Grant, Wong, & Osterling (2007)

8/8/2019 Grant, Wong, & Osterling (2007)

1/12

ESSAY BOOK REVIEW

Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of The NationalLiteracy 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 froma heteroglossic, sociocultural,and multidimensionalframework

RACHEL A. GRANTSHELLEY D. WONG

JORGE P. OSTERLING

George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

eveloping Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panelon Language Minority Children and Youthreflects a systematic effort to shed lighton the literacy development and schooling of English-language learners (ELLs) inthe United States. This 669-page volume reports the culmination of a four-yearprocess by the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth,

which includes 13 expert researchers in reading, language, bilingualism, researchmethods, and education. The mission of the National Literacy Panel was twofold:to identify, assess, and synthesize research on the education of language-minoritychildren and youth with respect to their attainment of literacy and to produce acomprehensive report evaluating and synthesizing this literature (p. 1).

The contributors to Developing Literacyprovide a comprehensive review ofthe existing research on the development of literacy in second-language learners in

D

Reading Research Quarterly

Vol. 42, No. 4

October/November/December 2007

2007 International Reading Association

(pp. 598609)

doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.4.8

598


2/12

Essay Book Review 599

the United States that offers insights and direction tothe field. Developing Literacyis organized into fiveparts: Development of Literacy in Second-LanguageLearners, Cross-linguistic Relationships in Second-Language Learners, Sociocultural Contexts and

Literacy Development, Educating Language-Minority Students: Instruction and ProfessionalDevelopment, and Student Assessment. Each partbegins with a chapter that spells out the researchquestions for the chapters in that part, providesbackground information, describes the methodolo-gies and addresses methodological issues, summarizesthe empirical findings reported, and makes recom-mendations for future research. In the booksExecutive Summary (August & Shanahan, 2006),the editors highlight some of the major findings ofthe National Literacy Panel:

1. Instruction that provides substantial coverage in the keycomponents of readingidentified by the NationalReading Panel as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,vocabulary, and text comprehensionhas clear benefitsfor language-minority students.

2. Instruction in the key components of reading is neces-sarybut not sufficientfor teaching language-minoritystudents to read and write proficiently in English. Oralproficiency in English is critical as wellbut student per-formance suggests that it is often overlooked in instruc-tion.

3. Oral proficiency and literacy in the first language can beused to facilitate literacy development in English.However, language-minority students can acquire litera-cy in English-only classrooms as well.

4. Individual differences contribute significantly to Englishliteracy development.

5. Most assessments do a poor job of assessing individualstrengths and weaknesses.

6. There is surprisingly little evidence for the impact of so-ciocultural variables on literacy achievement and devel-opment. However, home language experiences can havea positive impact on literacy achievement. (pp. 37)

As critical literacy researchers and multicultural/multilingual educators, we will begin our review by

introducing our approach to the book and by argu-ing that a thorough and comprehensive assessmentof the synthesis of research on ELLs in the UnitedStates, such as the one presented in DevelopingLiteracy, requires an adoption of a heteroglossic, so-ciocultural, and multidimensional framework. Theintroductory section will be followed by one entitledThe heteroglossic nature of biliteracy in which, in-spired by the Russian literary theorist MikhailBakhtin (1981), we argue that literacy is a social,cognitive, and linguistic process with ideological di-

mensions. In the third section, entitled A sociocul-tural approach to literacy research, we discuss cog-nitive development within a sociocultural context ofliteracy practices. Finally, in a section entitledShifting the paradigm: Multidimensional, we re-

viewDeveloping Literacyusing a multidimensional,critical multicultural lens that takes into accountpower, race, and academic achievement.

Introduction to the reviewersand our approach to the review

The authors of this review are an AfricanAmerican, an Asian American, and a HispanicAmerican. We all have an interest in criticalmultilin-gual, multicultural literacy education. We are all

bilingual/bidialectal, and we teach graduate coursesleading to English for Speakers of Other Languages(ESOL) licensure and masters and doctoral degreesin multilingual/multicultural education. Rachel A.Grant, the first author, is of African heritage, a bidi-alectal English speaker of African AmericanVernacular English, who was educated at HowardUniversity when the Civil Rights Movement hadtransformed into the Black Power, BlackConsciousness, and Black Liberation Movements.She earned her doctorate in literacy from theUniversity of Maryland. Her research has focused on

comprehension and cognitive processes and she usestraditional quantitative research methods. Shelley D.Wong, a multilingual/multicultural educator ofChinese heritage, was born and raised in California,is fluent in English and Cantonese, and earned hermasters degree in teaching english as a second lan-guage (TESOL) at the University of California, Los

Angeles, and her doctorate degree in applied linguis-tics at Teachers College, Columbia University. JorgeP. Osterling, the third author, is a Hispanic

American born in Peru and educated both in Peruand in the United States, with a doctoral degree

from the University of California, Berkeley. He hasbeen a university professor in four countries(Colombia, Germany, Peru, and the United States).

Thus, we bring to our review ofDevelopingLiteracya diverse set of perspectives on academic lan-guage and achievement. As Valds (2004) argued, asthe Bakhtin Circle demonstrated, the context for alldiscussions, including academic debates, encompass-es the surrounding voices that help shape, reconfig-ure, and constantly change the multivoicedutterances of the various speakers (pp. 6667).


3/12

Our critique ofDeveloping Literacybeginswhere Catherine Snows chapter, entitled Cross-Cutting Themes and Future Research Directions,ends. Snow noted,

The political perspective that defines English as the nation-al language of the U.S. cannot be ignored. Also relevant isthe economic perspective: that immigrants must learnEnglish to survive in the U.S. and gain little additional val-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 opportunitiesfor interaction also constitute opportunities for languagelearning. (pp. 649650)

We had hoped when we began reading thisbook that the sociological perspective of literacy,

which Snow used to conclude her chapter, would bethe National Literacy Panels startingpoint. If the

National Literacy Panel had begun its review with anunderstanding of the importance of anthropologicaland sociological dimensions of literacy, DevelopingLiteracywould indeed have been a very differentbook.

