is to give students the opportunity to say some of the ready for
words they can recognize. The easiest way to accomplish this is to ask
automati<
either-or questions embedded in the comprehension interchange exactly
in the same way that yes-no and here-there questions were introduced. Lui§
fulE,
Who łas on a red jacket today? [Don.l And where is there a sołła
yellow shirt? [There.) Is this shirt red? [No.]1s il blue?[No.] Is
i/ green? [Ies.] Everyone look at Melinda's socks. Are they The Ę
black or blue? [Blue.] Look at my socks. Are they white or should be
red? [Red.| sense tbat
comprehe
The same sorts of questions apply to pictures:
following
Look at lłls picture. Is there an animal in this picture? [Yes. ] before prt
Is it a dog or a cat? fCat.l Is the cat on the roof? [No.] Is it on
this sectiol
the porch? |Yes.| Is there a little boy or a little girl in this pic-
ture? ]Gir|.! Is she wearing a sweater? [No,| A coat? [Yes.] /s l. Foll
she wearing a coat because i/t hot? [No.] Ną because it's 2. Nal
cold. 3. Coł
If the first time the instructor introduces either-or questions the students 4. Wol
are reticent about ansvvering, this is simply a signal to the instructor that
5. D€s(
production pressures have come too soon and that they have not yet had 6. Clol
sufficient opportunity to acquire the lexical items they are being called 1. §chr
upon to produce. In general, either-or questions are relatively simple 8. Acti
since they require only the ability to comprehend the questions and a 9. Nan
repetition of one of the lexical items the instructor has just mentioned. l0. Foor
The next step is the production of single words that have not been The goal
mentioned in the question. There are two techniques. One is simply to comprehen
ask the question, What is this (that)? (Remember that in early production outside the
stages, the students will not usually use articles, i. e., a, an, and the.)The
side of scb
expected answer to an identification question is a single word; the in- faster the a
structor provides the positive expansion. Early Prod
Who żas the plastic pencil sharpener? |Phil,] Is the bal| in The basil
front of Cheryl? [IZes,] Where is the ruler? |There.] John, questions tl
show us what you have. Is that a truck or a car? |Cdr.| Jaime, tion about l
show us what you have. What does Jaime, have, class? this:
[Fireman,l That's right, Jaime has a fireman. Every
The other possibility is to begin a statement or a question and indicate has? |
by intonation that someone should try to finish it. cake,
What
Andy, hold, up your picture. Everyone look at A ndy's picture. Yes, I
Do you see a car? [Yes,] Is il blue? [No.] Ną it is not blue, the an
it's...|reĄ, Is there a man driving the car? |No.! There's eating
a...[woman], What,
I
A Theoretical Framework 133
Usually the instructor will not even have to decide when the children are
ready for the transition into these sorts of questions since they will do it
automatically themselves when asked questions with negative answers.
Luis, show us your picture. Is there an elephant in Luis'pic-
ture? |Students will say no and name the correct animal at the
same time.|
The important thing to remember about the transition period is that it
should be considered an extension of the pre-production period in the
sense that the primary emphasis is still on the development of listening
comprehension abilities through recognition of new lexical items. The
following is a suggested list of comprehension goals that should be met
before production beyond the limited one-word responses described in
this section are encouraged,
l. Following commands for classroom management
2, Names of articles in the classroom
3, colors,/description words for articles in the classroom
4. Words for people; family relationships
5. Descriptions of students
6. Clothing
7. School areas
8. Activities associated with school
9. Names of objects in the school outside the classroom
10. Foods (especially those eaten at school)
The goal is that students be brought as quickly as possible to a level of
comprehension such that they can begin to get "comprehensible input"
outside the language class, in other classes, on the playground, and out-
side of school hours. The faster the students begin to understand, the
faster the acquisition process will develop.
Early Production Techniques
The basis of the transition to early production is to use more and more
questions that can be responded to with a single word. Thus, a conversa-
tion about foods meant to encourage early conversation might sound like
this:
Everyone look al Linda's picture. Do you know what she
has? |Cake, piece coke, chocolate cakel Right. It's a piece of
cake, a piece of chocolate cake. Does everyone |ike cake?
