Você está na página 1de 12

Reading Research Quarterly

Vol. 42, No. 4


October/November/December 2007
© 2007 International Reading Association
(pp. 598–609)
doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.4.8

ESSAY BOOK REVIEW

Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of The National


Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Edited by Diane
August and Timothy Shanahan. 2006. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 669 pp. Softcover.
ISBN 0805860770. US$65.00. Hardcover. ISBN 0805860762. US$245.00.

Developing literacy in second-


language learners: Critique from
a heteroglossic, sociocultural,
and multidimensional
framework
RACHEL A. GRANT
SHELLEY D. WONG
JORGE P. OSTERLING
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

D eveloping Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel


on Language Minority Children and Youth reflects a systematic effort to shed light
on the literacy development and schooling of English-language learners (ELLs) in
the United States. This 669-page volume reports the culmination of a four-year
process by the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth,
which includes 13 expert researchers in reading, language, bilingualism, research
methods, and education. The mission of the National Literacy Panel was twofold:
“to identify, assess, and synthesize research on the education of language-minority
children and youth with respect to their attainment of literacy and to produce a
comprehensive report evaluating and synthesizing this literature” (p. 1).
The contributors to Developing Literacy provide a comprehensive review of
the existing research on the development of literacy in second-language learners in

598
Essay Book Review 599

the United States that offers insights and direction to mensions. In the third section, entitled “A sociocul-
the field. Developing Literacy is organized into five tural approach to literacy research,” we discuss cog-
parts: Development of Literacy in Second-Language nitive development within a sociocultural context of
Learners, Cross-linguistic Relationships in Second- literacy practices. Finally, in a section entitled
Language Learners, Sociocultural Contexts and “Shifting the paradigm: Multidimensional,” we re-
Literacy Development, Educating Language- view Developing Literacy using a multidimensional,
Minority Students: Instruction and Professional critical multicultural lens that takes into account
Development, and Student Assessment. Each part power, race, and academic achievement.
begins with a chapter that spells out the research
questions for the chapters in that part, provides
background information, describes the methodolo-
gies and addresses methodological issues, summarizes Introduction to the reviewers
the empirical findings reported, and makes recom-
mendations for future research. In the book’s
and our approach to the review
Executive Summary (August & Shanahan, 2006), The authors of this review are an African
the editors highlight some of the major findings of American, an Asian American, and a Hispanic
the National Literacy Panel: American. We all have an interest in critical multilin-
gual, multicultural literacy education. We are all
1. Instruction that provides substantial coverage in the key bilingual/bidialectal, and we teach graduate courses
components of reading—identified by the National leading to English for Speakers of Other Languages
Reading Panel as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and text comprehension—has clear benefits
(ESOL) licensure and master’s and doctoral degrees
for language-minority students. in multilingual/multicultural education. Rachel A.
Grant, the first author, is of African heritage, a bidi-
2. Instruction in the key components of reading is neces-
sary—but not sufficient—for teaching language-minority alectal English speaker of African American
students to read and write proficiently in English. Oral Vernacular English, who was educated at Howard
proficiency in English is critical as well—but student per- University when the Civil Rights Movement had
formance suggests that it is often overlooked in instruc- transformed into the Black Power, Black
tion.
Consciousness, and Black Liberation Movements.
3. Oral proficiency and literacy in the first language can be She earned her doctorate in literacy from the
used to facilitate literacy development in English. University of Maryland. Her research has focused on
However, language-minority students can acquire litera-
cy in English-only classrooms as well. comprehension and cognitive processes and she uses
traditional quantitative research methods. Shelley D.
4. Individual differences contribute significantly to English Wong, a multilingual/multicultural educator of
literacy development.
Chinese heritage, was born and raised in California,
5. Most assessments do a poor job of assessing individual is fluent in English and Cantonese, and earned her
strengths and weaknesses.
master’s degree in teaching english as a second lan-
6. There is surprisingly little evidence for the impact of so- guage (TESOL) at the University of California, Los
ciocultural variables on literacy achievement and devel- Angeles, and her doctorate degree in applied linguis-
opment. However, home language experiences can have
a positive impact on literacy achievement. (pp. 3–7) tics at Teachers’ College, Columbia University. Jorge
P. Osterling, the third author, is a Hispanic
As critical literacy researchers and multicultural/ American born in Peru and educated both in Peru
multilingual educators, we will begin our review by and in the United States, with a doctoral degree
introducing our approach to the book and by argu- from the University of California, Berkeley. He has
ing that a thorough and comprehensive assessment been a university professor in four countries
of the synthesis of research on ELLs in the United (Colombia, Germany, Peru, and the United States).
States, such as the one presented in Developing Thus, we bring to our review of Developing
Literacy, requires an adoption of a heteroglossic, so- Literacy a diverse set of perspectives on academic lan-
ciocultural, and multidimensional framework. The guage and achievement. As Valdés (2004) argued, “as
introductory section will be followed by one entitled the Bakhtin Circle demonstrated, the context for all
“The heteroglossic nature of biliteracy” in which, in- discussions, including academic debates, encompass-
spired by the Russian literary theorist Mikhail es the surrounding voices that help shape, reconfig-
Bakhtin (1981), we argue that literacy is a social, ure, and constantly change the multivoiced
cognitive, and linguistic process with ideological di- utterances of the various speakers” (pp. 66–67).
600 Reading Research Quarterly OCTOBER/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007 42/3

