Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning

Patriann Smith

This interpretive qualitative study describes the experiences of six Afro-Caribbean multilingual educators with Englishes across Caribbean and United States contexts and classrooms. Findings showed how confidence vs. doubtfulness and resistance vs. acceptance seemed visible in the educators’ use of Englishes based on the expectations of others and how distance vs. closeness and negative vs. positive feelings were reflected in educators’ learning about their use of Englishes. Overall, the findings suggest that the educators’ experiences were characterized by recursivity, repositionality and bidirectionality. Recursivity seemed evident because the educators moved back and forth in their thinking about Englishes, English ideologies, and between conflicts about these ideologies in their experiences across Caribbean and U.S classrooms. Repositionality seemed visible in their increasing acceptance of non-standardized Englishes for ‘outer circle’ classroom instruction and through shifts in their ideologies about English as moved back and forth across ‘inner’ and ‘outer circles,’ both via various digital technologies and by way of their physical movement across geographic boundaries. Bidirectionality appeared to be present in the impact of educators’ ideologies about Englishes on ‘inner circle’ speakers, and the impact of ‘inner circle’ speakers’ ideologies about Englishes on educators. This study raises questions about the ways in which educators’ Englishes function as they interact with English speakers in the United States. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0742051X17310193

Teacher educators who are aware of differences that present themselves in diverse student populations must increasingly work to help teachers connect with students in ways that allow them to improve literacy outcomes. Despite its potential for helping to address the needs of diverse students, awareness of culture and language tends to often be touted primarily as an expectation for teachers who work in K-12 schools and classrooms. It is less visible as a requirement for teacher educators, despite the ever-increasing need for them to have the skills and expertise for guiding teachers who work with culturally and linguistically diverse learners (CLDs) in 'underperforming' schools. This study was therefore developed to show the ways in which teacher educators demonstrated awareness of language and culture while supporting the instructional literacy practices of in-service teachers and the literacy learning of culturally and linguistically diverse students. More specifically, the purpose of this study was to identify the elements of critical multilingual and critical multicultural awareness displayed by three literacy educators supporting students' writing practices in diverse K-12 literacy classrooms within a research-practice partnership over a period of one academic year. Findings show that the educators reflected awareness in their support for CLDs' literacies as they experienced transitions, confronted deficit views, capitalized on verbal, visual, and written scaffolds with students and teachers, and fostered authenticity. The study presents implications for literacy educators who wish to reflect awareness when responding to CLDs' literacies in schools. https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rev3.3190

ENGLISH: This autoethnographic self-study describes my interpretations of multicultural awareness, with special attention to multilingual awareness (MLA), based on my interactions with 52 students in the context of two literacy courses over a period of one year. An autoethnographic self-study provided an avenue to harness my reflections on practice and to study the ways in which my practice reflected awareness of my role as an educator. Findings from my teaching videos, written responses to students, and student evaluations suggested that my communication patterns with students reflected certain elements of multicultural awareness, as displayed by my attention to individual predispositions, cultural practices and personal stereotypes. The findings also appeared to indicate that multicultural and MLA interacted to reflect facilitation and symbiosis. Facilitation seemed apparent in my awareness of differences among students’ cultures and my own as I monitored my linguistic processing. Symbiosis appeared to emanate from the recognition of how my response to individual predispositions facilitated my application of conversational strategies based on feedback. This, in turn, heightened my attention to stereotypical attitudes and behaviors. Implications for multicultural teacher education include the benefits of using autoethnographic self-study to scrutinize educators’ awareness in practice as they determine the impact of this awareness on their instructional roles in multicultural teacher education. By extension, the study suggests that autoethnographic self-study research can provide additional lenses through which to interrogate monolithic perceptions of diversity in multicultural teacher education. SPANISH: Este self-study autoetnográfico describe mis interpretaciones de la conciencia de la multiculturalidad, con atención especial a la conciencia del multilingüismo, sobre la base de mis interacciones con 52 estudiantes en el contexto de dos cursos de alfabetización en el transcurso de un año. El self-study autoetnográfico proveyó una manera para focalizar mis reflexiones sobre la práctica y para estudiar los modos en que mi práctica reflejaba un tipo de conocimiento sobre mi rol como educador. Los hallazgos que surgen de las grabaciones en video de mi enseñanza, reacciones escritas de los estudiantes y sus evaluaciones muestran que mis patrones comunicativos con los estudiantes reflejaban ciertos elementos de una sensibilidad por lo multicultural, como mi atención a predisposiciones individuales, prácticas culturales y estereotipos personales. Los hallazgos también parecen indicar que esta sensibilidad por lo multicultural y lo multilingüe interactuaban para reflejar facilitación y simbiosis. La facilitación aparecía fuertemente en mi conciencia de diferencias entre las culturas de mis estudiantes y la mía, mientras monitoreaba mi procesamiento lingüístico. La simbiosis parece emanar del reconocimiento del modo en que mi respuesta a predisposiciones individuales facilitaba mi aplicación de estrategias conversacionales basadas en la retroalimentación. Esto, a su vez, focalizó mi atención a actitudes y comportamientos estereotipados. Algunas de las implicancias para la formación docente multicultural incluyen los beneficios del uso del self-study autoetnográfico para examinar la sensibilidad de los educadores en práctica, al tiempo que determinan el impacto de esta sensibilidad en sus roles docentes en la formación multicultural de profesores. Por extensión, el estudio sugiere que la investigación en self-study autoetnográfico puede proveer lentes adicionales a través de los cuales interrogar percepciones monolíticas de la diversidad en la formación docente multicultural. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17425964.2016.1143811

University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate heses and Dissertations Graduate School January 2013 Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning Patriann Smith University of South Florida, patriannsmith@gmail.com Follow this and additional works at: htp://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Other Education Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons Scholar Commons Citation Smith, Patriann, "Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning" (2013). Graduate heses and Dissertations. htp://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4773 his Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate heses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact scholarcommons@usf.edu. Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning by Patriann Smith A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Childhood Education and Literacy Studies College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Jenifer J. Schneider, Ph. D. James R. King, Ed. D. Kofi Marfo, Ph. D. Deoksoon Kim, Ph. D. Date of Approval: June 26, 2013 Keywords: Literacy Processes, Language Learners, Multicultural, Multilingual, Multilingual Teachers, Multilingual Teacher Educators, Policy, Verbal Reports Copyright © 2013, Patriann Smith DEDICATION This dissertation is dedication to my daughter, Karice Chika Nyanganyi Smith and to my nieces and nephews, Terrell Jayden Marcion, Terielle Kelli Jaeda Marcion, and Gheryl D’Arcy Fregiste, the children dearest to my heart, who hold tomorrow’s future in the palms of their hands. I also dedicate this dissertation to my mother, MaryAnna Smith, who is the epitome of what every mother should be, and to my sister, Patrianna Smith who, through her sacrificial nature, has been my ultimate support as reflected by her unwavering sense of dedication, patience, and understanding, throughout the course of my graduate studies at USF. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Throughout the course of this dissertation, God has served as the most important source of my strength. I am thankful for how God has preserved, provided and cared for, and imbued me with the knowledge and the potential to successfully complete this dissertation. In addition, several individuals functioned untiringly to ensure my success. I would like to first acknowledge my Major Professor, Dr. Jenifer Jasinski Schneider, who did her very best to support my academic ventures, provide needed critique, ensure my smooth transition through the Childhood Education and Literacy Studies department as an international student, and ultimately, remain by my side until the process was complete. Secondly, I would like to thank my Committee Members, Dr. James R. King, Dr. Kofi Marfo, and Dr. Deoksoon Kim, who provided the apprenticeship experiences needed for my development as a scholar, collaborated with me on multiple projects during the course of my program, and who supported me personally and holistically in making the transition from student to teacher educator at the University of South Florida (USF). Thirdly, I would like to thank the Graduate School, and specifically Dr. Rod Hale, whose efforts in enabling diverse students to succeed at the graduate level had an indelible impact on my navigation of scholarly endeavors at the USF. Fourth, special thanks must be expressed to Lori Yusko and Aaron Greaser for their support during my initial arrival to the United States and throughout the first few years of navigating the graduate program at USF. I cannot help but express my gratitude to Ian T. S. Green and Hyacinth E. McDowall, who served as my personal mentors throughout this process and whose unwavering beliefs in my ability to succeed despite the adversities I faced enabled me to work untiringly in my efforts to complete the doctoral program. Sixth, I owe special thanks to my mother, MaryAnna Smith, daughter, Karice Chika Nyanganyi Smith, and sister, Patrianna Smith, for their ultimate sense of sacrifice in ensuring that every academic endeavor required and every goal pursued was met during the course of my doctoral program, this, despite the deprivation it ultimately caused them and regardless of the discomfort they may have experienced. I must also thank my brother, Johnny Smith, whose consistent sense of humor throughout this extended period via the virtual world were a daily source of strength and joy to me. My sister, Gilda Marcion, must be acknowledged as well because of her willingness to support me, financially and otherwise, in every time of need. My brothers, Ervin and David Smith, were available when I needed them, and not in the least, I would like to thank my father, Patrick Smith, for his attentiveness to my progress, the sacrifices made to help me along my journey, and for the solid grounding he provided in my establishment of a career in education. I say special thanks to special friends, who have provided various forms of much needed support through the stages of my journey at USF. Among these is Morton L. Holder, who stands out because of the motivational and spiritual support consistently offered throughout the process of my graduate studies and whose presence in my life ultimately served to strengthen my resolve to complete the doctoral program. Additionally, I would like to express sincere gratitude to Members of the Aspen Institute Education Society, Faculty and Staff at the Department of Childhood Education and Literacy Studies at USF, and to Angela Aimable, Patrick R. Alexander, Gloria Ard, Leslie Benoit, Ernest Chigozie, Clarabelle Ferguson, Suzette Kelly, Carol Long, Rodney Mark, Lennon C. Matthew, Josiane Michaud, Sharon Morrison-Simon, John O. Nnadi, Alex Kumi Yeboah, and the many others whose presence throughout my dissertation process provided me with the impetus to complete this race. I could not have accomplished what I did without your help and for this, I will be eternally grateful. i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER ONE ......................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 TOWARDS AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: A NEVER-ENDING QUEST .............................. 6 When and What is Knowledge?............................................................................................................................. 10 Embedding the Personal within the Philosophical: Theoretical Perspectives .................................. 15 Interpretivism ...............................................................................................................................................................................15 Critical Theory ..............................................................................................................................................................................19 Pluralism .........................................................................................................................................................................................21 Theoretical, Personal, and Epistemological Alignment............................................................................... 21 Implications for Methodological and Analytical Approaches ................................................................... 22 DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................................................ 24 OVERVIEW AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISSERTATION.................................................................. 29 Chapter One: Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 30 Chapter Two: Literacy Research and Language Policy ............................................................................... 30 Chapter Three: Teachers’ and Teacher Educators’ Linguistic Diversity .............................................. 30 Chapter Four: Verbal Reports, Literacy Research, and Language Learners ....................................... 30 Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, and Future Directions ..................................................................... 31 CHAPTER SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................................... 39 LITERACY RESEARCH AND LANGUAGE POLICY ................................................................................... 39 Literacy Research in the English-Speaking Caribbean ................................................................................ 40 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................................40 Literacy Research in the English-Speaking Caribbean ...............................................................................................41 Method for Reviewing the Research ...................................................................................................................................44 Selection of Original Studies for Review ....................................................................................................................44 Search Process ........................................................................................................................................................................45 The Literature ...............................................................................................................................................................................47 Teacher Predisposition to Language of Literacy Instruction ...........................................................................48 Literacy Initiatives and Impact.......................................................................................................................................50 Literacy Assessment .............................................................................................................................................................52 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................................................54 Language of Literacy Instruction ..................................................................................................................................54 Conceptions of Literacy......................................................................................................................................................58 Summary and Future Directions...........................................................................................................................................64 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................................68 Towards a Language Policy for St. Lucia ........................................................................................................... 83 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................................83 ii Towards a Language Policy for St. Lucia ...........................................................................................................................84 Evolution of Language Patterns in St. Lucia ....................................................................................................................86 Historical Background of Linguistic Variations .............................................................................................................87 St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC) ............................................................................................................................................89 Language Varieties ......................................................................................................................................................................92 Literacy in a Multilingual Society .........................................................................................................................................93 Language Policy in St. Lucia ....................................................................................................................................................94 Future Work on Language Policy in St. Lucia ..................................................................................................................96 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................................98 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 105 CHAPTER THREE .............................................................................................................................. 111 TEACHERS’ AND TEACHER EDUCATORS’ LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY.............................................. 111 Exploring the Interstices of Literate, Linguistic, and Cultural Diversity ........................................... 112 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 112 Exploring the Interstices of Literate, Linguistic, and Cultural Diversity.......................................................... 113 Cultural, Intercultural, and Linguistic Diversity ......................................................................................................... 115 The English-Speaking Caribbean ....................................................................................................................................... 116 Research Questions ................................................................................................................................................................. 118 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 119 Participant and Setting .................................................................................................................................................... 119 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................................... 120 Procedures ............................................................................................................................................................................. 123 Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................................................. 124 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 Juan’s Initial Responses – Getting to Know the Participant................................................................................... 127 Juan’s Pathways ......................................................................................................................................................................... 130 Path One: Transformation in Attitude to Language ......................................................................................... 132 Path Two: Strategies for Dealing with Differences in Language ................................................................. 136 Path Three: Identity Formation .................................................................................................................................. 138 Understanding Juan’s Experience ..................................................................................................................................... 143 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................... 146 Linguistic and Cultural Appropriations of a Multilingual Educator .................................................... 156 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 156 Linguistic and Cultural Appropriations of a Multilingual Educator ................................................................... 157 Multicultural Teacher Education ....................................................................................................................................... 159 Multilingual Educators ........................................................................................................................................................... 161 Conceptual Framework.......................................................................................................................................................... 163 Multicultural Awareness................................................................................................................................................. 163 Dynamic Model of Multilingualism ........................................................................................................................... 164 Research Questions ................................................................................................................................................................. 165 Research Design ........................................................................................................................................................................ 165 Context of the Inquiry ............................................................................................................................................................. 167 The Student Informants .................................................................................................................................................. 167 The Multilingual Educator ............................................................................................................................................ 168 Data Sources ......................................................................................................................................................................... 171 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................................... 172 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 173 Credibility and Verisimilitude............................................................................................................................................. 175 Findings......................................................................................................................................................................................... 176 What components of multilingual awareness did I demonstrate? ............................................................... 176 What components of multicultural awareness did I demonstrate?............................................................. 183 In what ways were the components of multilingual and multicultural awareness associated?...... 186 In what ways did practitioner inquiry inform understanding of my awareness? ................................ 189 Interpretation and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 191 iii Multilingual Awareness ................................................................................................................................................... 191 Multicultural Awareness................................................................................................................................................. 192 Practitioner Research ....................................................................................................................................................... 194 Implications ................................................................................................................................................................................ 194 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 205 CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................................. 211 VERBAL REPORTS AND LANGUAGE LEARNER LITERACY RESEARCH ....................................... 211 Veridicality in Verbal Protocols of Language Learners ............................................................................ 212 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 213 Veridicality in Verbal Protocols of Language Learners ........................................................................................... 213 Verbal Protocols ........................................................................................................................................................................ 217 The Literature ............................................................................................................................................................................ 221 Framework for the Review: Methodological Recommendations ........................................................................ 222 Selected Studies’ Adherence to Methodological Recommendations ................................................................. 224 Increase Representativeness of Thought Through Concurrent Protocols ............................................... 224 Slow Down Processing...................................................................................................................................................... 229 Emphasize Process over Product ................................................................................................................................ 233 Tap Current Processing .................................................................................................................................................. 236 Direct Participants to Provide Non-Explanations ............................................................................................... 236 Consider Participants’ Verbal Abilities ................................................................................................................... 238 Predict Study Participants’ Self-Reports ................................................................................................................ 240 Fundamental Arguments ................................................................................................................................................ 242 Errors of Omission ............................................................................................................................................................ 242 Errors of Commission ...................................................................................................................................................... 244 Language as an Inherent Variable ............................................................................................................................. 246 A Way Forward .......................................................................................................................................................................... 249 Verbal Reports in the Reading Processes of Language Learners ......................................................... 257 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 258 Verbal Reports in the Reading Processes of Language Learners ........................................................................ 258 Definitions of Language Learners ..................................................................................................................................... 260 The Present Review ................................................................................................................................................................. 260 Method........................................................................................................................................................................................... 261 Literature Search Procedures ...................................................................................................................................... 261 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................... 263 Overview of Studies ................................................................................................................................................................. 265 Publication Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 273 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 273 Areas of Focus...................................................................................................................................................................... 274 Theoretical Background .................................................................................................................................................. 278 Study Contexts, Participants, and Language ........................................................................................................ 284 Methodological Concerns ............................................................................................................................................... 289 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................... 298 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 310 CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................................... 313 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 313 Summary, Discussion, and Future Directions .............................................................................................. 315 Epistemological Framework ................................................................................................................................................ 315 Theories, Forms of Data, Forms of Analysis ................................................................................................................. 320 Theories .................................................................................................................................................................................. 320 Forms of Data ...................................................................................................................................................................... 321 Forms of Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 322 Implications for the Field ...................................................................................................................................................... 323 Future Directions for Research .......................................................................................................................................... 326 iv Literacy Research, Language Policy, Verbal Reports, and Language Learners .................................. 326 Teachers’ and Teacher Educators’ Linguistic Diversity .................................................................................. 328 Researcher as Instrument..................................................................................................................................................... 328 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 332 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................... 338 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................... 338 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................................... 339 Interview Protocol A ............................................................................................................................................... 339 Interview Protocol B ............................................................................................................................................... 340 APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................................................... 342 ABOUT THE AUTHOR ...................................................................................................................... 343 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1.1: OVERVIEW AND AREAS OF RESEARCH IN THE DISSERTATION…....................……........7 TABLE 1.2: SUMMARY OF PROCESSES INVOLVED IN STRATEGY USE.........................................…140 TABLE 1.3: CODING SYSTEM AND FREQUENCIES…………….................…….....……....................…...…179 TABLE 1.4: SUMMARY OF KEY FEATURES OF ORIGINAL STUDIES………….…………………..….......267 TABLE 1.5: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS IN ORIGINAL STUDIES………………………..……........…279 TABLE 1.6: METHODOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS OF ORIGINAL STUDIES….....……………..…..…...…290 TABLE 1.7: VERBAL REPORT METHODOLOGIES OF ORIGINAL STUDIES……………...……….....…291 TABLE 1.8: OVERALL SUMMARY…………………….....…............…………......................................………….318 vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1: CONTRIBUTION OF EACH LANGUAGE TO SLFC…………………….…................……..........91 FIGURE 1.2: INTERDEPENDENCE OF PROCESSES IN LANGUAGE……………...........................…...…132 FIGURE 1.3: TRANSFORMATION IN ATTITUDE TO LANGUAGE…………..….…………………..……....133 FIGURE 1.4: DISTRIBUTION OF ORIGINAL STUDIES BY JOURNAL…...........................................….275 FIGURE 1.5: ORIGINAL STUDIES BASED ON YEAR OF PUBLICATION……………….…...……….....…276 FIGURE 1.6: RESEARCH FOCI OF STUDIES…………………….....…..............................................………….277 FIGURE 1.7: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL…………………………………………………339 FIGURE 1.8: COPYRIGHT PERMISSION…………………………………………...………………………..…….......343 vii ABSTRACT A transdisciplinary notion of learning considers what is between, above, and beyond the disciplines. Adherence to such a perspective warrants examination of any research endeavor from multiple entry points and from openness to the changing nature and infinity of knowledge. In this dissertation, “Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning,” I approached the study of language and literacy teaching and learning across multilingual and multicultural contexts via an optional dissertation process that required completion of multiple studies. This dissertation option allowed me three entry points: (a) an understanding of literacy and language policy in relation to language learners at the K-12 levels in selected countries of the multilingual English-Speaking Caribbean; (b) linguistic and cultural diversity of multilingual teachers and teacher educators; and (c) the verbal report methodology as employed in original studies focused on the literacy practices of language learners at the K-20 levels across international contexts. My first foray into this dissertation was in September 2010. All entry points undertaken concluded in December 2012. These entry points, as described above, consisted of exploratory research reviews, analyses, syntheses, research on practice, and a narrative case study. In my first entry point to this dissertation, I focused on two areas. I conducted a comprehensive literature review of literacy and language policies for K-12 multilingual learners across selected Englishspeaking Caribbean countries. Findings indicated that teachers were predisposed to English as the language of literacy instruction and that literacy initiatives, programs, and assessment viii reflected traditional conceptions of literacy. In addition, based on my examination of language policy in St. Lucia, the linguistic status quo appeared to function as the de facto policy for literacy education, St. Lucian Standard English was privileged as the language of instruction, and underperformance in literacy characterized students at all levels of the education system. My second entry point to this dissertation was three-pronged. I first examined a multilingual English-Speaking Caribbean teacher’s literacy practice beyond the context of the classroom, noting three recursive pathways, namely (trans) formation in attitude inclusive of shunning, accepting, and reflecting behaviors; the use of certain accommodative strategies such as the adjustment of language and speech; and distinct identity formation processes, including the construction of varied identities for school, home, profession, and friends. I secondly investigated my own practice. This investigation revealed components of multilingual awareness in my practice such as reflection, monitoring, attending to clues, following discourse patterns, and applying conversational strategies based on feedback. Further, I identified components of multicultural awareness, namely awareness of individual predispositions, awareness of other cultures, and attention to stereotypes, as well s noted the association between my multilingual and multicultural awareness via “facilitation” and “symbiosis.” Through the course of the inquiry, I noted heightened awareness of practice as evidenced by “transformation” in my teaching. My final step in the second entry point to this dissertation was the identification of a framework, transdisciplinarity, to guide literacy teachers and teacher educators as they respond to linguistic and cultural diversity. Transdisciplinarity was used to demonstrate how teachers and educators might learn to know, do, live together with, and be. In my third entry point to this dissertation, examination of the verbal report methodology as applied in literacy research revealed that researchers tended to adhere to recommendations related to the use of concurrent protocols, the elicitation of responses concerning current ix processing, and stipulations requiring participants to provide verbal explanations of thought, as guided by cognitivist perspectives. However, in many instances, based on the recommendations emanating from cognitivist approaches to verbal reports, researchers failed to slow down processing, to consider variations in participants’ verbal abilities in interpretations of data, and to predict the probable contents of participants’ self-reports. Moreover, in further exploration of the work done in this area, researchers concentrated heavily on comprehension, strategy use, vocabulary, and technology. Mixed-methods approaches proved to be most popular, with very few studies being solely qualitative or quantitative. Verbal reports appeared to be largely concurrent and quantitatively oriented, with little reliance on qualitative analyses. In a number of studies, cognitively based theoretical frameworks were employed, but in others, theoretical frameworks were absent. In the cases where the latter were used, researchers tended to rely on frameworks grounded in monolingual as opposed to multilingual reading processes. Based on findings emerging from the three entry points to this dissertation, major implications for multilingual students, teachers, teacher educators, and researchers were identified. At the micro-level, the Caribbean region stands to benefit from a consideration of international approaches to literacy research as a means of developing a research base applicable to the social, cultural, and linguistic contexts in which language learners function in the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean. In addition, multilingual teachers and teacher educators in the Caribbean can learn from researchers’ examination of the literacy processes of language learners in the particular contexts of the multilingual English-Speaking Caribbean identified in this dissertation. Understanding how such teachers and educators respond to linguistic and cultural diversity within and beyond these contexts, and as a result of their experiences, holds potential for informing literacy practice. With regards to researchers, the use x of verbal reports must be tapped to further facilitate understanding of students’ literacy processes. Through consideration of how a socio-cultural approach might be merged with cognitivist notions of protocol construction within the multilingual contexts of the Caribbean, researchers can obtain insights into the more holistic processes of students’ literacy development. At the macro-level, literacy research in the multilingual context of the English-speaking Caribbean might be enhanced by research endeavors that allow multiple entry points, as has been illustrated via the unique approach to this dissertation, which merged literature syntheses, theoretical and methodological analyses, and empirical research to explore multilingual teaching and learning. However, as teachers utilize literacy practices and researchers investigate literacy processes, the literacy needs of language learners, as determined by historical, geographical, social, linguistic, and cultural contexts, must remain central to literacy research in the Caribbean region, and beyond. Efforts underway to strengthen and extend literacy research in the Caribbean would benefit from a holistic approach as undertaken in this dissertation whereby an understanding of language learners’ literacy practices are understood within their broader contexts. 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION It was the first day of school at Concato Elementary in the village of Mon-Repos. A little girl sat on a bench outside her classroom door. Hair plaited neatly and shoes shining brightly, with sharpened pencil in hand, Malika eagerly anticipated her teacher’s arrival. She had not forgotten her mother’s words that morning. “Malika! Samuel! You see how much of yall I have? I never learn my work in school! I never listen to da teacher. Now, yall have a chance to learn. Go to school ‘n behave! Doh make me have to come in da school eh! Bon!” Ma Popo didn’t have to say it twice. They knew she meant it. Since they had started school three years ago, their mother had only been to the school once, the day she flogged them mercilessly in the front of the school yard. For them, this had been the last day she would visit. “Miss comin!” Samuel exclaimed, “Malika, Miss comin! Get up from deh and come!” Malika had known that Mrs. Smith would be teaching her this year. She knew what Mrs. Smith looked like because she had seen her come in that one day last week while Malika’s mom cleaned the classrooms. Samuel too had seen Mrs. Smith, but at the time, neither of them knew how to say hi, or maybe they just didn’t. But they had heard great things about her. So perhaps, Mrs. Smith should be okay. Quickly, Malika jumped up from the bench, brushed off her overalls, and ran down the stairs to greet her new teacher. “Good morning!” Mrs. Smith said warmly, as the students offered to take her bags. “Good morning, Miss,” responded Malika shyly, and then she added, a bit reluctantly, “Samuel and me had see you de odda day and we was going to say hi but we was afraid.” “You mean you and Samuel sawwwww me last week and wanted to say hello?” Mrs. Smith’s responded. Though Mrs. Smith’s voice was still warm, Malika immediately began to feel uncomfortable. All her life, she had had teachers who corrected her speech, and she had spent all summer hoping that Mrs. Smith would be different. “Yes, Miss, that’s what I meant,” she managed to mutter, just in time. After all, she didn’t want her teacher to think she was rude. She also didn't want her to think that she was dumb. She did know how to speak well. Yet still, as Malika carried Mrs. Smith’s bags up the stair, and heard the chomp chomp of Mrs. Smith’s heels behind her, she couldn’t help but wonder if there would ever be a time when her teachers could like the way she spoke, the person she was, the girl she could be at home. In school, she had to be a different girl, a girl who behaved like school said she should. As Malika entered her classroom, and overheard Mrs. Smith using her “school language”, the voices of her classmates grew softer and softer. “It’s going to be a longgggggggg year!” Malika thought, as she sighed, “maybe one day, just maybe, we can be who we’re meant to be.” 2 When the vignette begins, Malika and her brother, Samuel, multilingual St. Lucian speakers, await their teacher in the schoolyard of Concata Elementary School in St. Lucia. Both 10 years of age, the twin sister and brother had been duly warned by their mother on this first day of school to take their schoolwork seriously. After receiving that flogging from Ma Popo for absenting themselves from school to hike with friends, the siblings knew Ma Popo meant business. But this year they would not have to skip school because they had heard Mrs. Smith was great. And so, as she approached them that morning, they greeted her in the best way possible, via the language they were most comfortable with, the St. Lucian English Vernacular. Oblivious of the warmth intended by Malika’s in her use of the vernacular to pose her question, Mrs. Smith immediately offered a correction in St. Lucian Standard English. Disappointed that Mrs. Smith would be similar to her previous teachers and constantly require the spoken “school language,” Standard English, Malika sighed. She longed for a time when she would be allowed to speak St. Lucian English Vernacular to her teachers in school and feel comfortable doing so. Malika grew up in a multilingual context of St. Lucia, where St. Lucian Standard English, St. Lucian English Vernacular, and St. Lucian French Creole are prominent language varieties of use. For Malika, the language variety commonly used within her home and her community is not the language privileged in her school. Yet, Malika is fortunate, for though she speaks French Creole, which is even further removed from Standard English, her capacity to speak the St. Lucian English Vernacular positions her to communicate successfully in the academic context of school. Mrs. Smith’s instructional attention to Malika’s capacity to orally produce the language valued in academic settings demonstrates how oblivious she is of the context in which Malika uses the St. Lucian English Vernacular and the rationale for its use. Fortunately for Malika, she appears to have mastered the “code-switching” act in her navigation of the social contexts of 3 home and school, and is successful in allaying Mrs. Smith’s fears, and ultimately, the negative connotation that Mrs. Smith might possibly have towards her impoverished language use. Despite the particularities of this situation and the confinement of time and place, Malika’s lingering concerns are by no means an exception. As English rapidly increases in its status as a global language (New London Group, 1996; Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages: TESOL, 2008), learners of English must consistently grapple with challenges faced in English literacy instruction within academic settings. With “world Englishes” and local varieties internationally constituting the “lingua franca” for regions around the world, the significance of English teaching and learning has become a critical concern (TESOL, 2008). In spite of the continued prevalence of dialectal, accentual, and subcultural differences in Englishes as manifested across geographic and social contexts, non-native English speakers are expected to demonstrate proficiency in the standardized use of English (IRA, 2001). Undoubtedly, this constitutes a reasonable and albeit logical goal due to the power and privilege that English holds globally. Yet, despite having undergone extensive study in certain contexts (e.g., United States) and under certain conditions (i.e., with the use of traditional literacy; see Biber, Nekrasova, & Horn, 2011; Fitzgerald, 1995; Norris & Ortega, 2006; Richards, 2009), K-12 multilingual learners’ literacy processes have yet to become as documented as in other regions (e.g., Caribbean; see Warrican, 2009; Simmons-McDonald, 2004; 2010). Specifically, in selected regions of the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean, the extent to which cultural context impacts notions of standardized English proficiency and usage surrounding language learners’ literacy practice and instruction remains unknown. Moreover, exploration of these processes for such learners based on contemporary notions of literacy, specifically for learners within K-12 4 levels (see Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; Mills, 2010; New London Group, 1996), remains rare. Due to the increased prominence of English and the limited research exploring traditional literacy in international contexts such as the Caribbean, the role played by teachers of English language learners has drawn some attention in the literature (e.g., Garcia, 2008; Jessner, 2008; Simmons-McDonald, 2004; 2010; St. Hilaire, 2011; Winer, 2012). However, for multilingual teachers, there continues to be a dearth in the body of research that documents the capacity of these teachers to meet the needs of all learners (see Moussu & Llurda, 2008; Wallace, 2000; Watson, Solomon, & Tatum, 2011). And for educators whose responsibility it is to train multilingual/teachers to deal with the challenges encountered in developing English-proficient learners, little is known about the extent to which multilingual proficiency influences such teachers in this regard (Pang & Park, 2011). Indelibly, an exacerbated situation presents itself when one considers the status of the second-language literacy field. Second-language (L2) reading research continues to rely heavily on monolingual (L1) reading theory (Fitzgerald, 1995; 2005; Grabe, 2009). Yet, as some acknowledge, while L1 reading models provide partial explanations of L2 reading, L1 models fail to consider the cross-linguistic features of L2 reading (Bernhardt, 2005; 2011; Grabe, 2009). Moreover, because L1 models are based on English, these models have tended to reflect English conceptions of literacy (Grabe, 2009). Notwithstanding, frameworks of this nature continue to undergird L2 literacy research methodologies, warranting due investigation. The inextricable nature of language and culture (Halliday, 1980; Vygotsky, 1981) implies that any examination into language draws upon the cultural experiences of individuals. As such, examinations of multilingual teachers’ and learners’ experiences, by default, provide glimpses 5 into their cultural experiences (Johnson, 2004). Navigation across native and target language cultures plays a major role in language learners’ literacy development and multilingual teachers’ experiences. Given, investigation into the practices of multilingual teachers and learners also cuts across varied social settings, languages, and backgrounds and as such, this dissertation is appropriately titled, “Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning.” Purpose The purpose of this dissertation is to explore three areas of study: (a) the status of literacy and language policy in relation to language learners at the K-12 levels in selected areas of the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean; (b) linguistic and cultural diversity of multilingual teachers and teacher educators; and (c) the verbal report methodology as employed in original studies focused on the literacy practices of language learners at the K-20 levels across international contexts (see Table 1.1). Adopting a transdisciplinary approach, which emphasizes elements “between,” “above,” and “beyond” disciplines (Nicolescu, 2010), I drew upon interrelationships manifested in, emanating from, and raising questions beyond, the intersections of history, linguistics, philosophy, cultural studies, psychology, sociology, and education to delve into the field of multilingual teaching and learning. My overall goal for engaging in research into these areas was to gain a broader understanding of K-20 language learners’ literacy within previously unexplored contexts (i.e., the English-speaking Caribbean), develop a sense of the experiences accompanying multilingual teachers and educators, and understand the ways in which the verbal report methodology function in its portrayal of multilingual learners’ literacy practices. But first, I present the epistemological framework that undergirds my research. 6 TOWARDS AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: A NEVER-ENDING QUEST In positioning my own work, I struggled to identify an epistemological stance. Operating from a view of epistemology as “the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the knower and the known,” my first challenge was to determine my orientation towards knowledge (Paul & Marfo, 2001, p. 541). Due to the format of this dissertation as an undertaking of multiple studies or research pieces all derived from the broader umbrella of multilingual teaching and learning, it was necessary to negotiate the landscape of philosophical discourse in an attempt to determine the overall epistemological paradigm from which I would operate. However, this attempt became further complicated due to the variations in terminologies identified in relation to epistemology. The literature reflects considerable differences in framing epistemological standpoints depending on the form of theoretical discourse and the forum of discussion. Terms such as “paradigms” and “theoretical paradigm” seemed highly prevalent (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Lather, 2007). For the purpose of this dissertation, the constructs “theoretical perspective” and “epistemology” were chosen. A “theoretical perspective” is used to refer to a “philosophical stance informing the methodology” chosen by a researcher (Crotty, 1998, p. 3). Also relying on Crotty’s definition, an “epistemology” represents “a theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical perspective” (p. 3). Based on Crotty’s distinction, epistemologies represent the broader underlying assumptions concerning the knowledge that one brings to a particular theoretical orientation as reflected in one’s methodological choices during the course of research. Further perusal of the literature revealed that sufficient evidence exists to justify the identification of an epistemological standpoint (e.g., Coe, 2001; Maxwell, 2013; Pallas, 2001; 7 Table 1.1: Overview and Areas of Research in the Dissertation Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning The following selected articles represent my program of research in which I examined three areas of study: (a) the status of literacy and language policy in relation to language learners at the K-12 levels in selected countries of the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean; (b) linguistic and cultural diversity of multilingual teachers and teacher educators; and (c) the verbal report methodology as employed in original studies focused on the literacy practices of languag learners at the K-20 levels across international contexts. Area(s) of Research Literacy Research and Language Policy Title Author(s) Literacy Research in the English-Speaking Caribbean. Smith, P. (2013a). (Sole author). Towards a Language Policy for St. Lucia. Smith, P. (2013b). (Sole author). Publication Outlet/ Title Harvard Educational Review Language Policy Status/ Timeline Summary/ Objectives In Progress. An exploration into the empirical literacy research in the English-speaking Caribbean to determine what had been done, areas of focus thus far, and future directions for literacy research based on the multilingual nature of the region. In Progress. A demonstration of how St. Lucia’s historical linguistic background, current linguistic trends, and language policy efforts provided a backdrop against which to construe enactment of language policy in the country. Major Findings Very few original studies on the literacy experiences of students in St. Lucia and the wider English-speaking Caribbean Continued prevalence of the use of standard language varieties in St. Lucia Debate concerning the language of instruction from both the teacher and student perspective Increased positive perceptions towards language varieties Conceptions of traditional literacy outlined locally different from conceptions of definitions implicitly conveyed Lack of a language policy in St. Lucia despite the presence of three language varieties Perplexing attitudes to language varieties in the context of education despite their validation for use outside of such contexts Limited materials based on orthography for language varieties limits their use in the classroom Lack of a wide range of leveled texts in the language varieties for instruction 8 Table 1.1 (continued). Teachers’ and Teacher Educators’ Linguistic Diversity Exploring the Interstices of Literate, Linguistic, and Cultural Diversity Smith, P. (2013c). (Sole author). Multicultural Perspectives In Progress. Linguistic and Cultural Appropriations of a Multilingual Educator. Smith, P. (2013d). (Sole author). Studying Teacher Education In Progress. Accomplishing the Goals of Multicultural Education: Transdisciplinarity. Smith, P. (2013e). (Sole author). Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue In Press. A study of an Englishspeaking multilingual Caribbean educator’s linguistic experiences across academic, social, and cultural contexts and his description of the impact on his perception of literacy and literacy teaching. A practitioner inquiry into multilingual and multicultural awareness as manifested in the practice of a literacy teacher educator who had transitioned across varied linguistic and cultural settings during her personal and professional trajectory. A description of how transdisciplinarityy allows for reenvisioning of multicultural teacher education as teachers and teacher educators strive to respect and value diversity in the teaching of literacy. The educator described navigation of the contexts by way of three paths: o Attitude transformation o Strategy use o Attitude formation Changes in the perception of what students should learn in order to be literate as a result of cross-cultural experiences Substantive occurrence of multilingual awareness via multiple indications of reflection, monitoring, attending to clues and following discourse patterns Moderate occurrence of multicultural awareness via awareness of individual predispositions, awareness of other cultures and attention to stereotypes Literacy teachers and teacher educators can become more effect by o Learning to know o Learning to do o Learning to live together with o Learning to be Thinking about enacting the curriculum via transdisciplinarity changes the dichotomous and segmented approaches to teaching literacy 9 Table 1.1 (continued). Verbal Reports, Literacy Research, and Language Learners Veridicality in Verbal Protocols of Language Learners Smith, P. & King, J. R. (2013). Theory and Practice in Language Studies Published. Verbal Reports in the Reading Processes of Language Learners Smith, P., & Kim, D. (2013). Second Language Research In Progress. An evaluation of the ways in which secondlanguage research studies from international, crosslinguistic, and crosscultural contexts adheres to a cognitivist approach to verbal report methodology involving language learners. A review of studies from international, cross-linguistic, and cross-cultural contexts in which verbal reports were obtained from language learners and discussion of the implications for maintaining solely cognitivist perspectives to verbal reports for such learners despite changes in conceptions of literacy. Researchers largely subscribe to certain key recommendations of use based on the recommendations of Ericsson and Simon Language learners are more susceptible to errors of omission, errors of commission and language challenges when producing verbal reports via a cognitivist perspective Researchers maintain adherence to cognitivist approaches with the exception of three studies Mixed method approaches to verbal reports yielded richer data yet studies deploying such an approach were few and far between Second language theory did not undergird the majority of the studies in which verbal reports were employed, decreasing the theoretic basis for these studies 10 Paul & Marfo, 2001; St. Pierre, 2002) in undertaking a research endeavor. Yet, not many researchers describe exactly how this process occurs. In previous decades, it has been noted that the “development of a collaborative research culture within which multiparadigmatic perspectives are valued and practiced” was necessary for doctoral students’ philosophical understanding of the nature of research (Page, 2001; Paul & Marfo, 2001). And in more recent times, calls have emerged for educational researchers to maintain a continuous openness to the unknown (Lather, 2007) and to improve visibility of the research process (Maxwell, 2013). Yet, the complexity of the process through which an epistemological perspective becomes identified perhaps evades written description. Understanding the need for identification of such a perspective due to the instrumental role played by the researcher in qualitative research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Lather, 2007), in this dissertation, I maximize visibility of the process in which I engaged to develop an epistemological stance. As can be assumed, this process is highly subjective and dependent on the lenses through which I view the world. Moreover, the collaborative efforts in which I have engaged throughout the development of my research trajectory have been instrumental in defining my view of the nature of knowledge. While it is understandable that an epistemological perspective is warranted, in this dissertation, I deviated from the traditional conception of an epistemological perspective as capable of identification prior to engagement in the research endeavor. This deviation stemmed from my recognition of the fluidity of knowledge, the changing nature of one’s knowing, and the realization within myself of the transformation of my world view from the inception to the completion of the dissertation. As a qualitative researcher, I engaged in the process of obtaining an epistemological perspective, an endeavor that was in many ways and in many instances, revisited and revised throughout the 11 course of this research; the final perspective recorded here is far removed from that penned in its original state. As I will explain later, I attach much significance to writing as a means of knowing and therefore, in my view, proof of my knowledge of a personally established epistemological stance depended greatly on my capacity to narrate the process, or so it seemed, during my actual narration. When and What is Knowledge? Epistemological frameworks ask the question “When and what is knowledge?” (Crotty, 1998, p. 46). Prior to determining an answer to this question, I pondered deeply on my interpretation of its components. Maxwell (2013) notes that while researchers are generally advised to base the decision of a research topic on the body of existing literature, the value of personal goals and experiences need not be underplayed. Strauss and Corbin (1990) concur: “the touchstone of your own experience may be more valuable an indicator for you of a potentially successfully research endeavor” (p. 36). I therefore searched my professional past, eager to determine the instances in which I believed I “knew” and to identify the constituents of that “knowledge.” I also noted the time frames governing my arrival at a “state of knowing.” As I reflected, three pivotal eras of my professional life seemed to provide a basis for my first instantiation of a framework for knowing. The first was my seven years of undergraduate schooling in which I became professionally prepared to become an elementary school teacher while engaged in a very rigorous educational program, a part of which was internship in schools. Throughout the first two years of this period, I viewed knowledge as my capacity to reproduce as accurately as possible the material that I had captured from other professionals. Knowledge then represented the capacity to demonstrate, via writing or performance assessments, standardized forms of 12 knowledge, the criteria underlying which I never questioned at the time. Notably, “knowing” at this point did not necessarily include oral speaking or manifestation of comprehension via oral communication. In my perspective, a provision of the material transmitted to me, once reproduced in written form, sufficed, provided that there was considerable consistency in its representation of the original. The second pivotal era central to my process of “knowing” was embedded in my six years as a teacher of subject matter in elementary school classrooms. During this period, I decided that students “knew” concepts only if they were capable of representing them either literally or through application, as reflected by a test. The capacity of students to produce in a coherent written form the material they had been taught seemed to be the most logical basis for an assumption that they “knew.” In spite of the use of informal assessments on a daily basis, I ascribed greater significance to a 60-item literacy test as opposed to activities such as students’ illustration that they understood context clues during discussion of text. In fact, upon further reflection, I specifically recall valuing more highly the performances of students in subjects such as mathematics and science, an indication that my idea of the nature of knowledge privileged “knowing” certain disciplines over others. The third era of my professional life, which seemed indispensable to my idea of the nature of knowing, was my engagement in teaching and studying in higher education. As a student embarking upon study at the graduate level, I initially maintained many of the stances towards knowledge previously embraced, this despite encountering a wide range of viewpoints concerning knowledge and its representation. It was only upon my identification of an area of interest for pursuit at the doctoral level, combined within rigid requirements for in-depth philosophical reflection of my beliefs, that I recognized a transition in my knowledge. In 2010, 13 upon being asked to state my philosophical perspective in the Advanced Graduate Seminar course, I surmised: As a literacy educator, I believe each child is born with a cognitive predisposition for acquiring language skills. The mental capacity of the individual does not dictate the extent to which literacy skills develop. However, as the child negotiates a cultural and social context(s), s/he develops linguistic patterns congruent with this environment. The classroom provides an additional context within which language is encountered. Based on the developmental levels of various children, the teacher is responsible for manipulating the classroom context to stimulate language growth for functional purposes that will allow the child to maneuver situations within his/her present society as well as interact successfully in the international domain. The child and teacher must engage in mutual communication in a language that the child understands and is familiar with in order to facilitate acquisition of linguistic skills. With the realization that children’s social and cultural backgrounds have a significant impact on their negotiation of meaning within the classroom community, the teacher should endeavor to understand these backgrounds, and to offer instruction in a context that closely resembles the latter. I realize now that despite writing this philosophy, at that moment, I fully subscribed only to the first part: a belief that “each child is born with a cognitive predisposition for acquiring language skills.” Teaching in higher education further impacted and served as a transformative force in my view of what knowledge represented and when it had been achieved. As I struggled to maintain a view of knowledge as a reproduction of what had been presented to students, or in this case, preservice teachers, expecting them to indicate via writing, that they “knew” what I had transmitted 14 to them, I experienced a significant amount of cognitive dissonance. Not only did I realize that knowing could no longer be measured via tests and writing, I was also forced to acknowledge the tremendous importance of oral discourse to knowing. Notably, this acknowledgement was also predicated on the requirements for oral demonstrations of “knowing” embedded within the Survey of Research in Reading course in which I was enrolled during this period. Personally, in my role as a student in higher education classrooms, and professionally, as an instructor of literacy with students in real classrooms, I realized that by the end of my second year of my enrolment in the doctoral program and completion of my first year as an instructor in higher education, I perceived knowledge in dramatically different ways than I had in previous years. In 2011, after much deliberation in a Philosophies of Inquiry course, I wrote: Ultimately, negotiating the perplexing notion that I belonged within no philosophical realm as cited within the readings, I am still perplexed being unable to choose one with which I am aligned. The professor of this course indicated that imbalance, conflict, dissonance, disequilibrium, and suspension of beliefs were supposed to occur as a result of this course. In fact, this was one of the major goals he hoped to achieve. I viewed the professor’s expectation for this class as aligned with critical theory. The professor accomplished his goals by effecting change through enabling me to realize that as an individual, superficial notions of power that have come to be conceived of in the literature are merely just the tip of the iceberg. As a result of this class, I now understand that if one realizes how critical it is to question all that one has been brought up to believe in one’s lifetime, one realizes how “marginalized” one’s thoughts have been and how one’s unidimensional thinking oppresses the ability to move past the obvious, beyond the concrete, above the ordinary. The professor’s approach would fly against a 15 post-positivistic perspective and the notion that there is one truth, one reality that we may subscribe to in the social sciences. I therefore realize that perhaps this struggle within me to dichotomize my perspectives is not necessary, and reflects just what has been emphasized throughout this class all along – the critical nature of context and of attention to what applies only in recognition of a given situation. While I do understand the need for context, it still remains that I will have to find a way to restore my understanding of the world and how it is conceived though lenses that are not necessarily mine. Whether I will achieve this in my lifetime is not entirely a problematic issue as it is this very question that will continue to pervade my research and determine the questions I raise concerning every research act I engage in. At the point of penning this elaborate musing of my philosophical dilemma, I was clearly vested in the notion that my disequilibrium warranted some form of peaceful resolution. My unsettled thinking about knowledge and what it meant plagued me and I felt I could not rest until questions had been answered. In the paper from which this quote was taken, I began to question my faith and everything I felt I had “known.” From this moment forward, I recognized my beliefs about knowledge would never again be the same. Years went by since I wrote the second philosophical statement and an eagerness to determine what I believed was knowledge remained a constant question on my mind as I developed studies, and engaged in constant revisions of my academic writing. Yet, at this moment, as I pen this manuscript, I have come to the place where I view knowledge as constantly changing, as evidenced in my personal and professional experience. I approach knowing as a function of context, the changes of which indelibly affect the nature of one’s “knowing” throughout particular periods of one’s life. Most importantly, at this juncture, I have 16 come to respect and to embrace the idea of a stance of not-knowing as the true essence of knowledge. In other words, knowledge became a construct that I comfortably believed, and I relied on the recognition that the unknown could influence what I felt was known, invoking a humility of temporary familiarity with concepts, the nature of which would eventually undergo significant and infinitesimal change. For me, these three characteristics are concrete and real, representative of the dissonance experienced in my personal and professional life, and most importantly, subject to change. Embedding the Personal within the Philosophical: Theoretical Perspectives Upon identifying the descriptive characteristics above, it was then necessary to determine how my orientations fit within the broader theoretical and epistemological discourse. I now identify the theoretical perspectives emerging from my personal epistemology and how this personalized epistemology fits within broader epistemological frameworks. In my descriptions and during my consolidation of the research processes in which I engaged, I noticed that the major theoretical perspectives – interpretivist, critical, and pluralist – all informed, to a certain degree and in distinctive ways, the manner in which I viewed knowledge in my framing of studies. However, the interpretivist notion seemed to assume the greatest prevalence. To a much lesser degree, the critical and pluralist also influenced my work. Interpretivism Interpretivism arose as a direct rebuttal to the positivist perspective (Crotty, 1998). As is evidenced in Thomas Schwandt’s (1994) explanation, interpretivism was the direct result of an attempt to create a natural science applicable to the social dimension, bringing with it the principles of empiricism and determining that they be applied to inquiry involving human beings (cited in Crotty, 1998). Max Weber (1864-1920) was largely responsible for the foundations of 17 interpretivism. However, prior to Weber’s discourse on Verstehen (i.e., understanding), Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) proposed that natural sciences and human sciences differed, and as such, required distinctive methods suited to each entity. Wilhelm Windelband (1848-1915) and Heinrich Rickert (1863-1936), Neo-Kantian philosophers who also operated within the same period, conjured a distinction, not between the two sciences, but in the logic underlying the two stances (Crotty, 1998). As a result, because natural sciences tended to be concerned with “law(s)”[nomos] of nature and human sciences tended to be concerned with “individuals”[idios], the former came to be focused on the nomothetic while the latter came to be concerned with the idiographic (Crotty, 1998, pp. 68-69). Based on these assertions, Rickert further explained that generalizations occurred in the natural sciences and individualization in the human sciences (Crotty, 1998). In opposition to these views, Weber insisted that the nomothetic and idiographic need not apply to either the human or natural sciences. In fact, this appeared to be the single most important tenet responsible for Weber’s preoccupation with the expansion of a methodology in which empiricism was alive and well, but also suited to the social sciences with its emphasis on causal explanations of the social actions of human beings. Alfred Schultz (1899-1959), drawing upon Weber’s determination, sought to explain and to understand the human and social sciences by attempting to negotiate the nomothetic and idiographic in an effort to apply the notion to the social sciences and therefore obtain rigor within the latter field. However, the whole argument was blown around full-circle with the realization that it was out of this same perplexity that the Verstehen idea was born. In other words, Verstehen (understanding) emerged from the need to dispel the notion that a “rigorously scientific” method for the human and social sciences needed empiricism as its basis. Since 18 Verstehen, interpretivism has come to embody the understanding that the methods of the human and social sciences will differ from those employed by the natural sciences (Crotty, 1998). The resulting explanation from this theorizing was interpretivism, which involved “culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life-world” (Crotty, 1998, p. 67). Paul (2005) extended this notion further to emphasize the inherent presence of language in any effort to represent reality within interpretivism, a reality that moves beyond the object to its meaning, and in the focus on meaning, addresses values that allow for the preservation of morals and imaginative components within the social sciences. Crotty (1998) identified three historical “streams” responsible for perpetuating the interpretivist perspective, symbolic interpretivism, phenomenology, and hermeneutics. Symbolic interactionism lends itself to interpretivism, not only because of the critical role of language within the former, but also because symbolic interactionism asserts that in order to present situated interpretations of the social life-world, there must be a “putting of oneself in the place of the other” (Crotty, 1998, p.75). This occurs via an interaction (role-taking), made possible only through the use of significant symbols, a large majority of which constitute the language through which communication occurs. Even in interpretation of life and its analogy with theatre, social interaction as gaming, negotiated-order theory, and labeling theory, one envisions interpretivism’s emphasis on meaning, as well as its cultural and historical derivations, and therefore, these components of symbolic interactionism are central to an understanding of the embodiment of this theoretical perspective. In this regard, ethnography represents a significant orientation to interpretivism, an approach increasingly occupying a prominent role in social research. 19 Phenomenology, another stream through which interpretivism was borne along, also played a pivotal role due to its emphasis on laying aside the meanings and understandings already ascribed to given phenomena, and engaging in a revisitation of these phenomena as “things themselves” (Crotty, 1998, p. 79). Within the phenomenology that Crotty ascribes to be real are the notions of objectivism and critique. These notions, which Crotty contrasts to what phenomenology has come to represent in North America (subjectivist and uncritical), create a debate as to whether opposing characteristics have been forced to fit the mold of interpretivism and to question the process through which the latter was achieved. Whereas interpretivism, with its emphasis on interpretations of a social life-world, implies that certain components of the process are subjective, the phenomenology that Crotty (1998) identifies, by its very nature, assumes that the one who is engaged in bracketing is also the object of the latter and therefore, subject to the creation of interpretations that are rather objectivistic in nature. Hermeneutics, initially concerned with the interpretation of scripture, came to be applied to interpretivism because of its emphasis on the narrative and the interpretation of stories as a means of presenting the interpretations arising from the meaning-making processes of the human and social sciences. While the object here is not to determine which streams of the interpretivist approach underlie this dissertation in its entirety, the directions into which interpretivism may flow are significant for a subsequent understanding of how the studies contained here are framed. Epistemologically, knowledge within an interpretivist perspective presupposes that how a mind makes sense of the world and its experiences and meanings remains connected to the mind from which these meanings are derived. Knowledge is therefore neither here nor there, but exists in the meaning behind connections of the mind to the experience and vice versa (Crotty, 1998). 20 An interpretivist perspective is based on the assumption that individuals create personal subjective and intersubjective interpretations of the world with which they interact. In direct contrast to positivist reliance on an objective reality (Crotty, 1998), as designated by Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and Auguste Compte (1798-1857), the epistemology of an interpretivist approach to which this dissertation subscribes designates knowledge as socially constructed by participants involved in the research (Paul, 2005). Therefore, researchers’ social constructions are equally as valid as the constructions of the participants involved in their studies. Within this epistemological paradigm, “knowledge and the knower are inextricably linked” (Paul, 2005). Interpretivism in this context considers the mediation of reality through language via the active role of the mind and is construed as elemental, given the fact that the world is transformed to fit the shape of human sentences (Paul, 2005). Critical Theory A critical perspective is merged with the interpretivist epistemology, given the focus of this dissertation. Max Horkheimer (1895-1973) first defined the term “critical theory” in his essay Traditional and Critical Theory, written during his sojourn at the Frankfort School of Social Science in 1937 (Horkheimer, 1976). Operating from the social perspective, critical theory was based on the 18th and 19th century uses of the term “critique” by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) and came to signify the restrictions posed by validity and the necessity for social revolution. Also from the Frankfort School, but differing in agenda from his predecessors, Juergen Habermas (1968) reconstructed the notion of critical theory as an ability to free one’s self from the clutches of domination. In more recent times, critical theory has been described by Kincheloe and McLaren (2000) as “a form of cultural criticism revealing power dynamics within social and cultural texts” 21 (p. 286). Epistemologically, a critical approach is concerned with how knowledge is and could be constructed (Paul, 2005) in a very similar manner as designated by an interpretivist approach. Theory in this sense functions as “practical, self-reflexive, explanatory and normative” (Paul, 2005, p. 47). Critical epistemology has taken the form of feminism, critical theory, which constitutes its own separate branches, postmodernism/poststructuralism, and postcolonialism (Merriam, 2009). Despite the approach, in quite a similar manner that interpretivism embraces the construction of reality, certain critical perspectives assume that reality is constructed (McLaren & Kincheloe, 2007). However, such critical approaches also extend beyond this notion to observe the role of critical theory in challenging structures of power and the oppression as perceived in society (Carspecken, 1996). And though Habermas (1971) notes that critical theorists oppose interpretivism as having a weak theoretical foundation and as preferring certain societal agendas over others, the emphasis on a changing reality as highlighted by interpretivism is effected through the enactment of critical theory, which takes a step further than intepretivism, to disrupt reality as is and advocate for change (Kellner, 2003). Researchers who adopt a critical stance draw upon aesthetic sensibilities and beliefs about worthiness to insist that inquiry employs social and cultural criticism as a means of challenging oppression. As one who has noticed the tensions which surrounding the privileging of certain languages over others and the impact of such a stance on the ability of language learners to develop the literacy competencies valued in academic institutions, I found critique to be indispensable to understanding the literacy practices of language learners, the methods used to understand these practices, and the perceptions of teachers instructing such learners. Therefore, my personal epistemological standpoint is reflected in a critical epistemology because my notions of knowledge as contextual and changing are prevalent within a critical perspective. 