for school:
acquisition
Second-language
Academic,cognitive,sociocultural,
andlinguisticprocesses
Virginia P. Collie. ( 1995) .
GeorgeMason Universiry
In J.E. Alatis, C.A. Straehle,
B. Gallenberger& M. Ronkin (Eds.)]
Georgetown
Universi ty RoundTable
on Lanquaqesand Linquistics 1995
(pp. 311-327). Washington,DC:
Georgetown
Universi ty Press.
Ever since I began studying linguisticsin the early 1970s, I have been
intrigued with the unnecessary artificial distance often created between
in educationand linguistics,feelingthat both fields of inquiry have
researchers
much to say to each other. As I have watchedthe field of second-language
acquisitiondeepenits knowledge baseover the past twenty-five years, I have
*oik.d on synthesizingthis important researchinto information useful for
educators. When training public-school superintendents,administrators,
counselorsand teachers,as well as university faculty, I am continually arnazr'd
acquisition.At the
at the misinformationthat persistsabout second-language
sarnetime, I find that too many linguistsmaintaina dangerouslynarrow focus
on their chosen specializationin linguistics, without keeping up with the
deepeningand informative knowledge base in education and social science
acquisition.
researchon second-language
For thesereasons,I have chosenin this paperto presenta new theoretical
perspectiveon second-languageacquisition that addressesboth audiences
-educators and linguists-who are the focus of this GeorgetownUniversity
acquisitionf<ir
RoundTable.My proposedconceptualmodelon second-language
in linguistics,education,and
schoolis basedon the work of many researchers
WayneThomas.
the socialsciences,as well as my own work with co-researcher
For the past ten years we have been exploring the length of time neededfor
studentsattendingschoolwhere instructionis conductedthroughtheir second
languageto reachdeep enoughlevelsof proficiencyin the secondlanguageto
competeon an equal footing with native speakersof that language.[n this
research,we have also worked on identifyingthe variablesthat seem to
acquisitionfor school
influencemost stronglythe processof second-language
is still
modelwhich hasemergedfrom our research,
contexts.The conceptual
in the initialstagesof developmcnt
and will continueto be refinedin response
dialoguc
to additionalresearch
finclings.I hopcthis papercan at leaststimulate
as we continueto
andpractitioners,
amonglinguistics
rcscarchers
ancleclucation
gc q u i s i t i o n .
s e a r c hf o r u n d c r s t a n d i na gn da s s i stth c p r o c e sosl ' s c c o n d - l a l g u a a
312 tGeoncErown
UNn,uRsrrv
R<lunu
TABLE
ox LexcuecEs
ANDLncusrlcs l99S
I am purposelychoosingto delimit the context of second-language
acquisitionfor this conceptualmodel to a formal-schooling
context.In other
words,I am askingthequestion,
" How doessecond-language
acquisition
happen
within a school context? What processesoccur and what factors make a
difference?"By focusingon formalschoolingas the contextof second-language
use, I am not referring to learninga foreign languagein the formal classroom
ascontrasted
with naturalsecond-language
acquisition
outsideof school.Rather,
this model focuseson how studentsacquirea secondlanguagewhen it is used
in schoolfor instructionalpurposesacrossthe curriculum. Whrle the examples
in this paper focus on the language-minority
student(who comesfrom a home
where a languageother than the dominantlanguageof the societyis spoken)
beingschooledin a secondlanguagefor at leastpart or perhapsall of the school
day, the conceptualmodcl may alsobe appliedto the language-majority
student
who speaks the dominant languageand is being schooled in a bilingual
classroom.
Second-language
acquisitionfor school:A conceptualmodel. First,I will
introducethe componentsof the model; then, throughdiscussionof the strong
researchbase that informs the model, I will illustrate its usefulness,with
examplesthat speak to educationpractitioners.The model has four major
components:academic,cognitive,sociocultural,and linguisticprocesses.To
understandthe interrelationships
among these four componentsof secondlanguageacquisition fer school, I have createda figure to symbolize the
developmental
second-language-acquisitionprocess
(Figure I below).While this
figure looks simple on paper, it is importantto imagine that this is a
multifaceted prism with many dimensions. The four major
components-sociocultural,
linguistic,academic,and cognitiveprocesses-are
interdependent
and complex.
Socioculturalprocesses.At the heartof the figure is the individualstudent
going throughthe processof acquiringa secondlanguagein school.Centralto
that student'sacquisitionof languageare all of the surroundingsocial and
culturalprocesses
occurringin everydaylife with family and communityand
expandingto school,the region,and the society-in the student'spast,present,
and future. Examplesof socioculturalprocesses
at work in second-language
acquisitionincludeindividualstudentvariablessuchas self-esteem
or anxiety
and otheraffectivefactors;classroom
variables
suchas a competitive
versusa
collaborativcinstructionalcnvironment;school variablessuch as majoritym i n o r i t y r c l a t i o n s o r a d n r i n i s t r a t i vset r u c t u r e st h a t c r e a t e s o c i a l a n d
p s y c h o l o g i cd
a il s t a n c b
e c t w c c ng r o u p s ;c o m m u n i t yo r r e g i o n avl a r i a b l es u c h
as pre.iudicc
and discrintittalion
cxpressed
throughpersonaland professional
p. CoLLtl:RI
vrRGrN,rA
313
F i g u r e l . S e c o n d - l a n g u aagceq u i s i t i o n
f o r s c h o o l (. o V i r g i n i a
P.Collier)
I^anguagc
Dcvelopmbnt
+
I
Y
Socialand
Culfirral
hoccsscs
/\
/\
Cognitirrc
Dcrrclopmcnt
€
Acadco.ic
Devgloprco,
contexts;and societalvariablessuch
as the subordinatestatusof a minority
group or patternsof acculturation
versusforcesof assimilation.
La'nguage
developmenl
- For second-language
acquisition
in schoolcontexts,
linguistic processes,a second component
of the model, consist of the
subconscious
aspectsof languagedevelopment(an innate
ability all humdns
possessfor the acquisitionof
oral language),as well as the metalinguistic,
conscious'formalteachingof language
in school, end acquisition
of the written
systemof language.
This includestheacquisitionof
the
oral
andwrittensystems
of the student's second ranguage
across a, languagedomains, such as
phonology, vocaburary,
mlrphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics,
paralinguistics,
and discourse.
Furthermor.,io assurecognitiveand academic
successin the secondranguage,
a student,sfirst ranguagesystem, orarand
written'must bc developcJto
a high cognitivelevel
d o m a i na
s t l e a s t h r o u g ht l t cc l c r n c n t a r y - s c h o o l acrossall theselanguage
y e a r sT
. h u s ,l i n g u i s t ipcr o c e s s e s
e n c o m p a st hs ed c v c l o p . r c t t t
o l ' b o t hf i r s t' n < js e t o n cl la n g u a g et os a h i g hd c g r e e
o f a c a d e n rp
i cr o l ' i c i c n c y .
314 tGpoRcprowN Uxrvpnstrv RounroTABLEox LexcuncEs ANDLrNcLrrsrrcs1995
Acadentic development.A third componentof the model, academic
development,includesall schoolworkin languagearts, mathematics,
the
sciences,and socialstudiesfor eachgradelevel, kindergartenrhroughtwelfth
gradeand beyond.With eachsucceeding
grade,academic
work getscognitively
more complex, expandingvocabularyand the sociolinguisticand discourse
dimensionsof languageto increasingly
higherlevelsof developmenr.
