Educational Linguistics Dongbo Zhang Ryan T. Miller Editors Crossing Boundaries in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education Essays in Honor of G. Richard Tucker Educational Linguistics Volume 58 Series Editor Francis M. Hult, Dept. of Education, Sherman Hall A Wing, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA Editorial Board Members Marilda C. Cavalcanti, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil Jasone Cenoz, University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain Angela Creese, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK Ingrid Gogolin, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Christine Hélot, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Hilary Janks, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Claire Kramsch, University of California, Berkeley, USA Constant Leung, King’s College London, London, UK Angel Lin, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada Alastair Pennycook, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia Educational Linguistics is dedicated to innovative studies of language use and language learning. The series is based on the idea that there is a need for studies that break barriers. Accordingly, it provides a space for research that crosses traditional disciplinary, theoretical, and/or methodological boundaries in ways that advance knowledge about language (in) education. The series focuses on critical and contextualized work that offers alternatives to current approaches as well as practical, substantive ways forward. Contributions explore the dynamic and multilayered nature of theory-practice relationships, creative applications of linguistic and symbolic resources, individual and societal considerations, and diverse social spaces related to language learning. The series publishes in-depth studies of educational innovation in contexts throughout the world: issues of linguistic equity and diversity; educational language policy; revalorization of indigenous languages; socially responsible (additional) language teaching; language assessment; first- and additional language literacy; language teacher education; language development and socialization in nontraditional settings; the integration of language across academic subjects; language and technology; and other relevant topics. The Educational Linguistics series invites authors to contact the general editor with suggestions and/or proposals for new monographs or edited volumes. For more information, please contact the Editor: Marianna Georgouli, Van Godewijckstraat 30, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. All proposals and manuscripts submitted to the Series will undergo at least two rounds of external peer review. This series is indexed in Scopus and the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers (NSD). Dongbo Zhang • Ryan T. Miller Editors Crossing Boundaries in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education Essays in Honor of G. Richard Tucker Editors Dongbo Zhang School of Education University of Exeter Exeter, UK Ryan T. Miller Department of English Kent State University Kent, OH, USA ISSN 1572-0292 ISSN 2215-1656 (electronic) Educational Linguistics ISBN 978-3-031-24077-5 ISBN 978-3-031-24078-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24078-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Foreword It is my honor to have been asked to provide a foreword to this volume, a tribute to the distinguished career of G. Richard (Dick) Tucker on the occasion of his 80th birthday. For over 50 years, Dick has inspired the profession with his leadership and keen sense of what it means to realize innovations in the field and dispel artificial borders that impeded the cultivation of new knowledge. Dick’s influential research is far-reaching and ranges from early psycholinguistic studies on various aspects of bilingualism to later work in sociolinguistics, heritage language learners, and implementation and assessment of innovative foreign language programs in the United States. The title of this volume is apt. By crossing boundaries, Dick has significantly contributed to research in diverse domains within the field of applied linguistics. He has forged a pathway for professional practice by revealing to the applied linguistics community how to link what seems impossible, disparate, and incompatible. All the studies in this volume are inspired and shaped by Dick’s extensive contributions to the field of applied linguistics. They address the realities of becoming bilingual, the critically important role of foreign language teacher education, the process of innovative language program design and assessment, and policy and planning for literacy development among minority and ethnic populations around the world. My association with Dick began long before I started regularly working with him in the early 1990s on foreign language in elementary schools and on mentoring doctoral students in second language acquisition and foreign language education programs. My first encounter with Dick occurred in 1986, when I was a graduate student at the University of Delaware serving as a teaching assistant in the Department of Modern Languages. At that time, the department was undergoing an external evaluation. I was told by the department chair that my intermediate French class, taught using DiPietro’s Strategic Interaction approach, would be observed by the evaluation team. Little did I know that the team would consist of three notables in the field: Adam Makai, Earl Stevick, and Dick Tucker. I vividly remember this observation by the three-member evaluation team. They sat on the right side of the classroom while students participated in a lesson on rules of the road in French. Little did I know I would cross paths with Dick again in 1992 v vi Foreword when he would become Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of Modern Languages at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh, PA. In 1995, Dick became department head, a position he held until 2007. In 2008-2009, he was named interim Dean of Student Affairs and interim Dean of CMU Qatar in 2010–2011. After his year in Qatar, he returned to the Modern Languages faculty until his retirement in June 2015. Dick’s upward trajectory of leadership roles at CMU attests to his efficiency and organizational skills as an administrator and academic leader. While responding to the demands of university administration, Dick remained a prolific scholar and researcher. His research reflects two areas for which he is well known as an international authority – namely, language policy and planning and innovative second and foreign-language program development and evaluation. While serving as department head at Carnegie Mellon University, Dick continued to write extensively on language policy and practice, analyzing issues such as the English-only movement, the education of linguistically and culturally diverse students, and the need for a language competent citizenry. During his tenure at CMU, Dick and I established a productive professional relationship while working on implementing, monitoring, and evaluating innovative Japanese and Spanish elementary and middle school foreign language programs (see for example, Tucker & Donato, 2003). During these years, Dick was masterful at building cooperative relationships with a dedicated group of doctoral students at CMU and the University of Pittsburgh who, across several generations, served as active members of our research team, participants in the elementary school language classrooms that we investigated, and co-authors of many publications about our findings (see, for example, Chinen et al., 2003; Dominguez et al., 2005; Donato et al., 1996, 2015; Tucker et al., 1996, 2001). To facilitate our work. Dick forged relationships with school district administrators and teachers who gave us access to real classrooms for our research and with whom we co-published the findings from studies conducted in their schools (e.g., Sapienza et al., 2006). Throughout our work together, Dick challenged the research team during our regular Friday afternoon research meetings. He encouraged us to look beyond the obvious, to ask novel questions, and to interpret data that we had collected from a variety of perspectives. He also reminded us that in American education, bilingualism, becoming bilingual, and the encouragement of innovative language education programs within the core curriculum of public education are often viewed as problematic, difficult, and undesirable. He asked us to ponder the lead question shaping our projects and commitment to research: What is the likelihood that students in American schools (primary, secondary, or tertiary) will graduate with bilingual proficiency and cross-cultural competence as a matter of course in the foreseeable future? This poignant question was at once generative for our thinking and simultaneously vexing for those of us believing in a curriculum that included foreign language proficiency outcomes. By posing this question, Dick pushed us to interrogate boundaries separating languages, cultures, and foreign language programs, which for many seemed impossible to breach. This overarching question fueled our Foreword vii research and resulted in numerous articles on elementary school foreign language programs, content-based middle school language programs (e.g., Pessoa et al., 2007), and valid and reliable assessments of foreign language proficiency in children across the years of schooling (e.g., Igarashi et al., 2002; Wudthayagorn et al., 2002). Based on the findings of these studies in two schools, Dick and I co-authored a book – A Tale of Two Schools: Developing Sustainable Foreign Language Programs – which presented the cumulative linguistic and cultural achievements of two programs we investigated over several years. Our writing also addressed the perplexing issue of how to sustain foreign language programs for children in elementary schools at a time when programs seemed to be disappearing at alarming rates (Donato & Tucker, 2010). A statement made by Zhang and Miller in their introduction to this volume clearly exemplifies Dick’s approach to our longstanding research on innovative language programming. They observe that it was through Dick’s dedication to boundary crossing – by his unwavering commitment to decenter anything “mainstream” – that we were able to gain deep and comprehensive insights into education as well as approaches to improving educational policy and practice. For many educators during this time, teaching children in more than one language and envisioning a curriculum that included well-articulated and extended K-12 sequences of language instruction seemed like an impossibility. But it was not so for Dick. On a personal note, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Dick. Closely working with him over the years taught me a great deal as I moved through the ranks of academia, especially when I assumed the role of chair in the Department of Instruction and Learning (now the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Leading). Dick’s influences on my personal and professional development are far too myriad to share in this small space, as many who have worked with Dick know all too well. Despite the years of reading research articles and learning about research methodology, it was Dick Tucker who taught me what it meant to conduct collaborative research that mattered and made a difference in the lives of children. So too was it Dick who showed me how to communicate clearly the value of our research and the direction it provided for the future to various constituents in schools and funding agencies. With deftness, conviction, and good humor, he consistently modeled how inflexible and unsurmountable boundaries could be crossed with only some effort and serious imagination. Dick also taught me what it meant to be a mentor to a new generation of graduate students who would ultimately assume positions in universities and continue the work they had begun in their respective graduate programs. With gratitude, I recall the mentoring advice that Dick once gave me which has stayed with me throughout my career. Doctoral students always need to move ahead in their work – never backwards, he said. Even when faced with the need to revise, rethink, or reconsider an issue, they must continue to move forward. Along these same lines, Dick also liked to remind me that a dissertation is not good if it is not finished, another cautionary insight that many of his former doctoral students certainly remember. viii Foreword As a highly accomplished administrator and academic leader, Dick additionally provided advice on the humanistic role of the chair that still resonates with me today. As he would always say Support your staff, faculty, and students, learn about their work and areas of specialization, celebrate their successes, and make their accomplishments publicly known. As a testimony to his beliefs, all staff members in Dick’s office were recognized for their contributions and dedicated service through a university-wide award. Dick formed supportive personal relationships with students and colleagues that extended beyond department business, such as hosting dinners with his wife Rae in their home. He published one-page ‘brag sheets’ that summarized the yearly achievements of students and faculty and provided useful data on the current state of the department. It is fair to say that Dick’s leadership at the university and for the profession should serve as the model for all those in administrative and leadership positions. This volume is a tribute to G. Richard Tucker and to the countless ways he has crossed boundaries into the uncharted waters of language learning and educational policy and practice. Across these chapters, which are written by his previous graduate students, Dick’s enduring legacy is clear. Supported by Dick’s perspectives and careful mentoring, the research in this volume covers a wide range of topics including language learning and development, teacher education and its effect on instructional processes, program innovation and evaluation, and policy and planning for supporting literacy development and unraveling the linguistic complexities and language ideologies of study abroad programs. I congratulate Zhang and Miller for organizing this tribute to Dick into a volume that will clearly make a significant contribution to applied linguistics. I also thank them for including me in this important project honoring G. Richard Tucker on the occasion of his 80th birthday. This volume makes visible the significant impact that Dick has had over the years on the field of applied linguistics and on all of us who have had the life-changing privilege of working with him. Department of Teaching, Learning, and Leading University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA, USA donato@pitt.edu Richard Donato References Chinen, K., Donato, R., Tucker, G.R., & Igarahsi, K. (2003). Looking across time: Documenting middle school Japanese FLES students’ attitudes, literacy, and oral proficiency. Learning Languages, 8(2), 4–10. Dominguez, R., Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (2005). Documenting curricular reform: Innovative foreign language education in elementary school. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 56–71). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Donato, R., Antonek, J. L., & Tucker, G. R. (1996). Documenting a Japanese FLES program: Ambiance and achievement. Language Learning, 46(3), 497–528. Foreword ix Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2010). A tale of two schools: Developing sustainable foreign language programs. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Donato, R., Tucker, G. R, & Hendry, A. H. (2015). Developing professional identities in applied linguistics: From doctoral study to professional practice. In Y. L. Cheung, S. B. Said, & K. Park (Eds.), Advances and current trends in language teacher identity research (pp. 217–234). London, UK: Routledge. Igarashi, K., Wudthayagorn, J., Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2002). What does a novice look like: Describing the grammar and discourse of young learners of Japanese. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 526–554. Pessoa, S., Hendry, H., Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Lee, H. (2007). Content-based instruction in the foreign language classroom: A discourse perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 102–121. Sapienza, B. A., Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2006). Learning a “second” foreign language: A district-wide foreign language program reaches the middle school. The Language Educator, 1(5), 24–27. Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (2003). Implementing a district-wide foreign language program: A case study of acquisition planning and curricular innovation. In D. Tannen & J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics: 2001. Linguistics, language, and the real world: Discourse and beyond (pp. 178–193). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R., Donato, R., & Antonek, J. L. (1996). Documenting growth in a Japanese FLES program. Foreign Language Annals, 29(4), 539–550. Tucker, G. R., Donato, R., & Murday, K. (2001). The genesis of a district-wide FLES program: A collaborative achievement. In R. L. Cooper, E. Shohamy, & J. Walters (Eds.), New perspectives and issues in educational language policy: In honor of Bernard Dov Spolsky (pp. 235–259). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Wudthayagorn, J., Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Igarashi, K. (2002). Self-assessment and the early language learner. The Journal of Research Methodology, 15(3), 387–409. Foreword When I received the invitation from co-editors Dongbo Zhang and Ryan Miller to write a foreword for this special volume in honor of G. Richard Tucker, I felt extremely grateful, humbled, and truly delighted have this opportunity. In addition to enjoying this occasion to share my personal appreciation for Dick’s contributions, I know I am channeling the thanks of a very special group of students, mentees, and co-authors who have contributed to this volume, and the gratitude of many, many others, not only for the very visible role Dick has played, but also for Dick’s less-than-visible and highly significant involvement in our personal and professional development. Greatly admired, respected, and beloved by countless colleagues, staff, and students who consider him their teacher, wise mentor, role model, and friend, Dick is the consummate scholar, educator, mentor, leader, and statesman with a huge, generous heart. Although there are many words, still inadequate, to describe Dick and his extraordinary impact, a place to start might be the title of this volume. While certainly appropriate, the title Crossing Boundaries in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education: Essays in Honor of G. Richard Tucker, invites attention to language choice and connotation. In this volume’s introduction, Zhang and Miller present a well-constructed framework for considering the importance of boundary crossing “in researching and understanding the complexity of language education and improving language education policy and practice.” Crossing boundaries can generate negative results or positive ones, depending on the context. Crossing boundaries can suggest inappropriate, unprofessional, or unethical behaviors, or perhaps uneventful, unremarkable movement, or, ideally, considerate, creative, path-opening progress. In every way, the definition for Dick and his life and work upholds the very best senses of crossing boundaries. Having the privilege to work with Dick has given many of us a glimpse into his playbook for crossing boundaries, and I venture to link his approaches with his love of family and love of football, too. Connecting with Dick professionally has meant for many of us seeing his love for his wife Rae and his family, and how he has modeled kindness and empathy for others who are navigating ups and downs and the boundaries of work and life outside of work. A former player and enthusiastic sports fan, Dick xi xii Foreword is also the motivating coach who guides and cheers avidly for his teams, for his students, and for his colleagues to cross boundaries and score goals on the field, in the classroom, in research collaborations, and in administrative settings. He provides encouragement through challenges, and he celebrates with great joy the accomplishments of others. With respect for others’ energies and constructive efforts, Dick has built solid bridges with his boundary crossings. Everywhere Dick has contributed, he has been a vital force promoting positive growth and a strong sense of community. During the time he was paid (as he often put it) “for doing the work he loves,” Dick spent his distinguished career on the faculty at McGill University, at the Ford Foundation as a Project Specialist in language centers around the world, then as President of the Center for Applied Linguistics for 13 years; and then he moved to Pittsburgh—the City of Bridges, how fitting!