Our critique of Developing Literacy begins choose instead to discuss only those parts of the
where Catherine Snow’s chapter, entitled “Cross- book that foreground the framework we see as best
Cutting Themes and Future Research Directions,” advancing the interests of language-minority stu-
ends. Snow noted, dents. To foreground the difference between the two
paradigms, we have organized our review of
The political perspective that defines English as the nation- Developing Literacy within three interrelated sections
al language of the U.S. cannot be ignored. Also relevant is dealing with the heteroglossic, sociocultural, and
the economic perspective: that immigrants must learn
English to survive in the U.S. and gain little additional val-
multidimensional nature of literacy.
ue from their home language.... The sociological perspective,
which defines who interacts with whom and in what lan-
guage(s), must be considered as well because opportunities
for interaction also constitute opportunities for language The heteroglossic nature
learning. (pp. 649–650)
of biliteracy
We had hoped when we began reading this
book that the sociological perspective of literacy, Defining heteroglossia
which Snow used to conclude her chapter, would be As research on second-language development
the National Literacy Panel’s starting point. If the begins to move beyond the current cognitive to so-
National Literacy Panel had begun its review with an ciocultural models (Dunn & Lantolf, 1998;
understanding of the importance of anthropological Kinginger, 2001; van Lier, 2004), Bakhtin’s (1981)
and sociological dimensions of literacy, Developing notions of heteroglossia and intertextuality provide
Literacy would indeed have been a very different an appropriate framework in which to review
book. Developing Literacy. This heteroglossic perspective
We believe that literacy needs to be understood emphasizes the role of language in positioning speak-
as “critical literacy,” not merely as the accumulation ers and their texts within the heterogeneity of social
of skills necessary for acceptable test performance or positions and worldviews that operate in any culture.
job preparation, because literacy, as Freire (1970; For Bakhtin, the nature of language is dialogic.
Freire & Macedo, 1987) often reminded us, is not a Bakhtin’s understanding of language through the ut-
cultural or individual trait, or a distinct variable to terance places the individual and freedom in respon-
be measured, but rather a complex set of social rela- siveness to others. Through a dialogic approach,
tions, ideologies, attitudes, and practices whereby
We use language that we have heard from other voices and
people struggle around relations of meaning and re- these voices are in turn discursive products of their histori-
lations of power (Darder, 1991). Therefore, follow- cal positions and their membership in various social groups.
ing Freire, in this book review we will argue that Heteroglossia exists as a force for change and diversity.
literacy is not a mechanical skill to be learned and (Wong, 2006, p. 199)
that literacy has a political and experiential dimen-
sion, which involves agency and power (Freire & The term heteroglossia describes the coexistence of
Macedo). distinct varieties within a single linguistic code. In
As critical literacy researchers and multilingual/ contrast to “sender–receiver” or “input–output”
multicultural educators, we argue that literacy devel- models of communication, dialogic approaches see
opment for second-language learners in the United language as a social semiotic (Halliday & Hasan,
States must take into consideration the sociological 1985); that is, language and literacy form an open
dimensions of literacy, including issues of power system of meaning, which is historically situated as
such as the intersections of gender, race, and class human intercourse.
(Grant & Wong, in press). By adopting a narrow, au-
tonomous definition of literacy rather than a much
broader ideological one (Street, 1984), Developing Heteroglossia: Cross-linguistic
Literacy has ignored critical perspectives that shed implications
light on the educational needs of language-minority Languages do not coexist peacefully, but rather
students. To demonstrate the significance of the so- are in a permanent state of competition. Bakhtin
cial, we focus on Part III of the book, which best (1981) distinguished centripetal linguistic forces, ex-
shows what we see as missing in the autonomous, erted by official forms backed by the cultural or ad-
asocial paradigm that underlies most of its chapters. ministrative establishment, from centrifugal forces,
Rather than addressing the chapters sequentially, we which are intent on preserving the existence of unof-
Essay Book Review 601

ficial dialectal forms. He identified the former with (Kachru, Kachru, & Nelson, 2006), and non-native-
the social processes of political, cultural, and ideolog- speaker issues (Braine, 1999; Brutt-Griffler &
ical centralization. The dynamic processes of stan- Samimy, 1999).
dardization and diversity not only occur within one
language, such as Russian or English, but also are a
feature of cross-linguistic effects in the acquisition of Heteroglossia and bilingualism
second-language literacy. In Part IV, Educating Language-Minority
Understanding the nature and extent of cross- Students: Instructional Approaches and Professional
language effects in the acquisition of literacy is criti- Development, chapter 14, “Language of
cal for developing a comprehensive and heteroglossic Instruction,” presents studies that compare bilingual
theory of second-language development. For that programs with programs that use only English. The
reason, we choose to focus here on Part II: Cross- research questions that authors David Francis, Nonie
Linguistic Relationships in Second-Language Lesaux, and Diane August investigate include the
Learners of Developing Literacy. The research ques- following:
tions in this part follow:
1. What impact does language of instruction have on the
1. What is the relationship between language-minority chil- literacy learning of language-minority students?
dren’s first and second language oral development in do- 2. Is it better to immerse students in English-language in-
mains related to literacy? struction, or are there benefits to developing literacy in
2. What is the relationship between oral development in the English as well as in the native language? (p. 365)
first language and literacy development in the second lan-
guage? The authors note in their review of research
3. What is the relationship between literacy skills acquired in that “there is no indication that bilingual instruction
the first language and literacy skills acquired in the second impedes academic achievement in either the native
language? (p. 153) language or English, whether for language-minority
students, [or] students receiving heritage-language
In contrast to monolingual English-speaking instruction” (p. 397). In fact, some research indicates
students, language-minority students bring an addi- that if students do not reach a certain threshold in
tional set of resources or abilities and face an addi- language and literacy development in their first lan-
tional set of challenges when learning to read and guage they may experience difficulties in the second
write in English as a second language. In chapter 6, language (Collier & Thomas, 1989; Skutnabb-
Fred Genesee, Esther Geva, Cheryl Dressler, and Kangas, 2000).
Michael Kamil highlight this bilingual dimension of Of interest in chapter 14 is the discussion of
cross-linguistic complexity to literacy research, “it three studies on bilingual elementary programs con-
may be time to move thinking about and research on ducted by Huzar (1973), Maldonado (1994), and
second-language literacy development beyond simple Plante (1976), whose results favored bilingual pro-
frameworks that do not accommodate the complex grams over English-only programs. Francis, Lesaux,
processes that interact dynamically across grade levels and August indicate, “Rather than confusing chil-
as English-language learners acquire literacy in ESL” dren...reading instruction in a familiar language may
(p. 161). In our view, the insights provided in chap- serve as a bridge to success...decoding, sound blend-
ter 6 help us to move beyond simple “one-size fits ing and generic comprehension strategies clearly
all” approaches to second-language literacy educa- transfer between languages that use phonetic or-
tion and research. thographies” (p. 397). This conclusion supports im-
Part II, Cross-Linguistic Relationships in portant research in bilingual education that
Second-Language Learners, draws mainly from the demonstrates that first-language literacy is the best
research within behaviorist, cognitive, and interac- predictor of long-term success for academic achieve-
tional paradigms. Although Part II is a valuable con- ment for language-minority students (Collier &
tribution, we posit that the addition of Bakhtinian Thomas, 1997).
perspectives in literacy education (Ball & Freedman, Reading instruction in two languages is an im-
2004; Hall, Vitanova, & Marchenkova, 2005) could portant way of reducing the danger of “subtractive
conceivably illuminate important cross-linguistic is- bilingualism” in which students lose the first lan-
sues for language-minority students, including hy- guage before acquiring the second (Lambert, 1975).
brid and multiple social identities (Norton, 2000; In a subtractive approach, English replaces the home
Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004), world Englishes language of the child. In an additive approach, the
602 Reading Research Quarterly OCTOBER/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007 42/3