22 Pluralism Pluralism, more recently construed as a theoretical perspective in its own right, advocates the use of multiple methodological and epistemological approaches to engage with the social (Lather, 2007). Pluralistic notions generally operate from a hybrid standpoint whereby “getting lost” and situating one’s self as “curious and unknowing” are privileged based on the nuances of social context (p. 9). Throughout the process of this dissertation, my experience of being “lost” in my pursuit of knowledge and my belief in the infinity of knowledge informed a personal epistemological framing consistent with a pluralistic theoretical perspective. Theoretical, Personal, and Epistemological Alignment With the identification of the theoretical perspectives governing my research and their alignment with my personal epistemological framing now achieved, I now demonstrate how I contextualize the alignment between my theoretical and personal epistemological approaches within the broader epistemological context. Based on the previous discussion, and given the title of my dissertation, “Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning,” the epistemologies that undergird the various studies of this dissertation and that directly represent the notions described within the above theoretical perspectives are constructivism, constructionism, contextualism, subjectivism, relativism, and pluralism (Crotty, 1998; Paul, 2005). Depending on the nature of the exploration and the specific study undertaken, certain epistemologies assume greater or lesser prominence. As previously explained, the epistemologies outlined here are in keeping with the personal epistemological framework identified. Subjectivism allows for interpretation, which in turn contributes to constant and consistent changes in the nature of knowledge made possible by constructivism on one hand and 23 constructionism on the other. In the same vein, contextualism presupposes knowing as a function of context, the changes of which indelibly affect the nature of one’s knowing during particular periods of one’s life, a direct result of relativism. The stance of not-knowing as the true essence of knowledge purported in my personal epistemology finds its basis in pluralism. Ironically, the juxtaposition of epistemologies is sanctioned by the pluralistic paradigm, and my personal view of the infinite nature of knowledge maintains an open door, an avenue through which further and subsequent reframing of this epistemological paradigm remains the norm. Implications for Methodological and Analytical Approaches Given the above discussion, the epistemology adopted in my examination of language learners’ literacy learning and multilingual teachers’ experiences with literacy teaching is informed by a view of knowledge as socially constructed. As such, constructing and arriving at knowledge of language learners’ reading processes and a knowledge of multilingual teachers’ encounters were dependent upon social factors embedded within the intra- and inter-personal relationships of these individuals, the likes of which were supplemented by and inclusive of my personal experiences with the individuals, and in certain instances, with reports of their practices, in varying contexts. The particular epistemologies referenced presuppose that knowledge is derived from participants’ interactions with their immaterial worlds. From an ontological standpoint, these epistemologies presume rejection of an objective and static reality and require an emphasis on participants’ construction of reality. Adopting elements of a critical stance requires consistent consideration of the ways in which interactions between participants and myself, and between myself and the plethora of text encountered during the course of my research, served to illuminate my perspective concerning ideologies purported regarding teachers’ and students’ acceptable uses of language. Moreover, 24 the use of a critical stance required continuous attention to preconceived notions of the ways in which certain learners’ languages and language uses are privileged over others, as well as the contexts within which these circumstances were perceived to be most prevalent. The use of a critical approach within the reviews, analyses, discussions, and original studies conducted further demanded a sense of personal intentionality to bring about change in participants’ realities and in the academic discourse encountered here, based on perceived injustices. The epistemological framework espoused in this dissertation considers the personal sense of self of participants involved and allows for permeation of the research process during each stage of this research. As a participant in some instances and a researcher in others, my research framework requires acknowledgement of my biases as a researcher and a reference to these biases, as a function of transparency, allowing for personal musings concerning the research process to be brought to light. Moreover, through an adoption of this framework, insight is provided into participants’ imagined realities and in the connotations embedded within the academic discourse explored, as defined by the interrelationships inherent in the research process. In my engagement of analysis, discussions, and synthesis of studies already conducted, the moral implications of the epistemologies adopted required me to consider the broader contexts in which the pieces of writing came to being and to rely on the intertextual relationships underlying meaning construction, as duly significant in subsequent interpretations. The epistemological stances embedded and explicated in this dissertation are used to undergird the decisions made concerning reviews of research in theoretical and methodological endeavors as well as in application to data-driven (i.e., original) studies and their respective research questions, overall methodology, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. 25 DEFINITION OF TERMS Considering the importance of the following terms to this dissertation, I provide operationalized definitions as follows: Acrolect: In the literature, the acrolect is referred to as the language variety “closest to the lexifier” – in other words, the language variety closest to the standard (Bailey, 1974). In this dissertation, acrolect refers to the language varieties in the English-speaking Caribbean closest to Standard English. For instance, St. Lucian English Vernacular is closest to Standard English, and therefore would be referred to as an acrolect. Bilingual: A bilingual has been referred to as one possessing the capacity to use two languages with varying degrees of proficiency in the modes of each language in which the individual demonstrates a level of competence (Bialystok, 2001). According to Luk and Bialystok (2013), bilingualism is “more than simply a language experience” (p. 9), it is a “multidimensional construct,” (p. 2), a “life experience” (p. 1). For the purpose of this dissertation, a bilingual individual is one who has oral and/or written competence in two languages, despite varying degrees of proficiency. The term bilingual is therefore used in this dissertation to connote familiarity with and use of two languages. Caribbean: The Oxford dictionary defines the Caribbean as “the region consisting of the Caribbean Sea, its islands (including the West Indies), and the surrounding coasts” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2013). Geographically, the Caribbean has also been defined as “a large body of open water, 1,500 miles long and at least 350 miles wide” (Ramos, 2010, p. 23). In this dissertation, the term Caribbean is used to denote countries within the region in the large body of open water consisting of the Caribbean Sea. Creole: In Frank’s (2007) assertion: 26 A creole is a kind of contact language. The term “contact language” is a label that refers to a language that has its beginnings in a contact situation between different language groups. There are varieties of contact languages, including pidgins, creoles and mixed languages. What sets these languages apart from others is the fact that, rather than being an evolved form of a prior-existing language, they have an identifiable time of birth. That is, these languages did not exist at one time, and then through contact between different language groups, the contact language forms did come to exist. (p. 4) In this dissertation, a Creole is used to refer to a language derived from the contact formed between different language groups. Dominican Creolized English (DCE): In this dissertation, Dominican Creolized English (DCE) is taken to refer to English spoken in Dominica resulting from the contact between Dominican Standard English (DSE) and Dominican French Creole (DFC). Dominican Standard English (DSE): In this dissertation, Dominican Standard English (DSE) is taken to refer to the Standard English spoken in Dominica by Dominicans. English Language Learners (ELL): In the literature, an English Language Learner (ELL) has been referred to as “active learner of the English language who may benefit from various types of language support programs” and in the U.S., usually refers to K–12 students (NCTE, 2008a, p. 2). Further, Bialystok (2001) refers to ELLs as bilinguals who possess emerging English proficiency. ELLs have been deemed “non-native English speakers who are learning English in school” (Peregoy & Boyle, 2008, p. 2). In this dissertation, ELLs refer to learners of the English language regardless of the setting in which they learn language or the age at which a new language is learned, who possess varying degrees of proficiency in one or more other languages. 27 English-Speaking: In the Caribbean region, a variety of languages are spoken. For certain countries colonized by the British, English became the official language. In this dissertation, the region referred to is comprised of countries in which the official language is English. In this dissertation, the term English-speaking is therefore used to denote nationals of these countries whose official languages are English. The term English-speaking is also used as a qualifier for the selected Caribbean countries, Trinidad, Jamaica, Guyana, Barbados, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Grenada, and Dominica, previously colonized by the British, whose official languages are English. Jamaican Creole (JC): The Jamaica Language Policy (2001) refers to Jamaican Creole as the “language of the overwhelming majority of the descendants of slaves”, a language variety which “has traditionally had little status”, is characterized by “no acceptability in official and formal contexts,” and is “commonly referred to as Patois, the French term for a low-status dialect” (p. 7). In this dissertation, the term Jamaican Creole (JC) is used to denote the language in Jamaica derived from the contact formed between Jamaican Standard English and previously existing African languages. Kokoy: In this dissertation, Kokoy is used to refer to a Dominican Creole derived from the contact formed between different language groups, French Creole and French. Kweyol: In this dissertation, Kweyol is used as the Creole translation for Creole. Language Learner (LLs): Based on the previous description of ELLs, language learners in this study will refer to students learning the skills and knowledge of a new language. Multilingual: Ellis (2004) defines the multilingual as: someone who considers themselves as ‘speaking’ …. two or more languages to 28 the extent that they can use them confidently and achieve their communicative ends in a majority of everyday adult encounters, not restricted to tourism. It does not necessarily include specialised uses of the language such as in the law or business, and does not imply 100% accuracy. (p. 94) Cenoz and Gorter (2011) assert that multilingualism represents “the whole linguistic repertoire and the relationships between the languages,” including “how the different subsystems are connected across the languages in their development and the way they support each other” (p. 360). In this dissertation, the term multilingual is used to refer to speakers of two or more languages that interact with and across each other and who can competently converse in these languages on a day-to-day basis. The multilingual individual may not necessarily possess specialized vocabulary knowledge, nor attain perfection in each language used. The term multilingual is therefore used in this dissertation to connote familiarity with and use of two or more languages. This contrasts with the term bilingual, which is confined to an individual’s familiarity and use of two languages. Standard Jamaican English (SJE): The Jamaica Language Policy (2001) refers to Standard Jamaican English as the “official language” that is “used in formal settings” (p. 7). In this dissertation, Standard Jamaican English (SJE) refers to Standard English used in Jamaica primarily for academic instruction and in formal contexts. St. Lucian English Vernacular (SLEV): In this dissertation, St. Lucian English Vernacular (SLEV) refers to a language in St. Lucia derived from the contact formed between St. Lucian Standard English and St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC). 29 St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC): In this dissertation, the St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC) is used to denote the language in St. Lucia derived from the contact formed between different language groups, primarily St. Lucian Standard English and French. St. Lucian Standard English (SLSE): In this dissertation, St. Lucian Standard English (SLSE) refers to the Standard English used in St. Lucia primarily for academic instruction and in formal contexts. Studies: In this dissertation, the term ‘studies’ is used to refer to both empirical and nonempirical research. ‘Studies’ refer to the various lines of inquiry, as denoted by individual papers, in which issues or questions raised are explored conceptually, theoretically, methodologically, or empirically. Tobagonian English lexicon Creole (TOB): In this dissertation, the Tobagonian English lexicon Creole (TOC) is used to denote the language in Tobago derived from the contact formed between different language groups, primarily Tobagonian Standard English and previously existing languages in Tobago. Trinidadian English lexicon Creole (TEC): In this dissertation, the Trinidadian English lexicon Creole (TEC) is used to denote the language in Trinidad derived from the contact formed between different language groups, primarily Trinidadian Standard English and previously existing languages in Trinidad, two of which were Spanish and French. Trinidad and Tobago’s Trinidad Standard English (TSE): In this dissertation, Trinidadian Standard English (TSE) refers to the Standard English used in Trinidad, primarily in formal contexts and for academic purposes. 30 OVERVIEW AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISSERTATION In the 21st century, a multifaceted approach to literacy learning is critical and narrow conceptions of culture no longer suffice. For teachers and learners of various languages whose goals are to enhance literacy, linguistic diversity as an element of multicultural education assumes even greater importance (Buchanan, Correia, & Bleicher, 2010; Jimenez et al., 1999; Wallace, 2000). To date, non-native English speaking (NNES) and non-native speaking (NNS) educators continue to experience a sense of inferiority based on their linguistic variations (Moussu & Llurda, 2008). Specifically, in the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean, bilingual and multilingual students must face the challenges of acquiring literacy in a language they are simultaneously expected to learn (i.e., English). As such, the necessity for exploring and understanding the processes as well as challenges faced by such teachers and learners cannot be overemphasized. The significance of these concerns is reflected in the agendas of both national and international organizations, whose goals are to ensure that students and teachers whose first languages are not English and who navigate multiple languages receive the attention deserved (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010; IRA, 2006; NCTE, 2011; TESOL, 2010). In response to the needs highlighted above, this dissertation is comprised of five chapters. Chapter One serves as the introduction. Chapter Two introduces the reader to reviews, analyses, and discussions that concern literacy research and language policy in the English-speaking Caribbean. Chapter Three focuses on the linguistic and cultural diversity of multilingual teachers and teacher educators. Chapter Four highlights how the verbal report methodology has functioned in the research of language learners’ reading processes. Chapter Five provides a synthesis of the interrelationships between and among various components of the dissertation, as 31 well as provides insight into the role of the researcher, thereby guiding the reader to obtain a holistic view of the studies presented. Chapter One: Introduction Chapter One introduces the reader to the underlying rationale and purpose for exploring the areas outlined in this dissertation. The epistemological framework, definition of key terms, and overview and significance of the research are also outlined. Chapter Two: Literacy Research and Language Policy Chapter Two is comprised of two selected studies. The first is an exploratory review of literacy research in selected territories of the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean and the second is a historical review and analysis of the linguistic historical background of St. Lucia, provided as a preface to a discussion of language policy adoption in the country, within due attention to implications for language policy as concerns literacy instruction. Chapter Three: Teachers’ and Teacher Educators’ Linguistic Diversity In Chapter Three, I delve into the linguistic and cultural diversity of multilingual teachers and teacher educators by first considering the experiences of an English-speaking Caribbean multilingual teacher. Secondly, I explore a multilingual teacher educator’s examination of her language use in the context of practice. Third, I focus on how the application of a transdisciplinary lens to multicultural teacher education might enhance fulfillment of the goals of multicultural education. Chapter Four: Verbal Reports, Literacy Research, and Language Learners Chapter Four includes two studies. The first is an investigation into veridicality as a construct to be understood in verbal reports used to explore language learners’ literacy processes. 32 The second is a synthesis of language learners’ literacy studies in which verbal reports were employed across international contexts. Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, and Future Directions Chapter Five summarizes and discusses the findings of the dissertation as juxtaposed against its purpose, theoretical perspectives, epistemological perspectives, forms of data, forms of analysis, and the researcher as instrument. The chapter begins with a discussion of purpose, is followed by a synthesis, and concludes with directions for future research. CHAPTER SUMMARY Across the explorations presented in this dissertation, the multilingual factors inherent in literacy teaching and learning remain central. Through these efforts, parents, teachers, and administrators will develop greater awareness and cognizance of the role of linguistic diversity as a function of teaching English literacy and learning how to be literate in English. Through the consistent indication that multilingual speakers’ first languages need to be valued, this dissertation seeks to effect change through disrupting notions of preference associated with native speakers of English. By highlighting the experiences of both language learners and teachers, and through examining the ways in which research methods used to examine language learners’ literate processes constrain our understanding of these processes, researchers are able to gain a better sense of areas to be explored in linguistic diversity for multilingual teachers and learners. References Bailey, C. J. (1974). Some suggestions for greater consensus in creole terminology. In D. DeCamp & I. Hancock (Eds.), Pidgins and creoles: Current trends and prospects (pp. 88–91). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 33 Bernhardt, E. B. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133-150. Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New York: Routledge. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition (pp. 1-300). New York: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-w development: A meta-analysis. (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. TOEFL iBT-14). Retrieved from TOEFL Research Reports website: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-11-05.pdf. Buchanan, M. C., Correia, M. G., & Bleicher, R. E. (2010). Increasing preservice teachers’ intercultural awareness through service-learning. Journal of Research on ServiceLearning and Teacher Education, 1(1), 1-19. Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. Modern Language Journal, 95, 356-369. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01206.x. Coe, C. (2001). Learning how to find out: Theories of knowledge and learning in field research. Field Methods, 13, 392–411. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Implementing the Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/. 34 Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ellis, E. (2004). The invisible multilingual teacher: The contribution of language background to Australian ESL teachers’ professional knowledge and beliefs. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(2), 90-108. Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners’ cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 145-190. doi: 10.3102/00346543065002145. Fitzgerald, J. (2005). Multilingual writing in preschool through twelfth grade: The last 15 years. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 337-354). New York: Guilford Press. Frank, D. B. (2007). We don’t speak a real language: Creoles as misunderstood and endangered languages. Paper presented at a Symposium on Endangered Language, College Park, Maryland. Retrieved from www.saintluciancreole.org/workpapers/creoles_as_misunderstood.pdf. Garcia, O. (2008). Multilingual language awareness and teacher education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 6, 385–400. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. 35 Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Habermas, J. (1968/1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1980). Three aspects of children’s language development: Learning language, learning through language, learning about language. In E. Goodman, M. M. Haussler, & D. Strickland (Eds.), Oral and written language: Impact on schools. International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English. International Reading Association. (2001). Second-language literacy instruction: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Retrieved from www.reading.org. The Jamaica Language Education Policy. (2001). Ministry of Education, Youth and Culture. Retrieved from http://expanding-educational-horizons.com/Literacy/languagepolicy.pdf. Jessner, U. (2008). Multicompetence approaches to language proficiency development in multilingual education. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd Ed) (pp. 91-201). New York: Springer. Jimenez, R. T., Moll, L.C., Rodriguez-Brown, F. V., & Barrera, R. B. (1999). Latina and Latino researchers interact on issues related to literacy learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 217–230. Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 36 Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 279-313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other ICT. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1568-1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2013.795574. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McLaren, P., & Kincheloe, J. L. (2007). Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? New York: Peter Lang. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the new literacies studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271. Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41(3), 315-348. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2008a). English language learners: A 37 research policy brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Positions/Chron0308PolicyBrief.pdf. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2011). 2011 NCTE Resolutions. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/press/2011resolutions. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins. Oxford Dictionaries. (2013). Pallas, A. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for (e)pistemological diversity. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 6–11. Pang, V. O. and Park, C. D. (2011). Creating interdisciplinary multicultural teacher education: Courageous leadership is crucial. In A. Ball and C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 63-80). Boston, MA: Rowan and Littlefield. Paul, J. L., & Marfo, K. (2001). Preparation of educational researchers in foundations of philosophical inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 525-547. Paul, J. L. (2005). Introduction to the philosophies of research and criticism in education and the social sciences. Columbus, OH: Upper Saddle River. Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. (2008). Reading, writing and learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teachers (5th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Ramos, R. R. (2010). What is the Caribbean? An archaeological perspective. Journal of Caribbean Archaeology Special Publication, 3, 19-51. 38 Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42(2), 147-180. doi: 10.1017/S0261444808005612. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2004). Trends in teaching standard varieties to Creole and vernacular speakers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 187-208. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2010). Introducing French Creole as a language of instruction in education in St. Lucia. In B. Migge, I. Legalise, & A. Bartens (Eds.), Creoles in education: An appraisal of current programs and projects (pp. 183-210). Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins. St. Hilaire, A. (2011). Kweyol in postcolonial Saint Lucia: Globalization, language planning, and national development. Amsterdam: PA: John Benjamins. St. Pierre, E. (2002). “Science” rejects post-modernism. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 25–27. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). (2008). Position statement on English as a global language. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). (2010). Position paper on language and literacy development for young English language learners (ages 3-8). Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk: M E Sharp. Wallace, B. C. (2000). A call for change in multicultural training at graduate schools of education: Educating to end oppression and for social justice. Teachers College Record, 102, 1086–1111. 39 Warrican, S. J. (2009). Literacy development and the role of the Eastern Caribbean joint board of teacher education. Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 34(2), 71-85. Watson, J., Solomon, B., Morote, E-S., & Tatum, S. (2011). The effects on speaking a second language in teachers’ multicultural understanding. Washington, D.C.: One Voice International Conference and Forum. Winer, L. (2012). Teaching English to Caribbean English Creole–speaking students in the Caribbean and North America. In S. J. Nero (Eds.), Dialects, Englishes, creoles, and education (pp. 105-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 40 CHAPTER TWO LITERACY RESEARCH AND LANGUAGE POLICY In this chapter, two studies represent my focus on the status of literacy, language research, and policy for K-12 language learners in the English-speaking Caribbean: (i) Literacy Research in the English-Speaking Caribbean (Smith, 2013a) and (ii) Towards a Language Policy for St. Lucia (Smith, 2013b). The lack of extensive research in Caribbean literacy is well documented (Warrican, 2009; Simmons-McDonald, 2010). And despite the few studies conducted, little is known about current patterns in reading and writing of multilingual Caribbean language learners due to the limited literacy research undertaken in the region. Therefore, in the first study presented in this chapter, I utilized an integrative approach that captures the status of literacy research while considering the linguistic and cultural milieu of selected Caribbean countries. Based on the findings, recommendations are made for future directions in literacy research which align more closely with contemporary definitions of literacy and which draw upon the cultural and linguistic practices of language learners in the 21st century. Ensuing from these recommendations, I found it necessary to consider language policy in the region. Particularly, the country of St. Lucia, though reflective of a myriad of language variations, continues to operate under the auspices of a de facto language policy, which subsumes the use of English as both a language of instruction and as the first language of these countries. Considering the strides made by her counterparts in Trinidad and Jamaica, discussions 41 on policy provided in this chapter point to the need for St. Lucia to develop and/or adopt a language policy delineating approaches to literacy instruction for what appears to be a majority language learner population. Literacy Research in the English-Speaking Caribbean Author/Correspondent Author: Patriann Smith, M.A. Position: Doctoral Candidate Affiliation: University of South Florida Current Mailing Address: Childhood Education and Literacy Studies (CELS), 4202 East Fowler Ave., EDU 105, Tampa, FL 33620 Telephone number: 813-405-7237 Fax: 813-974-3826 E-mail: psmith4@usf.edu Note: This paper is in progress and will be submitted to Harvard Educational Review. Abstract In this literature review, empirical literacy research in the context of certain countries in the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean is examined. Through the application of methodologically appropriate criteria to studies conducted in literacy within the Englishspeaking Caribbean between the period 1990-2010, 15 studies were obtained. Though a limited body of research exists, findings from the literature revealed a concentration on language of instruction, initiatives in literacy and literacy assessment. Upon further review, concerns related to language of instruction and Caribbean conceptions of literacy, as implicitly gathered from the 42 review, are discussed. Recommendations for future literacy research in the multilingual Englishspeaking Caribbean are subsequently presented. Keywords: literacy, Caribbean, multilingual, bilingual, research Literacy Research in the English-Speaking Caribbean Historically, the use of standard and local varieties of English across international contexts was tremendously stigmatized and received little acceptance within the academic arena (Craig, 2006; Siegel, 1997; 1999; 2002; 2005; Simmons-McDonald, 2004). More recently, however, English varieties have increasingly become acceptable languages for international communication throughout the world (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages; TESOL, 2008). Notwithstanding, the status ascribed to English, and the power it holds remain indisputable (New London Group, 2000; TESOL, 2008). The prominence of English as a global language is reflected across the world, and particularly, within the United States. In this country, the population of students learning to speak multiple varieties of English is currently the fastest growing student population (i.e., five million) (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition: NCELA, 2011; NCTE, 2008a). And in fact, English language learners (ELLs) have been reported to constitute 10.5 percent of America’s K-12 population (NCTE; 2008a). As learners who must participate in the global community, learning English is therefore no longer considered optional but now constitutes an academic necessity (TESOL, 2008). For students who must contend with the acquisition of English proficiency, the added challenge of developing literacy skills in academic contexts where English is the language of schooling is a consistent struggle. Position statements concerning the literacy development of 43 language learners indicate that adequate time, appropriate levels of support, meaning-based and balanced instruction, and culturally and developmentally appropriate instruction and materials are all fundamental to cultivating language learners’ literacy skills (International Reading Association: IRA, 2001; TESOL, 2008). Despite indications that reading in a second language reflects many underlying reading processes of a student’s first language, a growing body of research shows that second language reading consists of processes uniquely different from those in a student’s L1 (August & Shanahan, 2006; Bernhardt, 2005; Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Koda, 2007). And, though researchers have long insisted that the home language be the vehicle through which literacy instruction is provided in schools (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), in many international contexts, the academic conditions, historical backgrounds, social contexts, and linguistic situations in which the teaching and learning of literacy are embedded continue to be questionable with regards to the extent to which they support language learners’ literate success. One such international context is the English-speaking Caribbean. For the greater half of the past century, literacy teaching and learning has been influenced largely by the historical, linguistic, and cultural conditions of the societies in this region (Alleyne, 1961; 1994; Carrington, 1969; Midgett, 1970; St. Hilaire, 2007; 2009; 2011). Despite the documented efforts of international (e.g., United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization) and regional (e.g., Caribbean Community Single Market Economy; Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, OECS) bodies to coordinate certain facets of literacy in these countries (Warrican, 2009), little is known about the extent to which empirical research in literacy has influenced these efforts. In fact, it has been surmised that very few, if any, of the literacy 44 programs operated and implemented in these countries emanate from the recommendations of empirical research (Simmons-McDonald, 2004). To date, measures of literacy relied upon as provided by United Nations Educational Scientific Organization (UNESCO) define a literate individual as one “who can, with understanding, both read and write a short statement on his or her everyday life” (UNESCO, 2000; UNESCO, 2006, p. 158). With data on hand indicating less than excellent gains on local and regional assessments of language and literacy (Warrican, 2009; Winer, 2012), poor performance on literacy in the region has been attributed to social variables, physical and geographical factors, gender, circumstances of instruction, interference of Creole and Vernacular (Bogle, 1997; Craig, 1999; Miller, 1989), and the use of Standard English as the sole language of instruction (Devonish, 1986; Siegel, 2002; 2012; Toohey, 1986). Given the state of affairs, in this paper, I explore the empirical research in literacy as conducted in the English-speaking Caribbean territories of St. Lucia, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad, St. Vincent, Dominica, and Grenada. Secondly, based on the findings of the research review, I discuss key components emanating from the review. Thirdly, given the state of affairs, I make recommendations for future directions in literacy research within particular regions of multilingual English-speaking Caribbean. The guiding questions for the review were as follows: 1. What empirical literacy research exists in certain countries in selected territories of the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean? 2. What areas of focus are present in empirical literacy research in selected territories of the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean? 45 3. What concerns emanate from the empirical literacy research in selected territories of the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean? 4. What recommendations can be made for future literacy research in selected territories of the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean? Method for Reviewing the Research Certain criteria functioned as a guide for performing a review of the literature. The following parameters were used in the review of research concerning literacy conducted in the selected territories of the English-speaking Caribbean region. Selection of Original Studies for Review Original studies were chosen based on the location in which they were conducted (i.e., the English-speaking Caribbean), the time period in which they were conducted (i.e., 19902010), their focus (i.e., literacy and language in academic contexts), and their method of review (i.e., peer-reviewed). Location. Original studies were selected when they had been conducted within the academic contexts of territories of the English-speaking Caribbean selected for the review. Smith (1965) summarized the relationships among the colonial backgrounds, language varieties, cultural contexts, and educational characteristics of the English-speaking Caribbean territories as follows: It is clear that whatever the common patterns the British [Anglophone] West Indies share with other Caribbean territories, or with countries outside this Caribbean region, these British colonies nonetheless form a separate area for social research, on the ground of their present political relations as well as history (p. 21). 46 Craig (1974) further justified consideration of “the West Indian Creole language situation as a whole” based on similarity of speech, social structure, traditions and institutions (p. 371). Others who engage in discourse concerning the English-speaking Caribbean territories at the political, national, educational, and economic levels further justify the view of these territories as an entity (Armstrong & Campos, 2002; Brereton, 2004; Engerman, 1982; Lewis, 2004; Watts, 1990). Time Period. Original studies conducted within the period 1990-2010 were selected. Emancipation in the English-speaking Caribbean occurred in 1838, accompanied by the formulation of education systems and policies based on the education systems of the colonial-era metropolis (i.e., from the 1800s onwards) (Simmons-McDonald, 2004). However, the Englishspeaking Caribbean territories achieved independence between the period 1960-1980, with the specific dates of independence as follows: Jamaica [1962], Trinidad [1962], Guyana [1966], Grenada [1974], Dominica [1978], St. Vincent [1979], and St. Lucia [1979] (Poddar & Johnson, 2005). Given the reasonable assumption that post-independence educational policies implemented within the elementary, secondary, and tertiary levels in these territories could not have been successfully evaluated empirically prior to 1980, and allowing for a period of 10 years for implementation to be realized, the period 1990-2010 was decided upon as a reasonable time frame for the review. Method of Review. Original studies emanated from peer-reviewed journals. This selection ensured that empirical findings upon which this review was based had been subjected to standards of peer review relied upon within the academic community. Search Process Searches were conducted within the databases ERIC, JSTOR, WorldCat, EBSCO, PsycInfo, SAGE, Web of Science, UNESCO and World Bank. The search terms used were 47 associated combinations of “literacy,” “reading,” “Caribbean,” “West Indies,” “Latin American,” and “Jamaica,” “Trinidad,” “Tobago,” “Guyana,” “Dominica,” “Grenada,” “St. Vincent,” and “St. Lucia.” The names of the countries selected as search terms constituted those identified for review within the English-speaking Caribbean and is therefore not an exhaustive list of the countries in the region. Further, I reviewed the journals Caribbean Journal of Education, Journal of Education for Teaching, Journal of Caribbean Studies, Caribbean Quarterly, and Journal of Caribbean History. A final step involved searching the bibliographies of all articles that adhered to the review criteria. Studies Chosen for the Review. In spite of the restricted search terms, a total of 533 results were initially obtained, the majority of which appeared to be representative of a wide variety of articles from peer-reviewed journals conducted within the United States. However, upon further examination, a large number of these articles proved to be non-empirical, but rather, analytical, focusing on language issues within the region. Methodologically-appropriate criteria were determined based on certain components of Risko, Roller, Cummins, Bean, Block, Anders, and Flood’s (2008) quality criteria as follows: posing of a research question that could be empirically investigated; linking of findings to previous theory or research; description of methods and data collection; reliance on reliable, credible, and trustworthy methods; description of participants; findings in line with research question, and findings consistent with data collected (p. 256). Overall, 15 studies matched the criteria accepted for the review. Due to the limited number of studies, developmental interpretations cannot be made. Analysis. Analysis of the studies occurred in two phases: inductive analysis and constant comparative analysis. In the first phase, I used inductive analysis, which “begins with specific observations and builds toward general patterns” (Patton, 2002, pp. 55-56). Through the process 48 of open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), I conducted open-ended observations of the following: title, abstract, research questions, purpose for the study, conceptual and theoretical basis, methods, and discussion of findings. Based on this review, I grouped the studies. Categories identified at this stage were “teachers’ predispositions to English,” “teacher attitudes to vernaculars,” “teacher literacy instruction with English and vernaculars”, “students’ acquisition of English and vernaculars,” “phonetic factors in literacy development,” “evaluation of literacy and language assessments,” “assessment of literacy performance,” “implementation of literature programs,” and “literacy initiatives.” The second phase involved constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), through which I examined the emergent categories above for similarities and differences (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). This phase took me back to the original studies to identify the ways in which studies in one category might be similar or different from those in another. Through this process, certain categories were merged, while others were modified. Broader themes representing similar categories then emerged. The Literature The preliminary goal of this paper was to determine the original studies conducted in literacy across eight English-speaking Caribbean countries. Overall, 15 studies met the criteria for review. Of these, the majority were conducted in Jamaica (Bogle, 1997; Devonish & Carpenter, 2007; Lacoste, 2007; Lewis-Smikle, 2006; Mitchell, 2007; Tyson, 2003; Webster, 2009; Webster & Walters, 1998), two in St. Lucia (Simmons-McDonald, 2006a; 2006b), one in Dominica (Bryan & Burnette, 2006), two in Trinidad and Tobago (Williams & Carter, 2005; Deuber & Youssef, 2007), and one across a number of countries in the region (Armstrong & Campos, 2002). The location of the remaining study was unknown. Most studies focused on 49 students at the elementary level of schooling (e.g., Bogle, 1997; Mitchell, 2007; SimmonsMcDonald, 2006b) and were published in Caribbean or international journals (e.g., Caribbean Journal of Education, Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies). The following are the findings based on thematic analysis of the studies: teachers’ predisposition to language of literacy instruction; literacy initiatives and impact; and literacy assessment. Teacher Predisposition to Language of Literacy Instruction Research investigating teachers’ predispositions to language in the English-speaking Caribbean context has explored teachers’ attitudes toward, use, and knowledge of SLSE, SLEV, SLFC, Dominican Creolized English (DCE), Dominican Standard English (DSE), and Kweyol and Kokoy language varieties in St. Lucia and Dominica (Armstrong & Campos, 2002; Bryan & Burnette, 2006; Simmons-McDonald, 2006a). Questionnaires were administered to pre- and in-service teachers via mixed and qualitative methods (Simmons-McDonald, 2006a). The mixed method approach involved the use of a 47-item questionnaire and matched guided procedure of 14 attributes, supplemented with a 12-item interview (Simmons-McDonald, 2006a), while the qualitative method involved the administration of a 6-item questionnaire. Findings from the questionnaires administered in both studies indicated a highly favorable attitude towards Creole (Kweyol and SLFC) in both the St. Lucian and Dominican context (Bryan & Burnette, 2006; Simmons-McDonald, 2006a). Whereas Dominican teachers readily acknowledged Kweyol to be the official “mother tongue”, St. Lucian teachers demonstrated greater acceptance of SLSE than SLFC for official academic and instructional purposes. As for the use of language varieties in the classroom context, Dominican teachers demonstrated loyalty to Kweyol, with more than half of the respondents admitting to using this 50 language pattern and DSE simultaneously in the classroom. St. Lucian teachers’ responses varied from Dominica’s in that over 80% of St. Lucian teachers agreed that all St. Lucians should speak both SLSE and SLFC, but when asked whether SLEV should be spoken in schools, almost half of the respondents disagreed. Teachers’ negative perceptions to native languages for instruction were further confirmed by findings from qualitative research conducted across the countries of Barbados, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago, which reflected opposition to Creole-related instruction, particularly by the middle and upper class (Armstrong & Campos, 2002). In fact, teachers acknowledged deficiencies in literacy instruction complicated by the multiple languages with which language learners were familiar. Nonetheless, in a subsequent study conducted in Trinidad in which teachers were guided to investigated their language use, Deuber and Youssef (2007) confirmed that the deficiencies noted in teachers’ capacity for literacy instruction, at least in the Trinidadian context, could not be attributed to teachers’ inability to speak Standard English, as many of the teachers possessed proficiency in language variations of use, and specifically, Standard English. In an alternate study, exploration was made into teacher perceptions of foreign language instruction in schools (Williams & Carter, 2005). In William and Carter’s study, a mixed method approach was employed and questionnaires were used to elicit information from teachers to obtain data from school heads of department in both Trinidad and Tobago. Findings indicated that a significantly high level of female foreign language teachers, typically between the ages of 21-30, lacked adequate experience or training in the foreign language field. Other challenges identified were related to the physical, conceptual and scholarly factors surrounding teaching of foreign language. Among the scholarly components, students’ inability to read represented the 51 greatest challenge to instruction. Moreover, teacher participants noted that low levels of significance were attached to foreign languages, specifically among males. Literacy Initiatives and Impact Researchers who have studied literacy initiatives and their impact have conducted research in two major areas: language of instruction and instructional reading strategies. Language of Instruction. Interventions based on language of instruction have focused on intermediate “at-risk” St. Lucian student speakers of French Creole based on instruction provided in St Lucian French Creole and St Lucian Standard English (Simmons-McDonald, 2006b). Similarly, in the Jamaican context, implementation of the Bilingual Education Project (BEP; Devonish & Carpenter, 2007) concentrated on enhancement of first and second grade students’ language awareness and self-concept; improvement of Jamaican Creole and Standard Jamaican English literacy skills, and mastery of material taught in the content areas. Findings from the St. Lucian intervention revealed that instruction in the native language was not a hindrance to students’ literacy development in the second language. Moreover, instruction in the Creole served to increase students’ ability to read English. The three intermediate students developed fluency in reading texts at least one grade level higher than they previously did. In contrast, Devonish and Carpenter’s (2007) results indicated that, with the exception of monolingual speakers of the Jamaican Creole, first and second grade students encountered difficulty with bilingual delivery. The recent entry of the bilingual students into the primary school system resulted in limited awareness of language labels. Despite these trends, first and second graders experienced cognitive gains and learned to differentiate between the two writing systems presented. 52 The challenges faced with bilingual learning appeared were corroborated by qualitative reports from teachers which indicated that Caribbean language learners had the tendency to read with little to no understanding and were very often receiving an initial exposure to reading content often used in classrooms, and though many teachers reportedly clarified instructions in Creole, there appeared to be no underlying knowledge of bilingual and biliterate principles for language and literacy instruction (Amstrong & Campos, 2002). Instructional Reading Strategies. Studies related to literacy strategy implementation have gauged the effect of the use of literature in various settings (Lewis-Smikle, 2006; Warrican, 2006; Webster, 2009; Webster & Walters, 1998). In certain instances, studies focused on the effects of primary grade students’ exposed to a wide range of literature, particularly in regards to students’ literacy skills, attitudes to, and interests in reading (Lewis-Smikle, 2006; Webster, 2009; Webster & Walters 1998). In other studies, first grade study participants were exposed to read-alouds and post-reading activities within the context of a natural science classroom environment (Webster, 2009). Further, one study focused on participants in the third year of high school, engaging students in read-alouds, discussion, and silent reading of informational and fictional texts during 45-minute sessions over a period of 16 weeks (Warrican, 2006). Qualitative approaches were employed across the studies, with interviews, field notes and analyses of students’ work samples triangulated to generate themes over varying lengths of time (2 months to 3 years) across multiple sites (1-6 schools). Results from studies conducted at the lower grades illustrated the capacity of students to express themselves using longer phrases in comparison to limited responses produced at the beginning of the intervention. Students improved in their comprehension of concepts and were more familiar with genre elements (Lewis-Smikle, 2006; Webster, 2009). Moreover, students 53 inculcated their personal experiences into narratives and used the material encountered in various genres to make sense of their encounters with others (Lewis-Smikle, 2006; Webster & Walters, 1998). In contrast, findings from the study conducted with high school students reflected a lack of interest in reading, negative attitudes to reading, and self-depreciating behaviors, which counteracted efforts to enhance feelings of self-efficacy in reading and related academia (Warrican, 2006). Literacy Assessment Studies in literacy assessment have examined students’ informal writing and oral literacy, linguistic proficiency across language variations, and student performance in relation to standardized literacy assessments. Informal Writing and Oral Literacy. Research concerning informal writing and oral literacy has emerged due to the impoverished nature of literacy skills in Jamaica and was based on the notion that an inability to write proficiently and to perform at the developmentally appropriate level in phonics has a detrimental effect on literacy (Bogle, 1997; Lacoste, 2007; Mitchell, 2007). The study in which students’ informal writing was assessed involved production of a writing task, which six-year old students read upon completion. Based on the results, the students were identified as either writers (“those who made some attempt”) or non-writers (“those who made no attempt”). Writers were further described as “markers”, “letter-makers,” “illustrators” and “experts” (Bogle, 1997, pp. 184-185). Moreover, studies in which oral literacy was assessed involved administration of phonics tests to students from grades one to six with emphasis on the nature and production of sound patterns, literacy, phonetics, and phonics and students’ ability to discriminate among 24 primary grade students’ use of the “-t” and “-d” 54 consonant clusters across Standard Jamaican English (SJE) and Jamaican Creole (JC) (Lacoste, 2007; Mitchell, 2007). Approaches to studies on informal writing and oral literacy involved qualitative analysis, mixed methods, and statistical quantitative analyses. Researchers utilized observations and interviews to explore students’ writing, while quantitative analyses were used to examine phonetic performance and use of consonant clusters. In-depth analysis and the use of tables for data presentation characterized certain studies (i.e., Lacoste, 2007). Further, results appeared consistent with the research questions and implications for the school setting were discussed thoroughly (Lacoste, 2007). Despite different foci, specifically in regards to primary grade reading, findings across the studies reflected students’ tendencies to read below grade level and to possess knowledge of very few letter sounds (Mitchell, 2007). Primary grade speakers and readers demonstrated the tendency to attach known Jamaican Creole sound systems to words requiring Standard Jamaican English structures, increasing proficiency with articulation and gestures of cluster patterns upon the use of repetition mechanisms by the teacher (Lacoste, 2007). Moreover, primary graders reading their individually written work appeared to have all had previous contact with an “expert reader” (Bogle, 1997, p. 185) and were “illustrators” and “experts” at writing. The results indicated that such writers were rarely observed among the 42 study participants observed, yet they received a significant degree of instructional attention in comparison to their peers who were categorized as “markers” and “letter-makers” (Bogle, 1997, p. 185). Interviews conducted with the 42 participant students prior to their introduction to formal schooling indicated that they “seemed to produce less and to talk even less about their productions” upon their entry into the school system (Bogle, 1997, p. 184). 55 Standardized Assessments. Investigation into standardized assessments of literacy performance has been achieved through the use of qualitative methods. To examine factors associated with the implementation of the Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE), a substitute for the General Certificate of Education (GCE) Advanced Level examination, observations were conducted, supplemented with interviews and a questionnaire administered to 17 teachers from nine traditional secondary schools in rural and urban areas of Jamaica. Inductive analysis of the data revealed serious challenges in implementation of the new curriculum because of limited access to necessary resources needed by CAPE. Further, a significant number of teachers disagreed with the types of knowledge required by teachers as a prerequisite for teaching literature (Tyson, 2003). Discussion In this review, the intent was to provide an overview of the empirical literacy research currently available in certain regions of the English-speaking Caribbean; note areas of focus in original studies gathered; highlight concerns emanating from the review; and provide recommendations for future literacy research in the English-speaking Caribbean. Preliminary findings revealed two key points. First, a very limited body of literacy research exists in the English-speaking Caribbean countries reviewed. Secondly, of the literacy research undertaken, two areas of major concern exist. These relate to the language of literacy instruction and overall conception of the construct of literacy, both of which will now undergo further review. Language of Literacy Instruction Across the 15 studies examined, 11 concentrated on linguistic concerns. As is evident from the findings of the review, researchers in the English-speaking Caribbean countries in which this review was undertaken have recognized the benefits of a bilingual approach to 56 literacy instruction (Devonish & Carpenter, 2007; Sigel, 2005; Simmons-McDonald, 2006b). In the case of St. Lucia, no consensus appears to exist on whether the country should be solely referred to as “bidialectal” (SLFC and SLEV; Yiakoumetti, 2007) or “bilingual” (with two languages-SLSE and SLFC). In fact, St. Lucia continues to remain both bidialectal (Craig, 1983; Siegel, 2012; Winer, 2012; Yiakoumetti, 2007) and bilingual (Simmons-McDonald, 1994; 2004; 2010) with SLSE, SLFC, and SLEV interdependent upon each other in a linguistic context where societal requirements dictate their functionality. Trinidad and Jamaica differ in this regard, with Creoles based on English, and with language policies reflecting the impact of language variation on literacy instruction (Jamaica Language Education Policy, 2001; Language and Language Education Policy, 2010). Regardless, research conducted internationally and based on similar contexts as those reviewed here indicates that literacy skills acquired in a first language are transferable to learning of a second language (Cummins, 1993; Siegel, 2010). Moreover, studies have long since demonstrated that children educated in a second language (i.e., English) undergo fewer difficulties in circumstances where they learn this language through interaction with native speakers and where the content and activities encountered are of interest (Craig, 2006). In keeping with this notion, rich and culturally relevant literature was shown to play a critical role in students’ literacy success in what appears to be a complex linguistic situation (Lewis-Smikle, 2006; Simmons-McDonald, 2006b; Webster & Walters, 1998). Further, in certain studies, culture of the home and social contexts appeared critical to students’ adaptation to linguistic varieties (Armstrong & Campos, 2002; Bogle, 1997; Simmons-McDonald, 2006b). Support for culturally relevant pedagogy has been evident in recent calls to “expose children to language-rich and content-rich settings that can help them to acquire the broad array of 57 knowledge, skills, and dispositions that build a foundation for literacy and content learning” (Neuman, 2010, p. 303). And concentration on teaching pedagogy has also emerged as a critical factor for consideration if students are to make the necessary strides in current linguistic contexts (Tyson, 2003; Warrican, 2006; Williams & Carter, 2005). Yet, based on the few studies conducted with teachers in St. Lucia and Dominica, the research revealed that teacher perceptions towards language varieties, though positive when considered a symbol of national identity, varied considerably for purposes of instruction (Armstrong & Campos, 2002; Bryan & Burnette, 2006; Simmons-McDonald, 2006a). Observations of Dominican teachers’ acceptance of language varieties for classroom instruction may well vary from observations of teachers in St. Lucia because of the differences in teacher status as seen in the studies (i.e., pre-service versus in-service respectively). In other words, findings across the two countries may have borne greater resemblance had the research conducted with in-service teachers in St. Lucia also involved pre-service teachers. The tendency of St. Lucian teachers to ascribe negative values to language varieties is not a new phenomenon. Research indicates that in the past, St. Lucian teachers demonstrated a negative attitude towards language patterns other than Standard English (Alleyne, 1961). And, in other bidialectal populations such as Carriacou (Kephart, 1992), Sierra Leone (Fyle, 1994), and Hawaii (Sato, 1985) and bilingual populations such as South Africa (King, 2011, in press), similar attitudes have been noted. Decades ago, Midgett (1970) asserted that English could only be established in students’ minds as a “functional equivalent of Patois [St. Lucian French Creole]” only when St. Lucian French Creole was used in the classroom with St. Lucian English Vernacular (SLEV; p. 167). Currently, despite efforts to institute French Creole as a language of instruction in St. Lucia (Simmons-McDonald, 2010), there remains evidence to the contrary (i.e., 58 Simmons-McDonald, 2006a), that is, French Creole remains unaccepted and is yet to be used as a language of instruction. Notwithstanding, over the past three decades, transitions in communicative patterns in St. Lucia have accompanied a marked increase in the number of St. Lucian English Vernacular (SLEV) speakers. Moreover, a growing sense of national pride registered in St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC) has led to a marked change in the value attached to SLFC (Carrington, 1987; Simmons-McDonald, 2004; St. Hilaire, 2007; 2011). Regardless, Siegel (2005) observes, “even when P/Cs [Pidgins/Creoles] are recognized as legitimate languages, some educators, administrators, and even linguists still argue that using them in education would be both impractical and detrimental to students” (p. 146). Youssef (2002) concurs that in spite of changes in attitudes, opposition to integration of Creoles and vernaculars in the school system remains pervasive. One such example was found in Trinidadian teachers’ perceptions towards foreign language where a subtle internalization of “monolingualism” based on globalized approaches to literacy was reflected (Williams & Carter, 2005). In other words, the tendency existed to presume that English should function as the only language for academic use. This, despite the enactment of language policy in Trinidad confirming the necessity of supporting literacy teaching with the use of students’ native languages (Language and Language Education Policy, 2010) and in the face of recent efforts in Jamaica to adopt language policy which ratifies Jamaican Creole as an official language (Jamaica Language Education Policy, 2001). But the burden for acceptance of vernaculars may not rest solely with teachers. Youssef (2002) confirms that parental resistance to vernacular in the classroom may well be responsible for teachers’ unwillingness to modify linguistic instruction in the classroom, a situation similar to that observed other multilingual territories (see Heugh, 2007). Though positive changes have 59 been reflected in certain Caribbean contexts in St. Lucia in recent years (e.g., St. Hilaire, 2007), teacher perceptions of and instructional support via non-standard language varieties in the classroom continue to be largely influenced by parental notions of the value of English (Youssef, 2002). Thus, regardless of teachers’ beliefs in vernaculars and Creoles as support structures in the literacy classroom, continued fear of their dominance as official and academic languages remains pervasive (Armstrong & Campos, 2002). Clearly, despite a general consensus towards appreciation of St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC) as a symbol of national identity (St. Hilaire, 2007), and although evidence exists that teachers recognize the importance of bilingual approaches to literacy success (SimmonsMcDonald, 2006a), without parental support for such approaches in school, challenges will continue to be faced in the implementation of bilingual and biliterate strategies in St. Lucian schools. The Dominican and Trinidadian contexts are no different, consisting of multiple language variations that require attention if students are to develop literacy skills. Conceptions of Literacy The conception of literacy as implicitly reflected through the studies reviewed warrants further attention. Throughout the studies, emphasis was placed on phonemic awareness, phonics, or fluency, literacy skills previously described as ‘constrained’ (Paris, 2005). Specifically, reports from studies indicated findings such as the ability of students to express themselves in longer sentences (Lewis-Smikle, 2006), demonstrate increased fluency in reading texts (Simmons-McDonald, 2006b), indicate knowledge of letter sounds (Mitchell, 2007), and attach known Jamaican Creole sound systems to words requiring Standard Jamaican English structures (Lacoste, 2007). One exception was noted where students were required to make predictions and 60 connections in conjunction with a problem-solving approach to the investigation of bananas (Webster, 2009). The National Reading Panel (2000), in its report on the effectiveness of approaches used in the teaching of reading, highlighted phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency as key areas of literacy emphasis. Specifically, the Panel noted the importance of integrating phonics with “the development of phonemic awareness, fluency, and text reading comprehension skills” (p. 11). In the studies under review here, this integration was hardly the case. The National Reading Panel further recognized the importance of vocabulary instruction, text comprehension instruction via engagement in “intentional, problem solving thinking processes, certain types of comprehension strategy instruction critical to comprehension success (p. 15). Among the types of comprehension strategy instruction noted were comprehension monitoring, cooperative learning, graphic and semantic organizer use, question answering and generation, story structure, and summarization. Of the studies reviewed, only one demonstrated varying levels of certain strategy use (Webster, 2009). Based on these observations, conceptions of literacy appear to be consistent with the widely and regionally articulated notion of the construct as the ability to “read a sentence, write a message and effectively use the number system” (Chitolie-Joseph, 2008, p. 52). In contrast, global debates surrounding literacy (Gee, 2008; Halliday, 1980; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Luke, Freebody, & Land, 2000; Street, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978) describe literacy as dynamic, socially and culturally situated, and multifaceted (Cope & Kalantzis, 2012; New London Group, 1996; Street, 1995), specifically for language learners (e.g., Leu, Castek, Coiro, Gort, Henry, & Lima, 2005; Moll & Greenberg, 1990). 61 Paradoxically, the definitions espoused across English-speaking Caribbean countries bear a close resemblance to international conceptions of literacy as a construct. One example is the definition adopted by St. Lucia’s Ministry of Education, which reads as follows: Literacy involves a complex set of abilities to use and understand all aspects of communication in the modern world. Literacy abilities are not static and will vary according to the needs of our changing societies. Literacy development requires the integration of speaking, listening, reading, writing, viewing and problem solving. It includes a range of skills required to cope in a dynamic and complex world. The process of acquiring literacy begins before school with the child’s acquisition of his/her first language and the institutions developed about the way communication works in natural settings. The development of literacy abilities continues beyond school in the lifelong learning opportunities/potential activated for personal and community development. (Torres, 2009, p. 15) Although this view of literacy highlights important concepts such as “changing societies” and “integration” of several skills, a greater portion of the definition focuses on the “when” and “where” of literacy. Furthermore, this particular description fails to specify what it means by the “range of skills” necessary for functioning within the cultural context of the St. Lucian society. Notwithstanding, the definition alludes to the dynamic and deictic nature of literacy, in keeping with international changes. Jamaica’s definition, perhaps, is more consistent with the broader notion of what literacy has come to represent, as noted in the following: Literacy is not just the ability to read and write, the kind of definition which for many years in the past was the norm. It is more than that. In order to live and learn in our 62 present knowledge-based and information-intensive societies, literacy needs now to be viewed as the ability to understand and to use various types of information, in the various communities; it must be linked to societal and cultural practices for the definition to be meaningful. Literacy encompasses among other things the ability to read, write and comprehend in one’s native/standard language; numeracy; the ability to comprehend visual images and representations such as signs, maps and diagrams – visual literacy; information technological literacy and the understanding of how information/communication technology impacts our every action (e.g. using barcodes on goods we purchase) and also scientific literacy. (Torres, 2009, p. 15) Jamaica’s description highlights two major concepts absent from St. Lucia’s attempt; the recognition that literacy relates to language within the context of a particular culture and/or circumstance and the developing concept of multiple literacies, despite, as confirmed by Bryan (1998), the difficulty present in constructing such a definition for a country with such linguistic variation as Jamaica. Given the United States National Council of Teachers of English’s (NCTE, 2008b) definition of literacy as “a collection of cultural and communicative practices shared among members of particular groups,” the two definitions illustrated here bear close resemblance to the notion of literacy as multifaceted, culturally situated, deictic, and complex. Further, Jamaica’s definition of the construct incorporates the notion of a multilingual perspective of language and literacy development as: based on a holistic view of the bilingual learner including validation of students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds as resources for learning, an understanding of the role of primary language (including literacy) in the acquisition of a new 63 language, and a consideration of sociolinguistic, sociohistorical, and sociocultural factors that contribute to the child’s development and experiences. (Gort, 2006, p. 326-327) Evidently, while regional definitions in the Creole-speaking Caribbean have more recently been aligned with notions of literacy that allow for language learners’ cultures, backgrounds, and language use to be culled as resources in the literacy classroom (see Au, 1993; Bayley, Hansen-Thomas, & Langman, 2005; Gort, 2006; Kibler, 2010; Olmedo, 2005), in practice, empirical research in the region does not reflect a cultural and situated approach. Regionally, efforts underway to address language instruction and the bilingual and bidialectal situation in the Caribbean appear to reflect similar concepts in focus, concepts that emphasize the sociolinguistic components of language learning. The International Center for Caribbean Language Research (ICCLR), an initiative recently launched by prominent linguists in the region, was established to organize a body of international scholars who could address language issues in the Caribbean (TAAK*PALE*PAPIA, 2010). In its first call for research, ICCLR focused on two language panels, namely language rights and language politics in the Caribbean, and language, culture and identity (TAAK*PALE*PAPIA, 2011a). In addition, the ICCLR initiated a Junior Researchers’ Programme in 2011 to support upcoming researchers focused on research in Caribbean language and linguistics with the process of publication, as a means of submitting to the journal of the Society of Caribbean Linguistics (SCL). The goals for the Junior Researchers’ Program was to ensure the satisfaction of junior researchers with the skills they had earned in writing for publication and the subsequent expansion of the program based on results (TAAK*PALE*PAPIA, 2011b). To date, research publications ensuing from the conference appear to be directed towards linguistics, sociolinguistics, and policy, which, based 64 on the linguistic characteristics of numerous Caribbean countries, is a highly laudable effort. Yet, through this emphasis on the sociolinguistic, empirical research promoted in the region continues to be devoid of a focus on language learning in relation to literacy in the educational and classroom context. The emphasis on linguistics and inattention to literacy as a function of linguistic capacity within educational contexts is not surprising, given that attention continues to be geared towards the lower-level processes of reading, as previously underscored in the studies reviewed. A sociolinguistic emphasis in the region is also reflected in The Charter on Language Policy and Language Rights in the Creole Speaking Caribbean as of 2011, developed by linguists, educators, and policy makers in the Caribbean region. This Charter identified Creoles in the Caribbean as languages, distinct from the European languages in which most of their vocabulary finds its origins (TAAK*PALE*PAPIA, 2011c). The Charter’s reference to education, in its allusion to literacy development, makes provision for initial instruction to be provided in students’ first languages because of the promise this holds for their development of concepts, acquisition, and development of language, learning, and overall education. Emphasis on linguistics, though noble, appears to lack direct linkages to measures of literacy growth and proficiency beyond the phonetic and phonic representation of languages, a trend consistent with literacy research undertaken in the region (see Snow, 2006 for more on developing literacy with language learners). The disconnect between language policy, programmatic efforts, and instructional practice reflected in literacy research, as well as the focus on program implementation in the absence of literacy research upon which these programs emerge clearly warrants further attention. 65 Summary and Future Directions In this review, the goal was to describe the empirical literacy research currently available in certain regions of the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean; identify areas of focus in this body of research; highlight concerns emanating from the review; and provide recommendations for future literacy research in the English-speaking Caribbean. The findings, though based on a limited number of empirical studies, revealed that language of instruction for the literacy teaching and learning of language learners is a registered concern. Moreover, an emphasis on lower level, or constrained (Paris, 2005) literacy skills suggests that certain conceptions of literacy frame research, mainly graphophonics, despite literacy definitions and evidence to the contrary. Based on the review, a need for the following interventions has been recognized, some of which relate to language of instruction, and others, to avenues for approaching discrepancies in the translation of conceptions of literacy from theory to practice. First, more decided efforts need to be made to identify a body of scholars specifically responsible for spearheading research, particularly exploratory studies and surveys, to gain adequate knowledge of the linguistic proficiency of students within the context of early, childhood, primary, secondary, and tertiary institutions across the Caribbean region (see Au, 2000). To date, no record was found of reports indicating the percentages of students in a given school who are likely to speak language variations in each territory. When students are enrolled in school from the pre-kindergarten years, evidence exists to indicate that they are assessed to determine their proficiency in the English Language and English literacy (e.g., St. Lucia Education Statistical Digest, 2005). However, no documentation was found to show that national systems have been designated by the Ministries of Education of these countries to determine the extent of student mastery of other language varieties as a means of facilitating literacy 66 instruction. As such, teachers continue to find it difficult to determine which students are in need of instruction in a particular language. As indicated earlier, research does support instruction in literacy though a child’s first language, and in this context, languages such as SLFC, JCE, TCE. However, since the de facto language of these countries has been English, the “first language of the child” (i.e., the language variety with which s/he is most familiar) must be determined using acceptable measures of assessment prior to provision of literacy instruction. To facilitate this process, Caribbean countries may find it useful to unite around instrumentation and assessment, reducing the financial burden around these efforts. In this regard, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and international non-governmental organizations such as United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) may play a major role. Secondly, empirical research in the region may benefit from the launch of descriptive, interpretive, and exploratory studies into the developmental processes of students as framed by their social, cultural, and multilingual environments. So far, as indicated by the review, emphasis has been placed on literacy program implementation (e.g., Devonish & Carpenter, 2007; LewisSmikle, 2006; Warrican, 2006; Webster & Walters, 1998). However, very few attempts, if any, have been made to research how the historical background of St. Lucia and the cultural, linguistic milieu in which students function has given way to practices, customs, and ways of life that are almost inextricably associated with the literate patterns employed (Alleyne, 1961; Devonish, 1986; Murdoch, 2009; St. Hilaire, 2007). Considering the fact that literacy instruction continues to be rigid and to reflect structures of the colonial period (i.e., reading, writing, and arithmetic; Roberts, 2000), literacy instruction is often divorced from students’ daily rich and 67 lived experiences and in fact, emphasis appeared to be placed on cognitive factors, such as the ability to articulate words correctly (e.g., Mitchell, 2007) and produce writing in isolated contexts (e.g., Bogle, 1997). Given that very few of the studies (e.g., Webster, 2009) focused on preserving the linkages between students’ daily rich lived experiences and their literacy use, and that none of the studies identified in the review focused on the sociocultural processes students use in such a context in order to engage in literacy practices, exploratory research to identify patterns in literacy development and their linkages to the students’ in-and-out of school practices are warranted. Though the St. Lucian English Vernacular (SLEV) has not been designated as an official language in its own right, yet has displayed increasing prominence among children of school age in St. Lucia (Simmons-McDonald, 1996; St. Hilaire, 2007), an understanding of its interaction with the St. Lucian Standard English ([SLSE] typically used in the classroom) and the St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC) spoken and heard by many students in their home environments (see St. Hilaire, 2007) would prove worthy. Through emerging literacy initiatives, such as process drama (see Schneider, 2006; Schneider, Crumpler, & Rogers, 2006) students’ familiarity with folklore and folk plays can be capitalized upon in literacy instruction. Third, research in literacy teaching pedagogy across the region, from the perspectives of the practice of pre-service, in-service, and teacher educators is critical. Based on the review, three studies examined the experiences of teachers. However, the focus was aimed at teacher attitudes towards language varieties (Armstrong & Campos, 2002; Bryan & Burnette, 2006; Simmons-McDonald, 2006a) and no evidence was found to indicate that teacher practice was explored. While research is needed to document the attitudes of teachers towards language varieties, the need for teacher inquiry, documentation, and evaluation of literacy strategy use and 68 instruction (see American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; AACTE, 2010; 2013; Borko, Whitcomb, & Byrnes, 2007; 2008; National Council for the Accreditation of Teachers of English; NCATE, 2010; Zeichner, 2007) stands to reveal much about how teachers may respond to the linguistic needs within the context of literacy instruction in the Caribbean. A final recommendation arises from the need for a more integrated approach to literacy research and instruction across and beyond the region. While language policy development has been embraced at the national level, as indicated by recent efforts on the part of 30 international language experts to create a regional Charter on Language Rights and Language Policy (The Voice, 2011), conflicting views persist concerning the extent to which vernaculars and Creoles should be adopted as formal languages for instruction in schools (Bishop, 2010; Devonish, 2011; Imbert, 2009, 2010; Smith, 2013b; Williams & Carter, 2005), a situation no different from other contexts (see Kamwendo, 2006; King, in press for a discussion of the South African language policy dilemma). Ministries of Education and governing bodies of the major research institutions in the Caribbean region (i.e., University of the West Indies, University of the Southern Caribbean) must therefore combine efforts around a systematic approach towards literacy research in an effort to develop a substantive literacy research base. The development of a draft charter by a team of 30 international Caribbean language proponents (The Voice, 2011) and the development of a research initiative around language education, use, and policy (TAAK*PALE*PAPIA, 2010) in the region are first steps in the right direction. However, a more decided effort to specifically undertake literacy research, informed by a sociocultural perspective and conducted by literacy scholars within the context of literacy instruction and inand-out of school contexts is indispensable to the identification and development of instructional programs for language learners in the region. Inevitably, a bridging of the gap between NGOs at 69 the local, regional, and international levels and with educational stakeholders from governmental and non-governmental organizations may result in greater benefits for the region. Conclusion A review of empirical literacy research in English-speaking Caribbean countries reveals that while the body of literature is limited, indicators can be gathered based on the research implemented to inform future directions in literacy research. Evidently, for the countries under review, despite a literacy definition that focuses on complexity, change, integration, social and cultural factors, and in certain cases, multiple literacies, the research conducted thus far fails to capture the true essence of literacy as situated within its social and cultural contexts, and falls short of assessing linguistic diversity in ways that inform and advance literacy instruction across the region. The inextricable nature of social, cultural, linguistic and historical facets in these countries requires investigation that reflects literacy as a process of negotiating meaning based on socio-cultural notions ascribed to language in contextualized situations, such as the classroom, playground and the home. The increasing complexity created by students’ need for code-switching and code-mixing among varied linguistic varieties across in-and-out of school contexts (see Jimenez, Moll, Rodriguez, & Brown, 1999; King, in press; Luk & Bialystok, 2013; Wheeler & Swords, 2006) demands research attention that considers the practices of students whose literacy learning incorporates multiple language varieties. Recognition that language learners possess a variety of access points – many literacies – from which to transact with symbolic representations of language variations as they develop literacy proficiency (see Leu, Castek, Coiro, Gort, Henry, & Lima, 2007) is critical if researchers are to capture data that inform literacy instruction reflective of students’ language varieties. To further achieve this goal, teacher researchers in the Caribbean may conduct inquiry in literacy 70 instruction, documenting the processes through which language learners from varied language backgrounds develop literacy skills. Teacher educators will also need to engage in inquiry of their processes as they work with pre- and in-service teachers whose conceptions of language varieties have a direct impact on their literacy instruction in classrooms. In this regard, regional efforts surrounding empirical approaches stand to benefit these countries. Further, attention to advancements beyond the Caribbean context in teacher education and literacy instruction (see Lee, 2008; National Reading Panel, 2000; National Council of Teachers of English, 2010) may inform research efforts, with contextual application remaining the ultimate goal. References Alleyne, M. C. (1961). Language and society in St. Lucia. Caribbean Studies, 1(1), 1-10. Alleyne, M. C. (1994) Problems of standardization of Creole languages. In M. H. Morgan & M. C. Alleyne (Eds.), Language and the social construction of identity in Creole situations (pp. 7-18). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Center for Afro-American Studies. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (2010). The clinical preparation of teachers: A policy brief. AACTE: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://oacte.org/pdf/ClinicalPrepPaper_03-11-2010.pdf. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (2013). The changing teacher preparation profession: A report from AACTE’s professional educational data system (PEDS). AACTE: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=145. Armstrong, L. A., & Campos, J. (2002). Assessment of teacher training and reading instruction needs and capacities in the Caribbean. USAID: Centers of Excellence for Teacher 71 Training (CETT). Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACX198.pdf. Au, K. H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Au, K. (2000). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bayley, R., Hansen-Thomas, H., & Langman, J. (2005). Language brokering in a middle school science class. In J. Cohen, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium on bilingualism (pp. 223-232). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133-150. Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 15-34. Bishop, S. (2010, August 5). Emancipation lectures. The Voice. Retrieved from http://www.thevoiceslu.com/local_news/2010/august/05_08_10/Emancipation.htm. Bogle, M. (1997). Constructing literacy: Cultural practices in classroom encounters. Caribbean Journal of Education, 19(2), 179-190. Borko, H., Liston, D., & Whitcomb, J. (2007). Genres of empirical research in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 3-11. Borko, H., Whitcomb, J.A., & Byrnes, K. (2008). Genres of research in teacher education. In M. 72 Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. John McIntyre & K. E. Demers, Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 10151049). New York: Routledge. Brereton, B. (2004). General history of the Caribbean: The Caribbean in the twentieth century. UNESCO Publication. Bryan, B. A. (1998). Defining literacy for Jamaica: Issues in theory and practice. Caribbean Journal of Education, 20(1), 54-67. Bryan, B. A., & Burnette, R. (2006). Language variation in Dominica: Perceptions, practice and policies. Caribbean Journal of Education, 28(1), 26-50. Carrington, L. D. (1969). Deviations from Standard English in the speech of primary school children in St. Lucia and Dominica. IRAL, 7(3), 165–184. Carrington, L. D. (1987). The substance of Creole studies: A reappraisal. In G. Gilbert (Ed.), Pidgin and Creole languages: Essays in memory of John E. Reinecke (pp. 77-92). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Chitolie-Joseph, E. (2008). National report of St. Lucia: The development and state of the art of Adult Learning and Education (ALE). Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/INSTITUTES/UIL/confintea/pdf/Natio nal_Reports/Latin%20America%20-%20Caribbean/Saint_Lucia.pdf. Cope, M., & Kalantzis, M. (2012). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Craig, D. (1974). Education and Creole English in the West Indies: Some sociolinguistic factors. In D. H. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of languages (pp. 371-392). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 73 Craig, D. R. (1983). Teaching Standard English to nonstandard speakers: Some methodological issues. The Journal of Negro Education, 52(1), 65-74. Craig, D. R. (1999). Teaching language and literacy: Policies and procedures for vernacular situations. Georgetown, Guyana: Education and Development Services. Craig, D. R. (2006). The use of the vernacular in West Indian education. In H. SimmonsMcDonald & I. Robertson (Eds.), Exploring the boundaries of Caribbean and Creole languages, (pp. 99-117). Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press. Cummins, J. (1993). Empowerment through biliteracy. In J. V. Tinajero & A. F. Ada (Eds.), The power of two languages: Literacy and biliteracy for Spanish speaking students (pp. 9-25). New York: McMillan. Devonish, H. 1986. Language and liberation: Creole language politics in the Caribbean. London, UK: Karia Press. Devonish, H. (2011, April 17). The emotional price of language discrimination in Jamaica. Jamaican Observer. Retrieved from http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/The-emotional-price-of-languagediscrimination-in-Jamaica_8681023. Devonish, H., & Carpenter, K. (2007). Towards full bilingualism in education: The Jamaican bilingual primary education project. Social and Economic Studies, 56(1-2), 277-303. Deuber, D., & Youssef, V. (2007). Teacher language in Trinidad: A pilot corpus study of direct and indirect creolisms in the verb phrase. Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics 2007 Conference. Retrieved from http://www.corpus.bham.ac.uk/conference/proceedings.shtml. Education Statistical Digest. (2005). Property of the Ministry of Education, Human Resource 74 Development, Youth and Sports. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.lc/EducationDigest2005.pdf. Engerman, S. L. (1982). Economic adjustments to emancipation in the United States and British West Indies. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 13(2), 191-220. Fyle, M. (1994). Official and unofficial attitudes and policy towards Krio as the main language of Sierra Leone. In R. Fardon & G. Furniss (Eds.), African languages, development and the state (pp. 44–54). London, UK: Routledge. Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. Gort, M. (2006). Strategic codeswitching, interliteracy, and other phenomena of bilingual writing: Lessons from first grade dual language classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6, 323-354. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. London, UK: Pearson Education. Halliday, M. A. K. (1980). Three aspects of children’s language development: Learning language, learning through language, learning about language. In E. Goodman, M. M. Haussler, & D. Strickland (Eds.), Oral and written language: Impact on schools. International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English. Heugh, K. (2007). Language and literacy issues in South Africa. In N. Rassool (Ed.), Global issues in language, education and development (pp. 187-217). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 75 Imbert, C. (2009, Dec. 12). What is correct local English? Trinidad Express. Retrieved from http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/What_is_correct_local_English_115277329.html. Imbert, C. (2010, October 8). Dialects are real languages, but different. Trinidad Express. Retrieved from http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/Dialects_are_real_ languages_but_different-104548699.html. International Reading Association (IRA). (2001). Second-language literacy instruction: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org. The Jamaica Language Education Policy. (2001). Ministry of Education, Youth and Culture. Retrieved from http://expanding-educational-horizons.com/Literacy/languagepolicy.pdf. Jiménez, R. T., Moll, L. C., Rodríguez-Brown, F. V., & Barrera, R. B. (1999). Conversations: Latina and Latino researchers interact on issues related to literacy learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 217-230. Kamwendo, G. H. (2006). No easy walk to linguistic freedom: A critique of language planning during South Africa’s first decade of democracy. Nordiac Journal of African Studies. 15(1), 53-70. Kephart, R. F. (1992). Reading Creole English does not destroy your brain cells! In J. Siegel (Ed.), Pidgins, Creoles and nonstandard dialects in education (pp. 67–86). Melbourne, Australia: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. Kellner, D. (2003). Towards a critical theory of education. Democracy and Nature, 9(1), 51-64. Kibler, A. (2010). Writing through two languages: First language expertise in a language 76 minority classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 121-142. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.04.001. King, J. (in press). Codeswitching in Capetown: Linguistic understandings of teaching dilemmas in multilingual classrooms. Language and Literacy. Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57, 1–44. Lacoste, V. (2007). Modelling the sounds of Standard Jamaican English in a Grade 2 classroom. Caribbean Journal of Education, 29, 290–326. Language and Language Education Policy. (2010). Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.tt/national_consultation_primaryschool/ROBERTSON%20I%20201 0%20Language%20and%20Language%20Education%20Policy.pdf. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Lee, C. D. (2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of learning and development: How an ecological framework in education research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational Researcher, 37(5), 267-279. Leu Jr, D. J., Castek, J., Coiro, J., Gort, M., Henry, L. A., & Lima, C. O. (2005). Developing new literacies among multilingual learners in the elementary grades. Technology-mediated learning environments for young English learners: Connections in and out of school. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lewis, G. K. (2004). The growth of the modern West Indies. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers. 77 Lewis-Smikle, J. (2006). Literacy and learning through literature in the junior years: A prototype project. Caribbean Journal of Education, 28(1), 85-110. Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2013.795574. Luke, A., Freebody, P., & Land, R. (2000). Literate futures: Review of literacy education. Brisbane, Australia: Education Queensland. Midgett, D. (1970). Bilingualism and linguistic change in St. Lucia. Anthropological Linguistics, 12(5), 158-170. Miller, E. (1989). Caribbean primary education: An assessment. Caribbean Journal of Education, 16(3), 136-171. Mitchell, S. A. (2007). Acquiring basic reading skills: An exploration of phonetic awareness in Jamaican primary schools. Caribbean Journal of Education, 29(2), 327-358. Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319-348). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Murdoch, A. (2009). A legacy of trauma: Caribbean slavery, race, class, and contemporary identity in Abeng. Research in African Literatures, 40(4), 65-88. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Blue Ribbon Panel Report. (2010, November). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA). (2011). FAQ: How 78 many school-aged Limited English Proficient (LEP) students are there in the U.S? Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/faqs/. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2008a). English language learners: A policy research brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Positions/Chron0308PolicyBrief.pdf. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2008b). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Neuman, S. B. (2010). Lessons from my mother. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 301. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-38). South Yarra, Australia: Macmillan. Olmedo, I. (2005). The bilingual echo: Children as language mediators in a dual-language school. In M. Farr (Ed.), Latino language and literacy in ethno linguistic Chicago (pp. 135-55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 79 Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 184-202. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Poddar, P., & Johnson, D. M. (2005). A historical companion to postcolonial thought in English. New York: Columbia University Press. Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L., Flood, J. (2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 252-288. Roberts, P. A. (2000). From oral to literate culture: Colonial experience in the English West Indies. Kingston, Jamaica: UWI Press. Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85109. doi: 10.1177/1525822X02239569. Sato, C. J. (1985). Linguistic inequality in Hawaii: The post-Creole dilemma. In N. Wolfson & J. Manes (Eds.), Language of inequality (pp. 255–72). New York: Mouton. Schneider, J. J., Crumpler, T. P., & Rogers, T. (2006). Process drama and multiple literacies: Addressing social, cultural, and ethical issues. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Schneider, J. J. (2006). Always listen to the children: Process drama as a site for fostering freedom, voice and choice. In J. J. Schneider, T. P. Crumpler, & T. Rogers (Eds.), Process drama and multiple literacies: Addressing social, cultural and ethical issues (pp. 107-122). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Siegel, J. (1997). Using a pidgin language in formal education: Help or hindrance? Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 86-100. 80 Siegel, J. (1999). Creoles and minority dialects in education: An overview. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 20(6), 508-531. Siegel, J. (2002). Pidgins and creoles. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 335–51). New York: Oxford University Press. Siegel, J. (2005). Literacy in pidgin and Creole languages. Current Issues in Language Planning, 6(2), 143-163. Siegel, J. (2010). Bilingual literacy in creole contexts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(4), 383-402. Siegel, J. (2012). Educational approaches for speakers of pidgin and creole languages. In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Harnessing linguistic variation to improve education (pp. 259292). Bern: Peter Lang. Simmons-McDonald, H. (1994). Comparative patterns in the acquisition of English negation by native speakers of French Creole and Creole English. Language Learning, 44(1), 29-74. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2004). Trends in teaching Standard English varieties to Creole and Vernacular speakers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 187-208. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2006a). Attitudes of teachers to St. Lucian language varieties. Caribbean Journal of Education, 28(1), 51-84. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2006b). Vernacular instruction and bi-literacy development in French Creole speakers. In H. Simmons-McDonald and I. Robertson (Eds.), Exploring the boundaries of Caribbean and Creole languages (pp. 118-146). Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2010). Introducing French Creole as a language of instruction in 81 education in St. Lucia. In B. Migge, I. Legalise, & A. Bartens (Eds.), Creoles in education: An appraisal of current programs and projects (pp. 183-210). Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins. Smith, M. G. (1965). The plural society in the British West Indies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Snow, C. E. (2006). Cross-cutting themes and future research directions. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 631-652). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Snow, C., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/html/reading/. St. Hilaire, A. (2007). National development and the language planning challenge in St. Lucia, West Indies. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28(6), 519-536. St. Hilaire, A. (2009). Postcolonial identity politics, language and the schools in St. Lucia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(1), 31-46. St. Hilaire, A. (2011). Kweyol in postcolonial Saint Lucia: Globalization, language planning, and national development. Amsterdam: PA: John Benjamins. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications. Street, B. (1995). Social literacies. London, UK: Longman. Street, B. (2003). What’s new in new literacy studies? Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 1-14. TAAK*PALE*PAPIA. (2010). The International Centre for Caribbean Language Research 82 (ICCLR): Who are we? Retrieved from http://taakpalepapia.blogspot.com/2010/08/international-centre-for-caribbean.html. TAAK*PALE*PAPIA. (2011a). The fifty-fifty research project and conference. Retrieved from http://taakpalepapia.blogspot.com/2011/07/fifty-fifty-research-project-and.html. TAAK*PALE*PAPIA. (2011b). Junior Researchers’ Programme Underway. Retrieved from http://taakpalepapia.blogspot.com/2011/07/junior-researchers-programmeunderway.html. TAAK*PALE*PAPIA. (2011c). History today. Retrieved from http://taakpalepapia.blogspot.com/2011/11/history-today.html. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). (2008). Position statement on English as a global language. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org. Tyson, E. A. (2003). Uncharted territory: Teacher’s adaptation to the Caribbean advanced proficiency examination. Caribbean Journal of Education, 25(2), 129-147. United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO). (2000). The Education For All 2000 assessment: Country reports 2000 assessment. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/wef/countryreports/saint_lucia/rapport_3.htmlUnited Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO). (2006). The Education For All global monitoring Report: Literacy for life. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-internationalagenda/efareport/reports/2006-literacy. The Voice. (2011). Regional linguists meet at UWI International conference on language rights and policy. Retrieved from http://www.thevoiceslu.com/local_news/2011/january/08_01_11/Regional.htm. 83 Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warrican, J. S. (2006). Promoting reading amidst repeated failure: Meeting the challenges. The High School Journal, 90(1), 33-43. Warrican, J. S. (2009). Literacy development and the role of the Eastern Caribbean joint board of teacher education. Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 34(2), 71-85. Watts, D. (1990). The West Indies: Patterns of development, culture, and environmental change since 1492. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Webster, P. S. (2009). Read-alouds in combination with pre- and postreading activities gave students in one rural Jamaican school opportunities to explore informational texts. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 662-671. Webster, P. S., & Walters, T. S. (1998). Literature for literacy: Bringing it home to Jamaica. Caribbean Journal of Education, 20(1), 21-41. Wheeler, R., & Swords, R. (2006). Code-switching: Teaching Standard English in urban classrooms. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Williams, V., & Carter, B-A. (2005). Arriving at a self-diagnosis of the foreign language teaching situation in Trinidad and Tobago. Caribbean Journal of Education, 27(2), 223243. Winer, L. (2012). Teaching English to Caribbean English Creole–speaking students in the Caribbean and North America. In S. J. Nero (Eds.), Dialects, Englishes, creoles, and education (pp. 105-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Yiakoumetti, A. (2007). Choice of classroom language in bidialectal communities: To include or to exclude the dialect? Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(1), 51-66. 84 Youssef, V. (2002). Issues of bilingual education in the Caribbean: The cases of Haiti, and Trinidad and Tobago. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(3), 182-193. Zeichner, K. (2007). Professional development schools in a culture of evidence and accountability. School-University Partnerships, 1(1), 9-17. Towards a Language Policy for St. Lucia Author/Correspondent Author: Patriann Smith, M.A. Position: Doctoral Candidate Affiliation: University of South Florida Current Mailing Address: Childhood Education and Literacy Studies (CELS), 4202 East Fowler Ave., EDU 105, Tampa, FL 33620 Telephone number: 813-405-7237 Fax: 813-974-3826 E-mail: psmith4@usf.edu Note: This paper is in progress and will be submitted to Language Policy. Abstract As countries of the English-speaking Caribbean, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Lucia and Dominica consist of language variations peculiar to each territory. In these countries, vernaculars, or the languages of widest use, are not always consistent with the language of education and students generally continue to perform poorly in literacy. In spite of recent attempts to address the bilingual situation in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago through the enactment of language policy, St. Lucia continues to rely on a de facto policy to guide literacy instruction. Furthermore, in this country, the language of literacy instruction and education 85 continues to be primarily English. While an increasingly positive attitude towards St. Lucian Creole and vernacular as a symbol of identity is now present, teachers and educational administrators continue to harbor negative stereotypes towards vernacular languages for use within the education system. Given the multilingual nature of St. Lucia, and considering the continued underperformance of St. Lucian students in literacy, the need for a language policy is critical. In this paper, a historical and integrative review and analysis is undertaken. In this analysis, the interrelationships between the historical and linguistic background of St. Lucia are first discussed. Following this, reports from standardized assessments are used to illustrate the status of literacy in the country. Subsequently, language policy is discussed and recommendations made to officially classify St. Lucia as a multilingual entity, raise the status of the vernaculars to official languages, provide teachers with in-depth knowledge concerning acquisition and use of these languages, and develop a language policy for St. Lucia. Keywords: English-speaking Caribbean, policy, language, literacy, Standard English Towards a Language Policy for St. Lucia Across the English-speaking Caribbean, multiple languages are spoken. It is estimated that as many as 35 Creoles are currently practiced in the Caribbean. In addition, approximately 15 indigenous languages, four languages of European origin and a myriad of immigrant or heritage languages are present (Simmons-McDonald, 2006c; The Voice, 2011). As countries comprising the English-speaking Caribbean, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Lucia and Dominica all consist of language variations peculiar to each territory. In the countries of Jamaica and Trinidad, one vernacular, or Creole is registered, the derivations for which are predominantly English. In contrast, St. Lucia and Dominica comprise of multiple Creoles and vernaculars, some of which are based on English, while others originate primarily from French (Christie, 1983). 86 Despite differences in language varieties among these countries, recognition of the linguistic challenges for literacy instruction has sensitized educators to the need for policy intervention. Among the efforts made is that in the Jamaican context where Jamaica’s language policy, enacted almost a decade ago, recognized Jamaica as a bilingual country, identified Standard Jamaican English (SJE) as the official language, and recommended bilingual literacy instruction. This policy proposed the use of both SJE and Jamaican Creole (JC) in written forms within the educational system and identified Spanish as the official foreign language. As a result of Jamaica’s language policy, pre-service teachers are now required to complete literacy courses in SJE and JCE as two separate languages and gain an understanding of how the language variations are acquired. In addition, the policy proposed that varying forms of assessment based on language difference be used to determine language learners’ literacy achievement (Jamaica Language Education Policy, 2001). Similarly, in the Trinidadian context, a recently enacted language policy has emerged to address the linguistic status quo in Trinidad (i.e., the use of English), which functioned as the de facto policy and therefore the implicit language policy of the country. Responding to the use of English as the language through which assessment has consistently been conducted, Trinidad’s language policy highlighted the false assumption that student competence was capable of being measured accurately in English. A preface to the policy indicated that school administrators continued to frown upon the switch to Trinidad English lexicon Creole (TCE) and Tobagonian English lexicon Creole (TOB) in spite of the ease of communication it provided for students. A proposal was therefore made to adopt a language policy for early childhood, elementary, and secondary education in Trinidad and Tobago. This language policy noted that students should possess competence in Trinidad Standard English (TSE) and TCE or TOB, as well as 87 demonstrate competence in the first foreign language, designated as Spanish. The policy also stated that the Creoles and the deaf sign language be declared official national languages and codification of the national languages and preparation of instructional materials in these languages for both education and evaluation were subsequently outlined. Final recommendations from the policy alluded to the establishment of an institute for language education (Language and Language Education Policy, 2010). Despite such direct responses to the need for language policy in countries whose Creoles and vernaculars are based on English (i.e., Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago), no documentation was found to indicate that St. Lucia and Dominica, whose linguistic varieties are more complex varied, and based on multiple languages, had developed and ratified language policies. In this paper, attention is focused on St. Lucia due to empirical research efforts already underway to address the linguistic situation in the country (see Simmons-McDonald, 2004; 2010; St. Hilaire, 2007; 2011). Through a historical and integrative review and analysis, the interrelationships between the country’s historical and linguistic backgrounds, description of the status of literacy, subsequent discussion of language policy in St. Lucia, and implications are discussed for language policy implementation in the country. Evolution of Language Patterns in St. Lucia St. Lucia is a small island of 238 square miles with a population of 170,000 situated between Martinique and St. Vincent in the West Indies. The official language is St. Lucian Standard English (SLSE), an acrolect functioning as the language of formal and official communication (Carrington, 1984). This acrolect is the most representative of “standard” or internationally accepted English (Ford & St. Juste-Jean, 1995). SLSE has existed for some time in conjunction with Saint Lucian French Creole (SLFC: Kweyol or Patois), a “language” spoken 88 and understood by more than 70% of the population, mainly in the rural areas (Pan American Health Organization, 1998). The language situation further comprises a third language variety, the English-Lexicon Vernacular, referred to here as the St. Lucian English Vernacular (SLEV). Craig (1983) described this vernacular as a Caribbean mesolect in which a “varied range of nonstandard speech bridges the linguistic gap between Creole and Standard English” (p. 65). The recent emergence of St. Lucian English Vernacular (SLEV), a mesolect intelligible to both Creole and SLSE speakers, resulted from two factors, namely the efforts of St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC) speakers to acquire English in the school context (Christie, 1983), and communication among English and French Creole speakers in various communities (Garrett, 2003). Simmons-McDonald (2000) consolidated these views in her explanation of the phenomenon, attributing the initial development of St. Lucian English Vernacular to speakers’ efforts in the school setting and further emergence of the vernacular to the increased interaction among speakers in communities. Historical Background of Linguistic Variations The existence of the above-mentioned language varieties emanated from St. Lucia’s historical background, specifically, colonization of the country by the British and French (Alleyne, 1985; Garrett, 2003; Murdoch, 2009; Ramcharan-Crowley, 1961; St. Hilaire, 2011). Prior to the 1400s, Caribs and Arawaks from South America inhabited the island (Ford & St. Juste-Jean, 1995; Sullivan, 1999). St. Lucia then became a French colony of The French West Indian Company in 1642 and subsequently was exchanged 14 times between the British and the French before final possession by the British, which began in 1803 (Edwards & Nwenmely, 1995). During this most recent period, African slaves were imported to work on sugar plantations. The need arose for a communication system, not only between the African slave 89 majority and French aristocrats, but also among the Africans themselves. Due to the fact that African linguistic and cultural groups were separated as much as possible on their arrival to St. Lucia, African slaves resorted to using French for communication among themselves as well as with French inhabitants (La Belle & White, 1980). A direct result of this process was the St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC), co-existent with French, both of which were exclusively spoken in St. Lucia up to 1803 (Alleyne, 1961). Despite a large African Creole-speaking majority, when Britain regained possession of the country, English became the official language of St. Lucia in 1842 (Ford & St. Juste-Jean, 1995). According to St. Hilaire (2007), the underlying rationale for the change was “to advance the social and cultural development of the island” (p. 522). Not only was English instituted as an official language, but it also became instituted as the exclusive medium of instruction (Ramcharan-Crowley, 1961) under the assumption by the majority of “Caribbean educators and the general public that the road to educational, and therefore political and economic, success of an individual was very much tied to that person’s ability to command a high level of formal standard English” (Winer, 2012, p. 107). Yet, in practice, few indications existed that reflected the reality of English as an official language. One reason for the lack of English was the labor shortage accompanying British emancipation in 1834 led to the introduction of large-scale importation of indentured laborers from South Asia in 1858 (Ford & St. Juste-Jean, 1995; Murdoch, 2009), increasing the complexity of the ethnic and linguistic situation. And, from 1911-1921, according to census statistics, approximately 57% of the St. Lucian population had no knowledge of English. This figure decreased significantly by 1946, when it was reported as approximately 43% (West Indian Census, 1950). Another reason for the lack of English was that St. Lucia achieved 90 political independence in 1979, with this landmark in its political history accompanied by the first manifestations of pro-Creole cultural nationalism (St. Hilaire, 2007). Advocates for Creoles and the vernaculars initiated national acceptance of Caribbean Creoles, promoting these as symbols of cultural identity and highlighting their significance as avenues for national development (Devonish, 1986). Today, the St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC) vocabulary is predominantly French (84%), followed by English, (2.8 %), Indian (0.4%), African (0.5%), Amerindian (0.6%) and Spanish (0.1%) (see Figure 1.1; Frank, 2007). As observed, the majority of lexical items present in SLFC originate from the French language. St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC) Whereas the St. Lucian English Vernacular (SLEV) is hardly discussed in the literature, St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC) has been featured as a well-represented subject in Caribbean and St. Lucian discourse. The Creole factored into SLFC is better clarified by Murdoch’s (2009) unique description of the term “Creole,” which portrays its multidimensionality and prefigures a contextualized depiction of the term: The Caribbean Creole was [thus] fed by the inscription of a double time of cross-cultural encounters, and an interpenetration of populations and practices originating both from the colonial metropole and from the African continent. As an inherently unstable category, it embodies all the ambiguities and essentialisms of its origins in the colonial period. Indeed, in figuring either a European or an African subject, the term “Creole” is linked to displacements of place rather than race, and identifies the descendants of any ethnic group born outside their country of origin. (p. 74) 91 Island Inhabited Slavery French British Crown Colony Indentured Labor Independence Pre 1400s Mid 1600s 1651 1842 1858 1979 Carib and Arawak peoples spread through the island. (.6%)* African slaves brought to St. Lucia. Adopted grammar patterns of West African languages. (.5%)* First sustained French settlement established in St. Lucia (84 %)* After 100 years of warfare, English became official language (2.8%)* East Indians arrived (.4 %)* Political independence within the British Commonwealth Figure 1.1: Contribution of Each Language to SLFC (Frank, 2007) It was from such a perspective that Alleyne (1961) described SLFC during the era of slavery. Alleyne observed that French aristocrats posed no objections to Creole use at the time, but that “amicable relations between French and French Creole in a slave society gave way to extreme hostility between English and Creole in the newly free society” after emancipation (p. 4). Alleyne summed up the condition when he stated: Creole fell into the general depreciation of all the cultural items, and all of the ethnic characteristics identifiable with the black African slave. Ascription became the basis of the system of values. And so today in the West Indies ‘a good complexion’ is said of one ranging from light brown to fair; similarly ‘good hair’ describes a type of hair resembling the European type and differing from the wooly texture of the negro’s…With the despiritualization of the African negro in the Americas, expressed in inferiority 92 complexes and self debasements, Creole was despised even by people who could speak no other language. That explains the discrediting of creolized languages throughout the Caribbean. (p. 5) Not only was SLFC degraded by its colonial contexts, but the educational history of St. Lucia, which originated with Mico School missionaries in 1838 (St. Hilaire, 2007), exacerbated the situation and significantly increased negative attitudes ascribed to the St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC). Understandably, this situation existed because Mico-trained teachers were protestant English speakers trained in Mico Training Colleges where French Creole had never been spoken. Their lack of knowledge of SLFC therefore led to rejection of Creole and the prohibition of its use to the extent that students were beaten if found in the act (Alleyne, 1961; Ramcharan-Crowley, 1961; St. Hilaire, 2007). The denigration of Creole and devaluing of SLEV as “little more than the corruptions of the standard language… and therefore not [a] “real” language[s]” (Stewart, 1962) continued well into the twentieth century. Among the many denotations of Creole, the following were marked in their assertions: statements by St. Lucia’s Education Officers that “Creole is not a language” (Lowenthal, 1972, p. 272) and conclusions regarding Creoles such as “Patois is making (St. Lucians) backwards; it is nothing but palawala and it is merely a ploy to keep us back” (Yarde, 1990, cited in Simmons-McDonald, 2006a, p. 55). As a nation, St. Lucians’ rejection of SLFC stemmed from their value of upward mobility, a process they believed was facilitated by speaking English but impeded by Creole (Frank, 1993, p. 51). Despite acknowledgement of the preservation of Creole as a necessary facet for functioning in the fullest potential on the national level, JnPierre (2009) noted that in the current educational context, SLFC is not officially relied upon in schools to instruct students, even when their language patterns demonstrate they are 93 predominantly SLFC speakers. Even on the global front, Caribbean Creoles continue to remain the most stigmatized of world languages (Alleyne, 1994; Simmons-McDonald, 2006c). Language Varieties The presupposed inferior nature of SLFC presents a distinct contrast to SLSE, which islanders consider prestigious and superior. But despite its inferiority, SLFC is also deemed attractive because of the opportunities derived from its use as well as its association with education, development, and the general progress of the individual (De Swaan, 2001; Kamwendo, 2006; Ramcharan-Crowley, 1961). For St. Lucians, the internationally accepted SLSE was and still remains central to upward and outward mobility (St. Hilaire, 2007). Prior investigations into the present language situation in St. Lucia revealed decreased antipathy towards and growing tolerance of SLFC (Carrington, 1987). Carrington’s (1984) speculation that Castries (the capital city of St. Lucia) had the highest concentrations of competent SLSE speakers found opposition in more recent informal observations reflecting English as widespread within the country, even in rural areas (St. Hilaire, 2007). More recent examinations, however, indicated a change in this pattern (e.g., St. Hilaire, 2011). In comparison to having an exclusive SLFC population of 43% in 1946, St. Lucia is now considered predominantly bilingual, but may also be considered multilingual, with SLSE and SLEV speakers in the majority and exclusive SLFC speakers considered a minority (SimmonsMcDonald, 2001; 2010). This shift exists in spite of national efforts to preserve SLFC for cultural and functional purposes. Explanations for the increased prevalence of SLEV include citizens’ repeated exposure to English via the media, validation of English through the education system and English-based examinations at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. These examinations include CEE, CSEC, and Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examination (CAPE). 94 For these primary, secondary, and tertiary level examinations, the subjects included, taught, and assessed all rely exclusively on students’ knowledge and application of SLSE. Understanding the historical nature of St. Lucia’s language variety provides insight into the residual effects of the British and French colonial presence on language within the island. Historical sociolinguistics also serves as a foundation for examining the language situation as it relates to literacy in St. Lucia. Literacy in a Multilingual Society To date, no consensus has been reached concerning whether St. Lucia should be solely referred to as “bidialectal” (SLFC and SLEV; Yiakoumetti, 2007) or “bilingual” (with two languages, SLSE and SLFC). St. Lucia continues to remain bidialectal (Craig, 1983), bilingual (Simmons-McDonald, 1994), and multilingual (Simmons-McDonald, 2004) with SLSE, SLFC, and SLEV interdependent upon each other in a linguistic context where societal requirements dictate the reciprocal functionalities of these different dialects and languages. In a society where literacy was historically introduced for religious, social, and economic purposes (Roberts, 2000), perusal of St. Lucia’s literacy current literacy situation, as assessed by standardized examinations, is a cause for concern. In 1990, St. Lucia’s first Literacy Survey established the literacy rate as 54.1%, the illiteracy rate as 27.2%, and the functional illiteracy rate as 18.7% (Pan American Health Organization, 1998). In 2001, educational statistics revealed that for the years between 1996-2000, pass rates were 60%, 44%, 71%, 51% and 58% of students, respectively, for English at the Caribbean [Secondary] Examinations Council (CSEC) level in public secondary schools (Education Statistical Digest, 2001). Subsequently, in 2005, the pass rate increased slightly to 65% (St. Lucia Education Statistical Digest, 2005). Statistics also reveal that at the elementary level, the percentage of students who achieved at the national mean 95 on the Common Entrance Examination between the period 1996-2005 was on average 50% or less (St. Lucia Education Statistical Digest, 2005). Though the recent past has seen efforts to curb illiteracy in the form of Universal Secondary Education (USE) proposed by the Joint Board of Teacher Education (JBTE) (Warrican, 2009) and the Folk Research Centre in St. Lucia (Frank, 1993), these reform programs appear to have been instituted without research to document their effectiveness (Simmons-McDonald, 2004) and, therefore, literacy instruction continues to be an experimental rather than a pedagogical concern. In a context where language use continues to be bidialectal or bilingual, is associated with educational underachievement, and where standard and dialectal grammar co-exist regardless of a distinctly different standard language, research confirms there will be problems such as those observed in St. Lucia’s literacy education system (Hebblethwaite, 2012; King, in press; Siegel, 2010; 2012; Simmons-McDonald, 2010). Language Policy in St. Lucia In St. Lucia, as noted previously, a language policy is yet to be adopted for the country. In fact, St. Lucia continues to rely on an Education Act in much the same way as Dominica relies on the Dominican Act, neither of which address the language variations present in these countries (Commonwealth of Dominica Education Act 11, 1997; St. Lucia Education Act No. 41. 1999). St. Lucia’s Education Act, enacted over a decade ago, contained guidelines for revising the national curriculum, identified the core subjects for instruction at all levels of the education system, and described procedures for constructing assessments based on these core subjects. Notably, no section of the act referenced the need for addressing challenges in literacy instruction as a function of the complex multilingual situation. 96 With the absence of language policy in St. Lucia, the linguistic status quo appears to function as the de facto policy, a condition that poses a challenge for language policy development in the country. While efforts around language policy in other English-speaking Caribbean counterparts provide an avenue for addressing language in the St. Lucian educational context, the multilingual nature of St. Lucia deviates from the bilingual nature of countries such as Trinidad and Jamaica, where policies have been ratified. Specifically, St. Lucia’s multilingual situation consists of SLFC, SLSE, and SLEV (Simmons-McDonald, 2004), a sharp contrast to the bilingual situation in Trinidad and Tobago, and Jamaica. The SLFC, very similar to the Dominican French Creole (DFC), has been documented to have been influenced by varying languages as is indicated in Figure 1.1 (Frank, 2007). In contrast, Trinidad and Tobago’s Trinidad Standard English (TSE), Trinidadian English lexicon Creole (TCE) and Tobagonian English lexicon Creole (TOB), as well as Jamaica’s Jamaican Creolized English (JCE) and Standard Jamaican English (SJE; Jamaica Language Education Policy, 2001; Language and Language Education Policy, 2010) are all predominantly based on variations of the English language. Another challenge for the development of language policy for St. Lucia stems from the research that confirms that despite improved attitudes towards the vernacular languages in St. Lucia (Simmons-McDonald, 2006a; St. Hilaire, 2009; 2011) and recognition that instruction in vernacular languages poses no obstruction to students’ acquisition of Standard English in the country (Simmons-McDonald, 2004; 2006b), the tendency to encourage the teaching of St. Lucian Standard English as the first language of instruction remains ingrained in the consciousness of St. Lucian education personnel (Bousquet, 2010; Compton, 2010; Josie, 2008). This issue is problematic because it reinforces in the general populace the preexisting notion that 97 the native languages should remain merely symbols of national identity and, further, implies that certain detrimental effects are associated with the utilization of these languages to facilitate acquisition of literacy in schools. The third prominent factor affecting policy implementation in St. Lucia is that St. Lucian students continue to demonstrate unsatisfactory performance in the English Language exam at all levels of the education system (Winer, 2012). Currently, two Minimum Standards tests are used to assess literacy at the second and fourth grade levels of elementary school and one Minimum Standard test in the third form of secondary school in St. Lucia. In 2002, the national mean performance on the Grade Two examination was 34.7% for English Language, and in 2007, the mean was 54.2% (World Data on Education, 2010/2011). In 2002, the Grade Four examination was 45.1% for English Language while in 2007, the percentage pass rate was 48.1% (World Data on Education, 2010/2011). For Form Three (the third level of secondary school) the mean performance for English Language on the Minimum Standard test was noted as 48.5% in 2007 (World Data on Education, 2010/2011). Future Work on Language Policy in St. Lucia Considering Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago’s recognition of their language situation as bilingual (Jamaica Language Education Policy, 2001; Language and Language Education Policy, 2010), St. Lucia would do well to first officially identify its society as multilingual (St. Hilaire, 2011). In keeping with Jamaica’s recognition of English as the official language and Trinidad and Tobago’s recognition of English and the Creoles as national languages, St. Lucia may also benefit from identification of both English and the vernaculars as national languages (Simmons-McDonald, 2010; St. Hilaire, 2011). 98 In the case of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, language policy recommends that instruction be provided in both languages of the respective countries. As a multilingual entity, St. Lucia may benefit from designating the languages through which literacy instruction will officially be provided in the country. Yet, given St. Lucia’s situation, and to a certain degree, that of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, this presents a challenge because of the lack of an orthographic register for SLEV and an availability of SLFC materials through which instruction must be channeled. There may therefore be the need for codification of national languages as recommended in the case of Trinidad and Tobago and/or a reliance on the oral register to engage students with literacy instruction in the standard forms of English. Jamaica’s language policy recommends that teacher educators complete courses in and be taught the acquisition processes for both languages. This may prove to be a formidable task in the case of St. Lucia because despite the presence of an orthographic register for SLFC, no such register exists for SLEV. A more feasible approach may be the infusion of an affective element into teacher education courses with the intention of heightening the awareness of the need for such registers in the classroom. This step may transform teacher perceptions towards the Creoles, leading to a more positive attitude towards the vernaculars and Creoles in both countries. Finally and most importantly, like its neighboring counterparts, St. Lucia will need to develop a language policy. However, unlike Trinidad and Jamaica, this language policy may best be developed when taking into account the varying degrees with which St. Lucian language varieties need to be leveraged for instruction across the linguistically and geographically diverse contexts of the country. To achieve this goal, St. Lucia would do well to explore geographicallinguistic statistical analyses (e.g., circular statistics) that elucidate the influence of geographical 99 context on students’ language practices (Batschelet, 1981). Based on this process, adopting a position on language of assessment is also a step in the right direction. Conclusion In a society where vernaculars and Creoles are more functional than Standard English and in a situation where citizens appear to be but slowly relinquishing negative stereotypes previously attached to the native languages, English remains the dominant language of communication. JnPierre (2009) notes the preservation of Creole is necessary if St. Lucians are to function in their fullest potential on the national level, yet, by the same token, Devonish (2011) points to the realities of a situation where the inability to speak Standard English holds serious negative implications. Despite the policies already enacted in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, and in spite of recent efforts by thirty international language experts to create a Charter on Language Rights and Language Policy for the region, conflicting views persist concerning the extent to which vernaculars and Creoles should be adopted as formal languages for instruction in schools (Bishop, 2010; Devonish, 2011; Imbert, 2009, 2010; Williams & Carter, 2005). In fact, the realization that literacy education in these countries must equip students with English as an international commerce are reminders that while native languages are critical for inclusion, this must not be done at the expense of developing proficiency in Standard English. As observed, despite consistency in teachers’ and students’ languages, language policy is indispensable (TAAK*PALE*PAPIA, 2010; 2011) if the dichotomy between home languages and the language of instruction privileged in schools can be addressed. In situations like these, the voice of literacy and language educators plays a pivotal role. Juxtaposed against its historical, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds, an examination of linguistic diversity in St. Lucia provides insight into the ways in which language policy might be enacted in countries whose linguistic 100 contexts mirror that of St. Lucia. By so doing, attention to linguistic diversity in settings such as this country may engender increased attention to the struggle of language learners expected to master literacy skills via a language (i.e., English) they are simultaneously required to learn. Ultimately, successful implementation of language policy in St. Lucia and in the countries of Trinidad and Jamaica will depend to a large degree on the ability of policy makers and researchers to educate the parent and teacher populace, transform their perceptions, and influence nationals of the English-speaking Caribbean of the value held by vernaculars and Creoles for successful literacy instruction in the education system. References Alleyne, M. C. (1961). Language and society in St. Lucia. Caribbean Studies, 1(1), 1-10. Alleyne, M. C. (1985). A linguistic perspective on the Caribbean. In S. W. Mintz & S. Price (Eds.), Caribbean contours (pp. 155–179). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bishop, S. (2010, August 5). Emancipation lectures. The Voice. Retrieved from http://www.thevoiceslu.com/local_news/2010/august/05_08_10/Emancipation.htm. Bousquet, E. (2010, January 12). Direct translation is not always directly correct. The Voice. Retrieved from http://www.thevoiceslu.com/let_and_op/2010/january/12_01_10/Direct_translation_is_n ot_always_directly_correct.htm. Bryan, B., & Burnette, R. (2006). Language variation in Dominica: Perceptions, practice and policies. Caribbean Journal of Education, 28(1), 26-50. Commonwealth of Dominica Education Act 11. Government of Dominica. (1997). Retrieved from 101 http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Dominica/Dominica_1997_Education_Act.pdf. Compton, J. (2010, September 14). Advice to aspiring writers. The Voice. Retrieved from http://www.thevoiceslu.com/let_and_op/2010/september/14_09_10/Advice.htm. Christie, P. (1983). In search of the boundaries of Caribbean Creoles. In L. D. Carrington (Ed.), Studies in Caribbean language (pp. 13-32). University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad: Society for Caribbean Linguistics. Craig, D. R. (1983). Teaching Standard English to nonstandard speakers: Some methodological issues. The Journal of Negro Education, 52(1), 65-74. Devonish, H. (1986). Language and liberation. London, UK: Karia Press. Devonish, H. (2011, April 17). Jamaica Observer. Retrieved from http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/The-emotional-price-of-languagediscrimination-in-Jamaica_8681023. Edwards, V., & Nwenmely, H. (1995). Language, literacy, and world view. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(2), 267-279. Education Statistical Digest. (2001). Property of the Ministry of Education, Human Resource Development, Youth and Sports. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.lc/edigest601.pdf. Education Statistical Digest. (2005). Property of the Ministry of Education, Human Resource Development, Youth and Sports. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.lc/EducationDigest2005.pdf. Ford, E. & St. Juste-Jean, L. (1995). St. Lucian French Creole (Kweyol). Retrieved from http://www.linguistics.siuc.edu/jpclfiles/stlucien.html. Frank, D. B. (1993). Political, religious and economic factors affecting language choice in St. Lucia. The International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 101, 39-56. 102 Frank, D. B. (2007). Sources of St. Lucian Creole vocabulary. Paper presented at the Summer meeting of the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. June 19, 2007, University of Amsterdam SIL International. http://linguafranka.net/saintluciancreole/workpapers/sources_of_vocabulary.pdf Garrett, P. B. (2003). An English Creole that isn’t: On the sociohistorical origins and linguistic classification of the Vernacular English of St. Lucia. In M. Acetoo & J. P. Williams (Eds.), Contact Englishes of the Eastern Caribbean (pp. 155-210). Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins. Hebblethwaite, B. (2012). French and underdevelopment, Haitian Creole and development: Educational language policy problems and solutions in Haiti. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 27(2), 255-302. Imbert, C. (2009, December 12). What is correct local English? Trinidad Express. Retrieved from http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/What_is_correct_local_English_115277329.html. Imbert, C. (2010, October 8). Dialects are real languages, but different. Trinidad Express. Retrieved from http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/Dialects_are_real_languages__but_differe nt-104548699.html. The Jamaica Language Education Policy. (2001). Ministry of Education, Youth and Culture. Retrieved from http://expanding-educational-horizons.com/Literacy/languagepolicy.pdf. 103 JnPierre, K. D. (2009, November 17). The struggle in defense of Kweyol is a struggle in defense of the economy. The Voice. Retrieved from http://www.thevoiceslu.com/let_and_op/2009/november/17_11_09/The_Struggle_in_Def enCe_of_Kweyol_is_a_Struggle_in_Defense_of_the_Economy.htm. Josie, P. (2008, August 16). When school reopen…The Voice. Retrieved from http://www.thevoiceslu.com/let_and_op/2008/august/16_08_08/When_school_reopen.ht m. King, J. (in press). Code-switching in Capetown: Linguistic understanding of teaching dilemmas in multilingual classrooms. Language and Literacy. La Belle, T. & White, P. S. (1980). Education and multi-ethnic integration: An intergroup relations typology. Comparative Education Review, 24(2), 155-173. Language and Language Education Policy. (2010). Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.tt/national_consultation_primaryschool/ROBERTSON%20I%20201 0%20Language%20and%20Language%20Education%20Policy.pdf. Lowenthal, D. (1972). West Indian societies. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Murdoch, A. (2009). A legacy of trauma: Caribbean slavery, race, class, and contemporary identity in Abeng. Research in African Literatures, 40(4), 65-88. Pan American Health Organization. (1998). Retrieved from http://www.paho.org/english/HIA1998/SaintLucia.pdf. Ramcharan-Crowley, P. (1961). Creole culture: Outcast in West Indian schools. The School Review, 69(4), 429-436. Roberts, P. A. (2000). From oral to literate culture: Colonial experience in the English West 104 Indies. Kingston, Jamaica: UWI Press. Siegel, J. (2005). Literacy in pidgin and Creole languages. Current Issues in Language Planning, 6(2), 143-163. Siegel, J. (2010). Bilingual literacy in creole contexts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(4), 383-402. Siegel, J. (2012). Educational approaches for speakers of pidgin and creole languages. In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Harnessing linguistic variation to improve education (pp. 259-292). Oxford: Peter Lang. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2000). Language education and the vernacular speaker: A model for multilingual competence. Paper presented at the thirteenth biennial conference of the Society for Caribbean Linguistics, Mona, Jamaica. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2004). Trends in teaching Standard English varieties to Creole and Vernacular speakers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 187-208. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2006a). Attitudes of teachers to St. Lucian language varieties. Caribbean Journal of Education, 28(1), 51-84. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2006b). Vernacular instruction and bi-literacy development in French Creole speakers. In H. Simmons-McDonald & I. Robertson (Eds.), Exploring the boundaries of Caribbean and Creole languages (pp. 118-146). Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2006c). Exploring the boundaries of Caribbean and Creole languages (6th ed.). Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2010). Introducing French Creole as a language of instruction in education in St. Lucia. In B. Migge, I. Legalise, & A. Bartens (Eds.), Creoles in 105 education: An appraisal of current programs and projects (pp. 183-210). Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins. St. Hilaire, A. (2007). National development and the language planning challenge in St. Lucia, West Indies. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28(6), 519-536. St. Hilaire, A. (2009). Postcolonial identity politics, language and the schools in St. Lucia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(1), 31-46. St. Hilaire, A. (2011). Kweyol in postcolonial Saint Lucia: Globalization, language planning, and national development. Amsterdam: PA: John Benjamins. St. Lucia Education Act No. 41. (1999). Government of St. Lucia. Retrieved from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Saint%20Lucia/Saint%20Lucia%20Education%2 0Act%201999.pdf. Stewart, W. A. (1962). Creole languages in the Caribbean. In F. A. Rice (Ed.), Study of the role of second languages in Asia, Africa and Latin America (34-53). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Sullivan, L. M. (1999). Martinique, Guadeloupe, Dominica & St. Lucia. Edison, NJ: Hunter Publishing Inc. The Voice. (2011). Regional linguists meet at UWI International conference on language rights and policy. Retrieved from http://www.thevoiceslu.com/local_news/2011/january/08_01_11/Regional.htm. Warrican, S. J. (2009). Literacy development and the role of the Eastern Caribbean joint board of teacher education. Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 34(2), 71-85. West Indian Census. (1950). Census of the Windward Islands: Dominica-Grenada-St. Lucia-St. Vincent. Kingston, Jamaica: The Government Printer. 106 Williams, V. & Carter, B. (2005). Arriving at a (self-) diagnosis of the foreign language teaching situation in Trinidad and Tobago. Caribbean Journal of Education, 27, 223-43. Winer, L. (2012). Teaching English to Caribbean English Creole–speaking students in the Caribbean and North America. In S. J. Nero (Eds.), Dialects, Englishes, creoles, and education (pp. 105-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. World Data on Education. (2010/2011). Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/links.htm. CHAPTER SUMMARY In Chapter Two, K-12 literacy research and language policies in the English-speaking Caribbean were discussed (Smith, 2013a; Smith, 2013b). Examination of research, policy, and the experiences of language learners and teachers across the English-speaking Caribbean contexts (e.g., Bogle, 1997; Lacoste, 2007; Simmons-McDonald, 2006a; 2006b; Warrican, 2009; Webster, 2009) has revealed that literacy definitions, though having evolved in keeping with 21st century conceptions of the construct (Castek, Leu, Coiro, Gort, Henry, & Lima, 2007; New London Group, 2000), are not entirely reflected or represented fully within the original studies conducted. Moreover, language policy in the country of St. Lucia, a multilingual society in which three language variations have existed for decades, appears to be absent (Smith, 2013b). Based on investigation into the historical linguistic situation in St. Lucia, the absence of language policy and the impact on literacy instruction cannot be underestimated (Smith, 2013b). Despite international trends indicating the necessity for implementing policy as the basis for literacy instruction, which caters directly to language learners, efforts to enact language policy appear to be clearly structured at the regional level (The Voice, 2011). Yet, at the local level, language learners in St. Lucia continue to receive instruction with undue attention to their linguistic challenges (Simmons-McDonald, 2010), significantly reducing their chances for 107 acquiring much needed literacy skills and often times curtailing the amount of content material covered within subject areas. Through developing an understanding of the literacy research conducted with language learners in the Caribbean region, and through a recognition of the prominent role played by language of instruction in literacy teaching and learning, the necessity for swift and clear decisions concerning language policy in specific English-speaking Caribbean islands is highlighted and the area to be addressed is better construed. Yet, to initiate work around language policy and to engage in empirical research in relation to literacy, teachers and educators and their reflection on practice are of paramount importance (AACTE, 2010; NCATE, 2010; Zeichner, 2007). For such individuals from the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean, as has been revealed, familiarity with and use of multiple language varieties (Smith, 2013a) has historically been accompanied by negative perceptions to non-standard varieties (Siegel, 2005), attitudes that remain pervasive, particularly within academic contexts (Siegel, 2010; 2012). Despite these observations, a growing body of research points to the capacity of multilingual teachers and educators to respond more positively to culturally and linguistically diverse learners (e.g., Ellis, 2004; Garcia, 2008) and in international circles, discussion is on the way concerning the ways in which educators may develop greater cultural and linguistic diversity (e.g., Gay, 2010; 2013; Jessner, 2008). In an era when cultural pluralism is valued as an integral facet of multicultural education (Banks, 2011; 2012; Bennett; 2003; Nieto, 2000; Nieto & Bode, 2011) and during a time when the linguistic diversity of teacher educators has come under scrutiny (e.g., Pang & Park, 2011), mining the experiences of English-speaking multilingual teachers and educators can provide a 108 glimpse into the personal and professional experiences of such individuals with language, thereby providing insight into the ways in which perceptions of difference are responded to and sustained. Specifically, the tendency of English-speaking multilingual Caribbean educators to migrate and to acquire intercultural experiences further provides a rich site in which to delve. Through an understanding of the literacy and linguistic contexts in which such teachers and educators have been socialized, the studies highlighted in Chapter Three represent an attempt to further explore pertinent issues related to the teachers and educators in relation to their linguistic and (inter)cultural experiences as a function of their role as literacy teachers and learners of language themselves. Through exploring these issues, Chapter Three also considers how such teachers and educators also fulfill the goals of multicultural education. References American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (2010). The Clinical Preparation of Teachers: A Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: AACTE. Banks, J. A. (2011). Educating citizens in diverse societies. Intercultural Education, 22(4), 243251. Banks, J. A. (2012). Ethnic studies, citizenship education, and the public good. Intercultural Education, 23(6), 467-473. Bennett, C. (2003). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bogle, M. (1997). Constructing literacy: Cultural practices in classroom encounters. Caribbean Journal of Education, 19(2), 179-190. Castek, J., Leu, D. J., Jr., Coiro, J., Gort, M., Henry, L. A., & Lima, C. (2007). Developing new 109 literacies among multilingual learners in the elementary grades. In L. Parker (Ed.), Technology-mediated learning environments for young English learners: Connections in and out of school (pp. 111-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellis, E. (2004). The invisible multilingual teacher: The contribution of language background to Australian ESL teachers’ professional knowledge and beliefs. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(2), 90-108. Garcia, O. (2008). Multilingual language awareness and teacher education. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd Ed.) (pp. 385–400). New York: Springer. Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 143. Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48-70. doi: 10.1111/curi.12002. Jessner, U. (2008). Multicompetence approaches to language proficiency development in multilingual education. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.) (pp. 91-201). New York: Springer. Lacoste, V. (2007). Modelling the sounds of Standard Jamaican English in Grade 2 classroom. Caribbean Journal of Education, 29, 290–326. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Blue Ribbon Panel Report. (2010, November). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning. Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher 110 education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180-187. Nieto, S. & Bode, P. (2011). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Pearson. The New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-38). South Yarra, Australia: Macmillan. Pang, V. O., & Park, C. D. (2011). Creating interdisciplinary multicultural teacher education: Courageous leadership is crucial. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 63-80). Boston, MA: Rowan and Littlefield. Siegel, J. (2010). Bilingual literacy in creole contexts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(4), 383-402. Siegel, J. (2012). Educational approaches for speakers of pidgin and creole languages. In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Harnessing linguistic variation to improve education (pp. 259-292). Oxford: Peter Lang. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2006a). Attitudes of teachers to St. Lucian language varieties. Caribbean Journal of Education, 28(1), 51-84. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2006b). Vernacular instruction and bi-literacy development in French Creole speakers. In H. Simmons-McDonald & I. Robertson (Eds.), Exploring the boundaries of Caribbean and Creole languages (pp. 118-146). Kingston: University of the West Indies Press. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2010). Introducing French Creole as a language of instruction in education in St. Lucia. In B. Migge, I. Legalise, & A. Bartens (Eds.), Creoles in education: An appraisal of current programs and projects (pp. 183-210). 111 Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins. The Voice. (2011). Regional linguists meet at UWI International conference on language rights and policy. Retrieved from http://www.thevoiceslu.com/local_news/2011/january/08_01_11/Regional.htm. Warrican, J. S. (2009). Literacy development and the role of the Eastern Caribbean joint board of teacher education. Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 34(2), 71-85. Webster, P. S. (2009). Read-alouds in combination with pre- and postreading activities gave students in one rural Jamaican school opportunities to explore informational texts. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 662-671. Zeichner, K. (2007). Professional development schools in a culture of evidence and accountability. School-University Partnerships, 1(1), 9-17. 112 CHAPTER THREE TEACHERS’ AND TEACHER EDUCATORS’ LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY In this chapter, three selected studies represent my emphasis on linguistic and cultural diversity of multilingual teachers and multilingual teacher educators: (i) Exploring the Interstices of Literate, Linguistic, and Cultural Diversity (Smith, 2013c); (ii) Linguistic and Cultural Appropriations of a Multilingual Educator (Smith, 2013d); (iii) Accomplishing the Goals of Multicultural Education: A Transdisciplinary Perspective (Smith, 2013e). In an effort to accomplish the goals of multicultural education, a growing body of literature suggests that multilingual teachers possess the capacity to bridge educational, linguistic, and cultural gaps (Haddix, 2010; Murti, 2002; Safford & Kelly, 2010). In this chapter, I therefore begin by exploring an English-speaking Caribbean multilingual educator’s experiences regarding his linguistic and literate proficiency in academia across a range of academic levels, within a variety of contexts, and in response to various learners. Observing the paths of this educator and the ways in which he had been affected by and responded to linguistic diversity, the question arose as to the measures to be taken in ensuring that teacher educators, while expecting teachers to be more cognizant of K-12 students’ needs, also express in their practice and habits, the predispositions required for embracing diversity, and specifically, linguistic diversity. Given that the emphasis on teacher educators as fundamental to the process is often overlooked, I continue the chapter with an examination of a teacher educator’s (i.e., myself) 113 multilingual and multicultural awareness within the context of practitioner research. During this process, there appeared to be an overall sense that predispositions required to accomplish the goals of multicultural education resulted not only from the knowledge of “differing others,” but also from a capacity to develop ways of being that permeated one’s overall approach to functioning as a person and as a professor in teacher education. As such, the final study, which belongs in this chapter but does not appear here and may be accessed in Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, highlights transdisciplinarity as a tool with which to understand the ways that teachers and teacher educators can develop ways of being, doing, knowing, and learning to live together with others that can redefine notions of viewing of teacher education (Smith, 2013e). Exploring the Interstices of Literate, Linguistic, and Cultural Diversity Author/Correspondent Author: Patriann Smith, M.A. Position: Doctoral Candidate Affiliation: University of South Florida Current Mailing Address: Childhood Education and Literacy Studies (CELS), 4202 East Fowler Ave., EDU 105, Tampa, FL 33620 Telephone number: 813-405-7237 Fax: 813-974-3826 E-mail: psmith4@usf.edu Note: This paper is in progress and will be submitted to Multicultural Perspectives. Abstract In this case study, I examine an English-speaking Caribbean multilingual educator’s response to linguistic diversity through an examination of his linguistic and literate experiences and 114 responses to language learners in various geographical and social contexts. Through in-depth semi-structured topical interviews, I identified three distinct recursive “pathways” representative of the educator’s experiences. These pathways constituted his processes of attitude transformation, strategy use, and identity formation. The findings highlight the need for further exploration of multilingual educators’ linguistic diversity and indicate the necessity for examination of teachers’ responses to language learners in varied multilingual societies. Keywords: multilingual, Caribbean, multicultural, language, linguistic diversity, intercultural Exploring the Interstices of Literate, Linguistic, and Cultural Diversity Globally, the continued growth of ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse populations increasingly requires the introduction of teachers to multicultural pedagogy as they develop a philosophy that embraces diversity (Delpit, 2006; Gay, 2010; Grant & Gibson, 2011; Grant & Wieczorek, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2011; Sleeter & Milner, 2011). While many have questioned the capacity of teachers from certain ethnic or racial orientations to accomplish the goals of multicultural education, others have noted that an educator’s success rests not only in his/her ethnic orientation, but also in his/her predisposition to understand and know his/her students and their culture; be thoroughly familiar with subject matter in the content areas; and be cognizant of his/her professional roles and responsibilities (McAllister & Irvine, 2000; Sleeter & Grant, 1992). While efforts to enable teachers to develop pedagogy relevant to the principles of second-language acquisition and multiculturalism in K-12 and for pre-service teaching pedagogy have been heightened (e.g., Gay, 2010; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzales, 2008; Paris, 2012), less is known about the personal beliefs that diverse educators from particular 115 backgrounds come to hold based on their past linguistic and cultural experiences and their predispositions to the languages and cultures of the diverse students in their care (Lapp, 1997; Lowenstein, 2009; Zeichner, 1999). In the context of the United States, some attention has been given to the need for recruiting teachers whose cultural and linguistic backgrounds differ from those typically found in U.S. schools (Lowenstein, 2009). This emphasis appeared to be based on deficit notions of European-American teachers in US schools, whose cultures and monolingual backgrounds were thought to be insufficient to deal with a growing population of culturally and linguistically diverse students (e.g., Gomez, 1996; Ladson-Billings, 2001). Yet, in pluralistic non-American contexts, such as the United Kingdom, South Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, the situation is reversed. In these regions, culturally and linguistically diverse teachers are the ones primarily responsible for instructing language learners (e.g., Bryan & Burnette, 2006; SimmonsMcDonald, 2006a; Tyson, 2003). To date, little is known of the experiences of educators in such contexts who, though often overlooked, are expected to be responsive to the needs of students from varied backgrounds, but whose share the same cultures with their students. In fact, many operate under the assumption that the familiarity with cultures and language variations of students supposedly privileges these teachers to respond to the instructional needs of learners. In a search for in-depth understanding of the experiences of such teachers, the decision was made to focus on one such teacher – an English-speaking Caribbean multilingual educator – in order to gain insight into his literate and language experiences, both within and beyond the Caribbean, and therefore, across various geographical and social contexts. 116 Cultural, Intercultural, and Linguistic Diversity In the literature on educators’ capacities to develop the dispositions required for culturally responsive teaching, significance has been found in teachers’ personal experiences based on cultural, intercultural, and linguistic features. A review of the research reveals that the examination done in these areas has been undertaken independently. That is, cultural, intercultural, and linguistic characteristics of teachers have been explored in mutually exclusive contexts and therefore, I examine the literature within this predefined categories. In studies geared towards teachers’ cultural experiences, the importance of educators’ historical backgrounds, personal identities, experiences and predispositions to cultural responsiveness (Alviar-Martin & Ho, 2011; Irvine, 2002; Lortie, 1975; Urietta, 2004) was noted. With regards to intercultural experiences, intercultural learning was largely explored through study abroad programs (e.g., Allen & Herron, 2003; Buchanan, Correia, & Bleicher, 2010; Lewis & Stickler, 2000). Further, in the more recent past, intercultural experiences were examined within language learning contexts (see Franson & Gu, 2004; Gobel & Helmke, 2010; Gu, 2005; Holliday, 2001; Nieto, 1999) and as a function of teachers’ personal experiences (e.g., Jokkikoko, 2009). In studies conducted with multilingual teachers and non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs; i.e., typically bilingual or multilingual), much attention has been devoted to teachers in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts. Though studies were found that examined emotions and aspects of multilingualism as experienced by adults (see Ceginskas, 2010; Pavlenko, 2006) and specifically, internationally, in relation to the language identities of diverse multilingual groups (Block, 2008), few studies were identified that explored non-native English educators’ self-perceptions (e.g., Bayyurt, 2006; 117 Butler, 2007; Liu, 2005; Reves and Medgyes, 1994; Samimy & Brutt-Griffler, 1999) based on their experiences as educators. Research in teacher education that has considered linguistic minority pre-service teachers has been more reflective of teachers’ cultures in relation to the academic institutions in which they function (e.g., Guerrero, 2003) and with regards to teachers’ consistent grappling with their individual linguistic predispositions and the ways in which they are expected to function in institutions of learning (e.g., Kornfeld, 1999). More recently, despite this approach, findings from investigations into bilingual Spanish and English speaking teachers’ experiences have disrupted the notion that a dichotomy need exist in the experiences of linguistically diverse teachers (Haddix, 2010; 2012). In the place of the dichotomous experience of a linguistic “other” as typically conceived of in situations where linguistically diverse teachers are in the minority, Haddix (2010) proposes instead a hybridization, one that positions teachers with multilingual capacities to determine the ways in which they choose to enact language use in distinctly diverse settings. Yet, the settings in which teachers such as those observed by Haddix (2010) operate are typically different from those in many English-speaking multilingual countries where teachers and students share the many languages spoken. The English-Speaking Caribbean In the history of the English-speaking Caribbean, teacher attitudes towards language varieties in the Caribbean have consistently inhibited their willingness to provide instruction in language varieties other than Standard English (Bryan & Burnette, 2006; Simmons-McDonald, 2006a). For St. Lucia, one of the English-speaking Caribbean islands, while there is a general acceptance of the St. Lucian French Creole (SLFC) as a symbol of national identity, teachers are not as accepting of this language variety for instruction in the classroom. The historical 118 background of St. Lucian French Creole and its association with inferiority provide insight into the basis for such preconceived notions towards language variations (St. Hilaire, 2007; 2011). And in Dominica, the English-speaking Caribbean country from which my study participant in this research originates, similar notions abound (Bryan & Burnette, 2006). The multilingual situation in Dominica is such that four linguistic varieties are present: Dominican Creolized English (DCE), Dominican Standard English (DSE), Dominican Kokoy, and Dominican French Creole (DFC; Bryan & Burnette, 2006). In spite of the various nations (e.g., St. Lucia, Dominica, Trinidad) gaining independence between the periods 1962-1979 (Poddar & Johnson, 2005), English-speaking Caribbean educators continue to be socialized into preferential acceptance of Standard English (SE) for the power that it holds globally (e.g., De Swaan, 2001; Kamwendo, 2006; St. Hilaire, 2007). Moreover, negative attitudes towards native languages remain perpetuated by many individuals, specifically in situations where Creole is introduced into the education system or in formal settings. This mirrors the situation in other countries such that “even when P/Cs [Pidgins/Creoles] are recognized as legitimate languages, some educators, administrators and even linguists still argue that using them in education would be both impractical and detrimental to students” (Siegel, 2005, p. 146). The issue is further exacerbated by the significant number of parents who continue to be opposed to integration of Creoles and vernaculars in schools (Youssef, 2002). In this case study, I mine the experiences of an English-speaking Caribbean multilingual educator who grew up and taught within a Caribbean society where students and teachers shared multiple languages of use. Having taught language learners in the Caribbean, possessing a pluralistic cultural and linguistic background, and having navigated various geographical and 119 social contexts, this educator’s description of his literate and linguistic and literate experiences served as a way in which to longitudinally and holistically understand linguistic diversity. Research Questions The following questions served as the basis for the inquiry: 1) In what ways does the multilingual educator describe his language and literate experiences in the Caribbean? 