—to Carnegie Mellon, to become a faculty member, serving 12 years as Head of the Department of Modern Languages. After stepping out of the department head position, he “slowed down” to serve as Interim Dean of Students, Associate Vice Provost for Education—Qatar, Interim Dean of Carnegie Mellon Qatar, and Title IX Coordinator of the University. At Carnegie Mellon, while holding professional service and leadership positions in the wider profession, he also said “yes” to serve as chair of search committees for Dean of Students, Police Chief, Athletic Director, and Dean of Dietrich College, and all along, throughout his career, produced more than 200 scholarly publications; earned prestigious, well-deserved awards for his many accomplishments; and promoted the successful careers of hundreds of students and mentees. In retirement Dick has continued to engage actively and still receives frequent requests for his advice and support, and many of us continue to benefit from his generosity. Yes, Dick is a well-known model of clarity and punctuality. In the days when there were more in-person meetings, I lost count of the number of times I know that individuals received follow-up thank you messages, directives, summaries, and confirmations from Dick by the time they had returned to their offices after meeting with him. With this remarkable efficiency Dick combines intelligent counsel, extraordinary respect for others, and genuine interest in their well-being. These qualities define him not only as a successful administrator, but also as a wonderful researcher and teacher. In the Department of Modern Languages at Carnegie Mellon, where I have worked most closely with Dick, he has offered a unique perspective for crossing boundaries and bringing together diverse parts. He has enriched our unit with his broad perspective on language and language education. Unlike many universities across the country where there are separate departments of languages, our department houses programs in Arabic Studies, Chinese Studies, French and Francophone Studies, German Studies, Hispanic Studies, Japanese Studies, and Russian Studies, as well as two MA programs in Applied Second Language Acquisition and Global Communication and Translation, and a PhD program in Second Language Acquisition. Dick has displayed an understanding for the needs of each language area group and the undergraduate and graduate programs, and he has played a crucial role in building a very coherent unit and a congenial place with much Foreword xiii productive exchange and collaboration among students and faculty with research specializations in second language acquisition, literary and cultural studies, and technology-enhanced learning. Dick takes seriously the mission of education at every level. With great dedication to his own students, both undergraduate and graduate, the content of his courses emphasizes issues related to education and learning processes, but what is noteworthy is how he has handled and shaped this content in the connections he has built with individuals and groups of individuals. One salient example is the undergraduate senior seminar that Dick designed and taught regularly in spring semesters. In this capstone course, Modern Languages majors from across language areas come together in their final semester to reflect on a variety of topics related to the experience of language learning. Students regularly commented to me as department head on their satisfaction with this course. They mentioned particularly Dick’s extensive, deep knowledge and his superior organizational abilities as a teacher. From my conversations with Dick about students and teaching, it was clear that he established strong connections with his students, promoted their development, and often followed it and continued to be their advocate after their association in his courses. My own area of research focuses on Hispanic literary and cultural studies, and when I had the opportunity to teach the capstone seminar, I shaped my approach based on Dick’s syllabus, and saw how wonderfully adaptable his course model was, even if one’s area of specialization was not second language acquisition. When I proposed that we co-author an article about the course, he readily accepted, and the result of our collaboration was “Modern Languages Majors in the 21st Century: Broadening Disciplinary Frames of Reference and Global Awareness” (Polansky & Tucker, 2018). The capstone model champions crossing boundaries, and it allows for faculty members to shape the seminar in ways that can help the students see the importance of their courses of study, the significance of interdisciplinary competence, and their readiness for participation in the twenty-first century as well-prepared global citizens. Sharing updates about our students, Dick has expressed great delight in how creatively and productively our graduates have combined their study of modern languages with other disciplines, and how these choices have impacted their life paths. Dick’s view of teaching and education as a process of sharing and synthesizing is evident in his many collaborations beyond his own classroom. At Carnegie Mellon, he has been a dedicated advocate for building diversity and equity and addressing the needs of all students. In the Pittsburgh area, he was a key player in the union of a variety of constituencies to build a unique Spanish program in the Chartiers Valley School District. His impressive list of publications evidences a spectacular number of cooperative efforts, and clearly attests to his national and international recognition as an educator of educators. Dick’s love of data and extracting its key points connects interestingly with his fame for offering concise and often enumerated contributions for planning and implementing procedures and projects. A couple of his one-liners related to research and teaching of course have required more complex follow-up, but they distill foundational advice that, in practice, has proved crucial and forward-thinking. Especially xiv Foreword his graduate students, so many of them now successful researchers, teachers, and administrators, without sacrificing quality, and without losing sight of the ultimate significance of education and the interconnectedness of research and teaching, have lived by his often-repeated lines “A good dissertation is a finished dissertation” and “Put students first.” In meetings, sometimes free-flowing as meetings can be, his colleagues have deeply appreciated his succinct summaries at strategic moments, with his opening words “three things,” “four things,” or maybe “five things,” that shape the previous discussion and outline next steps. From his wide-ranging experience, Dick’s “Twelve Thoughts about Administration” have had far-reaching impact, and they have helped orient many of us in leadership positions. Dick’s administrative thoughts reflect very clearly his boundary crossings and how he has bridged his activities as an administrator, a researcher, and a teacher in and outside of the university. It’s not uncommon for lists to be aspirational, and those of us that know Dick and have seen this list would affirm without question that Dick the applied linguist has put his words into effective real-life practice. Here they are: Twelve Thoughts About Administration Department, College, University • Delegate when possible and appropriate • If you give people responsibility, give them authority • Provide feedback frequently • When decisions are made, write them down (and make sure the Administrative Associate/Business Manager has a copy) • Acknowledge the special things that people do • Schedule a regular meeting with Administrative staff to review events of the past week, tasks ahead, and problems anticipated • Try to respond to all requests or queries within 24 hours if possible—positively or not • Set firm, but realistic, deadlines for requests for information from faculty on various matters; and then proceed when the deadline has passed–with or without the input • Ensure that people have information about ongoing activities, tasks, etc. (They don’t necessarily want to participate, but inevitably they do want to feel that they’re informed.) • Establish and nurture the broadest possible base of personal contacts across all levels of university administration (a personal contact/request usually yields quick results) • Study and understand the budget Foreword xv Research, Education, and Networking in the Profession Generally the above plus: • Read broadly and file for future reference (with appropriate cross references so linkages can be made) • Participate regularly in the core meetings across the field to remain abreast of people, trends, and current activities • Maintain links with former colleagues, employees, and committee co-members, both domestically and internationally The articles in this volume speak volumes about the breadth and depth of Dick’s impact world-wide in the areas of language learning and development; language teacher activity and teaching; language program innovation, implementation, and evaluation; and language education policy and planning. I have had the pleasure of knowing many of the contributors to this volume since their first semesters as students at Carnegie Mellon, and it is awe-inspiring to see how they have crossed boundaries developing their careers and scholarship across continents and oceans and in this loving tribute to Dick. With Dick’s impetus, in their activities and scholarly work, they are showcasing a bright future for this field as they pay forward with impressive productivity the many lessons learned. In this year of his 80th birthday, what a joy it is to honor Dick and extend to him a world of thanks! Department of Modern Languages Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA, USA sp3e@andrew.cmu.edu Susan G. Polansky Reference Polansky, S., & Tucker, G. R. (2018). Modern languages majors in the 21st century: Broadening disciplinary frames of reference and global awareness. ADFL Bulletin, 45(1), 139–149. Contents Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education: An Introduction and the Tuckerian Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dongbo Zhang and Ryan T. Miller Part I 1 Language Learning and Development “I Want the Next Experience”: Israeli Adult Native Bilinguals Tell the Story of Their Childhood Bilinguality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deborah Dubiner 35 Boundary Crossing from the Start: 55 Years of Second Language Grammatical Gender Research in Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daniel R. Walter 57 Non-Expert Raters’ Scoring Behavior and Cognition in Assessing Pragmatic Production in L2 Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shuai Li, Xian Li, Yali Feng, and Ting Wen 79 Early Home and Community Support in Later Chinese Heritage Language Literacy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Haomin Zhang, Xi Cheng, and Jiexin Lin Part II Teachers and Instructional Processes Crossing the Disciplines: State of TESOL Teacher Education Programs in US Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Megumi Hamada and Ryan T. Miller Computerized Mediation in the Instruction and Development of L2 Pragmatic Competence: A Dynamic Assessment Perspective. . . . . . 149 Tianyu Qin xvii xviii Contents Writing Development of the Case Analysis Genre: The Importance of Feedback and Negotiated Construction in the Teaching Learning Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Maria Pia Gomez-Laich, Silvia Pessoa, and Ahmar Mahboob Boundary Crossing: Integrating Visual Arts into Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Yan Liu Part III Program Innovation, Implementation, and Evaluation Student-Level Variables and Academic Achievement in a Mandarin Dual Language Immersion Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Chan Lü, Amy E. Pace, and Liu Liu Evaluating the Modular Curriculum of Chinese Language in Singapore Primary Schools: Insights from Students and Teachers . . . . 231 Dongbo Zhang, Shouhui Zhao, and Xiaoxi Sun Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on American Students’ Willingness to Study Abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Feng Xiao and Kun Nie Writing as a Design Art: Crossing Boundaries Between Disciplinarity and Rhetoricity in a University Business Program . . . . . . . 271 Ryan T. Miller, Silvia Pessoa, and David Kaufer Part IV Language-in-Education Planning and Policy EFL Literacy Development in Ethnic and Language Minority Learners: Implications from Tertiary-Level EFL Teaching and Learning in Ethnic Minorities in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Sihui (Echo) Ke “In a Foreign Bubble” in China: Language Use Among International Students During China’s Belt and Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 Yi Wang and Wenhao Diao When Transfer Transfers: Applying Cross-Linguistic Reading Transfer Theory to Language of Instruction Policies in Lowand Middle-Income Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Pooja R. Nakamura Contributors Xi Cheng The Psycholinguistics Lab, School of Foreign Languages, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China Wenhao Diao Department of East Asian Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Richard Donato Linguistics (University of Delaware), Newark, DE, USA Department of Teaching, Learning, and Leading, School of Education, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Deborah Dubiner Oranim College of Education, Kiryat Tiv’on, Israel Yali Feng Department of Applied Linguistics/ESL, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA María Pía Gómez-Laich Department of English, Carnegie Mellon University Qatar, Doha, Qatar Megumi Hamada Department of English, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA David Kaufer Department Pittsburgh, PA, USA of English, Carnegie Mellon University, Sihui (Echo) Ke University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA Shuai Li Department of World Languages and Cultures, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA Xian Li Department of Applied Linguistics/ESL, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA Jiexin Lin The Psycholinguistics Lab, School of Foreign Languages, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China Liu Liu College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA xix xx Contributors Yan Liu Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Chan Lü Department of Asian Languages and Literature, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Ahmar Mahboob Department of Linguistics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia Ryan T. Miller Department of English, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA Department of English, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA Pooja R. Nakamura American Institutes for Research, Arlington, VA, USA Kun Nie Department of Asian Languages & Literatures, Pomona College, Claremont, CA, USA Amy E. Pace Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Silvia Pessoa Department of English, Carnegie Mellon University Qatar, Doha, Qatar Susan G. Polansky Boston College, Boston, MA, USA Department of Modern Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Tianyu Qin Department of Modern & Classical Languages, University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, GA, USA Xiaoxi Sun Department of Languages, Cultures and Visual Studies, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK Daniel R. Walter Humanities Division, Emory University, Oxford College, Oxford, GA, USA Yi Wang Department of Asian & Asian American Studies, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA Ting Wen College of Chinese Studies, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China Feng Xiao Department of Asian Languages & Literatures, Pomona College, Claremont, CA, USA Dongbo Zhang School of Education, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK Haomin Zhang The Psycholinguistics Lab, School of Foreign Languages, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China Shouhui Zhao Department of Foreign Languages, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education: An Introduction and the Tuckerian Impact Dongbo Zhang and Ryan T. Miller We must describe the needs of the children and of the adults who desperately seek access to educational, social, and economic opportunities, not in the arcane and jumbled jargons so characteristic of academia, but with the precision, the elegance, and the simplicity of an artist. Only then can we hope to reach and to affect those responsible for the formulation of public policy. (Tucker, 2000c, p. 26) Abstract This chapter first discusses the concept of boundary crossing and its learning potential in education and underscores the urgency of crossing a multitude of boundaries for researching, understanding, and improving language education. It then discusses the important role of expert boundary crossers. In particular, it highlights how G. Richard Tucker, whom this volume honors, has exemplified boundary crossing through his distinguished career in applied linguistics and language education for over half a century. The chapter ends with an overview of the four parts that form this volume and brief descriptions of how the chapters in the rest of the volume, each and collectively, contribute to language education research, policy, and practice through boundary crossing. Keywords Boundary crossing · Language education · G. Richard Tucker D. Zhang (*) School of Education, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK e-mail: d.zhang4@exeter.ac.uk R. T. Miller Department of English, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA e-mail: rmill129@kent.edu © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Zhang, R. T. Miller (eds.), Crossing Boundaries in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education, Educational Linguistics 58, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24078-2_1 1 2 1 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller Boundaries, Boundary Crossing, and Learning The world is full of boundaries. There are visible geographical boundaries like physical borders between countries as well as less visible or invisible boundaries like socio-cultural differences that define communities. This is similarly the case for our inquiry into and interaction with the world around us. In educational sciences, there are diverse boundaries that often define who we are, what we do, and how we do things. We form distinct disciplinary communities (e.g., anthropology and sociology of education, policy studies, educational psychology, learning sciences, and cognitive neuroscience of education) and accordingly define our scholarly identities. There are also paradigmatic labels (e.g., positivism, post-positivism, and constructivism) and methodological approaches that define and characterize how we study, approach, and interpret educational issues. Educational research is further divided, and hence boundaries created, in accordance with diverse units of inquiry (e.g., from system and policy to school and classroom, and from the teacher to the student/learner), environments of education and modes of educational delivery, so on and so forth. Boundaries have been created, and continue to be created, voluntarily or involuntarily, which compartmentalize educational researchers and educators alike in defined zones. We are often confined by these boundaries socially, institutionally, and academically. These boundaries create discontinuities between theory and practice or between knowledge generation and sharing, as well as between various socio-cultural or educational settings, among many others. Such boundaries hinder the development of insights into the complexity of education and efforts to improve education. Luckily, these boundaries can be crossed. Boundary crossing, as defined by Suchman (1994), refers to how professionals “enter into territory in which we are unfamiliar and, to some significant extent therefore unqualified” (p. 25). Boundary crossing restores continuity and brings learning potential (Ackerman & Bakker, 2011). Crossing boundaries involves constant reflection on and negotiation and contestation of ideas. Through boundary crossing, accepted ideas are scrutinized and challenged and new ones generated. Educational research has been influenced by anthropology, sociology, psychology, information and communication technologies, critical theories, policy studies, and more recently, data sciences, to name just a few. Interdisciplinary, collaborative work is being accepted as a new norm. The “paradigm war” has also been mitigated through the movement of mixed methods in educational research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Through decentering anything “mainstream” and crossing boundaries, we gain more comprehensive and deeper insights into education as well as approaches to improving education policy and practice. Ackerman and Bakker (2011), based on an integrative review of major studies on boundary crossing, concluded that four major mechanisms constitute the learning potential of boundary crossing, namely, identification, coordination, reflection, and transformation. Yet, crossing boundaries to achieve the learning potential is both challenging and risky. Stepping into an uncomfortable yet important zone requires Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 3 considerable renegotiation and reorientation. Crossing boundaries for expansive learning and an understanding of all sides of the education prism, particularly in a world that is quickly changing, is not easy. In boundary crossing, we “face the challenge of negotiating and combining ingredients from different contexts to achieve hybrid situations’‘(Engeström et al., 1995, p. 319). What boundaries to cross and how to cross them is both collective and personal. Navigating and negotiating these issues can be particularly daunting for junior scholars, who are often faced with a multitude of challenges and a multiplicity of positionings: personal, institutional, and academic. Expansive learning through boundary crossing, in a similar vein, applies to educational practices as well. Most if not all educational researchers are educators themselves, who are often faced with crossing boundaries of pedagogical ideas, educational systems, and institutional policies. To achieve the learning potential of boundary crossing and grow as a scholar and educator, or in Lave and Wenger’s (1991) words, to move from “legitimate peripheral participation” to a core member of “communities of practice,” the role of mentors and expert boundary crossers cannot be overstated (Barnett, 2008). 2 Boundaries in Language Education, G. Richard Tucker, and Boundary Crossing The aforementioned outline of boundaries, boundary crossing, and learning underpins this volume. It has never been more important to cross boundaries in researching and understanding the complexity of language education and improving language education policy and practice. There are many “traditional” labels which we use, or boundaries created, to define who we are and what we do as language educators and/or researchers of language education. For example, in our research and practice, we differentiate between second, foreign, and heritage language; language majority vs. minority students; TESOL vs. World Languages (or Modern Foreign Languages); and within World Languages, “commonly taught languages” vs. “less-commonly-taught languages.” Programmatically, we differentiate between traditional foreign language programs, content-based instruction, and language immersion; and between programs for young school learners vs. university-based programs. Contextually, there is foreign language learning in a traditionally monolingual context vs. learning a language in a societal context or bilingual/multilingual societies. Disciplinarily, language education scholars also work with boundaries that define subfields: second language acquisition, classroom pedagogy, language policy and planning, language teacher education, language assessment and testing, to name just a few. Within the domain of language, there are further linguistic knowledge and skill labels that define what we do as researchers, not to mention the diverse languages we research and teach. There are also associations that seem to define further boundaries in our academic and professional life, such as NABE (National Association of Bilingual Education) vs. TESOL (Teaching English to 4 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller Speakers of Other Languages) International Association vs. ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) vs AAAL (American Association for Applied Linguistics) vs. AERA (American Educational Research Association). Likewise, the “paradigm war” mentioned earlier has been specifically the case in language education research. While some scholars underscore researching and understanding cognitive processes of acquisition/learning of different linguistic skills in different learners, in different contexts, and through different mechanisms, others appreciate the social and semiotic nature of language learning and probe into the socio-cultural and political dimensions of language education (e.g., Kramsch, 2008; Pennycook, 2001; Van Lier, 2004). Other than the labeling and boundaries above that may echo resonantly in our mind, there are also issues emerging in this quickly changing world that call for (re-)examination of boundaries that might have been taken for granted. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic, which broke out while this book was being prepared, has called our attention to the boundary between traditional, face-to-face teaching and learning of languages and technology-supported virtual learning. At a more hidden but deeper level, the values of intolerance of racism and xenophobia are at risk of being devalued through “othering” with the changing economic and political situations in the world. The anti-Asian racism following the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in China and other Asian countries, and the killing of George Floyd in the United States and the global resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the midst of the pandemic are calling for further action on systemic racism. All these have (re)oriented us to critical issues around language, culture, society, and education, and to the importance of ambitious thinking and innovative practices in language education for promoting diversity, inclusion, equity, and social justice. To research and understand the broad meaning (cognitive, social, cultural, humanistic, and political) of language education and improve policy and practice, the boundaries outlined above, and many others, must be crossed. The good news is that as a community, if not each individually, we have begun to cross some boundaries. For example, we have begun to research language learning as a complex dynamic system (Larsen-Freeman, 2012) and recognize that language education should be understood from an ecological perspective (Kramsch, 2008). SLA is being argued as a theory of practice (Hall, 1997). Efforts have also been taken to integrate approaches to language learning by bridging or crossing the boundaries between the so-called cognitive and sociocultural approaches (Atkinson, 2002; Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Hulstijn et al., 2014; Zuengler & Miller, 2006) and to deconstruct the traditional distinction between L1 and L2 for a “bilingual turn in SLA” (Ortega, 2010). Methodologically, it has also begun to be realized that the traditional boundaries between approaches – quantitative and qualitative – could and should also be crossed (King & Mackey, 2016), and mixed-methods research has begun to be underscored to bring new insights into the complexity of language learning and education (or applied linguistics) (Riazi & Candlin, 2014). The postmethods movement for language teaching has also been emphasized for researching, understanding, and innovating language pedagogies (Kumaravadivelu, 2003) by decentering any particular type of practice. Translingualism and translanguaging Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 5 have also contributed to our understanding about the dynamic, fluid, and hybrid nature of language learning and use and have brought new perspectives for understanding and interpreting issues of language learning and education and the role of language in education (García & Li, 2014). Crossing the myriad of boundaries, and decentering whichever zones that define us or are defined by us, as mentioned earlier, is challenging and can be risky (see Donato et al., 2014; Tucker, 2000b). Luckily, there are brave, successful, and expert boundary crossers that have reminded us of the importance of boundary crossing (e.g., Tucker, 2000a, 2000b), exemplified boundary crossing to us, and inspired and mentored us to cross multiplicity of boundaries. G. Richard (Dick) Tucker, Paul Mellon University Professor Emeritus of Applied Linguistics at Carnegie Mellon University, is a notable one of them (Donato, 2013). Few scholars have valued and exemplified boundary crossing and demonstrated extraordinary success in it in language education research, policy, and practice more than Dick, whose career of over half a century has contributed to shaping the field of what we now know as applied linguistics (see Tucker, 2000b). Dick’s over 200 publications (see Appendix for a selected bibliography) and many other types of scholarly contributions have taught us the importance of “a language competent society,” and exemplified to us the importance and possibility of boundary crossing for researching and understanding language learning and education and improving policy and practice. Dick started his academic career in the 1960s. The earliest and most visible boundary crossing to begin that journey was perhaps his decision to leave the United States to do his MA and PhD in psychology at McGill University, Canada, which according to him was made because “I could play intercollegiate football there.” At McGill University, where he was later a member of the psychology faculty and a Professor of Psychology and Linguistics, Dick, in collaboration with colleagues and graduate students, crossed many linguistic, disciplinary, and methodological boundaries and published a number of studies that laid the foundation for understanding language learning processes, bilingualism, and program innovation and language teaching. The most notable boundary crossing during his tenure at McGill University was the collaborative work he conducted with Wallace E. Lambert on what was later known as the St. Lambert Experiment, a 12-year longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of French immersion programs in Quebec, Canada (Lambert & Tucker, 1972). While the St. Lambert project exemplified many dimensions of boundary crossing in language education, the most salient was perhaps between research on bilingual learning and innovative educational practice (program development, implementation, evaluation, and bilingual education policy, particularly language immersion or dual-language instruction) in schools. This Tuckerian boundary crossing was later carried on to the Foreign Language in Elementary Schools (FLES) project that Dick conducted with his University of Pittsburgh collaborator Richard (Rick) Donato, who also wrote a foreword for this volume. In that project that spanned over a decade, Dick and Rick, in collaboration with their graduate students (e.g., Chinen et al., 2003; Donato & Tucker, 2010; Igarashi et al., 2002; Mitsui et al., 2007; Tucker et al., 1996), implemented and assessed an ambitious, multi-year, articulated program that taught Japanese and 6 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller Spanish to elementary school students in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. According to Donato (2013), Dick’s “collaborative research in this area is the first to investigate empirically foreign-language learning in US elementary schools,” and his studies “remain a primary source of information for school districts implementing foreignlanguage instruction across the grade levels” (p. 2). The aforementioned boundary crossing between research and (innovative) practice is arguably only a fraction of the success that Dick has achieved. As evident in numerous “boundary objects” (projects, publications, presentations, policy engagements, leadership roles, etc.; Ackerman & Bakker, 2011), Dick, together with his collaborators, crossed a wide range of disciplinary, methodological, linguistic, institutional, programmatic, and national boundaries. The insights generated and discussed in his over 200 scholarly publications have convinced us that language learning and education are complex systems that necessitate synergistic insights into operations across diverse levels, ranging from policy, system, and standards to program, curriculum, and pedagogy, and from schools, administrators, and teachers to communities, parents, and students (see the introduction of each subsequent part of this volume for further detail). To highlight, Dick’s research has been informed by and contributed to a wide range of areas of scholarship that underpin language education, including, but not limited to, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, language acquisition, language policy and planning, bilingualism and multilingualism, language assessment and program evaluation, and teacher training and education. Dick’s research has also crossed many boundaries between paradigms and methodological approaches to understanding, interpreting, and debating language learning processes (cognitive, social, and affective), language teaching, and policies: quantitative and qualitative; experimental and observational; historical and discursive; attitudinal survey and skill testing; to name just a few. In the FLES project (Donato & Tucker, 2010), for example, students’ Japanese and Spanish proficiency was measured and monitored across many years of the programs to generate evidence of language development or effects of the program and instruction. In the meantime, classroom teacherstudent talk was analyzed through discourse analysis, and the perspectives of multiple stakeholders – students, parents, and teachers – were elicited through different methods (e.g., interviews and questionnaires) to generate insights into sustainable implementation of early foreign language programs and policy implications for a language-competent society. Dick’s scholarship has also crossed boundaries of contexts (e.g., institutional, national, sociocultural, political) and programs (e.g., traditional TESOL and foreign/World Language programs, foreign language immersion, and content-based instruction). During his tenure at McGill University, Dick concurrently served as a language specialist for the Ford Foundation and conducted a number of studies on language use, policy, learning, and language teacher education in many societal and educational systems, from Southeast Asia and the Middle East to North Africa. During his directorship of the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), Dick adopted a “broad worldview,” over and beyond what underpinned his earlier scholarship on French-English bilingual education in Canada, to unravel “the emergent Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 7 complexities of social policy and its relationship to second language acquisition in instructed contexts” (Donato, 2013, p. 2). He was also one of the four specialists who were sponsored by the US International Communication Agency and visited China to survey English teaching and teacher training there (Cowan et al., 1979). Dick contested the English-only movement in the United States and argued tirelessly for nurturing a language-competent society (e.g., Tucker, 1991, 1997). And together with his CAL colleague Jodi Crandall, Dick published a number of articles on language and content integrated instruction for language minority and language majority students in schools and universities (e.g., Crandall & Tucker, 1990; Tucker & Crandall, 1989). Crossing linguistic boundaries also saliently characterizes Dick’s scholarship and engagement in language education policy and practice. In addition to using bilingual/multilingual lens to unravel the complexity of language processing, learning, and education (e.g., Bruck et al., 1974; Tucker, 1998, 2001), Dick, together with his collaborators and graduate students, investigated the learning and teaching of diverse languages across national, institutional, and programmatic contexts and types of learners (e.g., school children vs. university students; language minority vs. majority students; heritage vs. foreign language learners). Those languages include Arabic, Chinese, English, Filipino, French, Hebrew, Japanese, and Spanish, to name just a few. During his tenure at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), where he served multiple academic and leadership roles before retirement in 2015, Dick also aimed to bridge language and global education for university students. He and his CMU colleagues outlined global literacy and argued for the cultivation of it in American university students in response to the multitude of challenges with which the world is faced today (Nair et al., 2012; Polansky & Tucker, 2018). In addition to his distinguished research and scholarship, Dick also exemplifies the role of a boundary crosser in promoting communication between diverse stakeholders and communities for understanding the critical importance of language learning, bilinguality, and education. He crossed institutional boundaries (from policy-informing institutes to academic associations and from higher education to schools) and the boundaries between the many academic, educational, administrative, and leadership roles he served. While working at McGill University (1968–1978), Dick, as noted earlier, was concurrently a language education advisor for the Ford Foundation and conducted a number of studies on language use, policy, and education in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. After he left McGill University, Dick became the Director of CAL in Washington DC (1978–1992). During his tenure as Director, CAL established the National Network for Early Language Learning to promote foreign language instruction in elementary schools in the US. Under his leadership, the scope of the center was significantly expanded, the annual budget significantly increased, and staff nearly tripled. CAL later established the Tucker Fellowship in 1992 in honor of his distinguished service and leadership. Dick joined Carnegie Mellon University in 1992 as a Professor of Applied Linguistics and became in 1995 the Head of the Department of Modern Languages, which now offers eight languages to CMU students (Arabic, Chinese, French, 8 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, and Spanish), 50% of whom (the national average being 9% per university), accordingly to a report of the Modern Language Association (MLA) in 2012,1 took at least one foreign language class while studying at CMU. Dick served as the Head of the department for 12 years, after which the Headship passed on to Susan G. Polansky, Dick’s long-term colleague and collaborator (see, for example, Polansky & Tucker, 2018) and also the author of a foreword for this volume. Since 2007, Dick continued to serve multiple leadership roles at CMU until he retired in 2015 as “Mr. Everything” and the Paul Mellon University Professor Emeritus of Applied Linguistics.2 These roles included, for example, the Interim Dean of Student Affairs, Associate Vice Provost for Education for Carnegie Mellon Qatar, Interim Dean of Carnegie Mellon University Qatar, and Title IX Coordinator. Dick received the Elliott Dunlap Smith Award from the College of Humanities and Social Sciences for distinguished teaching and educational service (1999), and later won the University’s Doherty Award for sustained contributions to excellence in education (2007). Dick has also crossed boundaries between professional associations or organizations with multiple leadership roles that facilitated research and communication on language learning, language teaching and program innovation, and educational policy. Among many other notable roles, Dick was a member of the Board of Directors of TESOL International Association (2003–2006), and is a foundation trustee of the International Research Foundation for English Language Education (TIRF), a nonprofit organization which, according to its position statement, gives “high priority to the development of a coherent program of language learning research, teaching research, and information dissemination.” Because of his distinguished scholarship, leadership, and service, Dick won prestigious awards or recognitions from all major language education associations in the United States, including the American Association for Applied Linguistics (Distinguished Scholarship and Service Award; 2003), the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (Paul Pimsleur Award for Distinguished Research; 1997), and TESOL International Association (The James Alatis Award for Service to TESOL; 1998). He was also chosen by the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) as the “Honoree of the Year” (1995) for his “significant contributions to the body of research on language acquisition and the establishment of sound bilingual education programs.” 1 2 https://thetartan.org/2012/12/3/news/foreignlanguage https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/modlang/news-stories/2015/tucker-retires.html Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 3 9 Goals of this Volume and Contributors/Boundary Crossers The goals of this volume are two-fold. Firstly, we aim to use original research papers from authors who are on the frontline of language education and research to explore, exemplify, and discuss boundary crossing, and through that boundary crossing to generate new insights that improve language education, policy and practice. Although there are several special issues of journals or volumes that shed light on paradigmatic hybridity for language education or applied linguistics research (e.g., Kostoulas, 2019), that focus is necessarily restricted with respect to the multiplicity of boundary crossing. Springer’s multiple-volume Encyclopedia of Language and Education, for which Dick and David Corson (Tucker & Corson, 1997) edited the volume on second language education for the first edition, is perhaps the most ambitious project that shows the landscape of language (in) education and sheds light on boundaries for crossing. Yet, the entries in the volumes did not specifically intend to explore, exemplify, and discuss boundary crossing between languages, programs, contexts, learners, units of inquiry, etc. In this respect, the present volume fills a niche. Secondly, we aim to honor Dick’s distinguished scholarship on language education and pay tribute to his inspiration and mentorship that have encouraged and scaffolded our crossing of boundaries academically and professionally. Dick is an outstanding boundary crosser; a tireless advocate on what language learning and bilinguality mean to who we are as an individual, a community, and a society; an eminent scholar and professor; and an inspirer, role model, and selfless mentor to the contributors of this volume (and, needless to say, many others in the fields of language education and applied linguistics). The courage, ambition, and success of the path exemplified in Dick’s career has inspired us, and will continue to inspire us, to cross boundaries to research and understand the complexity of language education and improve policy and practice. The authors come from diverse backgrounds. They are from different places in the world (e.g., China, Israel, Qatar, UK, USA); they have taught diverse languages and speak and research even more, such as Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Hebrew, Japanese, Kannada, and Spanish, to name just a few; their contexts of research and practice – national, sociocultural, institutional, and programmatic – are also diverse. Their students and research participants also vary, ranging from language minority to language majority students and from linguistically and culturally diverse students to students in a traditionally monolingual setting, etc. Their research is informed by various theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. Yet, they “cross boundaries” and come together for this volume because they are all, like Dick, boundary crossers in language education research and practice, and more importantly, because the lead authors all share the same path of receiving their doctoral degree from the PhD in Second Language Acquisition program at Carnegie Mellon University where they were taught, advised, inspired, and mentored (and continue to be mentored) by Dick. We view this volume as an outcome of our collaborative action research, under the mentorship of Dick, to explore 10 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller boundary crossing as language education researchers and language (teacher) educators. 4 Boundary Crossing Characterizing This Volume Boundary crossing is characteristic in this volume of individual chapters and parts, and across these chapters and parts. For the ad hoc purpose of organizing and structuring chapters, we use four broad themes of language education to organize this volume into four parts, namely, language learning and development; teachers and instructional processes; program innovation, implementation, and evaluation; and language-in-education policy and planning. These parts or themes also cover the major areas of language education where Dick has made distinguished contributions. Specifically, boundary crossing is characterized in this volume in the following three ways (see Fig. 1). First, while the four parts are separately presented, the themes are necessarily cross-cutting. In other words, boundaries are crossed between the areas of scholarship that often define our niche, scholarly identity. For example, research on teachers and teaching (Part II) may be contextualized in the implementation of an innovative program (Part III) or more broadly in shifting policies and may inform policy-related decisions (Part IV). Likewise, program evaluation (Part III) may well involve collecting evidence on student learning and language development (Part I) and classroom processes (Part II). This type of boundary crossing is clearly exemplified in Dick’s scholarship, as discussed in detail in the introduction of each part of this volume. Second, the chapters that form a part, despite a shared focus on the broad thematic issue, approach that issue by crossing boundaries of languages, methodologies, programmatic contexts, and socio-political or educational systems, among others. For example, while all chapters of Part IV focus on language-in-education planning and policy, they are informed by diverse theoretical perspectives and/or adopt different methodological approaches to understanding the interplay of many micro and macro factors in different social or educational settings. Finally, and most importantly, each individual chapter manifests boundary crossing within the chapter itself. For example, to address the complexity of language learning processes and development, a chapter in Part I may bridge theoretical frameworks, adopt cross-linguistic perspectives and designs, and/or “mix” methods. The most distinctive feature of this volume is that all chapters explicitly address and discuss boundary crossing, which may be either foregrounded and directly frame a study or, in a less direct way, be encapsulated in the discussion of the study and its findings where boundaries crossed are discussed to highlight the insights generated into language education. Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 11 Fig. 1 Boundary crossing characterizing Dick Tucker’s scholarship and this volume 5 Volume Organization and Introduction to Chapters This introduction chapter (Chap. 1) is preceded by the forewords of Dr. Richard Donato and Dr. Susan G. Polansky on their respective journey of collaboration and boundary crossing with Dick. Rick is a Professor and was Chair of the Department of Instruction and Learning (now the Department of Teaching, Learning, and Leading) in the School of Education at the University of Pittsburgh and Dick’s longterm research collaborator, notably in the FLES project described earlier. Susan had been Dick’s colleague and co-author at Carnegie Mellon University and succeeded Dick as the Head of the Department of Modern Languages, a role she served until 2020. This introduction chapter is followed by the four parts, each beginning with an introduction that outlines what we call the Tuckerian impact and followed by four chapters. These chapters cut across themes of the parts and address, from 12 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller different perspectives, boundary crossing in researching, understanding, and improving language education that emulates the Tuckerian impact. The first part focuses on language learning and development. In the introduction, the boundary crossing exemplified in Dick’s scholarship on language learning, learners, and bilinguality is presented, particularly his research that transcended boundaries of languages and language programs and the paradigmatic pluralism that he underscored for understanding the cognitive and social underpinnings of becoming bilingual and the educational implications of bilingualism and bilinguality. In Chap. 2, Dubiner explores the intersectionality of language/bilinguality and ethnic and national identity, with a focus on narratives of adult Israelis who were born to immigrant parents right around Independence. The lived experience of those participants from different social and familial backgrounds showed how they crossed boundaries of home language and Hebrew in identity construction (diasporic vs. Israeli identity) during the country’s revival of Hebrew as the national language. In Chap. 3, Walter crosses linguistic, theoretical, and methodological boundaries, among others, to review grammatical gender across languages and the research on the acquisition of grammatical gender in L2 learners. The author also deconstructs the boundary between SLA theory and instruction and discusses how boundaries between pedagogies such as functional and sociocultural approaches can be crossed for the teaching of grammatical gender. Chapter 4 addresses the interface between language assessment, acquisition, and use with a focus on L2 Chinese learners’ pragmatic production. Li and colleagues contend that L2 pragmatic assessment often relies on expert raters and focuses predominantly on speech acts. This has constrained understandings about learners’ real-world language use where non-expert, native speakers are usually the interlocutors and “assessors.” A study was thus conducted to cross boundaries by probing into non-expert raters’ scoring behavior and cognition in assessing L2 learners’ pragmatic production that included both speech acts and pragmatic routines. In Chap. 5, Zhang and colleagues explore the complex interplay of factors that influence Chinese as a heritage language (HL) reading development. Their study found that HL learners’ language and literacy experiences in the community had a more salient effect on their literacy development than those at home. It underscored the importance of crossing boundaries between learner-internal, resource factors and learner-external, socio-contextual factors for understanding HL literacy development and maintenance. Each paper exemplifies overlapping yet distinct boundary crossing, which has contributed to our understanding about the complex process, and the meaning, of learning languages and becoming bilingual. Additionally, they cross boundaries of the thematic areas that form the parts of this volume. Chapters 3 and 4, for example, clearly inform language instruction and assessment (Part II). Likewise, Chap. 2 touches on language, identity and nation building in a broad policy context (Part IV); and the findings of Chap. 5 also shed light on HL maintenance with policy implications (Part IV). Collectively, these chapters also cross boundaries of languages and contexts, as well as the boundary between theory and practice. Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 13 The second part focuses on language teachers and teaching, including teacher learning and professional development. The introduction presents the contribution of Dick’s scholarship and boundary crossing to our understanding about innovations in language teaching and language teacher education. Among the many boundaries crossed (e.g., programs and national contexts, learners, and methodological pluralism for researching language teaching and teachers), highlighted is Dick’s emphasis that language teaching is both science and art, and language educators need to be both a scientist and an artist to create an impact. Chapter 6 focuses on K-12 English learner (EL) teacher education programs in the United States. Hamada and Miller, based on an examination of programs’ offerings, compare the knowledge bases that different university-based EL teacher education programs draw on in the United States. They demonstrate how factors such as home department (language vs. education) and program level (baccalaureate vs. post- baccalaureate / master’s) influence whether an EL teacher education program is more applied linguistics- or general education-oriented. The authors argue that programs should cross disciplinary boundaries to integrate research and practices from different fields for educating EL teachers in US K-12 schools. Chapter 7 focuses on transcending the boundary between the teacher as a human mediator in dynamic assessment (DA) of student learning and the mediational role of carefully designed digital tools based on intelligent computing. Qin explores computerized mediation through DA to facilitate the development of the ability to comprehend implied meaning in L2 learners of Chinese. She discusses how computerized mediation tools can cross boundaries of learning environments and traditional teacher-student roles for ubiquitous learning of languages. In Chap. 8, Gómez-Laich and colleagues aim to cross disciplinary boundaries between subject learning and writing in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in universities with English as the Medium of Instruction (EMI). They report a study in which writing faculty/applied linguists worked in collaboration with information systems (IS) faculty and adapted the Teaching Learning Cycle to scaffold the writing of the case analysis genre in two IS courses in an American university in the Middle East. The authors also discuss the strategies they have used for promoting that boundary crossing. Chapter 9 situates boundary crossing in a university-based Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) program in the United States. Liu aims to integrate visual arts into her own CFL teaching and explores the relations between humanities, art appreciation and creativity, and language education. This chapter reports on the author’s effort to cross disciplinary boundaries and boundaries of instructional environments in her CFL teaching and presents a mixed-methods study that evaluated that effort with a focus on student motivation and perceptions. Each chapter in this part exemplifies boundary crossing that contributes to our understanding about language teaching, teachers, and teacher education. The chapters also cut across the themes of the four parts. For example, Chap. 6, while focusing on disciplinary influences on EL teacher education, has implications for teacher education programs and the evaluation of these programs (Part III). Likewise, while Chapters 8 and 9 have a clear focus on language teaching, they also explore 14 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller students’ language learning and use (Part I) and generate insights into program innovation (Part III). Needless to say, the four chapters collectively also cross boundaries of languages, programs and contexts, and research methods. The third part consists of four chapters that focus on language program innovation, implementation, and evaluation, an area where Dick has made a highly distinguished contribution. Like the previous parts, this part first outlines the boundary crossing exemplified in the Dick’s scholarship and discusses the Tuckerian impact. A very characteristic if not the most characteristic type of boundary crossing in program implementation and evaluation is that it is a collective enterprise, as has been underscored by Dick, that involves engagement across multiple stakeholders, such as scholars / evaluators, teachers, administrators, communities, parents, and of course students / learners. In Chap. 10, Lü and colleagues contextualize their boundary crossing in different Dual Language Immersion (DLI) programs in the United States. They argue that even though evidence has been established on benefits of DLI programs on students’ academic achievement, most studies on these educational benefits focused on Spanish DLI programs. The authors address this niche by analyzing the longitudinal data they collected from a Mandarin immersion program in urban California that enrolled ethnically and linguistically diverse students. Lü et al. found that students’ math and English language arts scores showed significant growth over time and the trajectory of growth was not influenced by students’ language background and race/ ethnicity. Chapter 11 underscores the importance of methodological hybridity and insights of stakeholders in curriculum/program evaluation and evidence-based language education policies and planning. Zhang and colleagues contextualize the discussion of boundary crossing in program innovation and evaluation in Singapore, where school curriculums are constantly reviewed and reformed to meet with the realities of the evolving sociolinguistic landscape and where they conducted a multi-year project to evaluate the Chinese Modular Curriculum in primary schools. The authors report their findings on teachers and students and discuss the interface between sociolinguistics, language policy and planning, and curricular/program innovation and reform. Chapter 12 does not involve evaluation of a program or a national curriculum but focuses on innovation and implementation of study abroad (SA) programs, which were heavily impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Xiao and Nie conducted a questionnaire survey of American college students, the most important stakeholder of SA programs, to understand their perceptions of SA in academic study, willingness to study abroad, and the impact of SA (or potentially the lack thereof) on their career prospects and life during a time full of uncertainties. Students’ insights are discussed to help departments and SA program directors evaluate current curricular requirement and explore new, innovative models and practice. In EMI universities, programs should aim for both disciplinary learning and professional communication skills in a discipline; yet, as Miller, Pessoa, and Kaufer point out in Chap. 13, boundaries often exist between writing to learn and learning to write views in program faculty. The authors argue for a writing as design approach Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 15 to disciplinary writing instruction and report how this approach was exemplified in a business content course in an EMI university in the Middle East. They interviewed instructors and analyzed instructional materials and student writing, and, based on the findings, they make recommendations on how business programs can leverage a writing as design conceptualization to improve student writing and bridge any boundaries perceived by faculty (and perhaps students as well) between disciplinarity and rhetoricity. The four chapters in this part, while each individually contributing to program innovation, implementation, or evaluation through boundary crossing, also cross thematic boundaries of the four parts. Chapters 10 and 11, while showing a focus on program evaluation, both have strong implications for language education planning and policy (Part IV). Chapter 10 also informs language learning and bilinguality (Part I) and Chap. 11 also contributes to understandings about language teachers and teaching (Part II). Likewise, Chapters 12 and 13 both shed light on curriculum or program policies (Part IV). The four chapters of course also collectively cross boundaries of languages, programs and educational contexts, research methods, so on and so forth. The fourth part explores boundary crossing in language education policy and planning. Dick’s publications on language education policy and planning and engagement in policy formulation, discussion, and debate are a very salient contribution of his to language education and applied linguistics. This is discussed in the part introduction. In particular, for boundary crossing exemplified in Dick’s scholarship, the introduction highlights his global view on language education, bi−/multilingualism, and policy and planning. It is emphasized that this global view, or a view that transcends sociolinguistic, national, and educational contexts, is fundamental for us to understand the many micro and macro factors that interplay in policy formulation, implementation, and contestation. Chapter 14 focuses on EFL learning and literacy in ethnic minority (EM) students who learn English as a third language in China. Ke first conducts a systematic review of relevant studies to identify the challenges EM students encounter in university EFL learning and effective models/programs/pedagogies for EM students. She then reports a study that compared the English literacy profiles of EM and Chinese-speaking Han-majority university students. Based on the review and empirical findings, Ke argues that EFL instruction for EM students needs to consider their varied backgrounds and linguistic repertoires and avoid deficitperspectives, and calls for collaborative, integrated approaches to EFL policy and practice for EM students in multilingual settings. In Chap. 15, using the metaphor of a “foreign bubble,” Wang and Diao characterize international students’ creation of an English-speaking environment for academic purposes in an EMI program in Shanghai, China. This English-speaking “foreign bubble,” which appears to justify the students’ avoidance of Chinese, however, is contested by other program stakeholders. The authors engaged with students, faculty, as well as staff of the program to unravel this unique policy context of language in education, which is being promulgated in response to China’s goal of 16 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller internationalizing its higher education through EMI education and in service to the country’s global strategies such as the Belt and Road Initiative. A distinct focus of Chap. 16 is its global perspectives on language education, bi−/multilingualism, language policy and planning. Nakamura discusses how theoretical concepts of cross-linguistic transfer in bilingual reading development could and should be used to address urgent issues of socioeconomic advancement and educational access for all in the developing world. The discussion is situated in the complex reality that in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which are also typically multilingual, the disparity between home and instructional languages has constrained literacy development, academic achievement, and socio-economic mobility. With references to a range of multilingual countries, Nakamura discusses how “cross-linguistic reading transfer theory” is valuable for addressing issues of initial literacy instruction and transition to literacy instruction in other languages. The author also discusses the importance of stakeholder engagement and boundary crossing for applications of theory to policy and practice for improving literacy outcomes in low-resourced LMIC contexts. Inquiries into language education planning and policy need to engage with policy contexts and stakeholders or actors. In this respect, the foregoing three chapters all cross the thematic boundaries of this volume, yet each provides insights into boundaries and boundary crossing in distinct ways, crossing boundaries of perspectives, languages, and methodological approaches. Chapter 14 shows a focus on language learning and proficiency in EM students (Part I) and Chap. 15 teachers/ faculty and programs (Parts II and III). Chapter 16 shows a notable, global perspective. It cuts across the themes of all parts to show that policy and planning in language (in) education is a complex system that requires crossing boundaries between theories and practice; socioeconomic and sociopolitical dimensions of language education; program models and evidence-based innovation; and diverse policy actors. 6 Conclusion Language education, like general education (Jacobson et al., 2019), is a complex system. Understanding the system and improving practice and policy require crossing diverse boundaries and decentering any particular disciplinary tradition, paradigm, or approach; language; learner; learning environment; programmatic, institutional, and political setting; so on and so forth. We hope this book has achieved its purposes of underscoring and exemplifying boundary crossing in language education research; honoring Dick as a distinguished scholar, expert boundary crosser, and mentor; and celebrating Dick’s eightieth birthday and his commitment to language education research, policy, and practice for over half a century. We also hope that this book has shown the learning potential in boundary crossing for professional development of language education researchers and language (teacher) educators. Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 17 Appendix G. Richard Tucker: A Selected Bibliography This appendix presents a selected bibliography of G. Richard Tucker’s scholarly works that have been produced from when he received his master’s degree in psychology at McGill University in 1965 to around when he retired in 2015 as the Paul Mellon University Professor of Applied Linguistics Emeritus at Carnegie Mellon University. These works are selected from over 200 scholarly works that Dick has produced. We hope that this bibliography supplements the descriptions that have been presented in this chapter to show how Dick has crossed boundaries in generating insights into language education, how his scholarship has contributed to understanding and improving language education, and how his works have contributed to shaping the field that we now define as applied linguistics. 1965–1967 Anisfeld, M., & Tucker, G. R. (1967). English pluralization rules of six-year-old children. Child Development, 38(4), 1201–1217. Cohen, S. P., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1967). The comparative skills of monolinguals and bilinguals in perceiving phoneme sequences. Language and Speech, 10(3), 159–168. Hayes, A. S., Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1967). Evaluation of foreign language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 1(1), 22–44. Lambert, W. E., Frankle, H., & Tucker, G. R. (1966). Judging personality through speech: A French-Canadian example. Journal of Communication, 16(4), 305–321. Tucker, G. R. (1965). The nature of English pluralization rules of kindergarten children. Unpublished MA thesis. McGill University. Tucker, G. R. (1967). French speakers’ skill with grammatical gender: An example of rule-governed behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. McGill University. 1968 Tucker, G. R. (1968). Judging personality from language usage: A Filipino example. Philippine Sociological Review, 16(1/2), 30–39. Tucker, G. R., Lambert, W. E., Rigault, A. (1968). A psychological investigation of French speakers’ skill with grammatical gender. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7(2), 312–316. 1969 Tucker, G. R., Lambert, W. E., Rigault, A. (1969). Students’ acquisition of French gender distinctions: A pilot investigation. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 7(1), 51–55. 1970 Tucker, G. R., & Gedalf, H. (1970). Bilinguals as linguistic mediators. Psychonomic Science, 20(6), 369–370. Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1970). The effect on foreign language teachers of leadership training in a foreign setting. Foreign Language Annals, 4(1), 68–83. 18 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller Tucker, G. R., Otanes, F. T., & Sibayan, B. P. (1970). An alternate days approach to bilingual education. In J. A. Atlatis (Ed.)., Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1970 (pp. 281–295). Georgetown University Press. 1971 Bruck, M., Jakimik, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1971). Are French immersion programs suitable for working-class children? A follow-up investigation. Word, 27(1–3), 311–341. Capco, C. S., & Tucker, G. R. (1971). Word association data and the assessment of bilingual education programs. TESOL Quarterly, 5(4), 335–342. d’Anglejan, A., & Tucker, G. R. (1971). Academic report: The St. Lambert Program of home-school language switch. Modern Language Journal, 55(2), 99–101. Davine, M., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1971). The perception of phoneme sequences by monolingual and bilingual elementary school children. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 3(1), 72–76. Gatbonton, E. C., & Tucker, G. R. (1971). Cultural orientation and the study of foreign literature. TESOL Quarterly, 5(2), 137–143. Hebb, D. O., Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1971). Language, thought and experience. Modern Language Journal, 55(4), 212–222. Tucker, G. R., & d’Anglejan, A. (1971). Some thoughts concerning bilingual education programs. Modern Language Journal, 55(8), 491–493. Tucker, G. R., Taylor, D. M., & Reyes, E. (1971). Ethnic group interaction in a multiethnic society. International Journal of Psychology, 6(3), 217–222. 1972 Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Newbury House Publishers. Seligman, C. R., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). The effects of speech style and other attributes on teachers’ attitudes toward pupils. Language in Society, 1(1), 131–142. Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Sociocultural aspects of foreign-language study. Northeast conference on the teaching of foreign languages. In J. W. Dodge (Ed.), Other words, other worlds: Language-in-culture (pp. 26–30). The Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 1973 d’Angelian, A., & Tucker, G. R. (1973). Communicating across cultures: An empirical investigation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 4(1), 121–130. d’Anglejan, A., & Tucker, G. R. (1973). Sociolinguistic correlates of speech style in Quebec. In R. W. Shuy & R. W. Fasold (Eds.), Language attitudes: Current trends and prospects (pp. 1–27). Georgetown University Press. Rémillard, L., Tucker, G. R., & Bruck, M. (1973). The role of phonology and lexicon in eliciting reactions to dialect variation. Anthropological Linguistics, 5(9), 383–397. Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 19 Lambert, W. E., Tucker, G. R., & d’Anglejan, A. (1973). Cognitive and attitudinal consequences of bilingual schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(2), 141–159. Tucker, G. R., Lambert, W. E, & D’Angelian, A. (1973). Are French immersion programmes for working class children? A pilot investigation. Language Sciences, 25, 19–26. 1974 Bruck, M., Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). Bilingual schooling through the elementary grades: The St. Lambert Project at grade 7. Language Learning, 24(2), 183–204. Campbell, R. N., Taylor, D. M., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). Teachers’ views of immersion-type bilingual programs: A Quebec example. Foreign Language Annals, 7(5), 106–110. Saegert, J., Scott, S., Perkins, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). A note on the relationship between English proficiency, years of language study and medium of instruction. Language Learning, 24(1), 99–104. Scott, M. S., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). Error analysis and English-language strategies of Arab students. Language Learning, 24(1), 69–97. Stubbs, J. B., & Tucker, G. R. The cloze test as a measure of English proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 58(5/6), 239–241. Tucker, G. R. (1974). Innovative approaches to second-language teaching. TESOL. Tucker, G. R. (1974). Methods of second-language teaching. Canadian Modern Language Review, 31(2), 102–107. 1975 Bruck, M., Lambert, W. E., Tucker, G. R., & Bowen, J. D. (1975). The 1968 NDEA Philippine institute for TESL teachers: A follow-up evaluation. Foreign Language Annals, 8(2), 133–137. d’Anglejan, A., & Tucker, G. R. (1975). The acquisition of complex English structures by adult learners. Language Learning, 25(2), 281–296. El-Dash, L., & Tucker, G. R. (1975). Subjective reactions to various speech styles in Egypt. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Issue 6, 33–54. Genesee, F., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1975). Communication skills of bilingual children. Child development, 46(4), 1010–1014. Harrison, W., Prator, C., & Tucker, G. R. (1975). English-language policy survey of Jordan. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Markman, B. R., Spilka, I. V., & Tucker, G. R. (1975). The use of elicited imitation in search of an interim French grammar. Language Learning, 25(1), 31–41. Tucker, G. R. (1975). The acquisition of knowledge by children educated bilingually. In D. P. Dato (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1975 (pp. 267–277). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R., & d’Anglejan, A. (1975). New directions in second language teaching. In R. C. Troike & N. Modiano (Eds.), Proceedings of the First InterAmerican Conference on Bilingual Education (pp. 63–72). Center for Applied Linguistics. 20 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller 1976 Bruck, M., Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1976). Alternative forms of immersion for second language teaching. NABE, 1(3), 33–48. Tucker, G. R., Hamayan, E., & Genesee, F. H. (1976). Affective, cognitive and social factors in second-language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32(3), 214–226. 1977 Bruck, M., Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1977). Cognitive consequences of bilingual schooling: The St. Lambert project through grade six. Linguistics, 15, 13–33. Hamayan, E., Genesee, F., & Tucker, G. R. (1977). Affective factors and language exposure in second language learning. Language Learning, 27(2), 225–241. Smith, P. M., Tucker, G. R., Taylor, D. M. (1977). Language, ethnic identity and intergroup relations: One immigrant group’s reaction to language planning in Québec. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 283–306). Academic Press. Tucker, G. R. (1977). Some observations concerning bilingualism and secondlanguage teaching in developing countries and in North America. In P. A. Hornby (Ed.), Bilingualism: Psychological, social and educational implications (pp. 141–146). Academic Press. Tucker, G. R. (1977). Can a second language be taught? In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), Teaching and learning English as a Second Language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 14–30). TESOL. 1978 Acheson, P., d’Anglejan, A., de Bagheera, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1978). English as the second language in Quebec: A teacher profile. McGill Journal of Education, 13(2), 189–197. Genesee, F., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1978). An experiment in trilingual education: Report 3. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34(3), 621–643. Genesee, F., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1978). The development of ethnic identity and ethnic role taking skills in children from different school settings. International Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 39–57. Hamayan, E., Markman, B. R., Pelletier, S., & Tucker, G. R. (1978). Differences in performance in elicited imitation between French monolingual and Englishspeaking bilingual children. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 16(4), 330–339. Tucker, G. R., & Cziko, G. A. (1978). The role of evaluation in bilingual education. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1978 (pp. 423–446). Georgetown University Press. 1979 Alatis, J. E., & Tucker, G. R. (Eds.). (1979). Georgetown University round table on language and linguistics 1979. Georgetown University Press. Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 21 Cooper, R. L., Olshtain, E., Tucker, G. R., & Waterbury, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex English structures by adult native speakers of Arabic and Hebrew. Language Learning, 29(2), 255–275. Cowan, J. R., Light, R. L., Mathews, B. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1979). English teaching in China: A recent survey. TESOL Quarterly, 13(4), 465–482. Gray, T. C., & Tucker, G. R. (1979). Language policy and the delivery of social services in Canada and the United States. In J. E. Alatis & G. R. Tucker (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on language and linguistics 1979 (pp. 61–75). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R. (1979). Bilingual education: Some perplexing observations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(5), 74–75. Tucker, G. R., & Sarofim, M. (1979). Investigating linguistic acceptability with Egyptian EFL students. TESOL Quarterly, 13(1), 29–39. 1980 Hamayan, E., & Tucker, G. R. (1980). Language input in the bilingual classroom and its relationship to second language achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 453–468. 1981 Rhodes, N.C., Tucker, G. R., & Clark, J. L. D. (1981). Elementary school foreign language instruction in the United States: Innovative approaches for the 1980’s. Center for Applied Linguistics. Tucker, G. R. (1981). Language issues for the 1980’s: Examples from the United States. Canadian Modern Language Review, 37(3), 441–446. Tucker, G. R. (1981). Concluding thoughts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 254–258. Tucker, G. R. (1981). Bilingual education research in developing countries: Implications for the United States. California Journal of Teacher Education, 8(3), 1–14. Tucker, G. R. (1981). Social policy and second language teaching. In R. C. Gardner, & R. Kalin (Eds.), A Canadian social psychology of ethnic relations (pp. 77–92). Methuen. 1982 Cziko, G. A., Lambert, W. E., Sidoti, N., & Tucker, G. R. (1982). Graduates of early immersion: Retrospective views of grade 11 students and their parents. In R. N. St. Clair, & H. Giles (Eds.), The social and psychological contexts of language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1982). Graduates of early French immersion. In G. Caldwell & E. Waddell (Eds.), The English of Quebec: From majority to minority status (pp. 259–277). Institut Québécois de recherche sur la culture. 1983 Tucker, G. R. (1983). Developing a research agenda for second language educators. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, & P. Strevens (Eds.), Georgetown University round 22 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller table on languages and linguistics 1983 (pp. 386–394). Georgetown University Press. 1984 Tucker, G. R. (1984). Toward the development of a language-competent American society. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 45, 153–160. Tucker, G. R. (1984). The future of language policy in education. In S. Shapson, & V. D’Oyley (Eds.), Bilingual and multicultural education: Canadian perspectives (pp. 143–153) Multilingual Matters. 1985 Tucker, G. R. (1985). Research directions and implications. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 6, 241–249. Tucker, G. R., & Crandall, J. (1985). Innovative foreign language teaching in elementary schools. In P. H. Nelde (Ed.), Methods in contact linguistic research. Dummler. 1986 Tucker, G. R. (1986). Implications of Canadian research for promoting a language competent American society. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), The Fergusonian impact: In honor of Charles A. Ferguson on the occasion of his 65th birthday Vol 2 (pp. 361–369). Mouton de Gruyter. Tucker, G. R. (1986). Developing a language-competence American society. In D. Tannen, & J. E. Alatis (Ed)., Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1985 (pp. 263–274). Georgetown University Press. 1987 Tucker, G. R. (1987). Educational language policy in the Philippines: A case study. In P. H. Lowenberg (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1987 (pp. 331–341). Georgetown University Press. 1989 Tucker, G. R. (1989). Cognitive and social correlates of bilinguality. In R. Cooper & B. Spolsky (Eds.), The influence of language on culture and thought: Essays in honor of Joshua A. Fishman’s sixty-fifth Birthday (pp. 101–111). Mouton de Gruyter. Tucker, G. R., & Crandall, J. (1989). The integration of language and content instruction for language minority and language majority students. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1989 (pp. 39–50). Georgetown University Press. 1990 Crandall, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1990). Content-based instruction in second and foreign languages. In A. Padilla, H. Fairchild, & C. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies (pp. 187–200). Sage. Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 23 Tucker, G. R. (1990). Second language education: Issues and perspectives. In A. Padilla, H. Fairchild, & C. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies (pp. 13–21). Sage. Tucker, G. R. (1990). An overview of applied linguistics. In M. A. K. Halliday, J. Gibbons, & H. Nicholas (Eds.), Learning, keeping, and using language Vol I (pp. 1–6). John Benjamins. Tucker, G. R. (1990). Cognitive and social correlates and consequences of additive bilinguality. In J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1990 (pp. 90–101). Georgetown University Press. 1991 Padilla, A. M., Lindholm, K. J., Chen, A., Durán, R., Hakuta, K., Lambert, W., & Tucker, G. R. (1991). The English-only movement: Myths, reality, and implications for psychology. American Psychologist, 46(2), 120–130. Tucker, G. R. (1991). Developing a language-competent American society: The role of language planning. In A. G. Reynolds (Ed.), Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second language learning: The McGill Conference in Honour of Wallace E. Lambert (pp. 65–79). Psychology Press. 1993 Tucker, G. R. (Ed.). (1993). Policy and practice in the education of culturally and linguistically diverse students: Views from language educators. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Ticker, G. R. (1993). Language learning for the 21st century: challenges of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 165–172. 1994 Donato, R., Antonek, J. L., & Tucker, G. R. (1994). A multiple perspectives analysis of a Japanese FLES program. Foreign Language Annals, 27(3), 365–378. Tucker, G. R. (1994). Concluding thoughts: Language planning issues for the coming decade. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 14, 277–283. 1995 Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (1995). Developing a second language research component within a teacher education program. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1995 (pp. 453–470). Georgetown University Press. 1996 Donato, R., Antonek, J. L., & Tucker, G. R. (1996). Monitoring and assessing a Japanese FLES program: Ambiance and achievement. Language Learning, 46(3), 497–528. Tucker, G. R. (1996). Some thoughts concerning innovative language education programmes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(2–4), 315–320. 24 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller Tucker, G. R., Donato, R., & Antonek, J. L. (1996). Documenting growth in a Japanese FLES program. Foreign Language Annals, 29(4), 539–550. 1997 Paulston, C. B., & Tucker, G. R. (Eds.). (1997). The early days of sociolinguistics: Memories and reflections. Summer Institute of Linguistics. Tucker, G. R. (1997). Developing a language-competent American society Implications of the English-only Movement. In T. Bongaerts & K. de Bot (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign language policy: Studies in honor of Theo van Els (pp. 89–98). John Benjamins. Tucker, G. R. (1997). Multilingualism and language contact: An introduction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 3–10. Tucker, G. R. (1997). The development of sociolinguistics as a field of study: Concluding observations. In C. B. Paulston & G. R. Tucker (Eds.), The early days of sociolinguistics: Memories and reflections (pp. 317–324). Summer Institute of Linguistics. Tucker, G. R., & Corson, D. (Eds.). (1997). Encyclopedia of language and education Vol 4: Second language education. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1998 Tucker, G. R. (1998). Priorities for a research agenda for early language learning. In M. Met (Ed.), Critical issues in early second language learning: building for our children’s future (pp. 308–339). Addison-Wesley. Tucker, G. R. (1998). A global perspective on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 3–15). Multilingual Matters. Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (1998). Designing and implementing an innovative foreign language program: Reflections from a school district-university partnership. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International review of English Studies, 33, 451–461. 2000 Antonek, J., Donato, R., Tucker, G. R. (2000). Differential linguistic development of Japanese language learners in elementary school. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(2), 325–351. Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., Wudthayagorn, J., & Igarashi, K. (2000). Converging evidence: Attitudes, achievements, and instruction in the later years of FLES. Foreign Language Annals, 33(4), 377–393. Tucker, G R. (2000a). The applied linguist, school reform, and technology: challenges and opportunities for the coming decade. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 197–221. Tucker, G. R. (2000b). Concluding thoughts: Applied linguistics at the juncture of millennia. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 241–249. Tucker, G. R. (2000c). Precision, elegance and simplicity: Perspectives on TESOL and art. Journal of the Imagination in Language Learning, 5, 24–26. Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 25 Tucker, G. R. (2000d). The importance of longitudinal research for language educators. In M. L. S., Bautista, T. A., Llamzon, & B. P., Sibayan (Eds.), Parangal cang Brother Andrew: Festschrift for Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday (pp. 161–169). Linguistic Society of the Philippines. 2001 Tucker, G. R. (2001a). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. In J. E. Alatis & A.-H. Tan (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1999 (pp. 332–340). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R. (2001b). Age of beginning instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 597–598. Tucker, G. R., Donato, R., & Murday, K. (2001). The genesis of a district-wide Spanish FLES program. In R. L. Cooper, E. Shohamy, & J. Walters (Eds.), New perspectives and issues in educational language policy: In honour of Bernard Dov Spolsky (pp. 235–259). John Benjamins. 2002 Chinen, K., & Tucker, G. R. (2002). Saturday-school participation, ethnic identity and Japanese language development. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1). Igarashi, K., Wudthayagorn, J., Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2002). What does a novice look like? Describing the grammar and discourse of young learners of Japanese. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 526–554. 2003 Chinen, K., Donato, R., Igarashi, K, & Tucker, G. R. (2003). Looking across time: Documenting middle school Japanese FLES students’ attitudes, literacy and oral proficiency. Learning Languages, 8(2), 4–10. Paulston, C. B., & Tucker, G. R. (Eds.). (2003). Sociolinguistics: The essential readings. Blackwell. Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (2003). Implementing a district-wide foreign language program: A case study of acquisition planning and curricular innovation. In D. Tannen, & J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 2001 (pp. 178–195). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R. (2003). Language contact and change: Summary observations. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 243–249. 2004 Tucker, G. R. (2004). Learning other languages: The case for promoting bilinguality within an international community. In D. Resnick, & D. Scott (Eds.), The innovative university. Carnegie Mellon University Press. 2005 Chinen, K., & Tucker, G. R. (2015). Heritage language development: Understanding the roles of ethnic identity and Saturday school participation. Heritage Language Journal, 3(1), 27–59. Dominguez, R., Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (2005). Documenting curricular reform: Innovative foreign language education in elementary school. In 26 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 56–71). Multilingual Matters. Mitsui, A., Morimoto, Y., Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (2005). “Intelligent” errors: Kanji writing as meaning making for Japanese FLES learners. Learning Languages, 11(1), 5–14. Tucker, G. R. (2005). Innovative language education programmes for heritage language students: The special case of Puerto Ricans? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2–3), 188–195. 2006–2010 Chenoweth, N. A., Jones, C. M., & Tucker, G. R. (2006). Language Online: Principles of design and methods of assessment. In R. P. Donaldson & M. A. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language education through CALL (pp. 149–168). Routledge. Chinen, K., & Tucker, G. R. (2006). Heritage language development: Understanding the roles of ethnic identity, schooling and community. In K. Kondo-Brown (Ed.), Heritage language development: Focus on East Asian immigrants (pp. 89–126). John Benjamins. Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2007). K-12 language learning and foreign language educational policy: A school-based perspective. Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 256–258. Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2010). A tale of two schools: Developing sustainable early foreign language programs. Multilingual Matters. Mitsui, A., Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2007). What can you remember? Recall of Japanese after a one-year hiatus. Learning Languages, 12(2), 8–12. Mitsui, A., Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2009). Introducing writing activities into the Japanese-as-a-foreign-language (JFL) classroom: A teacher-researcher collaboration. NECTFL Review, 64, 5–17. Pessoa, S. Hendry, H., Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Lee, H. (2007). Content-based instruction in the foreign language classroom: A discourse perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 102–121. Tucker, G. R. (2008). Learning other languages: The case for promoting bilingualism in our educational system. In D. M. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage Language education: A new field emerging (pp. 39–52). Routledge. Tucker, G. R. & Dubiner, D. (2009). Concluding thoughts: Does the immersion pathway lead to multilingualism? In T. W. Fortune & D. J. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 267–277). Multilingual Matters. 2011–2015 Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Hendry, H. (2014). Developing professional identities in applied linguistics: From doctoral study to professional practice. In Y. L. Cheung, S. B. Said, & K. Park (Eds.), Advances and current trends in language teacher identity research (pp. 217–234). Routledge. Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 27 Li, S., & Tucker, G. R. (2013). A survey of the US Confucius Institutes: Opportunities and challenges in promoting Chinese language and culture education. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 48(1), 29–54. Nair, I., Norman, M., Tucker, G. R., & Burkert, A. (2012). The challenge of global literacy: An ideal opportunity for liberal professional education. Liberal Education, 98(1), 56–61. 2016–2018 Ke, S., & Tucker, G. R. (2016). Unleavened cakes: L2 Chinese Education for South Asian Students in Hong Kong. K-12 Chinese Language Teaching. https://clta-us. org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Unleavened-Cakes-L2-Chinese-Educationfor-South-Asian-Students-in-Hong-Kong.pdf Polansky, S., & Tucker, G. R. (2018). Modern languages majors in the twenty-first century: Broadening disciplinary frames of reference and global awareness. ADFL Bulletin, 45(1), 139–149. Tucker, G. R. (2018). Summary and concluding observations. In J. Crandall & K. M. Bailey (Eds.), Global perspectives on language education policies (pp. 219–225). Routledge and TIRF. References Ackerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 525–545. Barnett, J. E. (2008). Mentoring, boundaries, and multiple relationships: Opportunities and challenges. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(1), 3–16. Bruck, M., Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). Bilingual schooling through the elementary grades: The St. Lambert project at grade 7. Language Learning, 24(2), 183–204. Chinen, K., Donato, R., Igarashi, K., & Tucker, G. R. (2003). Looking across time: Documenting middle school Japanese FLES students’ attitudes, literacy and oral proficiency. Learning Languages, 8(2), 4–10. Cowan, J. R., Light, R. L., Mathews, B. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1979). English teaching in China: A recent survey. TESOL Quarterly, 13(4), 465–482. Crandall, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1990). Content-based instruction in second and foreign languages. In A. Padilla, H. Fairchild, & C. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign language education: Issues and strategies (pp. 187–200). Sage. Donato, R. (2013). In G. R. Tucker & I. C. A. Chapelle (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2010). A tale of two schools: Developing sustainable early foreign language programs. Multilingual Matters. Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Hendry, H. (2014). Developing professional identities in applied linguistics: From doctoral study to professional practice. In Y. L. Cheung, S. B. Said, & K. Park (Eds.), Advances and current trends in language teacher identity research (pp. 217–234). Routledge. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319–336. 28 D. Zhang and R. T. Miller García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. Palgrave Macmillan. Hall, J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice: A response to firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 97, 301–306. Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., Ortega, L., & Bigelow, M. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 361–421. Igarashi, K., Wudthayagorn, J., Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2002). What does a novice look like? Describing the grammar and discourse of young learners of Japanese. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 526–554. Jacobson, M. J., Levin, J. A., & Kapur, M. (2019). Education as a complex system: Conceptual and methodological implications. Educational Researcher, 48(2), 112–119. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. King, K. A., & Mackey, A. (2016). Research methodology in second language studies: Trends, concerns, and new directions. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 209–227. Kostoulas, A. (Ed.). (2019). Challenging boundaries in language education. Springer. Kramsch, C. (2008). Ecological perspectives on foreign language education. Language Teaching, 41(3), 389–408. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale University Press. Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Newbury House Publishers. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching, 45(2), 202–214. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Mitsui, A., Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2007). What can you remember? Recall of Japanese after a one-year hiatus. Learning Languages, 12(2), 8–12. Nair, I., Norman, M., Tucker, G. R., & Burkert, A. (2012). The challenge of global literacy: An ideal opportunity for liberal professional education. Liberal Education, 98(1), 56–61. Ortega, L. (2010). The bilingual turn in SLA. Plenary delivered at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics. Atlanta, GA, March 6–9. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Polansky, S., & Tucker, G. R. (2018). Modern languages majors in the 21st century: Broadening disciplinary frames of reference and global awareness. ADFL Bulletin, 45(1), 139–149. Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47(2), 135–173. Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2, 21–39. The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. Tucker, G. R. (1991). Developing a language-competent American society: The role of language planning. In A. G. Reynolds (Ed.), Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second language learning: The McGill conference in honour of Wallace E. Lambert (pp. 65–79). Psychology Press. Tucker, G. R. (1997). Developing a language-competent American society implications of the English-only movement. In T. Bongaerts & K. de Bot (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign language policy: Studies in honor of Theo van Els (pp. 89–98). John Benjamins. Tucker, G. R. (1998). A global perspective on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 3–15). Multilingual Matters. Boundary Crossing in Researching, Understanding, and Improving Language Education… 29 Tucker, G. R. (2000a). The applied linguist, school reform, and technology: Challenges and opportunities for the coming decade. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 197–221. Tucker, G. R. (2000b). Concluding thoughts: Applied linguistics at the juncture of millennia. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 241–249. Tucker, G. R. (2000c). Precision, elegance and simplicity perspectives on TESOL and art. Journal of the Imagination in Language Learning, 5, 24–26. Tucker, G. R. (2001). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. In J. E. Alatis & A.-H. Tan (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1999 (pp. 332–340). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R., & Corson, P. (Eds.). (1997). Encyclopedia of language and education: Second language education. Springer. Tucker, G. R., & Crandall, J. (1989). The integration of language and content instruction for language minority and language majority students. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1989 (pp. 39–50). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R., Donato, R., & Antonek, J. L. (1996). Documenting growth in a Japanese FLES program. Foreign Language Annals, 29(4), 539–550. Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Kluwer. Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural approaches: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35–58. Part I Language Learning and Development Introduction and the Tuckerian Impact This part focuses on the learner and on language learning and development. To understand the broader issues that define the focus of the other parts, it is essential that we cross boundaries to probe into the learner and learning and develop a solid understanding about such fundamental issues as mechanisms and processes of learning; social and psychological factors in learning; cognitive and social “consequences” of language learning and bilinguality; and, more broadly, language learning, schooling, and educational achievement. This thematic area forms an important part of Dick’s scholarship and contribution to applied linguistics. With collaborators and graduate students, Dick published numerous articles that examined processes of language learning and development and the personal, social, and educational “consequences” of language learning and bilinguality. Sometimes, the studies reported were contextualized in a broader agenda such as program implementation and evaluation (e.g., Antonek et al., 2000; Chinen et al., 2003; Genesee et al., 1978; Lambert et al., 1973; see also Part III) or comparison of instructional methods and classroom processes (e.g., Hamayan & Tucker, 1980; Tucker et al., 1969; see also Part II). Other times, they were purposefully designed to investigate a very specific issue in language learning (e.g., Chinen & Tucker, 2005; Scott & Tucker, 1974). These publications, collectively and individually, exemplify the crossing of boundaries between languages, learners, contexts, theoretical perspectives, and/or methodological approaches (see Fig. 1, Chap. 1). Specifically, these publications crossed boundaries of target languages and language backgrounds of learners, including but not limited to, Arabic- and Hebrewspeaking (e.g., Cooper et al., 1979; Scott & Tucker, 1974; Tucker & Sarofim, 1979), French-speaking (e.g., d'Anglejan & Tucker, 1975), and Filipino-speaking learners of English (Tucker et al.,1970); English-speaking learners of French (Bruck et al., 1974; Tucker et al., 1969), Spanish (Donato & Tucker, 2010), and Japanese (Antonek et al., 2000; Igarashi et al., 2002; Tucker et al., 1996); as well as heritage learners of 32 I Language Learning and Development Japanese (e.g., Chinen & Tucker, 2002, 2005). Boundary crossing was sometimes also manifested in the design of individual studies that involved, for example, comparing L1 and L2 users of a language, such as French (Bruck et al., 1974; Lambert et al., 1973) and Japanese (Mitsui et al., 2005), and exploring L1 influence on L2 learning and development (Scott & Tucker, 1974). Other than the linguistic diversity, Dick’s publications also involved other learner diversities, such as young (e.g., Bruck et al., 1974) or adult learners (e.g., d'Anglejan & Tucker, 1975; Saegert et al., 1974; Scott & Tucker, 1974; Tucker et al., 1969); and learners in diverse social and educational settings, including Canada (d'Anglejan & Tucker, 1975; Tucker et al., 1969, 1976;), Egypt (Cooper et al., 1979; Tucker & Sarofim, 1979), Israel (Cooper et al., 1979), Lebanon (Scott & Tucker, 1974), Japan (Mitsui et al., 2005), the Philippines (Gatbonton & Tucker, 1971; Tucker et al., 1970), and the United States (Chinen & Tucker, 2002, 2005; Tucker et al., 1996). Dick is a strong advocate for crossing disciplinary, paradigmatic, and methodological boundaries (and for educating graduate students and junior researchers to cross these boundaries as well). His work underscores the importance of longitudinal research and developmental perspectives on language learning (and language education in general) (see Tucker, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c). As he argued, we should not encourage the importation of any one relatively restricted research paradigm or tradition” and “we should encourage our students to seek the broadest possible training in qualitative and ethnographic as well as in quantitative techniques and […] we should then work to ensure that we all use the tools that are most appropriate for the questions we are asking from among the broad array of techniques and procedures currently available to us (Tucker, 2000b, p. 207). Crossing paradigmatic and methodological boundaries is also clearly exemplified in Dick’s research with collaborators and graduate students. For example, Dick’s studies on language learning and development were influenced by linguistic and psycholinguistic (e.g., Bruck et al., 1974; Cohen et al., 1967; Davine et al., 1971; Tucker et al., 1969) as well as socio-psychological and sociolinguistic perspectives (e.g., Genesee et al., 1978; Tucker et al., 1976). They also followed diverse approaches, designs, and methods, ranging from quantitative, experimental and factorial designs, and correlation-based research (e.g., Gatbonton & Tucker, 1971; Genesee et al., 1975; Lambert et al., 1973; Saegert et al., 1974) to qualitative interviews, linguistic analysis, and case comparisons (e.g., Igarashi et al., 2002; Mitsui et al., 2005). Sometimes, methods and sources of data were purposefully mixed to understand and interpret language development and the consequences of language learning and bilinguality (e.g., Antonek et al., 2002; Mitsui et al., 2005; Scott & Tucker, 1974; Tucker et al., 1996). I Language Learning and Development 33 References Antonek, J., Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2000). Differential linguistic development of Japanese language learners in elementary school. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(2), 325–351. Bruck, M., Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). Bilingual schooling through the elementary grades: The St. Lambert Project at grade 7. Language Learning, 24(2), 183–204. Chinen, K., & Tucker, G. R. (2002). Saturday-school participation, ethnic identity and Japanese language development. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1). Retrieved from https://www.international.ucla.edu/ccs/article/3902 Chinen, K., & Tucker, G. R. (2005). Heritage language development: Understanding the roles of ethnic identity and Saturday school participation. Heritage Language Journal, 3(1), 27–59. Chinen, K., Donato, R., Igarashi, K, & Tucker, G. R. (2003). Looking across time: Documenting middle school Japanese FLES students’ attitudes, literacy and oral proficiency. Learning Languages, 8(2), 4–10. Cohen, S. P., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1967). The comparative skills of monolinguals and bilinguals in perceiving phoneme sequences. Language and Speech, 10(3), 159–168. Cooper, R. L., Olshtain, E., Tucker, R. G., & Waterbury, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex English structures by adult native speakers of Arabic and Hebrew. Language Learning, 29(2), 255–275. d’Anglejan, A., & Tucker, G. R. (1975). The acquisition of complex English structures by adult learners. Language Learning, 25(2), 281–296. Davine, M., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1971). The perception of phoneme sequences by monolingual and bilingual elementary school children. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 3(1), 72–76. Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2010). A tale of two schools: Developing sustainable early foreign language programs. Multilingual Matters. Gatbonton, E. C., & Tucker, G. R. (1971). Cultural orientation and the study of foreign literature. TESOL Quarterly, 5(2), 137–143. Genesee, F., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1975). Communication skills of bilingual children. Child Development, 46(4), 1010–1014. Genesee, F., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1978). The development of ethnic identity and ethnic role taking skills in children from different school settings. International Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 39–57. Hamayan, E., & Tucker, G. R. (1980). Language input in the bilingual classroom and its relationship to second language achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 453–468. Igarashi, K., Wudthayagorn, J., Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2002). What does a novice look like? Describing the grammar and discourse of young learners of Japanese. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 526–554. Lambert, W. E., Tucker, G. R., & d'Anglejan, A. (1973). Cognitive and attitudinal consequences of bilingual schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(2), 141–159. Mitsui, A., Morimoto, Y., Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (2005). "Intelligent" errors: Kanji writing as meaning making for Japanese FLES learners. Learning Languages, 11(1), 5–14. Saegert, J., Scott, S., Perkins, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). A note on the relationship between English proficiency, years of language study and medium of instruction. Language Learning, 24(1), 99–104. Scott, M. S., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). Error analysis and English-language strategies of Arab students. Language Learning, 24(1), 69–97. Tucker, G. R. (2000a). The applied linguist, school reform, and technology: Challenges and opportunities for the coming decade. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 197–221. Tucker, G. R. (2000b). Concluding thoughts: Applied linguistics at the juncture of millennia. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 241–249. 34 I Language Learning and Development Tucker, G. R. (2000c). The importance of longitudinal research for language educators. In M. L. S. Bautista, T. A. Llamzon, & B. P. Sibayan (Eds.), Parangal cang Brother Andrew: Festschrift for Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday (pp. 161–169). Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Tucker, G. R., & Sarofim, M. (1979). Investigating linguistic acceptability with Egyptian EFL students. TESOL Quarterly, 13(1), 29–39. Tucker, G. R., Donato, R., & Antonek, J. L. (1996). Documenting growth in a Japanese FLES program. Foreign Language Annals, 29(4), 539–550. Tucker, G. R., Hamayan, E., & Genesee, F. H. (1976). Affective, cognitive and social factors in second-language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32(3), 214–226. Tucker, G. R., Lambert, W. E., & Rigault, A. (1969). Students’ acquisition of French gender distinctions: A pilot investigation. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 7(1), 51–55. Tucker, G. R., Otanes, F. T., & Sibayan, B. P. (1970). An alternate days approach to bilingual education. In J. A. Atlatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1970 (pp. 281–295). Georgetown University Press. Part II Teachers and Instructional Processes Introduction and the Tuckerian Impact This part is broadly defined to focus on any issues concerning the teacher, teaching and instructional process, as well as teacher education and teacher learning. Teachers are inarguably a key player in language education: what they know and think and what they do have critical implications on student learning (Part I) and the success of any language program (Part III), and they are a key policy actor in language education planning (Part IV). Accordingly, it is very important to cross boundaries to research and understand the teacher (who they are, what they know, and how they think) and their professional life (teaching and professional development), and to innovate classroom teaching and teacher learning. Language education researchers are always strongly interested in teaching methods and instructional processes, including, for example, classroom discursive processes and language learning. There has also been increasing interest in language teaching (Long & Doughty, 2009), language teacher cognition (Borg, 2006; Mercer & Kostoulas, 2018), and language teacher professional learning (Crandall, 2000; Crandall & Christison, 2016). In fact, traditional understandings of “language teachers,” “language classrooms,” and “language instruction” are also being constantly redefined. For example, with the increasing representation of non-native English-speaking students in US schools, all teachers, including subject teachers, are expected to accommodate the language-related needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students (de Oliveira & Yough, 2015). Likewise, language teachers in CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) or language immersion programs need to bridge language and content learning (Lo, 2020). Additionally, with the advent of new technologies, new environments of language instruction are emerging, such as blended learning or flipped classrooms, which are also redefining teachers’ roles, instructional practices, and processes of language learning (Lan, 2020; Mehring & Leis, 2018). Boundaries need to be crossed, between languages, instructional contexts, learning environments, learners, and teaching methodologies and approaches, to 122 II Teachers and Instructional Processes understand many issues around the teacher and teaching. These issues are also an integral and important component of boundary crossing in Dick’s scholarship. Dick has published prolifically on language teaching, teachers, and teacher training and education, and crossed boundaries for innovative teaching and teacher education, whether these publications were contextualized in program implementation and evaluation (e.g., Campbell et al., 1974; see also Part III), policy engagements (e.g., Tucker, 1993; see also Part IV), or examination of the effects on language learning (e.g., Hamayan & Tucker, 1980; see also Part I). Not only did Dick engage in discussions and debates on teaching approaches and methods, including content-based instruction (e.g., Tucker, 1974; Tucker & Crandall, 1989), but he conducted a number of studies with collaborators and graduate students to probe into classroom / instructional processes and student learning, crossing boundaries between languages, research methods, programmatic contexts, and learners. Those studies included, for example, quantification of linguistic features in teacher input and teaching behaviors (e.g., different strategies on errors) and analysis of their influence on student output in French immersion classrooms in Canada (Hamayan & Tucker, 1980), qualitative analysis of Spanish teachers’ discursive practices and their implications on the learning of both language and content in content-based Spanish classrooms in US schools (Pessoa et al., 2007), and descriptions of the teacher’s use of activities that gave students opportunities for creative writing in an elementary school Japanese-as-a-foreign-language classroom in the US (Mitsui et al., 2009). In his commentary on the “big debate” on whether TESOL is an art or a science, which was entitled Precision, elegance and simplicity: Perspectives on TESOL and Art, Dick used the analogy of TESOL as a “Necker Cube” and convincingly argued that “in order to affect public policy, in order to improve the quality of education for the children and the adults who are entrusted to our care - that we must be both scientists and artists” (Tucker, 2000; p. 25), and we must cross boundaries to document “effective practice” as well as “the contributions of competing social, political, economic, and pedagogical factors on the processes and the products of teaching and learning;” aim for “accuracy, systematicity, and accessibility in our findings;” and “encourage work that is contextualized and that is collaborative— work that draws upon a broad range of models and analytic techniques” (Tucker, 2000; p. 26). Another central thread of Dick’s scholarship concerning the teacher is on teachers themselves and their learning or professional development. In a number of publications, Dick and his collaborators studied the psychology of teachers (e.g., self-concept, value orientations, professional motivations; e.g., Tucker & Lambert, 1970) and teachers’ views on or attitudes toward diverse language education related issues, including notably policy and practice in the education of culturally and linguistically diverse students (e.g., Campbell et al., 1974; Tucker, 1993). They also studied the teacher knowledge base for language teaching (e.g., Acheson et al., 1978; Cowan et al., 1979), and compared methods or models for language teacher training and education (e.g., Bruck et al., 1975; Tucker & Lambert, 1970). II Teachers and Instructional Processes 123 Collectively these studies crossed boundaries of countries and educational systems, such as China (Cowan et al., 1979), France (Tucker & Lambert, 1970), the Philippines (Bruck et al., 1975), Canada (Acheson et al., 1978; Campbell et al., 1974;), and the United States (Bruck et al., 1975; Tucker & Lambert, 1970). They used a variety of approaches and designs, such as questionnaire surveys on teachers’ views and attitudes (Acheson et al., 1978; Campbell et al., 1974) and experimentation and assessment of teachers’ psychological attributes (Bruck et al., 1975; Tucker & Lambert, 1970). Bruck et al. (1975) was perhaps one of the earliest studies that used longitudinal evidence to show the long-term benefits of studying/training abroad on teacher development and language teaching, despite the short-term evidence, such as participants’/trainees’ immediate post-training dissatisfaction and depression, that painted an unfavorable picture about that training experience (see also Bowen, 1968). The findings strongly underpin the many more contemporary policies and practices in teacher education programs in the US and beyond that underscore study/experience abroad and global/multicultural education for teachers as well as internationalization of teacher education (e.g., AACTE, 1994; Shiveley & Misco, 2015; Walters et al., 2009). Another salient and notable boundary crossing in Dick’s scholarship on teachers and teacher education/learning is his envisioning of the teacher-researcher identity and relationship. Dick was among the earliest to make compelling arguments for the importance of a second language research component in language teacher education programs and outlined many ideas for providing research training to pre-service teachers and promoting their research engagement (Tucker, 1983; Tucker & Donato, 1995). He also actively collaborated with practitioners or in-service teachers and facilitated their crossing of boundaries as they became “researchers” of teaching innovation in their own classrooms (e.g., Mitsui et al., 2009) (see also Borg, 2010, 2013; Crandall, 2000). Dick’s research has also provided insights into the complexity and fluidity of the researcher-practitioner (applied linguist - educator) identity, and the confusion it is associated with and the challenges it often brings, in the nexus of or the boundary between language education research and language teaching (Donato et al., 2014). (What was reported in Donato et al. [2014] about professional identities in applied linguistics, by the way, is perhaps what many if not all of the contributors in this volume have experienced, negotiated, and navigated under Dick’s mentorship, as mentioned earlier in Chapter 1.) References AACTE. (1994). Teacher education in global & international education. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Acheson, P., d'Anglejan, A., de Bagheera, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1978). English as the Second Language in Quebec: A teacher profile. McGill Journal of Education, 13(2), 189–197. 124 II Teachers and Instructional Processes Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum. Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43(4), 391–429. Borg, S. (2013). Teacher research in language teaching: A critical analysis. Cambridge University Press. Bowen, J. D. (1968). Final technical report on the Institute in English for Speakers of Other Languages. University of California. Bruck, M., Lambert, W. E., Tucker, G. R., & Bowen, J. D. (1975). The 1968 NDEA Philippine institute for TESL teachers: A follow‐up evaluation. Foreign Language Annals, 8(2), 133–137. Campbell, R. N., Taylor, D. M., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). Teachers' views of immersion‐type bilingual programs: A Quebec example. Foreign Language Annals, 7(5), 106–110. Cowan, J. R., Light, R. L., Mathews, B. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1979). English teaching in China: A recent survey. TESOL Quarterly, 13(4), 465–482. Crandall, J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 34–55. Crandall, J., & Christison, M. (Eds.). (2016). Teacher education and professional development in TESOL: Global perspectives. Routledge. de Oliveira, L. C., & Yough, M. (Eds.). (2015). Preparing teachers to work with English Language Learners in mainstream classrooms. Information Age. Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Hendry, H. (2014). Developing professional identities in applied linguistics: From doctoral study to professional practice. In Y. L. Cheung, S. B. Said, & K. Park (Eds.), Advances and current trends in language teacher identity research (pp. 217–234). Routledge. Hamayan, E., & Tucker, G. R. (1980). Language input in the bilingual classroom and its relationship to second language achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 14(4), 453–468. Lan, Y.-J. (2020). Immersion, interaction, and experience-oriented learning: Bringing virtual reality into FL learning. Language Learning & Technology, 24(1), 1–15. Lo, Y. Y. (2020). Professional development of CLIL teachers. Springer. Long, M. H., & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell. Mehring, J., & Leis, A. (Eds.). (2018). Innovations in flipping the language classroom. Springer. Mercer, S., & Kosoulas, A. (Eds.). (2018). Language teacher psychology. Multilingual Matters. Mitsui, A., Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2009). Introducing writing activities into the Japanese-asa-foreign-language (JFL) classroom: A teacher-researcher collaboration. NECTFL Review, 64, 5–17. Pessoa, S., Hendry, H., Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Lee, H. (2007). Content‐based instruction in the foreign language classroom: A discourse perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 102–121. Shiveley, J., & Misco, T. (2015). Long-term impacts of short-term study abroad: Teacher perceptions of preservice study abroad experience. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XXVI, 107–120. Tucker, G. R. (1974). Innovative approaches to second-language teaching. TESOL. Tucker, G. R. (1983). Developing a research agenda for second language educators. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, & P. Strevens (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1983 (pp. 386–394). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R. (2000). Precision, elegance and simplicity: Perspectives on TESOL and art. Journal of the Imagination in Language Learning, 5, 24–26. Tucker, G. R. (Ed.). (1993). Policy and practice in the education of culturally and linguistically diverse students: Views from language educators. TESOL. Tucker, G. R., & Crandall, J. (1989). The integration of language and content instruction for language minority and language majority students. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1989 (pp. 39–50). Georgetown University Press. II Teachers and Instructional Processes 125 Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (1995). Developing a second language research component within a teacher education program. In J. E. Alatis F(Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1995 (pp. 453–470). Georgetown University. Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1970). The effect on foreign language teachers of leadership training in a foreign setting. Foreign Language Annals, 4(1), 68–83. Walters, J. M., Garii, B., & Walters, T. (2009). Learning globally, teaching locally: Incorporating international exchange and intercultural learning into pre‐service teacher training. Intercultural Education, 20(sup1), S151–S158. Part III Program Innovation, Implementation, and Evaluation Introduction and the Tuckerian Impact This part focuses on program innovation, development, implementation, and evaluation. Language programs, according to Norris (2016), are “intentional interventions designed to address one or more clearly defined societal needs related to language learning and/or use;” and they “present a persistently evolving constellation of factors that interact to determine often life-changing outcomes for individuals” (p. 169). Although programs vary in scale, purpose, design principles, target population, and mode of delivery and experience, among many other dimensions, they are all characterized by a principled and systematic effort to generate an impact on the target individuals, communities, institutions, and society at large. To achieve their designed purposes and maximize the impact they aim to generate, programs need to be theoretically informed, carefully implemented, and rigorously evaluated. In the history of language education, there have been shifting perspectives on and new understandings about language, learning, use, and society. The shifts are concurrent with many interests in, and debates on, “what works” in language education. Compared to the community’s collective knowledge of diverse programs, rigorous evaluation of programs to demonstrate “what works” is scarce. Norris (2016) decries that program evaluation “largely has been ignored by the mainstream of applied linguistics” (p. 169). Program evaluation entails the multiplicity of boundary crossing that underpins this volume (see Fig. 1, Chap. 1). For example, like for program development and implementation, boundaries between stake-holders such as scholars, administrators, teachers, and communities, to name just a few, need to be crossed for evaluation. Additionally, program evaluation needs to cross paradigmatic and methodological boundaries and necessitates “mixing” methods adaptively and collecting evidence longitudinally from multiple sources, which should not be restricted to outcome measures of learning (e.g., proficiency development; Part I) but should also entail analysis of program processes (e.g., classroom processes; Part II) and views and perspectives of insiders or stake-holders (Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005; Norris, 2016). Rigorous program evaluation may also require 208 III Program Innovation, Implementation, and Evaluation cross-linguistic and cross-contextual comparisons. To many, program evaluation could be a daunting task and only for brave boundary crossers. In this respect, Dick’s scholarship and contribution is particularly noteworthy. Dick is arguably a pioneer of language program innovation and evaluation, which is probably one of the most salient lines of his work where he made distinguished contributions to language education research, policy, and practice, and where he exemplifies the importance, possibility, and benefits of boundary crossing. As Dick argues, “we must make a societal commitment to encourage innovative languageeducation programs; and […] furthermore we should make a collective professional commitment to offer our insights and our professional expertise to articulate appropriate educational goals for our children; to help to design and implement responsive pedagogical programs, and to document and to evaluate their relative efficacy” (Tucker, 1984, p. 159). From as early as the 1960s, Dick and his collaborators (e.g., Hayes et al., 1967) began to argue that the traditional or “standard” approach to evaluating a language teaching program, based on objective, pre- and postintervention proficiency measures, is limited, as it “neglects highly relevant events that take place during the actual training program” (p. 23). They henceforth proposed a more process-oriented approach in which “direct observation of actual training in progress” is made to examine the extent to which “certain policies, principles, and procedures that will have been demonstrated to play a role in successful language learning” are confirmed in “course design, program administration, and individual teaching performance” (p. 23). Dick (Tucker, 1979; Tucker & Cziko, 1978), as Norris (2016) did about 40 years later, noted the importance of program evaluation and decried the dearth of it in bilingual education. Together with his collaborators, Dick himself made great effort to bridge theories of language learning (Part I), language teaching (Part II), and policy (Part IV) in program evaluation and to promote sustainable implementation of language programs. This was manifested in his numerous scholarly activities and publications (e.g., Chenoweth et al., 2006; Tucker, 1996, 2005), but perhaps crystalized and best exemplified in the two multi-year collaborative projects on foreign language program implementation and evaluation in schools (Donato & Tucker, 2010; Lambert & Tucker, 1972). Despite their different locations—one in Montreal, Canada on immersion and bilingual schooling, and the other in Pittsburgh, United States on FLES—the St. Lambert project and the Pittsburgh FLES project both were characterized by notable crossing of boundaries between diverse stake-holders of education to implement and evaluate a program and generate impacts on students, schools, and society at large. When discussing the paucity of program evaluation studies, Dick (Tucker, 1979) alerted us to a variety of barriers, which ranged from “the transience of potential researchers” to the “unwillingness or inability of funding agencies to commit funds,” and to “the unfortunate tendency for administrators to regard initial results,” as opposed to longitudinal evidence, “as a major criterion” for program decisions (p. 74). This led him later to sharply point out that “research should be a collaborative activity with teachers, administrators, policy makers, and researchers serving as equal partners in the enterprise and that it is important that the concerns of disparate audiences be represented equally in the III Program Innovation, Implementation, and Evaluation 209 research process;” and “the optimal planning, implementation, and dissemination of research involves, of necessity, a continuing dialogue among the diverse ‘stakeholders’ in the various phases of teaching and learning” (Tucker, 2000, p. 207). As is exemplified in his scholarship underpinning the other parts of this volume, Dick’s scholarship in program innovation and evaluation is also characterized by crossing boundaries of quantitative and qualitative approaches and methods to generate diverse types of data to track processes of program implementation and understand program effectiveness. In addition to measuring diverse outcome variables to understand students’ language proficiency, cognitive attributes, and sociolinguistic attitudes, and tracking their development or change longitudinally (e.g., Bruck et al., 1974; Tucker et al., 1996; see also Part I), those program evaluation studies conducted quantitative questionnaire surveys on or qualitative interviews with teachers, administrators, students, and parents (e.g., Bruck et al., 1976; Campbell et al., 1974, Donato et al., 1994, 1996; Donato et al., 2000; see also Donato & Tucker, 2010) as well as qualitatively probed into classroom discursive processes and student learning (e.g., Donato et al., 2000; Pessoa et al., 2007; see Part II). Another notable boundary crossing in Dick’s contribution to program evaluation is the purposeful comparative lens. In the evaluation of the French immersion programs implemented as part of the St. Lambert project (e.g., Bruck et al., 1974; Lambert & Tucker, 1972), English-speaking, French-learning or bilingual students’ cognitive attributes, sociolinguistic attitudes, as well as English and French language skills were compared with those of monolingual English- and Frenchspeaking children to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program and the cognitive and social consequences of language learning and bilinguality (see Part I). In the FLES project (Donato & Tucker, 2010), on the other hand, comparisons of program implementation and impact were made between Japanese and Spanish as a foreign language. The implementation and evaluation of each language program arguably has provided a model for program evaluation (for Japanese, see Donato et al., 1996, 2000; for Spanish, see Domínguez et al., 2005; Donato & Tucker, 2007; Tucker & Donato, 1998, 2003; Tucker et al., 2001). That evaluation also generated many important insights, based on diverse data from multiple stake-holders using a variety of methods as discussed earlier, into language learning (e.g., age effects and instructional effects on language learning; Part I); language teaching, classroom processes, and teacher development (e.g., language of instruction and teacher efficacy; Part II); and policy on early foreign language learning for language majority students (e.g., program articulation; Part IV). Yet, it is the comparative lens or crossing programmatic boundaries that is particularly important for some elaboration here. In their book on the 15-year journey in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the Japanese and Spanish FLES programs (Donato & Tucker, 2010), Dick and Rick (Donato) carefully analyze, compare and contrast, and discuss the two programs in light of “a tale of two schools” which differed in their destiny: whereas the latter sustained and flourished, the former did not and ended abruptly. Among many important findings and discussions, Dick and Rick note a number of differences between the two programs in terms of program-internal and -external 210 III Program Innovation, Implementation, and Evaluation factors. For example, the implementation of the Japanese program was essentially “top down,” with the choice of language made by the executive committee of the school. There was only one Japanese teacher who was in charge of developing all curriculums and teaching them across all grade levels in the school. The teacher had limited opportunity to interact with other teachers. There was no attempt to integrate the teaching with the so-called core content subjects. The program was essentially marginalized and was not integrated into “the life of the school.” There was also a lack of program continuity and articulation across elementary (K-5; Japanese) and middle grades (6-8; French or Spanish). Not all parents were ready to be connected with their children’s learning of Japanese through the teacher’s purposefully designed interactive home assignments. In contrast, the Spanish program, from the early stages of language selection and program planning, involved active participation of multiple stakeholders, including administrators, teachers of not only Spanish but also those of other subject areas, university partners, as well as the community and parents. It was implemented from the “bottom up.” Spanish was positioned to be a core component of the school curriculum and offered through the whole duration of students’ school years. There was a group of Spanish teachers who could generate a collaborative culture. Also notably, in the Spanish program, “there was a curricular transition from a skills-based thematic unit approach to instruction in grades K-5 to a content-related approach in the middle school (grades 6-8)” (p. 42). Dick and Rick conclude that for a foreign language program to be implemented successfully and in a sustainable manner, among many other conditions, program vision needs to be shared across all stakeholders rather than imposed externally by a particular party, teachers need to be supported (e.g., linkage between the language teacher and the grade-appropriate teachers), and the language curriculum needs to be integrated into school curriculum and the program integrated into the life of the school. The aforementioned nuanced insights into program implementation, success, and sustainability would not have been obtained if the programmatic boundary had not been crossed through a comparative lens. These insights have taught us that sustainable implementation of a program needs to attend to a myriad of programinternal and -external factors and the complex interplay between factors within and across levels, and that policies on language programs should consider not only micro-level contextual factors but also macro-level sociolinguistic, socio-cultural, economical, and political factors. For “transfer” of programs, instead of importation of models, the approach is more desirably importation of “cycles of discovery” (cf. Swain, 1996), which entails “stages and processes of evaluation, theory building, generation of hypotheses, experimentation, and further evaluation” (Tucker, 1996, p. 318) (see also Part IV). III Program Innovation, Implementation, and Evaluation 211 References Bruck, M., Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). Bilingual schooling through the elementary grades: The St. Lambert Project at grade 7. Language Learning, 24(2), 183–204. Bruck, M., Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1976). Alternative forms of immersion for second language teaching. NABE, 1(3), 33–48. Campbell, R. N., Taylor, D. M., & Tucker, G. R. (1974). Teachers' views of immersion‐type bilingual programs: A Quebec example. Foreign Language Annals, 7(5), 106–110. Chenoweth, N. A., Jones, C. M., & Tucker, G. R. (2006). Language online: Principles of design and methods of assessment. In R. P. Donaldson & M. A. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language education through CALL (pp. 149–168). Routledge. Dominguez, R., Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (2005). Documenting curricular reform: Innovative foreign language education in elementary school. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 56–71). Multilingual Matters. Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2007). K-12 language learning and foreign language educational policy: A school-based perspective. Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 256–258. Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2010). A tale of two schools: Developing sustainable early foreign language programs. Multilingual Matters. Donato, R., Antonek, J. L., & Tucker, G. R. (1994). A multiple perspectives analysis of a Japanese FLES program. Foreign Language Annals, 27(3), 365–378. Donato, R., Antonek, J. L., & Tucker, G. R. (1996). Monitoring and assessing a Japanese FLES program: Ambiance and achievement. Language Learning, 46(3), 497–528. Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., Wudthayagorn, J., & Igarashi, K. (2000). Converging evidence: Attitudes, achievements, and instruction in the later years of FLES. Foreign Language Annals, 33(4), 377–393. Hayes, A. S., Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1967). Evaluation of foreign language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 1(1), 22–44. Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2005). Program evaluation in language education. Palgrave Macmillan. Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. House Publishers. Norris, J. M. (2016). Language program evaluation. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 169–189. Pessoa, S., Hendry, H., Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Lee, H. (2007). Content‐based instruction in the foreign language classroom: A discourse perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 102–121. Tucker, G. R. (1979). Bilingual education: Some perplexing observations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(5), 74–75. Tucker, G. R. (1984). Toward the development of a language-competent American society. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 45, 153–160. Tucker, G. R. (1996). Some thoughts concerning innovative language education programmes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(2-4), 315–320. Tucker, G. R. (2000). Concluding thoughts: Applied linguistics at the juncture of millennia. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 241–249. Tucker, G. R. (2005). Innovative language education programmes for heritage language students: The special case of Puerto Ricans? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2-3), 188–195. Tucker, G. R., & Cziko, G. A. (1978). The role of evaluation in bilingual education. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1978 (pp. 423–446). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (1998). Designing and implementing an innovative foreign language program: Reflections from a school district-university partnership. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International review of English Studies, 33, 451–461. 212 III Program Innovation, Implementation, and Evaluation Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (2003). Implementing a district-wide foreign language program: A case study of acquisition planning and curricular innovation. In D. Tannen, & J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 2001 (pp. 178–195). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R., Donato, R., & Antonek, J. L. (1996). Documenting growth in a Japanese FLES program. Foreign Language Annals, 29(4), 539–550. Tucker, G. R., Donato, R., & Murday, K. (2001). The genesis of a district-wide Spanish FLES program. In R. L. Cooper, E. Shohamy, & J. Walters (Eds.), New perspectives and issues in educational language policy: In honour of Bernard Dov Spolsky (pp. 235–259). John Benjamins. Part IV Language-in-Education Planning and Policy Introduction and the Tuckerian Impact Around the globe, language planning in education or language-in-education planning has never been a peripheral issue in research on educational policy and policyrelated debates. There are policies, de facto and de jure, that regulate whether a language should be taught, when it is to be taught, and what the medium of instruction should be, among many other issues. Language-in-education planning serves diverse agendas and purposes, whether educational, social, cultural, economic, and/ or political. For example, the linguistic imperialism of the English language has resulted in the promulgation of English language education, including Englishmedium education, in many countries of the world, framed to improve their nation’s access to scientific and technological advancement and to the global marketplace. Likewise, diverse societies, particularly post-colonial societies, in facing old and new challenges (e.g., immigration), are intrinsically and/or extrinsically motivated to adopt a bilingual/multilingual education policy, whether it is for promotion of social cohesion or maintenance of a heritage language. Needless to say, shifting geopolitics globally have also motivated competitive agendas—overt or covert— that shape policies on language in education. These agendas on language education policy are concurrent with a standardsbased movement in education in many places in the world where, driven sometimes by a neoliberal ideology on education and to prepare the nation for the knowledge economy of the 21st century, visions and goals are set for education to enforce accountability (e.g., the Common Core State Standards in the United States). For example, language standards with proficiency benchmarks are often outlined to guide the development of language curriculum, assessment, and teaching at critical stages of schooling and education (e.g., ACTFL, 2012; WIDA, 2014). High-stakes proficiency tests and assessment procedures are also often developed to serve a gate-keeping role or function as a hidden policy (see Shohamy, 2006). Likewise, teacher standards are developed to outline the dispositions that teachers need to adopt toward students and the profession and the knowledge and skills they need to 294 IV Language-in-Education Planning and Policy have for effectively teaching and assessing students, such as the ACTFL/CAEP Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers (ACTFL/ CAEP, 2013) and TESOL International Association’s (2019) Standards for Initial TESOL Pre-K-12 Teacher Preparation Programs. Understanding, interpreting, and evaluating language-in-education planning, or what Cooper (1989) called “acquisition planning,” necessitates attention to policy actors (e.g., teachers, communities, students, and administrators), micro contextual factors (e.g., classroom realities and access to resources), and importantly, if not more so, the macro social, cultural, and political backdrop of the formulation and implementation of the policy. Kaplan, Baldauf and their colleagues argued that language-in-education planning involves a number of objectives related to the target population, teacher supply, syllabus, methods and materials, resources, assessment and evaluation (Baldauf, 2005; Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997, 2003). Specifically, Baldauf, Li, and Zhao (2008) listed eight processes or considerations about policy decisions in language-in-education planning. These include access policy, personnel policy, curriculum policy, methods and materials policy, resources policy, community policy, evaluation policy, and teacher-led policy. Without a “holistic” consideration of these component policies and their complex interplay, an understanding of language education policy and processes will be impaired. In other words, boundary crossing is needed for the micro and macro issues that underpin the other parts of this volume, including language learning and the personal and social “consequences” it brings (Part I); teachers and teaching (e.g., teacher quality, teacher development, and instructional processes; Part II); and program implementation and evaluation (e.g., shared vision and coordinated effort across stakeholders; Part III). Engagement with policy and planning issues runs through Dick’s more than 50 years of scholarship on language education. This is probably the most “visible” line of contribution that Dick has made to language education and applied linguistics and where he has crossed many boundaries to improve public awareness and policy formulation toward a language-competent society and educational equity. In fact, the considerations that form the aforementioned component policies in language education planning were spotlighted by Dick several decades ago in his vision and discussion on a language-competent American society (e.g., Tucker, 1984). Throughout his career, Dick was on the frontline of language education policy discussion and debates. Not only did he conduct cutting-edge research on innovative language education to contribute to policy formulation, but he wrote prolifically on policy issues to increase public awareness of language in society, language learning, and bilinguality. During his tenure at McGill University, Dick was a language specialist for the Ford foundation. In that role he engaged in various sociolinguistic surveys and policy-related projects in Asia and Africa. Later, he brought the assets from those projects and the St. Lambert project (e.g., the impacts of dual language instruction on schooling, education, and society) to his new role as the Director of the Center for Applied Linguistics, where he was engaged in wider policy-related discussion and debates. This was further carried on to his tenure at Carnegie Mellon IV Language-in-Education Planning and Policy 295 University, where he aspired to shape a policy on bilinguality (Tucker, 2004) and global literacy at the University and beyond (Nair et al., 2012). In the United States, Dick’s publications have been cited to inform policy and legislative decisions (e.g., Tucker, 1986, which was later included as additional material to inform the congressional subcommittee hearing on English Language Constitutional Amendments). Through a number of publications and together with his collaborators, Dick discussed, debated, and contested the English-only movement in the country and pointed out the negative psychological, social, and educational consequences of English-only policy on American society (e.g., Padilla et al., 1991). He contested the assimilationist, “immersion” approach to coping with educational challenges among linguistically and culturally diverse students. Dick was among the earliest who sharply pointed out that additive or “genuine” bilingualism should be the goal of educational policy and practice: language minority or linguistically and culturally diverse students need to be supported to develop strong proficiency in English for academic learning and educational success; their heritage languages are a national resource; and English-speaking language majority students should be given an opportunity to learn another language (e.g., Lambert & Tucker, 1981; Tucker, 1981, 1984, 1991, 1997). Exploring the research-practice-policy nexus is a notable characteristic of Dick’s boundary crossing in light of the focus of the present part. This is seen in Dick’s long-term commitment to evidence-based policy discussion, debates, and engagement. Dick’s insights into acquisition planning, and his powerful arguments and advocacy for language education and bilinguality, as outlined earlier in this part and throughout this volume, are solidly based on the empirical findings that he and his collaborators generated as a result of crossing a myriad of linguistic, methodological, institutional boundaries (Donato & Tucker, 2007, 2010; Tucker & Donato, 2003; see also the introductions of previous parts). For example, Dick’s insights into, and efforts to promote, early foreign language learning were solidly based on his longitudinal research on child language development and bilingual schooling (Part I); classroom processes and teaching (Part II); and program implementation and evaluation (Part III). To illustrate, one of the “hot” issues in language education that has strong policy implications is the age of language learning/beginning instruction. Dick’s research on young Japanese as a Foreign Language (JFL) learners in the FLES project (Donato et al., 1994, 1996; Tucker et al., 1996) purposefully explored this issue. The findings showed that, overall, the younger cohort (grades K-2) were not at all disadvantaged in their JFL learning and development compared to the older cohort (grades 3-5). The younger cohort actually showed a more positive orientation toward the JFL program and seemed more engaged with homework. Additionally, the younger cohort seemed to have progressed much faster over the three years of JFL learning in their receptive vocabulary growth than did the older cohort. While the younger students performed less well than the older students initially (at the end of the first year of learning), two years later (that is, after they had learned Japanese for three years), they actually outperformed the older students. The findings thus cast doubt on “the claim that older students … are categorically better equipped to learn foreign languages in the classroom than younger students;” 296 IV Language-in-Education Planning and Policy and led to the conclusion that “as the profession discusses the inclusion of foreign language courses in the core elementary curriculum and the appropriate starting point for children … ‘younger is better’ from the perspective of overall receptivity and positive affective reactions to language learning” (Donato et al., 1996, p. 524). Also noteworthy examples of boundary crossing in Dick’s policy-related scholarship are his global perspectives on language education, bilingualism, and multilingualism (Tucker, 1998, 2001a; cf. Donato, 2013). In many ways, it was through these global perspectives that Dick has helped us understand how bilingualism/multilingualism, as opposed to monolingualism, is the norm; how bilinguality is a social asset; and how simple “borrowing” in acquisition planning and policy formulation without careful contextualization or contextual assessment should be questioned. In fact, Dick’s scholarship on policy has touched on many countries and societies. Other than the many lines of his work outlined earlier in the North American context, Dick, in collaboration with others, surveyed English language policy in Jordan (Harrion et al., 1975) and English teaching and teacher training in China (Cowan et al., 1979), and analyzed educational policy in the Philippines (Tucker, 1987). He outlined suggestions for two-way bilingual education for heritage language students in Puerto Rico (Tucker, 2005; see also Tucker, 2008). And together with former graduate students, who are also contributors to this volume, Dick surveyed Confucius Institutes in the United States in the context of the Chinese government’s global strategy to promulgate Chinese language and culture (Li & Tucker, 2013) and Chinese as a second language education policy in Hong Kong for immigrant students from South Asia (Ke & Tucker, 2016). What is more noteworthy is Dick’s effort to cross boundaries between policy contexts and directly compare them to enlighten us on language education, bilinguality, and society. For example, Dick contrasted the pervasive monolingualism in the United States with how “in the Netherlands, it is not at all unusual for students to study English, and either German or French, if not both” (Tucker, 1997, p. 91) and powerfully argued that “the development and the nurturing of such multilanguage proficiency is never a liability—it is always an asset” (Tucker, 1997, p. 97; italicized emphasis original). Likewise, he drew our attention to the complex interplay between linguistic, social, economic, and political factors in language education planning and bilingual education through comparative analysis of the situations in Nigeria, Sudan, and the Philippines where “critical attributes” varied such as “the role and status of the languages in question, the presence or absence of a rich literary tradition in the language(s) in question, the availability of a sufficient quantity of trained teachers who are mother tongue speakers of the particular language(s), parental and community expectations concerning the educational chances and choices available to the youngsters” (Tucker, 1981, p. 10). Based on “case” analysis and comparisons, Dick (Tucker, 1981; see also Tucker, 1984 as well as Dutcher’s [1995] report for the World Bank, for which Dick acted as a consultant) further argued that language minority children “should be introduced to schooling in their home language should they and their parents so desire.” Similarly, he emphasized that: IV Language-in-Education Planning and Policy 297 the Canadian research on immersion programs for language-majority children should not be indiscriminately generalized and interpreted as offering evidence to legitimize the submersion of language-minority youngsters in American schools. Rather, those data should only be used to support what I hope will become increasingly frequent inquiries by English speaking parents concerning the desirability of enrolling their language-majority youngsters in bilingual programs. (Tucker, 1981, p. 11) He decried how the French immersion model and findings (Lambert & Tucker, 1972) were often miscited and misused for policy formulation in the US context without reference to the nuance of demographic, sociolinguistic, and socio-political distinctions (Tucker, 1986; see also McField, 2014). Likewise, when discussing age of beginning instruction in a foreign language, Dick (Tucker, 2001b), despite the support from the JFL program (e.g., Donato et al., 1996) for “younger is better,” cautioned that countries or contexts of planning for early language instruction vary in a number of micro and macro factors, and “the validity of the adage ‘earlier is better’ would seem to depend at least partially on the optimization” of those factors (p. 597). (See also the discussion in Part III on language program “transferability.”) References ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. ACTFL/CAEP. (2013). ACTFL/CAEP program standards for the preparation of foreign language teachers. ACTFL/CAEP. Baldauf, R. B. Jr., Li, M., & Zhao, S. (2008). Language acquisition management inside and outside the school. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 233–250). Blackwell. Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2005). Language planning and policy research: An overview. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 957–970). Lawrence Erlbaum. Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge University Press. Cowan, J. R., Light, R. L., Mathews, B. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1979). English teaching in China: A recent survey. TESOL Quarterly, 13(4), 465–482. Donato, R. (2013). Tucker, G. Richard. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley–Blackwell. Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2007). K-12 language learning and foreign language educational policy: A school-based perspective. Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 256–258. Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2010). A tale of two schools: Developing sustainable early foreign language programs. Multilingual Matters. Donato, R., Antonek, J. L., & Tucker, G. R. (1994). A multiple perspectives analysis of a Japanese FLES program. Foreign Language Annals, 27(3), 365–378. Donato, R., Antonek, J. L., & Tucker, G. R. (1996). Monitoring and assessing a Japanese FLES program: Ambiance and achievement. Language Learning, 46(3), 497–528. Dutchner, N. (1995). The use of first and second languages in education: A review of international experience. Pacific Island Discussion Paper Series No.1. Retrieved from http://documents1. worldbank.org/curated/en/131161468770987263/pdf/multi-page.pdf Education (pp. 3–15). Multilingual Matters. Harrison, W., Prator, C., & Tucker, G. R. (1975). English-language policy survey of Jordan. Center for Applied Linguistics. 298 IV Language-in-Education Planning and Policy In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (1997). Language planning: From practice to theory. Multilingual Matters. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2003). Language and language-in-education planning in the Pacific Basin. Kluwer. Ke, S., & Tucker, G. R. (2016). Unleavened cakes: L2 Chinese education for South Asian students in Hong Kong. K-12 Chinese Language Teaching. Retrieved from https://clta-us.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/Unleavened- Cakes- L2- Chinese- Education- for- South- AsianStudents-in-Hong-Kong.pdf Lambert, R. D., & Tucker, G. R. (1981, April). The role of NIE in stimulating innovative language learning and teaching. Paper presented at a meeting of the National Council on Education Research, Washington, DC. Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Newbury House Publishers. Li, S., & Tucker, G. R. (2013). A survey of the US Confucius Institutes: Opportunities and challenges in promoting Chinese language and culture education. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 48(1), 29–54. McField, G. (Ed.). (2014). The miseducation of English learners: A tale of three states and lessons to be learned. Information Age Publishing. Nair, I., Norman, M., Tucker, G. R., & Burkert, A. (2012). The challenge of global literacy: An ideal opportunity for liberal professional education. Liberal Education, 98(1), 56–61. Padilla, A. M., Lindholm, K. J., Chen, A., Durán, R., Hakuta, K., Lambert, W., & Tucker, G. R. (1991). The English-only movement: Myths, reality, and implications for psychology. American Psychologist, 46(2), 120–130. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge. TESOL International Association (TESOL). (2019). Standards for Initial TESOL Pre-K-12 Teacher Preparation Programs. Author. Tucker, G. R. (1981). Bilingual education research in developing countries: Implications for the United States. California Journal of Teacher Education, 8(3), 1–14. Tucker, G. R. (1984). Toward the development of a language-competent American society. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 45, 153–160. Tucker, G. R. (1986). Implications of Canadian research for promoting a language competent American society. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), The Fergusonian impact: In honor of Charles A. Ferguson on the occasion of his 65th birthday Vol 2 (pp. 361–369). Mouton de Gruyter. Tucker, G. R. (1987). Educational language policy in the Philippines: A case study. In P. H. Lowenberg (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1987 (pp. 331– 341). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R. (1991). Developing a language-competent American society: The role of language planning. In A. G. Reynolds (Ed.), Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second language learning: The McGill conference in honour of Wallace E. Lambert (pp. 65–79). Psychology Press Tucker, G. R. (1997). Developing a language-competent American society: Implications of the English-only movement. In T. Bongaerts, & K. de Bot (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign language policy: Studies in honor of Theo van Els (pp. 89–98). John Benjamins. Tucker, G. R. (1998). A global perspective on multilingualism and multilingual education Tucker, G. R. (2001a). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. In J. E. Alatis & A.-H. Tan (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1999 (pp. 332–340). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R. (2001b). Age of beginning instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 597–598. Tucker, G. R. (2004). Learning other languages: The case for promoting bilinguality within an international community. In D. Resnick, & D. Scott (Eds.), The innovative university. Carnegie Mellon University Press. IV Language-in-Education Planning and Policy 299 Tucker, G. R. (2005). Innovative language education programmes for heritage language students: The special case of Puerto Ricans? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2-3), 188–195. Tucker, G. R. (2008). Learning other languages: The case for promoting bilingualism in our educational system. In D. M. Brinton, O., Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 39–52). Routledge. Tucker, G. R., & Donato, R. (2003). Implementing a district-wide foreign language program: A case study of acquisition planning and curricular innovation. In D. Tannen & J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 2001 (pp. 178–195). Georgetown University Press. Tucker, G. R., Donato, R., & Antonek, J. L. (1996). Documenting growth in a Japanese FLES program. Foreign Language Annals, 29(4), 539–550. WIDA. (2014). 2012 amplification of the English Language development standards, Kindergarten– Grade 12. WIDA.