What do we eat with cake? |Milk,l Milk?,4 glass o/ milk?
Yes, I like lo drink a glass o/ milk with my cake. |Note that
the answer was not quite correct since the question referred to
eating, not drinking; the answer was occepted in any case.l
What do we eat with cake? Does anyone like to eat ice cream
*
134 Schooling and Language Minority Students:
A Theorr
with their cake? |Several, if not all, hands will go up] Jaime,
do you like ice cream? Who łas a favorite flavor o/ ice What d
cream? [Usually someone will volunteer a flavor.f What a
The basic interaction is still oriented to listening comprehension, but
many more opportunities for the creative production of lexical items are Such ac
provided. had enou1
yet be buil
The transition to two- or three-word phrases is made simply by asking
questions that can be responded to with two- or three-word phrases. since ever
slowest ac
Mark, holdup your picture. Everyone look a/ Mark's picture. entire patl
What łs in the picture? |Woman.] Yes, there's a woman. solute cor
What ,b słe wearing? ]Red dress.] Yes, thot's right, she has on Older c]
a red dress. Is she wearing a hat? INo.J Tell me something
about the woman, For example, look at her hair. She
has...|brown hair], What łs słe doing? |Reading book,l Yes,
słe's reading a book. l. H
2.H
often, the first two-word phrases produced naturally are adjective-noun
combinations (without the articles) and verb-complement combinations
(without the articles or subject), whereas subject-verb combinations are
normally produced later. other early two-word combinations include no 1. H
plus verb, pronouns plus a negative (no me, me no, etc.), a subject )
followed by a complement without a predicate, especially if the predicate 3.
would be the copula (that book, chalk or tąble, doll pretty, etc.). It
should be emphasized that during the early production stages, it is
counterproductive to stress the production of: (l) articles, (2)
demonstratives in correct form (this, that, these, those), (3) the copula, l. Hi
(4) the third person singular -s, (5) most pronouns, (6) most auxiliaries, 2. I'r
and (7) tag answers (Yes, he is; No, I'm not, etc.), Such grammatical 3. \\,
items are entirely unnecessary for developing a broad basis for listening 4, I'r
comprehension and can be added to students' production abilities much Also use
easier later. Indeed, an emphasis on their production will necessarily are distriL,r
retard comprehension development. What is
on the other hand, it is helpful for children to memorize certain pat- Where d
terns or routines without necessarily understanding the meanings of the What do
individual words or their constituent structure: How are you?, Excuse If so desirt
me, May I be excused?, and so forth. back to the
one production technique that can include simple routines and pat- His/her
terns is the circle question. The pattern is given to the first student who Helshe ]
asks a second, the second asking the third, and so forth. some examples He,/she s
l. Hello, my name is
ż. How are you? My name is
-. II
-.
What is your name? My name is _.
Where do you live? I live in _.
What do you study? I study _.
If so desired, guidelines can be included for reporting the information
back to the class:
His/her name is _.
Helshe lives in
He,/she studies
-. _.
The open_ended sentence can elicit a variety of simple responses and
provide input for expanded interactions. The instructor selects a sentence
with a single word missing. students are to fill in the blank with a word
of their choice. (See Christensen, 1977.) -
:=
=re
want you to think of where you are when you have this feet- Whe
ing, Use the following pottern: I am (feelng) when I am mus:
(p]ą§). a.m.
My room. I imagine that you are in your own room. You are A majo:
taking the class on a guided tour of your room at home, You cities coul.
are telling us what you have there. Here is your model, This is |l/htt
my room, I have ||'hic
A third approach to focusing students' attention on content rather to lit
than language form involves traditional problem solving. The techniques Also use
can range from genuine problem solving to simply consulting tables, can use a(
A Theoretical Framework 139
re
graphs, maps, and charts for information. Genuine problem solving in_
uolues setting up situations that require students to predict an outcome.
Especially popular are short mystery stories of the "who_done_it" type.
Also useful are language riddles.