2) In what ways does the multilingual educator describe his responses to language learners in the Caribbean? 3) In what ways does the multilingual educator describe his language and literate experiences beyond the Caribbean? 4) In what ways does the multilingual educator describe his responses to learners beyond the Caribbean? 5) In what ways does the multilingual educator describe his responses to linguistic and literate expectations beyond the Caribbean? For the purpose of this inquiry, the following are operational definitions of the terms utilized throughout this paper: English-Speaking: In the Caribbean region, a variety of languages are spoken. For certain countries colonized by the British, English became the official language. In this study, the Caribbean region referred to is comprised of countries in which the official language is English. The term English-speaking is therefore used to denote these countries, whose official languages are English. The term English-speaking is also used to describe individuals from countries such as those from which Juan (the study participant) originates (i.e., Dominica is English as a result of his country’s colonialization by Britain, in spite of his use of other native language varieties). 120 Multilingual Educator: Based on Jessner’s (2008) definition of multilingual proficiency as the complex interaction among various psycholinguistic systems, crosslinguistic interaction and multilingualism, the term multilingual educator in this study will refer to a teacher within the K12 education system who has a command of at least three linguistic systems, with equal and/or varying proficiency. Methods I used a case study in order to delve into an understanding of the educator’s experiences within varying societies. Stake (2000) asserts a case is “…anything that can be defined as a specific unique bounded system” (cited in Patton, 2002, p. 447). In this instance, the educator’s lived experience understood within the context of the multicultural societies in which he had operated functioned as the case. Participant and Setting Purposeful sampling (Merriam, 2009) informed my identification of the participant for this inquiry. Purposeful sampling has been noted for its ability to provide “information-rich cases for in-depth study,” information-rich cases being those in which the researcher is able to gather substantial amounts of information concerning the topical issue (Patton, 2002, p. 230). As LeCompte and Preissle (1993) note, in this type of sampling, the researcher “create[s] a list of the attributes essential” to the study and subsequently “proceed[s] to find or locate a unit matching the list” (p. 70). Using these sampling approaches, Juan was selected for the case based on the following prerequisites: (a) his teaching experience in a multilingual context in one of the Caribbean islands; (b) his immersion into at least three linguistically diverse backgrounds within and outside of the United States (i.e., Oklahoma, Texas, Miami, London, St. Thomas, United States 121 Virgin Islands); (c) his facility with four languages (i.e., Dominican Standard English, Dominican French Creole, Dominican Kokoy, Dominican Creolized English); and (d) his capacity as a natural and powerful reflecting agent willing to divulge information concerning his lived experiences with language within and outside of varied academic and social contexts. In this instance, Juan’s rich cultural background and experience in the Caribbean, knowledge of multiple languages, life and work in multiple societies, and demonstrated capacity to reflect intensely on his past served as key elements for the decision to explore one instance as the case. Maxwell (2013) supports decisions made by qualitative researchers for sampling, providing that a substantive rationale is provided for the decisions made in this regard. As has been previously noted in qualitative research, the use of a case results in limited generalizability. However, in this inquiry, the opening up of this English-speaking Caribbean multilingual educator’s life allows other educators from non-multilingual backgrounds to enter his personal cultural and social world, thereby understanding the lenses through which he views his linguistic experience. The pseudonym Juan was assigned to the study participant in order to protect his identity. Data Collection Interviews. Interviews served as the basic form of data collection. I chose to conduct interviews because obtaining firsthand information from the participant in a study of this nature was best accomplished by allowing Juan to individually respond to guided questions. As Merriam (2009) noted, “the main purpose of an interview is to obtain a special kind of information” (p. 88) and this is the information “in and on someone else’s mind” (Patton, 2002, p. 341). I followed the guidelines indicated in Merriam (2009) for constructing interview questions based on experience and behavior, opinion and values, feeling, knowledge, sensory 122 and background (pp. 96-99). I avoided asking “leading” and “why” questions, as advised by Merriam (2009), but utilized open-ended, and in most cases, interpretive questions. As such, the semi-structured in-depth interview proved to be an effective method for obtaining data from Juan in relation to his past experiences with language in multiple contexts (Seidman, 2006). A copy of Interview Protocols A and B may be referenced in Appendix B. Researcher Reflective Journal. In addition to interviews, the researcher reflective journal served as a secondary medium for data in this research study and was integral to interpretation and analysis of data. Janesick (2004) emphasized the role of the reflective journal in refining the researcher as a “research instrument” (p. 95), enabling him/her to “discover and articulate their own theories about their research practices”, “refine ideas, beliefs and responses to the research in progress,” and “offer the qualitative researcher yet another opportunity for triangulation of data sets at multiple levels” (p. 143). I therefore made an attempt to fulfill these purposes with the researcher reflective journal that I kept during this study. Researcher as Instrument As is common to any other undertaking of qualitative research, this study was primarily informed by the researcher as instrument (Maxwell, 2013). I engaged in examination of Juan’s practices based on the point of reference from which I operated – as both a Caribbean national and literacy educator. I therefore brought to the research my pre-existing notions of what it meant to be a Caribbean multilingual literacy educator, as well as my past experiences teaching literacy and numerous other content areas across international contexts, and therefore the ways in which I had used language in these instances. These characteristics were brought to bear on the topic chosen for examination as well as the location from which the educator was chosen, Dominica, a country in the English-speaking Caribbean. 123 As a researcher familiar with the English-speaking Caribbean and whose emphasis is Curriculum and Instruction in Literacy, I engaged in this review from my vantage point as a citizen of a Caribbean country and with clear opinions about the literacy practices in this and other Caribbean countries. However, in acknowledging my biases and experiences, I attempted to also look critically at the practices in which I engaged. I did not separate myself from them; rather, I viewed them anew and through the lens of scholarship. Being a Caribbean national who had resided in the region, a researcher in literacy studies conducted from a global perspective, and a resident of and traveler to other countries of the English-speaking Caribbean (e.g., Trinidad and Barbados), I brought multiple perspectives to the process of inquiry. As the only researcher, I thought it necessary to identify such factors, which informed the lenses through which I conceived of the multilingual study participant and the messages he conveyed. This process required me to develop the art of “hearing data” (Rubin & Rubin, 2005), listening “to hear the meaning” conveyed by the interviewee (p. 13). Through conducting the interviews, I began to “hear” meaning, especially in situations where the “conversational partner”(i.e., the interviewee) (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 10) felt strongly about his views. I also “heard” what Juan was saying when he omitted certain pieces of information, and it was this hearing that allowed me to revisit certain topics and probe further. I attended to his subtle nuances of expression, pitch, and intonation. I took note of responses where he elaborated extensively in order to ensure he had gotten the point of his message across. And so, with ear attuned to every sentence, I also “heard” what Juan did not say. I found myself rearranging the questions on my interview sheet as I conducted the interview, to align with our particular discussions in certain instances. Rubin and Rubin (2005) support this process when they state that “to get to [this] level of detail, depth, and focus, 124 researchers work out main questions, probes and follow-ups” as well as “listen for and then explore key words, ideas, and themes using follow-up questions” as a means of encouraging the conversational partner to provide more information about what has been said and what the researcher believes is relevant to the research. Procedures Upon determining that I could proceed with the study (see Figure 1.7), I contacted Juan concerning our previous discussions about his interest as a study participant. I allowed Juan a period of one week to decide whether he would like to sign the consent form required for participation. When he had signed and electronically returned the consent form, I forwarded him a copy of Interview Protocol A for perusal and to allow him to become acquainted with the questions in the protocol. I then arranged for the first interview to be conducted in his office one week later. In the first semi-structured in-depth topical interview (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002; Rubin & Rubin, 2005), which took place face-to-face On March 10, 2011, after introducing myself briefly, because I had spoken to Juan previously, I initially directed my attention to questions involving the his experiences with language forms within the education system in his home country and then transitioned into his experience with varying language forms in territories other than his own (see Interview Protocol A in Appendix B). This interview lasted approximately one hour, during which I video-taped and audio-taped the interview. Subsequently, I transcribed the entire recording. Having gathered information on certain broad dimensions of Juan’s language experience both within his home country and abroad, I reviewed the transcript and prepared ten follow-up questions, which constituted the second in-depth semi-structured interview (see Interview Protocol B in Appendix B). Throughout this time, I kept a record of my process in the researcher 125 reflective journal based on my reflections about various observations of the study participant as well as patterns observed in the data collection process. This facilitated my ability to formulate pertinent questions for this interview. I contacted Juan approximately five weeks after we had completed the first interview to arrange for the second interview to be conducted. At this time, I forwarded Juan a copy of Interview Protocol B to allow him the preparatory time needed for the second interview. On April 23, 2011, I conducted the second semi-structured in-depth interview with Juan via a speaker-phone and audio-taped the conversation. Within this interview, I probed for more indepth information concerning concepts of language and identity identified in Juan’s previous responses, perceived expectations of him based on the territories to which he had migrated, and ways in which he negotiated challenges encountered (see Interview Protocol B in Appendix B). This interview lasted approximately one hour. I completed the same procedures I had used for the first interview, ensuring that Juan completed the member checking process (Merriam, 2009) and electronically transcribed the recorded data. Credibility and Trustworthiness To contribute to the credibility and trustworthiness of the study, I employed three measures. First, I ensured that the underlying assumptions undergirding the dissertation were aligned with the approaches deployed in this study. Throughout the course of the study, I revisited the theoretical perspectives and epistemological perspectives that informed my views of the world (Merriam, 2009). In many ways, this re-visitation guided my decisions concerning the study. Secondly, I conducted two rounds of member checking to ensure Juan’s validation of the material contained within the inquiry (Merriam, 2009). The first round of member-checks occurred upon completion of initial transcription of the interviews. The second round was 126 implemented after the manuscript had been written and the excerpts from our conversation identified. In returning the final manuscript after review, and having received the impression that he was an active participant in the research, “not bound, static, atemporal, and decontextualized” (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007, p. 11), Juan felt comfortable enough to question my use of the word “dismissive” within an interpretation. True to the inquiry and to my integrity as a researcher, I indicated I would remove the word and I did. Thirdly, credibility was established was through the use of “thick” and “rich description” through which Juan’s voice as participant emerged and contributed to external validity, which in turn, increases the capacity for transferring the findings to similar individuals and contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Analysis I employed narrative analysis in this study because in many ways the recounting of the educator functioned as “story.” According to Frank (2002), “narrative analysis begins with an attitude toward stories” (p. 113). Further, to engage in narrative analysis requires “all possible humility when asking what it can bring to stories” (Frank, 2002, p. 114). Understood as “research as participating in storytelling,” the process of narrative analysis “has the potential to model how members of society can most usefully recognize each other’s stories” (Frank, 2002, p. 116). A two-pronged approach may be applied to narrative analysis. In this process, analysis may take the form of either narrative representation (Clandinin, Pushor, & Orr, 2007) or thematic analysis via the “three dimensional space approach” (Ollerenshaw & Creswell, 2002, p. 339). Narrative representation involves the unification of the data collected in the form or shape of a narrative (Clandinin, 2007). This narrative may take the form of explanation, narrative 127 representation, or performance of a phenomenon. In this study, explanation was used as a form of narrative representation, as will be observed in the subsequent narration of findings. In conjunction with narrative representation, thematic analysis was used. Using the guidelines for the “three dimensional space approach” as proposed by Ollerenshaw and Creswell (2002), I developed a space through which I envisioned the interaction, continuity, and situation around Juan’s story. As I engaged in the space of interaction, I focused on Juan’s personal and social interaction. Similarly, my emphasis on Juan’s story was explored by examining the information presented in relation to his past, present, and future. In the final step, as I navigated the situation/place around Juan’s story, I examined the “context, time, and place” within which he described his experiences (Ollerenshaw & Creswell, 2002). During this process of analysis, I noticed that the research questions originally proposed delved more closely into the personal experiences of the participant. I therefore revisited and subsequently modified the questions to capture the experiences of the participant with language across cultural contexts. Support for this modification emanated from Clandinin and Connelly (2000), who highlighted the critical nature of flexibility to narrative analysis, allowing narrative researchers to change their research questions as the inquiry progresses. I struggled as I debated how to organize, reorganize, and represent the information I had deemed significant. Rodriguez (2002) indicated that narratives “find life and prosperity” through interpretation and that “compelling narratives stretch us, and in doing so, make us open to new and different interpretations of the world” (p. 4-5). As such, I examined and reexamined relationships among categories, and through initial interpretation, drew upon my creativity, part of which facilitated my development of graphic models to represent existing themes and story the participant’s experiences based on the spaces in which they had been examined. Cognizant of 128 the risk for ‘essentialization’ through the subtle implication that all Caribbean nationals or Dominicans supposedly experience and will report similar experiences as Juan did, I took precautions to avoid generalizations in my inferences and interpretations. Juan’s Initial Responses – Getting to Know the Participant In this study, I set out to explore Juan’s literate and language experiences use across multiple contexts. The goal was to mine Juan’s personal experiences to determine the influence he believed they had had on his literate and language use. In Juan’s initial conversation with me, I was reminded of his Dominican nationality. He began his teaching career at the Dominica Grammar School and then moved on to St. Mary’s Academy and Clifton Dupigny Community College in Dominica. Following this period, Juan migrated to London, where he lived for a period of six months. Subsequently, Juan migrated to the United States, where he pursued his undergraduate and graduate degrees while also employed as a tutor and otherwise in multiple cities within the states of Oklahoma, Texas, and Miami over a period of six years. Overall, Juan possesses competence in four language varieties: Dominican Standard English (DSE), Dominican French Creole (DFC), Dominican Kweyol, and Dominican Kokoy. Throughout his lifetime, Juan has used all forms of the language varieties for different purposes and in different contexts. As we began exploring Juan’s experiences, he explained how he had gotten into the teaching profession: Growing up, I was an A student in all my work. What they did is they would teach at the high school and then they would go on high school and then go on to community college. Once you had that community college education, you would come back and teach at high 129 school level and these very bright individuals, they were my role models so I decided to follow in their footsteps. Juan also explained how he came to work as a teacher. For example, Juan described how was chosen for his first teaching position: My unique ability in computers, I’m very good at computers, and I was one of the better students at that school when I went there in computer programming, so I was one of the top three students in computer programming so they brought me in to share that knowledge with the students. Juan told me about his motivation for becoming an Information Technology expert: I got into computers to pretty much make money, so that I wouldn’t depend on my income as a teacher, so I got into computers to pretty much make money. Juan also spoke of his experiences with students in the education system, his use of language with students in and out of the classroom, his language use in his native homeland and his current language use. As Juan relayed information about his use of language, he paused momentarily several times, indicating a sense of thorough self-reflection. He shared with me a deeper understanding of the processes underlying his initial responses in relation to language and culturally related phenomena, experiences to which I could relate because of my background. For example, speaking of his work here in the United States, Juan explained, “On the job, I use English because most people don’t speak Creole. Actually nobody on the job actually speaks Creole except me.” I immediately identified with Juan. I too had done the same since my arrival in the United States. It was therefore intriguing as Juan shared more about how he got into the habit of speaking Creole with his friends: 130 Well, I would use language at home by speaking to my friends from back home or St. Lucia or Haiti that actually speak the same language because to be able to speak a foreign language here, it’s really good. One of the ways I actually realized that is when I went to London back in 2001. You would go on this bus, their double-deckers, and London is like a melting, a real melting pot, similar to New York, and kind of like Miami, and you’d have everybody speaking a different language – people from the Middle East, people from Asia, people from all over would use language to identify themselves to each other. I actually got in that habit of doing the same thing – speaking Creole to my friends as part of like, that’s our thing, yes …! Juan’s face lit up as he spoke. I could see this meant a lot to him, being able to use Creole as a “thing.” I listened as Juan described similarities between teaching and his work in information technology, and the impact his professors had on his language growth. For instance, Juan spoke of his future professorial role: I’m excited about it. Again, I don’t know. Some of my role models are the teachers that come to class with their tweed jackets and their coffee mug so I see myself being a professor like that when I’m probably close to retirement age. Ideally, it’s the only thing I really think about when I turn to be about fifty years old. As I thought of Juan’s goals to become a professor, I reviewed the experiences he had related, the many areas of his work, home, and social life. I remembered too the situations where he appeared to become more passionate, and noticed at these points, he spoke in great detail. Juan’s passionate relieving of his experiences in many instances reminded me of my past. I too 131 had taught in the Caribbean prior to embarking on studies in the United States, valued academic excellence, and had undergone much dissonance with language use upon my stay in countries different from my own. These common experiences provided a common ground to which Juan could relate, and for me, I found it easier to understand Juan’s experiences. Juan’s Pathways For this inquiry, Juan and I decided that our conversation would be based on his literate and language experiences throughout his personal and professional life, his attitude towards language diversity, his responses to differing linguistic expectations in the various areas he had lived and the ways in which his experiences invoked a sense of meaning, feeling, and understanding based on similarities in our experiences. Given that Juan responded to several questions from two interview protocols designed to capture the characteristics of the questions above, data analysis resulted in narrative accounts based on the spaces in which Juan’s conversations with me were interpreted. I refer to these separate but interrelated accounts more precisely as “paths”. The notion of “paths” was used because pathways more accurately described Juan’s quest to respond to the challenges faced with linguistic differences in particularly different contexts at various stages of his life and across multiple contexts and to make sense of what he had experienced. The three recursive pathways observed were (a) attitude transformation, (b) strategy use, and (b) identity formation. A graphical account of these pathways is illustrated in Figure 1.2 below. As shown in Figure 1.2, attitude transformation constituted a subset of both strategy use and identity formation, but accounted for more of Juan’s strategy use than it did for his identity formation. 132 Path 3: Ide Identity Formati Formation Path 2: St Strategy Use Path 1: At Attitude Transform Transformation • School • Home • Job • Friends • Adjusting • Language • Speech • Shunning • Reflecting • Accepting Figure 1.2: Inter terdependence of Processes in Language Juan’s change in attitudee ffundamentally defined his strategy use and ident entity formation. Operating along a defined continu tinuum from shunning to accepting behaviors (see ee Path 1, Figure 1.2), attitude transformation was as observed as parallel to strategy use and identity ity formation (see Paths 1 and 2, Figure 1.2). In othe ther words, as the path of attitude transformation n was w defined and experienced, so were the other pa paths. Strategy use as a pathway existed in a paral rallel relationship to attitude transformation and ide identity formation, but also involved the former and an informed the latter. As Juan’s attitude and use se of strategies underwent changes within their relative rela pathways, his identity developed from thee im impact of these components, but also maintained ed its own defined recursive path. With the negotiation andd rrenegotiation of his identities, Juan was able to successfully s navigate the societal contexts inn w which he was immersed. Notably, although these ese pathways operated recursively within their ir various spheres and each was seen to be distinc nct from the other, the pathways were nonetheless pa parallel in nature, implying simultaneous occurren rrence, while at the 133 same time maintaining interdepen pendence in the process of defining Juan’s overall all linguistic and literate path. I now provide a representa ntative account of the findings within the areas of attitude transformation, strategy use, and nd identity formation. Path One: Transformation in nA Attitude to Language “Telling someone don’t spe speak a certain language is like pretty much shunni nning them…” I first captured Juan’s dyn ynamic change in attitude towards language diver ersity as he progressed through multiple socie cieties in his language use (see Figure 1.3). •Childhood/Adulthood •Home/United States •Work/Home Reflecting •Negative Responses •Success at work •Migration •Education Shunning •Language Language Diversity Divers •Attaching Attaching Value •Adjusting Adjusting Language Langua •Developing Developing Tolerance Tolera Accepting Figure 1.3:: Transformation in Attitude to Language Juan demonstrated an ove verall transition in his responses to language over er the years, which began with the shunning of native tive languages from his homeland, continued with th reflection on his shunning practices based on varie ried experiences, and eventually resulted in his adoption ad of a new practice of acceptance of languag ages different from Standard English. 134 Speaking of his childhood situation, Juan explained that back then, he did not see the use of Creole as an option. A more detailed account of Juan’s shunning process can be seen in the following statement: Well, one of the things about language, when I grew up, we were taught that speaking Creole was bad in the sense that it wasn’t English and there was a big emphasis on speaking proper English to fit into society and to look and feel a certain way, in terms of the social standards. Anybody that spoke Creole was looked upon as being uneducated. As Juan continued along his teaching career in the Caribbean, his shunning of native varieties continued (see Figure 1.3). Even when he became an adult and began his teaching career, Juan maintained: In the Caribbean when I taught, if one did not have a good command of the English language, one was seen to be stupid or more or less as an idiot, so you would not gain any respect. So I mean a lot of students, if they spoke a lot of Creole and they could not speak English properly, or to even make it worse, if they combined Creole and English, they would be looked down upon, so it was very important to be able to speak English properly. Juan explained that he internalized the negativity ascribed to dialects and to Creole as a result of his socialization practices in the Caribbean and he therefore required students’ literate representations to mirror the Standard English that he believed they should know. As a teacher, he saw no place in his instruction for the use of the native languages and therefore shunned them. When Juan emigrated from Dominica to the United States, despite his use of Standard English, he was taken aback by the negative responses to his accent. In that moment, he was 135 forced to engage in reflection on his negative attitude to the language varieties encountered in his home country (see Figure 1.3). Speaking of the United States, he noted: Even from my personal experience, the fact that I spoke English with an accent, individuals who met me that weren’t necessarily exposed to someone with an accent reacted strangely. I realized that right away, I was being, I was stereotyped because I don’t speak English right. And somehow this could mean that I was not so smart. And that’s not true. It was then I realized that for so long, we did that to people back home and that was unfair. So simply being exposed and coming over here I was able to realize hey, wow, this is what I would do. This is me. Hearing that person criticize how I’m speaking, this is what I did. When I heard someone speak Creole, I used to automatically assume that they were not intelligent. And that’s very, very bad. Based on notes in my researcher reflective journal, it was evident that Juan seemed saddened by the way in which he had handled the situation. He related the previous response, haltingly, thoughtfully, as one who had been awakened to the truth and was relieved that he had found and could share his enlightenment. Juan’s reflection was also affected by his efforts to succeed at work. In relating his experiences in that context, he referred to individuals’ responses to his accent on the job when he worked in a part-time job as a computer technician via telephone. He spoke of how he immediately received negative responses from individuals who believed he had an Indian accent because he did not speak like an “American.” He spoke of his success at work being jeopardized because his paycheck depended upon his ability to speak “successfully.” As he states, “the assumption was that you were in India and the person automatically started having a negative 136 tone. Once they made that assumption, it was kind of challenging to communicate with them effectively.” He explained how this forced him to reflect as follows: So after a while, I did end up thinking these people probably don’t have a problem. I’m the one who probably has the problem because I am the one that needs to fit in. I am the one that needs the job so once I did that [spoke a little bit slower] it was more or less ok. Juan’s educational growth and immersion into the culture of the United States facilitated his reflection. When asked about the experience that caused a turning point in his perspective towards language use, he acknowledged: I would like to say coming into this country, actually because in this country you are encouraged to be who you are. To be educated in a place that’s diverse, that exposes you to more acceptance, not just from language, but from people as a whole, because you live in a really free society here where people are allowed to have their opinions, being exposed to a culture like this. Juan’s capacity to reflect constituted a positive response to his shunning phase (see Figure 1.3). In this evolution, he developed the ability to accept language diversity, something that initially posed a challenge to him. Juan’s acceptance was evident in his ability to (a) value his use of Creole with his friends in the United States, (b) adjust his language use when speaking to his parents and grandparents in Dominica by speaking to them in Creole in spite of his previous misgivings about them thinking he was uneducated, and (c) tolerate his colleagues’ use of their native languages on the job in spite of the fact that they were unintelligible to him. An example of Juan’s ability to adjust his language use with family as a result of his acceptance is indicated below: Growing up, I probably would have spoken more Standard English so that they 137 would have looked upon me as someone that was intelligent but as I got older, I realized I should meet them at their level, where they’re at, because you don’t want to be too different. You want to be able to identify with them by speaking the same, like joking around and making jokes, but doing this in Creole, the language they are comfortable with. Path Two: Strategies for Dealing with Differences in Language “It wasn’t even the fact that I didn’t speak English properly, I just spoke it with an accent…” I identified several distinct strategies (see Table 1.2) employed by the Caribbean teacher as he navigated various geographical and social contexts and attempted to deal with individuals’ expectations of him with regards to language (see Table 1.2). The strategies outlined beneath the major headings “Adjusting Language” and “Adjusting Speech” in this table are indicative of the high-level processing this Caribbean educator was required to undergo throughout his everyday use of language while operating within a society that was different from his own. Juan’s capacity to (a) manage matters of audience, context, and content preservation; (b) maintain separation of home and work issues, as well as (c) modify his speaking rate, volume, and intonation were all strategies central to his attempts to address how he responded to the literate and linguistic requirements imposed upon him and how others reacted to a language perceived as “different.” As a child, Juan noted: I probably would have spoken more Standard English so that they [his parents] would have looked upon me as someone that’s intelligent. As an adult, Juan explained: 138 When I grew up, we were taught that speaking Creole was bad in the sense that it wasn’t English and there was a big emphasis on speaking proper English to fit into society. From this excerpt, it can be seen that even in Juan’s childhood, the adjustment process had begun. In much the same way, as a teacher, Juan was also required to speak Standard English at school, to which he complied. As an IT expert in the Caribbean as well as the United States, it became necessary to speak Standard English at his part-time job. When asked how he felt about this, he stated: It’s one of those things, it’s a situation where I picture it as something where I did what I had to do. Here, it appears that Juan’s increased understanding about the need for employing Standard English in the workplace caused him to achieve a certain level of automaticity with this language form. In certain capacities, Juan’s Standard English had to be further modified in relation to rate and volume (see Table 1.2). In essence, Juan was not only constantly being required to relinquish the use of his native Creole throughout his life in countries other than his home, but he was also being expected to modify his use of standard language, English, based on the reactions of others novel settings. Yet, Juan managed to assess situations and determine when he could afford to “fall back” on his use of Creole, and this, only because of his transformed attitude towards Creole and speakers of the language. This was especially true of his experience living in a society totally different from the one in which he was raised. Quite noticeably, the dissonance created by his language use with others failed to restrain Juan from traversing the path of academic or 139 professional success. Rather, his ability to recursively adjust language and speech from childhood to adulthood in spite of transitions, as well as challenges within and across societies and contexts in which he was immersed, proved to be fundamental to his identity formation. Path Three: Identity Formation “A language identifies who you are and if you lose that identification, if you lose that identity where you cannot speak something that your parents spoke, your grandparents spoke, I believe that’s it, that’s a part of you lost.” In Juan’s responses, he spoke incessantly of language as synonymous to identity. As such, it was necessary to examine his accounts and how they facilitated the identity formation process. Juan’s ability to develop and maintain identities defined by language occurred along a recursive path in which he continually consolidated his use of each language varieties in novel circumstances to determine the extent to which a language variation would enable him to thrive “successfully” in a given context. In Juan’s responses, the use of Dominican French Creole, which had finally become a validated measure of his identity as an adult, had not always functioned in this position. Prior to his arrival in the United States, Juan adhered to the social requirements placed on his use of language and initially linked language to an inferior identity based on his socialization process. As he noted: I’ve seen language affect an individual’s identity. I see language as part of who you are and the way you speak reveals a lot about you. When I grew up, in terms of the social standards, anybody that spoke Creole was looked upon as being uneducated. Growing older, maturing, and becoming an intellectual, and educating myself, I realize that in language, it’s much deeper than that. 140 Table 1.2: Summary of Processes Involved in Strategy Use Quote from Transcript Sometimes you hear an expression and someone asks you to translate it and you would find it funny in French or Spanish but when you translate it in English, it’s like, it’s not the same. Certain jokes just sound so much funnier in Creole. One of the things about the use of the language is more, I believe it’s more when you are using language, you just have to know who your audience is and if you have an audience that can identify with Creole, then you can speak to them in Creole, and if you have an audience that identifies with perfect English then you speak proper English. So my use of Creole at home will continue but, if I’m in a setting where I’m required to speak proper English, I will do it also. When I speak it doesn’t matter necessarily where I am, more of it matters who I’m speaking to, so if I’m speaking to someone like you from the Caribbean, I would get into my comfort zone and I would speak like we speak back home, which is relatively quickly and with me also as I said, at an earlier stage of this interview, growing up I spoke with a lisp, so even back home it was difficult for individuals to understand me and so what I tend to do to be understood is I tend to speak loudly and if I’m speaking to someone that’s not from the Caribbean, I tend to slow down especially in Texas and Oklahoma. I try to ensure I am understood. I try to speak Standard English at all times because if you listen to someone speak, and they are speaking Standard English, it might sound different but I believe that the individual, the other person will understand what you’re saying as long as you speak Standard English and you try to meet them halfway. So if they speak quickly, you can try to speed up and if they speak slowly, you can try to slow down. To a child, back home it’s different because that child has to grow up in society and that child has to face that issue that hey, if you don’t have a good command of the English language, then you’re going to be looked upon as someone that’s not too intelligent right, and then right away that child is being set up for failure, so I would speak to that child in proper English as much as I can but as an adult, my parents, my grandparents, I would speak to them as to how they speak. There’s certain things that just can’t be translated in English and sometimes you really want to speak, especially in the work environment, and if I’m talking to a friend of mine and I don’t necessarily want my coworkers to understand what I’m talking about, you want to have a separation between work and home, you don’t necessarily want your coworkers to know what’s going on at your home or when you hang out with your friends, right, so you speak in that language. So I guess for the most part, sometimes I do use Creole so that other people won’t understand me. Adjusting Language Adjusting Speech Using Creole to convey certain desired content thereby retaining the intended meaning of that content. Determining whether to use Creole or Standard English based on context and audience. If the audience requires SE, he used SE. If Creole, then he used Creole. Speaking loudly and slowing down to individuals in Texas and Oklahoma who had difficulty understanding what he said. Using Standard English in the United States to convey information in spite of his accent as a standard pattern to communicate with Americans. Changing from Creole to Standard English when speaking to children in his hometown because he believed it would help them succeed in the world. Choosing to speak Creole/broken English to his parents/grandparents to maintain comfort levels. Switching languages to preserve content communicated and to distinguish between life at home and life at work. Matching speech patterns to that of individual to ensure successful communication. 141 It is evident that the reflection that took place within Juan’s attitude transformation process directly impacted his understanding of the relationship between his language use and identity. The Caribbean educator’s immersion into the new society greatly impacted his view of language use as a factor that defined his identity. When asked about the most defining moment influencing him to value his native tongue, Juan identified his migration to the United States as the critical factor. He aptly described the focus on identity formation in a country other than one’s home when he stated: To a certain extent, back home you identify with everyone by default. You live there, you look like them, you speak like them. Everybody is everybody. But when you leave the country and you come here [United States] and it’s kind of almost totally different to what you’re used to, then you actually start trying to find yourself, trying find your niche, trying to say, ok, this group is the kind of people who identify with me. This is how we dress, this is how we hang out, this is how we socialize, so identity becomes technically more of an issue when you’re not around people that speak like you. Juan’s identity formation through language did not only take place on a personal level, but also extended into the various contexts he traversed. In his social relations with his friends, he viewed language as a central solidifying element of his friendships. For example, he explained: What ended up happening was when you got over here and you realized that you had to speak a particular way to fit into society, what we would do is that when we get together, or when we got to speaking on the telephone, we would speak as much as possible like we did back home; we would speak Creole. 142 Juan went on to state that in the United States where there was a high level of diversity such as Miami, New York, and London, all areas in which he had lived, “if you didn’t have a native tongue, you actually felt like an outcast because everybody would be speaking in a different language except you.” Not only did Juan use language as a mark of identity with his friends, but he also viewed it as critical if he was to function with his parents/grandparents in a communicative relationship where they shared mutual identities in spite of the fact that they continued to live in the Caribbean while he resided in the United States. In other words, Juan viewed the use of the native tongue as a mediator through which he and his family could share a bond uninhibited by the constraints of imposing his standardized use of language on them. He captured the essence of such a relationship when he elaborated: Language is part of your identity. Language is part of who you are, and to be comfortable with who you are, to be comfortable with your identity, it’s always good for someone to meet you at your level, and not necessarily try to change you or talk to you in a different way. When they do that it could be looked upon as looking down on you. For example, back home, my parents don’t speak Standard English, and my grandparents, my grandfather, he didn’t speak English at all. He is deceased right now. If I go on the telephone with my grandma, my mom, I would speak in a language that they are more comfortable with, even if I know how to speak Standard English. I would want to be on their level so that they can be comfortable in their own skin. As has been seen, after Juan developed the notion that his Creole could be used to define his identity, he also had different purposes for employing its use in various facets of his life. 143 With his friends, it was “another way to differentiate or have our own little niche going,” while with his family back in his homeland, it was the key to prevent the dreaded occurrence of “not identifying with them anymore.” In other words, Juan realized he could strategically maintain his use of Creole to prevent himself from being alienated from his family by relying on it in his discourse with them. Juan’s formation of identity on the job was not an area to which he alluded directly. Even when asked to reflect on his feelings about having to use Standard English as opposed to being able to use one of his native languages in the workplace within the United States, Juan provided the simple explanation that he did it because it was required. In spite of Juan’s silence in this regard, Juan did state that if it was necessary, he would rely on his native languages. For example, he explained: If I have anything derogatory to say, I feel like if I don’t offend anybody, I can say it in a language nobody understands. Based on this minor detail, as well as Juan’s previous responses concerning his experiences throughout his career as an educator and in his professional relations concerning IT, it was evident that Standard English was the required language and therefore, Juan’s job identity was affected by his required use of this language. Juan’s ability to develop and maintain identities defined by language occurred along a recursive path in which he continually consolidated his use of each language variation in novel circumstances to determine the extent to which a language variation would enable him to thrive “successfully” in a particular context. Based on his comfort levels with Creole in his home setting and with his friends, I have come to describe his use of language within these contexts as being within his Comfort Zone; a zone of comfort being where his informal self was allowed to 144 surface via his allowance to speak “broken” English and Creole. I have labeled his use of Standard English in the workplace and in other circumstances where he saw it fitting, such as when speaking to children in his hometown, as being required and therefore characteristic of a Requisite Mode. This Requisite Mode was fitting because in situations such as the latter, Standard English was required of Juan, though not necessarily the language he choose to use or with which he was optimally comfortable. Understanding Juan’s Experience In this inquiry, I set out to examine the ways in which a multilingual Caribbean educator described his literate and language experiences in various geographical and social contexts, his attitudes towards language learners, and responses to linguistic diversity. I also explored the educator’s responses concerning the varying linguistic expectations (of him) in these contexts. My findings revealed that Juan deployed multiple tools in his attempts to reconcile language differences, navigate the language expectations of him in various contexts and reconstruct his sense of self based on appropriation of language in his relationships with others. Juan’s journey as a multilingual English-speaking Caribbean educator consisted of three paths in which these tools were deployed, namely: transformation of his attitude, use of strategies to deal with differences in language, and formation or reconstruction of his identity. Juan’s linguistic background and perceived academic competence inhibited his ability to counteract the Standard Language Ideology (Lippi-Green, 1994). However, through Juan’s experiences, we see how social norms interrelate to determine the use of language constructions in various settings. In Juan’s experience, his social upbringing impacted his decision to shun the use of Creole when he taught in the initial stages of his career. Even as a child, he had internalized the social norms of his society by speaking Standard English in order to impress his 145 family members and teachers. Juan noted that this practice was also common with the students whom he taught, who also spoke Standard English in the classroom but spoke Creole or “broken” English when in their Comfort Zones. As one who has taught in the Caribbean context, I have interacted with such students, students who wished but could not navigate the academic English of the classroom. Throughout Juan’s responses, I gathered evidence of the extent to which the implicit and explicit socialization practices of home, school, and community cause him to utilize Standard English, direct evidence of sociolinguistic implications for his language use (Haddix, 2012). In fact, it was ultimately the changes in Juan’s socialization practices within the various geographical and social contexts in which he functioned that directly impacted his decision to utilize certain language constructions (i.e., Dominican French Creole, Dominican Standard English, Dominican Kokoy, Dominican Creolized English; see Fillmore & Snow, 2000). Initially, as a child, Juan believed he should only utilize Standard English as opposed to the Dominican French Creole, which constituted most of his social experiences in informal settings. This was the result of social experience and cultural tools that had played an inherent role in internalization and use of Dominican Standard English as a child (see Johnson, 2003; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). However, as Juan became more educated about the strategies for utilizing language devices, he realized it was possible to conduct social relations in multiple contexts with differing linguistic expectations as well as retain his cultural identity by preserving his use of Creole in situations deemed appropriate. The opportunity to live and work in another culture provided Juan with a firsthand experience in how individuals were treated when unable to speak Standard English based on norms in a culture such as that of the United States. Juan was alarmed when he realized that the 146 very Standard English he had defended and condemned students for in his past experience became the area with which he was now unable to successfully function. Having been in a similar situation, I found Juan’s response to be a reflection of how I felt. I therefore understood the resulting dramatic shift in Juan’s identity, which he described occurred when he developed the awareness that while Standard English was indispensable, it was the Dominican French Creole, Kokoy and Creolized English that allowed him to exist within his Comfort Zone. As observed in participation/practice theory, Juan developed patterns of practice resulting from the gradual adoption of local linguistic practices within the social settings in which he was immersed (Gee, 2008; Hasan, 2002). In the view of Haddix (2010), Juan demonstrated the literate hybridization needed to bridge the gaps between and across multilingual and multicultural contexts. While Juan experienced a change in attitude and developed more pride in his native languages, he maintained awareness that modifying his speech via the use of strategies developed based on the context in which he operated were central to his success. This realization underscored the notion that inherent within societal and academic systems is an implicit culture of power (Delpit, 2006), one that individuals and educators from diverse backgrounds are careful to adhere to in order to achieve what society values as success. Juan’s linguistic identity experienced significant modifications in certain settings. The reasons provided for the decisions underlying these modifications is evidence that Juan was uncomfortable with how he may have been construed based on his language use. This observation lent credence to the need for a disruption of the discomfort of educators such as Juan, and the emergence of a safe space to function comfortably within the educational arena (McLaren & Kincheloe, 2007). Yet, educational arenas vary vastly, and as Juan discovered, functioning as an educator required him 147 to acquire a transnational linguistic competence, a competence very similar to that proposed for language learners in a pluralistic and globalized world (Paris, 2012). Insight into Juan’s linguistic practices and experiences provide a glimpse of how individual representations of educators from diverse backgrounds reflect their notion of the status quo. This insight further invites educators to obtain a more concrete understanding of how such voices are rendered powerless because of their derivation from diverse backgrounds and allows these voices to be heard in the discourse around diverse educators’ instrumentality in the decision-making process for educators and students of such backgrounds. Notwithstanding, McLaren and Kincheloe (2007) asserted that it is not sufficient for educational circles to simply invite voices such as Juan’s within the discourse, but that it is also important to develop mechanisms for the incorporation of viewpoints derived from educators of other backgrounds, such as Juan’s. They further asserted that such educational backgrounds and supposed inferiority of academic competence deprive educators such as Juan from comfortably using their native languages as well as contributing experiences associated with their languages in settings that continue to implicitly devalue and/or prohibit the use of stigmatized language varieties. Conclusion Through the presentation of this English-speaking Caribbean multilingual educator’s lived experience in different contexts, difficulties, the demonstration of his linguistic and literate challenges, and through his ability to use education as a tool to counteract the negative effects of such differences in varying sociocultural contexts, educators operating within predominantly monolingual contexts and across the world obtain a glimpse into the life of a Caribbean educator 148 whose professional and personal life was impacted by an additional factor – a distinctly different linguistic and cultural background. This study confirms the importance of understanding culturally and linguistically diverse teachers from a holistic perspective. Through understanding the decisions made by Juan in various contexts and through the transformation in attitude to native languages experienced, the study highlights the centrality of cultural immersion experiences through the contextual, emergent, transformational, and committed action awareness stages (Paccione, 2000) to the development of the dispositions demonstrated by Juan (Garcia, 2008). Considering Juan’s experiences and the extent to which they contributed to dynamic changes in his response to cultural and linguistic diversity, future research is needed to examine his capacity for becoming more culturally responsive to students within the context of the Caribbean classroom. It may also be critical to further examine the nature of other multilingual Caribbean educators’ experiences both within and beyond the context of the classroom as a means of enriching our understanding of the lives of teachers with significantly differing linguistic and cultural backgrounds than those predominantly encountered in settings where English is the predominant language spoken. References Allen, H., & Herron, C. (2003). A mixed-methodology investigation of the linguistic and effective outcomes of summer study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 370–385. Alviar-Martin, T., & Ho, L. C. (2011). “So, where do they fit in?” Teachers’ perspective of multi-cultural education and diversity in Singapore. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 127-135. Bayyurt, Y. (2006). Non-native English language teachers’ perspective on culture in 149 English as a foreign language classroom. Teacher Development, 10(2), 233–247. Block, D. (2008). Spanish-speaking Latinos in London: Community and language practices. Journal of Languages Identity and Education, 7(1), 5-12. Bryan, B. A., & Burnette, R. (2006). Language variation in Dominica: Perceptions, practice and policies. Caribbean Journal of Education, 28(1), 26-50. Buchanan, M. C., Correia, M. G., & Bleicher, R. E. (2010). Increasing preservice teachers’ intercultural awareness through service-learning. Journal of Research on ServiceLearning and Teacher Education, 1(1), 1-19. Butler, Y. (2007). How are nonnative-English-speaking teachers perceived by young learners? TESOL Quarterly 41, 731–755. Ceginskas, V. (2010). Being ‘the strange one’ or ‘like everybody else’: School education and the negotiation of multilingual identity. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3), 211-224. Chase, S. E. (2005). Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 651-679). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Clandinin, D. J. (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry. Sage Publications. Clandinin, D. J., Pushor, D., & Orr, A. M. (2007). Navigating sites for narrative inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 21-35. Coulter, C. A. (2009). Response to comments: Finding the narrative in narrative research. Educational Researcher, 38(8), 608-611. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Narrative research designs. In Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 511-550). 150 Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Delpit, L. (2006). Lessons from teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 220-231. De Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the world: The global language system. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Ennaji, M. (2005). Multilingualism, cultural identity and education in Morocco. New York: Springer. Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: Delta Systems and Center for Applied Linguistics. Frank, A. W. (2002). Why study people’s stories? The dialogical ethics of narrative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(1), 109-117. Franson, C., & Gu, Q. (2004). Let’s begin from mutual understanding: ELT teacher training in cross-cultural settings. The Teacher Trainer Journal, 18(2), 1-10. Garcia, O. (2008). Multilingual language awareness and teacher education. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd Ed.) (pp. 385–400). New York: Springer. Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 143. Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York: Routledge. Gobel, K., & Helmke, A. (2010). Intercultural learning in English as foreign language instruction: The importance of teachers’ intercultural experience and usefulness of precise instructional directives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1571-1582. Gomez, M. L. (1996). Prospective teachers’ perspectives on teaching “other people’s children.” In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 109–132). New York: Teachers College Press. 151 Grant, C., & Gibson, M. (2011). Diversity and teacher education: A historical perspective on research and policy. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 19-61). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Grant, C. A., & Wieczorek, K. (2000). Teacher education and knowledge in the knowledge society: The need for social moorings in our multicultural schools. Teachers College Record, 102(5), 913–935. Gu, Q. (2005). Intercultural experience and teacher professional development. Regional Language Center Journal, 36(5), 5-22. Guerroro, M. D. (2003). Acquiring and participating in the use of academic Spanish: Four novice bilingual education teachers’ stories. Journal of Latinos and Education, 2(3), 159-181. Haddix, M. (2010). No longer on the margins: Researching the hybrid literate identities of Black and Latina pre-service teachers. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 97-123. Haddix M. (2012). In the company of my sistas: The counterlanguages and deliberate silences of Black female students in teacher education. Linguistics and Education, 23, 169-181. Hasan, R. (2002). Semiotic mediation, language and society: Three exotropic theories–Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein. In J. Webster (Ed.), Language, society and consciousness: the collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/. Holliday, A. (2001). Achieving cultural continuity in curriculum innovation. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching: A reader (pp. 169-77). London, UK: Routledge. Irvine, J. J. (2002). In search of wholeness: African-American teachers and their culturallyspecific classroom practices. New York: Palgrave. 152 Janesick, V. (2004). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jessner, U. (2008). Multicompetence approaches to language proficiency development in multilingual education. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd Ed) (pp. 91-201). New York: Springer. Johnson, M. (2003). Philosophy of second language acquisition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jokikokko, K. (2009). The role of significant others in the intercultural learning of teachers. Journal of Research in International Education, 8(2), 142. Kamwendo, G. H. (2006). No easy walk to linguistic freedom: A critique of language planning during South Africa’s first decade of democracy. Nordiac Journal of African Studies. 15(1), 53-70. Kornfeld, J. (1999). Sharing stories: A study of African American students in a predominantly white teacher education program. Teacher Educator, 35, 19-40. Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Asking the right questions: A research agenda for studying diversity in teacher education. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 385-398.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lapp, A. K. (1997). Teacher candidates construct understandings about diversity: Four case studies of developing multicultural thinking and actions. Unpublished doctoral 153 dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Lewis, T., & Stickler, U. (2000). Diaries as learning support for the year abroad. Lancaster: The Interculture Project. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/interculture. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in Society, 23(2), 163-194. Liu, J. (2005). Chinese graduate teaching assistants teaching freshman composition to native English-speaking students. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp. 155- 177). New York: Springer. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lowenstein, K. L. (2009). The work of multicultural teacher education: Reconceptualizing White teacher candidates as learners. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 163. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education preparing classroom teachers to teach English Language Learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-373. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2000). Cross cultural competency and multicultural teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 70 (1), 3-24. 154 McDiarmid, G. W., & Price, J. (1990). Prospective teachers’ views of diverse learners: A study of the participants in the ABCD project (Research Report No. 90-6). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education. McLaren, P., & Kincheloe, J. L. (2007). Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? New York: Peter Lang. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press. Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (3rd ed.). New York: Longman. Ollerenshaw, J. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2002). Narrative research: A comparison of two restorying data analysis approaches. Narrative Inquiry, 8(3), 329-347. Paccione, A. V. (2000). Developing a commitment to multicultural education. Teachers College Record, 102(6), 980-1005. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163–188. Pinnegar, S., & J. G. Daynes (2007). Locating narrative inquiry. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 3-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: 155 Sage. Poddar, P., & Johnson, D. M. (2005). A historical companion to postcolonial thought in English. New York: Columbia University Press. Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self image: An international survey. System, 22(3), 353–357. Rodríguez, A. (2002). Redefining our understanding of narrative. The Qualitative Report, 7(1), 1-7. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Samimy, K., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or non-native speaker: Perceptions of ‘non-native’ students in a graduate TESOL program. In G. Braine (Ed.) Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 127-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Safford, K., & Kelly, A. (2010). Linguistic capital of trainee teachers: Knowledge worth having? Language and Education, 24(5), 401-414. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press. Siegel, J. (2005). Literacy in pidgin and Creole languages. Current Issues in Language Planning, 6(2), 143-163. Simmons-McDonald, H. (2006b). Vernacular instruction and bi-literacy development in French Creole speakers. In H. Simmons-McDonald & I. Robertson (Eds.), Exploring the boundaries of Caribbean and Creole languages (pp. 118-146). Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press. 156 Sleeter, C. E. (1992). Resisting racial awareness: How teachers understand the social order from their racial, gender, and social class locations. Educational Foundations, 6(2), 7-32. Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106. Sleeter, C. E., & Milner, H. R. (2011). Researching successful efforts in teacher education to diversify teachers. In A. Ball & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 81-104). Boston, MA: Rowan and Littlefield. St. Hilaire, A. (2007). National development and the language planning challenge in St. Lucia, West Indies. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28(6), 519-536. St. Hilaire, A. (2011). Kweyol in postcolonial Saint Lucia: Globalization, language planning, and national development. Amsterdam: PA: John Benjamins. Tyson, E. A. (2003). Uncharted territory: Teacher’s adaptation to the Caribbean advanced proficiency examination. Caribbean Journal of Education, 25(2), 129-147. Urietta, L. (2004). Disconnections in American citizenship and the post/neo-colonial people of Mexican descent and Whitestream pedagogy and curriculum. Theory and Research in Social Education, 32(4), 433-458. Youssef, V. (2002). Issues of bilingual education in the Caribbean: The cases of Haiti, and Trinidad and Tobago. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 5(3), 182-193. Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 4-15. 157 Linguistic and Cultural Appropriations of a Multilingual Educator Author/Correspondent Author: Patriann Smith, M.A. Position: Doctoral Candidate Affiliation: University of South Florida Current Mailing Address: Childhood Education and Literacy Studies (CELS), 4202 East Fowler Ave., EDU 105, Tampa, FL 33620 Telephone number: 813-405-7237 Fax: 813-974-3826 E-mail: psmith4@usf.edu Note: This paper is in progress and will be submitted to Studying Teacher Education. Abstract Over the past decade, increased discussion has ensued regarding the role of multilingual teacher educators’ linguistic capacity in relation to multicultural awareness. Despite the recognition that teacher educators continue to face challenges in accomplishing the goals of multicultural education and in spite of calls to increase the number of culturally and linguistically diverse teacher educators hired within higher education, much of the literature addressing this concern remains in the theoretical or conceptual stage. Perusal of the literature reveals that multilingual teachers are capable of responding more positively and can relate more closely to language learners, specifically in bi/multilingual education settings. However, few attempts have been made to determine how the linguistic capacity of multilingual teacher educators affected awareness in relation to undergraduate pre-service teachers’ academic needs, or as prospective teacher educators. Given the need for research in this area and considering my proficiency as a multilingual educator, I utilized practitioner research to interrogate my practice. My intent was to capture and describe my multilingual and multicultural awareness as I interacted with students 158 within the context of two reading and writing courses over a period of four months. The findings from teaching videos, written responses to students, and student evaluations indicated that communication patterns with students reflected a greater level of multilingual than multicultural awareness. Further analysis revealed the capacity of practitioner research to deepen my sense of reflexivity and meta-awareness. Implications for teacher education include the necessity for attending to linguistic diversity of teacher educators whose responsibility it is to train pre-service and in-service teachers to cater to the needs of linguistically diverse learners. Keywords: multilingual awareness, multicultural awareness, teacher educators, linguistic diversity, multicultural education, literacy educators Linguistic and Cultural Appropriations of a Multilingual Educator Exploration into educators’ experiences in learning about diversity (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; AACTE, 2013; Banks, 2002; Banks & Banks, 2009; Grant & Gibson, 2011; Ladson-Billings, 2011; Sleeter, 2001; 2011) and specifically, linguistic diversity (de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007; Meskill, 2005; Wallace, 2000) has become increasingly significant in recent years. Recognition that teachers possess cultural and linguistic backgrounds that typically differ from that of students (Milner, 2010) has resulted in emphasis on the need for teachers (e.g., Costa, McPhail, Smith, & Brisk, 2005; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzales, 2008; Robinson & Clardy, 2011) and teacher educators to develop the capacity to handle linguistic diversity (e.g., Gay, 2000; 2010; O’Hara & Pritchard, 2008). In an effort to fulfill the goals of multicultural education, practitioner research that examines practice from the inside as teacher educators study their own practice (Zeichner, 2007) holds promise for obtaining insight into teacher educators’ responses to diversity. 159 In the following study, practitioner inquiry is employed. Along with national developments reflecting the need for investigation of practice, my personal impetus served as a basis for undertaking this inquiry. This impetus stemmed from my experience teaching at the graduate and undergraduate levels as a prospective teacher educator. Over the past year, a “wondering” (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009) emerged in relation to my capacity to demonstrate multicultural and multilingual awareness and the possible interrelationships existing therein. Possessing the ability to communicate in various language varieties, but unsure of the ways in which this phenomenon was reflected in my practice, an opportunity availed itself for interrogation. Given the inextricable nature of language and culture (Halliday, 1980; Vygotsky, 1981), the emerging research linking bi/multilingualism to multicultural awareness (Pang & Park, 2011) and multicultural sensitivity (Watson et al., 2011), and the opportunity to contribute to the body of literature on practitioner research via a literacy educator’s perspective, I engineered this practitioner research. Due to my status as a multilingual literacy teacher educator in a higher institution of learning, I utilized the inquiry process to: identify the components of multilingual awareness demonstrated as a multilingual educator; identify the components of multicultural awareness demonstrated as a multilingual educator; document the ways in which components of multilingual awareness were associated with multicultural awareness in my practice; and document the ways in which practitioner inquiry informed my understanding of my multilingual and multicultural awareness. But first, the related literature on multicultural teacher education and multilingual educators is now reviewed. 160 Multicultural Teacher Education The field of multicultural education is a novel one. Notwithstanding, numerous approaches exist. Among the many conceptualizations proposed for construing diversity in education is Banks’ depiction, the emphasis of which is geared towards integration of content, construction of knowledge, reduction of prejudice, equity of pedagogy and empowering of school culture are emphasized. Alternatively, Nieto (2004) focuses less on prescriptive pedagogical recommendations and considers multicultural education as school reform providing education for all students and challenging discrimination in all its forms. Similarly, Bennett (2003) emphasizes democracy and cultural pluralism, and instruction geared towards equal educational opportunity. Despite their variations, these notions of multicultural education possess one common characteristic, that is, the intent to interrogate assumptions underlying culturally dominant practices in schools and instead, to perpetuate cultural pluralism (Gay, 1994). Born of the multicultural education reform movement, multicultural teacher education was designed to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary for teaching learners from diverse backgrounds (Banks, 2002). In Cochran-Smith’s (2003) conceptualization, multicultural teacher education can be explored via eight critical questions. Among these are examination of the purpose of schooling, determination of the knowledge most necessary for teachers, investigation of the complex nature of diversity, documentation of best practices in education, and the evaluation of the critical nature of teacher outcomes. To date, a substantive body of research exists concerning inquiries into various dimensions of teaching as related to the needs of learners from diverse backgrounds. Across the board, continued emphasis has been geared towards multicultural education as it relates to preservice and/or P-12 teachers (e.g., Buchanan, Correia, & Bleicher, 2010; Cochran-Smith, Piazza, 161 & Power, 2013; Darling-Hammond, Chung and Frelow, 2002; Hynds, Sleeter, Hindle, Savage, Penetito, & Meyer, 2011; Trent, Kia, & Oh, 2008; Walker-Dalhouse and Dalhouse, 2006; Zientek, 2007) in K-12 schools. More specifically, in cross-cultural studies in teacher education, researchers have focused on a wide range of topics such as race (e.g., Sleeter, 1992; SoutoManning, 2011), ethnicity (e.g., Xu, Coats, & Davidson, 2012), and intercultural sensitivity (e.g., Park & Yang, 2013). In addition, studies have examined early childhood education (Han & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2010), Puerto-Rican (Rolon-Dow, 2005) and African-American (Nasir, 2008) teachers, to name a few. Specifically in relation to multicultural awareness, findings from the literature have revealed the significance of teachers’ historical backgrounds, personal identities, experiences, and predispositions to their development of responses to cultural and linguistic diversity (Alviar-Martin & Ho, 2011; Irvine, 2002; Lortie, 1975; Urietta, 2004). With regards to teacher educators, however, the research is yet to reflect examination of linguistically diverse teacher educators, and more specifically multilingual educators of literacy. Though recent studies conducted with teacher educators have considered their reaction to race and the effects of grappling with Whiteness in practice (i.e., Galman, Pica-Smith, & Rosenberger, 2010), very little is known of how teacher educators grapple with such issues in practice and in fulfilling the goals of multicultural education. What is known is that in the examination of bilingual Latina/o teachers’ responses in the K-12 setting, teachers’ instructional characteristics were shown to be “influenced by their Latina/o identities – such as, their attitudes toward language use, their implementation of discipline, and their expressions of affection” (Jimenez and Gersten, 1999, p. 294). In this study, I acknowledge the capacity of multilingual teachers’ to affect practice and extend this notion to consider how the multilingual capacity of 162 educators, and specifically, educators of literacy, is reflected in practice. I therefore now turn to the literature on multilingual teacher educators as a preface for the study. Multilingual Educators A growing body of research increasingly documents the experiences of teachers whose knowledge of multiple languages influences their practice. Of this research, studies have been conducted with K-12 teachers from non-English speaking backgrounds and have generally concerned non-native English-speaking (NNES) or non-native speakers (NNS). Findings reveal the tendency of researchers to explore multilingual educators’ proficiency and teaching characteristics in ESL/EFL settings (e.g., Ellis, 2004; Safford & Kelly, 2010). And in the few instances where multilingual teachers’ characteristics explored beyond the classroom context, teachers demonstrated the capacity to respond more positively to students and could relate more closely to language learners (e.g., Garcia, 2008; Jessner, 2008). More recently, acknowledgement of multilingual teachers’ metalinguistic proficiency and their predisposition to develop beliefs and attitudes pivotal to multicultural awareness (e.g., Ennaji, 2005) has been explored. Particularly, in the United States, investigation of multilingual teachers’ perceptions to multicultural teacher education revealed that teachers with a knowledge of multicultural education appeared to hold a significantly higher perception of multicultural teacher education than their monolingual counterparts (Watson, Solomon, Morote, & Tatum, 2011). Moreover, the findings from this study indicated that teachers who spoke multiple languages demonstrated a more positive attitude towards professional development based on multicultural education (Watson et al., 2011). Globally, discussion is also ongoing in relation to the linguistic characteristics needed by K-12 teachers. Specifically, in Garcia’s (2008) proposition of Multilingual Awareness (MLA), 163 she advocated for teachers’ development of knowledge and awareness of multiple languages. Garcia outlined a continuum of “least” to “most complex” MLA required by teachers in different settings, namely “language awareness for language teachers”, “awareness of language for all teachers”, “MLA for teachers with multilingual populations (all teachers)”, “MLA for bilingual teachers in bi/multilingual schools” and “MLA for sole bilingual teachers” (p. 392). Most noteworthy is Garcia’s (2008) recognition of the need for “awareness of language for all teachers” and “MLA for teachers with multilingual populations (“all teachers”), the rationale for which is the growing population of language learners across the globe. Confirming this need, Major and Brock (2003) have suggested modifications for pre-service teachers that require them to enroll in a second language course for at least one year during their teacher education programs. Yet, work in this area is in its infancy (Watson et al., 2011) and predominantly concerns teachers in K-12 contexts. In one of the few documented instances where multilingual educators formed the basis for a study of teacher characteristics, the relationship between multilingual and multicultural awareness among 200 teacher educators was examined (see USDOE Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs: OBEMLA cited in Pang & Park, 2011). Results revealed that in order to develop multicultural education, teacher educators needed to acquire experiential learning, which involves the learning of a second language (e.g., USDOE Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs: OBEMLA cited in Pang & Park, 2011). Pang and Park’s (2011) basis for teacher educators’ knowledge of a second language stemmed from the need for “a point of reference for understanding basic affective and cognitive challenges of English learners and other underrepresented students” (p. 68). 164 Yet, due to challenges in accomplishing the goals of multicultural education (e.g., Cochran-Smith, 2000; Gay, 2010; Lowenstein, 2009) and despite calls to increase the number of culturally and linguistically diverse teacher educators hired within higher education systems (e.g., Gay, 2000, 2010; Pang & Park, 2011), much of the literature addressing this concern remains in the theoretical or conceptual stage. Furthermore, as noted, little is known about the personal and professional experiences of multilingual teacher educators within higher education and the extent to which they possess the capacity to contribute to the goals of multicultural education via their cognizance of linguistic diversity. Conceptual Framework In the search for perspectives to undergird this personal inquiry into my teaching, I conducted a review of theoretical underpinnings and conceptual models that served as lenses through which I viewed the constructs of multilingual and multicultural awareness. By understanding the theoretical context for others’ work, I hoped to further understand my own. Multicultural Awareness Two conceptions of multicultural awareness as construed in the literature seemed relevant to this inquiry. The first was Nieto’s (2000) proposition of multicultural awareness as the process of becoming a multicultural person. In this conception, multicultural awareness was thought to reside in an individual’s capacity to become knowledgeable about people and events unfamiliar to them; become aware of individual predispositions to racism and biased views; and adopt a view of the world that incorporates varying perspectives. An alternative approach to multicultural awareness is comprised of three stages: awareness of other cultures; knowledge of multiple cultures; and development of skills needed to utilize the knowledge and awareness gained of multiple cultures (Pederson, 1988). 