We believe that literacy needs to be understoodas critical literacy, not merely as the accumulationof skills necessary for acceptable test performance or

job preparation, because literacy, as Freire (1970;Freire & Macedo, 1987) often reminded us, is not acultural or individual trait, or a distinct variable tobe measured, but rather a complex set of social rela-tions, ideologies, attitudes, and practices wherebypeople struggle around relations of meaning and re-lations of power (Darder, 1991). Therefore, follow-ing Freire, in this book review we will argue thatliteracy is not a mechanical skill to be learned andthat literacy has a political and experiential dimen-sion, which involves agency and power (Freire &Macedo).

As critical literacy researchers and multilingual/multicultural educators, we argue that literacy devel-opment for second-language learners in the UnitedStates must take into consideration the sociologicaldimensions of literacy, including issues of power

such as the intersections of gender, race, and class(Grant & Wong, in press). By adopting a narrow, au-tonomous definition of literacy rather than a muchbroader ideological one (Street, 1984), DevelopingLiteracyhas ignored critical perspectives that shedlight on the educational needs of language-minoritystudents. To demonstrate the significance of the so-cial, we focus on Part III of the book, which bestshows what we see as missing in the autonomous,asocial paradigm that underlies most of its chapters.Rather than addressing the chapters sequentially, we

choose instead to discuss only those parts of thebook that foreground the framework we see as bestadvancing the interests of language-minority stu-dents. To foreground the difference between the twoparadigms, we have organized our review of

Developing Literacywithin three interrelated sectionsdealing with the heteroglossic, sociocultural, andmultidimensional nature of literacy.

The heteroglossic natureof biliteracyDefining heteroglossia

As research on second-language developmentbegins to move beyond the current cognitive to so-

ciocultural models (Dunn & Lantolf, 1998;Kinginger, 2001; van Lier, 2004), Bakhtins (1981)notions of heteroglossia and intertextuality providean appropriate framework in which to reviewDeveloping Literacy. This heteroglossic perspectiveemphasizes the role of language in positioning speak-ers and their texts within the heterogeneity of socialpositions and worldviews that operate in any culture.For Bakhtin, the natureof language is dialogic.Bakhtins understanding of language through the ut-terance places the individual and freedom in respon-siveness to others. Through a dialogic approach,

We use language that we have heard from other voices andthese voices are in turn discursive products of their histori-cal positions and their membership in various social groups.Heteroglossia exists as a force for change and diversity.(Wong, 2006, p. 199)

The term heteroglossiadescribes the coexistence ofdistinct varieties within a single linguistic code. Incontrast to senderreceiver or inputoutputmodels of communication, dialogic approaches seelanguage as a social semiotic(Halliday & Hasan,1985); that is, language and literacy form an opensystem of meaning, which is historically situated as

human intercourse.

Heteroglossia: Cross-linguisticimplications

Languages do not coexist peacefully, but ratherare in a permanent state of competition. Bakhtin(1981) distinguished centripetal linguistic forces, ex-erted byofficialforms backed by the cultural or ad-ministrative establishment, from centrifugal forces,

which are intent on preserving the existence ofunof-

600 Reading Research Quarterly O C TO B ER / NO V EM B ER /D E CE MB E R 2 0 07 4 2 /3


4/12


ficialdialectal forms. He identified the former withthe social processes of political, cultural, and ideolog-ical centralization. The dynamic processes of stan-dardization and diversity not only occur within onelanguage, such as Russian or English, but also are a

feature of cross-linguistic effects in the acquisition ofsecond-language literacy.Understanding the nature and extent of cross-

language effects in the acquisition of literacy is criti-cal for developing a comprehensive and heteroglossictheory of second-language development. For thatreason, we choose to focus here on Part II: Cross-Linguistic Relationships in Second-LanguageLearners ofDeveloping Literacy. The research ques-tions in this part follow:

1. What is the relationship between language-minority chil-drens first and second language oral development in do-

mains related to literacy?2. What is the relationship between oral development in the

first language and literacy development in the second lan-guage?

3. What is the relationship between literacy skills acquired inthe first language and literacy skills acquired in the secondlanguage? (p. 153)

In contrast to monolingual English-speakingstudents, language-minority students bring an addi-tionalset of resources or abilities and face an addi-tional set of challenges when learning to read and

write in English as a second language. In chapter 6,Fred Genesee, Esther Geva, Cheryl Dressler, andMichael Kamil highlight this bilingual dimension ofcross-linguistic complexity to literacy research, itmay be time to move thinking about and research onsecond-language literacy development beyond simpleframeworks that do not accommodate the complexprocesses that interact dynamically across grade levelsas English-language learners acquire literacy in ESL(p. 161). In our view, the insights provided in chap-ter 6 help us to move beyond simple one-size fitsall approaches to second-language literacy educa-tion and research.

Part II, Cross-Linguistic Relationships inSecond-Language Learners, draws mainly from theresearch within behaviorist, cognitive, and interac-tional paradigms. Although Part II is a valuable con-tribution, we posit that the addition of Bakhtinianperspectives in literacy education (Ball & Freedman,2004; Hall, Vitanova, & Marchenkova, 2005) couldconceivably illuminate important cross-linguistic is-sues for language-minority students, including hy-brid and multiple social identities (Norton, 2000;Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004), world Englishes

(Kachru, Kachru, & Nelson, 2006), and non-native-speaker issues (Braine, 1999; Brutt-Griffler &Samimy, 1999).