The use of tables, graphs, charts, and other displays of information is
becoming quite popular with textbook writers, and this technique is used
in most newer ESL texts (see, for example, Yorkey et al., 1977; olsen,
1977). The idea is that the students are given a display of information
they use to answer questions. With younger children, the charts should
be simple, involving primarily pictures and symbols at first. For exam_
ple, one chart could consist of children wearing different_colored
clothing placed on the left side of the page and various colored toys on
the rigńt. The idea is to draw a line from a child to a toy whose color mat_
ches ńe children's clothing. The verbal interaction will be similar
to the
following:
Whąt's the name of the littleboy playing with the ball? What
color is the ball? What co|or is the boy's shirt? Do they_
match? Is there anyone in our group with a red qhirt? |Paul,r!
Paul, do you have a red ball? 1No.1WnU color is your ball?
In all cases, chart work and puzzle solving serves only as an initial focus
after which the conversation naturally shifts to the children themselves,
older children can work with more complicated charts of information.
A copy of Ty Guide could serve as a basis for the following sort of con_
versation:
What time is the news on channel7? Find your favorite pro-
gram. Whot is it? What time is your favorite program on?
fuhot progroms gre on at 6 p.m.? Which would you choose?
Why?
Timetables are also useful. For example, using a bus timetable, ap_
propriate questions might be:
When does the first bls leave for Los Angeles? What bus
must I take if I want to be in SanDiego for a meeting at ll
a.m.?
A major temperature chart with average temperatures of major world
cities could be used with questions like:
Which city is the bestfor visiting the beach ln January?
WhichcttyisthecoldestlnMarch?Whichcitywouldyołlike
to live in? Why?
Also useful are advertisements from newspapers or magazines. one
can use advertisements for automobiles, clothing, food, employment,
l40 Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretii
housing, and so forth. The discussion can be oriented factually. For ex- However, a:
ample, looking at a number of automobile ads, the instructor might ask on the abilir
questions like:
tensive writi
What is the most expensive car for sale? l4lhich is the |east ex- the students
pensive? Are there more foreign or American cars for sale
native langu
under $6,000? Which of these cars would you choose to buy?
native langu
The last question is probably the most important feature since it takes off introduced i
from the material and focuses on personal reactions or opinions. Again, reading proc
it should be stressed that all displays of information should be used as a tor to work
basis for subsequent personalization. In situatio
Information displays can also be constructed using the students as in their nati,
sources of information. For example, the goal of the following activity is languages in
to construct with the children a chart of daily activities. Each child thinks stages serl,e ,
of one thing helshe does each day. Each activity should be different. The speakers. Ht
names and the activities are written one by one in chart form on the necessary u,i
chalkboard. (Instructor may have the children also copy if appropriate.) when he,/she
After the chart is finished, the instructor asks questions like: lexical items
What does Melissa do? Who washes her dog? Who brushes students to i
messa8es, and (3) oral production target constructions with grammatical tion in corI
accuracy. of why er;
Let us look at an example. The following is a ''goal'' structure from a from prodl
continuum used in many California ESL programs:
"Where is the (pet)?''
"Here,/there it is." Evaluatli
First, we must determine the communicative goal. In this case, children previousl1,
are to learn to locate animals. This involves two lexical sets: common areas: (l) i
then hide each animal someplace in the room and ask the children to find be consider,
the animals. When they find one, they must say, "here (or there) itis.'' not the abil
In a separate activity, the instructor can use either / or questions to supply The follc
opportunities to distinguish here/there.. where is the black kitty? Here skills for be
or there? [pointing]. Children answer with a single word. l. Can fo
Let us examine a more complex example. 2, Can pc
"Do you want anylsome (breakfast)?'' 3. Can di
"No, I don't want any (breakfast).'' characl
The goal is obviously grammatical: The use of any/some in questions 4. Can pc
with the use of any in negative responses. such a goal must be recast into 5. Can di
communicative terms before it serves any real purpose. In this case, we descrip:
could adopt a goal of accepting or refusing offers of food. The instructor 6. Can ac:
can ask the children to pretend to be eating lunch. The instructor offers a Oral prod
picture of food or a plastic replica, asking each child, ''Do you want 1. Can give
"Do You want a "Do You want anY 2. Can exch;
according to the appropriate usage. Each child should respond either, 3. Can name
"No, thank you" or "Yes, please. " (Note that the response suggested on
-?" 4. Can descr
-?"
the continuum is absurd since, "No, I don't want any -?" 5. Can descr
is not a
normal respon§e to the question, "Do You want some tions; anC
--.''