165 From both perspectives, multicultural awareness appears to be a process. In Nieto’s (2000) proposition, this process seems grounded within the individual, whereas in Pederson’s (1988) approach, the process appears to occur as a function of both the individual and the social context in which s/he is immersed. As an English-speaking multilingual educator, the use of these lens to explore whether multicultural awareness was demonstrated in my practice and the process through which this occurred would allow me to determine whether prevailing conceptions of the construct aligned with my experience. Dynamic Model of Multilingualism The dynamic model of multilingualism (DMM) and multilinguality (Jessner, 2008) also functioned as a framework for conceptualizing multilingualism during the study of myself as a multilingual educator and as a participant in this inquiry. In the dynamic model of multilingualism, multilingual proficiency is described as the complex interaction among various psycholinguistic systems, crosslinguistic interaction, and multilingualism (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). Within this context, multilingual awareness constitutes the ability to reflect on language and its use, monitor linguistic processing in comprehension and production of language, monitor (watching and correcting) use of language, fulfill monitoring functions such as reduction of performance errors, correct misunderstandings, develop and apply conversational strategies based on feedback, attend to clues that help one to determine whether to use formal or informal language in a given situation, and recognize when and how to follow socio-culturally determined discourse patterns in conversations with others (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). As a multilingual educator, examination of my practice via an understanding of this model would reveal the extent to which this framework corresponded with my responses to students. 166 Research Questions “Wonderings” (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009) are necessary for inquiry in practitioner research. Similarly, in any qualitative research endeavor, the researcher’s personal impetus for conducting inquiry is deemed indispensable (Maxwell, 2013; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In this context therefore, my personal impetus as well as the established need for research in the area of focus led to the development of the following questions: 1. What components of multilingual awareness did I demonstrate as a multilingual literacy educator? 2. What components of multicultural awareness did I demonstrate as a multilingual literacy educator? 3. In what ways were the components of multilingual awareness associated with multicultural awareness in my practice? 4. In what ways did practitioner inquiry into multilingual and multicultural awareness inform my practice as a literacy educator? Research Design In conducting research on practice, Richardson (1994) identified two approaches: “formal research” and “practitioner inquiry” (pp. 5-10). Formal research was described as research conducted by researchers and practitioners to contribute to the body of knowledge on teacher education, while practitioner inquiry involved practitioners’ research into their practice as a means of improvement (Richardson, 1994). In this inquiry, I merge these approaches, functioning as both practitioner and researcher, formally investigating practice to contribute to the body of knowledge on multilingual education, while simultaneously examining how I demonstrated multilingual and multicultural awareness in an effort to improve my ability to 167 respond to students’ needs. I further embedded the formal qualitative and practitioner research (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009) endeavor within the broader context of a self-study (Schon, 1987). In practitioner inquiry, the classroom teacher functions as knowledge generator. Teacher inquiry is conceived of as dealing with concerns of teachers, engaging teachers in design, data collection, and interpretation of data surrounding a question (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009). Action research in this context takes the form of diagnosis of practical situations needing improvement or practical problems to be resolved; formulation of action strategies to enhance a situation; implementation of action strategies and evaluation of their effectiveness; and clarification of situations, so as to result in new definitions of a problem or area for improvement. The end result is the emergence of new questions developed for investigation, then perpetuated as continuation of the spiral (see Elliott, 1988). In this regard, practitioner research served as an appropriate framework for this study (see Zeichner, 2007 for more on practitioner research for teacher educators). In utilizing self-study to undergird this inquiry, I acknowledged Zeichner’s (1999) assertion of the value of self-study to teacher education as “probably the single most significant development ever in the field of teacher education research” (p. 8). The use of practitioner research stemmed from a need to understand human activity “in situ” and from the perspective of my central role as a participant and practitioner, functioning as a “legitimate knower,” having developed substantive insights within the context of practice (Borko, Whitcomb, & Byrnes, 2008, p. 1029). 168 Context of the Inquiry Inquiry into the phenomenon occurred at a large public university in Florida over the course of 15 weeks in the year 2012, within the broader context of a Supervision course in which I was enrolled. The Supervision course was designed to enhance my teaching as a Graduate Assistant. While I was enrolled in the Supervision course, I taught reading and writing undergraduate courses, both required components of the Elementary Education program offered through the College of Education. Each week, I taught the courses in three-hour blocks. The content in these classes included theoretical perspectives of reading and writing, practical application in the classroom, approaches for developing integration of reading and writing across content areas, modifications for diverse students, reading and writing assessments for K-12 levels of education, and local, state and national implications for reading and writing in the United States. My instruction took the form of lectures by PowerPoint, engagement through group discussions, group work and presentations, and online group and individual collaborations. Upon determining that I could proceed with the study, I was careful to inform students of the research being conducted and to constantly remind them of my engagement and progress in data collection and interpretation. The students stated they were comfortable with the process and the information gathered. The Student Informants I interacted with 52 students over the course of the semester, 22 in the Reading course and 30 in the Writing course. For both classes, undergraduate students/pre-service teachers were in the process of preparation for teaching within the K-12 levels of the education system. Overall, two students specialized in Music, 28 in Special Education, and three in Psychology. However, the largest number of students (32) majored in Elementary Education. The reading 169 course consisted of 17 Elementary Education students, two students specializing in Music and two in Special Education. One student majored in Psychology. In the writing course, there were 13 Special Education students and 15 Elementary Education students. Two students from this class also majored in psychology. The majority of the students in the two classes were between the ages of 20-30. Ten students were 30 years or older. For a number of the students, this was their first year in the given programs. Others were at varying levels of their respective programs. The majority of the students in both classes were Caucasian; the Reading course included one African-American student and two Hispanic students while the Writing course included two African-American students. Students originated from a variety of states in North America and spoke English as their native language. In the Reading class, one student spoke Dutch fluently. The Multilingual Educator As course instructor/prospective teacher educator and doctoral student, I pursued studies in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis on literacy. Within this context, I explored literacy in multilingual populations, linguistic diversity in multicultural teacher educators, and verbal reports as a methodological tool for understanding the literacy processes of multilingual learners. Prior to this inquiry, I taught a reading course within which this inquiry occurred. However, this was my first instance teaching the writing course. I also experienced teaching another undergraduate literacy course during the previous year. As a result, my prior experience and knowledge of teaching at this level were all influential in my approach to the teaching of these two courses. The continued research in which I engaged over my past two years in the doctoral program proved to be indispensable to my inquiry and fundamental to an understanding of my teaching. 170 As an individual actively involved within this inquiry, I can be adequately described as a circumstantial multilingual teacher educator of African ancestry, whose language learning was based on survival and not choice. My citizenship is St. Lucian and my linguistic status is that of a Non-Native English Speaker (NNES) whose first language is English. Considering Ellis’s (2004) definition of the multilingual, this term is used here to refer to: someone who considers themselves as ‘speaking’ …. two or more languages to the extent that they can use them confidently and achieve their communicative ends in a majority of everyday adult encounters, not restricted to tourism. It does not necessarily include specialized uses of the language such as in the law or business, and does not imply 100% accuracy. (p. 94) Additionally, Ellis distinguishes among multilinguals that have to learn another language to survive – circumstantial multilinguals – from those who choose to learn another language – elective multilinguals. My status as a circumstantial multilingual educator was therefore a function of my acquisition of additional language varieties in a survival context. My Background. St. Lucia, the island from which I originate, is considerably small with area of 238 square miles. Situated between Martinique and St. Vincent in the West Indies, this island, once colonized by Britain, is home to approximately 170,000. The majority of the islanders are of African descent with a small percentage of the citizens of Indian, Asian, or Caucasian heritage. The official language is St. Lucian Standard English (SLSE), an acrolect that serves as the language of formal and official communication (Carrington, 1984). This acrolect is the most representative of “standard” or internationally accepted English (Ford & St. Juste-Jean, 1995). SLSE has existed for some time in conjunction with Saint Lucian French Creole (SLFC: Kweyol or Patois), a “language” spoken and understood by more than 70% of the population, 171 mainly in the rural areas (Pan American Health Organization - PAHO, 1998). The language situation further comprises a third language variety, the English-Lexicon Vernacular, referred to in this piece as the St. Lucian English Vernacular (SLEV). Craig (1983) described this vernacular as a Caribbean mesolect in which a “varied range of nonstandard speech bridges the linguistic gap between Creole and Standard English” (p. 65). Upon migrating to Trinidad, a country with a population of over one million, I encountered further variations in language. Within a context in which the Trinidadian Standard English, Trinidadian English lexicon Creole (TCE), and Tobagonian English lexicon creole (TOC) were spoken, students within my K-12 classes found it challenging to understand my patterns of speech. In many cases, I adjusted my accent and pronunciations of the words spoken in an effort to become intelligible to the students. Four years later, upon assuming a position of instruction in higher education, I noticed an even greater disparity in language patterns within the United States context. For the most part, I encountered a situation where the African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) and American Standard English (ASE) were spoken frequently. Despite previous beliefs that the St. Lucian and Trinidadian Standard Englishes sufficiently provided evidence of my proficiency as a teacher and as an educator within academia, immersion within the novel context proved otherwise. The indication from others that my speech, though English, was different, for the first time created an awareness that perhaps, I was not a native speaker of English. Most significantly, students’ responses to my accentuation, enunciation, speech patterns, connotations, and to the written responses provided in my teaching highlighted their observation of my linguistic “difference,” a phenomenon that became more apparent over the course of an academic year. 172 As a multilingual study participant, participant observer, and as overall researcher in this study, I functioned in multiple roles, interacting with the study and with my experience in an effort to make sense of my world. As an educator of students, the majority of whom were Caucasian, I operated under the assumption that diversity is embedded across and beyond ethnic and racial groups and disrupted the notion that the Caucasian students with whom I interacted weekly were a monolithic group of learners and future teachers (see Lowenstein, 2009). Through a transposition of diversity as commonly conceived, I functioned as a Black multilingual instructor, hoping to be more cognizant of my responsiveness to students, both culturally and linguistically. By engaging in research on my practice, I hoped to shed light on practice in the context of reversed roles as well as obtain information that would guide me to become more linguistically and culturally responsive to pre-service teachers, most of whom possessed linguistic and cultural backgrounds very different from my own. Data Sources Multiple data sources served to inform this inquiry. In response to Research Question 1, “What components of multilingual awareness did I demonstrate as a multilingual literacy educator?” and Research Question 2, “What components of multicultural awareness did I demonstrate as a multilingual literacy educator?” written responses to students, teaching videos, and students’ written evaluations functioned as data sources. In response to Research Question 3, “In what ways were the components of multilingual awareness associated with multicultural awareness in my practice?” a researcher reflective journal, written responses to students, teaching videos, student written evaluations, and video-stimulated reflections (Borg, 2006; Calderhead, 1981) functioned as data. In response to Research Question 4, “In what ways did practitioner inquiry into multilingual and multicultural awareness inform my practice as a 173 multilingual literacy educator?” interactive interviews as well as the data sources for Research Question 2 functioned as the data. Data Collection Data for this inquiry were collected in three phases. In phase one, I documented my thoughts on my practice in relation to the research questions posed within the researcher reflective journal. A researcher reflective journal (Janesick, 2002) functions as a tool for reflecting on the research process within the stages of the research. I documented four entries within the researcher reflective journal based on the first four classes held in the first two weeks of the Spring 2012 semester. As I read and reread my reflections, I gained a deeper sense of my thought patterns while responding to students. Through extended review and reflection of the journal, I was better able to determine the tools to be used to further examine my practice. In phase two, which began in the third week of the semester, I collected artifacts for analysis. I recorded 10 videos of my teaching, five videos per class over a five-week period, and compiled my written responses to students, which predominantly occurred via email and in weekly class exit slips. The videos obtained were each approximately 40 minutes long, and recorded during my teaching of literacy in the two courses. The video recorder was positioned in the front of the classroom prior to the beginning of instruction and remained focused on the front of the classroom, the point from which I generally operated as the course instructor. Five videos were recorded in the reading course and five were recorded in the writing course. Phase two also involved the gathering of written response protocols to students. Altogether, 107 protocols were obtained. I also collected 53 exit slips on which I observed my responses to each student after I had taught each class. The exit slips functioned as a weekly response sheet on which students could document their responses to and feelings concerning the 174 content of the course, my instructional methods, as well as jot any questions lingering on their minds upon the completion of each class. In addition, I gathered students’ written evaluations emanating from class exit slips and from the students’ midway evaluations of my teaching. Fiftythree exit slips were derived from the two courses, representing students’ responses to my weekly teaching activities. During this period, I continued to record one entry per class in my researcher reflective journal. In phase three, which occurred at the end of the semester, I interrogated my practice via two methods. First, I utilized video-stimulated recalls/reflections (Borg, 2006; Calderhead, 1981) to mine the video recordings I had gathered. I obtained one video stimulated recall/reflection based on each video. While I watched the videos, I asked myself the four research questions I had posed and documented the responses to these questions. As a result, I compiled 10 video stimulated recalls/reflections based on my teaching. Secondly, I created a compilation of my researcher reflective journal protocols, of which I had collected 30 entries. Data Analysis In this inquiry, I explored the components of multilingual and multicultural awareness demonstrated in my practice. I also sought to understand the associations present in the types of awareness demonstrated. Further, I intended to understand how practitioner inquiry functioned in my attempts to understand these components of my practice. I used inductive analysis (Ryan & Bernard, 2003) to make sense of the data by first “making specific observations, followed by the identification of general patterns” (Patton, 2002, pp. 55-56). Smagorinksy (2008) observes that although positioned as “positivistic,” the use of codes in literacy research allow for subjectivity of the researcher to be framed within a particular theoretical paradigm, therefore providing a reasonable assumption for the choices made on the 175 part of the researcher. Given this rationale, I proceeded to develop three levels of codes in direct relation to the research questions. In the first level of coding, I utilized grounded codes, which focused on my response types. Level II involved a priori codes and was based on the forms of multilingual awareness demonstrated. Level IV also involved a priori codes, and was geared towards the forms of multicultural awareness demonstrated (see Table 1.3). The codes obtained in Level I were “reassurance,” “personalization,” “affirmation,” “appreciation,” “positive reinforcement,” “emotion,” “requiring students’ opinions on feedback,” “negotiation,” “modification,” and “face value” (see Table 1.3). In Level II, using Herdina and Jessner’s (2002) dynamic model of multilingualism as a basis for a priori codes, I obtained the codes “reflection,” “monitoring,” “correction,” “strategy use,” “attention” (see Table 1.3). In Level III, a priori codes were based on a developed list of characteristics derived from consolidation of items on the Multicultural Awareness Knowledge and Skills Survey (MAKSS Form-T; D’Andrea, Daniels, & Noonan, 2003), Pederson’s (1988) stages of multicultural awareness, and Nieto’s (2000) elements of the multicultural personal. The MAKSS Form-T, a survey consisting of 36 items, was chosen because it is comprised of a subscale used to measure multicultural awareness. Further, despite the fact that this instrument was not administered as a survey, it was important that acceptable levels of reliability and validity were documented (D’Andrea, Daniels, & Noonan, 2003). For the current study, items within the multicultural awareness subscale were the only ones used in consolidation. Pederson’s (1988) stages of multicultural awareness and Nieto’s (2000) elements of the multicultural person also served as excellent bases for additional consolidation because these 176 conceptions had been used to theoretically frame the study. The Level III codes obtained were “knowledgeable,” “individual predispositions,” and “cultures” (see Table 1.3). Credibility and Verisimilitude Qualitative research is not judged by measures of reliability and validity as often occurs in the case of quantitative accounts. Yet, certain hallmarks have been identified that contribute to the credibility and verisimilitude of qualitative inquiries. Among the procedures that enhanced the credibility of this inquiry was my use of detailed reports concerning how the study was conducted (Maxwell, 2013). In this case, my discussion of positionality, through acknowledging my role as “bricoleur,” confident in the need to be flexible in my research design permitted me the privilege of “guarded” “interference” (Maxwell, 2013) within the research study, a stance consistent with my epistemological framework. Another measure for enhancing the credibility of this qualitative inquiry was the use of data triangulation (Merriam, 2009), which was employed in the form of multiple data sources and, therefore, multiple points of view from which to approach my demonstration of multilingual and multicultural awareness. Further, researcher reflectivity was illustrated via the multiple roles I adopted within and throughout the study (Janesick, 2010). True to the hallmarks of qualitative research, I approached the inquiry from multiple perspectives, as educator, participant, and researcher, functioning as investigator of my own experience and practice, bringing to the forefront my interpretations of the kind of educator I am or claim to be. Fourth, the provision of factual evidence, presentation of lifelike, believable, and possible occurrences through the use of specific examples from the study participant (myself) and informants served to enhance verisimilitude, and therefore, plausibility of the findings. Aware of the nature of qualitative research as unique to the participants involved, I weaved the discussion of my findings through 177 my lenses via an emic approach (Maxwell, 2013), espousing a unique, indigenous, reflexive, and layered point of view, while simultaneously adopting an etic perspective (Maxwell, 2013), purposefully, via approximations as an onlooker of my personal practice, creating a window through which other multilingual teacher educators may relate to my experiences. A final step taken to ensure that the analysis of findings was representative of the data gathered involved subjecting my analytical process to the review of colleagues. Findings The purpose of this inquiry was to explore the components of multilingual and multicultural awareness demonstrated in my practice, identify associations among these types of awareness, and consider how practitioner inquiry functioned in enabling me to make sense of my teaching as a multilingual teacher educator. What components of multilingual awareness did I demonstrate? Several components of multilingual awareness were evidenced in my practice. These were reflection, monitoring, attending to clues, following discourse patterns, and applying conversational strategies based on feedback. Reflection. Reflection (/MLA: R) was construed by pondering upon the class sequence of instruction upon the completion of each class. Through reflection, I demonstrated the ability to monitor my linguistic processing in an attempt to understand and respond to the needs of students. This element was present in my negotiation (RT: N) with students where I produced language while liaising with students concerning the nature of specific tasks. The goal was to determine how best students might be facilitated (RT: M). For instance, in response to a student wishing to turn in the hard copy of an assignment one week late due to her absence the previous week, I replied, “Sorry to hear, Heather. Please email completed rubric to me. See you next 178 week!” (Written Responses to Students, April 15, 2012). The monitoring of my linguistic processing was also evident in my attempts to correct misunderstandings (/MLA: C) as I negotiated (RT: N) the procedures required (Video Stimulated Recall, January 16, 2012). Three examples of this are present in the following: “Having reflected on today’s class, I have decided that you will turn in ONLY the Phonemic Awareness Lesson Plan next week, 2.20.12”; “Concerning the Lesson Plans, I have also revised the due dates in the syllabus to reflect the new submission dates”; and “Concerning feedback on the quiz, I am very grateful for this and I assure you that I will be working on the necessary changes to be made” (Written Responses to Students, February 19, 2012; February 13, 2012). In these instances of reflection, my multilingual awareness was predicated upon my ability to negotiate (RT: N) with students, an act that resulted in attention to their specific needs (RT: M). Monitoring. Another form of multilingual awareness displayed was my capacity to consistently “watch and correct” (MLA: MWC) in the moment what I wrote and/or said in the process of providing oral or written feedback (RT: PF) on students’ assignments (Video Stimulated Recall, January 23, 2012). Evidence of this was also present in my reflective journal, which indicated that I had stopped and thought about what I was saying and how it might affect the students personally. For instance, the journal indicated, “I remember listening to Marlon’s response and wondering why he would use this reasoning to rate the student’s writing as a four. I knew I wanted to tell him that this was definitely not an excellent rationale, but because he hardly ever spoke in class, I couldn’t simply tell him no, this answer was wrong. That would shut him down. I thought of how to validate his response, yet explain to the entire class the reasons 179 Table 1.3: Coding System and Frequencies Level I (Grounded Codes): Response Types: What did my responses indicate? Frequency for each Code Reassurance (RT: R) Response letting a student know things will be okay. Example: “No worries!” 11 Personalization (RT: P) Response using a student’s name. Example: “Sure, Monica! I would be happy to take a look!” 15 Affirmation (RT: AF) Response commending a student on doing something well. Example: “Dear Group Five, You all did a fabulous job with your presentation!” 12 Emotion (RT: E) Response where words and symbols to a student expressed emotion. Example: “It looks like you may have missed something on Blackboard. 25 ” Face Value (RT: FV) Response expressing belief in students’ responses in spite of my suppositions. Example: “I am very sorry to hear about your niece, Letitia. I hope she feels better soon.” 8 Appreciation (RT: AP) Response expressing thanks and appreciation to a student. Example: “Thanks to all of you for agreeing to be the first to present!” 6 Positive Reinforcement (RT: PR) Response to whole class commending individual students. Example: “Group Three did excellently today on their presentation concerning writing across the content areas. Well done!” 8 Negotiation (RT: N) Response providing students with varied options for recourse. Example: “Would you like to focus on music in your second lesson plan instead?” 12 Modification (RT: M) Response indicating that changes would be made to procedures. Example: “Here are the changes I made to your requirements for Week Three.” 7 Providing Feedback (RT: PF) Response providing feedback on assignments to students. Example: “You seem to be talking about differentiation of content here.” 21 Requesting Feedback (RT: RF) Response requesting feedback from students in relation to response. Example: “What do you think about this suggestion?” 29 180 Table 1.3 (continued). Level II: Multilingual Awareness (A Priori Codes): What forms of multilingual awareness did I demonstrate (MLA)? Multilingual Awareness (/MLA) Frequency for each Code Multilingual awareness constitutes a range of behaviors as follows (Herdina & Jessner, 2002) • Reflection (/MLA: R) Think back about or on my language and its use. Example: ME: “What did I just say? Maybe I should paraphrase this.” 9 • Monitoring (/MLA: MLP) Monitor linguistic processing in comprehension and production of language. Example: ME: “I think I am hearing you saying that you disagreed with Marlon on this?” 7 • Monitoring (/MLA: MWC) Monitor (watch and correct) use of language. Example: ME: “You really should use a different objective. Wait, I should not say ‘you should.’ What do you think about using a different objective here?” 12 • Monitoring (/MLA: MPE) Fulfill monitoring functions such as reduction of performance errors. Example: ME: “I think I did a good job today taking my time to speak slowly and to pronounce my words clearly. Plus, based on their exit slips, the students seemed more satisfied.” 7 • Correction (/MLA: C) Correct misunderstandings. Example: ME: “It looks like I made an error in my weekly update this week. Please note that you are not required to submit your first draft of the lesson plans next week.” 11 • Strategy Use (/MLA: S) Develop and apply conversational strategies based on feedback. Example: ME: “I think using shorter Weekly Updates makes more sense. It looks like they don’t even read the updates. Either that, or they don’t understand.” 7 • Attend (/MLA: A) Attend to clues to help determine formal or informal language use. Example: STUDENT: “I enjoyed class today. I didn’t feel like I struggled to understand.” 10 181 Table 1.3 (continued). Level III: Multicultural Awareness (A Priori Codes): What forms of multicultural awareness did I demonstrate (MA)? Multicultural Awareness (/MA) Frequency for each Code The process (D’Andrea, Heck, & Daniels, 2003; Nieto, 2000) and stages (Pederson, 1988) of becoming a multicultural person constitutes the following: • Knowledgeable (/MA: K) Become knowledgeable about unfamiliar people and events. Example: ME: “So what languages do you speak?” 4 • Knowledgeable (/MA: MC) Knowledgeable of multiple cultures Example: STUDENT: “I have not met another West Indian professor here at USF. It is so good to know you lived in Trinidad. My mother is Trinidadian.” 5 • Individual Predispositions (/MA: IP) Become aware of individual predispositions to racism and biased views. Example: STUDENT: “I am not African-American.” 7 • Cultures (/MA: C) Awareness of other cultures and attention to stereotypes. Example: STUDENT: “But some people think that all White folks are alike.” 5 182 why this rationale for Marlon’s rating would not work” (Researcher Reflective Journal, February 20, 2012). In the moment, the debate just described, which occurred in my mind concerning Marlon’s response, reflected the process of “watching” (/MLA: MWC) my actions. Subsequently, I met with Marlon and explained to him why the piece of writing could not have received the rating he attached to it, thereby “correcting” (/MLA: MWC) where I perceived I had gone wrong. I also demonstrated monitoring (/MLA: MLP) in my personalization of (RT: P) and appreciate for students (RT: AP) when addressing them orally or in written form (Video Stimulated Recall, February 21, 2012). Examples of this were as follows: “Alisa, Thank you for your feedback. You should be able to access the quiz again. Do let me know if you get through,” “Alma, Thank you for your questions. Please see my comments in RED below ☺,” and “You should email it, Eunice ☺” (Written Responses to Students, February 5, 2012; January 23, 2012; February 11, 2012). Through monitoring (/MLA: MLP), I noticed the changes in my discourse patterns (/MLA: S), which appeared more academically structured in the initial phases of the course, but became more informal towards the end (Video-Stimulated Recall, February 28, 2012). For instance, a typical response to students in the course was, “Today, we integrated the description, responses to, scoring, and instruction related to the trait Presentation. Using a central collaborative activity in which group members functioned as a team to produce responses, we discussed the Presentation chapter of our texts. We then explored how writing electronic responses based on text might be performed in an online electronic journal via Blackboard by actually engaging in the process ourselves” (Written Responses to Students, March 26, 2012). Deviating from this structure, and attending to implicit clues from students (/MLA: A) I provided more simplistic, direct and concise responses towards the final weeks of the course. An example of such was, “Look out for my comments on your Critical Task. If you submitted your 183 work to me via email, I will return feedback via email” (Written Responses to Students, April 16, 2012). Attending to Clues and Following Discourse Patterns. In many instances, I was sensitive to the clues (/MLA: A) provided in students’ communication to me, and so I noticed that I followed their discourse patterns closely. Whether this was in an email or during a conversation in class, I responded to the clues provided in varying ways. For instance, when a student explained a situation in which her niece was unwell, which had affected her ability to submit an assignment, I used reassurance (RT: R) and replied, “Hi Natika, I will take this into consideration. Hope all goes well with your niece” (Written Response to Students, April 3, 2012). In another instance, one pre-service teacher from the special education department became very uncomfortable during an elementary education major’s student description of why having a disability should not be an excuse for requiring lower level comprehension strategies from students (Video Stimulated Reflection, April 6, 2012). I immediately posed a question, which then required students from differing sides of this debate to provide arguments for and against the elementary education student’s viewpoint. Applying Conversational Strategies Based on Feedback. The feedback received from students during our weekly conversations (RT: F) and in students’ written evaluations was used to change the ways I responded to their needs. For instance, in a given week, students from the writing course clearly indicated that my wording in the weekly quizzes represented various shades of meaning creating difficulty in students’ responses to questions (Student Exit Slips, March 5, 2012). In response, I modified the questions (RT: M) and required students to evaluate their effectiveness (RT: F). In addition, students from the reading course wrote in weekly exit slips that the “track change” comments provided in response to weekly assignments were 184 overwhelming because of how extensive they were (Student Exit Slips, March 6, 2012). Further, in my individual emails to the pre-service teachers, it appeared that both classes felt more comfortable when I used less academic language in response to completed assignments. For instance, students were more “open” in their responses when emoticons (RT: E) and forms of informal discourse considered popular were used. They also appeared to be more relaxed when responding to me in the class setting when this was the case. What components of multicultural awareness did I demonstrate? This research question required me to determine the components of multicultural awareness (MA) reflected in my practice as a multilingual educator. Based on Herdina and Jessner’s (2002) model, the components of multilingual awareness were the ability to reflect on language and its use, monitor linguistic processing in comprehension and production of language, monitor (watching and correcting) use of language, fulfill monitoring functions such as reduction of performance errors, correct misunderstandings, develop and apply conversational strategies based on feedback, attend to clues that help one to determine whether to use formal or informal language in a given situation, and recognize when and how to follow socio-culturally determined discourse patterns in conversations with others. Findings from the data indicated that my written responses were representative of a moderate level of multicultural awareness (MA) as evidenced by the limited number of categories (three) in which MA was reflected. The multilingual awareness components displayed were my awareness of individual predispositions, awareness of other cultures, and attention to stereotypes. Awareness of Individual Predispositions. Awareness of individual predispositions (/MA: IP) occurred in my tendency to require students’ opinions regarding my feedback (RT: 185 RF). Quite often, after I had provided a response to students, both orally and by mail, I noticed I used the question, “How do you feel about this?” or “What do you think?” (Video Stimulated Recall, January 30, 2012). Similarly, I anticipated the ways in which students might respond to my feedback based on their personalities. For instance, I noticed that my responses to a preservice teacher who forwarded me resources pertaining to our class every week was different compared to that provided to a teacher who demonstrated unwillingness to complete assignments (Researcher Reflective Journal, February 10, 2012). I noticed that my response pattern varied based on my conception of the teachers’ predispositions. And so, I provided more extensive responses to the first student, yet very brief and concise responses to the other. In doing so, I also demonstrated an awareness of my individual predispositions, attaching greater significance to a student who appeared to be more invested in the tasks for a given class as compared to one who was not. Awareness of Other Cultures and Attention to Stereotypes. My awareness of other cultures (/MA: C) was not apparent from the onset. However, at the end of the semester, I noticed that ever so often, I paid attention to the various cultural differences manifested among students, though not always aware of the ways in which my preconceptions defined my perceptions. For instance, in the reading course, while explaining how language learners grappled with the text in their efforts to develop comprehension strategies, I referred to an African-American student in the course and asked her to provide some more information about this (Video Stimulated Reflection, March 6, 2012). The student’s response immediately indicated how stereotypical I had been in my request. For, as an individual, although African-American, this student explained that she had not been raised in a home in which the African-American English Vernacular was used and, therefore, had little to no experience with the language form. 186 Awareness of other cultures (/MA: C) in my teaching was also evident in an alternative form. I became aware that students were immersed in a digital culture, which favored the uses of linguistic practices that I thought non-representative of academia. For instance, I noticed their tendency to utilize emoticons of various types, to use very brief, direct, informal, catchy phrases, and many exclamations (Weekly Exit Slips, February 6, 2012; March 5, 2012; March 19, 2012). This alerted me to the fact that my awareness of culture needed not be confined to ethnicity or race, and so I extended my linguistic repertoire to accommodate their linguistic patterns (RT: E) across modes of communication. Awareness of these linguistic patterns enabled me to rethink my previous notions of the language structures favored in my discourse with students and the potential clashes liable to emerge from my unwillingness to adjust my written and oral discourse. This awareness also challenged my stereotypical notion of culture and expanded my thinking about what culture entails. Awareness of stereotypes (/MA: C) was present in the tendency to initially react with disbelief to students’ excuses for not producing assignments (Video-Stimulated Recall, January 17, 2012). For instance, I saw evidence that I tended to doubt students’ excuses for tardiness or lack of submissions. An example of this was as follows: This is the third time that I get an email about a student being sick one hour before class. I wonder if Johnny is really sick today. How would I know? I cannot be sure. Of course, I can! I can ask him to walk with a doctor’s note. Isn’t this what I outlined in my syllabus? But if he says he is sick and he does not offer to bring in a doctor’s note to explain his illness, should he be asked to? Might he not just be okay with losing points on the assignment? (Researcher Reflective Journal, March 14, 2012) 187 And a week later, reflecting on the comments I had made, I wrote: I wonder what I should do with this data because it looks like if I tell Johnny to bring in a doctor’s note that I do not believe him. Looking back on things, my email to Johnny didn’t even refer to a note. Perhaps, I do believe him, or do I? (Researcher Reflective Journal, March 23, 2012) Despite this quandary, my responses to students indicated that I took them at face value (RT: FV), conveying the message that I believed whatever was said. For example, in response to student emails conveying their intended absences, I reassured students (RT: R) through responses such as, “Get some rest, John! See you next week!” and “Hope all goes well with your surgery, Sarah” (Written Responses to Students, March 14, 2012; January 5, 2012). My decision to take students at face value (RT: FV) and to forego my initial impressions of their trustworthiness reflected my awareness of stereotypical attitudes (/MA: C) towards the students whom I taught. Through the use of the researcher reflective journal, I identified a disconnect between my initial stereotypical thought and my actual practice. In what ways were the components of multilingual and multicultural awareness associated? In response to this question, “facilitation” and “symbiosis” (Burkholder, Hitchcock, McClary, & Shelemay, 2004; Elton, 1986) were identified as ways in which multilingual and multicultural awareness were associated I my practice. Facilitation. Facilitation occurred when my awareness of differences among students’ cultures (/MA: K; /MA: MC) and my own appeared pivotal in the monitoring of my linguistic processing. Circumstances were found in which I monitored my linguistic processing (/MLA: MLP) in production of language as a function of my awareness of students’ cultures significantly different from my own. An example of this was evident when a student forwarded me an email 188 requesting information concerning what exactly was expected of her group members for an assignment (Researcher Reflective Journal, March 15, 2012). The assignment was initially explained on Blackboard as follows: “You will use the collaborative tools provided within your groups to create an overview of what your genre entails. Feel free to explore various technologies in order to make this fun and exciting. Drama, art, music, storytelling, podcasts, or any method which you believe will best portray the information will be accepted.” In my culture, when a professor has provided the description of an assignment, it is typically the case that students make sense of what is required when the task is assigned (i.e., in the class setting) (Researcher Reflective Journal, February 13, 2012). I immediately noticed that this was not the case with students within the context in which I taught since it became a pattern that many of responses tended to request specifications concerning assigned tasks (RT: PF). I was forced to reexamine my notion of assignment descriptions (/MLA: MPE) and to provide specifics (RT: M) that would enable the students in question to be more certain of what was required. I replied: “The whole idea is that you are allowed to be creative about presenting information on the genre. You may talk about the history of the genre, various types of narrative writing, explain what the genre is, provide examples, as well as engage your group members and/or the class in an activity” (Written Responses to Students, January 10, 2012) In my response to the students, I was required to reflect (/MLA: R) on the words I had used to compose the written expectations for the assignment. My reflection on the words and framing of the sentences facilitated the recognition that my phrasing, based on patterns of writing in a context different from the Caribbean, produced confusion on the part of students in a culture where writing tended to assume a greater sense of conciseness and directness. My ability to monitor my linguistic processing (/MLA: MP) in composing the subsequent response (/MLA: C) 189 to these students due to the recognition of the difference in cultures (/MA: K; MA: MC) reflected how my multicultural awareness facilitated my multilingual awareness. Symbiosis. Symbiosis emanated from the recognition of how awareness of individual predispositions (/MA: IP) facilitated my application of conversational strategies based on feedback (/MA: IP), which in turn heightened my attention to stereotypical attitudes and behaviors (/MLA: S). The awareness of students’ individualities and what they might or might not appreciate (/MA: IP) guided my application of conversational strategies based on feedback (/MLA: S). Patterns in my responses indicated options students might pursue in relation to a given task (Researcher Reflective Journal, March 19, 2012). Rather than providing definite responses to students’ questions, I tended to pose questions to students, allowing them to think about various options they believed would function appropriately within a given situation. For example, one such response to a student was: “Is there a way you can have a conclusion added in at the end? Like bringing it all together? Or perhaps you might do this by using a short quiz where all students become engaged in the process and have to respond via a written assignment? Or you might choose something entirely different that you think will work?” (Written Responses to Students, April 15, 2012). Alternately, I posed questions such as, “How about that?” “How does this sound?” and “Does this work?” (Video-Stimulated Reflection, February 27, 2012). As I engaged in this advocacy for students’ perspectives and consistently monitored how I used language (/MLA: MLP) to respond based on their feedback, I increasingly questioned my sense of which assessments were most representative of students’ learning. I developed awareness of the stereotypical thoughts (/MA: C) attached to certain forms of assessments. For instance, assignments such as weekly syntheses requiring multiple layers of connections (i.e., 190 personal, text-to-text, and text-to-world) drew resistance from many students (Video-Stimulated Reflection, February 7, 2012). Similarly, extensive specifications regarding in-depth lesson planning eliciting detailed descriptions of students’ literacy instruction in the classroom were generally met with astonishment and dismay. And while I did provide students with an avenue to express themselves in non-traditional formats, I struggled to come to terms with the levels of acceptability of the assessments as indicated by the students. Through this process, my awareness of the stereotypical beliefs (/MA: C) held concerning varying levels and forms of assessments as defined by my cultural background were significantly disrupted. As a function of this disruption, I became aware of how these stereotypical beliefs appeared to be reflected in my awareness (/MLA: MPE) of the construction of undergraduate students, via my linguistic patterns, as a specific cultural group with characteristic (stereotypical) habits of practice distinct from the Caribbean students with whom I was familiar in the Caribbean context. In what ways did practitioner inquiry inform understanding of my awareness? Infiltration. Practitioner research in this inquiry created an avenue for infiltration of the procedures utilized. In phase one of the study, while I utilized the researcher reflective journal to document observations of my practice, I developed a heightened awareness of the procedures in which I was engaged while teaching and/or interacting with students (Researcher Reflective Journal, April 2, 2012). This awareness was not only present during the journaling process, but functioned as a form of meta-awareness (/MLA: MLP; /MLA: MWC; /MLA: MPE; MA: IP; /MA: C), which accompanied my every act. In other words, as I interacted with students within the courses taught, I increasingly tended to think about the actions in which I was engaged and the extent to which they aligned with the measures to which they had been subjected (i.e., measures of multilingual and multicultural awareness). As I continued with phase two of the data 191 collection process, videotaping my teaching and being aware of the presence of video capturing my every move, I was more attuned to how I used language to respond to students, whether I was clear in my speech, and the ways in which I attended to the diverse needs of students within courses that predominantly comprised of Caucasian students with linguistic and cultural backgrounds significantly different from my own. Phase three deepened my sense of the microscopic nature of this task because it was during this phase that I negotiated meaning, making sense of the video data and the written response artifacts I had collected (Researcher Reflective Journal, March 30, 2012). Transformation. I constantly modified my habits of thinking and doing throughout the course of investigation (Researcher Reflective Journal, April 27, 2012). An example of this was as follows. In an email, Elisa forwarded me a description of a phenomenal idea to get students interested in reading. In this email, she stated, “we could play newscasters who read off teleprompters.” In my written response expressing thanks for Elisa’s innovative idea, I responded positively to her request that the class enact the proposed idea during our next meeting. However, upon receiving a subsequent response from Elisa, I realized that her reference to “we” had been made in connection to her and prospective students. In this instance, I could not help but reflect on the language use by this student and on the discrepancy between my interpretation and the student’s intended meaning (Researcher Reflective Journal, January 18, 2012). My reflection on this circumstance resulted in my questioning of understandings derived from subsequent emails throughout both courses. I began to recognize the varied possibilities in meanings attached to the interpretation of students’ emails and to anticipate that I may be wrong in my interpretations. In response, I also paraphrased students’ responses to enable to them to 192 realize what I thought was meant prior to providing feedback (RT: PF) orally and in written form. Interpretation and Discussion In this inquiry, I sought to explore the components of multilingual and multicultural awareness demonstrated in my practice as a multilingual educator and to investigate the ways in which they were associated in my practice. A secondary goal was to examine how practitioner inquiry facilitated this overall process. The findings revealed that I demonstrated certain components of multilingual and multicultural awareness in my practice, some of which were associated with each other. The findings also reflected the ways in which practitioner inquiry functioned in my exploration of these components of my practice. Multilingual Awareness As a Caribbean multilingual teacher educator, it was not surprising to find evidence of multilingual awareness in my practice since I had navigated various cultural and linguistically varied societies. However, teaching within an environment where I was not only a non-native speaker, but also interacted with large majorities of monolingual native speakers afforded an excellent opportunity to examine notions of awareness from a multilingual perspective. Quite distinct from the perspective of monolingual Caucasian teacher educators, I approached investigation into my multicultural awareness through multilingual lenses. Yet, it is difficult to determine the ways in which my approximations differ from that of monolingual teacher educators, as very few instances have been identified in the literature in which the linguistic propensities of educators are examined. Nonetheless, it is evident from the findings that my capacity to reflect on language use, systematically monitor linguistic processes, and attend to clues in oral and written concerns mirror previous documentation regarding the capacity of 193 multilingual teachers’ to demonstrate great (er) levels of metalinguistic proficiency (Ennaji, 2005). Multicultural Awareness Several components of multicultural awareness became evident in my practice. As a multilingual educator, the literature presumes that my metalinguistic proficiency should function as a facilitating agent in my ability to respond more positively to students (Garcia, 2008; Jessner, 2008). In keeping with this assertion, patterns indicative of this positive element were identified in my respect for individual students, tendency to want to ensure that they were satisfied, and students’ comments of my concentration on individual students’ needs. In other words, I was aware of individual predispositions to content taught and of their cultural differences. As the inquiry progressed and stereotypical patterns, based on notions of language, culture and education steeped in the Caribbean context, became more apparent, I noticed that I held perceptions of the monolingual and ethnically homogenous populations in my classrooms of which I was previously unaware. I developed the sense that it was possible to respond to students’ individual differences, yet hold beliefs and patterns of thinking about who they were and how they should function with little to no awareness of this. I began to wonder whether such deeply rooted stereotypes may have been responsible for the absence of a large number of components of multicultural awareness in my practice. But the assumption that deeply rooted stereotypes existed was based on the belief that multicultural awareness emanated from an internal space. To accept the notion of a stereotype leading to the behaviors demonstrated in my practice was to adhere to Nieto’s (2000) conception. Yet, there was clearly a contextual factor, the social context in which I had found myself (e.g., Pederson, 1988), interacting with individuals with different cultures and beliefs, which had 194 invoked a sense of this stereotypical behavior of which I was previously unaware. Juxtaposed against each other, a merging of the two conceptions initially seemed to provide plausible explanations for my observations. However, there remained the notion that despite the social context invoking within me the personal sense of self-recognition, very few tenets of multicultural awareness were apparent. In Pang and Park’s (2011) assertion, teacher educators who possess knowledge of a second language are better able to understand the challenges faced by English learners and underrepresented students. In my courses, very few students were from diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. As such, the question arose as to whether I believed monolingual Caucasian students possessed fewer cultural differences than students whose appearances seemed to dictate the cultures to which they belonged. Researchers have noted that historical backgrounds, personal identities, experiences and predispositions of teachers all interact in determining the extent to which multicultural awareness is displayed (Alviar-Martin & Ho, 2011; Buchanan, Correia, and Bleicher, 2010; Irvine, 2002; Lortie, 1975; Urietta, 2004). Invariably, responsiveness to cultural differences has focused on the utilization of cultural knowledge, experiences, and performance styles of diverse students in order to enhance their learning (Gay, 2000). Considering this, it was evident that the multicultural education literature generally presumed a teacher and teacher educator population, one in which teachers and educators constituted the majority (i.e., middle-class Caucasian). Yet, this was a group to which I did not belong, but alongside whom I functioned. If I conceived of the monolingual students whom I taught as lacking diversity, and therefore believed that my racial and ethnic difference positioned me as “diverse,” could this therefore have been the underlying reason for the conundrum and for the limited components of multicultural awareness demonstrated in my practice? Perhaps, other 195 meanings too were possible from the background, experiences, and beliefs derived from my past experiences both in the personal and professional world. Practitioner Research Practitioner research clearly functioned as a tool, infiltrating and transforming my practice throughout the course of the inquiry. In Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) commentary on the knowledge gained by educators in practitioner research, three types of knowledge ensue: knowledge for, in, and of practice. In this inquiry knowledge of practice as an educator, though certain forms of knowledge were present, a further type of knowledge was conceived. I overcame or accommodated to the discomfort I felt in developing knowledge, a knowledge I was instrumental in shaping. This satisfaction with discomfort emerging from the distrust of subjectivity in research practice then led to the continued transformation of my practice whereby I developed the confidence in knowing that as I improved each form of awareness, I was facilitating growth within the discomfort of knowledge development and throughout the process of transformation. Through openness to and recognition of the limited nature of knowledge (Nicolescu, 2010), and through the permission of my mental capacity to accept an undetermined and unrecognizable potential of practitioner research, a fourth type of knowledge emerged from the practitioner inquiry: “knowledge beyond practice.” Implications The purpose of this inquiry was to examine the components of multilingual and multicultural awareness present in my practice as a multilingual educator and to investigate the ways in which practitioner inquiry functioned throughout the course of the study. This inquiry fills a necessary gap in the previously established accounts of teachers’ multilingualism by focusing on a multilingual Caribbean teacher educator within a higher 196 education context. Through developing an understanding of the components of awareness demonstrated in practice, this inquiry provides an insight into the propensity for multilingual educators to display certain attributes of multilingual and multicultural awareness. Interpretation of the underlying reasons for the presence of types of awareness in practice is critical because of the nature of the concerns raised. Given the multilingual components displayed and the monolingual context in which this occurred, the findings of this study reveal that multilingual educators utilize their metalinguistic proficiencies, not only in ESL teaching contexts, but also in classrooms with students from various linguistic backgrounds. By tapping into specific practices to which educators, and specifically, multilingual educators, can relate, this inquiry creates an avenue through which teacher educators can begin to think about and explore linguistic diversity in higher education. As with previous calls for linguistic diversity in multicultural teacher education (Garcia, 2008; Gay, 2010; Pang & Park, 2011), the notion of multicultural awareness explored in this inquiry posits linguistic diversity as an extension of and as a critical basis for developing the tenets of multicultural teacher education. Not only was the multilingual educator capable of demonstrating multicultural awareness, albeit with certain limits, but the basis for demonstration of this awareness appeared to be associated with multilingual proficiency. Through an examination of the stereotypical notions that accompanied the multilingual educator’s view of multicultural education and the notions of diversity perpetuated in academia, and my personal notions regarding ‘undergraduate student culture,’ this inquiry raises critical questions concerning the populations whom multicultural teacher education serve and, therefore, invites educators to think more closely about how diversity is conceptualized. 197 Practitioner inquiry as utilized in this study has been demonstrated as a fundamental tool for infiltrating and transforming practice. With the capacity to influence, guide, contribute to, and allow the researcher to remain open to novel ways of examining phenomenon, practitioner research not only functions in generating knowledge of, in, and for practice (Zeichner, 2007), but moves beyond to allow for the generation of knowledge beyond practice. While this inquiry is limited due the inability to generalize to larger settings, the limited time studying components of practice, and constrained by the use of one particular lens through which to view the experiences occurring in practice, as demonstrated the study propels the field forward significantly. Future research might consider the experiences of multiple multilingual teacher educators, include students as study participants within the research, and utilize surveys of multilingual educators to determine the extent to which components of multilingual and multicultural awareness are demonstrated in their practice. The need for correlational or regression studies to provide a sense of the extent to which the types of awareness are related and/or predict each other is also warranted. By extending research in these areas, the complexities of diversifying the teaching and teacher education force through the inclusion of multilingual educators’ voices may be better understood. References American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (2013). The changing teacher preparation profession: A report from AACTE’s professional educational data system (PEDS). AACTE: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=145. 198 Alviar-Martin, T., & Ho, L. C. (2011). “So, where do they fit in?” Teachers’ perspectives of multi-cultural education and diversity in Singapore. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 127-135. Banks, J.A. (2002). Introduction to multicultural education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2009). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Bennett, C. (2003). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Borko, H., Whitcomb, J. A., & Byrnes, K. (2008). Genres of research in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. John McIntyre & K.E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 10151049). New York: Routledge. Buchanan, M. C., Correia, M. G., & Bleicher, R. E. (2010). Increasing preservice teachers’ intercultural awareness through service-learning. Journal of Research on ServiceLearning and Teacher Education, 1(1), 1-19. Burkholder, J. P., Hitchcock, H. W., McClary, S., & Shelemay, K. K. (2004). The symbiosis of teaching and research: A forum. College Music Symposium, 44, 1-14. Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211-217. Carrington, L. D. (1984). St. Lucian creole: A descriptive analysis of its phonology and morpho-syntax. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305. 199 Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). Blind vision: Unlearning racism in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(2), 157-190. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The multiple meanings of multicultural teacher education: a conceptual framework. Teacher Education Quarterly, 7-26. Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (2013). The politics of accountability: Assessing teacher education in the United States. The Educational Forum, 77(1), 6-27. Costa, J., McPhail, G., Smith, J., & Brisk, M. E. (2005). Faculty first: The challenge of infusing the teacher education curriculum with scholarship on English Language Learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 104-118. Craig, D. R. (1983). Teaching Standard English to nonstandard speakers: Some methodological issues. The Journal of Negro Education, 52(1), 65-74. Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. D’Andrea, J., Daniels, J., & Noonan, M. J. (2003). New developments in the assessment of multicultural competencies. In D. B. Pope-Davis, H. L. K. Coleman, W. M. Liu, & R. L. Toporek (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural competencies in counseling and psychology (pp. 154–167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Freelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53¸ 286-302. de Oliveira, L. C., & Athanases, S. Z. (2007). Graduates' reports of advocating for English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(3), 202-215. 200 Elliott, J. (1988). Educational research and outsider-insider relations. Qualitative Studies in Education, 1(2), 155-166. Ellis, E. (2004). The invisible multilingual teacher: The contribution of language background to Australian ESL teachers’ professional knowledge and beliefs. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(2), 90-108. Elton, L. (1986). Research and teaching: Symbiosis or conflict? Higher Education, 15(3-4), 299304. Ennaji, M. (2005). Multilingualism, cultural identity and education in Morocco. New York: Springer. Ford, E. & St. Juste-Jean, L. (1996). “St. Lucian French Creole (Kw´ey`ol).” Retrieved from http://www.siu.edu/cwis/departments/cola/ling/reports/stlucian/descript.htm. Galman, S., Pica-Smith, C., & Rosenberger, C. (2010). Aggressive and tender navigations: Teacher educators confront Whiteness in their practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 225-236. Garcia, O. (2008). Multilingual language awareness and teacher education. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd Ed.) (pp. 385–400). New York: Springer. Gay, G. (1994). At the essence of learning: Multicultural education. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research & practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 143. 201 Grant, C., & Gibson, M. (2011). Diversity and teacher education: A historical perspective on research and policy. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 19-61). Boston, MA: Rowan and Littlefield. Halliday, M. A. K. (1980). Three aspects of children’s language development: learning language, learning through language, learning about language. In E. Goodman, M. M. Haussler, & D. Strickland (Eds.), Oral and written language: Impact on schools. International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English. Han, J., & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2010). Beliefs about classroom practices and teachers' education level: An examination of developmentally appropriate and inappropriate beliefs in early childhood classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31(4), 307-321. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics. Victoria Road, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hynds, A., Sleeter, C., Hindle, R., Savage, C., Penetito, W., & Meyer, L. H. (2011). Te Kotahitanga: A case study of a repositioning approach to teacher professional development for culturally responsive pedagogies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 339-351. Irvine, J. J. (2002). In search of wholeness: African-American teachers and their culturallyspecific classroom practices. New York: Palgrave. Janesick, V. (2004). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Janesick, V. (2010). Oral history for the qualitative researcher: Choreographing the story. New York: Guilford Press. 202 Jessner, U. (2008). Multicompetence approaches to language proficiency development in multilingual education. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.) (pp. 91-201). New York: Springer. Jimenez, R. T., & Gersten, R. (1999). Lessons and dilemmas derived from the literacy instruction of two Latina/o teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 265-301. Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Asking the right questions: A research agenda for studying diversity in teacher education. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 385-398). Boston, MA: Rowan and Littlefield. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lowenstein, K. L. (2009). The work of multicultural teacher education: Reconceptualizing white teacher candidates as learners. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 163. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education preparing classroom teachers to teach English Language Learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-373. Major, E. M., & Brock, C. H. (2003). Fostering positive dispositions toward diversity: Dialogical explorations of a moral dilemma. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30, 7-26. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons. 203 Meskill, C. (2005). Infusing English language learner issues throughout professional educator curricula: The training all teachers project. The Teachers College Record, 107(4), 739756. Milner, H. R. IV. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 118-131. Nasir, N. (2008). Everyday pedagogy: Lessons from basketball, track, and dominoes. Phi Delta Kappan, March, 529–532. Nicolescu, B. (2010). Methodology of transdisciplinarity – levels of reality, logic of the included middle and complexity. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1(1), 19-38. Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman. Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman. O'Hara, S., & Pritchard, R. H. (2008). Meeting the challenge of diversity: Professional development for teacher educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 43-61. Pan American Health Organization. (1998). Retrieved from http://www.paho.org/english/HIA1998/SaintLucia.pdf. Pang, V. O., & Park, C. D. (2011). Creating interdisciplinary multicultural teacher education: Courageous leadership is crucial. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 63-80). Boston, MA: Rowan and Littlefield. Park, Y. J., & Yang, Y. (2013). How to share Korean language and culture with pre-service teachers in the United States. International Education Studies, 6(5), 78-86. 204 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pedersen, P. (1988). A handbook for developing multicultural awareness. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development. Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 5-10. Robinson, C. C., & Clardy, P. (2011). It ain't what you say, it's how you say it: linguistic and cultural diversity in the classroom. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 18(3), 101. Rolón-Dow, C. (2005). Critical care: A color(full) analysis of care narratives in the schooling experiences of Puerto Rican girls. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 77–111. Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85109. doi: 10.1177/1525822X02239569. Safford, K., & Kelly, A. (2010). Linguistic capital of trainee teachers: Knowledge worth having? Language and Education, 24(5), 401-414. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sleeter, C. E. (1992). Resisting racial awareness: How teachers understand the social order from their racial, gender, and social class locations. Educational Foundations, 6(2), 7-32. Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106. Sleeter, C. E., & Milner, H. R. (2011). Researching successful efforts in teacher education to diversify teachers. In A. Ball & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 81-104). Boston, MA: Rowan and Littlefield. Souto-Manning, M. (2011). Playing with power and privilege: Theatre games in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 997-1007. 205 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications. Trent, S. C., Kea, C. D., & Oh, K. (2008). Preparing pre-service educators for cultural diversity: How far have we come? Exceptional Children, 74(3), 328-350. Urietta, L. (2004). Disconnections in American citizenship and the post/neo-colonial people of Mexican descent and Whitestream pedagogy and curriculum. Theory and Research in Social Education, 32(4), 433-458. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk: M E Sharp. Wallace, B. C. (2000). A call for change in multicultural training at graduate schools of education: Educating to end oppression and for social justice. Teachers College Record, 102, 1086–1111. Walker-Dalhouse, D., & Dalhouse, A. D. (2006). Investigating White preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. The Negro Educational Review, 57(1-2), 69-84. Watson, J., Solomon, B., Morote, E-S., & Tatum, S. (2011). The effects on speaking a second language in teachers’ multicultural understanding. Washington, D.C.: One Voice International Conference and Forum. Xu, J., Coats, L. T., & Davidson, M. L. (2012). Promoting student interest in Science: The perspectives of exemplary African-American teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1), 124-154. Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 4-15. 206 Zeichner, K. (2007). Professional development schools in a culture of evidence and accountability. School-University Partnerships, 1(1), p.9-17. Zientek, L.R. (2007). Preparing high quality teachers: Views from the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 959-1001. CHAPTER SUMMARY In Chapter Three, I explored the experiences of a multilingual English-speaking Caribbean teacher, Juan, in order to obtain a sense of how he had used language across multiple social contexts and at various academic levels (Smith, 2013c). Based on the findings, I recognized that insight into Juan’s experiences were highly similar to my personal and professional experiences with language across multiple social and academic contexts. For this and other reasons, I therefore thought it necessary to further understand how multilingual English-speaking educators demonstrated awareness in their practice. As a current multilingual teacher educator of literacy, I subsequently explored my multilingual and multicultural awareness in the context of two literacy courses in which I taught 52 pre-service teachers over the course of a semester, eager to determine how I engaged in fulfillment of the goals of multicultural education (Smith, 2013d). From the findings, I recognized that despite my multilingual capacity and some evidence of cultural awareness, more was needed in an effort to accomplish the goals of multicultural education. A further search for meaning-making around this dilemma resulted in an indepth exploration of transdisciplinarity as a unique approach to enhance teachers’ and educators’ understanding of and response to diversity (see Smith, 2013e). Clearly, the focus in the linguistic and cultural diversity of multilingual teachers and teacher educators and on inquiry into teaching that supports the goals of multicultural 207 education complements the thrust on literacy research, policy, and examination of the practices of K-12 learners through illuminating one’s understanding of diversity as a holistic endeavor. Multiple perspectives are sustained through considering linguistic and cultural diversity from the standpoint of teachers, teacher educators, and K-12 learners. With the intricate and complex notion of transdisciplinarity, weaving its thread of dependence upon the elements present within, across, and beyond various disciplines, the academia stands to benefit from the crossing of cultural boundaries in ways that provide a voice to various stakeholders within the academic process. Currently, in international settings, the role of language and linguistic difference in the higher education has drawn significant attention (e.g., Garcia, 2008; Gay, 2010; Jessner, 2008; Pang & Park, 2011). And though educators emphasize the role of understanding language learners in schools, little attention is paid to the call for investigation into the linguistic experiences of multilingual teachers and educators (Wallace, 2000) who possess the propensity for fulfilling the goals of multicultural education (Jiminez et al., 1999). The efforts documented in this chapter to understand the linguistic experiences of Juan, a multilingual English-speaking Caribbean educator (Smith, 2013c) reflect that much dissonance was undergone in his use of language and responses to the expectations of him in his navigation of various geographical contexts. However, my understanding of Juan’s experiences proved to be a first step in documenting how multilingual educators experienced and responded to diversity, and though much was learned about his personal linguistic experiences, contextualization in a classroom was needed in order to further understand how such an educator might respond. 208 The similarities in my experience to Juan and my status as a multilingual educator, which informed examination of my multilingual and multicultural awareness in the context of my practice (Smith, 2013d), leading to the revelation of evidence of my capacity to demonstrate awareness in both regards, paradoxically revealed a significant absence of multicultural awareness in my practice. Pederson (1988) and Nieto (2000) outlined specific indicators of multicultural awareness, the likes of which I searched for in my teaching. However, a total of three indicators were observed among the myriad of indicators present. Three rationales arose as propositions for this meager presence of multicultural awareness. First, the context in which I operated within the classroom may have not necessarily lent itself to the demonstration of multicultural awareness. Secondly, the propositions of Pederson (1988) and Nieto (2000) may have been insufficient to account for the multicultural awareness demonstrated in my practice or by certain accounts within classrooms. And thirdly, there could be alternative explanations for the development of multicultural awareness, the bases for which had not been explored. As a result of the cognitive dissonance emanating from these findings and the associated conjectures, the need for conceptual analysis involving the extension of theoretical propositions, capable of explaining how teachers and educators came to develop the capacity to respect and advocate for diversity within classrooms proved to be a worthy goal. Ultimately, as a result of wide reading, my construction of the applicability of transdisciplinarity to multicultural education emerged (Smith, 2013e), a means of explaining that which is “between,” “across,” and “beyond” disciplines (Nicolescu, 2010). Adaptation of this approach for informing teachers’ and educators’ ways of being, doing, knowing, and “learning to live together with others” (Smith, 209 2013e) also fulfilled my endeavor. Throughout this endeavor, evidence that my epistemological stance to knowledge informed my sense of humility, and therefore, an acknowledgement of the fluidity of my findings remained front and central. From my established pluralistic epistemological standpoint, the notion that knowledge must be approached from multiple dimensions and from a critical standpoint in order to disrupt my perceived notions of the dominance of the English language across educational contexts, and a disruption of the predominant ways in which knowledge of linguistic diversity was obtained and construed in educational circles seemed invaluable. Indelibly, this acknowledgement in tandem with recognition of the transaction between the goals of Chapters Two and Three strategically functioned as an ultimate gateway to demonstrating why research methods surrounding the literacy practices of language learners and utilized by teachers and educators required examination. Through such examination, further understandings of how language learners’ literacy practices came to be understood via research conducted across international contexts would provide an avenue for effecting change. As such, Chapter Four focuses on one of these prominent research methodologies. References Garcia, O. (2008). Multilingual language awareness and teacher education. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.) (pp. 385–400). New York: Springer. Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 143. 210 Haddix, M. (2010). No longer on the margins: Researching the hybrid literate identities of Black and Latina pre-service teachers. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 97-123. Jessner, U. (2008). Multicompetence approaches to language proficiency development in multilingual education. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.) (pp. 91-201). New York: Springer. Jiménez, R. T., Moll, L. C., Rodríguez-Brown, F. V., & Barrera, R. B. (1999). Conversations: Latina and Latino researchers interact on issues related to literacy learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 217-230. Murti, K. (2002). Whose identity? The non-native teacher as classroom mediator in the language classroom. ADFL Bulletin, 1, 26-29. Nicolescu, B. (2010). Methodology of transdisciplinarity – levels of reality, logic of the included middle and complexity. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1(1), 19-38. Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman. Safford, K., & Kelly, A. (2010). Linguistic capital of trainee teachers: Knowledge worth having? Language and Education, 24(5), 401-414. Smith, P. (2013e, In press.). Accomplishing the goals of multicultural education: A transdisciplinary perspective. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 15(1). Pang, V. O., & Park, C. D. (2011). Creating interdisciplinary multicultural teacher education: Courageous leadership is crucial. In A. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 63-80). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association and American Educational Research Association and Boston, MA: Rowan and Littlefield. 211 Pedersen, P. (1988). A handbook for developing multicultural awareness. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development. Wallace, B. C. (2000). A call for change in multicultural training at graduate schools of education: Educating to end oppression and for social justice. Teachers College Record, 102, 1086–1111. 