Heteroglossia and bilingualismIn Part IV, Educating Language-MinorityStudents: Instructional Approaches and ProfessionalDevelopment, chapter 14, Language ofInstruction, presents studies that compare bilingualprograms with programs that use only English. Theresearch questions that authors David Francis, NonieLesaux, and Diane August investigate include thefollowing:

1. What impact does language of instruction have on theliteracy learning of language-minority students?

2. Is it better to immerse students in English-language in-

struction, or are there benefits to developing literacy inEnglish as well as in the native language? (p. 365)

The authors note in their review of researchthat there is no indication that bilingual instructionimpedes academic achievement in either the nativelanguage or English, whether for language-minoritystudents, [or] students receiving heritage-languageinstruction (p. 397). In fact, some research indicatesthat if students do not reach a certain threshold inlanguage and literacy development in their first lan-guage they may experience difficulties in the secondlanguage (Collier & Thomas, 1989; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000).

Of interest in chapter 14 is the discussion ofthree studies on bilingual elementary programs con-ducted by Huzar (1973), Maldonado (1994), andPlante (1976), whose results favored bilingual pro-grams over English-only programs. Francis, Lesaux,and August indicate, Rather than confusing chil-dren...reading instruction in a familiar language mayserve as a bridge to success...decoding, sound blend-ing and generic comprehension strategies clearlytransfer between languages that use phonetic or-thographies (p. 397). This conclusion supports im-

portant research in bilingual education thatdemonstrates that first-language literacy is the bestpredictor of long-term success for academic achieve-ment for language-minority students (Collier &Thomas, 1997).

Reading instruction in two languages is an im-portant way of reducing the danger of subtractivebilingualism in which students lose the first lan-guage before acquiring the second (Lambert, 1975).In a subtractive approach, English replacesthe homelanguage of the child. In an additive approach, the


5/12

heritage language is respected and maintained andEnglish is taught as an additionallanguage (Wong-Fillmore, 2000). Inclusion of research from languagepolicies and language rights would contribute to anunderstanding of heteroglossic forces of centraliza-

tion and diversity in second-language literacy (May,2001; Phillipson, 1992).

Heteroroglossia and assessmentWe now turn to Part V, Student Assessment, to

apply our discussion of heteroglossia to the review ofDeveloping Literacy. The area of second-language lit-eracy assessment points to the centripetal (standard-ization) and centrifugal (diversifying) forces oflanguage at work. For example, three sets of researchquestions in Part V include the following:

1. What assessments do states and school districts use withlanguage-minority students for identification, programplacement, and reclassification purposes? Are the assess-ments used for these purposes useful and appropriate?

2. What do we know about alternative assessments of oralEnglish proficiency and literacy?

3. What first- and second-language vocabulary and wide-scale literacy assessments for language-minority studentshave been investigated? What does the research tell usabout accommodations for language-minority studentstaking these assessments? (p. 583)

Because these questions acknowledge the complex

and unique nature of assessment in English for lan-guage-minority students (Valdez-Pierce, 2003), webelieve that Part V is particularly strong. The authorsforeground problems of cultural and linguistic biasfor the purpose of advancing bilingual perspectivesin research design.

The bilingual and cross-linguistic perspectivesreflected in both Part II and Part V are an importantcorrective to the overall monolingual bias in the fieldof literacy research and assessment. Literacy researchconducted solely in English may lead to deficit per-spectives due to inaccurate assessments of prior

knowledge or cognitive ability of English-languagelearners (Auerbach, 1995; Ricento, 2000).In sum, we respect the authors of the assess-

ment chapters for addressing linguistic and culturalbias, promoting assessment in L1 (first language),and for arguing the necessity of accommodations forlanguage-minority students. An area where furtherresearch needs to be conducted is in the area of lan-guage variety and assessment (Nero, 2006). Thetreatment of the bilingual dimensions of assessmentis a progressive contribution to literacy research.

However, we wish that instead of eschewing criticaldiscussions of racism, class, and power, the authorshad broadened the scope of their review to addresshistoric patterns of inequality in schooling and as-sessment (Shohamy, 2000).

A sociocultural approachto literacy researchDefinition of the social

Scholars who subscribe to the tenets of a socio-cultural theoretical framework (e.g., John-Steiner,Panofsky, & Smith, 1994) provide key componentsfor defining the socialin literacy. They define social

with respect to the model of language, the model of

acquisition, and the model of research. Thus, a socialmodel of language isfunctionalas well as structural.This means that grammatical features are analyzednot only with respect toformbut also in terms oftheir meaning and use.

Second, the model of acquisition emphasizessocialinteraction. Social interaction is the generativecontext for mastery of language and literacy. For ex-ample, Wells (1981) demonstrated that collaborationin the negotiation of meaning and talk is a form ofsocial action. Third, the social in the dialogicmodelof research involves an emphasis on investigation ofliteracy in local contexts and situated knowledge(Wong, 2006).

In the field of second-language acquisition, thedominant cognitive paradigm sees the role of socialas a factor. However, in a sociocultural approach, thesocial cannot be taken out of the equation. Vygotsky(1934/1978) saw the primacy of the social in thezone of proximal development (ZPD). Drawing onVygotsky, Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) pointed out,

The zone of ZPD is the framework, par excellence, whichbrings all of the pieces of the learning setting togethertheteacher, the learner, their social and cultural history, theirgoals and motives, as well as the resources available to them,

including those that are dialogically constructed together(p. 468).

The social mediatesliteracy development. In arecent review of sociocultural perspectives on race,culture, and learning, Nasir and Hand (2006) point-ed out, sociocultural theory may be useful in begin-ning to trace the links between classroom practice,cultural practice and repertoires of participationamong ethnic groups (p. 458). Central to sociocul-tural pedagogical perspectives is the tenet that learn-



6/12


ing is not always a benign activity; rather, learningcan occur from conflict, tension, and contradiction(Gutirrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995). This can ex-tend thinking about the ways in which individualsand social groups inquire and learn not only about

ethnicity but also race and other dimensions of socialinequality (Curtis & Romney, 2006; Motha, 2006).

