Lucia Buttaro, Ph.D.
Adelphi University
 
 

1. Background of the Study
Within the past ten years, the Hispanic population has increased dramatically in the United States. The Hispanic population has increased by 57.9%. However, this percentage is higher since nearly half (48%) of Hispanics consider themselves as White (Census, 2000). As a result, these Hispanics select White as their racial ethnicity on the Census. Due to this significant population increase, educators primarily in urban school settings are confronted with teaching more minority students (Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003).

Since many minority students speak Spanish as their native language; migrant education needs to be created in some schools to expand the school’s responsibilities. High absenteeism and transient behavior characterize the migrant Latino child. The itinerant lifestyle is not compatible with conventional school expectations. The itinerant patterns that characterize our nation’s migrant workers, the essential gatherers of fresh fruit and vegetables, had supposedly shortchanged their children’s life experienced. The school, at times, neither understands nor accepts these workers’ lifestyles. Usually travel is associated with broadening one’s knowledge of the world; however, a migrant farm worker’s traveling experienced and knowledge are not recognized or valued. “They’ve only seen the world from the back of a migrant worker’s truck” said one report. Most school programs adopt a clinical view, that is, they view the child as without any strengths, inflicted with a sickness to be cured, with only symptoms of weakness and with deficiencies that need to be compensated for. Nobody denies the fact that immigrants to this country need to learn English, but must they be humiliated and dehumanized because of their language and culture? A child comes to schools willingly and ready to learn. She/He comes with a wealth of knowledge based on her/his cultural and linguistic assets. So, to continually “blame the victim” is a one-sided argument. Rosen and Ortego (1969) reported that poorly trained and unsophisticated teachers with cultural biases and profoundly ignorant notions concerning how language is learned were tragically too common in the schools. This is still seen today in 2009 in many schools around New York City and the suburbs as well. Prior to the 1960’s, and unbeknown to many, the education of Latinos consisted primarily of district segregated schools with limited human and material resources, where discrimination was rampant, teachers held low expectations of Latino/a students, schools were saturated with exclusionary policies and practices, and the curriculum was irrelevant to their lives (Arias, 1986; Carter & Segura, 1979; Donato, 1999; Romero, Hondagneu-Sotelo, & Ortiz, 1997; San Miguel, 1987).

This research suggests that language learning is strongly associated with the existence of high levels of discourse opportunities and conversational interactions (Gibbons, 2003; Markee, 2000; Oliver, 1998). Discourse opportunities engage students in speech exchanges. Conversational interactions entail opportunities for students to participate in social intercourse. Interactions that involve higher-order thinking processes promote learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Higher-order thinking processes provide opportunities for students to analyze information, synthesize knowledge, and make evaluative judgments.

The influences that affect second language acquisition frame the purpose of this research; investigating the relationship between discourse opportunities as well as conversational interaction with English language learners together with the academic achievement of these students. This qualitative case study investigated the contributing factors that play a role in the development and advancement of second language learning as well as academic achievement during classroom practices.

2. Conceptual FrameworkTeachers in both urban and suburban area school systems confront an increased English language learner population (Census, 2000). Although national policy mandates emphasize English language learning and achievement, many English language learners do not perform at grade level standards (NCLB, 2001). The fact that the achievement gap still exists between minority and non-minority students is the most significant educational problem in the United States (Fusarelli, 2004; Olszewski-Kubilius, Lee, Ngoi, & Ngoi, 2004). This problem may be exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, by current classroom practices.

3.Language Acquisition and LearningThere has been long-standing debate in the social sciences over the manner in which humans acquire a language (Felix, 1981; Nowak-Fabrykowski & Shkandrij, 2004). Skinner (1957) suggests that language development occurs largely as a result of behavioral reinforcement in a child’s environment. It is also speculated that humans may acquire language development through nature (Chomsky, 1959; Felix, 1981). Chomsky (1975) suggests language acquisition is innate by every typically developing child at birth by virtue of being a human.

The affective filter hypothesis suggests that a variety of affective variables impact the acquisition of a second language (Krashen, 1982). Table 1 presents the affective variables. The variables consist of motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. The motivational variable suggests learners with high motivation will generally do better in second language acquisition. The self-confidence variable implies learners with a good self-image tend to do better in second language acquisition. The anxiety variable proposes learners with low anxiety appear to be more conducive to second language acquisition (Krashen). The aforementioned variables depict the relationship between the affective variables and acquisition of a second language. Krashen concludes that learners acquiring a second language benefit from both comprehensible input and a low affective filter.

4. Second Language Acquisition TheoryGibbons (2003) explained that learning begins within a collaborative interaction. During interaction language processes are used as a tool for an individual purpose. Participatory perspectives view learning as a relational process rather than as something that is given or done to students (Daloz, 1986) thereby positioning teachers and students as collaborators in knowledge construction (Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Bray, Lee, Smith & Yorks, 2000; Heron & Reason, 1997). With youth situated as experts in theur lives, learning becomes a political act “where dominant knowledge is deconstructed and new knowledge is constructed” (Berry, 1998, p. 45). Youth strengths, resilience, resources, agency, voice and lived knowledge, moreover, become centralized in the learning process (Kim, 2006; Cassidy & Bates, 2005; Pasco, 2003; Fine, 1991). An alternative learning environment which, to use Berry’s phrase, immerses youth “in an epistemological world…of their [own] making” rather than one which is predominantly upheld by the authority of “teachers and textbooks” (1998, p. 42). Research corroborates social interaction promotes learning as well (Hawkins, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978).

Second language learners’ acquisition development can be scaffolded along a continuum. The Second Language Acquisition Theory suggests language learners’ progress along a continuum (Krashen, 1983). The continuum is predictable and sequential. The continuum has five distinct stages. The stages consist of pre-production, early production, speech emergence, intermediate fluency, and advanced fluency. Each stage along the continuum advances a student’s level of language discourse (Krashen). Table 2 summarizes the characteristics for each stage of language acquisition.

5.Language Proficiency Theoretical FrameworkCummins’ (1984) developed a theoretical framework that postulates a relationship between language proficiency both in the student’s native and second language as well as academic achievement. The framework proposes that there are two distinct types of language proficiencies, social as well as academic.Cummins’ theoretical framework is schematized in a quadrant matrix in Figure 1. The first concept is the Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills, or BICS. The second concept is Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency, or CALP. Both concepts, BICS and CALP bear significance for academic success.

6. Language Theory in PracticeCummins’ theoretical framework has important implications for teaching and language development (Herrell, 2000). Successful cognitive tasks may be promoted by matching curriculum tasks with language competence. Academic language competence can be made more understandable when embedded context is added in an effort to support comprehension. In addition, the theoretical framework may help focus on task-related assessment that is more appropriate than norm-referenced testing (Baker, 2001).

Studies correlate a positive relationship between discourse opportunities among student and teacher promoting language development advancement (e.g., Gibbons, 2003; Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1996; Norton & Toohey, 2001; Roberts & Neal, 2004). Language development advancement is influenced by teacher perceptions and reflected to the extent the zone of proximal development is mediated through classroom discourse (Gibbons).

The zone of proximal development is evident in classroom discourse through the construct of mediation. Mediation in language learning refers to the collaborative interaction between the expert and novice (Gibbons, 2003). The expert, through interaction, mediates communication between the students’ current stage of language development and the advancement of language learning. Consequently, Platt, Harper, and Mendoza (2003) noted a concern between a teacher’s level of instructional strategy development and the implementation of effective instruction in an effort to scaffold language learning advancement.

7.Distributed Conversational InteractionResearch studies have examined the conservational interactions between teacher and student as well as among student peers in an effort to promote second language acquisition. (Oliver, 1998; Oliver, 2002; Pica & Doughty, 1985). Second language acquisition research study findings corroborate a positive relationship between conversational interactions and the development of non-native speaker proficiency (Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Oliver, 1998; Oliver, 2002; Pica, 1987; Pica & Doughty, 1985). Conversational interactions include negotiation for meaning, implicit and explicit feedback as well as interrelated and unified speech exchanges (Long et al.; Markee, 2000; Nakahama, Tyler, & Lier, 2001; Oliver 2002; Pica 1987; Pica& Doughty).

Classrooms with unified speech exchanges consist of question-answer-comment (QAC), or QAC sequences in which the teacher possesses the power in the speech exchange unlike in ordinary conversation (Markee, 2000). Ordinary conversation exchanges are open ended, providing all speakers with equal rights to participate and engage in discourse. However, in unified speech exchanges the teacher maintains control of the conversation by prompting a student to answer a question then request a student’s response resulting in a comment by the teacher (Markee, 2000).

Research suggests that conversational interaction involving interrelated speech exchanges among non-native and native speakers that occur during small group work facilitates second language acquisition (Markee & Kasper, 2004; Oliver 1998, Oliver, 2002; Pica & Doughty, 1985). Interrelated speech exchanges during small group work focus on task-based experiences (Markee & Kasper). Similarly, Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of zone of proximal development suggests a classroom community environment in which native English speakers and more knowledgeable others facilitate learning by collaboratively working with non-native speakers on problem solving tasks. The non-native English speaker’s role as a participant during a conversational interaction is that of a “cognitive apprentice” (Hawkins, 2004).

Research suggests that the role of interaction may positively affect second language speech production (Long, 1983; Nakahama et al., 2001; Oliver, 1998; Polio & Gass, 1998). Negotiation for meaning is the process in which interaction is modified by conversational speakers (Gass & Varonis, 1994; Nakahama et al.; Oliver).

Mutual understanding is achieved through cooperative interaction that allows second language learners to make input comprehensible through experiences that are uniquely modified for the individual’s situation (Oliver, 1998). In addition to making input comprehensible cooperative interaction allows the second language learner to modify their own language in an effort to be understood by the listener (Pica & Doughty, 1985).

Similar to negotiation strategies, research on implicit and explicit feedback also suggests an influence on second language acquisition (Long et al., 1998). According to Gass and Varonis (1994), feedback is defined as the correct usage by a native speaker of a word or construction immediately following a non-native utterance. Long et al. (1998) cites that explicit or corrective feedback promotes the retention of the central meaning for the second language learner. In addition to retention of the central meaning, corrective feedback draws the learner’s attention to the mismatch between input and output promoting frequent imitation of corrective feedback (Long et al.).

9.Methodologies and ProceduresResearch Design

This ethnographic research inquiry used a qualitative case study design that consisted of collecting a variety of data that consisted of: observational field notes recorded during classroom practices and videotaped recordings of classroom observations. The participants included English language learners and their respective teachers. Data was collected from a suburban and urban elementary school setting.

10.Data Collection ProceduresDuring data collection sessions each student participant was observed. Data collection was compiled over an extended three month period of time with an on-going view of instructional practices under varying circumstances.

Videotaping of student and teacher participants occurred the first and final week of observations. The researcher’s videotape recordings during direct classroom observations lasted approximately 30 minutes. The videotape recordings provided the researcher the ability to isolate, identify, categorize as well as analyze conversational interaction sequences.

The videotapes promoted the researcher’s ability to determine frequencies and the preponderance of the types of conversational interactions prevalent between student and teacher participants.

11.ResultsAccording to the findings, a preponderance of literal level discourse opportunities included predominantly teacher-directed factual questions, student one-word responses, and simple elaborative detail. Findings noted that teachers monitored student level of understanding, however, limited opportunities for students to participate in cooperative learning experiences.

Furthermore, a preponderance of teachers’ instructional questioning strategies engaged students in a low cognitive level of thinking. For example, students predominantly recalled factual knowledge and applied learned information. Minimal opportunities for students involved a high level of thought process. Frequently, teacher instructional questioning strategies did not aid the development of language learning.

In addition, enacted conversational interactions contributed to teacher control of discourse. A preponderance of either question-answer-comment or question-answer-rebound question discourse sequences were evident. Teachers consistently evaluated the quality of a student’s contribution. During discourse, opportunities limited students’ engagement in repairing language through negotiation for meaning or via feedback.

Based on the study’s findings, specific factors contributed to the preponderance of a lower-level of student learning. An influencing factor consisted of a preponderance of lower literal level questioning strategies and unified speech exchanges. Instructional questioning strategies and discourse limited students’ ability to modify speech. Furthermore, limited opportunities for peer coaching experiences with a more knowledgeable other (MKO) stagnated students’ progression along the language learning continuum. Figure 2 presents a summary of the conversational interactions in both settings.
Cohen questioned: “Is it a thumbnal [sic]?”Negotiation for meaning. Teachers’ fostered opportunities for students to modify speech (see Figure 2). Negotiation for meaning averaged 8%, during speech exchanges (see Figure 2). An example of a negotiation for meaning sequence consisted of:

Mr. Nickels questioned: “Does the word have an ai in the middle [sic]?”

Cohen restated: “Long a [sic].”

Mr. Nickels confirmed: “Yes, that is the sound long a makes [sic].”

Mr. Nickels questioned: “The letter b is in the word, but can you hear it?”

Cohen responded: “It is a trick, huh? Nope, no /b/ [sic].”

Mr. Nickels requested: “Try the word again with long a and no /b/ sound [sic].”

Cohen restated: “Thumbnail.”