212 CHAPTER FOUR VERBAL REPORTS AND LANGUAGE LEARNER LITERACY RESEARCH In this chapter, I explored two studies in my concentration on the verbal report methodology as employed in original studies focused on the literacy practices of language learners at the K-20 levels across international contexts: (i) Veridicality in Verbal Protocols of Language Learners (Smith & King, 2013) and (ii) Verbal Reports in the Reading Processes of Language Learners (Smith & Kim, 2013). The decision to concentrate on research methods for language learners emanated first from the observation that an emphasis on diversity and on multicultural education necessitates consideration of the methodological approaches used to explore language learners’ literacy processes if change is to be effected at the broader levels. Secondly, the exploration of the processes through which K-20 language learners become literate warranted a more systematic understanding of particular methods as used to undertake research involving these learners. Thirdly, to date, no review of research was found which investigated the characteristics of studies in which verbal reports, the research methodology chosen for concentration, have been deployed to understand language learners’ literacy processes. And fourth, through examining the ways in which verbal reports functioned across international contexts, and through the recommendations emanating from these reviews, future directions could be proposed for countries within the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean, whose literacy research endeavors are only now gaining implementation. 213 As such, the first study in Chapter Four takes an analytical approach to one of the verbal reports based on its use within an information-processing framework and with research conducted within language learners. The intent is to investigate the extent to which researchers adhere to considerations governing this methodological tool and to identify how cognitive approaches either privilege or limit exploration of language learners’ literacy processes. The second study delves further into the use of verbal reports through an in-depth examination of studies in which verbal reports were used, and via a synthesis of the trends involved in relation to methodology, theoretical framework, verbal method patterns and content typically explored within literacy studies in the L2 field. Veridicality in Verbal Protocols of Language Learners Author/Correspondent Author: Patriann Smith, M.A. Position: Doctoral Candidate Affiliation: University of South Florida Current Mailing Address: Childhood Education and Literacy Studies (CELS), 4202 East Fowler Ave., EDU 105, Tampa, FL 33620 Telephone number: 813-405-7237 Fax: 813-974-3826 E-mail: psmith4@usf.edu Author: James R. King, Ed. D. Position: Professor of Reading Education and Literacy Studies Affiliation: University of South Florida Current Mailing Address: Childhood Education and Literacy Studies (CELS), 4202 East Fowler Ave., EDU 105, Tampa, FL 33620 Telephone Number: 813-974-1062 Email: jking9@usf.edu Note: This paper has previously been published by Theory and Practice in Language Studies (see Figure 1.8). 214 Abstract In this paper, we concentrate on veridicality within verbal protocols when they are used to examine the reading processes of Language Learners (LLs). Eight methodological recommendations and considerations for verbal protocols proposed in Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) are used to interrogate 20 LL qualitative reading research studies that utilized verbal protocols in research from the previous decade. Issues related to errors of commission and omission as well as errors associated with language as an inherent variable within LL verbal protocols are then examined. Among the implications for research is the need to reconceptualize the theoretical basis for elicitation of LLs’ verbal protocols during the reading process. Keywords: veridicality, verbal protocols, verbal reports, language learners, second language learners, think-alouds Veridicality in Verbal Protocols of Language Learners Over the past decade, there has been a trend towards the re-conceptualization of second language acquisition (SLA). This trend results from an acknowledgement of the interaction between cognitively-based theories and socially-oriented approaches (Grabe, 2009), and their impacts upon language learning. Proponents of a socially-based theory favor a dialectical approach (e.g., Lantolf, 2007), in which constructs originally considered contrary to each other (e.g., individual/social, learning/acquisition) are integrated into one inquiry space in order to facilitate investigation of language, communication and second language learning. Embedded within sociocultural accounts of language learning are cognitivists’ (e.g., Ellis & LarsenFreeman, 2006) conceptualizations of “superposition.” In a superposition, dichotomous and paradoxical conceptions of second language emergence and acquisition relinquish their roles as 215 “polar opposites” (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006) and are synthesized to understand more closely, the facility of English Language Learners’ (ELLs’) with two languages as they interact in social contexts. The emerging awareness of this collective “social” within a cognitive whole is largely responsible for the increasingly modified view of language learners and for reenvisioning the latter as a “national asset” (Castek et al., 2007). However, this more expansive and inclusive perspective is not so evident in second language research conducted with certain methodologies. Considered a methodological tool, verbal protocols have been used to investigate the reading processes of Language Learners (LLs) in a majority of the studies in the second language acquisition (SLA) field. During the inception of this methodology, Aristotle and Plato utilized verbal protocols to invite individuals to provide feedback concerning their thoughts (Pritchard, 1990). Thousands of years later, John Watson (1920) recognized the connection between thinking and the neural activity of “inner speech”, which led to the proposition of “thinking aloud”/verbal protocols as a substitute for introspection. In subsequent decades, Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) produced a seminal piece based on studies in which researchers utilized concurrent verbal protocols to elicit information concerning participants’ thoughts during prescribed tasks. Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) approach, based on information processing (IP), encapsulated the concepts of both long-term (LTM) and short-term memory (STM) in order to explain the architecture of verbal protocols. These tenets became critical to the use of the verbal report methodology and the specific operations of verbal protocol methodology. Among the conclusions drawn from Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) seminal review is the realization that the debate surrounding validation of protocol data was no longer problematic since a reasonable assumption existed that participants’ self-reports did not reflect actual processing, but rather traces of processing. And upon these 216 traces, inferences by researchers develop models of processing. Another significant finding was the belief that no reasonably complete report of study participants’ cognitive activities could be gathered during reading. Evidence for this belief was manifested in statements such as “subjects reading text or attempting to understand written problem descriptions sometimes gave rather scanty and uninformative thinking-aloud protocols” (Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993, p. 252) and “when subjects think aloud while reading, little more than the text itself is vocalized” (Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993, p. 254). More recently, verbal protocols have gained increased prominence as a tool for understanding reading processes. Yet, Afflerbach (1990) was careful to point out that protocols are themselves flexible methodological tools. He argued for a more socially driven approach, advocating for researchers’ awareness of their participants’ construction of knowledge during protocols. However, when deployed in second language (L2) reading research, the verbal protocol methodology continues to be predominantly driven by cognitivist perspectives (e.g. Goo, 2010; Leow, 1997; Leow, Hseih, & Moreno, 2008; Rao, Gu, Zhang & Hu, 2007; Zhang, Gu & Hu, 2007) in which situational determinants (Jenkins, 1979) and constructively responsive elements involved in reading (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995) assume little significance. Within the cognitive orientations underlying the use of verbal protocols in the SLA field, Jenkins (1979) proposed four types of variables involved in human cognitive processes. These were believed to be inherent in participants’ reading of text. The types of variables noted were: (a) characteristics of subjects (e.g., knowledge, age, motivation, short-term memory capacity); (b) orienting tasks provided to the subject (e.g., reading goal, modality, instructions, apparatus); (c) materials being processed (e.g., length, topic, difficulty, genre); and (d) criterion task (e.g. recognition, question answering, summarization). 217 Analogously, within the sociocultural context, Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) identified social contextual factors involved in the reading process in their response to Ericsson and Simon’s seminal review (1984/1993). In Pressley and Afflerbach’s (1995) examination of the constructively responsive elements involved in reading, the researchers noted that these elements constituted readers’ (a) active search for overall meaning of the text though reflection on and response to text in pursuit of main ideas; (b) response to text with predictions and hypotheses that reflect their prior knowledge; (c) passion in their responses to text; and (d) prior knowledge that predicted their comprehension processing and responses to text. With their push towards consideration of the social contextual factors, Pressley and Afflerbach’s (1995) notion of constructively responsive reading, derived from numerous studies in which participants produced verbal protocols during reading of text, has come to be acknowledged as a comprehensive model of text processing, given the perceived inability of previously established reading models to “account for the rich mix of strategies, monitoring, and evaluative processes that constitute skilled reading” (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995, p. 97). While Ericsson and Simon (1984/1994), in their seminal review, alluded to the incomplete nature of verbal protocols, from a constructivist perspective, Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) questioned the very value ascribed to completeness within a constructivist context. In fact, they attribute perceived limitations of verbal reports to the fact that “social contextual variables were largely ignored” in studies from which Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) extensive analysis was derived (p. 82). Ellis and Larsen-Freeman (2006), prominent researchers in the second language acquisition (SLA) field, echoed Pressley and Afflerbach’s (1995) call for the use of verbal protocols to reflect reading as a socially-embedded process. They further suggested that cognitive orientations be brought to bear on the use of verbal protocols as a methodological tool. 218 Within this context, we assert the need for a paradigm shift in the use and interpretation of verbal protocols, generally, and specifically within SLA reading research. As change is experienced in conception of verbal protocols, the shift away from an exclusively cognitive orientation of this methodology creates the need for its conceptualization as a tool, which not only examines cognitive processes but also considers “the social”. It is this underlying assumption that must first be present as a tenet for discussing veridicality of verbal protocols, albeit, if this discussion continues to be a necessity after all is said and done. Notwithstanding, we acknowledge the groundbreaking contribution of Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) information processing model, from which many researchers in the SLA field have derived guidelines for the procedures of obtaining verbal reports. We therefore utilize the propositions made by Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) in their seminal review based on verbal protocols as a basis for out interrogation of the literature. While the Ericsson and Simon propositions are solely cognitive in origin, their use here is consistent with the studies that are reviewed as well as the underlying theoretical perspectives of those studies. Verbal Protocols Referred to as ‘verbal reports’ or ‘think-alouds’ (e.g., Bowles & Leow, 2005; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; Rosa & O’Neill, 1999), verbal protocols constitute a methodological procedure through which study participants report their thought processes while completing a task. According to the rationale provided by Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993), the intrusion of the verbal protocol slows down, but does not alter, the thinking about the task, that is, provided that both thinking and task completion are directed at the same goals. Verbal protocols may either be concurrent or retrospective. Concurrent verbal protocols are obtained while a task is being completed and are more commonly referred to as think-alouds; 219 while retrospective verbal protocols occur after the task has been completed. Certain verbal protocols further allow the study participant to interpret and/or explain the thought processes accompanying a task and are referred to as introspective verbal protocols (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995, p. 8). In spite of efforts to validate verbal protocols as a methodological tool, protocol elicitations continue to be criticized with regards to reactivity (Ellis, 2001; Jourdenais, 2001; Leow, 2002). Reactivity refers to the extent to which the content accessed from verbal protocols reflects (or fails to reflect) the actual contents of short-term memory (Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993, p. 109). Among the recent studies into reactivity (e.g., Bowles, 2010b; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Goo, 2010; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004), three studies acknowledged that the reports may have had reactive effects on the reading process. Bowles (2008; 2010b), who has conducted numerous investigations into reactivity and verbal reporting, conducted an extensive meta-analysis of SLA research studies to determine reactive effects on verbal tasks. Her findings indicated that variables such as L2 proficiency level and explicitness of instruction accounted for reactivity in given tasks (Bowles, 2010b, p. 110). Reactivity of verbal protocols is a logical concern and has been the center of recent debate within the SLA field. However, in this paper we are not concerned with reactivity per se, but rather with one of its effects. That effect is veridicality, or the probability that “processes underlying behavior may be unconscious and thus not accessible for verbal reporting” as well as the “possibility that verbalizations, when present, may not be closely related to underlying thought processes” (Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993, p. 109). Although identified by Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) as a key issue in reported protocol data, alerts to monitoring for veridicality appear to have had little consequence in original studies based on the extent to which it continues to be 220 utilized in various domains (e.g., Ericsson, 1988; Green, 1998; Hughes & Parkes, 2003; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). The challenges faced within examinations of veridicality of verbal reports were such that Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) found it necessary to develop a methodological framework to counteract the challenges threats to veridicality posed within the tool protocols. Since the proposition of this framework, verbal reports have been used rather extensively, particularly within the SLA field (Green, 1998; Richards, 2009). And, from time to time, veridicality has again been revisited (Ericsson, 2006; Ericsson & Simon, 2003) by proponents of the approach. In Ericsson’s (2006) return to these specific challenges inherent with verbal reports, he noted that validity remains a concern, specifically in contexts where researchers are: …primarily interested in general strategies and methods participants use to solve a broad class of problems in a domain, such as mathematics or text comprehension with reference to the challenges posed during elicitation of information of general strategies such as comprehension. They often ask participants to describe their general methods after solving a long series of different tasks, which often leads to misleading summaries or after-the-fact reconstructions of what participants think they must have done. In the rare cases when participants have deliberately and consistently applied a single general strategy to solving the problems, then can answer such requests easily by recalling their thought sequence from any of the completed tasks. (p. 230) Ericsson (2006) asserted, however, it is hardly the case that participants apply a single strategy when they are engaged in solving problems within the context of reading, when participants “typically employ multiple strategies, and their strategy choices may change during 221 the course of an experimental session” (p. 231). He further explains that participants would find it difficult to describe a single strategy utilized consistently within an experiment and therefore, makes the argument that their reporting of such a strategy would be very poorly related to their performance on a task. Ericsson (2006) concluded that reports based on descriptions of strategy use therefore tend not to be valid. Given the concern with veridicality of verbal reports in Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993), as well as the recent acknowledgement of the questionable nature of verbal reports with regards to veridicality (Ericsson, 2006), it is surprising that verbal reports continue to be relied upon as a basis for reading research, particularly within the SLA field, with little investigation into the scientific productivity of this tool. Furthermore, despite the cautions expressed about using this method in isolation (Ericsson, 2006), there appears to be sole reliance on the methodology within the SLA field. Considering the overall need for an evaluation of veridicality of verbal reports (Ericsson, 2003; 2006; Ericsson & Simon, 1983/1994; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Russo, Johnson & Stephens, 1989) as well as the specific necessity for such validation within the SLA field (Gass & Mackey, 2000; Sasaki, 2003; Stratman & Hamp-Lyons, 1994), and considering the importance of relying on the results of such data for addressing the reading needs of LLs, we first examine recommendations for veridicality as posed by Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) in a critical analysis of the role of protocol invalidity on verbal protocols elicited from LLs in primary research studies. In this examination, we identify the qualitative and mixed-method primary research studies over the past decade in which language learners’ (LLs’) reading processes were examined using verbal protocols. We interrogate these studies based on Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) eight methodological recommendations for veridicality of verbal protocols. 222 Secondly, we revisit arguments concerning the presence of non-veridicality in verbal protocols, namely errors of omission, errors of commission, and language as an inherent variable (Russo, Johnson, & Stephens, 1989), with an emphasis on verbal protocols used for understanding LLs’ reading processes. We conclude with a renewed emphasis on the need for a reconceptualization of verbal protocols from a more holistic perspective, one that allows for sociocultural and cognitive theory to both inform investigation of the reading processes of LLs. The Literature In undertaking the task of examining veridicality, we drew from current research concerning the use of verbal protocols as a methodological tool for LLs (Smith & Kim, 2013, forthcoming). During the preliminary examination that provided a description of the state of the research in this area, we examined refereed original studies from the SLA field published between the years 2000-2011. These studies involved participants as subjects at every level of the education system, within and outside of the United States, and extended beyond second language research to multilingual inclusive of reading research studies. Overall, 30 original studies were selected for the preliminary review (Smith & Kim, 2013 forthcoming). These studies were then categorized based on methodology, i.e., quantitative, qualitative or mixedmethods. Of the 30 original studies gathered, 20 were qualitative and mixed-method studies. Given our interest in considering the methodological concerns of verbal protocols within research studies, in which qualitative approaches played a major role, we chose the 20 qualitative, and mixed methods studies (which included qualitative research paradigms), for this analysis. Our rationale for the selection of qualitative studies was based on a recent review of the research that noted the tendency of researchers to focus on quantitative studies within the SLA field, specifically with regards to introspection (Richards, 2009). Therefore, shifting to a focus 223 on qualitative studies in this review would illuminate understanding of the processes engaged in when using verbal protocols from a qualitative research perspective. Framework for the Review: Methodological Recommendations Our framework for analysis was based upon Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) proposition for the use of verbal protocols. Within this framework, we chose to focus on non-veridicality, i.e., the probability that “processes underlying behavior may be unconscious and thus not accessible for verbal reporting” and “possibility that verbalizations, when present, may not be closely related to underlying thought processes” (Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993, p. 109). To accomplish this goal, we found it necessary to first identify the recommendations related to nonveridicality of verbal protocols as specified by Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993). The following recommendations appear to be particularly applicable to obtaining veridicality in the use of verbal protocols: (a) think-aloud data should reflect exactly what is being thought about through the use of concurrent protocols as well as verbal cognitions rather than nonverbal cognitions (images), (concurrent protocols increase representativeness of thoughts). (b) fully automatic processes are difficult to self-report so it is necessary to slow down processing for such processes or use retrospective reports by having subjects specify their thoughts in response to a specific type of signal which interrupts the automatic process, (slow down processing); (c) certain types of information will more likely be reflected in protocols than other types of information (i.e., information concerning the product of one’s processing may more likely be reflected in the self-report than thoughts that are present as a result or as an inherent part of the thinking process) (emphasize process over product); 224 (d) asking subjects to provide a generalized description of their processing across trials is particularly problematic because it is possible that only the operations involved in early trials were conscious (tap current processing); (e) the directions given to participants producing verbal protocols and the testing situation should be such as to discourage participants from providing descriptions or explanations of their processing since reports of intermediate and final products of processing are preferred above descriptions of explanations of processing directions to think-aloud (provide verbal protocols) can be rather open ended, or they can direct participants to report a specific type of information that they have in working memory (direct participants to provide non-explanations); (f) there are individual differences in ability to provide think-aloud reports; it is possible that general verbal ability provides individuals with an advantage to report verbal protocols (consider participants’ verbal abilities); (g) it is critical for the researcher to be able to predict what study participants will self-report as they attempt a task (predict study participants’ self-reports). (as cited in Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995, pp. 9-13. The italicized restatement is our elaboration.) Utilized as a framework for investigation, we use these methodological recommendations and considerations to examine veridicality of verbal protocols within the 20 original studies reviewed. We acknowledge Ericsson’s (2006) caution against lumping all forms of protocol analysis together in seeking a resolution to the challenges faced. We therefore specify the type of protocol being concentrated on as we proceed with analysis. 225 Selected Studies’ Adherence to Methodological Recommendations Increase Representativeness of Thought Through Concurrent Protocols Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) first recommendation suggests the use of concurrent protocols and reports based on verbal cognitions in order to increase the possibility of deriving protocols that reflect exactly the thought process of study participants. As indicated earlier, concurrent methods involve participants’ verbalization of thought processes during their engagement with an activity. In these studies utilizing concurrent protocols, reading tasks functioned as the aforementioned activity. All 20 of the research studies referenced employed a certain measure of concurrent protocol methodology, with nine studies utilizing solely concurrent methods (e.g., Akyel & Ercetin, 2009; Alsheikh, 2011; Daalen-Kapteijns, Elshout-Mohr & de Glopper, 2001; Dressler, Carlo, Snow, August & White, 2011; Gascoigne, 2002; Geladri, Griva, & Mastrothanasis, 2010; Stevenson, Schoonen & de Glopper, 2007; Zhang, Gu & Hu, 2007). For instance, in Alsheikh’s (2011) investigation into the strategies used by multilingual students while they read across three languages, participants thought-aloud while reading three passages in the different target languages. Likewise, Daalen-Kapteijns, Elshout-Mohr and de Glopper (2001) examined vocabulary-knowledge-oriented activities of young students through the collection of think-alouds, as participants derived meaning for unknown words from a given context. In yet another instance, Stevenson, Schoonen, and de Glopper (2007) had 253 13-14 year old EFL students indirectly explain their thoughts, that is, provide meta-commentary on what they were thinking. In this instance, the students also concurrently reported their use of language-oriented strategies/content-oriented (based on orientation of processing), regulatory/cognitive/cognitive-iterative strategies (based on type of processing), and aboveclause/clause/below-clause (based on domain of processing) strategies in Dutch and EFL. 226 The three areas of strategy use in Stevenson, Schoonen, and de Glopper’s (2007) study were characterized by distinct, but nuanced, differences. Content-oriented strategies in this case involved an attempt to compensate for absence of linguistic knowledge or processing ability in the participants’ attempts to understand the linguistic code of the text. Further, the contentoriented strategies focused on the participant’s use of methods to create mental models of the text. The mental models were observed to integrate important text-based propositions with participants’ prior knowledge. Participants’ regulatory strategies, revealed in their protocol data, were comprised of reflective processes in reading text (e.g., planning, evaluating). Their other cognitive strategies included direct processing which involved mental operations (e.g., translating, paraphrasing) and cognitive-iterative strategies involved reprocessing of text without changing fundamental surface structure of the text (e.g., rereading). Above-clause level, clause level and below-clause level strategies were based on readers’ attempts to understand reasonably large chunks of text (e.g., whole paragraphs), whole clauses or smaller parts of text (e.g. morphemes/words/phrases) respectively. Clearly, this elaboration of Stevenson et al. (2007) reveals the constitutive nature of individual’s social and cognitive strategies deployed while generating a protocol, as well as the use of concurrent methods. The use of exclusively concurrent methods in these nine studies is significant because it reflects researchers’ adherence to Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) first consideration: “thinkaloud data should reflect exactly what is being thought about through the use of concurrent protocols as well as verbal cognitions rather than nonverbal cognitions (images)” (p. 9). In contrast to studies that utilized only concurrent methods, five studies obtained retrospective protocols in conjunction with concurrent protocols (Bengeleil & Paribakht, 2004; Nassaji, 2003; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000; Yang, 2006). Among 227 these was Upton and Lee-Thompson’s (2001) investigation of university-level L2 readers’ use of their L1 to aid in understanding of L2 general expository text. The study design had participants think aloud while they read transcripts of their own protocols that had been recorded previously. After they read the transcripts of their protocols, the participants were asked to make comments about their reading processes in order to explain what they had done while they were reading. The validity of such a data generation and collection process is in part supported by the method of stimulated recall (Gass & Mackey, 2000), wherein participants are confronted with data that they have previously created and asked to respond to it in some way. However, the issue in the current review is the degree to which this stimulated data is related to the thought processes of the participants when they were engaged in the proscribed experimental task. According to guidelines, the stimulated recall would have less to do with traces of processing than would the concurrent data. In Weshe and Paribakth’s (2000) exploration of ten intermediate-level ESL students’ responses to different words learning tasks, participants were required to (a) read a list of target words, and locate these underlined words in the text, identify which target words were “connectives” and then find and circle them in the text, (p. 201), (b) match a given list of target words with a longer list of definitions to ensure that they could recognize the target words and their meanings, (pp. 201-202), (c) use a derivational grid on which target words were located to fill in derivations that had been omitted, (d) read given text and identify underlined words which corresponded to the definitions provided, (e) replace underlined words as presented in novel sentences with similar underlined words from the text (p. 203), (f) identify discourse functions of target connectives as these were used in the reading text and (g) rearrange strings of words in which target words were included into sentences in order to direct learners’ attention to the 228 characteristics of target words as required in producing new sentences (p. 204). In this research study, the researchers employed both immediate and delayed retrospection, along with concurrent protocols. For the retrospective protocols, the researchers had participants engage in reflection on how they had performed each task, both at the end of the each exercise as well as at the end of the research session. In fact, both of the reflective responses, at the end of each exercise and at the end of the research session are after the fact, and decidedly different from the concurrent protocols. Characteristically, comparisons between concurrent and retrospective data are not undertaken with any of these studies. It is also likely that with such an elaborate task array, participants’ attention would distributed and less likely to be focused on concurrent processing. The preceding five studies, (Bengeleil & Paribakht, 2004; Nassaji, 2003; Upton & LeeThompson, 2001; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000; Yang, 2006) utilized retrospective protocols in contrast with Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) recommendations for concurrent use as a means of increasing representativeness of verbal protocols. Therefore, the results of these studies may constitute a certain measure of unrepresentativeness. Since the concurrent protocols in the studies referenced were obtained prior to reflection/retrospection, there was likely little interference. However, any descriptive reflection before the concurrent protocol would produce interference and therefore be less representative of actual process. Additionally, the value of the reflection as representative becomes a prominent issue in this context because (a) the question arises as to whether reflection remains aligned with the reading process and (b) the value of the reflection becomes dependent on the participants’ capacity to remember the actual processes engaged in during protocol collection. Of course, these methodological questions must be viewed in terms of what claims and uses the researchers make with retrospective data. 229 Related to the issue of representativeness, two studies utilized introspection to accompany concurrent protocols (Chun, 2001; Lee-Thompson, 2008). For example, LeeThompson (2008) explored 8 Chinese students in their third year of learning English. The study focused on the students’ uses of reading strategies when processing two Chinese texts (narrative and argumentative). Researchers first asked participants to think aloud when they came to break points marked by red dots at the end of each paragraph, and conducted introspection when they asked participants to respond to prompts by providing explanations about their thoughts. In the case of Chun’s (2001) participants, the researchers tracked German EFL university students’ behavior with ActionCatcher software as they read two texts online while using an internal glossary and dictionaries. As they completed the accompanying exercises related to the reading of each text, they were required to explain each action, i.e., what went on through their minds and to comment on the usefulness of the program. Because these participants were required to simultaneously report their concurrent thoughts and then immediately comment upon those thoughts, the discrete nature of either of the data sets would be difficult to determine. In both the Lee & and Thompson, as well as Chun studies, the indirect explanation of thoughts differed significantly from providing a concurrent statement of thought. Asking participants to recall the thought processes involved in the generation of a previous protocol is calling for introspective accounts regarding this protocol. When this is done after the completed protocol, one would anticipate little interference in the actual protocol output. However, the content generated during the introspection would subject protocols to the same limitations as other forms of introspection, and raise the concern that introspection was unrelated to the content of the protocol. 230 Overall, the guideline for representativeness through concurrent protocol use is generally found to be incorporated into many of the studies, even in the presence of other verbal report methodologies (i.e., introspection, retrospection). Specifically, in the context of concurrency, even when retrospection and introspection were deployed, participants were invited to state their thought processes as they read, indicating that the reports were more likely based on verbal cognitions as opposed to non-verbal cognitions. It is therefore safe to say that in the first nine studies referenced which relied solely on concurrent reports (e.g., Akyel & Ercetin, 2009; Alsheikh, 2011; Daalen-Kapteijns, Elshout-Mohr & de Glopper, 2001; Dressler, Carlo, Snow, August & White, 20119; Gascoigne, 2002; Geladri, Griva, & Mastrothanasis, 2010; Stevenson, Schoonen & de Glopper, 2007; Zhang, Gu & Hu, 2007), a greater likelihood existed that a “subset of the information actually heeded in short-term memory” was reflected in the protocols (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995, p. 9). This is consistent with Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) recommendation for use of concurrent verbal protocols and therefore, veridicality of the protocol outputs should not have been affected in these studies. However, in the subsequent studies examined previously (Bengeleil & Paribakht, 2004; Lee-Thomspon, 2008; Nassaji, 2003; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000; Yang, 2006), in spite of concurrent protocols being incorporated into research, the presence of retrospection and introspection may have increased the possibility of unrepresentativeness of the combined data obtained. Again, it depends upon how the researchers’ used the retrospective data in their studies. Slow Down Processing In their second recommendation, Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) highlighted the importance of slowing down automatized processes, specifically by prompting for verbal protocols in order to sufficiently interrupt otherwise automatized processes. One of the original 231 studies reviewed manifested evidence of the researcher’ attempt to slow down the reading process in keeping with this recommendation (e.g., Lee-Thompson, 2008). In Lee-Thompson’s (2008) approach, break points in the form of red dots at the end of each paragraph functioned as prompts to the study participant as the protocol was obtained. The fact that the reading process was interrupted at the conclusion of the paragraph, and not sentence or word level, is significant as one may argue about the effectiveness of such a method in slowing down the reading process, without disrupting processing within sentences or clauses. At the end of a paragraph, a researcher would be more likely to tap comprehension as a completed product and less likely to intercept comprehension as a process. Since protocols intend to tap process information, waiting until the end of the paragraph has serious implications for representativeness of the data. While the task (reading) is in fact slowed, it is not until the process is likely completed. Interrupting the reading process at the end of a paragraph would be less likely to create a problem with comprehension for readers but more likely to be related to the content of processing. Consequently, researchers’ verbal prompts such as random “tell me what you’re thinking” interspersed inter- and/or intra-sententially are likely to interrupt the processing of the immediate clause. Conversely, embedded red dots at the sentential (and less frequently) intra-sentential clause boundaries would not interrupt syntactic processing (Bresnan, 1978; Fodor, Garrett & Bever, 1968). This is due to the fact that evidence from the literature on semantic processing shows that such processing required of comprehension happens more interstitially at clause boundaries (Jackendoff, 1978). Nevertheless, it remains clear that end-ofparagraph prompting would not interfere with process. Lee-Thompson (2008) not only used red dots as a signal for interruption of the reading process, but also prompted participants to state what they were thinking while they read. 232 Notably, this practice of prompting was more of an exception than the rule. The absence of prompting during the collection of concurrent reports is problematic as Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) acknowledged that fully automatic processes such as reading are difficult to selfreport. They therefore recommend the use of concurrent protocols, which do interrupt with prompting, to facilitate this process. However, Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) also supported the use of retrospective protocols by having subjects specify their thoughts in response to the specific signal which had previously interrupted the automatic process (i.e., reading) in which participants were engaged. They further asserted that participants be discouraged from providing descriptions or explanations of their processing (see Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993, p. 109). However, one might argue that the recommendation for the use of retrospective reports clearly contradicts Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) recommendation for the use of concurrent reports which ensured that thought processes are closely related to verbalizations. Perhaps, Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) contradiction here is the result of the use of numerous studies unrelated to reading in their seminal review. But Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) review did draw upon research that involved approaches directed at understanding skilled reading, and specific instances are present in which SLA/LL researchers may benefit from specific guidelines for eliciting reports concerning the reading process (p. 254). Among the guidelines pertaining to reading as an automated process, Ericsson and Simon (1993) assert that “comprehension information must be accessed in LTM to generate coherent representation of a text’s meaning” (Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993, p. 254). In fact, the authors cited researchers who “slowed down” the reading process to permit more complete verbalizations by displaying sentences separately with several lines or some elapsed time between the presentation of sentences, i.e., showing participants one sentence at a time and 233 using retrospective reports after reading. They note that while the nature of verbalization remained the same, in each case, there was a remarkable increase in the amount of verbalization obtained when prompted retrospective accounts were elicited. Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) alluded to both the slowing down of processing and representativeness in their exploration of verbal protocol research in relation to reading processes. SLA researchers’ recognition of the importance of slowing down the automated process of reading, as well as their intent to preserve comprehension through the use of complementary protocol formats, may therefore very well be the basis for five of the research studies which deploy retrospective protocols in conjunction with other forms of verbal reports (e.g., Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000). What is apparent is that when researchers did choose to deploy concurrent protocols, thus disrupting ongoing reading processes, these researchers also included retrospective protocols, perhaps as a “remedy” for fractured comprehension. Ericsson (2003) validates the retrospective tool in situations where study participants are merely asked to recall their thoughts, but warns against retrospection in which participants are required to describe “cognitive activities that go beyond immediate recall sequences of already generated thoughts” (p. 14). Ericsson’s cautions may be partially responsible for researchers’ reluctance to abandon concurrent reporting in favor of retrospective reports. In keeping with Ericsson’s (2003) recommendation, three of the studies that were reviewed involved the use of immediate retrospection (Nassaji, 2003; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Weshe & Paribakht, 2000). Nassaji’s (2003) consideration of 21 adult ESL learners’ inference of word meanings from context in a text first utilized concurrent reports to have participants report what came to mind as they inferred meanings of words. Subsequently, Nassaji 234 (2003) used immediate retrospective protocols to find out whether learners had additional comments on their familiarity with the words and/or concerning their inference processes regarding the meanings of the words. Similarly, Upton and Lee-Thompson (2001) collected both concurrent protocols and immediate, retrospective protocols as they examined how 20 native speakers of Chinese and Japanese used their L1 as an aid to understanding English general, expository text. In neither of the studies was retrospection employed independently. This is potentially productive research practice as independent retrospection is not likely to tap processes. Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) recommendation that researchers take pains to “slow down” the reading processing of their participants could have been the basis for researchers’ choice to utilize retrospective acts of processing in conjunction with concurrent protocols. The use of concurrent protocols would indeed slow down participants’ processing and the addition of the retrospective account would provide needed detail to the quickly collected concurrent data. Emphasize Process over Product Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) third recommendation and caution regarding verbal protocols indicates the potential for products of processing taking preeminence over participants’ awareness of their process data. Of the 20 studies considered, nine were product-oriented (Abbott, 2006; Bengeleil & Paribakht, 2004; Chun, 2001; Daalen-Kapteijns, Elshout-Mohr & de Glopper, 2001; Dressler, Carlo, Snow, August & White, 2009; Gascoigne, 2002; Lee-Thompson, 2008; Nassaji, 2003; Paribakht, 2005). These studies involved products/tasks that were inclusive of drawing inferences, answering questions, and retelling. For instance, in Gascoigne’s (2002) evaluation of 16 Native English speaking students’ recall of idea units based on bottom-up and top-down processes of reading, students read for the purpose of writing down everything they 235 could recall. In this study, participants vocalized thoughts about the text or thoughts occurring during the product-oriented task. On the other hand, Paribakht’s (2005) 20 Farsi-speaking undergraduate students were first required to read English text quickly for general comprehension, and then asked to repeat the reading in order to guess meanings of unfamiliar boldfaced target words in text (p. 711). While the students completed these process-oriented tasks, they verbalized their thoughts using the preferred language: English, Farsi, or both languages. In this case, the explicit direction for the vocabulary task required the readers to focus on products (the vocabulary) rather than the processes of their thinking during reading. In both of these preceding studies, the focus on product likely influences the verbal protocols that were collected. More consistent with Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) caution regarding product over process, seven studies were process-oriented (Alsheikh 2011; Geladri et al., 2010; Stevenson, Schoonen & de Glopper, 2007; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000; Yang, 2006; Zhang, Gu & Hu, 2007). For example, Geladri et al.’s (2010) investigation of reading difficulties, as well as cognitive and metacognitive strategies deployed by bilingual students while reading, was not geared towards students producing a result. Rather, Geladri et al. (2010) focused on how study participants understood the meanings of words and employed reading strategies for their understanding of text. Similarly, Yang (2006) and Zhang, Gu and Hu (2007) emphasized the reading strategies of study participants. In Yang’s (2006) study, 20 intermediate level EFL students in Taiwan were required to read English texts explaining motion, then independently generate meanings emanating from the text in either English or Mandarin Chinese, as preferred. Researchers collected both concurrent reports, in which participants reported their thoughts, and retrospective 236 reports, in which participants explained how they comprehended the sentences, as well as the strategies they used to deal with challenges in comprehension. Focusing on ESL learners, Zhang, Gu and Hu’s (2007) research study was comprised of 18 Singaporean Grades 4-6, high- and lowproficiency learners of English. Each participant was required to read 6 English narrative and 6 English expository texts of varied difficulty levels and to verbalize concurrently what they were thinking while they read. In this study, the goal of the researchers was to identify reading strategies that successful Singaporean learners of English use and to note differences in strategy use across grade levels and based on varied levels of reading difficulty. As such, participants were not expected to complete a task as a result of reading, but the reading of the passages themselves constituted the only task participants were required to perform. Given that the aforementioned studies (Alsheikh 2011; Geladri et al., 2010; Stevenson, Schoonen & de Glopper, 2007; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000; Yang, 2006; Zhang, Gu & Hu, 2007) constituted no product to which participants were expected to aspire or achieve, there was a greater probability of preservation of a possible process orientation. For studies where protocols were influenced by product specification, such as the ones in which study participants anticipated performing an activity (e.g. retelling information, making inferences, answering questions) as an adjunct to the reading task, Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) noted that there was a greater likelihood that the verbal protocols would reflect the anticipated task rather than be a representation of their awareness of the ongoing reading process. While Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) did not explicitly state that process-oriented tasks would place a greater onus on the participant to report the process, it may be hypothesized that such would be the case. If the goal of a researcher is to understand reading processes, then research 237 tasks should be geared towards maximizing the probability that the verbal protocols obtained during the reading process would be most representative of that participant’s processing, and, therefore, process-oriented studies would more than likely be the norm than would those with product-influenced protocols. Tap Current Processing Recommendation four holds that participants not be asked to provide a generalized description of their processing across trials because of the possibility that conscious attention would be placed only on operations involved in earlier trials of the verbal reporting process. This would result in the early observations being used as a template or default response, and therefore these would be more readily reported. Of course, such a response set offers little in the way of evidence of processing. Our analysis finds general adherence to this recommendation. Only one of the studies involved participant verbalization across trials (see Wesche & Paribakht, 2000). In this case, 10 intermediate-level ESL students at a Canadian university responded to different word learning tasks and subsequently produced retrospective protocols concerning the tasks at the end of the research session. As such, veridicality would likely be affected since participants would be more inclined to report information concerning the initial word learning tasks encountered in the research process. Fortunately, veridicality of the remaining 19 studies was not affected in this regard. Direct Participants to Provide Non-Explanations For recommendation five, pertaining the directions provided to study participants, Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) maintained: The directions given to think-aloud subjects and the testing situation should be such as to discourage participants from providing descriptions or explanations of 238 their processing as reports of intermediate and final products of processing are preferred above descriptions of explanations of processing. Directions to thinkaloud (provide verbal protocols) can be rather open ended, or they can direct participants to report a specific type of information that they have in working memory. (pp. 10-11) “Descriptions or explanations of their processing,” as noted above may more explicitly be referred to as “introspective” protocols. In two of the 20 studies (Chun, 2001; Lee-Thompson, 2008), the researchers employed such introspection. The directions for introspection procedures in these studies required study participants to describe and/or explain their thought processes. For instance, in Chun’s (2001) investigation of 23 learners’ consultation of internal and external glossaries while reading on the web, students were to explain each action, what was going on through their minds while they worked, and to comment on the usefulness of features of the program they used during the exercise. Asking for introspective data conflicts with Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) recommendation as well as Ericsson’s (2006) confirmation that the “closest connection between actual thoughts and verbal reports is found when people verbalize thoughts that are spontaneously attended to during task completion” (p. 221). The contrast between the requirements of introspection and the recommendation that directions given discourage participants from providing explanations of process therefore contributes to the likelihood that protocol data collected was non-veridical. Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/993) admonition against this directive is predicated upon the fact that asking for a description or explanation imputes additional participant processing, and the residue from that processing is offered along with 239 thinking produced “within the moment” of the task. A substitute for this directive, in Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) opinion, could have possibly been to “tell what you are thinking.” In the three studies referenced above (Chun, 2001; Lee-Thompson, 2008; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000), participants were directed to describe what they thought while they read and were not required to state specific information about the contents of working memory. Since Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) guidelines indicated that directions to think-aloud (provide verbal protocols) can be rather open ended, or they can direct participants to report a specific type of information that they have in working memory, Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) did not necessarily state negative implications for pursuing either direction. What is noteworthy, however, is the recognition that directions impact the nature of reports and therefore, researchers should be willing to acknowledge this impact in presentation of their findings. Consider Participants’ Verbal Abilities Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) sixth recommendation relates to individuals’ differences in their abilities to produce think-aloud protocols and the possibility that increased general verbal ability provides individuals with an advantage to report verbal protocols. The importance of considering individual differences of readers and how they vary in their linguistic competence, their background knowledge relative to a target text, and their specific experiences in the interpretations of texts is of paramount importance, not only with regards to their ability to verbalize, but also in relation to their background experiences as individual language learners (LLs). As Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) noted, study participants vary in their knowledge, experiences and interpretations of texts. It is therefore problematic that in the studies referenced, researchers generally appear to be oblivious to the nuances between individual participants as they undertake a myriad of 240 reading tasks. For example, in many situations, researchers indicate that participants were Spanish, English, and French students, or state the current level at which these participants operate with reference to a language learned. However, this information hardly accounts for variations in elements such as year of first exposure to the L1, time spent learning the L1, number of countries in which students lived, number of languages spoken in country in which students lived, language predominantly spoken in the home, language in which students were officially taught in school, all of which are variables which significantly affect students’ abilities to verbalize thoughts in conjunction with reading tasks. Bernhardt (2005) concurred with our observed inattention paid to individual variations among participants in original studies involving language learners (LLs). She notes that studies involving LLs tend to involve participants who originate from diverse and multiple language backgrounds, and whose experiences with each of any given languages in a study scarcely bear equal resemblance. As such, she asserts that students’ identities are to be factored into the reading processes during research of their experiences, and if a reliable representation of their reading is to be obtained, it may be necessary to capture, as much as possible, an accounting of their varied backgrounds, (i.e., home languages and cultures). Consideration of the impact of such factors on the variability of verbal protocols produced within a given context may be easily dismissible because of the arduous nature of such task. However, the practical difficulties in controlling for linguistic and cultural variability does not negate the integral role of such elements in interpretation of verbal report data. Interestingly, on this note of individual difference, researchers in the reviewed studies generally failed to provide indications of any measures of verbal ability, but rather appeared to confine their descriptions to statements indicating that study participants were adult learners or 241 learners at the higher levels of the K-12 system. Researchers’ tendency to examine reading processes of adult learners at the expense of that of younger participants’ using verbal protocols has previously been cited as problematic (see Fitzgerald, 1995). Although most likely predicated upon Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) observation that younger learners are less likely to possess the required additional attentional capacity to report their thought processes, researchers should heed Pressley and Afflerbach’s (1995) caution that level of educational proficiency does not automatically translate into readers’ expertise status, and therefore the assumed, concomitant ability to verbalize may be an unfounded assumption. In other words, it may not be the case that “good” readers are also “good” verbalizers. It is also problematic to operationalize verbosity for selection procedures. The fact that research with LLs continues to be conducted, albeit sparingly, but nonetheless successfully, with students in the younger grades (need a couple of citations here), should account for evidence that verbal protocols do elicit substantive information with adult as well as younger learners. While it may be difficult to determine verbal ability in the initial selection of study participants, research may be geared towards procedures that allow for differentiation of verbal abilities in participants identified for a given empirical study. In this way, interpretation of the protocol data might be allowed to reflect these differentiated abilities. Predict Study Participants’ Self-Reports Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) final recommendation focused on researchers’ ability to predict study participants’ abilities to self-report as they attempted a task. As Ericsson (2003) explained, the completion of a task is dependent upon a predictable set of prior knowledge, which makes it possible for a researcher to anticipate the procedures in which a study participant might engage in to arrive at a particular solution to the task parameters. More appropriately referred to as task analysis, this assessment of the probable sequential elements of a task 242 “provides a set of possible thought sequences for its successful performance, where the application of each alternative procedure is associated with a different sequence of thoughts” (Ericsson, 2003, p. 9). In the research studies considered, while there is reference to the expected responses (strategies, inferences) from study participants (e.g., Chun, 2001; Bengeleil & Paribakht, 2004, Lee-Thompson, 2008), there was no study in which a task analysis is provided as an indication of the probable and possible sequences to be expected for alternative procedures in a task or a given series of tasks. While the tasks referenced by Ericsson (2003) for illustration were largely mathematical in nature, it may be possible that a similar procedure can be followed to appropriate a method for determining predictability of verbal protocols of reading, in an effort to enhance veridicality. Summary. In the previous discussion, we explored the extent to which studies involving language learners (LLs) adhered to Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) recommendations with regards to veridicality of verbal protocols. While researchers tended to adhere to the recommendations related to the use of concurrent protocols, the elicitation of responses concerning current processing and in general, the avoidance of requiring participants to provide verbal explanations, there was evidence to indicate that researchers failed to slow down processing, consider variations in participants’ verbal abilities within interpretations of the data and to predict the probable contents of participants’’ self-reports. This indicates that due consideration has not been given to verbal protocols as utilized within a cognitive framework, and specifically within Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) cautionary rubric. Failure to attend to their rubric may result in protocols with embedded erroneous data. Awareness of these errant data have created certain other fundamental arguments regarding veridicality which have arisen 243 in the literature, resulting from, but apart from those proposed by Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993). We now consider these arguments. Fundamental Arguments Three fundamental arguments relate to the presence of non-veridicality in verbal protocols of Language Learners (LLs). In these arguments, the assumption is that veridicality of verbal reports is present when verbal output matches mental operations. As such, when this is not the case, non-veridicality is theorized to stem from two major types of errors involved in the data elicitation process. Russo, Johnson, and Stephens (1989) labeled these: errors of omission and errors of commission. We identified a third error type, which we have labeled: the presence of language(s) as an inherent variable. We now discuss the three arguments. Errors of Omission In errors of omission, certain thoughts based on the material read or the processing of that material are not reported (Russo, Johnson, & Stephens, 1989). Earlier research suggested that LLs use fewer metacognitive strategies to verbalize the strategies that they do use and identified a reduced number of metacognitive strategies identified in comparison to those seen in reading processes of monolingual learners (Fitzgerald, 1995). From this line of thinking, verbal protocols from LLs would be more susceptible to errors of omission than would be the case with verbal protocols elicited from studies using a single language. However, more recently, Herdina and Jessner (2002), in their presentation of the Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (DMM), proposed that language learning be considered from the standpoint of cross-linguistic processing as opposed to additive-oriented conceptions. In their proposition, Herdina and Jessner (2002) argued that learning a language facilitates the development of metacognitive strategies, which results in high levels of metalinguistic awareness and consciousness and therefore, an enhanced 244 “multilingual monitor”. The interactions between and among these elements then promote cognitive flexibility, creativity, and divergent thought (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, pp. 63-64). It is therefore problematic to assert that errors of omission for LLs be derived from their incapacity to engage in metacognitive processing. Nonetheless, we pursue studies that suggest such disability for LL participants. Among other reasons provided for incomplete concurrent verbal reporting are situations in which study participants: (1) engage in a reasonably high level of cognitive activity (Sachs & Polio, 2007) and may not have the cognitive reserve to fully report processes; and (2) mediate their steps immediately preceding a challenging solution (Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993) and therefore do not report prior mediation in their think-alouds. With learners at early levels and stages of learning a second language, and presumably relying heavily on translation strategies when reading a second or third language passage (Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004), navigation of multiple simultaneous processes increases complexity. Therefore, such theorizing would hold that such students may omit relevant detailed components in reports of their processing may be greater than would be observed in the monolingual learner. In objection to such a view, it may be argued that the researcher cannot possibly detect detailed omissions if it is indeed impossible to determine all the processes present in any learner’s short-term memory at a given period. It is for this very reason that testing the veridicality of a concurrent protocol becomes even more questionable and almost impossible (Russo, Johnson & Stephens, 1989) for the ELL, who may be relying on varying language structures, within varying languages, to understand and describe socio-cognitive linguistic processes. 245 Considering the above, if veridicality directly influences validity of a verbal report, and testing veridicality is almost impossible, then, as Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) confirmed, there is hardly any basis for proposing a constructive responsivity theory for deriving information about cognitive processes based on studies whose fundamental basis is verbal protocols. It may be even more questionable to suggest that this method be adopted for interpreting the cognitive processes of LLs, whose complexity and utility with language use varies significantly from the monolingual norm (Bernhardt, 2005; 2011; Jessner, 2008). This is especially true since monolinguals formed a majority, if not all, of the study participants comprised in the research upon which this theory (Ericsson & Simon’s [1984/1993] review) is premised. Errors of Commission Errors of commission constitute another part of the debate surrounding veridicality of verbal reports as data. Such errors exacerbate the situation presented above because they represent learners’ reports of events – from memory – that did not occur. For the ELL, Ericsson & Simon (1984/1993) illustrated the complexity involved in the basic process of producing a protocol when they state: Persons fluent in a second language can usually think aloud in that language even while thinking internally in the oral code of their native language or in non-oral code. In this case, there is nearly a one-to-one mapping between structures in the oral code of the first language and the code of the second language that is used for vocalization. How much the thinking is slowed down will then be a function of the subject’s skill in the second language. (p. 250) 246 As such, for individuals reading text in a second or third language, the language of information reception (L2/L3) and the language cueing used for heeding information (L1) may impede the thinking process and lead to loss of information in short-term memory (STM). To amend this process, individuals tend to generate a “fix-it” method by “theorizing” about relationships present among concepts encountered in the text and this fabricated data is taken to be analyzed as veridical. Researchers who rely partly on explicit verbalization of the thinking process agree that such fabrications are prevalent in the reports obtained during data collection (e.g. Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993; Jourdenais, 2001; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Others concur that the protocol product and process are viewed as construction of a ‘story’ representing information about what has occurred in the mind, then this story is a narrative account, or perhaps a recounting; the result of “narrative smoothing” (Spence, 1986). In the process of narrative smoothing, the production of the narrative -- individual items, facts, and, in this case, memorial data on processing -- become normalized to adjust to the structure of the emerging narrative being constructed. In other words, an individual reporting his/her thoughts may consciously or unconsciously exaggerate or fabricate information about these processes due to feelings of inadequacy regarding ability to produce a verbal report. Therefore, as Sachs and Polio (2007) confirmed, “there is no way of knowing whether a given verbalization is a veridical account of learner’s awareness of linguistic input, which makes relationships between awareness and other phenomena difficult to determine with confidence” (p. 73). In spite of such compelling evidence from both omission and commission arguments against the effectiveness of this methodology, SLA researchers continue to utilize this approach as a means of collecting data from second language learners. Among the reasons cited for doing 247 so is the reifying insistence that verbal protocols do provide some information about second language learners’ cognitive processing (Bowles, 2008). However, researchers’ “satisfaction” with the amount of information (i.e., some information) obtained from verbal protocols does not necessarily address the quality or veridicality of that information. In support of this view, Russo, Johnson and Stephens’ (1989) noted that retrospective protocols (with information coming from a reconstruction from long term memory) are more prone to fabrication than concurrent protocols. As support, they cite Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) preference for the use of concurrent protocols to reduce the chances of reconstruction in verbal protocols. With regards to concurrent verbal reports from language learners, Bowles (2008) asserted that veridicality does not affect validity because of the limited time between verbalization and performance of the task. However, even with concurrent protocols, study participants are expected to describe thought processes subsequent to reading. Considering that it is virtually impossible to relay information about memory contents while simultaneously reading the text, it may be that validity of verbal protocols is not as dependent on its concurrent or retrospective nature as it is on the extent to which information reporting is delayed following the reading task, as well as the capacity of the researcher to minimize such delays when obtaining concurrent and retrospective protocols (Ericsson & Simon, 1993; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Taylor & Dionne, 2000; Van Gog, Paas, & Van Merrienboer, 2005). Language as an Inherent Variable Central to our argument concerning the value of verbal reports with second language learners is the “elephant in the room” issue, that is, language itself, was not controlled as a variable, i.e., the studies in Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) seminal review appeared to have largely involved monolingual study participants. In addition, of the 38 studies reviewed by 248 Pressley and Afflerbach (1995), only two studies comprised of second language learners. With LLs, whose linguistic abilities further confound representation of memory processes, depending on verbal reports to access their reading processes raises even further issues of credibility. Whereas certain studies in second language learning do allow such learners to verbalize processes in the language with which they are most familiar, the challenges inherent in reading and performing a task in a second language (e.g., usually English), subsequently conducting interpretation through the native language, and deciding whether to revert back to English or to relay the contents of memory in the native language are significant and do influence the composition of protocols. Yet another linguistically-based concern arises from Russo, Johnson and Stephens, (1989). They raised concerns regarding the entire enterprise of collecting protocols, and suggest that judgments and decisions concerning veridicality in the use of verbalized protocols are misplaced. These beliefs in the futility of testing the veridicality of a verbal report are potent when its accuracy, relative to the underlying processes, is already significantly altered by verbalization of the process. The immediate response that comes to mind is “Why bother?” And our answer is that protocols continue to be used. Russo, et al.’s concern has been largely dismissed in studies with monolingual learners because of the English language existing across groups and across studies. That is not to suggest that these issues are no longer operating, but that research attention has shifted in focus, away from this problem of representation. It remains a crucial point for L1 and L2 research, particularly considering L2 research often is influenced by research undertaken in single language studies. In L2/SLA/LL research, language is an added, inherent variable, which dictates the linguistic product of such learners, and therefore any attempt to verbalize reports not only undergoes transformation during verbalization, but also 249 experiences alteration due to linguistic interference. In other words, the language task required and the demand to verbalize that task find themselves competing for the linguistic capacity (Sanz, Lin, Lado, Bowden, & Stafford, 2009), thereby affecting completeness (omission) and accuracy (commission) of the verbal protocols. Consistent with these claims, contemporary theoretical trends seem to justify the illogicality of attempting to validate verbal protocols. Smagorinksy’s sociocultural view of verbal protocols asserts that speech is socially constructed and therefore not a reflection of cognitive processes. Therefore, there is less focus on whether contents of the mind “spill over” in contents of talk (Smagorinsky, 2011). His attempt at reconceptualizing verbal protocols draws from both Ericsson and Simon’s (1995) information processing (i.e., cognitivist) and Vygotsky’s socio-cultural-historical theory. In this regard, Smagorinsky (2011) presents verbal protocols as a methodological tool that elicits ‘talk about thinking’, and therefore may be altered in literacy research to elucidate understanding of the social nature of speech (Smagorinsky, 2011). Drawing upon Cole’s (1996) view of the interrelatedness between cultural and biological development, and Bakhtin’s (1986) addressitivity and dialogicality, Smagorinsky (2011) maintains that “egocentric speech and think-aloud methodologies are both part of a hidden dialogue” (p. 237) and that the researcher’s concern in obtaining a verbal protocol, should be to explore the intersubjectivity between the researcher and participant in the participant’s construction of the verbal report within a particular reading context and task. This presupposes that veridicality regarding protocols be placed on a backburner since nuanced understandings of difference in a verbal protocol become an expected component of the research process and even central to investigation. However, it is important to note that this argument is directed towards literacy research in the monolingual context and therefore does not consider cross-linguistic features 250 (Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Jessner, 2008) present in LLs’ reading processes. Yet, Smagorinsky (2011) does provide an alternative perspective on the use of verbal protocols with LL participants, that one would not only expect the types of differences detailed in this critique, but also treat them as informative differences from monolingual participants. A Way Forward In the preceding argument, we first utilized a cognitivist approach to interrogate 20 LL reading research studies involving the use of verbal protocols on the basis of Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) recommendations. In this process, it was observed that researchers aligned with a few of the guidelines for obtaining veridical protocols, but failed to adhere to others. This suggests that from a cognitivist’s perspective, we are justified in being concerned regarding the veridicality of verbal reports. We then discussed veridicality of LLs’ verbal protocols based on the possibility that errors of omission, errors of commission and the role language as an inherent variable operated to invalidate these reports. We concluded with consideration of the arguments against veridicality based on ground-breaking theoretical trends which signify the importance of a holistic approach to literacy research as opposed to the dichotomized cognitive versus sociocultural notion. While Smagorinsky’s (2011) work is yet to be extended to LLs, we concur that it does interrupt debates grounded solely in cognitivist notions of verbal protocols, and although a sociocultural approach to exploring critical issues within verbal protocols does not negate the critical nature of LLs’ cognitive capacities in the reading process (e.g., Bowles, 2010a; Bowles, 2010b; Bowles & Leow, 2005), it does alter the nature of the arguments raised with regards to this methodology. Currently, as has been illustrated, the veridicality of verbal protocols as used with monolinguals is disputable enough to devalue claims for its use in second language research. 251 This finding is credible from a solely cognitive perspective on verbal protocols. Not only is there a heightened possibility of errors of omission with LLs, but there is also the tendency for errors of commission to be exacerbated. But this argument, made from a cognitive perspective, is transformed by adopting a socio-cultural perspective. Explanations and understandings of verbal protocols within L2/SLA/LL contexts should integrate elements from both cognitive and sociocultural theories. Mindful integration of cognitive and socio-cultural thinking can shift the focus from accuracy of verbal protocols to the nuances inherent in linguistic and cultural differences demonstrated in LLs’ reading processes, as revealed in protocol accounts. Rather than emphasize the need for greater attention to Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) recommendations, in failed attempts to maintain rigor and veridicality of such LLs’ protocols, an alternative approach is to systematically explore via original studies the ways in which LL’s reading processes constitute social, linguistic, and cultural artifacts as they construct meaning in the context of literacy within the 21st century. As such, the previous call for more systematic research into the validity of verbal protocols for language learners (Bowles, 2008; Fitzgerald, 1995; Leow & Morgan-Short; 2004; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995) may now be replaced by the necessity to delve into verbal protocols a sociocultural tool for better understanding the reading processes of LLs. References Abbott, M. (2006). ESL reading strategies: Differences in Arabic and Mandarin speaker test performance. Language Learning, 56(4), 633-670. Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge and text genre on readers’ prediction strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 131-148. 252 Akyel, A., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learners of English. System, 37(1), 136-152. Alsheikh, N. O. (2011). Three readers, three languages, three texts: The strategic reading of multilingual and multiliterate readers. The Reading Matrix, 11(1), 34-53. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bengeleil, N. F. & Paribakht, T. S. (2004). L2 reading proficiency and lexical inferencing by university EFL learners. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(2), 225-249. Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133-150. Bernhardt, E. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New York: Routledge. Bowles, M. A. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at a L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 359-387. Bowles, M. A. (2010a). Concurrent verbal reports in second language acquisition research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 111-127. Bowles, M. A. (2010b). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York: Routledge. Bowles, M. A., & Leow, R. P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology: Expanding the scope of investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 415-440. Bresnan, J. (1978). A realistic transformational grammar. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 1-59). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 253 Castek, J., Leu, D. J., Jr., Coiro, J., Gort, M., Henry, L. A., & Lima, C. (2007). Developing new literacies among multilingual learners in the elementary grades. In L. Parker (Ed.), Technology-mediated learning environments for young English learners: Connections in and out of school (pp. 111-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chun, D. M. (2001). L2 reading on the web: Strategies for accessing information in hypermedia. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5), 367-403. Daalen-Kapteijns, M., Elshout-Mohr, M. & de Glopper, K. (2001). Deriving the meaning of unknown words from multiple contexts. Language Learning, 51(1), 145-181. Dressler, C., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., August, D., & White, C. E. (2011). Spanish-speaking students' use of cognate knowledge to infer the meaning of English words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(2), 243-255. Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46. Ellis, N., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics-Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27, 558-589. Ericsson, K. A. (1988). Concurrent verbal reports on reading and text comprehension. Text, 8, 295-325. Ericsson, K. A. (2003). Valid and non-reactive verbalization of thoughts during performance of tasks: Towards a solution of the central problems of introspection as a source of scientific data. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9-10), 1-18. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts' performance on representative task. In K. A. Ericsson, N. 254 Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223-242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984/1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1984). Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners’ cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 145-190. Fodor, J., Garrett, M., & Bever, T. (1968). Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity, II: Verb structure. Perception and Psychophysics, 3, 453-461. Gascoigne, C. (2002). Documenting the initial second language reading experience: The readers speak. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 554-560. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Geladri, A., Griva, E., & Mastrothanasis, K. (2010). A record of bilingual elementary students' reading strategies in Greek as a second language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3764-3769. Goo, J. (2010). Working memory and reactivity. Language Learning, 60(4), 712-752. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Green, A. J. F. (1998). Using verbal protocols in language testing research: A handbook. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 255 Hughes, J., & Parkes, S. (2003). Trends in the use of verbal protocol analysis in software engineering research. Behavior & Information Technology, 22, 127-140. Jackendoff, R. (1978). Grammar as evidence for conceptual structure. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. Miller (Ed.). Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jenkins, J. J. (1979). Four parts to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory experiments. In L. A. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 429-446). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jessner, U. (2008). Multicompetence approaches to language proficiency development in multilingual education. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd Ed) (pp. 91-201). New York: Springer. Jourdenais, R. (2001). Protocol analysis and SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition (pp. 354–375). New York: Cambridge University Press. Lantolf, J. (2007). Exploring the dialectic: An interview with James P. Lantolf. JALT Journal, 29(1), 123. Lee-Thompson, L. (2008). An investigation of reading strategies applied by American learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals 41(4), 702-721. Leow, R. P. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers. Applied Language Learning, 8(2), 151-182. Leow, R. P. (2002). Models, attention, and awareness in SLA: A response to Simard and Wong’s (2001) Alertness, orientation and detection: The conceptualization of attentional functions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 113-119. Leow, R. P., Hsieh, H., & Moreno, N. (2008). Attention to form and meaning revisited. 256 Language Learning, 58(3), 665-695. Leow, R. P., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 35-57. Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645670. Paribakht, T. S. (2005). The influence of first language lexicalization on second language lexical inferencing: A study of Farsi-speaking learners of English as a foreign language. Language Learning, 55(4), 701-748. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pritchard, R. (1990). The evolution of introspective methodology and its implications for studying the reading process. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 11, 1-13. Rao, Z., Gu, P. Y., Zhang, L. J., & Hu, G. (2007). Reading strategies and approaches to learning of bilingual primary school pupils. Language Awareness, 16(4), 243-262. Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42(2), 147-180. Rosa, E., & O'Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 511-556. Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory & Cognition, 17(6), 759-769. Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing 257 revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67-100. Sanz, C., Lin, H., Lado, B., Bowden H. W. & Stafford. C. (2009). Concurrent verbalizations, pedagogical conditions, and reactivity: Two CALL studies. Language Learning, 59(1), 33-71. Sasaki, T. (2003). Recipient orientation in verbal report protocols: Methodological issues in concurrent think-aloud. Second Language Studies, 22(1), 1-54. Smagorinsky, P. (2011). Thinking and speech and verbal data. Vygotsky and Literacy Research, 2(3), 233-244. Spence, D. P. (1986). Narrative smoothing and clinical wisdom. In T. Sarbin (Ed.), Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct (pp. 211-232). New York: Praeger. Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R. & de Glopper, K. (2007). Inhibition or compensation? A multidimensional comparison of reading processes in Dutch and English. Language Learning, 57(1), 115-154. Stratman, J. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Reactivity in concurrent think-aloud protocols: Issues for research. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing (pp. 89-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Taylor, K. L., & Dionne, J. P. (2000). Accessing problem-solving strategy knowledge: The complementary use of concurrent verbal protocols and retrospective debriefing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 413-425. Upton, T. A. & Lee-Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the first language in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 469-495. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2005). Uncovering expertise-related 258 differences in troubleshooting performance: Combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(2), 205-221. Watson, J. B. (1920). Is thinking merely the action of language mechanisms? British Journal of Psychology, 11, 87-104. Wesche, M. B. & Paribakht, T. S. (2000). Reading-based exercises in second language vocabulary learning: An introspective study. The Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 196213. Yang, Y. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies. Reading Psychology, 27(4), 313-343. Zhang, L., Gu, P. Y. & Hu, G. (2007). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean primary school pupils’ use of reading strategies in learning to read English. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 245-271. Verbal Reports in the Reading Processes of Language Learners Author/Correspondent Author: Patriann Smith, M.A. Position: Doctoral Candidate Affiliation: University of South Florida Current Mailing Address: Childhood Education and Literacy Studies (CELS), 4202 East Fowler Ave., EDU 105, Tampa, FL 33620 Telephone number: 813-405-7237 Fax: 813-974-3826 E-mail: psmith4@usf.edu Author: Deoksoon Kim, Ph. D. Position: Associate Professor of Secondary Education Affiliation: University of South Florida Current Mailing Address: Childhood Education and Literacy Studies (CELS), 4202 East Fowler Ave., EDU 105, Tampa, FL 33620 Telephone Number: (813) 974-4878 Email: deoksoonk@usf.edu 259 Note: This paper is in progress and will be submitted to Second Language Research. Abstract This review synthesizes 34 original studies published within the period 2000-2011 in which verbal reports were used to explore language learners’ (LLs’) reading processes. The findings are presented in four major categories. The first category concentrates on areas of focus in original studies, namely strategy use, comprehension, vocabulary, and technology. Category two focuses on theoretical background of studies with emphasis on the prevalence of cognitivist approaches versus sociocultural perspectives. The third category yields information on social contexts, languages, and participants, demonstrating that studies were conducted equally within and beyond the U.S., with adult learners, in predominantly English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) settings. The final category of findings explores methodologies of studies, reflecting that while concurrent verbal reports were used most frequently, retrospective and concurrent reports were consistently combined in qualitative studies. The findings raise significant concerns regarding theoretical approaches and verbal report methodologies applied to reading research with LLs. Keywords: language learners, verbal reports, reading processes Verbal Reports in the Reading Processes of Language Learners Interest in literacy as a critical component of language learners’ academic success (August & Shanahan, 2006; Cummins, 1992) has resulted in an exponential increase in research over the past decades. Throughout academia, growing emphasis on the underlying literate processes inherent in the multiple linguistic repertoires of language learners (Bernhardt, 2011; 260 Han & Anderson, 2009; Grabe, 2009), both on the national and international front, continues to be geared towards affordances made available for the literate development of language learners (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010; IRA, 2006; NCTE, 2011; TESOL, 2010). In the United States, the fastest growing student population is English Language Learners (ELLs; National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2011; National Council of Teachers of English, 2008). ELLs practice second-language (L2) reading and literacy daily. Consequently, their L2 reading and literacy skills are closely connected to their academic success (Cummins, 1984) and can empower these students within social contexts. The awareness of such linkages has been largely responsible for exploration of language learners’ (LLs’) reading comprehension and literacy practices (Fitzgerald, 1995; NCTE, 2008a, 2011; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) over the past decades. Despite these efforts, little is known about patterns surrounding the use of certain prominent methodologies for language learners’ literate development. One such methodology is verbal reports. Historically, verbal protocols have been used widely to understand first-language (L1) students’ literacy processes. Fundamentally approached from a cognitivist perspective, this methodological tool has duly influenced L1 reading research (see Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). With the increased attention on language learners over the past decades, L2 researchers have progressively utilized verbal reports to undertake second language reading research (see Bernhardt, 2009; 2011; Gass & Mackey, 2007; Richards, 2009; Singhal, 2001) and discourse has surrounded the ways in which verbal reports may be more representative of language learners’ learning (e.g., Cohen, 1983; 1996; 2013) and reading (Cohen, 1987). However, little is known about the state of the literature with regards to verbal reports as used to explore LLs’ reading processes within the past decade. 261 Given the aforementioned, the purpose of this review is to synthesize the literacy research conducted with language learners (LLs) using verbal reports within the period 2000-2011. Definitions of Language Learners English Language Learners (ELLs) within this review constitute students learning English skills and knowledge (Cheung & Slavin, 2012). Similarly, language learners (LLs) will refer to students learning the skills and knowledge of a new language. Second language (L2) learners will signify students learning a second language within an environment where this language is the dominant language of discourse. Third and fourth language (L3, L4) learners will represent learners similar in nature to L2s, with the exception that L3 and L4 learners acquire multiple languages simultaneously or continuously learn a third and/or fourth language in addition to competence in two languages. Foreign-language (FL) learners will refer to students learning a new language within an environment where their L1 is the principal language spoken. The Present Review This review is unique yet critical because it attempts to highlight trends in original studies where a methodological construct (i.e., verbal reports) intersects with content (i.e., literacy research). Among previous reviews of the L2 literature, emphasis has been placed on various dimensions of language learners such as ESLs’ cognitive reading processes (Fitzgerald, 1995); writing research (e.g., Matsuda, Canagarajah, Harklau, Hyland, & Warschauer, 2003; Silva & Brice, 2004), strategy use (e.g., Chamot, 2005), qualitative second language research (e.g., Richards, 2009), the use of think-alouds in qualitative research and reactivity in verbal reports (Bowles, 2010a) and effective reading programs for ELLs (e.g., Cheung & Slavin, 2012). However, in the current review, we focus on synthesizing language learners’ reading research by 262 considering trends consistent throughout studies in which the common methodological tool, verbal reports, was employed. This review questions the long-standing assumption that deployment of verbal report methods applied and validated in L1 verbal report reading studies necessarily constitute a basis for conducting LL verbal report reading studies. Further, the review arises from a need to determine trends in the use of theories, methodologies, and reading models within LL verbal report reading studies. This review is therefore guided by the following questions: 1. What are the key findings of original studies of LLs’ reading processes using verbal reports? 2. Which theoretical frameworks are employed in studies of LLs’ reading processes using verbal reports? 3. How do LLs engage in reading processes as reflected by verbal reports (e.g., types of contexts, languages, types of languages, types of learners)? 4. What methodologies are employed in studies of LLs’ reading processes using verbal reports? Method Literature Search Procedures We first used the terms (a) verbal reports, (b) think-alouds, (c) reading, (d) verbal protocols, (e) reading process, (f) second language, (g) bilingual, (h) multilingual, (i) ESL, and (j) foreign language, along with their combinations, to search the indexes of the following journals back to 2000: Applied Linguistics, CALICO Journal, Canadian Modern Language Review, Computer Assisted Language Learning, English Language Teaching Journal, 263 International Review of Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, Language Learning and Technology, Reading Research Quarterly, ReCALL, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, System, and TESOL Quarterly. Our decision to review the journals described above was based on recommendations by Smith and Lafford (2009) and U.S. News and World Reports and observations from reviews and meta-analyses of the reading literature in second-language acquisition (SLA; e.g., Biber, Nekrasova, & Horn, 2011; Bowles, 2010a; Fitzgerald, 1995; Norris & Ortega, 2006). In order to obtain articles that met these criteria, we searched the titles of every article in every issue of the 13 journals listed. While reading the titles, it became necessary to review the abstracts as well as the entire manuscript of certain articles to ascertain whether the methodology and focus of the study met our criteria. We then utilized similar search terms and combinations to search the PsycInfo and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) databases back to the year 2000. Subsequently, we applied a “network” approach (Fitzgerald, 1995) in which we scoured the reference lists of documents retrieved from our initial search for relevant research articles. We then worked to locate and retrieve these documents. Therefore, our final list of journals also included 14 additional journals: Asian EFL Journal; Bilingualism, Language and Cognition; British Journal of Educational Psychology; Computers and Education; Foreign Language Annals; Harvard Educational Review; Hispania; Journal of Research in Reading; Modern Language Journal; Multilingual Education; Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences; Reading in a Foreign Language; Reading Psychology; and The Reading Matrix. Our next step involved the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria required articles to (a) report an empirical study, (b) include a form of verbal protocol or think-aloud methodology that occurred in conjunction with exploration of the reading task 264 explored in the study, (c) focus on understanding LLs’ (e.g., English-as-a-Second Language Learners: ESLs; English Language Learners: ELLs; L2s, L3s, L4s, FL learners, LLs, bilinguals/multilinguals) reading processes, (d) involve research conducted within the K– university levels of the education system, and (e) have been published between 2000 and 2011, to allow for a focus on contemporary research in the field. The exclusion criteria required us to reject studies where verbal reports were not used in conjunction with a reading task and exclude studies that focused on testing despite the studies’ use of verbal reports. Notably, we accepted research occurring in any geographical region, and therefore did not confine our search to studies within the United States. Analysis The analytical process began with collection of the data. Organizational templates were first used to categorize elements of each study based on several predominant literature review studies (see Dixon et al., 2012; Fitzgerald, 1995). For each study, the following were outlined (see Table 1.4): (a) theoretical background (b) context, participants (e.g. participants’ age groups, English proficiency, reading proficiency), language (e.g., nature of language use: bilingual, multilingual, first/second/third language), (c) research questions and purpose statement, (d) research method and analysis (verbal protocols, think-alouds, retrospective, concurrent, introspective; qualitative/quantitative; strategies employed), (e) key findings, and (f) critical issues. We compiled the information based on the studies from each of the categories within the organizational template. Upon reading and rereading the data within the categorical template, we identified patterns inductively. Despite the subjective nature of thematic analysis, it becomes easier for the reader to determine whether the researchers’ 265 conclusions are warranted if judgments concerning theme identification are presented clearly (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). We therefore provide a description of our analytical process as it occurred within three stages. Following this identification of categories we positioned ourselves as researchers, taking on the role of “constructors” of the reality of the textual material under scrutiny (Patton, 2002). We made specific observations in the material outlined within our organizational templates (Patton, 2002). Our process of observation involved scrutinizing the data in multiple phases and underlining in different colors words or phrases that represent repetitions (topics that occur and reoccur), indigenous typologies or categories, similarities and differences, and theory-related material (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). For example, we noted similarities and differences in methodological choice within studies, such as the type of verbal report used and participant characteristics such as age/grade level. Our second phase of analysis involved finding key words in context, noting word co-occurrence, and metacoding (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Through this process, we obtained categories distinctly different from the pre-established ones within our templates. For example, after considering the research questions and findings for all studies, we arrived at categories such as strategy use, comprehension, vocabulary, and technology. Similarly, from the other major categories, such as methodology and theoretical framework, we derived sub-categories. The categories were then examined to derive broader themes (Merriam, 2009). 266 We embarked upon the third phase of analysis to confirm trustworthiness of the derived themes (Patton, 2002). While we had worked collaboratively to determine categories and themes, there were areas on which we disagreed. In these cases, we returned to the original studies to clarify our conceptions of what was presented. This enabled us to arrive at more representative findings. Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that this review is based on our worldviews and emanates from the lens through which we view verbal reports as a tool in studies conducted within the L2 field. While we read and reread the research, we therefore interrogated our approaches to categories applied, syntheses derived, and conclusions drawn from our findings. Through the acknowledgment of our stance, we were better positioned to identify potential bias arising from our analysis and synthesis of the studies. Our attention to the “construction” of meaning while reviewing the studies involved lent credence to our realization that had other researchers approached the same material, they may have arrived at different categories and/or engaged in synthesis in an alternative manner. Albeit, the provision of a transparent analytical picture represents our willingness to offer up our methodological approach for scrutiny as is expected in enabling the reader to trace the process through which we arrived at our findings. Overview of Studies Based on our thorough examination of the literature, we identified 34 original studies that adhered to our criteria. We now provide a description of the characteristics of studies included in this review. 267 Table 1.4: Summary of Key Features of Original Studies Study Theoretical Perspective Akyel, A., & Erçetin, G. (2009) Alsheikh, N.O. (2011). Research Questions/Purpose Statement Research Methods and Analysis Key Findings N=10. Advanced-level learners; ages 21-24; Turkish University ESL ELT Department To examine advanced L2 readers’ processing strategies in reading hypermedia text. Mixed Methods. Concurrent verbal reports, text recall, prior knowledge, standardized reading test, tracking tool; qualitative analysis, descriptive statistical analyses 919 propositions generated by 10 learners while reading hypermedia text: 829 were processing strategies and 90 were navigation strategies N=3. Graduate students; Midwestern university in the US To explore strategies used by multilingual readers when reading across three languages -- Hausa, English, and French. Qualitative. Background questionnaire, Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS), Set of expository reading passages in 3 languages, verbal report assessment for text comprehension, concurrent verbal reports; constant comparative analysis, descriptive statistical analyses Mixed Methods. VKS pretest, questionnaire, concurrent and retrospective verbal reports, VKS posttest administered after 2 weeks; descriptive statistical analyses Limited use of reading strategies in native language as compared to English and French; most proficient reader used greater variety of strategies Participants/ Language/Context Hausa as L1; French as L2; English as L3 Bengeleil, N.F. & Paribakht, T.S. (2004). - N=17. Intermediate and advanced-level learners; ages 22-25; Libya; Arabic speaking medical students To investigate the effect of EFL learners’ L2 reading proficiency on L2 lexical inferencing. EFL Both groups used the same kinds of knowledge sources and contextual cues despite their reading proficiency level, with 1 exception. Advanced readers made more correct inferences than intermediate level readers. Bowles, M. (2004). Schmidt’s framework of attention and noticing hypothesis N=50. Native English speakers; undergraduate students To examine effects of exposure to glosses on readers’ noticing and acquisition of targeted vocabulary and text comprehension. Quantitative. Pre/post test recognition tasks, pre/post test production tasks, comprehension task, concurrent verbal reports, tracking, debriefing questionnaire; coding, one-way ANOVA, repeated measures ANOVA Readers exposed to glossed text in both conditions reported noticing targeted words significantly more than readers exposed to same text with no glosses and experienced significant effects on comprehension of content. Bowles, M.A. & Leow, R.P. (2005). Ericsson and Simon’s Framework for verbal reports N=45. To explore effects of type of verbalization on L2 readers’’ comprehension, ability to produce old and new exemplars of targeted L2 structure, and time taken to complete the tasks. Quantitative. Comprehension task, written production tasks, concurrent and concurrent introspective verbal reports; coding, one-way ANOVAs Nonmetalinguistic experimental group performed significantly better on comprehension than metalinguistic group. Both verbalization groups spent significantly more time on task than silent control group. ESL Fifth-semester Spanish course. 268 Table 1.4 (continued). Camps, J. (2003). - Chun, D. (2001). N=74. First-year Spanish college students; native English speakers Spanish as L2 Language laboratory in university Spanish classes To determine whether L2 learners who notice target forms obtain better scores than those who do not; whether type of verbal report and time in course affects scores. Mixed Methods. Questionnaire, concurrent and retrospective verbal reports; descriptive statistical analyses, two by two way ANOVAs, t-tests, comparisons of t-tests, coding, qualitative analyses Students who mentioned object pronouns and their agreement features in verbal reports did not obtain higher scores than those who did not mention same. For 2nd semester students, those who mentioned pronouns and features scored higher for both types of reports. N=23. Fluent in English To investigate frequency with which learners consult internal glossary and external dictionary; to determine whether correlation exists between use of glossaries and learners’ text comprehension. To identify vocabulary knowledge-oriented activities of which young students are capable, given adequate circumstances, and support. Mixed Methods. Reading tasks, summary task, tracking, concurrent introspective verbal reports, interviews; descriptive statistical analyses, correlation coefficients; ttests Learners looked up more words in internal than external dictionary and performed better on the measure of comprehension when there was access to both internal glossary and external dictionary. A significant correlation existed between total time on task and comprehension. Higher verbal ability group gained significantly higher scores on 3 focal vocabulary knowledgeoriented activities. Decontextualization proved to be higher in students of higher verbal ability. ELLs’ use of the cognate was associated with strategy correct inferences for Spanish-English cognates. Spanish-speaking students were more likely to use cognate strategy as it had been taught. Cognate knowledge was the strategy most associated with accurate inferencing. Learners collectively recalled 116 idea units with 15% representing main idea units, 11% representing high-level topics, and 13% representing mid-level ideas. 60% represented minor detail. German as a Foreign Language Second-year German course; large university in Southern California DaalenKapteijns, M., Elshout-Mohr, M., & de Glooper, K. (2001). Dressler, C., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., August, D., & White, C. E. (2011). Gascoigne, C. (2002). - - Top-down, bottom-up models of reading N=16. Sixth graders, ages 11-12, selected on basis of test for Dutch vocabulary knowledge Mixed Methods. Reading tasks to figure out meanings of unknown words, concurrent verbal reports; qualitative scoring of verbal reports, t-tests N=12. Fifth-grade students ELLs--8 Spanish-English bilinguals, 4 monolingual English-speakers Bilingual classroom in Santa Cruz, California To examine how Spanishspeaking ELLs use cognate knowledge to assign meaning to English words that are cognates, situations when this is most effective, and ways in which this is applied. Qualitative. Interviews, concurrent verbal reports, reading tasks on 6 short passages with target cognates; coding, descriptive statistical analyses N=16. Native English speakers, average age of 20 French as a Second Language University of Nebraska, Omaha To provide insight into the role of various text-driven and reader-driven processes necessary for revisiting mental models of the L2 reading process. Mixed Methods. Reading tasks, concurrent verbal reports, recall task; scoring of idea units, t-tests, 269 Table 1.4 (continued). N=32. Bilingual 5th and 6th grade primary students Geladari, A., Griva, E., & Mastrothanasi s, K. (2010). -- Goo, J. (2010). Working memory and its role in cognitive performance: resource sharing versus executive attention; inhibitory based executive control; cognitive control; proactive control N=42. English speaking learners of Spanish as a foreign language. Mixed Methods. Expository and narrative reading tasks, concurrent and immediate retrospective verbal reports, semistructured interviews; qualitative analyses, descriptive statistical analyses, chi-square and one-way ANOVA Quantitative. Listening span task, operation span task, reading task, comprehension test, written production test, concurrent verbal reports; regression analysis, ANCOVA To examine how L2 wordmeaning inference strategies, variety of strategy use, and success with L2 word meaning inference change over time. Qualitative. Inference sessions, comprehension check (summary), concurrent verbal reports; qualitative analyses To explore the relationship between goal types and adult EFL readers’ strategy use and comprehension. Mixed Methods. Goal scale, reading proficiency test, concurrent and immediate retrospective verbal reports, retellings, reading comprehension test; qualitative analyses, MANOVA, stepwise multiple regression analyses, one-way ANOVA American university. N=5. Average age of 21. Hamada, M (2009). To examine difficulties, cognitive and metacognitive strategies encountered by bilingual students and the impact of language competence and type of bilingualism on comprehension. To explore the relationship between working memory and learner performance on comprehension as well as development of the Spanish immediate future. Japanese ESL learners. Mid-size university in the US. -- He, T. (2008). Goal Theory N=57. Similar levels of English proficiency. College in Taiwan. 22 categories resulted from analysis of verbal report data. These categories comprised of three thematic categories: a) reading difficulties; b) cognitive strategies employment; and c) metacognitive strategies employment. There was no direct evidence found for the role of working memory capacity (WMC) in reading comprehension. The regression analysis showed a statistically significant result, which indicated that WMC predicted learner performance on the posttest (written production). Verbal reports did not have a negative effect on the development of learning the Spanish immediate future. Mean performance rate from Ben the highest, followed by Abby, Cathy, Ed, and Debby. Mean number of strategies used per word was highest from Abby, followed by Cathy, Debby, Ed, and Ben. Only Debby demonstrated considerable change. The highest number of strategies corresponded with the highest success rate in Debby and the lowest success rate in Abby and Cathy. Strong mastery, strong performance goal profile group used the CIS, CIP, CAP, and MEC strategies most often. The performance goal was a negative predictor for the frequency of use of comprehension with individual paragraphs (CIP), comprehension across paragraphs (CAP) and monitoring/evaluating comprehension (MEC) strategies. 270 Table 1.4 (continued). Kim, D. (2011). -- Ko, M.H. (2005). -- LeeThompson, L. (2008). N=4. 2nd and 3rd primary grade students ELLs Middle-class urban public elementary school in the south-western US. To examine how ELLs constructed meaning. Qualitative. Observations, interviews, concurrent and immediate retrospective verbal reports, reflective journals; qualitative analyses N=106. Ages 19-21 Intermediate or high intermediate level Second semester of freshman English class, reading course that met twice a week for 50 minutes N=8. Intermediate level proficiency To determine whether reading comprehension and reading strategies are affected by gloss type and identify the type of gloss preferred by learners. Mixed Methods. Reading task, multiple choice reading test, questionnaire; qualitative analyses, descriptive statistical analyses, one-way ANOVA To examine the reading strategies used by American readers of Chinese and the difficulties encountered in reading narrative and argumentative text. Mixed Methods. Reading task, concurrent and concurrent introspective verbal reports; qualitative analyses, descriptive statistical analyses To examine the relationship between exposure to enhanced input and a) reporting of noticing targeted forms; b) L2 readers’ immediate intake; c) immediate written production and d) comprehension of content information. To determine the effect of type of attentional condition on adult L2 reading comprehension. Quantitative. Comprehension task, written production task, multiple-choice recognition task, concurrent verbal reports; parametric t-test, Pearson product-moment correlation Amounts of reported noticing were statistically similar for both groups. Significant correlations between reported noticing and recognition for both the enhanced and unenhanced group. No significant difference in comprehension scores between the two groups. Mixed Methods. Reading task, comprehension assessment, multiple choice assessment, concurrent verbal reports; one-way ANOVA, qualitative analyses Type of attentional condition had a differential effect on reading comprehension. There was no direct correlation between average comprehension scores and percentage of participants processing targeted items deeply. -Chinese language students, Native English speakers University. N=74. Adult college level students. Leow, R.P. (2001). -- Leow, R. P., Hsieh, H. C., & Moreno, N. (2008). Primacy of Meaning Principle; Van Patten’s Model of Input Processing; Van Patten’s Lexical Preference Principle (LPP) 1st year in university Spanish language program. N=72. Average of 60 hours formal exposure to Spanish. Fifth-semester Spanish course. Themes emerging from data were related to ELLs’ cultural perspective; ELLs’ lived-through experiences; ELLs’ efferent reading; ELLs’ dialogic meaning construction; and ELLs’ critical reading to learn. There was a significant difference between the L2 gloss condition and the no gloss condition. When the no gloss conditions were compared, those who read the text under the no gloss condition used far more strategies than counterparts. Readers preferred glossed material. 12 bottom-up and 15 top-down strategies used in text comprehension. Common difficulties experienced by learners were vocabulary, orthography, grammar, and background knowledge. 271 Table 1.4 (continued). Leow, R.P., & MorganShort, K. (2004). To examine the effect of thinking aloud on adult readers’ comprehension, intake, and controlled written production. Quantitative. Reading task, comprehension task, multiple-choice recognition task and fill-in-the-blank task, concurrent verbal reports; parametric t-tests, nonparametric t-tests N=21. Language backgrounds: Arabic, Chinese, Persian, Portuguese, Spanish. Adult ESL learners 12 week intermediate ESL Canadian program. To determine how successfully intermediate ESL learners infer word meanings from context in a reading text; the strategies and knowledge sources they used to do so. Qualitative. Reading task, concurrent and immediate retrospective verbal reports; qualitative analyses N=197. Undergraduate students, late beginners or early intermediate language learners To compare comprehension scores, ability to recognize words, and identify lexical items glossed in Spanish among readers of L3 literary text. Quantitative. Reading task, comprehension recall assessment, concurrent verbal reports, assessment of vocabulary recognition; descriptive statistical analyses, t-tests To examine the relationship between first language lexicalization of the concepts represented by the L2 target words and learners’ inferencing behavior while reading English texts. To explore the reading strategies used by collegelevel ESL learners for online L2 texts. Mixed Methods. Vocabulary knowledge scale, vocabulary levels test, concurrent introspective verbal reports; qualitative analyses, descriptive statistical analyses N=77. Adult college level students. -1st year Spanish program. Nassaji, H. (2003). -- O’Donnell, M.E. (2009). -- Paribakht, T. S. (2005). -- Fourth semester Spanish course. N=20. Farsi-undergraduate, high intermediate proficiency English majors Several universities in Iran N=10. Low-intermediate to highintermediate levels Park, H. & Kim, D. (2011). ELLs -- English Language Institute in urban research university Qualitative. Concurrent and retrospective verbal reports, observation, semi-structured interviews; inductive and interpretive analyses Thinking aloud while performing a reading task did not have a detrimental effect on adult readers’ comprehension. Thinking aloud did not have a detrimental effect on adult readers’ intake and controlled written production. Students used general knowledge of the world most frequently and very dependent on this knowledge when inferencing word meanings from context. The strategies learners used included repeating, verifying, monitoring, self-inquiry and analyzing. The amount of information that readers of elaborated text version recalled proved significantly greater than that of unmodified versions. Readers of elaborated versions performed better than the readers of unmodified versions. A variety knowledge sources (KSs) from different levels of the language system were identified. Participants attempted to infer a greater percentage of nonlexicalized (NL) than lexicalized target words. Seven themes emerged from participants’ online-reading strategy use: using hypermedia, using computer applications and accessories, dialoguing, setting up reading purposes and planning, previewing and determining what to read, connecting prior knowledge and experiences with texts and tasks. 272 Table 1.4 (continued). N=140. Rossomondo, A.E (2007). -Rott, S. (2005). Craik & Lockhart’s Levels of Processing Depth Theory Seng, G.H. (2007). Sociocultural Perspective on Learning Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (2007). Compensatory Encoding Model: Orientation of Processing; Type of Processing; Domain of Processing Upton, T.A. & LeeThompson, L. (2001). Weil, N. (2008). Pressley and Afflerbach’s Model of Good Strategy Use Bernhardt’s Constructivist Model of Reading One semester accelerated Spanish course at a large American university. N=10. Native English speakers learning German as a foreign language. Large public university in the US. N=46. Enrolled in English course, Undergraduate ESL students University N=253. 13-14 year old students, 3.5 years of EFL classroom instruction Quantitative. Reading task, screening test, questionnaire, comprehension test, form-production test, concurrent verbal reports; one-way ANOVA Mixed Methods. Reading task, text comprehension, strategy use, concurrent verbal reports; qualitative analyses, descriptive statistical analyses There was greater comprehension in both text interaction formats for participants who interacted with the LTI passage. To explore the use of thinkalouds in a collaborative environment. Quantitative. Reading task, concurrent verbal reports; ANCOVA To examine 2 hypotheses about processing of global text content in second language reading. Mixed Methods. Concurrent verbal reports; qualitative analyses, ANOVAs To determine what role the L1 plays in the reading strategies of L2 readers. Qualitative. Reading task, concurrent and retrospective verbal reports; qualitative analyses To examine the relationship between breadth of vocabulary, background experiences in learning English and student skill in the reading of an academic text. Mixed Methods. Reading task, concurrent verbal reports, retelling task; coding, correlation coefficients The results showed that students in the experimental group obtained higher reading comprehension scores than their counterparts in the comparison group after the instruction with think-alouds. There were differences in the proportional distribution of strategies across Dutch and EFL. The balance of processing for each of the 3 dimensions explored varied according to reader characteristics. The readers used a higher proportion of Language Oriented strategies and Regulatory strategies in EFL than in Dutch. Intermediate ESL students tended to think about and process the L2 reading task using their L1 more frequently than advanced ESL students. L1 was turned on and actively used by L2 readers. Reliance on the L1 declined as proficiency in the L2 increased. The mean vocabulary score for the undergraduate students was greater than that for intensive English students. There was a moderate relationship between vocabulary size and total hours of high school English instruction. To examine the how lexical temporal indicators affect comprehension and input processing. To explore why certain vocabulary interventions are more facilitative for word learning than others. Low intermediate learners of English 10 grade 8 classes in 6 urban schools in the Netherlands N=20. Graduate and undergraduate, intermediate advanced ESL and post-ESL 10 native speakers of Chinese/10 native speakers of Japanese N=19. Korean undergraduate students Intensive language Institute in 2006-2007 Participants used a small variety of strategies. Word processing strategies were categorized as meta-cognitive word processing behaviors and semantic elaboration. 273 Table 1.4 (continued). N=10. Intermediate-level with French L1 backgrounds Wesche, M.B. & Paribakht, T.S. (2000). To explore university ESL learners’ responses to 5 different types of text-based vocabulary exercises. Qualitative. Reading task, learner reflections, learner interviews, introspective concurrent, immediate retrospective, and delayed retrospective verbal reports; qualitative analyses To investigate the status of reading strategies and comprehension monitoring strategies in reading. Qualitative. Reading task, concurrent and retrospective verbal reports; qualitative analyses To investigate the effects that different types of multimedia glosses have on text comprehension and vocabulary learning in exclusively comprehension computerized text. To examine the reading strategies used by Singaporean primary school pupils from a cognitive perspective. Quantitative. Reading task, concurrent verbal reports, pretest-posttest production tasks, pretest-posttest recognition tasks, multiple-choice comprehension task; coding, ANOVAs ESL -- Yang, Y. (2006). Out of class research sessions in Canadian university N=20. Intermediate level, first language Mandarin Chinese -EFL Yanguas, I. (2009). -- Zhang, L., Gu, P.Y., & Hu, G. (2007). Stanovich’s short-circuit effect; Goodman and Smith’s reader-driven reading versus text-driven reading; Anderson’s information processing model of comprehension College of Engineering and Management in Taiwan N=9. Last semester of foreign language requirement Small private university, Northeastern Seaboard. N=18. Grade levels 4-6, Singaporean students English is L2, but also L2; mother tongue is L2 Singapore Mixed Methods. Reading task, concurrent verbal reports, interviews; coding via Nvivo software, t-test, ANOVA For most learners, the majority of the tasks succeeded at least partially in eliciting attention to the relevant features of the target words. Most learners reported finding tasks interesting. Learning meanings of new words was incremental and involved multiple exposures. Readers utilized reading strategies and comprehension monitoring strategies to aid their reading and interpretation. Readers with insufficient language knowledge adopted reading strategies to solve problems. EFL readers were equipped with knowledge of comprehension monitoring. Participants exposed to multimedia glosses reported noticing the target vocabulary more than those in the control group. No significant effect on the type of gloss on production and recognition tasks. Grade level did not show a strong relationship with ESL with ESL reading as language proficiency. More mature students used comprehension strategies more frequently and flexibly. Low proficiency students relied heavily on decoding. Primary students were less resilient and systematic in their metacognitive endeavors and cognitive strategies than adult learners. 274 Publication Characteristics All 34 studies were published in refereed journals. Figure 1.4 provides an overview of the most popular journals in which research studies were found. As illustrated in the diagram, the 34 articles were published in 20 peer-reviewed journals. The largest group (five) was published in Language Learning, while Studies in Second Language Acquisition accounted for the second highest number of research studies (four). Another six journals (Foreign Language Annals, Hispania, Modern Language Journal, Reading in a Foreign Language, The Reading Matrix, and System) accounted for two studies each. The remaining 13 articles were published in Asian EFL Journal, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Canadian Modern Language Review, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Computers and Education, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Journal of Research in Reading, Language Learning and Technology, Multilingual Education, Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, Reading Psychology, and TESOL Quarterly. In our analysis of the articles, we also noted the distribution of the 34 research studies by year of publication (see Figure 1.5). Results The findings of this review are synthesized in relation to four categories: (a) areas of focus from key findings; (b) theoretical background; (c) study contexts, participants, and language and (d) methodological concerns. These categories are discussed below, beginning with areas of focus. 275 Language Learning Studies in Second Language Acquisition Foreign Language Annals Hispania Reading in a Foreign Language System The Modern Language Journal The Reading Matrix Asian EFL Journal Bilingualism: Language and Cognition British Journal of Educational Psychology Computer Assisted Language Learning Computers and Education International Journal of Applied Linguistics Journal of Research in Reading Language Learning and Technology Multilingual Education Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences Reading Psychology TESOL Quarterly Figure 1.4: Distribution of Original Studies by Journal Areas of Focus As is observable in Figure 1.6, areas of focus revealed four themes from key findings from studies. These were: (a) strategy use; (b) comprehension; (c) vocabulary use; and (d) technology. Strategy Use. Researchers examined strategy use in relation to EFL learners, ESL learners, multilinguals (Alsheikh, 2011; Geladari, Griva, & Mastrothanasis, 2010; Lee-Thompson, 2008; Zhang, Gu, & Hu, 2007), and K–12 learners (Geladari et al., 2010; Stevenson, Schoonen, & de Glopper, 2007; Zhang et al., 2007). Strategy use was also examined for its comparative ability to generate positive results in learners’ processing of text (e.g., Stevenson et. al., 2007; Yang, 2006). 276 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 1.5: Orriginal Studies based on Year of Publication Several reading strategies ies, such as monitoring (Stevenson et al., 2007; Zhang Zh et al., 2007) and inferencing (Hamada, 2009) 9) were examined. For instance, Stevenson et al. (2007) (2 explored ESL and EFL learners’ successfu sful deployment of regulatory and monitoring strat rategies (Zhang et al., 2007). In other studies, Yang ng (2006) examined Taiwanese EFL learners’ read eading and comprehension monitoring strateg ategies used to aid reading and interpretation while ile Hamada (2009) investigated Japanese ESL learne rners’ L2 word meaning inference strategy use ass achieved a over time. Alsheikh’s (2011) examinat nation of strategy use focused on multilingual learners who used pr problem solving reading strategies (PROB) in their the second and third languages (i.e., English and nd French). 277 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Strategy Use Comprehension Vocabulary Technology Figu igure 1.6: Research Foci of Studies Comprehension. Studies ies in comprehension were explored with regards ds to t glosses (Ko, 2005; Rott, 2005), attentional con condition (Leow, Hseih, & Moreno, 2008), exposu sure to enhanced/unenhanced input (Leo eow, 2001), and the relative impact on comprehen ension. For example, Ko (2005), in his focus us on glosses, comprehension, and strategy use, limited lim investigation to the function of L1 gloss, L2 gloss and no-gloss condition on 106 06 undergraduate learners of Spanish at a Korean uuniversity. In comparison, Rott (2005) extended ed investigation into glosses to explore multiple-cchoice glosses (MCG) as opposed to single-trans anslation glosses (STG) in 10 native English speak akers’ word processing strategies as they learned d German G as a foreign language. In unrelated in instances, researchers examined the effect of lexic xical temporal indicators (LTIs) on Spanish learn arners’ comprehension and processing of 13 targe rget items (Rossomondo, 2007) and the imp mpact of EFL readers’ goal profiles on levels of reading re comprehension (He, 2008). 278 Vocabulary Use. Research studies in which vocabulary was investigated varied widely in focus. While studies involved predominantly ESL and EFL learners (Nassaji, 2003; Weil, 2008; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000), investigation varied from inferencing (Bengeleil & Paribakht, 2004) and learners’ reading proficiency at vocabulary-related tasks (Bengeleil & Paribakht, 2004; Daalen-Kapteijns, Elshout-Mohr, & de Glopper, 2001), to vocabulary size and its implications for Korean readers (Weil, 2008). Other examinations of vocabulary focused on Korean undergraduate ESL learners’ vocabulary size in relation to total hours of high school instruction, tendency to socialize with Americans and or/non-Korean international students, and textbook reading in Korean (Weil, 2008) and the implementation of specific reading programs for French intermediate-level ESL learners required to perform a range of tasks. These tasks included identifying target words, matching words to definitions, and using scrambled words to construct sentences. Technology. Five research studies involved the use of technology in reading (Akyel & Ercetin, 2009; Bowles, 2004; Chun, 2001; Park & Kim, 2011; Yanguas, 2009). Of these, two maintained an interest in glosses as a function of computerized tasks in relation to vocabulary and comprehension (Bowles, 2004; Yanguas, 2009), whereas others focused on hypermedia environments in relation to L2 readers’ comprehension (Akyel & Ercetin, 2009; Park & Kim, 2011) and use of internal and external glossaries (Chun, 2001). For instance, Yanguas (2009) examined L2 learners’ exposure to texts with pictorial, textual, gloss combinations and no gloss, and the effect on L2 learners’ comprehension and acquisition of target vocabulary words. Bowles (2004), on the other hand, compared computerized and traditional glosses in relation to comprehension and impact on L2 learners’ acquisition of target vocabulary words. 279 Theoretical Background In the studies reviewed, we distinguished between studies that identified a theoretical framework from which to examine the relative constructs operationalized and those that did not. Of the 34 studies, approximately 52% (18 studies) specified a theoretical framework or underlying model for research into the associated construct. Of these 18 studies, the majority (14 studies) was published within the period 2005–2011. We summarize these studies in Table 1.5. Table 1.5: Theoretical Frameworks in Original Studies Theoretical Frameworks Top-down, bottom-up models of reading Study Gascoigne, C. (2010) Bernhardt’s constructivist model of reading Number of Studies 1 Lee-Thompson, L. (2008); Weil, N (2008) Pressley and Afflerbach’s model of good strategy use Nassaji, H. (2003); Upton, T.A. & Lee-Thompson, L. (2001) Ericsson and Simon’s framework for the use of verbal reports Bowles, M.A. & Leow, R.P. (2005) Schmidt’s framework of attention and noticing hypothesis Bowles, M. (2004); Camps, J. (2003); Leow, R.P. (2001) Stanovich’s short-circuit effect; Goodman and Smith’s reader-driven reading versus Zhang, L., Gu, P.Y. & Hu, G. (2007) text-driven reading; Anderson’s information processing model of comprehension Goo, J. (2010) Working memory and its role in cognitive performance: resource sharing versus executive attention; inhibitory based executive control; cognitive control; proactive control Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R. Compensatory encoding model: Orientation of Processing (language oriented; & de Glopper, K. (2007) content oriented); type of processing (regulatory, cognitive, cognitive-iterative); domain of processing (below-clause level, clause level, above-clause level) Primacy of meaning principle; Van Patten’s model of input processing; Van Patten’s Leow, R.P., Hseih, H. & lexical preference principle (LPP) Moreno, N. (2008); Rossomondo, A. (2007) Craik & Lockhart’s levels of processing depth theory Rott, S. (2005) Goal theory He, T. (2008) 2 Sociocultural perspective on learning 2 Park, H. & Kim, D. (2011); Seng, G.H. (2007) 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 The use of theoretical frameworks and models varied vastly among the studies. Most were founded on or related to one of three trends: the cognitivist trend (Bowles, 2004; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Camps, 2003; Goo, 2010; He, 2008; Leow, 2001; Leow et al., 2008; Rossomondo, 2007; Rott, 2005; Stevenson et al., 2007); models of reading (Gascoigne, 2010; Lee-Thompson, 280 2008; Nassaji, 2003; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Weil, 2008; Zhang et al., 2007); and sociocultural theory (Park & Kim, 2011; Seng, 2007). In addition, a few researchers depended on L1 models of reading as a basis for research of L2 reading processes (Gascoigne, 2010; Nassaji, 2003; Zhang et al., 2007). Cognitive Perspectives. Among studies in which the cognitivist perspective was prevalent, Schmidt’s framework of attention and noticing hypothesis (e.g., Bowles, 2004; Camps, 2003; Leow, 2001) proved to be used frequently as a basis for research. Alternatively, other cognitivist perspectives employed, such as the primacy of meaning principle, goal theory, and Ericsson and Simon’s (1984/1993) framework for the use of verbal reports, were observed in individual studies (e.g., Bowles & Leow, 2008; He, 2008; Leow et al., 2008). Reading Theories. The few researchers who relied on models of reading to undergird studies grounded these experiments in L1 and L2 reading models. L1 reading models observed included the top-down/bottom-up models of reading, Pressley and Afflerbach’s model of good strategy use, Stanovich’s short-circuit effect, Goodman and Smith’s reader-driven versus textdriven reading, and Anderson’s information processing model of comprehension (Gascoigne, 2010; Nassaji, 2003; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Zhang et al., 2007). An L2 reading model upon which studies were premised included Bernhardt’s constructivist model of reading (LeeThompson, 2008; Weil, 2008). Sociocultural Theory. Researchers who adopted a sociocultural approach to languagereading research involving verbal reports primarily relied on Bakhtinian and Vygotskian notions of the sociocultural nature of learning (Kim, 2011; Park & Kim, 2011; Seng, 2007). In an attempt to understand elementary and undergraduate students’ reading strategies and processes, researchers approached the data collection process with an emphasis on the interactions 281 developed with the text, between and among study participants, and between and among researchers. For instance, in Park and Kim’s (2011) investigation into the reading strategies used by college-level ESL learners with online texts, they recorded participants’ think-alouds, paying particular attention to the actions and reactions emerging during participants’ use of the electronic media in which they interacted while reading. Notably, these studies concentrated on the social nature of the reading act and were employed in more recent years (Kim, 2011; Park & Kim, 2011; Seng, 2007). Concerns with theoretical approaches arose in relation to the use of cognitivist perspectives to reading and verbal reports, monolingual reading theories, and inattention to contemporary theories of online reading comprehension within studies reviewed. Cognitivist Perspectives. In the L2 field, cognitivist orientations to verbal reports continue to be prevalent. Cognitivist conceptions of verbal reports are derived from informationprocessing theory in which verbalization functions as a “window into the minds of learners” (Bowles, 2010a, p. 2). Despite reliance on this information-processing model of verbal reports, attention to reactivity appeared to be largely absent within the original studies reviewed. In fact, the few studies in which the reactive effects of verbal reports are attended to constitute those geared specifically towards an understanding of the reactivity (e.g., Bowles & Leow, 2005; Camps, 2003; Goo, 2010; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004). In her numerous investigations into reactivity and verbal reporting, Bowles (2008, 2010a) noted that variables such as L2 proficiency level and explicitness of instruction accounted for reactivity in given tasks (Bowles, 2010a). This acknowledgement strengthens the need for attention to be placed on reactivity in verbal report studies, and even more so, for LLs. 282 While logical arguments present themselves for such validation of verbal reports within a cognitive perspective, subscription to a sociocultural approach dissolves this necessity. In a sociocultural approach to verbal reports, as conceptualized by Smagorinsky (2011) speech is socially constructed and therefore not a mere reflection of cognitive processes. As a tool that elicits ‘talk about thinking,’ Smagorinsky (2011) asserts that verbal reports may be altered in literacy research to elucidate understanding of the social nature of speech. This position, which highlights the importance of “the socio-cultural” in reading while also maintaining the inherent cognitive capacities of the reader provides an alternative to debates grounded solely in the cognitive conceptions of verbal reports (e.g., Bowles, 2010a; 2010b; Bowles & Leow, 2005). As such, a focus on whether contents of the mind “spill over” in contents of talk as reflected within the cognitive perspective, may be abandoned for consideration of the negotiation which occurs within the context of the “conversation” between the participant and researcher. From this standpoint, reactivity, as well as other methods of validation from an information-processing standpoint, lose their potency. While no study within this review employed a sociocultural approach to verbal reports, the past three years have seen attention directed towards sociocultural approaches to verbal report reading studies (i.e., Kim, 2011; Park & Kim, 2011; Seng, 2007). The possibility that researchers may begin to tap into sociocultural approaches to verbal reports is therefore anticipated. Researchers who approached LLs’ reading processes using sociocultural notions of learning explored dimensions of participants’ social interactions as observed within verbal reports. For instance, Park and Kim (2011) noted the emergence of dialoguing as a theme within participants’ protocols. Participants maintained dialogues with self, others, and online resources in their engagement with online reading tasks. In much the same way, Seng (2007) observed how 283 participants producing think-alouds as they read in a collaborative environment performed better on reading comprehensions tests than students who did not. Reflecting Vygotsky’s (1987) notion that ideas evolve and recognize completion through speech and writing, the use of sociocultural theory as a basis for verbal reports may further allow researchers to examine how participants’ verbalizations regulate their evolving conceptualizations of a given dimension of language learning. To undertake investigation of LLs’ reading process from such a perspective would require researchers to delve more deeply into qualitative analyses of reports. Further, the use of a sociocultural approach to verbal reports would likely diminish the current preoccupation with the validation measures to which verbal reports are subjected within an information-processing model. Consideration of the social factors embedded in the reading task, and within the interactions manifested between researcher and participants in construal of the task may therefore attract greater attention. Monolingual Reading Theories. The use of monolingual reading theories as the basis for the majority of studies in this review is not surprising. In previous reviews of research on ESL learners, it has been acknowledged that ESLs undergo “substantively the same” cognitive reading processes observed in native speakers of English, allowing for latency with some facets of these processes for language learners (Fitzgerald, 1995, p. 180), findings consistent with Grabe’s (2009) conclusions. Despite this evidence, and while L2 reading continues to be heavily informed by L1 reading theory (Grabe, 2009; Kim, 2011), applying L1 reading models to L2 reading processes has been criticized for lack of consideration to the cross-linguistic nature of L2 reading (Grabe, 2009; Kim, 2011). Similarly, in spite of Grabe’s (2009) acknowledgement that L1 reading models helped explain L2 reading, he noted that L1 reading models failed to consider 284 the cross-linguistic features of L2 reading because they are based on English and tended to reflect English conceptions of literacy. In this review, one study was grounded in part on an L2 reading model (i.e., Bernhardt’s model). However, even in this instance, emphasis was placed on what as opposed to how reading processes occurred. It is therefore not surprising that despite the focus on multiple areas of reading (i.e., strategy use, comprehension), researchers (e.g., Goo, 2010; Ko, 2005; O’Donnell, 2009) continued to be primarily concerned with the product of the reading (i.e., the results of the reading task). In fact, very few researchers (e.g., Geladari et al., 2010; Kim, 2011) proved to be concerned with the reading process (i.e., how learners interact with text and context/construct during the reading act). The focus on what as opposed to how processes occur has been previously document in reviews (see Fitzgerald, 1995). Whether this phenomenon is explainable by the lack of dependence on L2 reading models or the failure of researchers to attribute greater importance to how reading processes occur, the use of L2 models to guide exploration into research with language learners leaves much to be desired. Online Reading Comprehension. Investigations into technology via the verbal report tool appeared in a number of studies. Yet, attention to theories of online reading comprehension was largely absent. With the exception of Park and Kim’s (2011) examination of learners’ online reading processes, the research failed to reflect acknowledgment of the impact of “new literacies” on readers’ comprehension processes. The term “new literacies” as explored within a multilingual framework is multidimensional and comprises “the skills, strategies, and dispositions necessary to successfully use and adapt to the rapidly changing information and communication technologies and contexts that continuously emerge in our world and influence all areas of our personal and professional 285 lives” (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004, p. 1572). Within this framework, the Internet is identified as a central technology for literacy in this global information era. Moreover, five processing practices are identified as central to online reading comprehension: “reading to define important questions”; “reading to locate information”; “reading to evaluate information”; “reading to synthesize information” and “reading and writing to communicate information” (Leu, Coiro, Kulikowich, Sedransk, Everett-Cavcopardo, McVerry, O’Byrne, Hillinger, Zawilinski, Kennedy, Forzani, & Burlingame, 2012). Notwithstanding, the nature of the studies in which reading processes were investigated continued to be unrepresentative of the multiplicity of social and technological contexts and the deictic nature of communication and digital technologies in 21st century reading. Despite such contemporary approaches to online reading comprehension, a considerable absence of attempts to elucidate information concerning processing practices was observed in studies focused on technology. Albeit, while students’ use of a computer, electronic device, or particular website appears to be prevalent in such studies, examinations into technology within such frameworks fail to reflect the nature of online reading comprehension, and further, inhibit the potential of verbal reports to comprehensively portray the nature of the reading process. Study Contexts, Participants, and Language The studies reviewed were conducted in a variety of geographical contexts, inclusive of participants of various ages and levels of education, and concentrated on a plethora of languages. Geographical Context. Equally large numbers of research studies reported that the United States (e.g., Alsheikh, 2011; Dressler, Carlo, Snow, August, & White, 2011; Gascoigne, 2002; Goo, 2010; Rossomondo, 2007; Rott, 2005; Weil, 2008) and non-U.S. territories served as the context for their studies. Of the non-U.S. territories, the options ranged from Canada 286 (Nassaji, 2003; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000) to areas such as Singapore (Zhang, Gu & Hu, 2007), the Netherlands (Stevenson et al., 2007), Taiwan (Yang, 2006), Romania (Geladari et al., 2010), Korea (Ko, 2005) and Turkey (Akyel & Ercetin, 2009). Other areas in which research was conducted were Libya (Bengeleil & Paribakht, 2004) and Iran (Paribakht, 2005). To provide an accurate representation of the participants across studies, we further reviewed participants’ age groups, levels of education (i.e., grade level), languages, language proficiency, and reading proficiency. Age, Level of Education. At least nine studies referenced the ages of their participants (e.g., Akyel & Ercetin, 2009; Bengeleil & Paribakht, 2004; Daalen et al., 2001; Dressler et al., 2011; Gascoigne, 2002; Geladari et al., 2010; Ko, 2005; Zhang et al., 2007). Of these studies, five included participants from one to 15 while four reported involving participants from 16–25 years old. While the specific age ranges for participants in numerous studies were not provided, a large number of studies included the specific levels of education of their participants. Of the research studies in which level of education was stated, five consisted of K–12 students (i.e., Daalen-Kapteijns et al., 2001; Dressler et al., 2011; Kim, 2011; Stevenson, Schoonen, & de Glopper, 2007; Zhang, Gu, & Hu, 2007), 15 involved undergraduate students (e.g., Akyel & Ercetin, 2009; Bowles, 2004; Camps, 2003; Chun, 2001; Ko, 2005; Leow, 2001; Leow, Hsieh, & Moreno, 2008; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; O’Donnell, 2009; Paribakht, 2005; Park & Kim, 2011; Seng, 2007; Stevenson, Schoonen, & de Glopper, 2007; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Weil, 2008), and three examined graduate students’ reading processes (Alsheikh, 2011; LeeThompson, 2008; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001). 287 Although few studies focused on learners within the K-12 levels, and even fewer within the lower elementary grades, learners’ age difference emerged as one of the important reading factors. Of significance is Zhang, Gu, and Hu’s (2007) findings, which indicated that 4th-6th grade primary school ESL learners’ degree of metacognitive awareness and regulation not only differed from that of adult ESL learners, but reflected less resilience and systematic organization in metacognitive attempts and use of cognitive strategies as compared to that of their adult counterparts. Languages. A wide range of languages was reflected in the studies. Of these, the most common language was English as a second language. Spanish (Goo, 2010; Rossomondo, 2007) and German (Chun, 2001; Rott, 2005) functioned as foreign languages in a few instances. In other studies, Farsi (Paribakht, 2005), Korean (Weil, 2008), Chinese (Nassaji, 2003; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001), Japanese (Hamada, 2009), Dutch (Stevenson et al., 2007), Hausa (Alsheikh, 2011), French (Alsheikh, 2011; Gascoigne, 2002; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000), French Creole (Wesche & Paribakht, 2000), Arabic (Nassaji, 2003; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000), and Mandarin-Chinese (Yang, 2006) functioned as participants’ L1s. Two of the studies reviewed concentrated on learners of Spanish (Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; O’Donnell, 2009). Language Usage and Language Proficiency/Reading Proficiency. Based on details provided within a number of the studies reviewed, we gathered information concerning the nature of language use (i.e., bilingual, multilingual, L1, L2). Certain studies also indicated participants’ levels of English proficiency. Very few studies reported participants’ levels of reading proficiency. Research studies that reported the age or grade levels of participants tended to focus on intermediate learners of English, as was observed in eight of the studies (e.g., Bengeleil & 288 Paribakht, 2004; Ko, 2005; Nassaji, 2003; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000; Yang, 2006). Such studies also focused on native English speakers (e.g., Bowles, 2004; Camps, 2003; Chun, 2001; Gascoigne, 2002; Goo, 2010; Lee-Thompson, 2008; Rott, 2005). Overall, three studies reported including advanced English proficiency students (Akyel & Ercetin, 2009; Bengeleil & Paribakht, 2004; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001). Of these three, two also consisted of intermediate English-proficient students. Few studies included learners of low English proficiency (e.g., Stevenson, Schoonen, & de Glooper, 2007). EFL and ESL learners appeared to dominate the research with multilinguals’ reading processes explored in only one study (i.e., Alshiekh, 2011). This study examined learners’ reading practices in their second and third languages (French and English, respectively) as opposed to that of their L1 (Hausa; Alsheikh, 2011). A few research studies explored the role of language or reading proficiency in readers’ performance. Among these was Dressler et al.’s (2011) investigation into 12 fifth-grade Spanish-speaking ELLs’ use of cognate knowledge in assigning meaning to English words. In addition, Bengeleil and Paribakht (2004) and Paribakht (2005) set out to determine effects on university students’ L2 lexical inferencing, one from the perspective of EFL learners’ L2 proficiency (Bengeleil & Paribakht, 2004) and the other from the standpoint of L1 lexicalization of target English words (Paribakht, 2005). Upton and LeeThompson (2001), also working with university-level L2 students, delved into reading proficiencies of L2 learners and how they used their L2 to understand L2 general expository text. Failure to acknowledge effects of individual differences proved problematic in relation to participants’ developmental and linguistic backgrounds. The reluctance of researchers to state specifics regarding participants’ ages has been previously identified as problematic (e.g., Bernhardt, 2005) as it tends to blur the relative nuances indispensable to participants’ production 289 and participation in research. Researchers’ tendency to examine adult learners’ reading processes using verbal reports has also been an existing phenomenon (e.g., Fitzgerald, 1995), most likely predicated upon Ericsson and Simon’s (1993) observation that younger learners are less likely to be able to report their thought processes. However, as Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) note, the assumption that a certain educational level automatically translates into expert reader status fails to take into consideration the individual differences of readers and how they vary in their knowledge, experiences, and interpretations of texts. In fact, the success experienced with students at the younger grades (i.e., third and fourth grades) is evidence that verbal reports can elicit substantive information from such students (Kim, 2011). Given that validity and reactivity have been the most prevalent arguments against the successful implementation of verbal reports with younger learners, a sociocultural perspective (discussed in detail later) may prove to be a fruitful alternative in this regard. Another instance in which inattention to individual differences constituted a challenge was in regards to participants’ developmental and linguistic backgrounds. In general, reports of the nuances of social context and the interrelationship between learner backgrounds and findings went unreported in the studies reviewed. In fact, only Alsheikh (2011) ventured to discuss such nuances. As Bernhardt (2005) noted, many studies involve participants who originate from diverse and multiple-language backgrounds whose experiences with each of any given languages in a study scarcely bear resemblance. With little reference to participants’ developmental and language learning backgrounds, it would have been difficult to account for variations among students based on differences attributable to such factors as year of first exposure to the L1, time spent learning the L1, number of countries in which students lived, number of languages spoken in the country in which students lived, language predominantly spoken in the home, and 290 language officially learned by students in school. If students’ identities are to factor into the reading process during research of their experiences and if a true representation of their reading is to be obtained, it may be necessary to capture, as much as possible, a representation of their varied backgrounds – home languages and cultures – and these will need to be valued for their capacity to inform the verbal reports from a given context, all of which are influenced by the former (NCTE, 2008). Methodological Concerns As stated in the criteria presented for the inclusion of articles in this review, all studies utilized verbal reports in conjunction with students’ reading tasks. In order to explore this area thoroughly, we report findings based on: (a) mixed-method studies (16 studies); (b) quantitative studies (9 studies), (c) qualitative studies (9 studies), and (d) verbal report methodology (all studies) (see Tables 1.6 and 1.7). Table 1.6: Methodological Constructs of Original Studies Methodological Construct Quantitative Study Bowles (2004); Bowles & Leow (2005); Goo (2010); Leow (2001); Leow & Morgan-Short (2004); O’Donnell (2009); Rossomondo, (2007); Seng (2007); Yanguas (2009) Qualitative Alsheikh (2011); Dressler, Carlo, Snow, August, & White (2009); Hamada (2009); Kim (2011); Nassaji (2003); Park & Kim (2011); Upton & LeeThompson (2001); Wesche & Paribakht (2000); Yang (2006) Mixed Methods (Quantitative and Qualitative) Akyel & Ercetin (2009); Camps (2003); Bengeleil & Paribakht (2004); Chun (2001); Daalen-Kapteijns, Elshout-Mohr, & de Glopper (2001); Gascoigne (2002); Geladari, Griva, & Mastrothansis (2010); He (2008); Ko (2005); LeeThompson (2008); Leow, Hseih, & Moreno (2008); Paribakht (2005); Rott (2005); Stevenson, Schoonen, & de Glopper (2007); Weil (2008); Zhang, Gu, & Hu (2007) Number of Studies 9 Mixed-Methods. The majority of researchers (16 studies) chose a mixed-methods approach to investigate LLs’ reading processes. Within mixed-methods studies, researchers tended to utilize verbal reports to collect data concerning participants’ reading processes, 9 16 291 qualitatively code this data based on predefined models of strategy use (e.g., Akyel & Ercetin, 2009; Geladari et al., 2010; Hamada, 2009; Lee-Thompson, 2008; Stevenson et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2007) and/or other categories (Leow, 2001), and subsequently, use the categories to conduct further quantitative analyses; that is, qualitative→quantitative (e.g., Akyel & Ercetin, 2009; Geladari et al., 2010; Paribakht, 2005). In certain situations, mixed-method studies deviated from this norm. In these exceptional situations, researchers utilized verbal reports to both generate categories for quantitative analysis and for qualitative analyses to extend their conceptual understandings of phenomena appearing in the findings; that is, qualitative→quantitative→qualitative. For example, Chun (2001) and Gascoigne (2002) both successfully employed concurrent verbal reports to code propositions from protocols, submit these to statistical analyses (e.g., t-tests) and subsequently, used Table 1.7: Verbal Report Methodologies of Original Studies Number of Studies 19 Verbal Report Methodology Concurrent Verbal Reports Study Akyel & Ercetin (2009); Alsheikh (2011); Bowles (2004); Daalen-Kapteijns, Elshout-Mohr & de Glopper (2001); Dressler, Carlo, Snow, August, & White (2009); Gascoigne (2002); Goo (2010); Hamada (2009); Ko (2005); Leow (2001); Leow & Morgan-Short (2004); Leow, Hseih, & Moreno (2008); O’Donnell (2009); Rossomondo (2007); Rott (2005); Seng (2007); Stevenson, Schoonen, & de Glopper (2007); Yanguas (2009); Zhang, Gu, & Hu (2007) Concurrent Introspective Verbal Reports Chun (2001); Paribakht (2005) 2 Concurrent and Immediate Retrospective Verbal Reports Geladari, Griva, & Mastrothansis (2010); He (2008); Kim (2011); Nassaji (2003) 4 Introspective Concurrent, Immediate Wesche & Paribakht (2000) Retrospective and Delayed Retrospective Verbal Reports 1 Concurrent and Retrospective Bengeleil & Paribakht (2004); Camps (2003); Park & Kim (2011); Upton & Lee-Thompson (2001); Yang (2006) 5 Concurrent and Concurrent Introspective Bowles & Leow (2005); Lee-Thompson (2008); Weil (2008) 3 292 information from the protocols to qualitatively identify and derive salient points concerning participants under observation. In the case of Chun’s (2001) study designed to identify the frequency with which learners consulted an internal glossary in a hypermedia environment, she observes that the four participants whose think-aloud protocols were examined revealed several varied metacognitive reading strategies occurring while they consulted glossaries within this context. Similarly, Gascoigne’s (2002) investigation into the role of text-driven and reader-driven reader processes not only allowed her to create categories from which she conducted t-tests, but also resulted in think-aloud protocols reflective of data on readers’ desire for comprehension, metaconstruction of meaning during and while rereading, and evaluation at a suprasentential level. Quantitative Studies. Nine studies involved solely quantitative orientations. Quantitative studies examined tended to assign participants to experimental conditions (e.g., Bowles, 2004; Goo, 2010; O’Donnell, 2009; Rossomondo, 2007; Yanguas, 2009). Within experimental conditions, researchers tended to perform comparisons between various types of verbal reports and the observed effects of varied reading constructs (e.g., Goo, 2010; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; Seng, 2007). They also tended to examine effects of various types of glosses (e.g., Bowles, 2004; O’Donnell, 2009; Yanguas, 2009). In quantitative studies, researchers often utilized random assignment of participants to control and experimental conditions. Common analyses to which verbal report data were subjected included ANOVAs (e.g., Bowles, 2004; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Rossomondo, 2007; Yanguas, 2009) and t-tests (Leow, 2001; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004; O’Donnell, 2009). Less frequently used statistical analyses included correlations (Leow, 2001) and ANCOVAs (Seng, 293 2007). Participants were generally expected to perform reading tasks, production tasks, comprehension tasks, recognition tasks, and concurrent verbal reports. Extreme variations existed in the number of participants in quantitative studies. The number of participants in a few quantitative studies fell between the range 40-50 (e.g., Bowles, 2004; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Goo, 2010; Seng, 2007) while in other studies, researchers veered towards larger numbers, 70-80 participants (e.g., Leow, 2001; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004). Very few quantitative studies involved 100+ participants (i.e., O’Donnell, 2009; Rossomondo, 2007) and in one study, only nine individuals participated (Yanguas, 2009). Qualitative Orientation. Nine studies involved solely qualitative analyses. In these studies, researchers used verbal reports to describe the characteristics of readers’ processes (Chun, 2001; Gascoigne, 2002). Despite the absence of statistical analyses, several qualitative research studies involved coding of information from verbal reports in conjunction with descriptive statistics, followed by narrative explanations of patterns emanating from the findings (Alsheikh, 2011; Dressler et al., 2011), while others relied strictly on inductive qualitative analyses (Kim, 2011; Park & Kim, 2011; Yang, 2006). For example, Upton and Lee-Thompson (2001) coded the data from concurrent and retrospective protocols based on Pressley and Afflerbach’s (1995) three reading strategy types – identifying, monitoring, and evaluating. They subsequently created classifications of these types based on patterns found in the reports. On the other hand, Nassaji (2003) approached his study quite differently, assigning “0,” “1,” and “2” to students’ verbal responses, which represented their success in inferring word meanings from context. He then used these ratings to describe patterns in students’ verbal reports and the circumstances under which certain strategies were most often apparent. 