The above activity serves for using some/any/a in a form that pro- 6. Given an
vides students with "comprehensible input." A similar,
-?''but far more
describe *
complex activity can be devised to elicit production of some/any/a. The Oral produ
instructor could, for example, pass out pictures of various foods to each communicate
child. The question is, "Do you have any/some/a If the the use of a p
answer is negative, the student responds, "No, but I have some,/a ample, Goal r
auxiliary óe u
It is important to realize that the comprehension of-?''
the meaning of (-rng). In the
sentences with any/some/a is relatively simple, although their produc-
re
A Theoretical Framework l43
two things: (l) ability to transmit a message, and (2) structural accuracy Explr,,
in transmitting that message. Thus, in this case, the evaluation consists Englewoo
-.
of three sub-parts: Cummins,
Minorit1,
1. Ability to describe common recreational in-progress activities, (1978), 39l
2. Ability to use the auxiliary to be correctly, and "The I
3. Ability to use the present participle (-ing) forms correctly. Language
Thus, at one stage, students may well be able to transmit the message, -. Theorettcc
Assessme:
but may not yet use either the auxiliary or the participle. Later, they may
Curran, Cha_
have acquired the participle but still only use the auxiliary sporadically. Apple Ril
Finally, both will be acquired. Davies, Nc:
Although progre§s in grammatical accuracy should be noted, the Modern L
overall evaluation and assessment of students acquiring BICS should be Dulay, Helc:
Viewpotnl.
based almost exclusively on the ability to transmit messages. The acquisi- M, Finnoc
tion of grammar in early stages is so variable from student to student that Galyean, Ber
although progress can be measured, it should not be given central impor- No. 2 (Jur
tance. Only in extreme cases (low grammatical accuracy after several Langu,
years of "comprehensible input") should remedial work be considered. ment, 19-ć
-.
Gasser N,I.. a:
conclusion English a:
Rowle1,. \l
In conclusion, the Natural Approach is intended as a means of Hatch, Ere]i
developing high levels of communicative skills among second-language Foreign L:
acquirers. The approach contains at least the following features: Newbury F
l. Behavioral objectives defined in terms of communicative contexts "Sirn;.
the annual
(situational-functional). -.
Hill, Leslie Ą
2. Activities to meet objectives are presented in two-stage format: com- Students. \
prehension / production. Krashen, S:e:
3. Children are given a pre-production period that is as long as Schoolin3 ,
california
necessary. universilv.
4. Language actiyities focus on content, not form. "The ]
5. Children have opportunities to express themselves in low-anxiety English e:
-. Finnochia:
situations.
"The \1
tion and F
REFERENCES -, Center fo:
"Re]a:.
Asher, James J. Learning Another Language Through Actions: The Complete Teacher's Trends in F
Guide. Los Gatos, California: Sky Oaks Productions, 1977. -. TBL Gur:::
_. "The Total Physical Approach to Second Language Learning,'' Modern Language "The T
Journal, LIII, No. l (January, 1969), 3-117. quisition. :
Bancroft, W. Jane. "The Lozanov Method and Its American Adaptations,'' Modern -. House. 19r
Language Journal, LXIi, No. 4 (April, |9'78), 16'7-115. Theo,;,
Blair, R., ed. Innovative Approaches to Language Acquisition and Learning. Rowley, in press.
Massachusetts: Newbury House, in press. -. and T
Christensen, Clay Benjamin. "Affective Learning Activities (ALA),'' Foreign Language classroar
Annals, VIII, No. 3 (October, 1975'),211-219. -,