Academic
knowledgeand conceptualdevelopmenttransferfrom first languageto second
language;thus it is most efficient to developacademicwork through students'
first language,while teachingthe secondlanguageduring other periodsof the
schoolday throughmeaningfulacademiccontent.In earlierdecades
in the U.S.,
we emphasizedteachingthe secondlanguageas the first step, and postponedthe
teachingof academics.Researchhas shown us that postponingoi ini.rrupting
academic development in first and second languagesis likely to promote
academicfailure. In an information-drivensocietythat demandsmore knowledge
processingwith eachsucceedingyear, studentscannotafford the lost time.
Cognitive development.The fourth componentof this model, cognitive
development,is also deeplyinterconnected
to the other three components.The
cognitivedimensionhad beenmostlyneglectedby second-language
educatorsin
the U.S' until the pastdecade.In languageteaching,we simplifiid, srrucrured,
and sequencedlanguagecurricula during the 1970s, and when we added
academiccontentinto our languagelessonsin the 1980s,we wateredacademics
down into cognitivelysimpletasks.We also too often neglectedthe crucial
role
of cognitivedevelopmentin the first language.Now we know from our growing
researchbasethat we must addressall of thesecomponentsequally if we
are to
succeedin developingdeepacademicproficiencyin the secondlanguage.
Interdependenceof the four components.All of these four
compo_
nents-sociocultural,
academic,
cognitive,and linguistic-areinterdependent
If
one is developedto the neglectof another,it may be detrimentalto
a studencs
overall growth and future success.The academic,cognitive, and linguistic
components
mustbe viewedasdevelopmental,
and for the child, adolescent,
and
young adultstill going throughthe processof formalschooling,
developmenr
of
any one of these three componentsdependscritically on
simultaneous
developmentof the other two, through both first and second
languages.
Sociocultural
processes
stronglyinfluence,in bothpositiveand negatlveways,
the students'access
to cognitive,academic,
and languagedeveropment.
It is
crucialthat educators
providea socioculturally
supportive
schoolenvironmenr
that allowsnaturallanguage,
acadenric,
and cognitivedevelopment
to flourish.
Researchcvidcnccto supportthc nrodcl.Givcntheshortformarof'GURT
p r e s c n t a t i o nIs ,h a v c l i r n i t c dn r y c l i s c u s s i oonl ' r h e r c s c a r c 6c v i c l c n c e
5crcto
p. Colr_un/ 315
\/rncrirr,q,
synthesesof some importantt'actorsthat have emergcd
in the Thomasand
collier research
(1995).For thosewho wanra moredetailed
discussion
of the
extensive
research
basefor rhisconceptual
model,seecollier (1995).
First-and second-language
acquisition;A tifetong process.
To understand
what occursin first- and second-language
acquisitionfor school,it is important
to recognizethe complex,Iifelongprocessthatwe go through
in acquiringour
first languageand the parallelsin second-language
acquisition.Development
of
a complexoral-language
systemfrom birth io ug. five is universal,given no
physicaldisabilities
andno isolationfrom humans.But rhemostgiftedfive-yearold enteringkin_dergarten
is not yet halfway throughtheprocessJf first-langurg.
development.Children from ages six to twelve continue
to acquire subtle
phonological distinctions, vocabulary, semantics,
syntax, formal discourse
patterns,and complex aspectsof pragmaticsin
the oral systemof their first
language
(BerkoGleasonI 993; de villiers andde villiers gTg;
l
Goodluckl ggl ;
McLaughlin 1984, 1985).In addition,childrenbeingformally
schooledduring
theseyears add readingand writing skills to thoseof listening
and speaking,
acrossall t'hedomainsof language,with eachageand grade
tevetincreasingthe
cognitivelevel of languageuse within each academicsubject.
An adolescent
enteringcollegemust acquirean enormousvocabulary
in every disciplineof
studyand continueto acquirecomplexwriting skills.These
pro..rr., continue
through adulthoodas we add new contextsof language
use to our life
experience'As adultswe acquirenew subtletiesin pragmatics,
as well as the
constantlychangingpatternsin languageuse that afiect
our everydayoral and
written communicationwith others. Thus first-language
u.quirition is an
unending,lifelongprocess
(BerkoGleason1993;collier 1992a;Harley,Allen,
Cumminsand Swain,1990;Mclaughlin l9g5).
Second-language
acquisition
is an equallycomplexphenomenon,
paralleling
first-language
acquisitionin manyways. As in acquiringour first language,
we
move through developmental
stages,relying on sourcesof input to provide
modifiedspeechthatwe can at leastpartiallycomprehend
(Ellis l9g5; Hakuta
1986)'However,second-language
acquisitionis more subjectto influenceby
other factorsthan is oral development
in our first language.
when the contexr
of second-language
useis school,wherea deeplevelof proficiencyis required,
it is necessary
to exanlinetltc rolc of a student'sfirst language
in relationto the
secondlanguage,the typc of input and interaction
necdedfor the second
l a n g u a gteo f l o u r i s h a
, n <rJh cs o c i , c u l r u r ac lo n r e xot r s c h o o r i n g .
A c a d e m isce c o n d - l o n ? t t e g ( , p r o J | c iH
e tot vc v.l )o,t;t g ?C u r n n r i n(sl g l g , l 9 g l ,
l 9 B 6 b ,1 9 8 9 a ,l 9 9 l ) P o l l r r l ; r r i zl.bcrccl d u c a t o rrsh c
c o n c c ptth a td i l ' l ' e r e n
l et v c l s
o f l a l l g u a gper o f ' i c i e r r lctyr cn c c r l c r cl ,l c p c n c l i n g
o n r h ec < l n t e xorf ' l a n g u a gues c ,
b a s i n gh i s t h c o r i c os n t h cr v o r ko l ' r n a n vo t l r c rr c s c a r c h c r s
b c l o r eh i n r .G i v e nt h c
c t l t t t p l c xc l c l ' i n i t i t l no l l l t t t t r t l t t l cr c r l L r i r e c l
i n i r n r r c ; r c l c p l cr co p r c x t , I ) r o v i c j c di n t h e
316 tGtoRcrrorvn* UnrrryHslrvRorno Tl.tllu oN Lar,{cuaGES
ANDLrNcusrtcs 1995
previoussection,my co-researcher,
WayneThomas,and I havebeenexploring
the "how long" questionfor the past ten years,followingCummins'sinitial
examination(1981) of long-termacademicachievement
by immigrantsro
Canada.In the ThomasandCollierseriesof studies(Collier ].9Al, l9gg, l9g9c,
1992a,1992b;Collier and Thomas1988, 1989;Thomasand Collier 1995),we
havecarefullycontrolledfor a wide varietyof student-background
variablesand
instructionaltreatmentsto examinestudentperformanceon many differenttypes
of outcome measuresacrosstime. The measureswe use are the academicachievement
measures
employedby schoolsystemsto monitorstudents'progress
in school, includingstandardized
testsand performance-assessment
measuresin
languagearts, reading,mathematics,
science,and socialstudies.In contrastto
a typical language-proficiency
test, theseare not staticmeasures.Instead,they
changewith each succeedinggrade level, becausethe academicand cognitive
work expectedwith eachadditionalyearof schoolingbecomesincreasinglymore
complex. Therefore,the resultson thesetestsare very different from thoseon
a language-proficiencyinstrumentthat uses the same form each time it is
administered.We chosethesetestsbecausethey are the ultimate measuresof
academicproficiencyin a secondlanguage.When studentsbeing schooledin a
secondlanguagereachproficiencylevelsin the secondlanguageO.rp enoughto
compete at the typical level of native-speaker
performance(expressedon a
standardizedtest as fiftieth percentileor normal curve equivalent
[NCE]), it is
a major achievement,becausenative speakersdo not sit around waiting for
nonnative speakersto catch up with them. During the school years, native
speakers' first-languagedevelopmentcontinues at a rapid rate. Thus for
nonnativespeakersthe goal of proficiencyequalto that of a native speakeris
a
moving rarger(Thomas 1992).
In our studieswe have found that in U.S. schoolswhereall instructionis
giventhroughthe secondlanguage
(English),nonnativespeakers
of Englishwith
no schoolingin their first languagetakesevento ten yearsor more to reach
ageandgrade-level
normsof theirnative-English-speakingpeers.
ImmigrantstuOe"nts
who have had two to three years of first-languageschooling in their
home
country before they come to the U.S. take at leastfive to r.u.n yearsto
reach
typicalnative-speakerperformance
(similartowhatCumminsl98l found).This
patternexists acrossmany groups, regardlessof the particular
home language
that studentsspeak,countryof origin, socioeconomic
status,and otherstudentbackgroundvariables.In our examination
of largedatasets
acrossmanydifferent
researchsites, we have found that the most significantstudent-background
variableis the amountof formalschoolingstudents
havereceivedin their first
language.
Acrossall progranrtreatments,
we havefoundthatnonnative
speakers
beingschooledin the secondtanguagc
for partor all of theschoolday typically
do reasonably
well in thc carlyyearsof schooling
(kindergarten
rhroughsccold
o r t h i r d g r a d e ) .B u t f r o n t t h e l o u r t h g r a d et h r o u g hm i d d l es c h o o la n d
high
s c h o o l ,w h e n t l r c r r c a d c n rai cn c lc o g n i t i v cd c r r r a n dosl . t h c c u r r i c u l u n r
incrcasc
\/rRGrM,q
P. Cor.lnn t3l7
r a p i d l yw i t h e a c hs u c c e e d i nyge a r , s t u d e n t sw i t h l i t t l c o r n o a c a d e m iac n d
lesswell as they
in their first language
do increasingly
cognitivedevelopment
move into the uppergrades.
What aboutstudents
schooledbilinguallyin the U.S.? It still takesa long
proficiencyin the secondlanguagecomparable
to
academic
time to demonstrate
a native speaker.But the differencein studentperformancein a bilingual
program,in contrastto an all-Englishprogram,is that studentstypicallyscore
at or abovegradelevel in their first languagein all subjectareas,while they are
of their secondlanguage.When studentsare
building academicdevelopment
testedin their secondlanguage,theytypicallyreachandsurpassnativespeakers'
performanceacrossall subject areas after four to seven years in a quality
bilingual program. Becausethey have not fallen behind in cognitive and
academicgrowth during the four to sevenyearsthat it takesto build academic
typicallysustain
proficiencyin a secondlanguage,bilinguallyschooledstudents
this level of academicachievementand outperformmonolinguallyschooled
studentsin the upper grades (Collier 1992b; Thomas and Collier 1995).
Remarkably,thesefindings apply to studentsof many different backgrounds,
studentsin a bilingualprogram.For example,in
includinglanguage-majority
studentswho receiveall their schoolingbilingually,
Canada,English-speaking
norms on academictestsgiven in their
typicallybegin to reachnative-speaker
secondlanguage(French)aroundfifth or sixth grade,and when testedin their
first language,they outperformmonolinguallyschooledstudents(California
Departmentof Education1984; Collier 1992a;Cumminsand Swain 1986;
Genesee1987;Harley,Allen, Cummins,and Swain 1990;Swainand Lapkin
1 9 81) .
Roteof firstlanguage.Many studieshavefoundthatcognitiveandacademic
has an extremelyimportantandpositiveeffect
development
in the first language
(BakerI 988;Bialystok199I ; Collier1989,1992c;
scliooling
on second-language
C u m m i n sl 9 9 l ; C u m m i n sa n d S w a i n ,1 9 8 6 ;D i a z a n d K l i n g l e rl 9 9 l ; D o l s o n
1985;Freemanand Freentan1992;Garcia1993, 1994;Genesee1987, 1994;
H a k u t a1 9 8 6 ;L e s s o w - H u r l c1y9 9 0 ;L i n d h o l ml 9 9 l ; M c L a u g h l i n1 9 9 2 ;S n o w
1990;Thomasand Collier,1995;Tinajcroand Ada 1993;Wong Fillmoreand
V a l a d c z 1 9 8 6 ) . A c a d e m i cs k i l l s , l i t e r a c yd e v e l o p m e n ct ,o n c e p tf o r m a t i o n ,
will
in the first language
developed
subjectknowledge,and lcarningstrategies
all transferto the secondlanguage.As studentsexpandtheir vocabularyand
t h e i r o r a l a n d w r i t t c nc o r n n r u n i c a t i so kni l l si n t h e s e c o n dl a n g u a g et ,h e yc a n
i n c r c a s i n g dl yc m o n s t r atthec i rk n o w l c d g c - b adsec v e l o p eidn t h e i rf i r s tl a n g u a g e .
M a n y l i t c r a c ys k i l l s d ev c l o p c c li n a n v l ' i r s t l a n g u a g cn o t o n l y a r e e a s i l y
t r a n s l ' c r r cbdu t a l s c l r c c r r r c i l rtlo : r c i r c l c n rsi cu c c c sisr t l t s e c o n dl a n g u a g(eA u
1 9 9 3 1B i a l y s l o kl 9 9 l ; C r u n r n i n sl 9 f J 9 a ,1 9 8 9 b ,l 9 9 l ; C u m r n i n sa n d S w a i n
l 9 f J 6 ; I r r c c r n a na r r c lI r r c c r r r a ln( ) 9 2 ; ( i c n c s c cl 9 l l 7 , 1 9 9 4 ; I l u d e l s o n1 9 9 4 ' ,
318 z GnoRcrTowN uNn€Rsttv RouxD TABLEox LnNcu,lcES
Ar.\,D
Lrxctnsrrcs l99s
J o h n s o na n d R o e n r 9 8 9 ; L e s s o w - H u r l ery9 9 0 ; L i n d h o l mr 9 9 r ;
snow 1990;
Tinajeroand Ada 1993;wong Fillmoreand valadez19g6).
Furthermore,somestudiesindicatethat if studentsdo not reach
a certain
threshold in their first language,including literacy, they
may experience
cognitivedifficultiesin their secondlanguage(Collier lgBT; Collier
and Thomas
1989;Cummins1976,1981,l99r; DulayandBurt r9g0; Duncan
andDe Avila
1979; skutnabb-Kangaslgg r; Thomas and collier r995).
The key ro
understandingthe role of first languagein the academicdevelopment
of second
languageis to understandthe functionof unintemrptedcognitive
development.
When studentsswitch to second-language
use at school,and teachersencourage
parents to speak in the secondlanguageat home, both
studentsand p-.n1,
functionat a level cognitivelyfar below their age. In contrast,when parents
and
children speakthe languagethat they know besi, they are working
at their actual
level of cognitivematurity.Cognitivedevelopment
can occur at homeevenwith
nonformally-schooled paren$ through asklng questions, solving
problems
together,building or fixing something,.cooking
together,and talking ibout life
experiences.Once parentsunderstandthe importanceof cognitive
divelopment
in the first language,they are usuallyoverjoyedto realizethat
the languagethat
they know best will further their children's growth (Arnberg
lggi; Ciplan,
choy, and whitmore 1992;coilier l9gl, l9g6; Delgado-Gair6n
1990;Dolson
1985; Genesee 1994; Moll , yllez-rblrfiez, Greenberg, and
Rivera 1990;
Saunders1988;Skutnabb-Kangas
and Cummins1988;Wong Fillmore l99la).
Role of input and interaction in language development.
In our current
research(Thomasand Collier 1995)we have also found that
classesin school
that are highly interactive,'emphasizing
studentproblem-solvingand discovery
learningthrough thematicexperiences
acrossthe curriculum, *. tit.ty to provide the kind of social setting for natural languageacquisition
to take place
simultaneously
with academicand cognitivedevelopment.
For schoolcontexts,
this appliesto both first- an^dsecond-language
acquisitionsince both are still
developingthroughoutthe schoolyears.Krashen'swork (l9gl
, rgg2,19g5)on
the optimal conditions for oral and written input to foster
natural language
acquisitio;r
providesinsighthere,alongwith Ellis'sresearch
( 19g5,1990)on the
supportivebut not centralrole that formal languageinstruction
plays in the
acquisitionprocess.Swain (1985) emphasiz.tih. importance
of developing
students'speakingand writing skills in first and secLnd
languagesthrough
interactive
classes.
Froma comprehensive
modeldeveloped
throughdialogswith
s w a i na n d m a n yo t h e rr i n g u i s t sw, o n g F i i l m o r e( l 9 9 r b :
52-53;*u-, us that
tltreeconditions
arc essential
to second-language
acquisition:
"(l ) Learnerswho
realizethat thcy neecJ
to learnthc targetlanguageand are motivatedto do so;
(2) speakersof the target languagervho know it
well cnoughto provide rhe
l e a r t i e rw
s i t h a c c c s tso t i t c l a n g u a gacn dt h c h c l p t h e yn c e d
f o r l e a r n i n gi t ; a n d
p. Collmn/ 319
Vrnc;rxra
(3) a social settitlSwhich brings learners
and targerlanguagespeakersinto
frequentenoughcontactto make language
learningpossible.
" collaborative
interaction
in whichmeaningis negotiated
with peersis cenrralto the languageacquisitionprocess,
bothfor oral-and written-languagedevelopment
(Allwright
and Bailey l99l; chaudron 1988;Ellis 1985,
1990;Enrighiand Mccloskey
1988; Freemanand Freeman 1992,Gassand
Madden r9g5; Goodmanand
wilde 1992:Hatchl9g3;JohnsonandRoenl9g9;
swain l9g5; wong Fillmore
1 9 8 9 ,l 9 9 l b ) .
socioculturalcontertof schooling.Research
from anthropology,sociology,
sociolinguistics,
psycholinguistics,
anl educationhas providedinsightsinto the
powerful influencethat socioculturalprocesses
have on languageacquisition.
*i::rtrf
secrion
canonlvprovideu gti'npr.of a fewor ttlr."u.t;;;i;;
Externalsocialfactorsthat studentsbring
to the classroomfrom their past
experiencesrepresentone categoryof socioiultural
influences.For example,
amongour new arrivalsto the u.S. are undocumented
as well as legalrefugees
escapingwil, political oppression,or
severe economic conditions. These
studentsbring to our classesspecialsocial,
emotional,and academicneeds,
oftenhavingexperienced
interruptedschoolingin their homecountries.
students
seekingrefugefrom war may exhibit ryrp,ori,
of posttraumatic
stressdisorder,
depression,
withdrawal,tryperactivity,
aggression,
and intenseanxiery
]:11tT
rn response
to situations
thatrecalltraumatic.u.nt, in their lives(coelho gg4).
I
studiesof these.refugees'
adaptationto life in the u.S. and successin
school
have emphasized
the importanceof a biculturalschoolingcontext,
integrating
first language,culture,and community
knowledgeinto the curriculum,as well
as the importanceof parents'maintenance
of tne home languageand cultural
traditions(caplan, choy, and whitmore
1992:Tharp and Galrimorelggg;
Trueba,Jacobs,and Kirton 1990)
Another powerful student-background
variable that has been citeQ
extensivelyin educationresearchis
socioeconomic
status,althoughchangesin
instructional
practicesand schoolcontextscan lessen
its influence.Research
on
effectiveschoolsfor language-minority
studentshas found that schoolsthar
providea strongbilingual/bicultural,
academically
rich contextfor instruction
can lessenor eliminatethc influence
of family incomelevelor parents,lackof
f o r m a ls c h o o l i n g( C o l l i c r1 9 9 2 b ;
C u r n r n i n sl 9 g 9 a ; K r a s h e na n d B i b e r l g g g ;
Lucas,Henze,and Donaror990; Ramfrcz
1992;Rorhmanl99l; Thomasz'rcJ
C o l l i e r1 9 9 5 ;V a l d c zp i e r c cl 9 9 l ) .
E x t e r n asl o c i c t al 'l a c t o ri st r ca n o t h crrn a j o r
i n l l u c n c oc n l a n g u a gacc q u i s i t i o .
f o r s c l t o o lT' h c s ci n c l u c lsco c i aal n dp s y c h o l o g i c a l
c r i s r r n cccr c a t e b
dc t w e c n
l'irsrand sccond-lallguag
c citkcrs,
sP
P c r c c J l r i o n<srl ' c a c h g r o u l ) i 1 i n t c r c t h p i c
c o m p a r i s o n cs u
' l l u r a sl t c r c o t y J ) i t ) g ,
r r c r g r o u pl r , s t r l i t y r, l i c s u b o r c J i n as t ca t u s
o f a r t r i r l o r i tS
y r o u J )<, l l 's t l c i c t r t l
J r : r t t c nor sl ' u c c u r r u n r r i o
v cnr s u sa s s i r n i l a t i o n
ANDLrxcutsrtcs 1995
320 tGnoRcnr.owNUlrvnnsrry Rotnrl Tnnle oN LAr.^GUAGES
forces at work (Brown 1994: Mclaughlin 1985; Schumann 1978)
differences,
Majority-minorityand interethnicrelations,as well as social-class
acquisitionand
are at the heart of thesefactors influencingsecond-language
suchas Ogbu(I974, 1978,1987,1992,1993),
in school.Researchers
success
Oakes(1985, 1992), and Minicucci and Olsen (1992) have found extensive
evidence of institutionalizedstructuresin U.S. schools-tracking, ability
students-that
language-minority
grouping, and specialprogramsthat segregate
transitionalbilingualclassesand
deny accessro the core curriculum.Segregated
English as a secondlanguage(ESL) classescan sometimesheightenthe social
inequitiesand subconsciouslymaintain the status quo in majority-minority
relations(Herniindez-Ch|vez1977, 1984; Spener1988). The negativesocial
perception of these classesthat both English-speakingand language-minority
studentshaveoften developedin U.S. schoolshas led to the socialisolationof
students,which deniesthem the critical conditions that Wong
second-language
acquisitionto take
Fillmore (199Ib) says must be presentfor second-language
place. To break the perception of specialclassesas remedial in nature, they
must be a permanent,desired, integral part of thQ curriculum, taught through
quality instruction that encouragesinteractive,problem-solving,experiential
learning through a multicultural,global perspective(Cummins 1986a, 1989a,
1989b; Frederickson1995;Walsh l99l). In our currentresearch(Thomasand
Collier 1995), we have found that the school program most conducive to
language-minority
students'academicsuccessin a secondlanguageis two-way
bitingual education.This program model integratesmajority- and minoritylanguagespeakersand stimulatesthe academicsuccessof both groups in two
languages.Thus schools can serve as agentsof change, or places where
teachers,students,and staff of many varied backgroundsjoin together and
transformtensionsbetweengroupsthat currentlyexist in the broadersociety.
Research-basedrecommendationsfor linguistic theory-building and for
acquisieducators. Now let us revisitmy conceptualmodelof second-language
tion for school.While the modelhasemergedfrom the multiplevariableswe are
analyzingin our current research(Thomasand Collier 1995), it has strong
(1985), in an
connectionsto the work of many linguists.Larsen-Freeman
acquisition,
foundlinguistic,social,and
overviewof theoriesin second-language
cognitivefactorsto be major categoricaldimensionsof the second-languageto
acquisitionprocess.Sometheoristsconsideronly one of thesedimensions
play the centralrole; othersmakereference
of the three
to at leastsomeaspects
d i m e n s i o n sF. o r e x a m p l eW
, o n g F i l l m o r e( 1 9 8 5 , 1 9 9 1 b )r e f e r st o l i n g u i s t i c ,
acquisition
social,and cognitiveprocesses
as equallyimportantin the language
process.In this paper,I haveexpanded
Wong Fillmore'sconceptions
of these
threedimensions
context.In Larsen-Freeman's
and appliedthcrnto a schooling
l a t e s st y n t h c s i(s1 9 9 3 )o I s e c o n d - l a r r g u a g c - a c q u ri seist ieoanr c hs,h c c h a l l e n g e s
p. Cor-r.un
VrHGrNtn
l32L
thoseof us in the ficld to broaclcrt
our perspective,
to takeboth learningand
learnerfactorsinto accoutll,as well as to answerquestions
aboutteaching.
This
modelis an attenlptto movethe fieldof second-language
conceptual
acquisition
towardsa broaderperspective.
Basedon this model, our currentresearchalso leadsto recomrnendations
for educators(Thomasand Collier 1995).When examininginteractions
among
student-background
variablesand instructional
treatments
and their influ.n.. on
studentoutcomes,we have found that two-way bilingual educationat the
elementary-school
level is the mostpromisingprogrammodelfor the long-term
academicsuccessof language-minority
students.As a group, studentsin this
programmaintaingrade-level
skills in their first languagear leastthroughsixth
gradeand reachthe fiftieth percen'tile
or NCE in their secondlanguagegenerally
after four to five years of schoolingin both languages.They also generally
sustainthe gainsthey have madewhen they reachsecondaryeducation,unlike
the studentsin programsthat provide little or no academicsupportin their first
language.Programcharacteristics
include:(l) integrated
schooling,with English
speakersand language-minoritystudentslearning academicallythrough Lach
others' languages;(2) perceptionsamong staff, students,and parentsthat it is
a "gifted and talented" program, leading to high expectationsfor student
performance;(3) equalstatusof the two languagesachieved,to a large extent,
creatingself-confidence
among language-minoritystudents;(4) healthyparent
involvementamongboth language-minority
and language-majority
parents,for
closer home-school cooperation; and (5) continuous support for staff
development,emphasizingwhole-languageapproaches,natural Ianguage
acquisitionthrough all content areas,cooperativelearning, interactiveand
discoverylearning,and cognitivecomplexityfor all proficiencylevels.
In our research, we have also found significant differencesbetween
"traditional" versus "current" approachesto languageteaching
for students
schooledin the U.S. for kindergarten
throughtwelfthgrade.In itre long rerm,
studentsdo lesswell in programsthat focuson discreteunitsof language
taught
in a structured,sequenced
curriculumin which the learneris treatedas a passive
recipientof knowledge.Studentsachievesignificantlybetter in programsrhar
teachlanguagethroughcognitivelycomplexconrenr,taughtthroughproblemsolvingand discoverylearningin highly interactive
classroomactivities.ESL
pulloutin theearlygrades,whentaughtusinga moretraditionalapproach,
is the
least successfulprogram nrodel for students'long-termacademicsuccess.
During GradesK-3, thercis littledifferenceamongprograms,but significant
differences
appearas studcnlscontinuein the mainstream
at secondary
level.
F o r s t u d e n te
s n t c r i r t gU . S . s c h o o l sa t t h c s e c o n d a r yl e v e l ,w h e n f i r s t l a n g u a g ei n s t r u c t i o n as lu p l x ) r tc a r l n o tb c p r o v i c l c dt,h e f o l l o w i n gp r o g r a m
charactcristics
catt Ittltkca signil'ic:rnt
<jil'fcrcltcc
i1 acaclcrlic
lor
achievement
c n t c r i n gE n g l i s hl a n g u a r cl c l r r n c r s(:l ) . f h c s c c o n cl la n g u a g cr a u g h t h r o u g h
a c a d c m icco l l t c n t(;2 ) ; r c o n s c i o ulso c u so n t c a c l i i n lgc l r r n i n g
s t r a t c g i ct o
s help
322 tGnoncerowN
uMvrRstrvRouuoTnslr oNL,c,cuacEs
AND
L[{cusrrcsl99s
developthinkingskillsandproblem-solving
abilities;
and(3) continuous
suppon
for staffdevelopment
whichemphasizes
activationof students'prior knowledge,
respect for students'home languageand culture,
cooperativelearning,
interactiveand discovery learning,lntense and
meaningfulcognitive and
academicdevelopment,
and ongoingassessment
usingmuttilte measures.
In summary, in this researchwe have begun
a complex process of
attemptingto identify the variablesthat most strongly
seem to influence the
processof second-language
acquisitionfor schoolcontexts.While it is clearthat
the processof acquiringa secondlanguageis extremely
complex and variable
from one acquirerto another,we havebeenableto
find patternsin largeschool
databases
that inform educatorsand linguists.when examining
the factorsthat
play an importantrole, we find that they form
an interwou.n-complexitythat
schools need to understand to provide an
appropriate context for secondlanguageacquisitionto occur.
We have found that for young children and
adolescenrs
in Grades K-12,
uninterruptedcognitive, academic,-o linguistic
developmentis essentialto
school success,and the neglect or overemphasis
of one of these three
componentsmay affectstudents'long-termgrowth.
our datashowthatextensive
cognitiveand academicdevelopmentin the students'
first languageis crucial to
second-language
academicsuccess.Furthermore,the sociocultural
context in
which studentsare schooledis equallyimportant
to students'long-tennsuccess
in second-language
schooling. Conirary to the popular idea that it
takes a
motivated student a short time to acquire
a second language,our studies
examiningimmigrantsand language-minority
studentsin many differentregions
of the U'S' and with many differentbackground
characteristics
have found that
four to twelve years of second-language
developmentare neededfor the most
advantaged students to reach deep academic
proficiency and compete
successfully
with nativespeakers.
Giventhis extensive
lengthof time, educators
must understandthe complexvariablesinfluencing
the second-language
process
and provide a socioculturalcontextthat is ,upponlue,
and yet academicallyan{
cognitivelychallenging.
RrrnRrNcps
Allwright' Dick arr<J
KarhlcenM' Bailey. l9()1. Fot'u-s
on the lattguagecrassroom;
An introtrucri'rt
trt classroorn
rrslurch for languageteut'lters.
canrllridge,U.K.: CambridgeUnivcrsirypress
Arntrerg, Lcrrorc. l9tt7. Rci.rin1lcttiidrett
bilirtliuults,;n,i pre_s.t.ltor.tl
yeurs. Clevcdon, U.K.:
M u l r i l i r r r u aMl a r r c r s .
Au' Katlrryntl l 993 l-itt'rttr'\'irtstrttctitttt
irt trtrtltit'ttlrttrrtr
setritt11.r.
Fort worrh, Texas; Harcrurr
B r a c cJ o v a r r o v i c r r .
,
VV^-LLLII'
I
JLJ
Baker, Colin' 1988. Ke\ issues in bilingualistnancl bitittguat etlucation.
clevedon, U.K.:
M u l r i l i n g u aM
l atrers.
Berko-Gleason,
Jean. 1993.The tlevelopmenr
of lattguage,Third eriition.New york: Macnrillan.
Bialystok, Ellen (ed.). 1991. Innguage processingin bilingual childrert.
Cambridge,U.K.:
CambridgeUniversirypress.
Brown, H' Douglas. 1994.Principlesof languagelearningand teachirtg,
Third edition.Englewood
C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c eH a l l R e g e n t s .
california Departmentof Education.1984. Studieson imrnersioneducation;
A collectionfor united
Stateseducators'Sacramento,California: California Department
of Educatron.
Caplan, Nathan, Marcella H. Choy, and Kathryn Faye Whitmore.
1992. "lndochineserefugee
families and academicachievemen(.'scienri,frc
Americon 266(2): 36_42.
Chaudron, Craig. 1988. second language classrooms; Research
ort reaching and learning.
Cambridge,U.K.: CambridgeUniversirypress.
Coelho,Elizabeth.1994."Socialintegrationof immigranrand refugee
children..In Fred Genesee
(et'), Educatingsecondlanguagechildren. Cambridge,
U.K.: CambridgeUniversirypress.
30t-327.
collier, virginia P. l98l' 'A sociologicalcasestudy of bilingual
educationand its effectson the
schoolsand the communiry.' outstanding dissertationsin bilingual
education;Recognizedby
the National Advisory Council on Bitinguat Education.
washington, D.c.: National
clearinghousefor Bilingual Education.(Doctoral dissertation
availablefrom University of
SouthernCalifornia, 30a pp.)
Collier, Virginia P. 1986. 'Cross-culrural policy issues in
minoriry and majoriry parenr
involvement." ^lssresof parent involvement and literacy, Washington,
D.C.: National
Clearinghouse
for BilingualEducatron.73_7g.
Collier, virginia P. 1987.'Age and rateof acquisitionof second
languagefor academicpurposes..
TESOL QuanerlyZt(4): 6tj-641.
collier, virginia P. 1988. The effect of age on acquisition
of a second languagefor school.
washington,DC: Nationalclearinghousefor BiringuarEducation.
Collier, Virginia P' 1989.'How long?A synthesis
of research
on academicachievement
in second
language." TESOL euarterty 23(3): 509_531.
collier, virginia P' 1992a.'The canadianbilingualimmersion
debare:A synthesisof research
findings." studiesin secondrttnguage Acquisition 14: g7-97.
Collier, Virginia P. 1992b.'A synthbsis
of srudres
examininglong-termlanguageminonrystudent
data on academicachievement."Bitingual ResearchJournal
16(l-Z): lg7-212.
Collier, virginia P' 1995. Promoting academic success
(Jnderstanding
ESL
stuclents;
for
second
languageacquisitionfor scltool. Trenton, N.J.: New JerseyTeachers
of Englishto Speakers
of Other Languages-Bilingual
Educators.
Collier, virginia P' and wayne P. Thomas. 1988. 'Acquisition
of cognitive-academic
second
languageproficiency:A six-year study." Paper presenteda(
tlle annual meeting of the
A m e r i c a nE d u c a t i o n aRl e s e a r c A
h s s o c i a t i o nN, e w O r l e a n sL, o u i s i a n aA, p r i l l 9 g g .
Collier, Virginia P' an<J
wayne P. Thomas.1989."How quicklycan in'rnigranrs
becomeproficient
tn school English?" Jounnl of EclucationalIssuesof ktnguage
Minority Studettts5:26-3g.
C u m n t i n s J, t r n ' 1 9 7 6 ." T h e i n f l u e t t c o
ef b i l i n g u a l i s m
o n c o g n i r r v ge r o w t h :A s y n t h e s iosf r e s e a r c h
findingsand explanatorylrypotheses.
" WorkingPapersort Bilingualisnt9: l-43.
C u n t n r i n sJ, i m ' l 9 7 9 . " C o g n i t i v c / a c a d e n lrai cn g u a g ep r u f i c r e n c y ,
l i n g u i s r r icn t e r d e p e n d e n cr h
c ,e
optinralagequestitltt,attdstttttcothernrartcrs."workittgPaper.s
on Bilinguatisml9: lgi-205.
C u n t n t i n s , i i n r1' 9 8l . " l ' l r c r i l l e o l
l l r i r r t a r y l a n g u a g c c l c v e l o p n r e n t i n p r o n r o t i n g e <sJuucccactsi o
snal
for languagctttilltlri{ysludct)ts" Sr'ltottling
artd lrttrgual4e
rrtitrrtritl,
s.turlertts.
Sacramcn(o,
C a l i l b r . i a :C a l i f i l r . r aI ) c l r u n r r r c r. rf r I : d u c a r in. . 3 _ 4 9
c u t t t t t t i n sJ, r l r r ' l 9 [ l ( r a " I : t t t l l o w c r i t ttgn r r r o r i t sy t u t j c r r r rA:
l r a r r r c w o rlk, r r r r t c r v c n t l o"' .H u n , u r d
EducatittrtRcviev,5(r: lfi -3(r
324 tGpoRcptowx UvnrensrrvRouro Tanlp ox L.c.NcuncES
ANDLncursrrcs l99s
er o f i c i e n c y
C u m m i n sJ,i m . 1 9 8 6 b'.L a n g u a g p
a n da c a d e m a
i cc h i e v e m e nItn. "J i mC u m m i n sa n d
(eds.),
Merrill Swain
Bilingualism
in education.
New York: Longman.138-161.
Cummins, Jim. 1989a. Empoweringminority studeils. Sacramento,California: California
Association
for BilingualEducation.
Cummins,
Jim. 1989b.'The sanitized
curriculum:
Educationaldisempowerrnent
in a nationat risk."
In Donna M. Johnsonand DuaneH. Roen(eds.), Richness
in wriling: EmpoweringESL
students.
New York: Longman.l9-38.
Cummins,Jim. 1991.'lnterdependence
of first- and second-language
proficiencyin bilingual
children."In Ellen Bialystok(ed.),Languageprocessing
in bilingualchildren.Cambridge,
U.K,: Cambridge
Universiry
Press.70-89.
Cummins,Jim and Merrill Swain.1986.Bilingualism
in educationNew York: Longman.
Delgado-Gairin,Concha. l9X). Literacyfor empowermcnt:The role of pareus in children's
education.New York: FalmerPress.
de Villiers, Jill G. and Peter A. de Villiers. (1978). I"anguageacquisition.Cambridge,
Massachusetts:
HarvardUniversityPress.
Diaz, RafaelM. and CynthiaKlingler. 1991.'Towardsan explanatory
modelof the interacrion
berweenbilingualismand cognitivedevelopment.'In Ellen Bialystok(ed.), l,anguoge
processingin bilingual children.Cambridge,U.K.: CambridgeUnivcrsiryPress.167-192.
Dolson,David P. 1985.'The effectsof Spanishhomelanguage
performance
uscon thescholastic
of Hispanicpupils." Journol of MultilingualMulticulturalDevelopment
6: 135-155.
Dulay, Heidi and Marina Burt. 1980. 'The relativeproficiencyof limited Englishproficient
students."In JamesE. Alatis (e.d.),GeorgetownUniversityRoundTableon Languagesand
Linguistics/980. Washington,
D.C.: Georgerown
UniversiryPress.l8l-200.
Duncan,SharonE. and Mward A. De Avila. 1979.'Bilingualismand cognition:Somerecenr
findings."NABEJournal4(l): l5-20.
Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding
secondlanguageacquisition Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Ellis, Rod. 1990.Instructedsecondlanguageacquisition.oxford: Blackweil.
Enright,D.SconandMary L. McCloskey.1988.IaegratingEnglish:DevelopingEnglishlanguage
and literacyin the rnultilingualclassroom.Reading,Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley.
Frederickson,Jean.(ed.). 1995.Reclaimingour voices:Bilinguateducationcriticalpedagogyand
praxis. Ontario,California:CaliforniaAssociation
for BilingualEducation.
Frccman,YvonneS. and DavidE. Frecman.1992.Wole languageforsecondlanguagelearners.
Portsmouth,
N.H.: Heinemann.
G a r c i aE
, u g e n e1. 9 9 3 . ' L a n g u a g ec ,u l r u r ea, n de d u c a t i o n . ' I nL i n d aD a r l i n g - H a m m o(nedd . ) ,
Reviewof researchin educationl9: 5l-98.
Garcfa, Eugene. 1994. Understanding
and meetingthe chaltengeof studentcultural diversiry.
Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
Gass,SusanandCarolynMadden(eds.).1985.lnputin secondlanguageacquisition.
Cambridge,
Massachusetts:
NewburyHouse.
Genesee,Fred. 1987. Learning through two languages:Studiesof immersionand bilinguat
education.
Cambridge,
Massachusetrs:
NewburyHouse.
(ed.).
Genesee,Fred
1994.Educatingsecondlonguagechitdren;The wholechitd, rhe whole
press.
curriculum,
the wholecomntuniry.
Cambridge,
u.K.: Cambridge
Universiry
Goodluck,Helen.1991.I-anguage
ocquisition.
Oxford:Blackwell.
Goodman,YettaM. and SandraWilde (eds.).1992.Literacyeventsin a contntuniry
of young
writers.New York: Teachers
CollegcPress.
Hakuu, Ken1i.1986.Mirror of languuge;
Thedebateon bilingualisrn.
New York: BasicBooks.
H a r l e yB
, i r g i t ,P a t r i c kA l l e r rJ, i n rC u n r n r i nas n
, dM e r r i l lS w a i n(. e d s . ) 1
. 9 9 OT. h et l e v e l o p n r eonJr'
secortd
lunguuge
proJit'iL'ttt'y
. Canrbritlgc,
U.K. : Canrbridgc
UnivcrsityPrcss.
I { a t c h , E v e l y nl 9. l l 3 . P . r . 1 ' c / t o l i t r g u i . s t i c s ; A s e c o n d l u t t g u u g e p e r s p c c t i v e . C a m b r i d g c , M a s s a c l r u s c
N c w b u r yI l o u s c .
VlHcm np. Coumn t3 2S
H e r n d n d e z - C h d v eEzd,u a r d o 1 9 1 7. " M e a n r n g i ubl i l i n g u a l - b i c u l r u r a l e d u c a tAi of n
a :i r y u l e ". N A B E
J o u r n a ll ( 3 ) : 4 9 - 5 a .
H e r n d n d e z - C h d v eE
z ,d u a r d o . 1 9 8 4 ". T l r e i n a d e q u a c yo f E n g l i s h i m m e r s r g ne d u c a t i o na s a n
educationalapproach for languageminoriry studenrsrn the United States.' Studieson
immersion educaliott: A collection for United Stateseducators. Sacramento.California:
C a l i f o r n i aD e p a r t m e norf E d u c a t i o n1. 4 4 - 1 8 3 .
H u d e l s o nS, a r a h 1
. 9 9 4 ." L i t e r a c yd e v e l o p m e no tf s e c o n dl a n g u a gceh i l d r e n . 'I n F r e dG e n e s e(ee d . ) ,
E d u c a t i n g s e c o n d l a n g u a g e c h i l d r e n . C a m b r i c l g e , U . K . : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s1i2r 9
yp
- 1r e
5 sg s. .
Johnson, Donna M. and Donna H. Roen (ecls.). 1989. Richnessin writing; EmpoweringESL
students.New York: Longnran.
Krashen, StephenD. 1981. Secondlanguageacquisitionand secondlanguagelearning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, StephenD. 1982. Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, StephenD. 1985. The input hypothesis;lssuesand impticarions.New york: Longman.
Krashen, StephenD. and Douglas Biber. 1988. On course; Bilinguat education's successin
California. Sacramento,California: California Associationfor Bilingual Educarion.
Larsen-Freeman,
Diane. 1985."Overviewof theoriesof languagelearningand acquisition.'/ssaes
in English language development.Washington,D.C.: National Clearinghousefor Bilinguat
Education.T-13.
Larsen-Freeman,Diane. 1993. 'second languageacquisitionresearch:Stakingout the territory.'
In Sandra Silberstein (ed), .Stateof the an TESOL e.rrd)r.' Cetebrating 25 years of the
discipline. Alexanciria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakersof Other Languages.
133-168.
Lessow-Hurley,Judith. 1990. Thefoundationsof cluallanguageinstruction.New york: l,ongman.
Lindholm, Kathryn J. 1991. 'Theoretical assumptionsand empirical evidencefor academic
achievement in two languages.
" Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences13: 3-17.
Lucas, Tamara, RosemaryHenze, and Ruben Donato. 1990. 'Promoting the successof latino
language-minorirystudents:An exploratorystudy of six high schools.- Harvard Educational
Review60: 315-340.
Mclaughlin, Barry. 1984. Secondlanguageacquisitiottin chilclhoocl;Vot. L preschoolchildren.
Secondedition.Hillsdale,N.l.: LawrenceErlbaum.
McLaughlin, Barry. 1985.Secondlanguageacquisirionin chilrthood;Vol.2. School-agechildren,
S e c o n de d i t i o n .H i l l s d a l e N
, . J . : L a w r c n c eE r l b a u m .
Mclaughlin, Barry. 1992.Myths anclmiscottceptions
about sec'ontllanguagelearning: What every
leacherneedsIo unlearn.Sanu Cruz, California:NationalCenterfor Researchon Cultural
Diversityand SecondLanguageLearning
Minicucci, Catherineand Laurie Olsen. 1992. Programs
for secondarytimited Engtishprofcient
students:A Cal(bntia stutly. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghousefor Bilingual
Education.
M o f l , L u i s C . , C a r l o sV e l c z - l b i i n e zJ, a n r c sG r e e n b e r ga, n d C h a r l e n eR i v e r a . 1 9 9 0 .C o m m u n i t y
knowledgeand clossroon practic'e;Combiningresources lireracy instruction.Arlington,
fttr
V r r g i n r :a D e v e l o p n r c nAl s s o c r a t c s .
Oakes,Jeanic.1985,Keepirtgtrutk, I!ottt schoolsstructuret t r e q u a l i t sN' c w I l a v e n ,C o n n e c t i c u r
Y a l eU n i v e r s i rPy r e s s
O a k e s , J c a t l i e l 9 9 2 . " C a r r t t a c k t t t t r c s c a r c l rr n l r l r r r rp r a c t i c c ' il ' c c h r r i c a l ,r x ) r r n a t r v ea, n < lp o l i t r c a l
c o n s i d c r a r i o n s" . / : r / l c r t I r r t t t t tRI t ' . s L , u r < . 2l t|t(r4 ) | 2 - 2 | .
O g b u , J r - r h n .l ( ) 7 4 . 7 h e t t ( \ l , \ ( ' t t ( ' r ( t t i o t rA. r t e t l t r t o g r u p l t . y , oeJt l u t r t t t o n i r t ( t n u r b a t tt t e i g h b o r l t o o d .
N c w Y u r k : A c a d c n r i cI ) r ' c s s
o g b u , J o h r r .l ( ) J S .M r r t r t r t ! . \ ' t ' r l tr t t t t t t trt t t t lt t t . t r c . ' l ' l rAt r t t c r i tu t t \ . \ , . \ r t ,i tr nrt . r o s . t - t . u l t u r p
ue
l r s p e r . r i r., e
N c w Y o r k : A c a d c r n r cl ) r c s s
326 tGroncErowv UnrvnnstrvRotrro Tlst-n oN LnxcuecEsANDLncusncs l99s
Ogbu,John. 1987."opportunirystructure,culturalboundaries,
and literacy"In J. t-anger(ed.),
I-anguage,
literacy,and culture;lssues
of sociery
andschooling.
Norwood,N.J.: Ablex,
Ogbu,John' 1992."Understanding
culruraldiversiry
," Educational
Researcher
2l(g): 5-24
Ogbu, John. 1993. "Variabilityin minoriryschoolperformance:
A problemin searchof an
explanation."
In EvelynJacobandCathieJordan(eds.),Minorityeducation;
Anthropological
perspecttves.
Norwood,N.J.: Ablex.g3_I I I .
Ram(rez,J. David. 1992. "Executivesuffrmary.-BitingualResearch
Journal, l6(l-2): l-62.
Rothman,
R. l99l ' " Schools
stress
speeding
up, notslowingdown.' Education
Weekll(9): l4-15.
Saunders,
George.1988.Biltnguatchitdren;From birth ro rcens.Clevedon,U.K.: Multilinguat
Maners.
Schumann,
John. 1978.'The acculruration
modelfor secondlanguage
acquisition.'In Rosano
Gingras(ed.), Secon
d languageacquisitionandforeignlanguageteaching.Washingron,D.C. :
Cenrerfor AppliedLinguistics.
27_50.
Skutnabb-Kangas,
Tove' l98l . Bilinguatismor not; The educationof minorities.philadelphia:
Mulrilingual
Matters.
Skutnabb-Kangas,
Tove and Jim Cummins(eds.). 1988.Minority education;From
shamerc
srruggle.
Clevedon,U.K.: Muttilingual
Maners.
Snow,CatherineE. 1990.'Rationales
for nativelanguage
instruction:
Evidencefrom research.-In
Arnado M. Padilla,Halford H. Fairchild,and Concepcfon
M. Valadez(e.ds.),Bilingual
education.Issuesand strategies.Ncwburypark, california: sage.
Spener,David. 1988. 'Transitionalbilingualeducationand the socialization
of immigrants.Haryard EducarionalReview5g: 133_153.
Swain, Merrill' 1985. 'Communicativecompetence:
Someroles of comprehensible
input and
comprehensible
ourputin is development.'ln
Susan
GassandCarolynMadden(eds.),lnput
in secondlanguageacquisition.Cambridge,Massachusens:
NewburyHouse. 235-253.
Swain,Merrill and SharonLapkin. 1981.Bitingualeducationin ontario;
A decadeof research.
Toronro:OntarioInstirutefor Srudiesin Education.
Tharp, RolandG. and RonaldGallimorc. 1988.Ronsingminds
to tife: Teaching,learning, and
schoolingin socialconrext.cambridge,U.K.: cambridgeuniversirypress.
Thomas,wayne P' 1992. 'An analysisof thc researchmethodology
of the Ramfrezstudy.Bilingual ResearchJournal l6(l_2): Zl3_245.
Thomas,wayne P' and virginia P. collier. 1995.Language
minoritystudentachievement
and
programeffectiveness.
Washington,
D.C.: NationalClearinghouse
for BilingualEducation.
Tinajero,Josefinav. and Alma F. Ada (eds.). 1993.Thepower
of two languages;
Literacyand
biliteracyfor Spanish-speaking
students.
New York: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
Trueba,Henry T', Lila Jacobs,and ElizabethKirton. l9x).
Culturalconflictand adaptation;The
caseof Hmongchildrenin Americansociety.
New york: Farmerpress.
vafdezPierce,Lorraine.l99l . Efectiveschools language
minoritystudents.
for
washingron,D.C.:
The Mid-AtlanticEquiryCenrer.
walsh' Catherine
E' 1991.Pedagogy
and the struggle
of language,
for voice;lssues
powerand
schooling
for puerto Ricans.New york: BerginandGarvey.
wong Fillmore,Lily. 1985.'secondlanguage
learningin children:A proposed
model.- ln Issues
in Englishlanguagedevelopment.
washington,
D.C.: NationalClearinghouse
for Bilingual
Educarion.
33-42.
w o n g F i l l m o r cL
' i l y l 9 8 9 . " T e a c h a b i l iar yn ds c c o n dl a n g u a gaec q u i s i t i o n . ' I n
M a b e lR i c ea r d
RichardL Sclrrefclbusch
(eds.),The teochabitiry
paul Brookes.
,y to,,grogr.Balrinrore:
3I I _ 3 3 2 .
w o n g F r l l n l o r cL, i l y l g g l a . " A q u e s t i olni r r e a r l y - c h i l d h o o d
p r o g r a n rE
s :n g l i s hf i r s re r f a r n i l i c s
firsr'1"Edur-atittrt
Weck,Junct9. l99l
VrHcrxra
P. C<_rr_r_u:n
l3Z7
w o n g F r l l m o r eL, i l y . l 9 9 r b . " s c c r n i il a n g u a glee a r n i n ign
c h i l c l r e nA: m o < i eol f l a n g u a glee a m i n g
r n s o c r a lc o n r e x t". I ' E i l e n t s i a r y s r o (ke d . ) , L a n g u o g ep r o L e s s t n g
, t bilittgual children.
C a r n b r i d g eU, . K . : C a n r b r i c J U
g cn i v e r s i t p
y r e s s .4 9 _ 6 9 .
w o n g F i l l m o r e ,L i l y a n d C o n c e p c i o V
n a l a d e z .1 9 8 6 ." T e a c h i n gb i l r n g u alle a r n e r s .I"n M e r l i n
C
Wittrock (ed.), Handbookof researchon teaching,Third
edrtion New york: Macmillan
648-685