heritage language is respected and maintained and However, we wish that instead of eschewing critical
English is taught as an additional language (Wong- discussions of racism, class, and power, the authors
Fillmore, 2000). Inclusion of research from language had broadened the scope of their review to address
policies and language rights would contribute to an historic patterns of inequality in schooling and as-
understanding of heteroglossic forces of centraliza- sessment (Shohamy, 2000).
tion and diversity in second-language literacy (May,
2001; Phillipson, 1992).
A sociocultural approach
Heteroroglossia and assessment to literacy research
We now turn to Part V, Student Assessment, to
apply our discussion of heteroglossia to the review of Definition of the social
Developing Literacy. The area of second-language lit-
Scholars who subscribe to the tenets of a socio-
eracy assessment points to the centripetal (standard-
cultural theoretical framework (e.g., John-Steiner,
ization) and centrifugal (diversifying) forces of
Panofsky, & Smith, 1994) provide key components
language at work. For example, three sets of research for defining the social in literacy. They define social
questions in Part V include the following: with respect to the model of language, the model of
1. What assessments do states and school districts use with
acquisition, and the model of research. Thus, a social
language-minority students for identification, program model of language is functional as well as structural.
placement, and reclassification purposes? Are the assess- This means that grammatical features are analyzed
ments used for these purposes useful and appropriate? not only with respect to form but also in terms of
2. What do we know about alternative assessments of oral their meaning and use.
English proficiency and literacy? Second, the model of acquisition emphasizes
3. What first- and second-language vocabulary and wide-
social interaction. Social interaction is the generative
scale literacy assessments for language-minority students context for mastery of language and literacy. For ex-
have been investigated? What does the research tell us ample, Wells (1981) demonstrated that collaboration
about accommodations for language-minority students in the negotiation of meaning and talk is a form of
taking these assessments? (p. 583) social action. Third, the social in the dialogic model
of research involves an emphasis on investigation of
Because these questions acknowledge the complex literacy in local contexts and situated knowledge
and unique nature of assessment in English for lan- (Wong, 2006).
guage-minority students (Valdez-Pierce, 2003), we In the field of second-language acquisition, the
believe that Part V is particularly strong. The authors dominant cognitive paradigm sees the role of “social”
foreground problems of cultural and linguistic bias as a factor. However, in a sociocultural approach, the
for the purpose of advancing bilingual perspectives social cannot be taken out of the equation. Vygotsky
in research design. (1934/1978) saw the primacy of the social in the
The bilingual and cross-linguistic perspectives zone of proximal development (ZPD). Drawing on
reflected in both Part II and Part V are an important Vygotsky, Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) pointed out,
corrective to the overall monolingual bias in the field
of literacy research and assessment. Literacy research The zone of ZPD is the framework, par excellence, which
conducted solely in English may lead to deficit per- brings all of the pieces of the learning setting together—the
teacher, the learner, their social and cultural history, their
spectives due to inaccurate assessments of prior goals and motives, as well as the resources available to them,
knowledge or cognitive ability of English-language including those that are dialogically constructed together
learners (Auerbach, 1995; Ricento, 2000). (p. 468).
In sum, we respect the authors of the assess-
ment chapters for addressing linguistic and cultural The social mediates literacy development. In a
bias, promoting assessment in L1 (first language), recent review of sociocultural perspectives on race,
and for arguing the necessity of accommodations for culture, and learning, Nasir and Hand (2006) point-
language-minority students. An area where further ed out, “sociocultural theory may be useful in begin-
research needs to be conducted is in the area of lan- ning to trace the links between classroom practice,
guage variety and assessment (Nero, 2006). The cultural practice and repertoires of participation
treatment of the bilingual dimensions of assessment among ethnic groups” (p. 458). Central to sociocul-
is a progressive contribution to literacy research. tural pedagogical perspectives is the tenet that learn-
Essay Book Review 603