294 While a few researchers relied upon concurrent verbal reports (i.e., Alsheikh, 2011; Dressler et al., 2011; Hamada, 2009), researchers tended to utilize concurrent reports in combination with retrospective reports to facilitate qualitative analyses of verbal report data (Kim, 2011; Nassaji, 2003; Park & Kim, 2011; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000; Yang, 2006). Interviews, observations and questionnaires, while notably absent from studies conducted from a quantitative perspective, appeared to be present in qualitative studies (e.g., Dressler et al., 2011; Park & Kim, 2011; Wesche & Paribakht, 2000). The number of participants involved in qualitative studies ranged from 3-21 with few studies involving smaller numbers of participants (e.g., Hamada, 2009; Kim, 2011) and more numbers of studies involving larger numbers (i.e., 20+) of participants (e.g., Nassaji, 2003; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Park & Kim, 2011; Yang, 2006). Based on the findings, methodological concerns arose. Verbal reports as a methodological tool, as conceived within a cognitivist perspective, supposedly captured the contents of memory associated with the reading process. As such, the indication that most studies were either quantitative or mixed methods in nature suggests that researchers utilized quantitative analysis and then employed qualitative analysis to further explore specific instances or cases. However, as has been illustrated, generally, mixed-method studies employed qualitative methods as a basis for conducting quantitative analysis, which therefore leaves a gap in exploration of “how” the reading process occurs, echoing Fitzgerald’s (1995) findings over a decade ago. While quantitative research is warranted in the context of LL reading studies, the importance of exploring reading processes via the qualitative research through verbal reports remains crucial. In fact, capitalizing on qualitative information within quantitative studies stands to illuminate understanding of specific reading processes and to reduce the concentration on 295 products of reading. The recognition that verbal reports may not merely be used as a means of deriving information for coding in quantitative analysis, but are also a functional tool for understanding the qualitative processes of readers, implies that in studies where reports are used to confirm or refute relative hypotheses, more may be done to explore the manner in which LLs accomplish the reading tasks in which they are engaged. Overall, researchers’ use of a three-pronged approach to mixed-method studies— qualitative→quantitative→qualitative—is more than exemplary, as this method reflects research designed to capture a holistic view of LLs’ reading processes. This approach presents an opportunity to rely on interview data based on learner backgrounds and observation data reflecting nuances inherent in language use during verbalization as the process of inductive analysis occurs. Further, the pattern noted in which concurrent /retrospective reports functioned particularly well within qualitative studies seems to suggest that the combination of other methods of verbal reports with concurrent methodologies may serve to provide greater insight into the ways in which multilingual students make sense of L1, L2 and L3 reading. Adoption of a qualitative→quantitative→qualitative paradigm in studies where concurrent reports are combined with alternative formats such as retrospection, therefore holds potential for providing insight into the reasons for students’ uses of certain processes as well as the manner in which these processes transpire during the reading act. Verbal Report Methodology. Verbal reports may be concurrent (nonmetalinguistic), retrospective, introspective (metalinguistic), and delayed retrospective. Concurrent reports are obtained during the process of the task being conducted while retrospective reports occur after the task has been completed. Introspective reports seek to have the reader explain how s/he 296 obtained a particular concurrent thought, whereas delayed retrospective reports occur after a significant amount of time has elapsed following the reading task. Overall, several patterns emerged in the type of verbal report methodology utilized within and across mixed-method, quantitative, and qualitative studies. Concurrent verbal report methodology and concurrent/retrospective reports appeared to be most common. The concurrent method was generally employed equally in the quantitative and mixed-methodologies, but was less frequently observed in qualitative studies. No significant patterns were noticed in the use of the other verbal report methodologies across quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies. In fact, these methodologies tended to be dispersed equally. Of the four research studies focused specifically on the manner in which verbal reports were deployed, three addressed the reactivity of verbal reports, especially with reference to comprehension (Bowles & Leow, 2005; Goo, 2010; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004). The other examined concurrent and retrospective reports in participants’ identification of target forms (Camps, 2003). In studies where researchers sought to enhance the methodology of verbal reports, concurrent and metalinguistic verbal reports were employed simultaneously (e.g., Bowles & Leow, 2005), concurrent verbal reports independently (Goo, 2010; Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004), and concurrent and retrospective verbal reports in conjunction with each other (Camps, 2003). In their use of metalinguistic/nonmetalinguistic verbal reports in their research, Bowles and Leow (2005) observed that participants in nonmetalinguistic conditions performed better on comprehension measures than participants in the metalinguistic condition. Significantly, the use of concurrent verbal reports in the absence of introspection/metalinguistic features had no 297 detrimental effect on adult readers’ comprehension (Leow & Morgan-Short, 2004), neither did it negatively impact learning of Spanish immediate future tense (Goo, 2010). In all studies in which the effects of verbal reports were investigated, researchers primarily employed quantitative measures, specifically through the use of experimental conditions. All but one of the studies randomly assigned participants to think-aloud and nonthink-aloud conditions. Furthermore, in each study, participants’ reports were used as a means of coding information subsequently submitted to statistical analyses. Significantly, only one research study (i.e., Bowles & Leow, 2005) went beyond the use of protocols for statistical analysis and utilized data from the verbal reports to obtain further insight into similarities between metalinguistic and nonmetalinguistic groups. In the findings from this study, the researchers observed that participants in the metalinguistic condition showed awareness of the function of the unknown structure (pluperfect subjunctive in Spanish) as they verbalized justifications for their answers to the production tasks. Concern with verbalization emanated from issues related to validity. Issues in Validity. Given that studies largely employed a cognitivist (i.e., information processing) approach to verbal reports, a central concern with the studies concerned validity of verbal reports in relation to the conditions under which participants were expected to verbalize thought contents. As indicated by the findings, researchers were largely inconsistent with or failed to describe immediate conditions under which participants were required to verbalize contents of memory. In a large number of cases when verbal reports were modeled, while participants were provided with practice, and subsequently, allowed to perform the task independently before they engaged in the experimental condition, this was rarely the case. 298 Consequently, the extent to which reports reflected the conditions for verbalizing as specified by Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) is questionable. Original recommendations concerning the use of verbal reports highlight precautions in relation to individual differences in ability to provide think-aloud reports and caution researchers to guard against the possibility that general verbal ability is equated with participants’ ability to report verbally (Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993). Given that validity of verbal reports is dependent on this characteristic, the reporting of which was largely absent from studies, the extent to which participants were able to reflect and report may have impacted protocols (see Cohen, 1995). Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993) illustrated the complexity involved in the basic process of producing a protocol for English language learners when they stated: Persons fluent in a second language can usually think aloud in that language even while thinking internally in the oral code of their native language or in non-oral code. In this case, there is nearly a one-to-one mapping between structures in the oral code of the first language and the code of the second language that is used for vocalization. How much the thinking is slowed down will then be a function of the subject’s skill in the second language. (p. 250) While training provided to participants in many studies may be easily cited for its capacity to potentially enhance participants’ verbal reporting abilities, there is no evidence to indicate that participants’ verbalization capacities were assessed, neither is there acknowledgement of the possible interference of this factor on findings (see Cohen, 1995). Despite the presence of instructions in most studies, supposedly allowing participants to verbalize in a preferred language, and likely, an attempt to reduce constraints on verbalization, proficient oral- or written-language proficiency need not be consistent with inherent capacity to 299 report contents of memory and, therefore, assessments of language proficiency may not necessarily reflect participants’ verbalization capacities. As such, the absence of this distinction may have inhibited the potential identification of differences in verbalization, and thereby, affected comparisons performed in studies reviewed. Conclusion The purpose of this review was to synthesize original studies in which verbal reports have been used to capture information concerning the reading processes of language learners (LLs) over the past decade. Based on the review, several trends were noted. First, cognitivist approaches to verbal reports (e.g., Bowles, 2008, 2010a, 2010b; Bowles & Leow, 2005; Charters, 2008; Ellis, 2001; Ericsson, 2002, 2006, 2009; Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993; Jourdenais, 2001; Leow, 2002) appeared to be prominent despite contemporary theoretical assumptions inviting alternative approaches (i.e., Deschambault, 2011; Kim, 2005; Smagorinsky, 2011; Swain, 2006) to the verbal report tool. Secondly, though past decade has seen the nature and definition of literacy evolve significantly (i.e., Castek, Leu, Coiro, Gort, Henry, & Lima, 2007; Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; The New London Group, 1996), the extent to which verbal reports in their current form capture perceived nuances embedded in social practices surrounding LLs’ literacy development remains questionable. Third, second language reading research remains grounded on L1 theoretical reading models despite concerns that cross-linguistic and social elements may not be fully captured by the use of verbal reports within such models (see Bernhardt, 2005, 2011; Fitzgerald, 1995, 2005; Grabe, 2009; Kim, 2011). This review is significant because it reflects how verbal reports have been used to provide insight into LLs’ reading comprehension, use of strategies, vocabulary acquisition, and 300 technology. Moreover, it illustrates that mixed-methods approaches are most popular, and very few studies were solely qualitative or quantitative. In contrast, the review demonstrates that verbal reports appeared to be largely concurrent with very little reliance on qualitative analyses in interpretation of the protocols obtained. From the findings of this review, we note that though studies were distributed equally across U.S. and non-U.S. territories, research in second language and foreign language settings were more common and English commonly functioned as the second language under investigation. Based on these and other findings, a renewed effort is needed in several areas of the second-language reading research literature to facilitate the necessary strides with verbal reports and improve the capacity of this prominent tool as pertaining to documentation of LLs’ reading processes. First, research in this field needs to concentrate on an examination of LLs’ reading processes within the elementary grades in the United States and in other geographical regions as well as the investigation of reading processes of non-ELLs. Second, while Bowles (2008), Cohen (2013) and others (e.g., Fitzgerald, 1995; Leow & Morgan-Short; 2004; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995) concur that more systematic research is necessary to facilitate the modification of the verbal report tool for use with ELLs, the indication that sociocultural approaches to verbal tools is equally valid for exploration of participants’ reports of their reading processes implies that a holistic view is needed in this process. A holistic view will require the dismantling of dichotomies that maintain verbal report investigation from a singular perspective in favor of an approach where sociocultural and cognitivist approaches function within an integrated model to best represent talking about thinking in reading. 301 Third, consideration needs to be given to multiple forms of verbal reporting within studies as a means of capturing linguistic as well as metalinguistic processes that accompany the reading process. Fourth, the emphasis on reading in its traditional forms as is evident in the literature reviewed, reflects the failure to capture the more dynamic processes prevalent in reading in this era of new literacies. A systematic effort to explore students’ thinking in conjunction with multimodal forms of literacy ranging from the Internet to other mobile and technological tools, within appropriate frameworks as informed by contemporary theories and research on new literacies is therefore warranted. Fifth, more emphasis should be placed on the value of qualitative inquiry to LL and SLA research as a means of elucidating understanding of the reading process. As such, rather than functioning primarily as a tool for coding categories in preparation for quantitative analysis, qualitative inquiry may begin to provide vivid depictions of the reading process. In addition, qualitative inquiry further allows for examination of how individual differences and learner language backgrounds influence the reading act. In this context, the combination of concurrent and retrospective reports to explore “how” LLs make sense of text holds potential. Sixth, thought should be given to reading theories underlying studies in which verbal reports were used. Within this area, researchers should first attempt to ensure that there is a theoretical basis for the study being pursued. Such consideration will allow for sufficient exploration of assumptions underlying research studies. Additionally, models of reading that take into account cross-linguistic processes involved in bi- and multilingual contexts should demonstrate greater centrality to research in which verbal reports are used. Overall, researchers are invited to explore all areas of reading using verbal reports. As was indicated in this review, very few studies focused on vocabulary and comprehension, while 302 phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, and fluency tended to be absent within the literature. While vocabulary and comprehension are undoubtedly more semantically based and therefore may yield more with regards to the meaning-related nature of reading tasks, verbal reports are also capable of indicating how phonological awareness functions in LL emergent readers at all levels of the educational system. The role of language and reading proficiency in students’ ability to perform reading tasks remains largely unexplored and may benefit from examination using verbal reports. These recommendations are in no way exhaustive, yet are a humble attempt to present a way forward in the second language reading field. It is expected that more concerted efforts will be made to engage in verbal report research through which LLs’ reading capacities may develop greater clarity, both within and beyond the United States. References Akyel, A., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learners of English. System, 37(1), 136-152. Alsheikh, N. O. (2011). Three readers, three languages, three texts: The strategic reading of multilingual and multiliterate readers. The Reading Matrix, 11(1), 34-53. Bengeleil, N. F., & Paribakht, T. S. (2004). L2 reading proficiency and lexical inferencing by university EFL learners. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(2), 225-249. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.61.2.225. Bernhardt, E. B. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133-150. Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New York: Routledge. Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English 303 and L2-w development: A meta-analysis. (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. TOEFL iBT14). Retrieved from TOEFL Research Reports website: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-11-05.pdf. Bowles, M. (2004). L2 glossing: To CALL or not to CALL. Hispania, 87(3), 541-552. Bowles, M. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at a L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 359-387. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.1017/S0272263108080492. Bowles, M. (2010a). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York: Routledge. Bowles, M. (2010b). Concurrent verbal reports in second language acquisition research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 111-127. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.1017/S0267190510000036. Bowles, M. A., & Leow, R. P. (2005). Reactivity and type of verbal report in SLA research methodology: Expanding the scope of investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 415-440. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.1017/S0272263105050187. Camps, J. (2003). Concurrent and retrospective verbal reports as tools to better understand the role of attention in second language tasks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 201-221. doi: 10.1111/1473-4192.00044. Castek, J., Leu, D. J., Jr., Coiro, J., Gort, M., Henry, L. A., & Lima, C. (2007). Developing new literacies among multilingual learners in the elementary grades. In L. Parker (Ed.), Technology-mediated learning environments for young English learners: Connections in and out of school (pp. 111-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 304 Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26. Charters, E. (2008). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education, 12(2). 68-82. Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English language learners in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 351-395. doi: 10.3102/0034654312465472 Chun, D. (2001). L2 reading on the web: Strategies for accessing information in hypermedia. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5), 367-403. doi:10.1076/call.14.5.367.5775. Cohen, A. D. (1983). Introspecting about second language learning. Studie Anglica Posnaniensia, 15, 149-156. Cohen, A. D. (1987). Using verbal reports in research on language learning. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 82-95). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, A. D. (1995). In which language do/should multilinguals think? Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 8(2), 99-113. Cohen, A. D. (1996). Verbal reports as a source of insight into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7(1-2), 5-24. Cohen, A. D. (2013). Verbal report. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1-5). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. (2008). The handbook of research on new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 305 Cummins, J. (1984). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency to academic achievement among bilingual students. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement (pp. 2–19). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Daalen-Kapteijns, M., Elshout-Mohr, M., & de Glooper, K. (2001). Deriving the meaning of unknown words from multiple contexts. Language Learning, 51(1), 145-181. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00150. Deschambault, R. (2011). Thinking-aloud as talking-in-interaction: Reinterpreting how L2 lexical inferencing gets done. Language Learning, 62(1), 266-301. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00653.x. Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J-Y., Wu, S., Burgess-Bringham R., Gezer, M. U., & Snow, C. (2012). What we know about second language acquisition: A synthesis from four perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5-60. doi: 10.3102/0034654311433587. Dressler, C., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., August, D., & White, C. E. (2011). Spanishspeaking students' use of cognate knowledge to infer the meaning of English words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(2), 243-255. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.1017/S1366728910000519. Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.x. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984/993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners’ cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 306 145-190. doi: 10.3102/00346543065002145. Fitzgerald, J. (2005). Multilingual writing in preschool through twelfth grade: The last 15 years. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 337-354). New York: Guilford Press. Gascoigne, C. (2002). Documenting the initial language reading experience: The readers speak. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 554-560. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2002.tb02723.x. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Geladari, A., Griva, E., & Mastrothanasis, K. (2010). A record of bilingual elementary students' reading strategies in Greek as a second language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3764-3769. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.585 Goo, J. (2010). Working memory and reactivity. Language Learning, 60(4), 712-752. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00573.x. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hamada, M. (2009). Development of L2 word-meaning inference while reading. System, 37(3), 447-460. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.003. He, T. (2008). Reading for different goals: The interplay of EFL college students' multiple goals, reading strategy use and reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(2), 224-242. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00355.x. Jourdenais, R. (2001). Protocol analysis and SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition (pp. 354–375). New York: Cambridge University Press. 307 Kim, D. (2005). Second language literacy process in the Language Arts/Literature classroom: A sociocultural constructivist perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. Kim, D. (2011). Dialogic meaning construction and emergent reading domains among four young English language learners in second-language reading. Multilingual Education, 1(2), 1-21. Ko, M. H. (2005). Glosses, comprehension and strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(2). Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning: Everyday practices and classroom learning. New York: Open University Press. Lee-Thompson, L. (2008). An investigation of reading strategies applied by American learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 41(4), 702-721. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2008.tb03326.x. Leow, R. P. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2?: An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84(3), 496-509. Leow, R. P., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). To think-aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 35-57. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.1017/S0272263104026129. Leow, R. P., Hsieh, H. C., & Moreno, N. (2008). Attention to form and meaning revisited. Language Learning, 58(3), 665-695. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00453.x. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new 308 literacies emerging from the Internet and other ICT. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1568-1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Kulikowich, J. M., Sedransk, N., Everett-Cavcopardo, H., McVerry, G., O’Byrne, W. I., Hillinger, M., Zawilinski, L., Kennedy, C., Forzani, E. E., & Burlingame, C. (2012). An initial study of online reading and Internet research ability in rich and poor school districts: Do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Vancouver, CA. April 14, 2012. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645670. doi: 10.2307/3588216. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA). (2011). FAQ: How many school-aged Limited English Proficient (LEP) students are there in the U.S? Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/faqs/. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2008a). English language learners: A research policy brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Positions/Chron0308PolicyBrief.pdf. National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2011). 2011 NCTE Resolutions. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/press/2011resolutions. 309 New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins. O’Donnell, M. E. (2009). Finding middle ground in second language reading: Pedagogic modifications that increase comprehensibility and vocabulary acquisition while preserving authentic text features. The Modern Language Journal, 93 (iv), 512533. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00928.x. Paribakht, T. S. (2005). The influence of first language lexicalization on second language lexical inferencing: A study of Farsi-Speaking learners of English as a foreign language. Language Learning, 55(4), 701-748. doi: 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00321.x. Park, H., & Kim, D. (2011). Reading-strategy use by English as a second language learners in online reading tasks. Computers and Education, 57, 2156-2166. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.014. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42(2), 147-180. Doi: 10.1017/S0261444808005612. Rossomondo, A. E (2007). The role of lexical temporal indicators and text interaction format in the incidental acquisition of the Spanish future tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 39-66. doi: 310 http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/10.1017/S0272263107070027. Rott, S. (2005). Processing glosses: A qualitative exploration of how form-meaning connections are established and strengthened. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(2). Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85109. doi: 10.1177/1525822X02239569. Seng, G. H. (2007). The effects of think-aloud in a collaborative environment to improve comprehension of L2 texts. The Reading Matrix, 7(2), 29-45. Singhal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness, and L2 readers. The Reading Matrix, 1(1), 8. Smagorinsky, P. (2011). Thinking and speech and verbal data. Vygotsky and Literacy Research, 2(3), 233-244. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6091-696-0_9. Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/html/reading/. Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (2007). Inhibition of compensation? A multidimensional comparison of reading processes in Dutch and English. Language Learning, 57(1), 115-154. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00241.x. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum. Upton, T. A., & Lee-Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the first language in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 469-495. doi: http://dx.doi.org/. Wesche, M. B., & Paribakht, T. S. (2000). Reading-based exercises in second language vocabulary learning: An introspective study. The Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 196- 311 213. doi: 10.1111/0026-7902.00062. Weil, N. (2008). Vocabulary size, background characteristics, and reading skill of Korean intensive English students. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 26-59. Yang, Y. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies? Reading Psychology, 27, 313-343. doi: 10.1080/02702710600846852. Yanguas, I. (2009). Multimedia glosses and their effectiveness on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning. Language Learning and Technology, 13(2), 48-67. Zhang, L., Gu, P. Y., & Hu, G. (2007). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean primary school pupils’ use of reading strategies in learning to read in English. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 245-271. doi: 10.1348/000709907X218179. CHAPTER SUMMARY In Chapter Four, I first considered the ways in which verbal reports as functioned in language learners’ literacy studies aligned with cognitivist perspectives of the methodological tool (Smith & King, 2013). I then conducted in-depth exploration of numerous studies in which researchers utilized verbal reports to document language learners’ reading processes (Smith & Kim, 2013). From the investigation of qualitative studies using verbal reports to investigate language learners’ literacy processes from a cognitivist perspective, findings illustrated that a large number of researchers adhered to measures of concurrency and guidelines for representativeness as proposed by Ericsson and Simon (1984/1993). However, few researchers demonstrated adherence to measures such as the slowing down of processing during a task such as reading and the emphasis on the process of reading over the product. During further examination of quantitative and qualitative literacy studies in which verbal reports had been deployed, findings 312 illustrated that concurrent reports, the use of quantitative and mixed-method approaches, and the reliance on cognitivist approaches to reading and to the collection of protocols appeared to be prominent across the board. However, upon further review, these studies were found to attach little attention to individual differences among language learners, capable of affecting verbalizations and the demonstrated limited dependence on a particular framework (i.e., qualitative quantitative qualitative; Smith & Kim, 2013), which yielded highly useful information about the reading processes of language learners. Across the studies, certain observations were noted. First, the indication that verbal reports are used concurrently indicates that adherence to information-processing models of verbal reports continue to be prevalent in the second-language field. Concurrent approaches operate based on the assumption that short-term memory can be tapped for information about the process in which study participants are engaged to provide a representative account of thought during a given period (Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993). In an era where language-learners’ cultural backgrounds, linguistic differences, and contextual environments need to be factored into an understanding of the reading process, the dependence on an information-processing framework in the absence of alternative approaches that capture reading as a social process and that implement verbal reports in light of this understanding seems paradoxical. Not only does it indicate an inconsistency in the advocacy for acknowledging the backgrounds of language learners, but it also fails to reflect the process of reading as socially-situated and contextual. Secondly, individual differences among language learners, both linguistically and otherwise, tended to be absent from studies conducted. For interpretation of verbal reports in predominantly quantitative or mixed-method studies, the expectation is that some form of uniformity would exist among participants. Yet, as has been demonstrated by the research, 313 language learners are characterized by extreme variations, both in regards to the language(s) learned, and the situations surrounding the learning of these language(s) (Bernhardt, 2005; 2011; Luk & Bialystok, 2013). In this regard, the provision of the status of language learners (e.g., intermediate, advanced) provides little information about their holistic language capacity. The absence of the linguistic characteristics of language learners, as defined by their personal lives cannot be omitted from research studies through which their reading is based on the very process of oral language operating as a function of linguistic variables. Clearly, based on these concerns, language learners’ literacy processes are reflected from one perspective. The findings illustrate that we do not yet know how alternative approaches to literacy and to the enactment of verbal reports may transform our understanding of language learners’ literacy processes. References Bernhardt, E. B. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133-150. Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New York: Routledge. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984/1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1984). Luk, G., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2013.795574. Smith, P., & King, J. (2013). An examination of veridicality in verbal protocols of language learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(5), 709-720. 314 CHAPTER FIVE INTRODUCTION In beginning this dissertation, I invited you to engage with a vignette of Malika, a 10-year old student who grew up in a multilingual context of St. Lucia. I illustrated Malika’s thinking in relation to her use of Standard English and the St. Lucian English Vernacular in an academic setting. To many, Malika is considered a language learner, and to others, she represents a multilingual student, operating within the cross-linguistic demands of the multilingual context in which she lives. For Malika, the language varieties commonly used within her home and community are not the same as that to which she is exposed in school. Like so many language learners around the globe, undue attention to proficiency in native languages of the language learner within academic contexts in which certain standard languages are privileged presents a challenge not only for learning the language privileged by academia, but also for students’ development of literacy skills through this language. And despite the multilingual capacity of her teacher, Malika seems to be expected to disregard her native language within the school setting. Therefore, for the researcher who proposes to examine Malika’s reading experiences in the context of schooling, it is hardly expected that a holistic view of her literacy experiences would be captured. Yet, as the student, Malika remains at the heart of literacy teaching and research and any attempts to enhance literacy instruction must take this into consideration. Given the above, I utilized a transdisciplinary approach in this dissertation to disrupt the comfort levels associated with situations in which language learners, such as Malika, operate 315 within dichotomized societal, linguistic, and cultural contexts, situations that persist despite the presence of multilingual teachers in schools, and due to the absence of literacy research that emphasizes the holistic nature of literacy teaching and learning. A transdisciplinary notion of learning considers what is between, above, and beyond the disciplines. Adherence to such a perspective warrants examination of any research endeavor from multiple entry points and openness to the changing nature and infinity of knowledge. In this dissertation, “Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning,” I approached the study of language and literacy teaching and learning across multilingual and multicultural contexts via an optional dissertation process that allowed me three entry points: (a) an understanding of literacy and language policy in relation to language learners at the K-12 levels in selected countries of the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean; (b) linguistic and cultural diversity of multilingual teachers and teacher educators; and (c) the verbal report methodology as employed in original studies focused on the literacy practices of language learners at the K-20 levels across international contexts (see Table 1.1). In addition, I mirrored the cross-disciplinary emphasis required by a transdisciplinary approach through collaboration with faculty whose disciplinary emphases differed significantly, namely faculty versed in second language acquisition, linguistics, early childhood education, teacher education, literacy, and psychological and social foundations. Not only were disciplinary boundaries crossed in my reliance on such diverse faculty, but issues within studies emanating from knowledge at the intersections of history, linguistics, philosophy, cultural studies, psychology, sociology, and education were both explored and “pushed beyond” current understandings, thereby providing novel lenses through which to “cross” cultural boundaries. 316 Given my personal epistemological standpoint, I maintained continued collaboration in relation to each study over extended periods of time, allowing for the notion of change in knowledge to be sustained and reflected. And, throughout the process of preparing this dissertation, I further adhered to multiple and interconnected underlying paradigmatic assumptions of knowledge as infinite and unending in my acknowledgement of the humility of claims and findings observed in my research. Summary, Discussion, and Future Directions In this chapter, I summarize and synthesize the findings of my work, demonstrating the connections and interconnections between and among them. To accomplish this, I first reflect on the use of epistemological frameworks, theories, forms of data, forms of analysis, and findings across the dissertation to demonstrate how issues facing language learners such as Malika were illuminated within and approached from varied and novel perspectives (see Table 1.8). Secondly, I outline implications for the field of literacy and language learning in the multilingual Englishspeaking Caribbean and considerations for second language researchers, teachers and teacher educators. Third, I provide future directions for my personal research. In the final stages, I reflect on my role as a researcher. Epistemological Framework Identification of an overall epistemological framework for this dissertation involved three steps: an in-depth self-reflection to determine my personal epistemological predisposition; an embedding of the identified personal epistemological predisposition within philosophical frameworks; and a contextualization of the alignment between my theoretical and personal epistemological approaches within the broader epistemological context. 317 My first step was a self-reflection process to determine my inherent views concerning the epistemological question, “When and what is knowledge?” (Crotty, 1998, p. 46). My search process led me to the recognition that I viewed knowledge as constantly changing, an infinite process, and highly contextual. The reflection on my personal epistemological predisposition revealed that most importantly, I accepted the fluidity of knowledge as a function of the previous indicators in my personal and professional experiences, and therefore, welcomed with comfort, the temporary nature of knowing, continuously subject to change. The second step involved an embedding of the personal epistemological predisposition within the philosophical to determine the theoretical perspectives that would undergird my multiple investigations into arenas designed to enhance my understanding of multilingual teaching and learning. I identified interpretivism (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003), critical theory (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 2010), and pluralism (Lather, 2007; see Table 1.8) as theoretical standpoints from which I operated, noting well the overlaps between and among these philosophical notions, and the variations thereof. In the third step, I contextualized the alignment between my theoretical and personal epistemological approaches within the broader epistemological context. Returning to the title of my dissertation, “Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning” and referring to the discussion in which I had identified theoretical perspectives, I therefore noted the epistemologies which would frame the various examinations undertaken in this dissertation, namely, constructivism, constructionism, contextualism, subjectivism, relativism, and pluralism. My adoption of these epistemologies necessitated that my explorations be guided by one, or by combinations of the epistemologies described. 318 Table 1.8: Overall Summary RESEARCH AGENDA: I. Language & Literacy RESEARCH AGENDA: II. Diversity RESEARCH AGENDA: III. Verbal Reports EPISTEMOLOGIES 1. Interpretive 2. Critical 3. Interpretive 4. Interpretive, Critical 5. Critical, Pluralist 6. Interpretive 7. Interpretive, Critical THEORIES -- 3. Cultural, Intercultural, and Linguistic Diversity; Narrative Research 4. Dynamic Model of Multilingualism; Multicultural Awareness; Multicultural Teacher Education 5. Transdisciplinarity 6. Cognitivist 7. Cognitivist, Sociocultural FORMS OF DATA 1. Original Studies 2. Historical Artifacts, Integrative Reviews 3. Interviews, Artifacts 4. Videos, VSRs, Written Correspondence 5. Theoretical Propositions 6. Original Studies 7. Original Studies FORMS OF ANALYSIS 1. Content Analysis 2. Historical and Integrative Analysis 3. Narrative Analysis 4. Qualitative Analysis 5. Conceptual Analysis 6. Content Analysis 7. Content Analysis 319 Upon reflection, all chapters appear to have been guided by the epistemology of subjectivism. As described earlier, subjectivism allows for interpretation, which in turn contributes to constant and consistent changes in the nature of knowledge made possible by constructivism on one hand, and constructionism, on another. The method of engagement, as demonstrated by my interpretation of and dependence on subjective accounts of published research (see Smith, 2013a; 2013b), the experiences of the multilingual Caribbean teacher (i.e., Smith, 2013c), and of the insight into my practice (Smith, 2013d) all constitute examples of the subjectivism to which my endeavors succumbed. Another epistemology prevalent across chapters was contextualism. According to O’Donnell (2006), contextualism presupposes the interconnectedness between context and the thought and experience embedded in that context. In this dissertation, contextualism was evident in the influence of the various approaches from which I explored multilingual teaching and learning via a specificity of context in particular studies. For instance, in my construal of transdisciplinarity as an approach to dealing with the challenges in multicultural education, my simultaneous investigations into the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean educator’s experiences (see Smith, 2013d) and consideration of how multilingual teachers within the multicultural and multilingual context of the Caribbean responded to native languages (see Smith 2013a; Smith, 2013b) all impacted the meaning derived from and exerting influence on my construction of this approach. The third epistemological perspective identified as a frame for research in this dissertation was constructivism. Described as “an interpretive stance which attends to the meaning-making activities of active agents and cognizing human beings,” constructivism in this 320 dissertation was evident in the stance that “knowledge derived by conventional (rationalist, experimentalist) methods is not the only knowledge worth having” (Paul, 2005, p. 62). This notion of constructivism was inherent in the “search for” and “representation of” “resistance narratives” such as those portrayed in the experiences of the multilingual educators (Paul, 2005, p. 62). Constructivism was also evident in the contextual clarification of values within this dissertation. Not only were the study participants’ value positions used to demonstrate “where consensus and conflict” existed, but my own value positions played a pivotal role in this designation within the social context of the research (Paul, 2005, p. 63). For instance, Juan’s (i.e., the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean educator’s) interview transcripts indicated that he saw a conflicting approach in his response to native languages as a teacher in the Caribbean (see Smith, 2013c) given his recognition of the similar treatment he was subjected to upon working in the United States. The value ascribed to his identification of conflict was therefore honored in my subsequent presentation and interpretation of findings. Similarly, an example of my constructivist approach to valuing emerged in my decision to identify the use of cognitivist approaches to verbal reports as problematic and a threat to a true understanding of language learners’ literacy processes (see Smith & King, 2013). Pluralism undergirded my inquiry into transdisciplinarity as applied to multicultural education. But, on a broader scale, pluralism also functioned holistically within this dissertation, allowing for the combination of multiple theoretical positions in the approach to knowledge. From the onset, I made the decision to function as a “bricoleur,” deciding upon the choice and adaptation of methods deemed capable of providing the information needed to deepen my understanding of multilingual teachers and learners within the literacy context (Denzin & 321 Lincoln, 2000). Through an iterative process, and in collaboration with researchers characterized by multiple paradigmatic lenses (see Paul & Marfo, 2001), I developed and revised through and through, the various methods and associated decisions designated to my examination of the field of study. Pluralism was reflected at the macro-level in my approach to this dissertation via the pluralistic choice to utilize analytic discussions, syntheses of research, and original studies, the result of which was a more holistic perspective on the issues involved in literacy as approached from the standpoint of multilingual learners, teachers, and the verbal report method of research. Theories, Forms of Data, Forms of Analysis Across the studies, certain patterns emanated in the ways theories, forms of data, and forms of analysis functioned in this dissertation (see Table 1.8). Theories Theories were prominent in the second and third parts of the research agenda, as a basis for the research on linguistic diversity and verbal reports, respectively. Among these were the theories or conceptual frameworks of cultural, intercultural, and linguistic diversity; narrative research; the dynamic model of multilingualism; multicultural awareness; multicultural teacher education; transdisciplinarity; cognitivism; and sociocultural theory. Emanating from these theories, it was evident that though the research on linguistic diversity and teacher education was approached from a sociolinguistic perspective, the studies on verbal reports were predominantly undergirded by a cognitivist approach. A deviation from this dichotomy was observed in the use of transdisciplinarity, which was used to demonstrate how such dichotomies might be transcended. In many ways, the decision concerning the theories from which to approach studies in the dissertation emanated from the theoretical perspectives and epistemologies in the process of 322 construction throughout the course of this dissertation. For instance, the decision to rely upon the dynamic model of multilingualism as reflective of cross-linguistic characteristics that positions multilingualism as an asset reflects a critical theoretical perspective, and therefore, a challenging of the additive notions of multilingualism (see Table 1.8). Similarly, my application of transdisciplinarity as a theory for revisiting multicultural education was based on my notion of a pluralist theoretical perspective. Regardless of the circumstance, across the board, I ultimately recognized the inhibitions posed by relying solely on a particular theory in an attempt to construct the knowledge, which would provide answers to the questions I posed. Rather, theories needed to be reconciled in order to paint a vivid picture of language learners, multicultural teacher education, and verbal reports. The deployment of theories indicated the necessity for consideration of the social contexts of language learners, teachers, and literacy research via verbal reports as central to obtaining more in-depth understandings. Forms of Data The forms of data utilized across the dissertation varied significantly. Primarily, data took the form of original studies because I was interested in understanding how knowledge had been constructed about certain topics in relation to the unique areas of research on which I focused. In other instances, interviews, personal artifacts, videos, video stimulated reflections, and written correspondence from coursework constituted the forms of data utilized for the original studies undertaken. In other cases, historical artifacts, integrative reviews and theoretical paradigms also comprised the data during my work on language policy and the application of theory to multicultural education. The reliance on these qualitative forms of data was influenced considerably by the epistemologies to which I subscribed. For instance, across the studies, I relied on the epistemology of subjectivism, which through allowing for interpretation, 323 necessitated forms of data which not only permitted me to bring my subjectivity to bear where knowledge construction was possible, but to also acknowledge subjective accounts of other researchers via data through which they too had presented their constructions of knowledge (see Table 1.8). In tandem, the use of a pluralist epistemology required interrogation of each part of my research agenda through multiple data sets, the result of which was not only a more holistic view of these parts, but of their interconnectedness as a complete whole. Forms of Analysis I relied on content analysis (Altheide, 1987; Denzin, 1978), narrative analysis (Frank, 2002), qualitative analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), conceptual, historical, and integrative analyses across the dissertation. These forms of analysis were utilized based on the theoretical perspectives and forms of data decided upon, particularly with reference to each study. For instance, in my examination of veridicality in research agenda part II (see Table 1.8), I chose content analysis because this method suited my attempts to understand empirical literacy studies utilizing verbal reports. By the same token, content analysis was a function of the epistemology of subjectivism because my role as a constructor of knowledge merged with the subjective constructions of the researchers whose published studies I examined. And in the same vein, the theoretical perspective of interpretivism determined significantly this choice of analysis. As Crotty (1998) notes, an interpretivist perspective is based on the assumption that individuals create personal subjective and intersubjective interpretations of the world with which they interact. And so, as the primary research instrument, I interacted with the original studies, thereby creating the interpretations required for obtaining responses to the questions posed. Despite differences in theoretical perspective, epistemology, and forms of data and the ways in which these informed different forms of analysis, across the dissertation, I acknowledged that if 324 other researchers were to perform similar analysis as I had conducted, they may conceive of the findings in ways different from mine. Implications for the Field Based on the findings across the studies in this dissertation, implications at the microand macro-levels emerged. First, based on the dearth in literacy research in the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean, the region stands to benefit from a consideration of how international approaches to literacy research can serve to inform the development of a research base applicable to the social and linguistic contexts in which language learners function (Smith, 2013a). Yet, in doing so, attention must be paid to the social, cultural, and linguistic contexts in which language learners function in the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean. As has been observed, certain native languages are yet to develop the orthographic registers needed for bilingual teaching and lack the literature base so critical for biliterate instruction (Smith, 2013b). Moreover, the absence or failure of language policy to effect change in the procedures for literacy instruction in schools in conjunction with the siloed efforts of local, national, and international organizations around efforts to enhance literacy in the region reflects the need for the bridging of this gap. Secondly, recognition of the conflicting perceptions towards language of instruction from teacher and parental perspectives (Smith, 2013a) warrant further investigation. Through exploration of the perceptions towards language and literacy instruction from students, teachers, parents, and administrators, opportunities may exist to view the situation holistically, and to tackle the challenge of perceptions, which obstructs an understanding of the need for reliance on native language instruction and/or use in schools. 325 Third, the indication that experiences undergone by specific multilingual teachers and educators may not necessarily result in extensive demonstrations of linguistic and cultural awareness (Smith, 2013c; Smith, 2013d), as emerging from this dissertation reflects the importance of relying on multiple perspectives as a means of grappling with the challenges of diversity in Caribbean schools. While care was taken to avoid generalizations from qualitative findings based on individuals (i.e., Smith, 2013c, Smith, 2013d), the personal experiences of the multilingual teacher and educator raised questions about conceptions of language learners, linguistic diversity, and more broadly, multicultural education and the ways in which linguistically diverse learners can be affected. Frequently, conversations surrounding language learners’ literacy instruction in schools, particularly in the United States, point to the limited capacity of monolingual teachers to respond to the needs of linguistically diverse learners. Yet, in this dissertation, as demonstrated, multilingual English-speaking Caribbean teachers form the majority teaching force in these countries. In fact, through exploration of the personal experiences of one such teacher, Juan, sufficient evidence existed to indicate that beliefs concerning language of literacy instruction were deeply embedded in the historical, societal, and linguistic expectations of this teacher as a result of socialization within the country in which he functioned (Smith, 2013c). And, even in the case of a multilingual teacher educator from a similar background, whose literacy practice was examined in the context of higher education, very little evidence was present to indicate that this multilingual educator reflected responsiveness to diversity in her practice (Smith, 2013d). Clearly, while the linguistic capacity of teachers needs to be taken into consideration in discussions of diversity and multicultural education, more needs to be done. Construing transdisciplinarity as an avenue through which teachers and teacher educators can step beyond 326 themselves and their experiences to developing predispositions regardless of the backgrounds from which they operate, or in tandem with their diverse experiences demonstrates how reliance on inter-, multi-, and trans-disciplinary approaches to multicultural education is one of the keys to grappling with challenges posed in a globalized context. In addition, in multicultural teacher education, discussion concerning how such transdisciplinary notions can be harnessed across diverse teacher populations, that is, linguistically and monolingual teachers, in order to enhance all teachers’ responsiveness to diversity. Specifically, in the Caribbean, where teachers and students share the multiple linguistic repertoires through which literacy is taught and learned, a transdisciplinary approach may be one of the ways in which to enable teachers, policy makers, and stakeholders to overcome barriers embedded in perceptions that limit the enactment of bilingual and biliterate instruction in schools. A final implication based on findings from the studies is the need for researchers to be open to alternative methods of engagement in research for language learners. As has been demonstrated in this dissertation based on a review of original studies of literacy in the region (Smith, 2013a), narrow and traditional conceptions of literacy continue to be reflected in research designed to study the literacy practices of language learners in the region. Reliance on methods that limit conceptions of language learners’ literacy processes and inattention to the social and contextual factors inhibit understanding of these learners as a function of the contexts in which they live and learn. As a tool that holds promise for exploring language learners’ literacy processes, verbal reports, though previously conceived of as largely cognitivist in nature (Smith & King, 2013; Smith & Kim, 2013), may be reconceived to allow for the social aspects of literacy to be displayed. 327 Already in the field of measurement, efforts are underway to engage in sociocultural approaches to verbal reports for language learners (Agans, Deeb-Sossa, & Kalsbeek, 2006; Chan & Pan, 2011; Daveson, Bechinger-English, Bausewein, Simon, Harding, Higginson, & Gomes, 2011; Reeve, Shariff-Marco, Breen, Williams, Gee, & Levin, 2011; Ridolfo & Schoua-Glusberg, 2011; Tschann, Gregorich, Penilla, Pasch, de Groat, Flores, & Butte, 2013; Willis, Lawrence, Hartman Kudela, Levin, & Forsyth, 2008). Despite challenges in these efforts, recent studies reveal deepened discourse surrounding efforts to enhance the method for language learners (see Smith, 2013f, forthcoming). Based on these efforts, the second-language learning field stands to benefit in its approaches to literacy research for language learners. In fact, due to the specific efforts in assessment to validate cross-cultural (i.e., sociocultural) approaches to this methodological tool (see Willis & Miller, 2011), second language researchers stand to benefit from interdisciplinary efforts to enhance verbal reports for capturing more concisely the social processes of language learners. Future Directions for Research In undertaking research concerning literacy, language learners, language policy, multilingual teachers, and verbal reports in the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean, researchers may be interested in concentrating on the following areas. Literacy Research, Language Policy, Verbal Reports, and Language Learners First, early childhood literacy experiences of children in the Caribbean and the nature of language development in the early years would serve to provide a view of the ways in which students’ cultural and linguistic contexts merge in their acquisition of the various linguistic registers, while illuminating our understanding of how this translates into literacy growth. In this process, specific attention would need to be paid to the social context in which children function 328 and the socialization processes of the countries that shape their thinking. As a function of context, circular statistics would prove to be quite useful in determining the influence of geographical context on students’ language practices (Batschelet, 1981). Second, in understanding the ways in which K-12 language learners engage in literacy development, verbal reports may be approached from a sociocultural perspective. In undertaking this task, recent efforts by measurement researchers to apply such a concept may prove to be significant. Third, in Caribbean contexts where students have access to online tools, the use of a sociocultural approach to verbal reports may also enable us to understand how language learners develop online reading comprehension skills. Overall, the Creole-speaking territories of the Caribbean are in need of an initiative geared towards an understanding of language as it interacts with literacy instruction in schools. This initiative may initially be undertaken at the regional level, given the similarities in linguistics across contexts. The designation of areas of literacy research would then be embarked upon in each Creole-speaking Caribbean territory. Already, a center for research has been established in the Caribbean. This center could provide an excellent avenue through which to initiate this process. A second step would be the convening of designated scholars and Ministry of Education officials for responsibility at the local level, that is, throughout specific countries. This second step would provide an excellent opportunity for teachers to become part of the local team and to be responsible for coordination inquiry into their own instruction within specific schools. A sub-local team would therefore need to be established on a school-by-school basis, the head of which would assume responsibility for coordinating research efforts at this particular school. 329 In order to maintain coherence, and to sustain communication between the regional and sub-local bodies, meetings at the sub-local, local, and regional levels would need to be conducted throughout the duration of the research collection process. The expectation would be that upon obtaining a representative account of the literacy situation, as defined by the linguistic contexts of schools within territories across the region, government officials, linguists, educators, literacy scholars, and international proponents could develop a pathway for determining the specific needs of schools with regards to implementation of literacy education. Teachers’ and Teacher Educators’ Linguistic Diversity First, more research is needed on multilingual teachers in the context of the Englishspeaking Caribbean. As is, the explorations contained in this dissertation were very limited in focus because they concentrated on a limited sample. Exploring the experiences of these teachers as persons and professions is necessary. However, even more critical is developing an understanding of how their perceptions are effected in literacy instruction in the Caribbean region. Second, research is needed to examine how multilingual teacher educators contribute to an understanding of diversity in literacy education programs, specifically within the contexts described in this dissertation where language learners are targeted. Understanding the perceptions of these teacher educators as well as the ways in which their perceptions serve to shape the teacher education programs in which literacy teachers are trained may serve to provide insight into how negative perceptions towards native languages may be disrupted. Moreover, monolingual teacher educators in other contexts may be able to gain insights into responses to linguistic diversity based on the findings of this research. Researcher as Instrument Self-reflexivity has been described as “a way of looking back on the self and on inquiry 330 that explores and demonstrates a situatedness and personal investment” (Paul, 2005, p. 330). As a researcher in this dissertation, I engaged in self-reflexivity due to my positioning as the instrument of the research (Janesick, 2004; Maxwell, 2013). My process of self-reflexivity takes the reflexive role of instrument within the context of original studies, from the perspective of analyses and syntheses conducted, and based on my overall approach to this dissertation. As primary instrument, I was aware of the relationships to be developed and maintained that potentially impacted participants, myself, and my continuous and reflexive approach to the methods employed within the design of the original studies undertaken. Maxwell’s (2013) observation concerning the role of philosophical, ethical, and political factors in the relationships desired with participants was considered pivotal in this regard. The value-related axiom of a critical-interpretive stance as informed by my epistemological stance required that part of my responsibility be a cognizance of how participants benefit from my interactions with them during my research. My sense of the knowledge construction as derived from a critical-interpretivist perspective allowed for my continued emphasis on the creation and consistent cultivation of trust, intimacy, and reciprocity (Maxwell, 2013) during my interviews with Juan, the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean educator, and in my examination of my practice. Moreover, my intent to maintain reciprocity, based on acknowledgment of the nature of my research as “intrusive” into Juan’s life (Maxwell, 2013) were evidence of my recognition of the two-way process that it was my duty to maintain. As primary instrument, my background experience as a speaker of native languages predisposed me to perceive characteristics of language learners, bilinguals, and multilingual students in an almost positive light. Patton (2002) explained that in qualitative research, “a stance 331 of neutrality” should be adopted concerning the phenomenon studied (p. 91). Within this neutral approach, the intent should be to: “understand the world as it unfolds, be true to complexities and multiple perspectives as they emerge, and be balanced in reporting both confirmatory and disconfirming evidence with regard to any conclusions offered.” (p. 51) While I disagreed that a stance of neutrality can be maintained in qualitative research, I did recognize the need for reflection on, attention to, and a reporting of my biases as previously identified as they concerned data collection, analyses, syntheses of research, and interpretation. I held the view that I could not be detached from the studies, syntheses, and analyses with which I was engaged. However, as a qualitative researcher, establishment and preservation of my integrity and credibility through explanation of how my personal experience, selective perception, and philosophical predispositions affected my view of language learning and multilingual teaching and learners would be a critical necessity. As an educator with a Caribbean linguistic and cultural background, I was consistently aware of the assumptions concerning the Caribbean context in which I sought for the literacy research, the approaches of parents and teachers to native languages, as well as biases embedded in my purpose for conducting this study. Cognizant of previous views and approaches that rendered native languages as inferior, but aware of the educational necessity for these languages in instruction as demonstrated by my engagement with international research on the topic, I found myself sometimes searching for a balance between ingrained predispositions from my socialization as a Caribbean national, and a researcher, whose efforts for advocacy necessitated reliance on the best practices, such as the non-interference of native languages in literacy success. Yet, as I developed the content of this dissertation, searching for this balance seemed 332 easier. These were serious concerns with which I struggled as I consolidated my role as researcher with the individual whom I was socialized to be, and whose predispositions to various languages constantly nagged me. Maxwell (2013) proposed three questions for examining my role as researcher, which seemed pivotal to resolving this quandary: “Are you concerned about presenting yourself as a competent researcher? Do you hold the desire to demonstrate correctness about your own views? Do you hold unexamined stereotypes about participants?” (p. 91). As an honest researcher and an individual aware of my ethical responsibility, to portray participants and research in a manner reflected by the information with which I had engaged, as prescribed by my philosophical stance, responding to these questions is critical. In responding to the first question, “Are you concerned about presenting yourself as a competent researcher?” I was aware of the desire to prove myself as a researcher and to establish my credibility as a researcher in academia. Instrumentally, this contributed to my desire for correctness and for success, inquiry concerning adherence to standards of research, and flexibility to acknowledge this change and to be truthful in reporting the influence of these views on my procedures. The second and third questions, “Do you hold the desire to demonstrate correctness about your own views?” and “Do you hold unexamined stereotypes about participants?” primarily concerned me for two major reasons. The first was based on my interest in verbal reports from a sociocultural perspective and the preconceived notion that verbal reports might be a more plausible reflection of reality within a sociocultural as opposed to an information-processing framework. Aware that this notion may have tainted my view of the data and their interpretation, leading me to make inferences that perhaps reflect what I hoped to see, I took the advice of Smagorinsky (2008), who recommended presentation of detailed and transparent coding methods 333 that allow the reader to identify consistencies in the approaches to inferences made based firmly on the philosophical stance decided upon and identified as the framework for the study. Through my reflection on the above questions, I realized that my positioning in many ways, elucidated a knowledge of myself, the assumptions I made about the knowledge I constructed, and the ways in which I viewed the world. Through constant interaction with my work, in conjunction with the feedback from my committee members, I learned the value of being modest about the claims derived from any form of research. As I worked through this dissertation over a period of time and recognized the evolution in my perspective, I recognized the importance of being open to new understandings as a critical component of scholarly work. As a future researcher, these fundamental tenets will be indispensable to my process. CONCLUSION At the micro-level, the findings of this dissertation highlight the importance of literacy research, effective language policy, and a capitalization on the resources afforded by a multilingual teaching force in the consideration of language learners’ reading processes in selected countries of the English-Speaking Caribbean. The recognition that verbal reports as a research method have predominantly been conceived from a cognitivist perspective across international context suggests that researchers can consider the potential for understanding Caribbean language learners’ literacy processes via alternative approaches to verbal reports. In tackling the areas highlighted above, the findings from this dissertation have shown that serious challenges remain. Among these is the needed change in perception concerning the critical nature of literacy research and the conceptions of literacy that inform language learners and literacy research in selected areas of the Caribbean. Another is the continued absence of language policy in the 334 context of certain multilingual countries in this region, a situation that poses challenges to literacy instruction geared towards language learners. With reference to teachers, negative perceptions concerning native languages within the context of education remain a significant concern. Not only are these perceptions central to how native languages become integrated within literacy instruction, but they have also been shown to shape the personal and professional lives of a teacher and educator. A third obstacle is present in the lack of research that explores the experiences and practices of multilingual teachers in the Caribbean. Though the need for multilingual teachers is considered critical to language learners’ literacy development in other contexts (e.g., United States), in-depth exploration of a teacher and educator from the multilingual English-speaking Caribbean revealed that the perceptions ingrained in the consciousness of this teacher and educator may counteract the positive influences afforded by their multilingual nature. Given this situation, in this dissertation, a reliance on the post-modern notion of transdisciplinarity, as applied to multicultural education, was demonstrated as a first step in dealing with the challenges related to (monolingual and multilingual) teachers’ and educators’ ways of being and doing, both of which are central to a holistic view of language learners. But, as highlighted by the findings, language learners’ literacy processes in the Caribbean cannot be viewed only from the perspective of literacy research and teacher perceptions and experiences. In fact, they require due consideration to research methods. In exploring verbal reports as a method used in literacy research for language learners across international contexts, the findings suggest that much can be learned about language learners’ literacy processes in the English-speaking Caribbean if attention is focused on the social nature of the act of verbal reporting during the process of reading. 335 At the macro-level, the findings point to two major considerations. The first relates to the process employed in this dissertation and the second focuses on content. With regards to process, this dissertation illustrated the potential of an alternative approach to the dissertation (generically conceived) to transform the ways in which issues are explored in literacy research. The multiple entry points deployed in this dissertation, facilitating intersections of knowledge surrounding issues related to an area of research through multiple perspectives, from a myriad of paradigms, with attention to various lenses, and with input from faculty in various departments, contributed to a holistic understanding of the issues faced by language learners in the English-speaking Caribbean and beyond. In the process of meeting the demands associated with the framing of studies within areas of research, aligning areas of research within an epistemological framework, synthesizing theoretical perspectives, forms of data, and forms of analysis, this dissertation demonstrated the capacity to elucidate cohesion on significantly varied levels with considerably different foci. As a function of process and with regards to content, an understanding of the language learner proceeded at multiple levels in this dissertation. At the first level, the emphasis was on the social, and therefore linguistic, context of the learner. This, in turn, informed the second level, in which emphasis was placed on teachers, and specifically, the multilingual teachers, to which language learners are exposed in designated areas of the English-speaking Caribbean. The second and third levels consequently served to impact the third level, in which research methods (particularly, verbal reports) were explored and subsequently discussed with regards to their potential for language learner literacy research. The expectation is that these understandings will serve to inform future literacy and teacher education research in the English-speaking Caribbean and serve as a springboard for policy implementation and literacy instruction. 336 References Agans, R. P., Deeb-Sossa, N., & Kalsbeek, W. D. (2006). Mexican immigrants and the use of cognitive assessment techniques in questionnaire development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28(2), 209-230. Altheide, D. L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10(1), 65-77. Batschelet, E. (1981). Circular statistics in biology. New York: Academic Press. Chan, A. Y., & Pan, Y. (2011). The use of cognitive interviewing to explore the effectiveness of advance supplemental materials among five language groups. Field Methods, 23, 342-361. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Daveson, B., Bechinger-English, D., Bausewein, C., Simon, S. T., Harding, R., Higginson, I. J., & Gomes, B. (2011). Constructing understandings of end-of-life care in Europe: A qualitative study involving cognitive interviewing with implications for cross-national surveys. Journal of Pallative Medicine, 14(3), 342-349. Denzin, N. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Frank, A. W. (2002). Why study people’s stories? The dialogical ethics of narrative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(1), 109-117. 337 Janesick, V. (2004). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research, (2nd ed.) (pp.128). New York: Sage. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. O’Donnell, C. R. (2006). Beyond diversity: Toward a cultural community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 1-7. doi:10.1007/s10464-0059010-7. Paul, J. L. (2005). Introduction to the philosophies of research and criticism in education and the social sciences. Columbus, OH: Upper Saddle River. Paul, J. L., & Marfo, K. (2001). Preparation of educational researchers in foundations of philosophical inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 525-547. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Reeve, B., Willis, G., Shariff-Marco, S. N., Breen, N., Williams, D. R., Gee, G. C., . . . Levin, K. Y. (2011). Comparing cognitive interviewing and psychometric methods to evaluate a racial/ethnic discrimination scale. Field Methods, 23(4), 397-419. Ridolfo, H., & Schoua-Glusberg, A. (2011). Analyzing cognitive interview data using the constant comparative method of analysis to understand cross-cultural patterns in survey 338 data. Field Methods, 23(4), 420-438. Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for Social Science students and researchers. London, UK: Sage. Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25, 389-411. Smith, P., & King, J. (2013). An examination of veridicality in verbal protocols of language learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(5), 709-720. Steinberg, S. R., & Kincheloe, J. L. (2010). Power, emancipation, and complexity: Employing critical theory. Power and Education, 2(2), 140-151. Tschann, J. M., Gregorich, S. E., Penilla, C., Pasch, L. A., de Groat, C. L., Flores, E., & Butte, N. F. (2013). Parental feeding practices in Mexican American families: Initial test of an expanded measure. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(6), 1-11. Willis, G., Lawrence, D., Hartman, A., Kudela, M. S., Levin, K., & Forsyth, B. (2008). Translation of a tobacco survey into Spanish and Asian languages: The tobacco use supplement to the current population survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 10(6), 1075-1084. Willis, G., & Miller, K. (2011). Cross-cultural cognitive interviewing: Seeking comparability and enhancing understanding. Field Methods, 23(4), 331-341. 339 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Figure 1.7: Institutional Review Board Approval 340 APPENDIX B Interview Protocol A 1. Tell me why you decided to become a teacher. 2. What did you like about your job as a teacher? 3. What did you dislike about your job as a teacher? 4. Tell me what you remember about your use of language while you were growing up. 5. How would you describe your use of different language styles (registers) in your classroom? 6. In what ways did you change your use of language for different audiences in the school setting? (Prompt: For example, parents, students, teachers, principal, custodial workers) 7. How did you differentiate your language for students in your classroom? (Prompt: Tell me more about this.) 8. What differences have you noticed in the way various students use language to talk to you? How did this change or remain the same based on the territory you lived in? How did this change or remain the same based on the classroom in which you taught? 9. What patterns of language use are/were used by different groups in your classroom? 10. In what ways did you respond to students’ use of: (a) Creole (or other language variation) (b) Creolized English (or other language variation)? (c) Standard English and/or (d) other language variations? 11. How do you react when your family members use Creole/Standard English/Dialect at home? 12. Talk to me about the different registers you control. 341 13. In which contexts do you speak: (a) Creole (or other language variation) (b) Creolized English (or other language variation)? (c) Standard English and/or (d) other language variations? 14. What language forms did you use in the classroom/at school? What language forms do you currently use in the classroom/at school? How do you react when your family members use Creole/Standard English/Dialect at home? 15. How did this change or remain similar based on the territory you were in over the past ten years? 16. How did this affect your relationships with students? 17. What language forms do you use at home? How do you react when your family members use Creole at home? Other language variations? 18. Tell me more about how migrating to different areas affected your use of language forms with your family members/friends over the past ten years. 19. What was it like teaching in different geographical regions? At different academic levels? 20. How has your use of language forms in professional contexts changed over the years? Talk about the language forms you use most often in your professional life. How has this changed or remained the same? 21. How did this affect your relationships with colleagues? Interview Protocol B 1. How did you feel about the changes in your use of language? In your use of language in different countries? 2. How do you feel about the expectations of your language use in different places? 342 3. How do you feel about the way you responded to students’ use of language in your home country? 4. How would you use language differently if you returned to Dominica? How would your use of language remain the same? 5. Talk to me about your cultural norms in Dominica. How has your observance of these norms changed over the years? How has your use of language impacted your observance of your cultural norms? 6. How do your family members/friends/colleagues respond to your language use when you visit Dominica? How do you feel about their response? 343 APPENDIX C Figure 1.8: Copyright Permission ABOUT THE AUTHOR Patriann Smith is a Doctoral Candidate in the Literacy Studies department at the University of South Florida and a resident of Tampa, Florida in the United States. Originally from the island of St. Lucia, Patriann began her studies at Caribbean Union College, now the University of the Southern Caribbean, an institution accredited by Andrews University at Berrien Springs, Michigan. In 2000, Patriann received an A.A. degree in Teacher Training from Andrews University, and five years later, graduated with a B.Sc. degree in Elementary Education from the said university. Patriann subsequently enrolled at the University of South Florida in Tampa in 2009, and a year later, graduated with a M.A. degree in Literacy Studies. Over the past ten years, Patriann has functioned in numerous capacities within academia. During the period 2000-2008, she worked as a Student Writing Tutor at Caribbean Union College and as Student Assistant to the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of the Southern Caribbean. During this period, Patriann also served as a teacher at the K-12 level for a period of five years and worked as a Reading Clinician’s assistant in Trinidad and Tobago. Patriann has taught within elementary schools in Trinidad and St. Lucia, and lately, she has used her knowledge of literacy practices and skills to work with foster children within the context of tutoring exercises and summer camps in Lutz, Florida. Additionally, Patriann has worked with the Students with Disabilities Services at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida. In 2010-2011, Patriann functioned as a Research Assistant where she collaborated with several faculty members in the College of Education at USF on research in students’ literacy practices. Subsequently, she engineered efforts into prospective literacy teacher educators’ inquiry into their teaching. Currently, Patriann is a Graduate Teaching Assistant in the department of Literacy Studies at the University of South Florida where she teaches undergraduate literacy courses in assessment, writing, reading, and literature, and graduate courses in reading, vocabulary, and writing instruction. She is also a Graduate Student Success Fellow at the University of South Florida. Throughout her doctoral studies, Patriann’s main emphasis has been on explorations in multilingual teaching and learning as evidenced in her exploration of language learners’ literacy processes, multilingual teachers’ and teacher educators’ linguistic differences in literacy teaching, and the methods associated with literacy research for language learners. She continues to maintain a focused research agenda in these areas. Ms. Smith maintains an active role, is a member of, and has presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Literacy Research Association (LRA), International Reading Association (IRA), National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), American Reading Forum (ARF), Eastern Educational Research Association (EERA), Florida Educational Research Association (FERA), and the American Association for Teaching and Curriculum (AATC). In 2012, Ms. Smith was a recipient of the Literacy Research Association’s (LRA) Ethnicity, Race, and Multilingualism Scholarship and in 2013, she was invited to serve as a board member of the International Reading Association (IRA) Literacy and Language Learners’ Committee. As a member of the Organization of Teacher Educators (OTER), Ms. Smith has also served in an editorial capacity with the Journal of Reading Education (JRE) during the period 2010-2012. Ms. Smith is currently a Student Reviewer for the Literacy Research Association Yearbook and the Journal of Teaching Education. Additionally, she has served as a reviewer for the AERA and LRA conferences over the past two years and now serves as a reviewer for the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education (JIS) and for Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue. Ms. Smith’s work on transdisciplinarity as applied to multicultural education and teacher education has been accepted by and is to appear in Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue and Childhood Advocacy and Early Childhood Education Policies in the Caribbean. In addition, Ms. Smith has published collaboratively on verbal protocols for language learners in the journal, Theory and Practice in Language Studies.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning

Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning

Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning

Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning

Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Explorations in Multilingual Teaching and Learning

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS