“The In-between Crowd”:
Contrasting Representations of Minority Language Students
LYNNE WILTSE
University of Alberta
Author Biography
Lynne Wiltse teaches Language and Literacy education courses in the Department of
Elementary Education, University of Alberta. Previously, she was on faculty at
Thompson Rivers University in British Columbia.
Abstract
This paper examines contrasting representations of minority language students in a
linguistically diverse junior high classroom in an urban area of Western Canada. The
majority of the research participants was of Asian heritage, and spoke English as a
second language. Drawing on the construct of learner identity, I explore how these
minority language learners‘ identities affected their experience in school. The study
points to hybrid language practices, with particular attention to academic discourse, as a
solution to developing English literacy in schools with students from multilingual
backgrounds.
“The In-between Crowd”:
Contrasting Representations of Minority Language Students
Introduction
With changing immigration patterns and the concentration of immigrant
settlements, many urban schools in North America, Europe and Australia have an
increasing number of students for whom English is a second language (ESL).i This shift
in demographic realities entails enormous challenges for these minority language
students, as well as for their parents, peers and teachers (Duff, 2001). In Canada,
although failure rates of English language learners remain alarmingly high (Roessingh &
Kover, 2002; Watt & Roessingh, 2001), there is still little consensus about what might
constitute appropriate educational practices and policies for schools that serve large
numbers of culturally and linguistically diverse students (Cummins & Schecter, 2003).
Not surprisingly, these issues are often felt most intensely in schools where monolingual
and monocultural students are the exception rather than the rule. This paper, based on
1 of 25
select findings from my doctoral research, examines particular challenges in one such
school.
The purpose of the study was to examine classroom practices and social
interaction in a culturally and linguistically diverse junior high classroom, utilizing
sociocultural theory, which emphasizes the inherently social and situated nature of
learning. The majority of the research participants were ESL students of Cambodian or
Vietnamese heritage. Utilizing the construct of learner identity and drawing on the work
of Jim Cummins (1981, 1989, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2006) and Cummins and Schecter
(2003), I explore how these minority language learners‘ identities affect their experience
in school. The students, who used both Khmer or Vietnamese and English in their homes
and communities, described themselves as bilingual. Their language arts teacher, on the
other hand, described them as ―sort of an in-between crowd,‖ suggesting that they had
learned neither their first language nor English completely. These representations offer
students strikingly different identity positions; by comparing these representations, I
show how images of students and their backgrounds can affect their possibilities for
learning and, accordingly, possible futures. I examine the role that particular school
practices play in determining students‘ opportunities and make an argument for school
practices that encourage hybridity.
Research Methods
The research reported here is part of an ethnographic case study that was
conducted over the course of one school year in a Grade 9 language arts classroom.
Qualitative research methods were used for my inquiry into how classroom members
work together (or do not) in a community of practice. The following research questions
framed my research: 1) How does the social structure of the classroom community
facilitate or constrain participation of classroom members? 2) How do discourse practices
impact on students‘ opportunities for appropriating classroom language? 3) What is the
role of the teacher in disrupting community practices that limit and marginalize students?
In this paper I focus on one specific sub-question that arose during the study: How may
divergent representations of minority language students‘ linguistic abilities affect their
identities and influence their opportunities for learning?
2 of 25
Although case study does not claim any particular methods for data collection or
data analysis, one of the major strengths of case study research is the opportunity to use
multiple methods of data collection (Merriam, 1988). I used a variety of data collection
approaches, including participant observation of classroom student-teacher and studentstudent interaction, contextual field notes, newspaper articles, transcripts from audiotaped semi-structured interviews and samples of student writing. I visited the classroom
on a twice-weekly basis, observing the students in various contexts, from individual work
to group projects. I also observed in the Grade 9 science class, the Multicultural
Leadership class and attended special events and assemblies. After spending several
months as an observer, I conducted interviews in an attempt to understand how the
research participants saw things. I interviewed eleven students who were positioned
differently in terms of language, gender, ethnicity, and social status. Students were asked
about their experiences of learning and attending a multicultural school, relationships
with peers and teachers, schoolwork and life out-of-school. The language arts teacher,
two other Grade 9 teachers, a student teacher, the school community coordinator and the
principal were also interviewed. Questions were directed towards interviewees‘
experiences with the Grade 9 students. In addition to the interviews, I had informal
discussions with the students and teachers on an ongoing basis throughout the study.
Qualitative researchers analyze data throughout the study rather than relegating
analysis to a period following data collection (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). This
certainly describes my experience; analysis began with the first fieldwork observation
and was carried on throughout the research process in a reflective journal. Numerous
analytic memos, written during the course of my fieldwork, accompanied my field notes.
After the interviews were transcribed, I began what Merriam (1988) refers to as "holding
a conversation with the data" (p. 131). I read through the field notes and the interview
transcriptions, making notes in the margins and highlighting aspects of the data I
regarded as significant. As relationships and patterns within and among the codes began
to crystallize, I inserted colour coded tags for the emergent themes, following Spradley‘s
(1980) domain analysis and Bogden and Biklen‘s (1998) principles. Analysis of the data
showed that particular practices that developed within the community of practice either
3 of 25
facilitated or constrained participation of classroom members and, in turn, defined
possibilities for learning.
Study Participants
The setting for the study was Coalfield School, a Kindergarten-Grade 9 school in
an inner city neighbourhood in an urban area of Western Canada. ii This site was selected
for my research study for the following reasons: 1) it has a culturally and linguistically
diverse student population and a significant number of ESL students; 2) I was familiar
with the school as I had worked as a research facilitator to Coalfield School as part of a
Culture and Teaching Project, and 3) the principal of the school had expressed an interest
in and was supportive of my research project.