Contrasting views on the socialWe see Part III: Sociocultural Contexts and

Literacy Development as central to this review be-cause sociocultural context should indeed be thestarting point for research on second-language read-ing and language learners. The goal of the authors forPart III was to review and evaluate the empirical evi-dence of the role of sociocultural factors in the litera-cy development of language-minority children andyouth (p. 249). Their six research questions follow:

1. What is the influence of immigration (generation statusand immigration circumstances) on literacy development,defined broadly?

2. What is the influence of differences in discourse and in-teraction characteristics between childrens homes andclassrooms?

3. What is the influence of other sociocultural characteristicsof students and teachers?

4. What is the influence of parents and families?

5. What is the influence of policies at the district, state, and

federal levels?

6. What is the influence of language status or prestige? (p.249)

We would characterize the formulation of these sixresearch questions as reflecting a cognitive ratherthan a sociocultural theoretical framework of literacyresearch (Lee & Smagorinsky, 2000).

To make our point clear, we take a closer lookat the first research question, What is the influenceof immigration (generation status and immigrationcircumstances) on literacy development, defined

broadly? (p. 249). The question itself includes rele-vant elements to a discussion of second-language lit-eracy for language-minority students in the UnitedStates. Although the question uses the word influ-enceinstead ofeffect, the syntax of the research ques-tion suggests a quantitative tool for analysis. In thequantitative methodological tradition one asks whateffect one variable has on another. Also of interest isthe manner in which these variables might interact

with each other and how different levels of one vari-able might interact with different levels of another

variable. Research question one suggests that we canassign an individual as a 1 or a 2 with respect to theirgeneration status or a 3 or a 4 with respect to immi-gration circumstances. These numbers, when placedin the analysis, will indicate how individuals differ

on a measure of literacy. Although this approach is agood one to take in investigating language loss acrossgenerations, it is inappropriate for capturing thecomplexity and challenges posed by generational sta-tus and immigration circumstances for second-language literacy development from a socioculturalperspective. Therefore, it is not surprising that fol-lowing the methodological framework used to reviewthe studies and to determine their value, the authorsof chapter 10 concluded that generation status didnot appear to influence English reading and vocabu-lary skills (p. 255).

One growing area of interest in second-language literacy research is social identity and acad-emic achievement among U.S. high school graduates

who enter college while still in the process of learn-ing English. The termgeneration 1.5originated inthe Korean American community and was later usedin Asian American studies as a new category to ana-lyze generational status and social identity (Wong,2000). Generation 1.5 students share characteristicsof both first- and second-generation immigrants(Rumbaut & Ima, 1988) and do not fit into any ofthe traditional categories of non-native Englishspeakers (Forrest, 2006). Generation 1.5 students

immigrated to the United States as children (Yi,2005). A common trait is that they may not have astrong literacy foundation in the first language (L1).Some are in the process of losing the home language

without having fully developed academic literacy inEnglish. Current research in social identity and L2(second language) writing of generation 1.5 suggestthat generation status contributes to an understand-ing of L2 literacy development (Yi). However, be-cause generation 1.5 students may not havesufficient foundation in their first language, researchfindings that suggest generation status and social

identity do not influence literacy development in L2should be interpreted with caution (Harklau, Losey,& Siegal, 1999).

Sociocultural frameworks: The fundsof knowledge

Literacy activity around a culturalhistoricalperspective provides a range of theoretical lensesand methodological tools from which to examine thecomplex, persistent, and emergent social world of


7/12

the classroom and other places where children andyouth engage in literate acts, notably in familial andcommunity settings (Lee & Smagorinsky, 2000).Researchers who investigate second-language devel-opment through a sociocultural lens have used a

number of overlapping frameworks (Zuengler &Miller, 2006) including language socialization(Watson-Gegeo, 2004), learning in situated commu-nities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), and fundsof knowledge (Moll & Greenberg, 1990).

To our surprise, however, Part III ofDevelopingLiteracyquestioned the value of sociocultural re-search in language-minority student achievement:

The examples presented are intriguing, but they only illus-trate, rather than prove the contention that the strategicapplication of cultural resources in instruction is one im-portant way of obtaining change in academic performanceand of demonstrating that there is nothing about the chil-drens language, culture, or intellectual capacities that shouldhandicap their schooling. (pp. 328329)

The language of proving is rarely used inquantitative or qualitative research. Moreover, inquantitative methodology researchers do not prove,but they reject the null hypothesis which is differentfrom proving. The value of ethnographies, such asDelpits (1995) Other Peoples Children, Heaths(1983) Ways With Words, or Igoas (1995) The InnerWorld of the Immigrant Child, is that they providerich descriptions of divergent literacy communities

and practices. These descriptions are valuable to lit-eracy researchers concerned with the achievement forlanguage-minority students. It is perplexing, there-fore, that the authors would expect ethnographicstudies such as those conducted by Moll and Diaz(1986) to prove rather than illustrate the con-tention that strategic application of cultural re-sources is an important way of supporting academicachievement.

By drawing on Vygotskys ZPD and on neoso-ciocultural perspectives, the funds-of-knowledgemethodology views the everyday practices of lan-guage and action as constructing knowledge. Widely

used in the field of bilingual research (Gonzlez,Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Osterling & Buchanan,2003; Osterling & Garza, 2004), it offers tools foreducators seeking to address the specific needs ofELL students and families, and facilitates a systemat-ic and powerful way to represent communities interms of the resources they possess and how to har-ness them for classroom teaching. The authors,Claude Goldenberg, Robert Rueda, and Diane

August, continue their critique of Moll and Diazs(1986) funds-of-knowledge work by arguing that

more systematic studies are needed to help examinethe different possibilities.