ing is not always a “benign activity”; rather, learning variable. Research question one suggests that we can
can occur from conflict, tension, and contradiction assign an individual as a 1 or a 2 with respect to their
(Gutiérrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995). This can ex- generation status or a 3 or a 4 with respect to immi-
tend thinking about the ways in which individuals gration circumstances. These numbers, when placed
and social groups inquire and learn not only about in the analysis, will indicate how individuals differ
ethnicity but also race and other dimensions of social on a measure of literacy. Although this approach is a
inequality (Curtis & Romney, 2006; Motha, 2006). good one to take in investigating language loss across
generations, it is inappropriate for capturing the
complexity and challenges posed by generational sta-
Contrasting views on the social tus and immigration circumstances for second-
We see Part III: Sociocultural Contexts and language literacy development from a sociocultural
Literacy Development as central to this review be- perspective. Therefore, it is not surprising that fol-
cause sociocultural context should indeed be the lowing the methodological framework used to review
starting point for research on second-language read- the studies and to determine their value, the authors
ing and language learners. The goal of the authors for of chapter 10 concluded that “generation status did
Part III was “to review and evaluate the empirical evi- not appear to influence English reading and vocabu-
dence of the role of sociocultural factors in the litera- lary skills” (p. 255).
cy development of language-minority children and One growing area of interest in second-
youth” (p. 249). Their six research questions follow: language literacy research is social identity and acad-
emic achievement among U.S. high school graduates
1. What is the influence of immigration (generation status who enter college while still in the process of learn-
and immigration circumstances) on literacy development,
defined broadly?
ing English. The term generation 1.5 originated in
the Korean American community and was later used
2. What is the influence of differences in discourse and in- in Asian American studies as a new category to ana-
teraction characteristics between children’s homes and
classrooms?
lyze generational status and social identity (Wong,
2000). Generation 1.5 students share characteristics
3. What is the influence of other sociocultural characteristics of both first- and second-generation immigrants
of students and teachers?
(Rumbaut & Ima, 1988) and do not fit into any of
4. What is the influence of parents and families? the traditional categories of non-native English
5. What is the influence of policies at the district, state, and speakers (Forrest, 2006). Generation 1.5 students
federal levels? immigrated to the United States as children (Yi,
6. What is the influence of language status or prestige? (p.
2005). A common trait is that they may not have a
249) strong literacy foundation in the first language (L1).
Some are in the process of losing the home language
We would characterize the formulation of these six without having fully developed academic literacy in
research questions as reflecting a cognitive rather English. Current research in social identity and L2
than a sociocultural theoretical framework of literacy (second language) writing of generation 1.5 suggest
research (Lee & Smagorinsky, 2000). that generation status contributes to an understand-
To make our point clear, we take a closer look ing of L2 literacy development (Yi). However, be-
at the first research question, “What is the influence cause generation 1.5 students may not have
of immigration (generation status and immigration sufficient foundation in their first language, research
circumstances) on literacy development, defined findings that suggest generation status and social
broadly?” (p. 249). The question itself includes rele- identity do not influence literacy development in L2
vant elements to a discussion of second-language lit- should be interpreted with caution (Harklau, Losey,
eracy for language-minority students in the United & Siegal, 1999).
States. Although the question uses the word influ-
ence instead of effect, the syntax of the research ques-
tion suggests a quantitative tool for analysis. In the
Sociocultural frameworks: The funds
quantitative methodological tradition one asks what of knowledge
effect one variable has on another. Also of interest is Literacy activity around a cultural–historical
the manner in which these variables might interact perspective provides a range of “theoretical lenses”
with each other and how different levels of one vari- and methodological tools from which to examine the
able might interact with different levels of another complex, persistent, and emergent social world of
604 Reading Research Quarterly OCTOBER/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007 42/3

the classroom and other places where children and more systematic studies are needed to help examine
youth engage in literate acts, notably in familial and the different possibilities.
community settings (Lee & Smagorinsky, 2000). The use of the word systematic, however, sug-
Researchers who investigate second-language devel- gests that quantitative research tools are needed to
opment through a sociocultural lens have used a tease out one factor from another. By systematic the
number of overlapping frameworks (Zuengler & authors imply that each factor (e.g., use of the native
Miller, 2006) including language socialization language, more interesting activities, self-selection of
(Watson-Gegeo, 2004), learning in situated commu- topics) should be separated from each of the others
nities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), and funds for the purpose of analysis and, if they are not, the
of knowledge (Moll & Greenberg, 1990). discussion is muddled or convoluted. In contrast, a
To our surprise, however, Part III of Developing sociocultural approach to literacy research takes a
Literacy questioned the value of sociocultural re- holistic approach to all of the above factors (Vasquez,
search in language-minority student achievement: 2003). Indeed one would not want to choose be-
tween (a) use of the native language, (b) more inter-
The examples presented are intriguing, but they only illus- esting activities, and (c) self-selection of topics, but
trate, rather than “prove” the contention that the strategic
application of cultural resources in instruction is one im-
would want to include (d) all of the above.
portant way of obtaining change in academic performance Sociocultural approaches to literacy see the whole as
and of demonstrating that there is nothing about the chil- being greater than the sum of the parts. Culturally
dren’s language, culture, or intellectual capacities that should responsive pedagogical practices that honor the
handicap their schooling. (pp. 328–329) home language and culture encourage students to
draw from multiple resources for literacy develop-
The language of “proving” is rarely used in ment and academic achievement (Delgado-Gaitán,
quantitative or qualitative research. Moreover, in 1996).
quantitative methodology researchers do not prove,
but they reject the null hypothesis which is different
from “proving.” The value of ethnographies, such as
Delpit’s (1995) Other People’s Children, Heath’s Shifting the paradigm:
(1983) Ways With Words, or Igoa’s (1995) The Inner
World of the Immigrant Child, is that they provide Multidimensional
rich descriptions of divergent literacy communities
and practices. These descriptions are valuable to lit- Defining literacy for the 21st century
eracy researchers concerned with the achievement for We begin this section by identifying what we
language-minority students. It is perplexing, there- see as the two contrasting paradigms on literacy, aca-
fore, that the authors would expect ethnographic demic achievement, and language-minority learners.
studies such as those conducted by Moll and Diaz To aid in the identification process, we elaborate on
(1986) to “prove” rather than illustrate the con- sociocultural theories of learning discussed in last
tention that strategic application of cultural re- section of this review. We hope this articulation will
sources is an important way of supporting academic enable readers of this review to see that our under-
achievement. standing of literacy extends beyond the singular acts
By drawing on Vygotsky’s ZPD and on neoso- of reading and writing which are the foci in
ciocultural perspectives, the funds-of-knowledge Developing Literacy. The authors of Developing
methodology views the everyday practices of lan- Literacy define literacy acts as “including pre-reading
guage and action as constructing knowledge. Widely skills, such as concept of print and alphabetic knowl-
used in the field of bilingual research (González, edge; word-level skills, including decoding, word
Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Osterling & Buchanan, reading, pseudo-word reading, and spelling; and
2003; Osterling & Garza, 2004), it offers tools for text-level skills including fluency, reading compre-
educators seeking to address the specific needs of hension, and writing skills” (p. 1). Throughout the
ELL students and families, and facilitates a systemat- history of schooling in the United States, efforts to
ic and powerful way to represent communities in incorporate the cultural politics of difference into
terms of the resources they possess and how to har- conceptions of literacy have been viewed as chaotic
ness them for classroom teaching. The authors, and a threat to the social order (West, 1990, 1999).
Claude Goldenberg, Robert Rueda, and Diane Our efforts to address what this means in the 21st
August, continue their critique of Moll and Diaz’s century with respect to culturally and linguistically
(1986) funds-of-knowledge work by arguing that diverse learners require us to consider that there is
Essay Book Review 605