Coalfield School was situated in the lowest socio-economic area of the city. The
student population was ethnically and linguistically diverse and a large number of
students spoke English as a second language. At the time of the study, approximately
45% of the 220 students enrolled in the school were of Cambodian heritage, while
another 30% were Vietnamese and Chinese. First Nations students comprised an
additional 15% of the student community. Students of European heritage were very much
in the minority at Coalfield School. The majority of the research participants were of East
Asian heritage, with Cambodian students who had come to Canada as refugees at a young
age comprising the largest group within the Grade 9 class.
Consistent with common practice in Canadian schools (Toohey, 2000; Cummins
& Schecter, 2003), ESL students were mainstreamed, although recent immigrants
received limited one-on-one or small group instruction from the school community
coordinator for a short period of time. The majority of the ESL students in the Grade 9
class had been in Canada for several years, and was no longer at the early stages of
English language learning. In this regard, a parallel can be drawn to Leung, Harris and
Rampton‘s (1997) study of young adolescent students in multiethnic urban England.
These youth were no longer at an early stage of learning English, had spent a significant
proportion of their lives in Britain, and used everyday colloquial English with ease. This
description bears strong resemblance to many of the second language learners in my
study. The authors refer to the constant struggle to develop adequate pedagogies for the
large numbers of these bilingual students. The teaching staff at Coalfield School faced
4 of 25
similar challenges, complicated by the reality that none of the teachers had completed
coursework in second language education as part of their teacher education. Given
demographic trends and the limits of pre-service teacher preparation programs, the
teachers at my research site were among the many mainstream classroom teachers who
are learning to educate ESL students on the job (Cummins & Schecter, 2003; Toohey,
1996; Gebhard, Austin, Nieto, & Willett, 2002).
Theoretical Framework
Gee (2000) makes the point that, ―over the last several decades, in and across a
wide variety of disciplines, there has been a massive ‗social turn‘ away from a focus on
individual behaviour…and individual minds…toward a focus on social and cultural
interaction (p. 180). This focus on the social orientation of learning is found as well in
second language research; several researchers have emphasised the role of sociocultural
context in language teaching and learning (see, for example, Lantolf, 2000; Hawkins,
2005; Kramsch, 2000; Lotherington, 2003). The emergence of sociocultural perspectives
on language, typified by the understanding that meanings are negotiated within diverse
social contexts, indicates an important new direction for theorists and practitioners in the
field of second language use (Miller, 2004a, p. 290).
As sociocultural theorists in second language learning have demonstrated strong
connections between identity and language learning (Hawkins, 2005), I also drew on
theoretical writing that reflects on the negotiation of identities and representational
practices in multilingual contexts. Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004) make the point that
negotiation is a logical outcome in multilingual societies where some languages and
identity options are ―more equal than others,‖ while Stein (2004) notes that practices of
representation are never neutral, but ―inflected with the relations between culture, power,
and language that particular communities and institutions have evolved‖ (p. 113). These
perspectives are consistent with the work of researchers who have increasingly called on
the construct of learner identity to understand how minority language learners‘ identities
affect their experience in school (McKay, & Wong, 1996; Norton, 2000; Leung, Harris &
Rampton, 1997; Toohey, 2000).
Harklau‘s (2000, 2003) work on representational practices provides a productive
model to begin my examination of the ways in which adolescent minority language
5 of 25
identities are shaped in schools. Her study of the ways in which ESL students‘ identities
were constructed in different educational institutions highlights the finding that learners‘
identities affect their experience in school. Harklau drew on the notion of representation,
iii
which she describes as ―the images, archetypes, or even stereotypes of identity with
which students are labeled‖ to show how ―schools categorize and position students with
identities‖ and ―how students accommodate, resist, and counter identities imposed on
them‖ (p. 37). Using data from case studies of high school students attending an
ethnically diverse urban American high school, Harklau (2003) demonstrates how
students positioned themselves and were positioned socially through representational
practices. She describes three main examples of representations of immigrant identity in
the high school experiences of the students in her study, a ―colorblind‖ representation, in
which the ethnic difference was leveled or overlooked, an ―othered‖ view of immigrants
as both ennobled and exotic and a representation of bilingual students as linguistically
and cognitively deficient. Although each of these representations speaks to my study in
varying ways, for the purpose of this paper, I will focus on the third representation.
Harklau‘s case study students (3 students of Vietnamese heritage, and one of
Turkish heritage) were subject to a representation in which bilingualism was associated
with linguistic (and even cognitive) deficit. Rather than being regarded as a ―resource,‖
bilingualism (or multilingualism) tended to be regarded as a ―problem‖ (Ruiz, 1984),
with their proficiency in two or three languages being reduced to a deficit in one. This
representation resonates closely with my study, as will be seen in the next section of the
paper.
“The In-between Crowd”
These kids are sort of an in-between crowd. They never fully learned their
first language (which would have been Khmer or Vietnamese), because a
lot of them came to Canada when they were about two or three when their
language was developing. A lot of them, too, were in refugee camps, and
parents probably didn‘t have time to read to them, and sing to them, and
do those types of things. And then they weren‘t around people who were
speaking English, and so they never really learned a language completely,
so that affected their language development, and that‘s the problem.
The impetus for this paper stems from this comment made by the language arts
teacher, during an interview near the end of the school year. Emily had been contrasting
6 of 25
the students at Coalfield School with students she previously taught in another inner city
school, Eastwood School, which had predominantly First Nations, rather than ESL,
students. At the time of the study, Emily was in her second year at Coalfield school.
What I found really interesting is that, at Eastwood School, the kids were
not motivated, and they didn‘t do much homework. They didn‘t study for
tests. They did some work in class, but when it came to a test most of them
would do relatively well. And then when I came to Coalfield School here,
it was the exact opposite in that the students would be working in class,
there were hardly any classroom management problems compared to
Eastwood School, and they would have homework done. But, when we
had a test, they‘d all fail.
Emily explained that it had taken ―about a year‖ before she figured out that the reason for
her students‘ poor academic performance was related to their language development. She
went on to say that while ―their kids will be okay because they will have a full language,
probably English, these students are going to struggle.‖ With this prognosis, complex
issues related to language development and school achievement have been conflated to a
diagnosis of linguistic (and cognitive) deficit. Before turning to an examination of the
teacher‘s comments, I highlight some of the students‘ voices; these comments portray a
contrasting representation of their linguistic abilities.
While the teacher appears to regard their bilingualism as a ―problem,” there is
sufficient evidence to suggest that students regarded their bilingualism as a ―resource‖
(Ruiz, 1984). In school, the research participants used English primarily; outside of
school, students used both English and their first language, depending on the context. The
following descriptions of home language practices show how Sarun and Dith respectively
use both Khmer and English at home.iv
At home I speak both languages. My parents speak Cambodian
mostly, although they have learned English pretty much. I speak
Cambodian with my mom, but sometimes I speak English with my
dad because he understands it better than my mom. With my
brothers and sisters, I speak both.
I speak Cambodian with my mom every time, both English and
Cambodian with my dad. He‘s learned more English than my
mom, but she's learning right now. With my brothers and sisters I
usually speak English.
Hông and Kim describe a similar process with Vietnamese and English.
7 of 25
At home, I speak more Vietnamese than English. This is because
my mom wants us (his siblings) to use Vietnamese so we don‘t
lose the language. When my mother is not around, I often speak to
my brother and sisters in English. When we visit our grandmother,
we speak Vietnamese as she cannot speak any English.
It depends where I am and who is around me. At home, I speak English to
my brothers. Sometimes I speak Vietnamese when I get nervous. To my
mom, I speak both because she's going to school so she knows some
English. My dad I have to speak Vietnamese to. And, I have to speak
Vietnamese with my grandmother because she cannot speak too much
English.
There were other out-of-school places and opportunities for the students to use
their first languages, including the local Buddhist temple, special cultural celebrations,
restaurants, sports events and visiting with relatives and friends. That the Asian students
saw advantages to being able to speak other languages in addition to English is clear from
the following comments. Sarun, for example, explains that
it's (being bilingual) pretty good ‗cause I can speak with other people.
Like, when I'm out of school, most of my friends speak Cambodian. So, I
can get in on a conversation, know what they're saying. I can help other
people, if there's some new kid who needs help. So, being bilingual is
good.
Similarly, Hông noted that ―if you‘re bilingual, you can talk to two different
people, people that speak English and Vietnamese and if you're going to go to university,
like, having two languages is an advantage.‖ These comments are in accordance with
findings from the literature. For example, Harklau‘s (2003) research revealed that case
study participants and their families clearly valued multilingualism; unfortunately, very
few social spaces were made in the life of the school in which the research participants
might demonstrate their resources as multilinguals. As will be seen, this applied to
Coalfield School as well. Lotherington‘s (2003) study of the language and literacy
practices of Grade 9 and 10 students in three languages (Khmer, Vietnamese and English)
at an Australian High School resulted in similar findings. Parents wanted their children to
maintain their Asian languages and culture; at the same time proficiency in English for
academic success was considered important. Concerned that these youth were being
8 of 25
assessed in terms of deficit (what they were not rather than what they were), Lotherington
asks how the same students could be perceived so differently.
BICS and CALP
I found myself facing a similar dilemma. As an educator and as a researcher, what
was I to make of such contrasting representations of students‘ linguistic abilities? Were
either accurate? Were both flawed? At this point in the discussion, the theories of Jim
Cummins, well known for his research with minority language learners, prove helpful. In
brief, Cummins has researched the linguistic, cognitive and affective advantages of
additive bilingualism–where a second language is added to students‘ linguistic repertoire,
without negatively affectively first language maintenance. Within the framework of his
position that bilingualism enhances cognitive performance, Cummins offers an
explanation for the state of affairs described by Emily. His threshold hypothesis states
that ―there may be threshold levels of linguistic proficiency which bilingual children must
attain in order to avoid cognitive deficits, and allow the potentially beneficial aspects of
becoming bilingual to influence cognitive growth‖ (Cummins, 1981, p. 38). Harris (1990)
explains that, in basic form, this hypothesis can be restated to say that ―in terms of
reaching full cognitive potential, a child who is only marginally proficient in two
languages is worse off than a child who knows one language very well…Cummins‘
threshold hypothesis has to do with the danger of semilingualism‖ (pp. 95-96). It is
important to note that, although Harris (and others) have used Cummins‘ work to discuss
this phenomenon, referred to as bilingual semilingualism (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981),
Cummins himself avoids the use of this contested term. Although Emily does not use the
term, her description of the students bears resemblance to the definition of
semilingualism.
In order to better understand what Emily‘s comments, it is useful to consider the
conceptual framework developed by Jim Cummins (1981) to contrast basic interpersonal
communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). The
image of an iceberg has been used to illustrate the above-the-surface language (BICS)
and the immensity of the underlying proficiency below the surface (CALP); like an
iceberg, BICS may represent only about 10% of the overall proficiency of an
academically competent learner (Roessingh, 2006).v Classroom teachers may not
9 of 25
understand that students who speak conversational English well may lack the kind of
academic English needed for academic success. While these teachers often overestimate
ESL students‘ academic level of proficiency, Emily‘s description (below) suggests that
she is aware that while the students have a good grasp of BICS (context-embedded
language), they lack CALP (context-reduced language). Her contention is that this will
prove particularly problematic for the students the following year in high school.
They can talk, but they have trouble with academics. You know, they can
have a conversation with each other, and that‘s good enough for them.
But, I think next year in high school it‘s going to hit them hard when they
don‘t qualify for ESL support, yet they don‘t have a great grasp of the
English language.
The important factor is the depth below the surface that must be developed in either first
language (L1) or second language (L2) for learners to reach their academic potential
(Roessingh, 2006). What Emily and the principal, Ruth, (below) seem to be suggesting is
that, for the research participants, the threshold had not been reached in either language.
The people who came as refugees, came from an illiterate background,
and so they have very poor backgrounds for literacy development. That
combined with little, if any, literacy in their first language makes learning
a second language difficult. Then they learn English first on the
playground from other children who have very low levels of English
language development. As well, as their English skills grow,
communication between generations decreases, because the parents, by
and large, don‘t have well developed English skills. By the time they get
into junior high they now need language development around abstract
learning, and that further complicates things.vi
From the perspective of Cummins‘ model, ESL students who fail in school lack
CALP, ―due primarily to the inaccessibility of academic-oriented language and literacy in
their homes and communities and the predominance of oral interaction deeply embedded
in shared personal meaning with ties to situational and contextual clues‖ (Wolfe & Faltis,
1999, p. 84). Researchers have drawn on Cummins‘ work to construct ways of enabling
secondary ESL students to acquire discipline-specific language that is context-reduced
and academically challenging (see Corson, 2001; Mohan, Leung & Davison, 2001;
Schleppegrell, 2004 regarding the benefits of content-based language instruction).
Darren, who taught social studies to the Grade 9 class, speaks to this need.
10 of 25
In this setting, I do a lot of work with students because of the lack of
English language in many of their homes. Many of their parents don‘t
write in English, or speak English, and if they do speak English, it is an
abbreviated form that they‘ve learned enough to get by here as adults, but
not enough that their children would learn the language properly.
This approach, however, is typically done in the context of a collaborative teaching
relationship between ESL teachers and subject curriculum teachers. Without an ESL
program, teachers at Coalfield School did not have access to the expertise and support
needed to fully implement this type of programming. Furthermore, this teacher‘s
comment about learning the ―language properly‖ provides yet another example of
viewing the students‘ and their families‘ bilingualism as problem, rather than as resource.
There is also a compelling body of research that this type of language instruction
be done in the students‘ native language (Cummins, 1981; Creese, 2005; Cummins &
Schecter, 2003; Sears, 1998; Wolfe & Faltis, 1999). L1 use can be a powerful learning
tool for second language learners, especially when they are exposed to complex ideas in
content areas. The research clearly shows that the encouragement of first language use
does not interfere with the development of English academic skills (Schecter & Bayley,
2002). Research findings in the literature on bilingualism consistently show that the
literacy skills in Ll and L2 are interdependent; concepts and knowledge developed in L1
can be transferred to L2, provided that L1 is well developed and that there is sufficient
exposure to L2. I began the study interested in the ways in which first language use could
foster academic achievement in English; however, this suggestion, as well, was
problematic at Coalfield school as the use of languages other than English was actually
discouraged. Ruth explains the reason for this:
I always believed that students should be encouraged to communicate
effectively, so if that means that you use your first language, then I‘m
okay with that. But, I‘ve changed because I‘ve seen the divisions and the
hurt that it causes. We found from our experiences here that students will
use their first language as a way of isolating other students from the group.
So, I think that in our setting we do have to say, you have to use English in
class, other than for a new immigrant who needs some coaching in that
specific language. Again, if they don‘t have the vocabulary you‘re putting
all sorts of barriers up.
11 of 25
Although I have data that support Ruth‘s decision, I wondered as to the cost. Her earlier
comments, as well as the literature, suggest that the decision to not use first languages
could be detrimental to students‘ possibilities for achieving academic success. Sadly, the
school played a role in producing students that had ―little, if any, literacy in their first
language.‖ Drawing on Cummins, Roessingh and Kover (2002) explain: ―There is a
common underlying proficiency that flows between L1 and L2, and thus the better L1 is
developed, the more likely L2 will develop to the level required for academic success.
Conversely, failure to develop the L1 beyond a basic level may have dire consequences
for the development of the L2‖ (p. 4). These ‗dire consequences‘ appear to be what Emily
and Ruth have described. With the research participants, the situation was clearly
complex. A number of these students were not literate (to any degree) in their first
language and several reported that they now considered themselves more proficient in
English. Language loss is high among language minority students who are born in
Canada or who arrive prior to development of L1 literacy in their home country; strong
school support is critical in helping minority students maintain and develop literacy in
their home languages (Cummins & Schecter, 2003). The school‘s English-only policy,
while made with the best of intentions, played a role in the representation of these
students as semilingual, rather than bilingual. In the next section, I will explore the
connections between these representations, identity and learning.
Negotiation of Identities
I have drawn heavily on the early work of Jim Cummins in this paper. I have done
so because I believe it is important for educators who are working with or learning about
language minority students to have some background knowledge of his theories. His
theories are widely used in ESL teaching and in language teacher education.
However, it is important to note that the discussion to this point relates, in large
part, to his early writings on second language learning.vii In his more recent work,
Cummins (1989) argues that ―under achievement is not caused by lack of fluency in
English. Under achievement is the result of particular kinds of interactions in school that
lead minority students to mentally withdraw from academic effort‖ (p. 34). Cummins
(2000) examines these interactions in his theory of identity negotiation that identifies the
12 of 25
negotiation of identities, particularly those between teachers and students, as central to
student learning. The theory explores how different orientations to cultural and linguistic
diversity are reflected in the practices and policies of schools. Kanno (2004), for
example, adopts Cummins‘ theory to investigate how the identities of language minority
students are represented at a public elementary school in Japan.
Cummins and Schecter (2003) outline a framework for academic language
learning that views the interactions between educators and students as the most
immediate determinant of student success or failure in school. These interactions can be
viewed through two lenses: 1) the lens of the teaching-learning relationship and 2) the
lens of identity negotiation. The former is represented by the strategies and techniques
that teachers use to provide instruction as well as promote knowledge and cognitive
growth. The latter process is represented by the messages communicated to students
regarding their identities—―who they are in the teacher‘s eyes and who they are capable
of becoming‖ (p. 14). I have devoted space to the first lens (and provided references for
further inquiry); in this section, I will consider the second lens. Emily shows who she
thinks the students are capable of becoming, as well as the role language competency
plays in her prediction, in the following comment. Her view was that while
the children of the student participants would be okay as they would learn
English at an earlier age, these kids are probably doomed to lives as
janitors, when, in their own country, they could be brilliant.
I was struck by the contrasting identities juxtaposed in Emily‘s comment. Her words also
emphasized the point that ―the notion of representational practices…has implications for
the socialization of bilingual adolescents into schooling paths and ultimate educational
and occupational futures‖ (Harklau, 2003, p, 95). Surely the failing grades that some of
Emily‘s students were receiving had as much (if not more) to do with how they were
regarded by their teacher, as to their actual linguistic competence.
An additional example from my study involved career day, an event for students
in Grades 5-9. Speakers had been invited to talk about different careers; occupations
represented included cosmetologist, plumber, truck driver, photographer, masseuse,
soldier, police, computer technician, tiler, geologist, nurse, mechanic, paralegal. Students
signed up for the sessions they wanted to attend. Emily told me that some of the students
13 of 25
were ―not realistic‖ in their choices; in her opinion, several of the sessions that were least
popular were the jobs the students would be most likely to have (for example, truck
driver, plumber, tiler). I am not suggesting that jobs as janitors or truck drivers would be
poor choices for these students. Rather, I am concerned that their teacher saw their
options as limited. Norton (2000) uses the term identity ―to reference how a person
understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed
across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future‖ (p. 5).
How did the students understand their possibilities for the future? Based on data from the
interviews, in some cases, the future goals of the research participants did not correspond
with Emily‘s limited notions of what they were likely to accomplish. For example, Dith,
one of the Cambodian boys, had plans to enroll in the RAP program, so that he could
apprentice for a trade–for example, mechanics or plumbing.viii
If I go through that route I'll have a better chance of finishing school and
getting a good job. At career day, a mechanic was talking about the RAP
program. And, Mr. Williams told me about it, too because he wanted me
to join the program…. I want to be a computer technician, but my math
skills aren't as good as they should be.
Dith did struggle academically; yet, he clearly displayed a talent for working with his
hands. During our interview, he described his strong interest in hands-on learning,
especially in relation to his science and shop classes. With the support of his home-room
teacher who saw this potential, Dith was making realistic educational plans for his future.
At one point in the conversation, I asked him what his parents thought of his plans. Dith
explained that they ―are happy as long as I finish high school and get a good job that I
could live on for the rest of my life. Then they wouldn't have to worry about me, my lack
of money, stuff like that.‖ Dith‘s story contradicts Emily‘s view of the boys in the class:
―Those guys are not going to have any job, or some menial labour job because their
marks aren‘t going to get them into post secondary…And, the guys don‘t see that.‖ While
there is substance to Emily‘s remark,ix Dith‘s comment shows that he does have a sense
as to how his grades may limit his future possibilities; at the same time, his plans do not
reflect a sense of prospective doom. And, there are other ways to look at what constitutes
a ―good job.‖ Contrast Emily‘s ―menial labour job‖ with Dith‘s ―good job that I could
live on for the rest of my life.‖ One has a definite negative connotation, whereas the other
14 of 25
sounds positive. Is it possible that they could be talking about the same job?x I suggest
that the answer is yes–depending on how one is positioned, of course.
Cummins (1997) identifies ―the identity options that are being opened up or
closed off for students‖ (p. 425) as key to whether minority language students will be
successful in school. While ―being realistic‖ is a reasonable consideration in making
educational decisions regarding possible futures, surely teacher attitudes and practices
that contribute to closing off, rather than opening up, options are unreasonable. The
gravity of this is emphasized in Toohey‘s (2000) comment that ―what school practices are
determines who particular participants can be, what they can do, and thus what they can
learn in that setting‖ (p. 135). Not only do school and classroom practices determine who
students can be and what students can learn in current settings, but they also play a role in
who they will become and what they will learn in subsequent settings. With high school
approaching, this was emphasized in my study. The research participants were at a
crossroads, making important decisions regarding choice of school, courses and
programs. The role of teachers was crucial in this regard, especially for many of the
students who did not have significant home support in terms of education.xi What
practices could communicate a different message to students regarding their identities?
Hybrid Language Practices
Regrettably, it is too late to make any changes for the student participants in my
study. What recommendations can be made for future students, so that barriers can be
removed, rather than erected? Most importantly, bilingualism/multilingualism needs to be
regarded as a resource, not as a problem. Cummins (2006) claims that, in multilingual
classrooms, monolingual instructional strategies constrict pedagogical space. Wallace
(2005), who studied the literacy resources of bilingual students in a multilingual London
school, suggests that it may be possible to tap more fully into the children‟s particular
skills as bilinguals, especially when they can move fairly comfortably between
languages. Her research shows that some of the children‟s literacy resources represented
cultural and linguistic capital not being realized or acknowledged in school. A parallel
can be drawn to the research participants in my study who were able to do move between
languages at home and in their communities with ease–an ability which, in Wallace‟s
(2005) view, represented pedagogic potential, but remained untapped. In this regard, I
15 of 25
recommend „hybrid language and literacy practices‟ as a productive way to expand
pedagogical spaces in school for minority language students. With hybrid practices,
“because no one single language or register is privileged, the larger linguistic repertories
of participants become tools for meaning making…” (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López,
Alvarez, and Chiu, 1999, p. 89). Previous research of particular classroom practices
suggests that teaching characterized by “hybridity” appears to facilitate minority
language students‟ literacy learning (Gebhard, 2005; Davis, Bazzi, Cho, Ishida, & Soria,
2005; Manyak, 2001). Such hybrid literacy practices become the tools for mediating
literacy learning and serve as a model for imagining how difference and diversity can
serve as resources for learning.
While the literacy projects described in these studies encourage the utilization of
students‘ first languages to promote learning, it is important to note that they also
emphasize the importance of academic English. This is of particular significance to ―the
in-between crowd,‖ given their relative ease with BICS, and considering the school‘s
English-only policy which made taking advantage of hybrid language practices difficult.
At this point, I return to Emily‘s comment, ―They can talk, but they have trouble with
academics.‖ It has long been recognized that schools require specific forms of discourse
that potentially disadvantage minority language students (Creese, 2005; Delpit, 1998;
Gee, 2004; Hawkins, 2005; Heath, 1983). Accordingly, most practitioners and
researchers agree that, in order to succeed in schools, such learners must be given the
opportunity to acquire academic, rather than everyday, language (Valdés, 2004). That
Emily was aware of this need can be seen in the following comment, made in reference to
the Cambodian boys:
I hope this doesn‘t come across as racist because it‘s not meant to be,
but when I was in the States, a Black person would have a lingo that he
would use with his culture, and a different one that he would use out in
the business world, and that‘s sort of an understood thing. Like, if you
want to make it in the business world you‘re not going to be calling
each other bro, and that kind of talk–it just wouldn‘t do. And, I think
these guys don‘t realize that. In your own group, it‘s fine to talk that
way, but once you step out, you need a different kind of talk.
From this comment, I think it is fair to say that Emily recognizes the importance
of what she calls lingo to identity; at the same time she acknowledges the significance of
16 of 25
another ―kind of talk‖ for other contexts (for example, business or school discourse).
While the Black person to whom Emily refers can move between different lingos (or
what Gee, 1992, would call Discourses), she is suggesting that her students are not able to
do that. xii Clearly it is the ―school language‖ or ―academic discourse‖ in which they are
not competent. While recognizing that pedagogies need to be designed for the learner
who is new to the English language, Leung et al. (1997) suggest that, given complex
urban realities, ―other forms of English language pedagogy might be better based on an
assumption that most learners, albeit from different starting points, are unfamiliar with
the deployment of standard English for academic purposes‖ (p. 558).xiii Delpit (1998)
stresses the necessity of teaching standard academic English (which she refers to as the
Discourse of power) to students from nonmainstream language, dialect, and cultural
backgrounds. While I do not think Emily was intentionally denying her students‘ access
to the Discourse of power, they were further disadvantaged by her negligence to ensure
they were aware of the differences between Discourses and fluent in standard academic
English.
Hornberger (2002) describes a promising study of Cambodian students‘ second
language literacy development in a mainstream classroom setting that could be adapted as
a model for the students in Emily‘s classroom. The teacher‘s successful teaching
practices included attention to academic English, explicit teaching of academic discourse,
and the communication of high expectations–approaches that have been documented in
other research in minority language education, and largely absent in Emily‘s teaching. xiv
Had these practices been adopted, the ―crowd‖ may have been better positioned to
acquire school-affiliated discourses and identities, and as a result, able to move with ease
between Discourses, rather than being stuck ―in-between.‖ This is crucial because
―through access to the discourses of school, students have opportunities to construct
identities as learners. And by coming to take on identities as learners, students gain
increasing access to the discourses of school‖ (Hawkins, 2005, p. 80). Gee and Crawford
(1998) make the point that ―all good teachers know there is much about identity that is
crucial to classrooms‖ (p. 225).
Being a ‗successful‘ student requires identity work. It requires adopting
and affiliating with multiple new ways of talking, listening, acting, feeling,
responding, interacting, and valuing, as well as writing and reading. All
17 of 25
the other identities students bring to the classroom are relevant to whether
and how they affiliate with school and its characteristic ―ways with
words‖ (Heath, 1983). (Gee & Crawford, 1998, p. 225)
Clearly, the ―in-between crowd‖ was not getting enough identity work. They were not
being scaffolded to new ways of talking, acting, writing and so forth (i.e. Discourses of
school). At the same time, students‘ out-of-school identities were not being recognized or
utilised. Both were needed for the research participants to be successful in school.
Conclusion
In closing, I turn to Canagarajah (2004) who proposes that, despite fascinating
theoretical advances made which have helped us understand identities as multiple,
conflictual, negotiated and evolving, ―We are left with the question, What is it about the
school that prevents students from negotiating favorable identities?‖ (p. 119).
Canagarajah suggests that researchers are often disappointed to find that students tend to
take on unitary identities, which are shaped by notions of deficiency and disadvantage. I
certainly saw evidence of this in my study, where students were offered identities that
limited and constrained. In several school-related ways, the student participants were
regarded as ―disadvantaged‖ by others (for example, they were not proficient in English,
they had not learned their first language properly, their parents were uneducated, they
lived in the inner-city).
Like other researchers, I tried to identify ―hidden spaces in the classroom where
students negotiate identities with positive consequences for their literacy development‖
(Canagarajah, 2004, p. 118). And, while the research participants did negotiate positive
spaces, due to current practices at the research site, these were all too few.xv Miller
(2004b) suggests that sociocultural understandings, including a knowledge of Discourses
and identity theory, offer schools, teachers and students a promising way to transform
their practices. My study suggests these perspectives are needed if, as Donato (2002)
stresses, learners are to actively transform their world and not merely conform to it;
―sociocultural theory is about language classrooms where agency matters‖ (p. 46).
On this topic, Adrena, the one Caucasian female in the class for the majority of
the year, offers a different way of looking at the ―in-between crowd.‖ Certainly, the
18 of 25
descriptions of the students above represent an incomplete and limited perspective. Could
the same students (and their families) be seen as ―advantaged‖ in other ways? While
inadequately prepared in some ways for academic success, were they perhaps better
prepared for life in other ways? ―In a world at five to twelve (= on the verge of selfdestruction),‖xvi Skutnabb-Kangas (1988, p. 38) emphasizes the need for
bilinguals as mediators. Those who are bi-something (bilingual,
bidialectal, bicultural) have been forced to look at two different languages,
dialects, cultures from the inside. It is easier for us bilinguals to
understand both parties.
Even Adrena, not particularly sensitive to or appreciative of her Asian classmates‘
cultural backgrounds throughout the study, recognized the potential significance of their
linguistic abilities. Her remarks, below, are made in reference to a newspaper article,
Leveling the Playing Field, which appeared in the local newspaper the day after the
Grade 9 class, along with junior high students from two other ―inner-city‖ schools, had
attended a sports camp at the nearby university. During an interview, Adrena took
exception to the manner in which the author had represented inner-city students in the
article:
It‘s stupid, totally branding us like this. She has more status, and, like,
probably lives up town, but in ten years who‘s going to be running the
country? It could be some of the kids in this school. Like, if Darith really
concentrated, I‘m sure he could teach, like, whatever he speaks, ‗cause he
can speak it really well. Like, we‘re going to need interpreters–that‘s who
these people are. That‘s what they‘re going to be to our nation.xvii
Adrena‘s comment provides a powerful example of how languages other than
English can be considered as resources rather than as problems, and in the process, open
up rather than close off, identity options. This paper is my attempt as a researcher to
foreground the interrelated issues of language, identity and school achievement for those
who either work with or are learning about English language learners in Canadian
schools. Watt and Roessingh (2001) suggest that the ―final challenge for researchers in
this area is to privilege the examination of issues that promote equitable educational
decisions…for students whose academic success is critical to the future of Canada‖ (p.
19 of 25
220). Perhaps then, more students with backgrounds similar to the ―in-between crowd‖
would be considered brilliant in this country.
Notes
i
Terminology regarding English language learners is problematic; students are often
described in terms of deficiency, rather than abilities. Thesen's (1997) view is that
naming is inevitable and potentially useful because equitable educational policy cannot
happen without it. I use the term ESL in this paper, albeit with caution. Also, as I make
references to the literature on language minorities in various English-dominant countries,
I use other terms. Creese (2005), for example, notes that the term English as an additional
language (EAL) is used in Britain, and is increasingly common in Canadian contexts.
ii
Pseudonyms have been used for the name of the school and all participants mentioned.
iii
Hall (1991) contends that identity is always a kind of representation.
iv
The students referred to the Khmer language as Cambodian.
v
Many researchers have drawn extensively on Cummins‘ theories of language learning;
for the purpose of this paper, I cannot explain at length. Suggested references include
Creese, 2005; Roessingh, 2006; Roessingh & Kover, 2002, 2003; Sears, 1998).
vi
While there is support for the position that literacy in the first language facilitates
developing literacy in the second, the reverse is a different statement.
vii
It is worth noting that Cummins‘ original conceptualization of CALP has been
criticized for presenting a view of academic language as abstract (Creese, 2005). In like
vein, Valdés (2004) explains how the second-language-teaching profession has moved
beyond BICS and CALP. However, as this paper makes clear, many educators and
researchers are still using his developmental continuum.
viii
The Registered Apprenticeship Program (RAP) allows full-time high school students
to start training in a trade as early as Grade 10.
ix
For a more thorough discussion of the gender dynamics in the classroom as related to
ethnicity and academic achievement, please see Wiltse (2008).
x
A case in point could be the janitor‘s position within the local school district which
provides workers with a unionized workforce with good security and good salary as well
as the place of the janitor in many schools (for example, the one person to whom some
children can talk). One wonders how it feels to be a school janitor if teachers use this
reference as an example of students making ―poor choices.‖
xi
Many of the parents were working long hours at more than one job, spoke little
English, and had limited understanding of the education system in Canada.
xii
Gee (1996) defines ‗big D‘ Discourse as ―a socially accepted association among ways
of using language, of thinking, believing, valuing, and of acting that can be used to
identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‗social network,‘ or to
signal (that one is playing) a socially meaningful ‗role‘‖ (p. 143).
xiii
Although not the focus of this paper, this comment does apply to the research
participants in general, regardless of whether or not they were English language learners.
xiv
Please see Wiltse (2006) for a description of the classroom discourse practices.
20 of 25
xv
See Wiltse (2008) for an example of one such positive space from this research
context.
xvi
If it was five to twelve in 1988, given the current state of world affairs, I assume that
the minute hand has moved a little closer to midnight.
xvii
The language that Darith speaks is Khmer. While these students may very well not be
running the country in the future, Adrena‘s point about their potential as
interpreters/mediators is pertinent.
References
Bogden, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research in education: An introduction
to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Canagarajah, S. (2004). Subversive identities, pedagogical safe houses, and critical
learning, in B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language
learning (pp. 116-137). Cambridge University Press.
Corson, D. (2001). Language diversity and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Creese, A. (2005). Teacher collaboration and talk in multilingual classrooms. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and language minority children. Toronto: OISE Press.
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento: California Association
for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse
society. Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (1997). Minority status and schooling in Canada. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 28(3), 411-430.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2006). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual
classrooms. Paper presented at Joint conference of the American Association of
Applied Linguistics (AAAL) and the Association Canadienne de Linguistique
Appliquée/Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics (ACLA/CAAL), Montreal,
June 2006.
Cummins, J. & Schecter, S. (2003). Introduction: School-based language policy in
culturally diverse contexts. In S. Schecter & J. Cummins (Eds.), Multilingual
education in practice: Using diversity as a resource (pp. 1-16). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
21 of 25
Davis, K., Bazzi, S., Cho, H., Ishida, M. & Soria, J. (2005). ―It‘s our Kuleana‖: A critical
participatory approach to language-minority education. In L. Pease-Alvarez & S.
Schecter (Eds.), Teaching and community: Contributions of situated and
participatory approaches to educational innovation, (pp. 3-25). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Delpit, L. (1998). The politics of teaching literate discourse. In V. Zamel & R. Spack
(Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages
and cultures (pp. 207-218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second
language classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (pp. 27-50). Oxford: University Press.
Duff, P. (2001). Language, literacy, content, and (pop) culture: Challenges for ESL
students in mainstream courses. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 103132.
Gebhard, M. (2005). School reform, hybrid discourses, and second language literacies.
TESOL Quarterly, 39, 187-210.
Gebhard, M., Austin, T., Nieto, S., & Willett, J. (2002). ―You can‘t step on someone
else‘s words‖: Preparing all teachers to teach language minority students. In Z.
Beykont (Ed.), The power of culture: Teaching across language difference (pp. 219243). Cambridge: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
Gee, J. (1992) The social mind: Language, ideology and social practice. New York:
Bergin & Garvey.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses (2nd edn).
London: Taylor & Francis. New York:
Gee, J. P. (2000). The new Literacy studies: From ‗socially situated‘ to the work of the
social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading
and writing in context (pp. 180-196). New York: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling.
New York: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. & Crawford, V. (1998). Two kinds of teenagers: Language, identity, and social
class. In D. Alvermann (Ed.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents' lives
(pp. 225-245). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H., & Chiu, M. (1999). Building a culture
of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory Into Practice, 38, 87-93.
Hall, S. (1991). Old and new identities, old and new ethnicities. In A.D. King (Ed.),
Culture, globalization and the world-system: Contemporary conditions for the
representation of identity (pp. 41-68). Birmingham: State University of New York.
Harklau, L. (2000). From the "good kids" to the "worst": Representations of English
language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 35-67.
22 of 25
Harklau, L. (2003) Representational practices and multi-modal communication in US
high schools: Implications for adolescent immigrants. In R. Bayley & S. Schecter
(Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 83-97).
Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Harris, S. (1990). Two way Aboriginal schooling. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
Hawkins, M. (2005). Becoming a student: Identity work and academic literacies in early
schooling. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 59-82.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and
classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hornberger, N. (2002). ―Remember I said‖: Cambodian students‘ second language
literacy development in a mainstream classroom. In Z. Beykont (Ed.), The power of
culture: Teaching across language difference (pp. 73-88). Cambridge: Harvard
Education Publishing Group.
Kanno, Y. (2004). Sending mixed messages: Language minority education at a Japanese
public elementary school. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of
identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 316-338). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Ltd.
Kramsch, C. (2000). Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning. In J. Lantolf
(Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 133-153). Oxford:
University Press.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural
theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford: University Press.
Leung, C., Harris, R. & Rampton, B. (1997). The idealised native speaker, reified
ethnicities, and classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 543-561.
Lotherington, H. (2003). Multiliteracies in Springvale: Negotiating language, culture and
identity in suburban Melbourne. In R. Bayley & S. Schecter (Eds.), Language
socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 200-217). Toronto:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Manyak, P. (2001). Participation, hybridity, and carnival: A situated analysis of a
dynamic literacy practice in a primary-grade English immersion class. Journal of
Literacy Research, 33, 423-465.
McKay, S. & Wong, S. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and
agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students.
Harvard Educational Review, 66, 577-606.
Merriam, S. (1988) Case Study Research in Education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
23 of 25
Miller, J. (2004a). Identity and language use: The politics of speaking ESL in schools. In
A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual
contexts (pp. 290-315). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Miller, J. (2004b). Social languages and schooling: The uptake of sociocultural
perspectives in school. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher
education: A sociocultural approach (pp. 113-146). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Ltd.
Mohan, B., Leung, C. & Davison, C. (Eds.). (2001). English as a second language in the
mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity. Harlow: Longman.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational
change. London: Longman.
Pavlenko, A. & Blackledge, A. (2004). Introduction: New theoretical approaches to the
study of negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts, in A. Pavlenko & A.
Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 1-33).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Roessingh, H. (2006). BICS-CALP: An introduction for some, a review for others. TESL
Canada Journal, 23(2), 91-96.
Roessingh, H. & Kover, P. (2002). Working with younger-arriving ESL learners in high
school English: Never too late to reclaim potential. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2), 120.
Roessingh, H. & Kover, P. (2003). Variability of ESL learners‘ acquisition of cognitive
academic language proficiency: What can we learn from achievement measures?
TESL Canada Journal, 21(1), 1-21.
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in Language Planning. NABE Journal 8, 15-34.
Schecter, S. & Bayley, R. (2002). Language as cultural practice: Mexicanos en el norte.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics
perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sears, C. (1998). Second language students in mainstream classes. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or not. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988) Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In
T. Skutnabb-Kangas and J. Cummins (Eds.)/ Minority Education: From Shame to
Struggle (pp. 9-44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Stein, P. (2004). Representation, rights, and resources: Multimodal pedagogies in the
language and literacy classroom, in B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical
pedagogies and language learning (pp. 95-115). Cambridge University Press.
24 of 25
Thesen, L. (1997). Voices, discourse, and transition: In search of new categories of EAP.
TESOL Quarterly, 31, 487-512.
Toohey, K. (1996). Learning English as a second language in kindergarten: A community
of practice perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 549-576.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom
practice. Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Valdés, G. (2004). Between support and marginalisation: The development of academic
language in linguistic minority children. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
7(2/3), 102-32.
Wallace, C. (2005). Conversations around the literacy hour in a multilingual London
primary school. Language and Education, 19(4), 146-161.
Watt, D. & Roessingh, H. (2001). The dynamics of ESL drop-out: Plus ça change… The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 203-222.
Wiltse, L. (2005). Cultural diversity and discourse practices in grade 9. Edmonton, AB:
Qual Institute Press.
Wiltse, L. (2006). ―Like pulling teeth‖: Oral discourse practices in a culturally and
linguistically diverse language arts classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review,
63(2), 199-223.
Wiltse, L. (2008). ―Learning the right way round?‖: Carnivalesque Social Spaces and
Literacy Learning. In Boys, Girls and the Myths of Literacies and Learning (pp. 143166). R. Hammett & K. Sanford (Eds.). Toronto: Canadian Scholars‘ Press.
Wolfe, P & Faltis, C. (1999). Gender and ideology in secondary ESL and bilingual
programs. In C. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism,
& ESL in the secondary school (pp. 83-102). New York: Teachers College Press.
25 of 25