The use of the word systematic, however, sug-gests that quantitative research tools are needed totease out one factor from another. Bysystematicthe

authors imply that each factor (e.g., use of the nativelanguage, more interesting activities, self-selection oftopics) should be separated from each of the othersfor the purpose of analysis and, if they are not, thediscussion is muddled or convoluted. In contrast, asociocultural approach to literacy research takes aholistic approach to all of the above factors (Vasquez,2003). Indeed one would not want to choose be-tween (a) use of the native language, (b) more inter-esting activities, and (c) self-selection of topics, but

would want to include (d) all of the above.Sociocultural approaches to literacy see the whole asbeing greater than the sum of the parts. Culturallyresponsive pedagogical practices that honor thehome language and culture encourage students todraw from multiple resources for literacy develop-ment and academic achievement (Delgado-Gaitn,1996).

Shifting the paradigm:MultidimensionalDefining literacy for the 21st century

We begin this section by identifying what wesee as the two contrasting paradigms on literacy, aca-demic achievement, and language-minority learners.To aid in the identification process, we elaborate onsociocultural theories of learning discussed in lastsection of this review. We hope this articulation willenable readers of this review to see that our under-standing of literacy extends beyond the singular actsof reading and writing which are the foci inDeveloping Literacy. The authors ofDevelopingLiteracydefine literacy acts as including pre-readingskills, such as concept of print and alphabetic knowl-

edge; word-level skills, including decoding, wordreading, pseudo-word reading, and spelling; andtext-level skills including fluency, reading compre-hension, and writing skills (p. 1). Throughout thehistory of schooling in the United States, efforts toincorporate the cultural politics of difference intoconceptions of literacy have been viewed as chaoticand a threat to the social order (West, 1990, 1999).Our efforts to address what this means in the 21stcentury with respect to culturally and linguisticallydiverse learners require us to consider that there is



8/12


emerging a significant shift in the sensibilities andoutlooks of the forms, functions, measurements, andproduction of literacy (Walsh, 1996).

As West (1999) did, we posit that such effortsare not new, but that the current cultural politics of

difference reflect the precise circumstances of thepresent moment in time, and this moment incorpo-rates marginalized First World agents who shun de-graded self-representations, articulating instead theirsenses of the flow of history in light of the contem-porary terrors, anxieties and fears (p. 119). With re-spect to language-minority students, this will meanthat literacy researchers must make genuine efforts tocapture the lived reality of history, culture, and pow-er that permeate the individual, family, and commu-nity (i.e., the literate lives of these learners) (Toohey,2000).

To be privileged and American is to raiseperennially the question, How will the schooling ofthose who are different in race, linguistic variety, na-tionality, social class, religion, and cultural back-ground benefit the public interest? So we ask, who isbeing served by literacy research? Who are thoseasking the questions? What are the questions? Wecontend that the paradigm from which one views lit-eracy determines its uses, and whom it serves. Yes,literacy is more than acquiring a set of skills makingpossible the acts of reading and writing(Edmondson, 2001). It is more than a series of cog-nitive acts, it is more than the standard scores

gleaned from state-initiated performance tests, and itis more than the ability to secure a job or gainful em-ployment. There is a political dimension to literacy,

which can be illustrated by the example under slav-ery in which the slave master was able to preventslaves from running away if they remained illiterateand isolated from the world. In Self-Taught: African

American Education in Slavery and Freedom,Williams (2005) stressed that many enslavedAfricans desire to read and write was stoked by a cu-riosity growing out of the knowledge that whites didnot want blacks to become literate. Clearly, those

held in bondage understood thepowerrelations be-tween master and slave, and they were keenly awareof the variety of acts whites perceived as threateningto their power. Therefore, they fused their desire forliteracy with their desire for freedom (p. 7).

In the United States, a technocratic meritocra-cy paradigm has regulated the formal schooling oflanguage-minority learners (Grant & Wong, 2003).

Within the last century more so than at other times,literacy and politics have worked in tandem to createbarriers for many people of color, the poor, and fe-

males (Willis & Harris, 2000). Meacham(2000/2001) expressed that

Policymakers believed that it was necessary to promote lit-eracy in keeping with a single cultural and linguistic identi-ty at the expense of cultural and linguistic diversity.... In

other words, structural singularityhas been the structuralhallmark of dominant social visions and literacy practices. (p.182, italics added)

We would stress that within the United States anational consciousness of literacy is one consisting ofhistorical antecedents that reflect the racialized man-ner in which language, culture, and literacy havebeen defined, promoted, and measured. Throughoutthe history of schooling, reading education has beenpromoted as essential for making the United Statesan industrial and economic power. Literacy is oftenthere to produce economic skills and a shared systemof beliefs and values, and to help create a nationalculture. Today, having a literate citizenry is deemednecessary for sustaining the United States as a mili-tary power and safeguarding its national security.The process for defining what counts as literacy andhow to measure it has always been linked to particu-lar regimes of power and dominance (Luke, 1996).

Autonomous versus ideological modelsof literacy

We are reminded of Streets (1984) challengeto autonomous models of literacy. As Larson (1997)

wrote, this dominant literacy pedagogy relies almostexclusively on traditional definitions of literacy as areified set of basic skills devoid of social context orpolitical implications (p. 439). English-language lit-eracy researchers and educators should consider thecosts posed by the hegemony of English and its rela-tionship to colonialism and exploitation, particularlyin relationship to the problem of linguistic genocideand language loss (Lin & Luke, 2006; Pennycook,1998; Ramanathan, 2002). An example can befound in the history of the Indian boarding schools,

in which children were beaten for speaking NativeAmerican languages (Spack, 2002; Szasz, 1999). It isclear that African American, Latino, and childrenliving in poverty are victimized by an aggressive stan-dardized testing agenda and back-to-basics instruc-tion that treats literacy as if it is apolitical, acultural,and universal. Universalism as a principal constructfor literacy serves merely to reinforce and reproducesocial and political systems of power and domination(Edelsky, 2006). Street (1995) contended that whenliteracy is conceived as autonomous and universalistic,


9/12

the outcome for the poor, people of color, and thosewho are learners of English is that they remain sub-jugated learners, incapable of offering critical analysisof their own social and political context.

The second paradigm situates all acts of litera-

cy including reading and writing within multiple lin-guistic varieties and multiliteracies frameworksacknowledging the importance of social, cultural,historical, and power dynamics in defining, instruct-ing, and measuring the literate lives of children,youth, and adults (New London Group, 1996). Inbuilding the case for this paradigm, we turn to Gees(2006 ) definition of literacy. To explain what litera-cy is, Gee took us back to what he sees as the pre-cursor for any attempt at understanding literacy. Hebegan by exploring discourses or identity kits inorder to elucidate that literacy is part- and-parcelto a Discourse. Gee defined Discourse as, a social-

ly accepted association among ways of using lan-guage, of thinking, and of acting that can be used toidentify oneself as a member of a socially meaningfulgroup or social network (p. 257). He noted thatDiscourses are inherentlyideologicalin that they in-volve specific stances and dissect values and view-points expressed by those holding membership. Geesfinal point, one we believe necessary for coming toterms with historical failures of teaching and school-ing for so many racial-, cultural-, and language-mi-nority students across school and society, was thatdiscourses are intimately related to the distribution

of social power and hierarchical structure in society(p. 258).The multidimensional critical multiculturalism

that we advocate in education offers a critique ofdeficit perspectives of the language, culture, race, so-cial standing, and situated identities of children,families, and their communities (Kubota, 2004). Forexample, we look at the U.S. education system andthe savage inequalities of poverty as the result of anunequal education system that places ELLs and non-standard-English speakers at the bottom in academicstanding and in life (Kozol, 1991).

Literacy: Extending the frameworksIn working with Chinese students from the

Peoples Republic of China, Wong (2006) expandedthe dialogic tool kit to include traditional Easternphilosophies, such as Confucian and Taoist episte-mologies. In addition, there are dialogic approachesto inquiry within many Native American, African,Latino, and Caribbean epistemological traditionsfrom around the world. It is important to build onESOL students diverse ways of knowing to not only

build a bridge from the known to the unknown forracial, ethnic, and linguistic minorities, but also toexpand the canon for all U.S. students. However,mainstream curriculum too often seeks to assimilateminority students into the curriculum rather than

draw from the diverse and multiple epistemologicaltraditions of students. For that reason, we find thatthe work of Moll, , and others in incorporating thefunds of knowledge from Mexican American com-munities into school curriculum is so valuable(Gonzlez et al., 2005). A cognitive view of literacykeeps minority childrens literacy experiences inschool separate from their experiences of the homeand community. In drawing from the funds ofknowledge in the students families, Moll, Gonzlez,and others extend the ZPD into the community.This approach supports Cumminss (1986) fourframeworks for empowerment: (1) an additive, not a

subtractive, approach to the home language and cul-ture; (2) an interactive, not a transmission model ofpedagogy; (3) incorporating, not excluding, the fam-ilies and communities; and (4) assessment that is ad-vocacy oriented, not gatekeeping.

Rather than see the lack of evidence of the so-ciocultural dimension of literacy research as beingdue to inadequate research methodology, we ques-tion the criteria for research employed by the au-thors ofDeveloping Literacy in Second-LanguageLearners. It is not possible to factor out the socialfrom literacy research. In fact, we do not wish to do

so. Nor would we desire to control for race or cul-ture. Indeed, we see that a research agenda thatwould begin with a multidimensional approachto lit-eracy research for language-minority students mustaccount for the complex intersections of race, ethnic-ity, class, and gender.

Closing thoughtsThe authors ofDeveloping Literacyundertook

what is indeed an ambitious task. We applaud theirrecognition of the importance and need to explore

research on English language learners. We acknowl-edge that the editors have stimulated the articulationof research on literacy for learners of English in thetradition of work preceding their present efforts(August & Hakuta, 1997). On the surface, we seeDeveloping Literacyas having succeeded in presentinga body of researchabout ELLs literacy and schoolingin the United States. However, despite the breadth ofthis work, in our view it is not wide enough.

Although members of the National Literacy Panelattempted to represent a wide range of research



10/12


methodologies, a broader perspective of literacy thatis inclusive of the social realities and possibilities forlanguage-minority learners is missing.

As reviewers, we began this book review by de-lineating our diversity in race, language, experience,

and our political and social stance as critical literacyresearchers because we believe that only through re-search based on multiple methodologies and per-spectives, are we afforded the opportunity forcomprehensive analysis of literacy development in asecond language (Osterling & Fox, 2004). We end,therefore, where we wished that members of theNational Literacy Panel had begun their review, withan understanding of the importance of the sociologi-cal perspective of literacy. More research is needed inthe following three areas:

1. Heteroglossia: Further research is needed thatproblematizes traditional dichotomies of race, gen-

der, and class and reflects the complexity and hybrid-ity of social identity, academic achievement, andlanguage-minority children and youth. Of particularinterest is research that investigates the ideologicaldimensions of second-language literacy and chal-lenges English-only hegemony, monolingualism, na-tive-English-speaker norms, and other dimensions ofprivilege and power.

2. Sociocultural approach: More research isneeded that blends traditional Vygotskian and activi-ty theory with new literacy studies, postcolonial,poststructural, critical race, feminist, and womanist

theories, namely those that stress the primacy of raceand class, and the stance and viewpoints of blackwomen, and many women of color. Research per-spectives that incorporate the stance and viewpointsof language-minority students and their families alsoneed diverse research methodologies to address theircomplex positionalities. Sociocultural research is in-clusive of diverse research designs from experimentaland quasi-experimental studies, case studies, narra-tives, ethnographies, historical studies, and criticaldiscourse analysis (Luke, 1995/1996; Rogers &Mosley, 2006).

3. Multidimensional approach: Whom does re-

search serve? How can research serve and involvepracticing multilingual communities as transforma-tive agents for social justice? An area that needs fur-ther research is how funds of knowledge can be usedto support democratic participation for all culturally,linguistically, and ability diverse students and theirfull inclusion in community and economic develop-ment. How do anti-immigrant legislation and socialmovements of English-only affect the schooling oflanguage-minority students? Of particular interest isresearch that combines an institutional analysis of

racism, social and cultural capital, and literacy per-formance to address the achievement gap for lan-guage-minority students.

RACHEL GRANT is an associate professor of education and directorof the Center for Language and Culture at George Mason University

(4400 University Dr. MS 4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA; [email protected]). Her research interests are critical pedagogicalapproaches to literacy and academic achievement for linguistically andracially diverse students, with a particular focus on urban settings.

SHELLEY WONG is an associate professor of multilingual andmulticultural education at George Mason University (4400 UniversityDr. MS 4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA; e-mail [email protected]). Herresearch interests are dialogic and sociocultural approaches to literacyand academic achievement for racial-, cultural-, and language-minority students. She is the author of Dialogic Approaches to TESOL:Where the Ginkgo Tree Growspublished by Erlbaum.

JORGE P. OSTERLING is an associate professor of multilingual and

multicultural education at George Mason University (4400 UniversityDrive, MS 4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA; e-mail [email protected]).Born and raised in Lima, Peru, he attended Catholic University of Peru,where he received a BA in applied social sciences. He then attendedthe University of California, Berkeley, where he was awarded an MAand PhD in sociocultural anthropology. His scholarly work focuses onmulticultural and bilingual education, curriculum reform, teachereducation, and the education of Latinos, immigrants, and otherculturally, linguistically, and ability diverse student populations.

R E F E R ENC E S

ALJAAFREH, A., & LANTOLF, J.P. (1994). Negative feedback asregulation and second-language learning in the zone of proximal devel-opment. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465483.

AUERBACH, E. (1995). The politics of ESL classroom: Issues ofpower in pedagogical choices. In J.W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and in-equality in language education (pp. 933). Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

AUGUST, D., & HAKUTA, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

AUGUST, D., & SHANAHAN, T. (2006). Executive summary ofDeveloping Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the NationalLiteracy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

BAKHTIN, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays(M.Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: Universityof Texas Press.

BALL, A., & FREEDMAN, S.W. (Eds.). (2004). Bakhtinian per-spectives on language, literacy, and learning. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

BRAINE, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English-languageteaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

BRUTT-GRIFFLER, J., & SAMIMY, K.K. (1999). Revisiting thecolonial in the post-colonial: Critical praxis for nonnative-English-speaking teachers in a TESOL program. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 413431.

COLLIER, V., & THOMAS, W. (1989). How quickly can immi-grants become proficient in school English?Journal of Educational Issues ofLanguage Minority Students, 5, 2638.

COLLIER, V., & THOMAS, W. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students(NCBE Resource Collection Series No. 9).Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

CUMMINS, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A frameworkfor intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 1836.

CURTIS, A., & ROMNEY, M. (Eds.). (2006). Color, race andEnglish-language teaching: Shades of meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

DARDER, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical


11/12

foundation for bicultural education. New York: Bergin & Garvey.DELGADO-GAITN, C. (1996). Protean literacy: Extending the

discourse on empowerment. Washington, DC: Falmer.DELPIT, L.D. (1995). Other peoples children: Cultural conflict in the

classroom. New York: New Press.DUNN, W., & LANTOLF, J.P. (1998). Vygotskys zone of proximal

development and Krashens i + 1: Incommensurable constructs; incom-mensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411442.

EDELSKY, C. (2006). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking thesocial in language and education(3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

EDMONDSON, J. (2001). Taking a broader look: Reading literacyeducation. The Reading Teacher, 54, 620629.

FORREST, S.N. (2006). Three foci of an effective high schoolGeneration 1.5 literacy program.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,50, 106112.

FREIRE, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder andHerder.

FREIRE, P., & MACEDO, D.P. (1987). Literacy: Reading the wordand the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

GEE, J.P. (2006). What is literacy? In H. Luria, D.M. Seymour, & T.Smoke (Eds.), Language and linguistics in context (pp. 257264).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

GONZLEZ, N., MOLL, L.C., & AMANTI, C. (2005). Funds ofknowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

GRANT, R.A., & WONG, S.D. (2003). Barriers to literacy for lan-guage minority learners: An argument for change in the literacy educa-tion profession.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 386394.

GRANT, R.A., & WONG, S.D. (in press). Critical race perspec-tives: Bourdieu and language education. In A. Luke & J. Albright (Eds.),Bourdieu and literacy education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

GUTIRREZ, K., RYMES, B., & LARSON, J. (1995). Script, coun-terscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v.Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 445471.

HALL, J.K., VITANOVA, G., & MARCHENKOVA, L. (2005).Dialogue with Bakhtin on second- and foreign-language learning: New per-spectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

HALLIDAY, M.A.K., & HASAN, R. (1985). Language, context, andtext: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, VIC,Australia: Deakin University Press.

HARKLAU, L., LOSEY, K.M., & SIEGAL, M. (1999). Generation1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

HEATH, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work incommunities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.HUZAR, H. (1973). The effects of an English-Spanish primary-grade

reading program on second- and third-grade students. Unpublished mas-ters thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

IGOA, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. New York:St. Martins.

JOHN-STEINER, V., PANOFSKY, C.P., & SMITH, L.W. (1994).Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy: An interactionist perspec-tive. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

KACHRU, B.B., KACHRU, Y., & NELSON, C.L. (2006).Handbook of world Englishes. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

KINGINGER, C. (2001). i + 1 + zpd. Foreign Language Annals, 34,417425.

KOZOL, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in Americas schools.New York: Crown.

KUBOTA, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second-languageeducation. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies andlanguage learning(pp. 3052). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UniversityPress.

LAMBERT, W.E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learningand education. In A. Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of immigrant students:Issues and answers(pp. 5583). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation.

LARSON, J. (1997). Challenging autonomous models of literacy:Streets call to action. Linguistics and Education, 8, 439445.

LAVE, J., & WENGER, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate pe-ripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

LEE, C.D., & SMAGORINSKY, P. (2000). Vygotskian perspectives onliteracy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

LIN, A., & LUKE, A. (2006). Coloniality, postcoloniality, andTESOL: Can a spider weave its way out of the web that it is being woven

into just as it weaves? Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An InternationalJournal, 3(2 & 3), 6573.

LUKE, A. (1995/1996). Text and discourse in education: An intro-duction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21,348.

LUKE, A. (1996). Genres of power: Literacy education and the pro-duction of capital. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society(pp. 308338). London: Longman.

MALDONADO, J. A. (1994). Bilingual special education: Specificlearning disabilities in language and reading.Journal of Educational Issuesof Language Minority Students, 14, 127147.

MAY, S. (2001). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism,and the politics of language. New York: Longman.

MEACHAM, S. (2000/2001). Literacy at the crossroads: Movement,connection, and communication within the research literature on literacyand cultural diversity. Review of Research in Education, 25, 181208.

MOLL, L.C., & DIAZ, S. (1986). Ethnographic pedagogy:Promoting effective bilingual instruction. In E. Garca & R. Padilla (Eds.),

Advances in bilingual education research(pp. 127149). Tucson: Universityof Arizona.

MOLL, L.C., & GREENBERG, J. (1990). Creating zones of possi-bilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.),Vygotsky and education(pp. 319348). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

MOTHA, S. (2006). Racializing ESOL teacher identities in U.S.

K12 public schools. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 495518.NASIR, N.H., & HAND, V.M. (2006). Exploring socio-culturalperspectives on race, culture and learning. Review of Educational Research,76, 449475.

NERO, S.J. (2006). Dialects, Englishes, Creoles, and education.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

NEW LONDON GROUP. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies:Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 6092.

NORTON, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, eth-nicity and educational change. New York: Longman.

OSTERLING, J.P., & BUCHANAN, K. (2003). Tapping a valu-able source for prospective ESOL teachers: Northern Virginias bilingualparaeducator career ladder school-university partnership. BilingualResearch Journal, 27, 503521.

OSTERLING, J.P., & FOX, R.K. (2004). The power of perspectives:Building a cross-cultural community of learners. International Journal ofBilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 489505.

OSTERLING, J.P., & GARZA, A. (2004). Strengthening Latino

parental involvement: Forming community-based organizations/schoolpartnerships. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2, 270284.PAVLENKO, A., & BLACKLEDGE, A. (Eds.). (2004). Negotiation

of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters.

PENNYCOOK, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism.London: Routledge.

PHILLIPSON, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.

PLANTE, A. (1976).A study of effectiveness of the Connecticut pair-ing model of bilingual/ bicultural education. Hamden: Connecticut StaffDevelopment Cooperative.

RAMANATHAN, V. (2002). The politics of TESOL education:Writing, knowledge, critical pedagogy. New York: Routledge & Falmer.

RICENTO, T. (Ed.). (2000). Ideology, politics, and language policies:Focus on English. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

ROGERS, R., & MOSLEY, M. (2006). Racial literacy in a second-grade classroom: Critical race theory, whiteness studies, and literacy re-search. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 462495.

RUMBAUT, R.G., & IMA, K. (1988). The adaptation of SoutheastAsian refugee youth: A comparative study. Final report to the Office ofResettlement. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University. [ERICDocument Service Reproduction Service No. ED 299372]

SHOHAMY, E.G. (2000). The power of tests: A critical perspective onthe uses of language tests. New York: Longman.

SKUTNABB-KANGAS, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education orworldwide diversity and human rights?Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

SPACK, R. (2002).Americas second tongue: American Indian educa-tion and the ownership of English, 18601900. Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press.

STREET, B.V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

STREET, B.V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy



12/12


in development, ethnography, and education. London and New York:Longman.

SZASZ, M. (1999). Education and the American Indian: The road toself-determination since 1928(3rd ed.). Albuquerque: University of NewMexico Press.

TOOHEY, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social rela-tions, and classroom practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

VALDS, G. (2004). The teaching of academic language to minori-ty second-language learners. In A.F. Ball & S.W. Freedman (Eds.),Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning(pp. 6698).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

VALDEZ-PIERCE, L. (2003).Assessing English-language learners.Washington, DC: National Education Association.

VAN LIER, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning:A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

VASQUEZ, O.A. (2003). La clase magica: Imagining optimal possi-bilities in a bilingual community of learners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(Original work published 1934)

WALSH, C. (1996). Education reform and social change: Multiculturalvoices, struggles, and victims. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

WATSON-GEGEO, K. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology:Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. Modern Language

Journal, 88, 331350. WELLS, G. (1981). Learning through interaction. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.WEST, C. (1990). The new cultural politics of difference. In R.

Ferguson, M. Gever, T.T. Minh-ha, & C. West (Eds.), Out there:Marginalization and contemporary cultures(pp. 1936). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

WEST, C. (1999). The Cornell West reader. New York: Basic Books.WILLIAMS, H.A. (2005). Self-taught: African American education in

slavery and freedom. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.WILLIS, A.I., & HARRIS, V. (2000). Political acts: Literacy learn-

ing and teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 7288.WONG, S. (2000). Transforming the politics of schooling in the

U.S .: A model for successful academic achievement for language-minoritystudents. In J.K. Hall & W. Eggington (Eds.),The sociopolitics of English-language teaching(pp. 117134). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

WONG, S. (2006). Dialogic approaches to TESOL: Where the ginkgotree grows. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

WONG-FILLMORE, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Shouldeducators be concerned? Theory Into Practice, 39, 203210.

YI, Y. (2005). Asian adolescents out-of-school encounters withEnglish and Korean literacy.Journal of Asian Pacific Communication,15(1), 5777.

ZUENGLER, J., & MILLER, E.R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocul-tural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 3558.

Grant, Wong, & Osterling (2007)

Documents

Transcript of Grant, Wong, & Osterling (2007)