In this example, Mr. Nickels clarified what Cohen stated through questioning. Cohen successfully recalled the procedural strategy for decoding a word. Cohen overcame his communication breakdown through a confirmation check. Overcoming a communication breakdown through a comprehension check promotes negotiation for meaning (Gass & Varionis, 1985). Negotiation for meaning facilitates language production (Oliver, 2002).

Feedback.

Teachers provided feedback (see Figure 2). Feedback averaged 7% within the conversational interactions category (see Figure 2). An example of an explicit feedback discourse sequence consisted of:

Mr. Nickels requested: “Cohen read the caption below.”

Cohen stated: “This crystal has many gems.” (pronounced /g/ems)

Mr. Nickels stated: “I like the way you said the /g/ sound [sic]. It makes sense.”

Cohen questioned: “It makes sense, but does it sound right?

Mr. Nickels questioned: “What other sound does the letter g make?”

Cohen responded: “The letter g makes the /j/ [sic] sound too.”

Mr. Nickels requested: “Try that sound.”

Cohen restated: “Gems.” (pronounced /j/ems)

Mr. Nickels stated: “You got it!”

In this example, Mr. Nickels reaffirmed Cohen’s ability to apply a previously learned strategy. However, Mr. Nickels scaffolded feedback that fostered Cohen’s ability to pronounce the word accurately. Additionally, teachers provided feedback by enacting questions that scaffolded students’ thinking.

Interrelated speech exchanges

Teachers provided interrelated speech exchanges (see Figure 2). Interrelated speech exchanges averaged 3% (see Figure 2). Task-based experiences engaged students. For example, students’ collaboratively problem solved number combinations and performed skits. During a task-based experience, Marshall collaboratively worked with two grade level students. The interrelated speech exchange consists of:

Student A questioned: “How are we going to show three take away two?”

Student B stated: “We know we need to take away.”

Marshall stated: “Three take away two is one.”

Students A and B stated: “Yea!”

Marshall stated: “Monkeys!”

Student A questioned: “What can we show the monkeys doing?”

Marshall stated: “Monkeys on trees [sic].”

Student B stated: “Yea, we can swing from one tree to another.”

Marshall stated: “Swing from trees with bananas [sic].”

Student A questioned: “We swing, hold the banana, and then what?”

Marshall stated: “One goes down [sic].”

Student B: “Okay, I will go down. I will fall down to the ground.”

Ms. Stoss questioned: “Boys are you ready?”

Students responded: “Yes!”

In this dialogue sequence the grade level students reaffirmed Marshall’s limited responses. Although Marshall shared limited responses, his ideas proved valuable to the collaborative group effort. For example, Marshall provided the idea for the performance, the behaviors the performers engaged in, and the actions to demonstrate the numerical equation.

Unified speech exchanges.

Teachers provided frequent opportunities for students to engage in unified speech exchanges. Unified speech exchanges averaged 13% (see Figure 2). Unified speech exchanges consists of discourse sequences with a teacher posed question, student answer, resulting in a teacher comment. For example, unified speech exchanges consist of:

Ms. Rais questioned: “What color is the apple?”

Brook stated: “Red.”

Ms. Rais commented: “It is a red apple.”

In these discourse sequences teachers posed literal level questions and students replied with one word responses. Lower order thinking types of questions do not promote syntactically complex student responses that promote language development (Brock, 1986).

Unified speech exchanges also consists of a teacher posed question followed by a student response. Then, the exchange continues with another teacher posed question. Teacher question, student response, rebounded with another teacher question (QAR) exchange consisted of:

Ms. Orin questioned: “How much is the pencil worth?”

Moyer stated: “Eighteen cents.”

Ms. Orin rebounded: “Then, how much is the candy?”

In these sequences, teachers maintained constant discourse control by prompting a student response. The unified discourse sequences increased the amount of posed questions. Although a follow-up teacher question prompted a student response, the increase in literal level questioning did not strengthen higher-order thinking.

12. DiscussionFindings noted that teachers provided opportunities for student engagement in predominantly restrictive discursive interactions. Discursive interactions between teachers and students affected second language acquisition among English language learners by providing vague feedback. Thus, professional growth opportunities may also emphasize the development of skills in crafting effective descriptive feedback.

In addition, state policy actors and district central administrators can actively participate in dialogue with school districts that enroll a high population of English language learners. Through state and school district concerted efforts, not solely school inhabitants, but all educational stakeholders, English language learners may have an increased opportunity to demonstrate greater academic gains. Furthermore, higher-education institutions that offer teacher education preparation programs must provide pre-service courses emphasizing current language learning issues. The pre-service courses may include the examination of current language learning research, the investigation of effective classroom practices, the self-reflection of a pre-service teacher’s own beliefs, and values about language learning as well as the exploration of a pre-service teacher’s awareness concerning student experiences. Evidence from this study indicates that classroom practices have a significant influence on language learning. Accordingly, additional qualitative research studies with a case study design should further investigate how professional development opportunities influence enacted classroom instructional practices affect language learning and academic performance.

 
 
Bibliography
 

Arias, B. (1986). The context of education for Hispanic students: An overview. American Journal of Education, 3, 25-56.

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (2nd ed.). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Berry, K. S. (1998). Nurturing the imagination of resistance: Young adults as creators of knowledge. In J. L. Kincheloe & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Unauthorized methods:Strategies for critical teaching (pp. 43-55). New York: Routledge.

Bray, K. S., Lee, J., Smith, L. & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice. London; Sage Publications.

Carter, T. P. & Segura, R. D. (1979). Mexican Americans in school: A decade of change. New York: College Entrance Examination Board

Cassidy, W. & Bates, A. (2005, November). “Dropout” and “push-outs”: Finding hope at a school that actualizes the ethic of care. American Journal of Education, 66-102.

Chomsky, N. (1959). Reviews on verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26-58.

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Cummins, J. (1984). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency to academic achievement among bilingual students. In Charlene Rivera (Ed.),Language proficiency and academic achievement (pp. 3-20). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Daloz, L. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformative power of adult learning experiences. Thousand Oaks, CA: JosseyBass.

Donato, R. (1999). Hispano education and the implications of autonomy: Four school systems in Colorado, 1920-1963. Harvard Educational Review, 69-117-149.

Felix, S. (1981). On the (in)applicability of Piagetian thought to language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 179-192.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban high school. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Fusarelli, L. D. (2004). The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on equity and diversity in American education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 71-94.

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(3), 283-302.

Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273.

Hawkins, M. R. (2004). Researching English language and literacy development in schools. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 14-25.

Heron, J. & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 274-294.

Herrell, A. L. (2000). Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Jimenez, R. T., Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles.

Kim, J. (2006). A narrative inquiry into the lives of at risk students in an alternative high school: The experienced curriculum and the hidden curriculum. Proquest.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition . Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90-112.

Krashen, S. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E.(2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (2ndedition). London, Sage Publications, 163-188.

Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177-193.

Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 357-371.

Markee, N. (2000). Conversational analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 491-500.

Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & Lier, L. V. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 377-405.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2001). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence. Retrieved February 20, 2007, fromhttp://www.ed.govrschstat/researchpubsrigorousevidguide_pg5.html

Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 307-323.

Nowak-Fabrykowski, K., & Shkandrij, M. (2004). The bilingual child. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(4), 284-291.

Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 372-385.

Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97-111.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Lee, S. Y., Ngoi, M., & Ngoi, D. (2004). Addressing the achievmement gap between minority and non-minority children by increasing access to gifted program. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(2), 127-158.

Pasco, R. J. (2003). Capital and opportunity: A critical ethnography of students at risk. Lanham MD: University of Press of America.

Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3-21.

Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second languageacquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233-248.

Platt, E., Harper, C., & Mendoza, M. (2003). Dueling philosophies: Inclusion or separation for Florida’s English language learners? TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 105-

Polio, C., & Gass, S. (1998). The role of interaction in native speaker comprehension of non-native speaker speech. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 308-319.

Roberts, T., & Neal, H. (2004). Relationships among preschool English language learner’s oral proficiency in English, instructional experience and literacy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 283-311.

Romero, M., Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. & Ortiz, V. (Eds.). (1997). Challenging fronteras: Structuring Latina and Latino lives in the U.S. New York: Routledge.

Rosen, C. L. & Ortego, P. D.(1969). Problems and strategies in teaching the language arts to Spanish speaking Mexican-Americans. ERIC (Eric Document Reproduction Service No ED025368).

Rubin, H. (2002). Collaborative leadership: Developing effective partnerships in communities and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

San Miguel, G. (1987). The status of historical research on Chicano education. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 467-480.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York, NY: Appleton Century Crofts, Inc.

Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in testing of English-language learners.Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3-13.

United States Bureau of the Census. (2000). Census 2000. Retrieved November, 16, 2006, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/09000.html

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.