emerging a significant shift in the sensibilities and males (Willis & Harris, 2000). Meacham
outlooks of the forms, functions, measurements, and (2000/2001) expressed that
production of literacy (Walsh, 1996).
As West (1999) did, we posit that such efforts Policymakers believed that it was necessary to promote lit-
are not new, but that the current cultural politics of eracy in keeping with a single cultural and linguistic identi-
ty at the expense of cultural and linguistic diversity.... In
difference reflect the precise circumstances of the other words, structural singularity has been the structural
present moment in time, and this moment incorpo- hallmark of dominant social visions and literacy practices. (p.
rates “marginalized First World agents who shun de- 182, italics added)
graded self-representations, articulating instead their
senses of the flow of history in light of the contem- We would stress that within the United States a
porary terrors, anxieties and fears” (p. 119). With re- national consciousness of literacy is one consisting of
spect to language-minority students, this will mean historical antecedents that reflect the racialized man-
that literacy researchers must make genuine efforts to ner in which language, culture, and literacy have
capture the lived reality of history, culture, and pow- been defined, promoted, and measured. Throughout
er that permeate the individual, family, and commu- the history of schooling, reading education has been
nity (i.e., the literate lives of these learners) (Toohey, promoted as essential for making the United States
2000). an industrial and economic power. Literacy is often
To be privileged and American is to raise there to produce economic skills and a shared system
perennially the question, How will the schooling of of beliefs and values, and to help create a “national
those who are different in race, linguistic variety, na- culture.” Today, having a literate citizenry is deemed
tionality, social class, religion, and cultural back- necessary for sustaining the United States as a mili-
ground benefit the public interest? So we ask, who is tary power and safeguarding its national security.
“being served” by literacy research? Who are those The process for defining what counts as literacy and
asking the questions? What are the questions? We how to measure it has always been linked to particu-
contend that the paradigm from which one views lit- lar regimes of power and dominance (Luke, 1996).
eracy determines its uses, and whom it serves. Yes,
literacy is more than acquiring a set of skills making
possible the acts of reading and writing Autonomous versus ideological models
(Edmondson, 2001). It is more than a series of cog- of literacy
nitive acts, it is more than the standard scores We are reminded of Street’s (1984) challenge
gleaned from state-initiated performance tests, and it to autonomous models of literacy. As Larson (1997)
is more than the ability to secure a job or gainful em- wrote, “this dominant literacy pedagogy relies almost
ployment. There is a political dimension to literacy, exclusively on traditional definitions of literacy as a
which can be illustrated by the example under slav- reified set of basic skills devoid of social context or
ery in which the slave master was able to prevent political implications” (p. 439). English-language lit-
slaves from running away if they remained illiterate eracy researchers and educators should consider the
and isolated from the world. In Self-Taught: African costs posed by the hegemony of English and its rela-
American Education in Slavery and Freedom, tionship to colonialism and exploitation, particularly
Williams (2005) stressed that many enslaved in relationship to the problem of linguistic genocide
Africans’ desire to read and write was stoked by a cu- and language loss (Lin & Luke, 2006; Pennycook,
riosity growing out of the knowledge that whites did 1998; Ramanathan, 2002). An example can be
not want blacks to become literate. Clearly, those found in the history of the Indian boarding schools,
held in bondage understood the power relations be- in which children were beaten for speaking Native
tween master and slave, and they were keenly aware American languages (Spack, 2002; Szasz, 1999). It is
of the variety of acts whites perceived as threatening clear that African American, Latino, and children
to their power. Therefore, “they fused their desire for living in poverty are victimized by an aggressive stan-
literacy with their desire for freedom” (p. 7). dardized testing agenda and “back-to-basics” instruc-
In the United States, a technocratic meritocra- tion that treats literacy as if it is apolitical, acultural,
cy paradigm has regulated the formal schooling of and universal. Universalism as a principal construct
language-minority learners (Grant & Wong, 2003). for literacy serves merely to reinforce and reproduce
Within the last century more so than at other times, social and political systems of power and domination
literacy and politics have worked in tandem to create (Edelsky, 2006). Street (1995) contended that when
barriers for many people of color, the poor, and fe- literacy is conceived as autonomous and universalistic,
606 Reading Research Quarterly OCTOBER/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007 42/3

the outcome for the poor, people of color, and those build a bridge from the known to the unknown for
who are learners of English is that they remain sub- racial, ethnic, and linguistic minorities, but also to
jugated learners, incapable of offering critical analysis expand the canon for all U.S. students. However,
of their own social and political context. mainstream curriculum too often seeks to assimilate
The second paradigm situates all acts of litera- minority students into the curriculum rather than
cy including reading and writing within multiple lin- draw from the diverse and multiple epistemological
guistic varieties and multiliteracies frameworks traditions of students. For that reason, we find that
acknowledging the importance of social, cultural, the work of Moll, , and others in incorporating the
historical, and power dynamics in defining, instruct- funds of knowledge from Mexican American com-
ing, and measuring the literate lives of children, munities into school curriculum is so valuable
youth, and adults (New London Group, 1996). In (González et al., 2005). A cognitive view of literacy
building the case for this paradigm, we turn to Gee’s keeps minority children’s literacy experiences in
(2006 ) definition of literacy. To explain “what litera- school separate from their experiences of the home
cy is,” Gee took us back to what he sees as the pre- and community. In drawing from the funds of
cursor for any attempt at understanding literacy. He knowledge in the students’ families, Moll, González,
began by exploring discourses or “identity kits” in and others extend the ZPD into the community.
order to elucidate that “literacy” is part- and-parcel This approach supports Cummins’s (1986) four
to a “Discourse.” Gee defined Discourse as, “a social- frameworks for empowerment: (1) an additive, not a
ly accepted association among ways of using lan- subtractive, approach to the home language and cul-
guage, of thinking, and of acting that can be used to ture; (2) an interactive, not a transmission model of
identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful pedagogy; (3) incorporating, not excluding, the fam-
group or social network’” (p. 257). He noted that ilies and communities; and (4) assessment that is ad-
Discourses are inherently ideological in that they in- vocacy oriented, not gatekeeping.
volve specific stances and dissect values and view- Rather than see the lack of evidence of the so-
points expressed by those holding membership. Gee’s ciocultural dimension of literacy research as being
final point, one we believe necessary for coming to due to inadequate research methodology, we ques-
terms with historical failures of teaching and school- tion the criteria for “research” employed by the au-
ing for so many racial-, cultural-, and language-mi- thors of Developing Literacy in Second-Language
nority students across school and society, was that Learners. It is not possible to “factor out” the social
“discourses are intimately related to the distribution from literacy research. In fact, we do not wish to do
of social power and hierarchical structure in society” so. Nor would we desire to “control” for race or cul-
(p. 258). ture. Indeed, we see that a research agenda that
The multidimensional critical multiculturalism would begin with a multidimensional approach to lit-
that we advocate in education offers a critique of eracy research for language-minority students must
deficit perspectives of the language, culture, race, so- account for the complex intersections of race, ethnic-
cial standing, and situated identities of children, ity, class, and gender.
families, and their communities (Kubota, 2004). For
example, we look at the U.S. education system and
the savage inequalities of poverty as the result of an
unequal education system that places ELLs and non- Closing thoughts
standard-English speakers at the bottom in academic The authors of Developing Literacy undertook
standing and in life (Kozol, 1991). what is indeed an ambitious task. We applaud their
recognition of the importance and need to explore
research on English language learners. We acknowl-
Literacy: Extending the frameworks edge that the editors have stimulated the articulation
In working with Chinese students from the of research on literacy for learners of English in the
People’s Republic of China, Wong (2006) expanded tradition of work preceding their present efforts
the dialogic tool kit to include traditional Eastern (August & Hakuta, 1997). On the surface, we see
philosophies, such as Confucian and Taoist episte- Developing Literacy as having succeeded in presenting
mologies. In addition, there are dialogic approaches a body of research about ELLs’ literacy and schooling
to inquiry within many Native American, African, in the United States. However, despite the breadth of
Latino, and Caribbean epistemological traditions this work, in our view it is not wide enough.
from around the world. It is important to build on Although members of the National Literacy Panel
ESOL students’ diverse ways of knowing to not only attempted to represent a wide range of research
Essay Book Review 607

methodologies, a broader perspective of literacy that racism, social and cultural capital, and literacy per-
is inclusive of the social realities and possibilities for formance to address the achievement gap for lan-
language-minority learners is missing. guage-minority students.
As reviewers, we began this book review by de-
lineating our diversity in race, language, experience, RACHEL GRANT is an associate professor of education and director
and our political and social stance as critical literacy of the Center for Language and Culture at George Mason University
(4400 University Dr. MS 4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA; e-mail
researchers because we believe that only through re- rgrant4@gmu.edu). Her research interests are critical pedagogical
search based on multiple methodologies and per- approaches to literacy and academic achievement for linguistically and
spectives, are we afforded the opportunity for racially diverse students, with a particular focus on urban settings.
comprehensive analysis of literacy development in a
second language (Osterling & Fox, 2004). We end, SHELLEY WONG is an associate professor of multilingual and
therefore, where we wished that members of the multicultural education at George Mason University (4400 University
Dr. MS 4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA; e-mail swong1@gmu.edu). Her
National Literacy Panel had begun their review, with research interests are dialogic and sociocultural approaches to literacy
an understanding of the importance of the sociologi- and academic achievement for racial-, cultural-, and language-
cal perspective of literacy. More research is needed in minority students. She is the author of Dialogic Approaches to TESOL:
the following three areas: Where the Ginkgo Tree Grows published by Erlbaum.
1. Heteroglossia: Further research is needed that
problematizes traditional dichotomies of race, gen- JORGE P. OSTERLING is an associate professor of multilingual and
multicultural education at George Mason University (4400 University
der, and class and reflects the complexity and hybrid- Drive, MS 4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA; e-mail josterli@gmu.edu).
ity of social identity, academic achievement, and Born and raised in Lima, Peru, he attended Catholic University of Peru,
language-minority children and youth. Of particular where he received a BA in applied social sciences. He then attended
interest is research that investigates the ideological the University of California, Berkeley, where he was awarded an MA
dimensions of second-language literacy and chal- and PhD in sociocultural anthropology. His scholarly work focuses on
lenges English-only hegemony, monolingualism, na- multicultural and bilingual education, curriculum reform, teacher
education, and the education of Latinos, immigrants, and other
tive-English-speaker norms, and other dimensions of culturally, linguistically, and ability diverse student populations.
privilege and power.
2. Sociocultural approach: More research is
needed that blends traditional Vygotskian and activi- REFERENCES
ty theory with new literacy studies, postcolonial, ALJAAFREH, A., & LANTOLF, J.P. (1994). Negative feedback as
poststructural, critical race, feminist, and womanist regulation and second-language learning in the zone of proximal devel-
opment. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
theories, namely those that stress the primacy of race AUERBACH, E. (1995). The politics of ESL classroom: Issues of
and class, and the stance and viewpoints of black power in pedagogical choices. In J.W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and in-
equality in language education (pp. 9–33). Cambridge, England:
women, and many women of color. Research per- Cambridge University Press.
spectives that incorporate the stance and viewpoints AUGUST, D., & HAKUTA, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling
of language-minority students and their families also for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
need diverse research methodologies to address their AUGUST, D., & SHANAHAN, T. (2006). Executive summary of
complex positionalities. Sociocultural research is in- Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National
Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ:
clusive of diverse research designs from experimental Erlbaum.
and quasi-experimental studies, case studies, narra- BAKHTIN, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M.
tives, ethnographies, historical studies, and critical Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University
of Texas Press.
discourse analysis (Luke, 1995/1996; Rogers & BALL, A., & FREEDMAN, S.W. (Eds.). (2004). Bakhtinian per-
Mosley, 2006). spectives on language, literacy, and learning. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
3. Multidimensional approach: Whom does re- BRAINE, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English-language
search serve? How can research serve and involve teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
practicing multilingual communities as transforma- BRUTT-GRIFFLER, J., & SAMIMY, K.K. (1999). Revisiting the
colonial in the post-colonial: Critical praxis for nonnative-English-
tive agents for social justice? An area that needs fur- speaking teachers in a TESOL program. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 413–431.
ther research is how funds of knowledge can be used COLLIER, V., & THOMAS, W. (1989). How quickly can immi-
grants become proficient in school English? Journal of Educational Issues of
to support democratic participation for all culturally, Language Minority Students, 5, 26–38.
linguistically, and ability diverse students and their COLLIER, V., & THOMAS, W. (1997). School effectiveness for lan-
full inclusion in community and economic develop- guage minority students (NCBE Resource Collection Series No. 9).
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
ment. How do anti-immigrant legislation and social CUMMINS, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework
movements of English-only affect the schooling of for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18–36.
CURTIS, A., & ROMNEY, M. (Eds.). (2006). Color, race and
language-minority students? Of particular interest is English-language teaching: Shades of meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
research that combines an institutional analysis of DARDER, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical
608 Reading Research Quarterly OCTOBER/NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007 42/3

foundation for bicultural education. New York: Bergin & Garvey. into just as it weaves? Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International
DELGADO-GAITÁN, C. (1996). Protean literacy: Extending the Journal, 3(2 & 3), 65–73.
discourse on empowerment. Washington, DC: Falmer. LUKE, A. (1995/1996). Text and discourse in education: An intro-
DELPIT, L.D. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the duction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21,
classroom. New York: New Press. 3–48.
DUNN, W., & LANTOLF, J.P. (1998). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal LUKE, A. (1996). Genres of power: Literacy education and the pro-
development and Krashen’s i + 1: Incommensurable constructs; incom- duction of capital. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society
mensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411–442. (pp. 308–338). London: Longman.
EDELSKY, C. (2006). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the MALDONADO, J. A. (1994). Bilingual special education: Specific
social in language and education (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. learning disabilities in language and reading. Journal of Educational Issues
EDMONDSON, J. (2001). Taking a broader look: Reading literacy of Language Minority Students, 14, 127–147.
education. The Reading Teacher, 54, 620–629. MAY, S. (2001). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism,
FORREST, S.N. (2006). Three foci of an effective high school and the politics of language. New York: Longman.
Generation 1.5 literacy program. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, MEACHAM, S. (2000/2001). Literacy at the crossroads: Movement,
50, 106–112. connection, and communication within the research literature on literacy
FREIRE, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and and cultural diversity. Review of Research in Education, 25, 181–208.
Herder. MOLL, L.C., & DIAZ, S. (1986). Ethnographic pedagogy:
FREIRE, P., & MACEDO, D.P. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word Promoting effective bilingual instruction. In E. García & R. Padilla (Eds.),
and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Advances in bilingual education research (pp. 127–149). Tucson: University
GEE, J.P. (2006). What is literacy? In H. Luria, D.M. Seymour, & T. of Arizona.
Smoke (Eds.), Language and linguistics in context (pp. 257–264). MOLL, L.C., & GREENBERG, J. (1990). Creating zones of possi-
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. bilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.),
GONZÁLEZ, N., MOLL, L.C., & AMANTI, C. (2005). Funds of Vygotsky and education (pp. 319–348). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. University Press.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. MOTHA, S. (2006). Racializing ESOL teacher identities in U.S.
GRANT, R.A., & WONG, S.D. (2003). Barriers to literacy for lan- K–12 public schools. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 495–518.
guage minority learners: An argument for change in the literacy educa- NASIR, N.H., & HAND, V.M. (2006). Exploring socio-cultural
tion profession. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 386–394. perspectives on race, culture and learning. Review of Educational Research,
GRANT, R.A., & WONG, S.D. (in press). Critical race perspec- 76, 449–475.
tives: Bourdieu and language education. In A. Luke & J. Albright (Eds.), NERO, S.J. (2006). Dialects, Englishes, Creoles, and education.
Bourdieu and literacy education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
GUTIÉRREZ, K., RYMES, B., & LARSON, J. (1995). Script, coun- NEW LONDON GROUP. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies:
terscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 445–471. NORTON, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, eth-
HALL, J.K., VITANOVA, G., & MARCHENKOVA, L. (2005). nicity and educational change. New York: Longman.
Dialogue with Bakhtin on second- and foreign-language learning: New per- OSTERLING, J.P., & BUCHANAN, K. (2003). Tapping a valu-
spectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. able source for prospective ESOL teachers: Northern Virginia’s bilingual
HALLIDAY, M.A.K., & HASAN, R. (1985). Language, context, and paraeducator career ladder school-university partnership. Bilingual
text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, VIC, Research Journal, 27, 503–521.
Australia: Deakin University Press. OSTERLING, J.P., & FOX, R.K. (2004). The power of perspectives:
HARKLAU, L., LOSEY, K.M., & SIEGAL, M. (1999). Generation Building a cross-cultural community of learners. International Journal of
1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.- Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 489–505.
educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. OSTERLING, J.P., & GARZA, A. (2004). Strengthening Latino
HEATH, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in parental involvement: Forming community-based organizations/school
communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. partnerships. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2, 270–284.
HUZAR, H. (1973). The effects of an English-Spanish primary-grade PAVLENKO, A., & BLACKLEDGE, A. (Eds.). (2004). Negotiation
reading program on second- and third-grade students. Unpublished mas- of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
ter’s thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Matters.
IGOA, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. New York: PENNYCOOK, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism.
St. Martin’s. London: Routledge.
JOHN-STEINER, V., PANOFSKY, C.P., & SMITH, L.W. (1994). PHILLIPSON, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England:
Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy: An interactionist perspec- Oxford University Press.
tive. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. PLANTE, A. (1976). A study of effectiveness of the Connecticut “pair-
KACHRU, B.B., KACHRU, Y., & NELSON, C.L. (2006). ing” model of bilingual/ bicultural education. Hamden: Connecticut Staff
Handbook of world Englishes. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Development Cooperative.
KINGINGER, C. (2001). i + 1 + zpd. Foreign Language Annals, 34, RAMANATHAN, V. (2002). The politics of TESOL education:
417–425. Writing, knowledge, critical pedagogy. New York: Routledge & Falmer.
KOZOL, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. RICENTO, T. (Ed.). (2000). Ideology, politics, and language policies:
New York: Crown. Focus on English. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
KUBOTA, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second-language ROGERS, R., & MOSLEY, M. (2006). Racial literacy in a second-
education. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and grade classroom: Critical race theory, whiteness studies, and literacy re-
language learning (pp. 30–52). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University search. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 462–495.
Press. RUMBAUT, R.G., & IMA, K. (1988). The adaptation of Southeast
LAMBERT, W.E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning Asian refugee youth: A comparative study. Final report to the Office of
and education. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of immigrant students: Resettlement. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University. [ERIC
Issues and answers (pp. 55–83). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Document Service Reproduction Service No. ED 299372]
Education. SHOHAMY, E.G. (2000). The power of tests: A critical perspective on
LARSON, J. (1997). Challenging autonomous models of literacy: the uses of language tests. New York: Longman.
Street’s call to action. Linguistics and Education, 8, 439–445. SKUTNABB-KANGAS, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education or
LAVE, J., & WENGER, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate pe- worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
ripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. SPACK, R. (2002). America’s second tongue: American Indian educa-
LEE, C.D., & SMAGORINSKY, P. (2000). Vygotskian perspectives on tion and the ownership of English, 1860–1900. Lincoln: University of
literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry. New Nebraska Press.
York: Cambridge University Press. STREET, B.V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge,
LIN, A., & LUKE, A. (2006). Coloniality, postcoloniality, and England: Cambridge University Press.
TESOL: Can a spider weave its way out of the web that it is being woven STREET, B.V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy
Essay Book Review 609

in development, ethnography, and education. London and New York: Journal, 88, 331–350.
Longman. WELLS, G. (1981). Learning through interaction. Cambridge,
SZASZ, M. (1999). Education and the American Indian: The road to England: Cambridge University Press.
self-determination since 1928 (3rd ed.). Albuquerque: University of New WEST, C. (1990). The new cultural politics of difference. In R.
Mexico Press. Ferguson, M. Gever, T.T. Minh-ha, & C. West (Eds.), Out there:
TOOHEY, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social rela- Marginalization and contemporary cultures (pp. 19–36). Cambridge, MA:
tions, and classroom practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. MIT Press.
VALDÉS, G. (2004). The teaching of academic language to minori- WEST, C. (1999). The Cornell West reader. New York: Basic Books.
ty second-language learners. In A.F. Ball & S.W. Freedman (Eds.), WILLIAMS, H.A. (2005). Self-taught: African American education in
Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 66–98). slavery and freedom. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. WILLIS, A.I., & HARRIS, V. (2000). Political acts: Literacy learn-
VALDEZ-PIERCE, L. (2003). Assessing English-language learners. ing and teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 72–88.
Washington, DC: National Education Association. WONG, S. (2000). Transforming the politics of schooling in the
VAN LIER, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: U.S .: A model for successful academic achievement for language-minority
A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic. students. In J.K. Hall & W. Eggington (Eds.), The sociopolitics of English-
VASQUEZ, O.A. (2003). La clase magica: Imagining optimal possi- language teaching (pp. 117–134). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
bilities in a bilingual community of learners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. WONG, S. (2006). Dialogic approaches to TESOL: Where the ginkgo
VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher tree grows. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. WONG-FILLMORE, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should
Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. educators be concerned? Theory Into Practice, 39, 203–210.
(Original work published 1934) YI, Y. (2005). Asian adolescents’ out-of-school encounters with
WALSH, C. (1996). Education reform and social change: Multicultural English and Korean literacy. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication,
voices, struggles, and victims. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 15(1), 57–77.
WATSON-GEGEO, K. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: ZUENGLER, J., & MILLER, E.R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocul-
Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. Modern Language tural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.

Você também pode gostar