Language Needs in the Multicultural Classroom

Labeling Melissa Coolong-Chaffin . Matthew K Burns Labeling succinctly defined is the act of identifying or classifying through words intended to describe that which is being identified. Labeling takes many forms in our society all of which can be conceptualized along a continuum from informal to formal using criteria that range from completely idiosyncratic and based on personal opinion to specifically defined by law. Informal labels include, among others, those which describe a person’s recreational preferences such as ‘‘runner’’ or ‘‘book worm,’’ occupations such as ‘‘teacher’’ or ‘‘salesperson,’’ behavioral tendencies such as ‘‘giver’’ or ‘‘taker,’’ or political affiliations such as Democrat or Republican. More formal labels, such as Learning Disabled have specifically defined criteria. Despite identical language, the definition of a category such as Learning Disabled may differ according to the educational background and professional affiliation of the entity doing the labeling, as will be discussed below. Why Do We Use Labels? In a general sense, labeling is related to the social psychological construct of schemas, or cognitive structures that help individuals interpret complex information about other persons, things, groups, and situations efficiently. Schemas contain information about attributes and how concepts relate to other concepts. For example, when one sees a dog on the street, one is able to recognize it as belonging to a certain class of animals that have 4 feet, fur, sharp teeth, and are often kept by people as pets. In addition, each person has his or her own schema about dogs based on personal past experience. A person who was bitten by a dog as a child may also have the information that dogs should be avoided as part of his or her schema, and a person with a history of positive experiences with dogs may choose to approach and pet the dog as a result of information in that personal schema. Schemas help the individual process large amounts of information efficiently in a variety of ways. First, schemas guide memory by organizing information and thereby affecting what individuals remember and what they forget. Research has found that people tend to remember information better when it is either consistent with their existing schemas or contradictory to those schemas, as opposed to when information is irrelevant to those schemas. Second, schemas allow individuals to make inferences about new situations or people based on information within their existing schemas. In this way, schemas can fill in gaps in information. Third, schemas help individuals make judgments about new persons or situations. In people’s quest for cognitive efficiency, the richness of detail in an experience is sometimes sacrificed. This can lead to drawbacks such as bias, erroneous factual conclusions, and improper inferences. There is also a societal foundation for labeling in that labels are often created by comparing behavior to a norm and deciding how much deviance from the norm is necessary to identify an abnormality. Perhaps the most infamous example of this societal foundation was the proposed mental disorder first described in 1851 by Samuel Cartwright called Drapetomania, which was defined as the uncontrollable urge of slaves to flee their captivity. Perceived societal demands of the day identified the running away of slaves as an abnormality because it was recognized as significantly deviant from that which suited the needs of society and therefore represented the norm. However, today’s standards recognize what was then the norm to be deviant from acceptable behavior. Labeling in Schools To receive remedial and/or special education services a student must be assigned a label and declared eligible for such services. As such, labels serve the important function of accessing resources to address a problem or set of problems a student is exhibiting. Federal special education mandates describe 13 categories under which students can receive special education services including relatively high prevalence categories such as Specific Learning Disabilities and Emotional Disturbance, as well as relatively rare categories such as Visual Impairments and Traumatic Brain Injury. Each category is specifically defined and includes exact criteria as well as rule out factors. A major component of special education services in schools is to assess students to determine their eligibility for services based on the fit between the problems the student is experiencing and the criteria for labeling set forth in federal regulations. These legal categories or labels are specifically defined to facilitate objective and clear cut eligibility C. S. Clauss-Ehlers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-71799-9, # Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2010 566 L Labeling decisions. Ideally, different special education professionals could independently look at the same body of educational data and draw the same conclusion about whether or not the student is eligible for and in need of services. Labeling in Medicine One example of labeling in the field of medicine is the various classifications of mental disorders described in the various editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association. The original impetus behind this formal classification system was the need to collect statistical information about the prevalence of the disorders during the 1840 United States (U.S.) census. The classification system has undergone numerous revisions by different professional entities over the last 150 years, addressing the need to not only collect statistical information, but also to aid in clinical diagnosis and treatment. Like educational classifications described above, the modern DSM diagnoses serve the practical purpose of accessing funding from various sources including medical insurance and state and federal monies for treatment of the disorders. The categories themselves contain descriptive information about signs and symptoms of the mental disorders, but admittedly lack consistent operational definitions to address all unique situations. In fact, the current version of the DSM (DSM-IV-Text Revision), published in 2000, advocated that trained professionals use their clinical judgment to apply the criteria listed for each disorder in the DSM as guidelines rather than as absolute criteria. Effects of Labeling The main benefit of formal labeling in schools is to access funding for interventions such as special education. The idea of course being that these additional resources will improve the educational outcomes for the students served. However, educational labeling could serve three different purposes. First, labels lead to classification and diagnosis which could in turn lead to appropriate treatment of the problem. Second, labels serve as the basis for future research which can potentially shed light on etiology, prevention, and treatment in the future. Third, labels call attention to problems and thereby lead to additional resources through legislation. Given the overlap between some categories in the special education mandate and categories described in the DSM, one potential adverse effect of labeling is confusion among parents and professionals. Consider the case where a parent brings her child to a clinical psychologist because of concerns about her child’s progress in learning to read. The psychologist, using DSM criteria, makes the diagnosis of Reading Disorder and suggests the parent contact the school to begin special education services to remediate the problem. However, current federal regulations allow for use of assessing a child’s response to research-based interventions to diagnose a learning disability. Thus, what is a learning disability in a clinical and school setting could be substantively different and the potential for confusion abounds. As stated above, many labels are societally defined because they deviate from a societal norm. Some have hypothesized that the result of these deviant labels (e.g., disabled, depressed, criminal, etc.) could result in individual behavior that is consistent with the label. Sociologist Robert Merton coined the expression ‘‘selffulfilling prophecy’’ to describe how an individual changes his or her behavior to be consistent with his or her perceptions of a situation. Therefore, it is quite plausible that attaching a label to an individual will lead to behavior that is considered an aspect of that label. Social psychology also suggests additional effects of labeling through attribution theory. When people perceive the cause of failure to be internal (attributed to the individual rather than the situation) and stable (or unchangeable), they are more likely to experience what psychologist Martin Seligman calls learned helplessness, which leads to decreased motivation, apathy, and even susceptibility to depression. For example, a child identified as learning disabled could perceive academic difficulties as the result of a lifelong internal condition, which could have the unforeseen effect of decreasing academic motivation and creating an unfortunate cycle. Research has found that children identified with a special education disability have higher rates of learned helplessness. Moreover, labeling children with special education labels also affects teacher expectations for these children and how the two interact in an instructional relationship. The discussion presented above focused on formal labels with specified criteria, but the effects of informal Language and educational assessment L labels can be quite similar. From a multicultural perspective many of these informal labels become stereotypic when they result in generalizations about groups that are applied to individuals. These labels can then become the basis for racist behavior from individuals and the society that derived the labels to begin with. from diverse linguistic, communicative, and cultural backgrounds requires the use of culturally sensitive testing materials and, ultimately, the design and implementation of culturally appropriate educational interventions. See also: > Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); > Special education; > Stereotyping; > Racism: Individual, Institutional, and Cultural Goals of Language and Academic Assessment Suggested Reading Michener, H. A., DeLamater, J. D., & Myers, D. J. (2004). Social psychology (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Seligman, M. E. P. (1992). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. New York: W. H. Freeman. Thelen, R. L., Burns, M. K., & Christiansen, N. D. (2003). Effects of high-incidencedisability labels on the expectations of teachers, peers, and adults not in education. Ethical Human Sciences and Services, 5, 183–194. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. L. (2000). Critical issues in special education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Language and Educational Assessment Eileen T Rodriguez . Tonia N Cristofaro . Catherine S Tamis-LeMonda . Lisa Baumwell Introduction Education is a top priority in the United States (U.S.). Given the rapidly changing demographics of the U.S. in recent decades, education and intervention professionals increasingly work with children and families from a variety of cultures, and are often called upon to evaluate the abilities and performance of children from different backgrounds. A major challenge facing education and intervention professionals is to ensure the appropriateness of educational placement decisions that rely, in large part, on interpretations of standardized tests of achievement. Enabling the use of an assessment system that is equitable for children The principal goal of educational assessment is to provide a means for gathering accurate and useful information about the educational performance and progress of individual children or sub-groups of children. An implicit assumption of standardized test data is that they reflect underlying differences in children’s language, cognitive ability and academic competencies. The ultimate goal of such assessments is to inform the design and implementation of educational programs that are matched to the strengths and needs of specific students. Traditionally, standardized measures of student achievement have been utilized to make decisions on tracking, grade retention, and placement in special education programs. However, the disproportionate number of children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in remedial and special education programs has motivated educators, researchers, and policymakers alike to question the decision-making processes that dictate these placements. Comparative studies of language and academic achievement reveal that, on average, children from low income, and linguistic minority backgrounds perform less well than their more affluent, culturally dominant peers—by differences of more than one standard deviation on standardized measures of achievement. As one example, research indicates that Latino children generally lag behind their more linguistically competent White and African American peers when they enter kindergarten, a difference that appears to widen as children grow older. Further, at all levels of schooling, minority students from linguistically diverse backgrounds are more likely to be identified as ‘‘low performing’’ and, consequently, to be placed in low-track classes and special education programs. Assessment practices that are not sensitive to the cultural and linguistic nuances of minority populations can result in inappropriate educational placement, low expectations, and diminished learning opportunities for some of the nation’s most vulnerable youth. 567 568 L Language and educational assessment Assessing Language Proficiency of Culturally Diverse Students The increasing linguistic diversity among school-age children in the U.S. has made language proficiency a key construct in the assessment of academic performance. According to the 2000 U.S. Census Report, nearly one in every five people, or 47 million U.S. residents ages 5 and older, speaks a language other than English in their home—an increase of more than 15 million people (14%) from 1990. It is estimated that approximately five million limited English proficiency (LEP) students were enrolled in public schools for the 2003–2004 school year, a figure that represents approximately 10% of total public school student enrollment. In fact, the number of LEP students in U.S. schools has more than doubled over the past 15 years. Within the same time frame, LEP student enrollment has increased at nearly seven times the rate of total student enrollment. One of the major criticisms of standardized testing of students from language minority backgrounds is the use of assessment tools that have been developed for monolingual English-speaking children. Translation of English-devised tests into other languages is a common practice used to assess the language and academic competencies of students whose primary language is not English. Translation alone, however, is likely to yield invalid estimates of competencies in bilingual and language minority monolingual children. In assessments of language ability, for example, words may generally represent the same concept, but differ in their levels of difficulty across languages or cultural groups. Merely translating a test from one language to another may result in the organizing of items arranged by order of English difficulty, rather than reflecting the developmental order in which features of the target language are learned. Similarly, ensuring that words have a comparable frequency of use and convey similar meanings across languages are often difficult to maintain in translation. Thus, test adapters have a responsibility to provide evidence of reliability and validity of the translated test for use in different linguistic or cultural groups. That is, there is a need to empirically demonstrate that the instrument continues to measure the same qualities with the same degree of accuracy in the new population. Moreover, tests that are adapted to a new language or cultural group need to be renormed so that scores on the new version of the instrument can be adequately interpreted. When assessing the competencies of language minority students, examiners should first determine the child’s dominant language and proficiency in English before deciding on the language or languages to be used when administering test items. When assessments are not available in the child’s native language, some modifications may need to be made during test administration. Children who are bilingual or limited in English proficiency often grapple with the syntactic forms of two languages. It may be necessary to give these children extra time to respond to questions, particularly on tests or items that are timed. Some bilingually proficient children may also shift from one language to another (termed ‘‘code switching’’) when responding to questions. Examiners should consider allowing the use of such speech conventions, particularly for children who may feel more comfortable or communicate more effectively when doing so. Moreover, because words or phrases in one language may convey different meanings in another language or culture, examiners may need to use comparable linguistic content in an effort to minimize bias in test items. In light of these considerations, examiners should be fluent in the language or languages in which the test is administered. Cultural Considerations in Assessment It is also important for educators and intervention professionals to recognize differences in communication styles and norms across culturally diverse populations. A fundamental assumption of assessment is that all children understand the norms of discourse within the testing situation; performance, therefore, reflects children’s underlying competence. However, the sociolinguistic styles of some children may reflect culturallyspecific patterns of communicating that differ from the expectations of the testing environment. These culturally-shaped conventions of communication may make it difficult to distinguish competence from communication style. For example, children from some cultures are socialized to respect the authority of adults and to only respond when asked specific questions. In a testing situation, these children may respond with short phrases or nonverbal actions such as shrugging their shoulders, rather than with the elaborate prose that are expected of them—likely yielding underestimates of their true ability. Language arts, teaching of L In addition, standardized tests presuppose a particular cultural framework that is not universally shared. In fact, the conceptualization of key constructs—such as language proficiency—that are represented in assessment measures may differ across cultural groups. Thus, cultural bias cannot be eliminated simply by conforming to accepted norms for linguistic translation or by making item content familiar – instruments often reflect the abilities that are valued by the culture in which they were developed. For example, many language measures developed in the U.S. emphasize the development of decontextualized language skills. Such measures are likely to favor children whose language socialization was influenced according to the norms and values of the mainstream culture. When testing conventions are not universally shared, assessment instruments may ultimately measure the child’s lack of knowledge of these conventions rather than assessing the child’s skills per se. See also: > English as a Second Language Instruction (ESL); > Language proficiency ; > Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT); > Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV (WISC-IV) Spanish Alternative Methods of Assessment U.S. Department of Education, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA)—http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/: This is the NCELA website that collects, analyzes, synthesizes and disseminates information about language instruction educational programs for English language learners and related programs. On the basis of points raised in the above sections, many critics continue to question the validity of standardized measures for culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Given the shortcomings of current standardized tests of language proficiency in linguistically diverse populations, a number of researchers and educators advocate the use of both standardized and non-standardized assessments in student evaluation. One suggested alternative to standardized assessments is to judge students’ performance on tasks that are directly tied to curriculum standards. Proponents of these curriculum-bound methods assert that they accommodate a diversity of learning styles and are more responsive to cultural conventions of communication that are not captured by traditional standardized measures of achievement. In terms of language assessments more specifically, a variety of procedures can be implemented to obtain additional information about a student’s progress, including spontaneous speech and writing samples, and children’s sharing of personal narratives, which provide children with opportunities to convey knowledge in a larger sociocultural context. Assessment procedures that examine multiple sources of performance offer students the opportunity to demonstrate their competencies across settings and content areas, thereby providing more equitable standards of assessment. Suggested Reading Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6, 304–312. Gopaul-McNicol, S., & Armour-Thomas, E. (2002). Assessment and culture: Psychological tests with minority populations. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Greenfield, P. M. (1997). You can’t take it with you: Why ability assessments don’t cross cultures. American Psychologist, 52, 1115–1124. Suggested Resources Language Arts, Teaching of Dorothy S Strickland Perhaps no area of the curriculum is more sensitive to cultural and linguistic diversity than the language arts. In the United States (U.S.), English is the language of instruction in virtually all classrooms and most teachers are monolingual English language speakers. Nevertheless, there are ways that teachers can become culturally and linguistically aware of students whose backgrounds differ from their own and actually build on those differences to facilitate learning. At the very least, teachers need to be aware of the changing nature of the components of the language arts and the fact that they are interrelated, interdependent, and influenced by learner’s cultural and linguistic identities. 569 570 L Language arts, teaching of The traditional components of language arts have expanded beyond listening, speaking, reading, and writing to include viewing and visually representing. The need for learning environments responsive to cultural and linguistic differences is also considered an essential element. Listening is an integral part of all language activities. More time is spent on listening than any other language art. Effective listeners are capable of restating, interpreting, and evaluating what they hear. Speaking is critical to both learning language and learning through the language arts. Talk is used to respond to texts and explore topics under study. Language learners need opportunities to talk for a variety of purposes and in a variety of formal and informal contexts. Reading is a process in which individuals connect with the ideas of others and construct meaning with written text. Readers use sound-symbol relationships, word meanings, and text structures to decode and comprehend. Prior knowledge and experience influence their understanding. Writing is used for personal expression and communication with others. Proficient writers are capable of writing in a variety of forms and for varied audiences. They make use of the writing process: prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. Viewing involves the ability to comprehend and respond to visual messages of both print and non-print media. These include both traditional print media such a graphs, charts, diagrams, illustrations, and photographs as well as electronic media. Visually Representing involves the use of a variety of media to express ideas and share information. Charts, graphs, diagrams, pictures, and electronic media may be used to convey information. Visual representation involves many of the elements of good written composition, such as purpose, audience and clarity. Current trends in language arts instruction reflect the interrelated nature of the language arts and an understanding of the linguistic and cultural context in which children learn, including:  Greater emphasis on understanding and bridging the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of language learners as a base for language growth. Instructional planning involves an increased respect and consideration for the diversity among students and the effect on how language arts instruction is received and applied.      Greater emphasis on writing and its relationship to reading. Learners think, talk, and write about what they read as authors of their own work. They explore the similarities and differences among various text structures, uses of language, and literary devices. Students and teachers need to be aware that written language is different from spoken language regardless of the child’s home language or dialect. Greater use of trade (library) books combined with the use of textbooks. Once considered supplementary, literature, including multi-cultural literature, is now a key component of the curriculum. Teachers no longer rely solely on textbooks and commercial programs. Increased attention to the importance of student choice of topics to write about and materials to read. Choice within the curriculum has been found to increase student engagement in literacy activities. At times, students may be given a virtual free range of choice. More often, they are provided with a variety of choices from a pre-selection of offerings. Students’ choices may be influenced by their cultural backgrounds. Increased attention to the integration of the language arts with each other and across the curriculum. The language arts are taught as processes, instrumental to all learning, rather than products or ends in themselves. Students are helped to see their value as tools for learning. Increased emphasis on the use of ongoing, performance-based assessments that link directly to instruction. Day-by-day assessments of learning are the best evidence of what students know and are capable of doing. Analysis of writing samples, participation in discussions, and oral reading provide evidence to inform instructional decisions in personalized ways that standardized tests do not. The language arts may be the most influential are of the curriculum for bridging home and school. Culturally responsive programs intentionally and respectfully build on what children bring to the classroom as they help them to improve their ability to communicate effectively. See also: > Language needs in the multicultural classroom; > Literacy; > Reading, Teaching Language deficits Suggested Reading Murphy, S., & Dudley-Marling, C. (Eds.). (2003). Literacy through language arts: Teaching and learning in context. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Strickland, D. S., Galda, L., & Cullinan, B. E. (2004). Language arts: Learning and teaching. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishers. Language Deficits Lisa M Bedore . Elizabeth D Peña Approximately 7–10% of children may present with developmental or acquired language disorders. Across languages and dialects, the manifestation of language impairment differs somewhat, and children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are at greater risk of being over- or underidentified as having language learning difficulties. Language deficits can be manifested in the domains of language content (e.g., vocabulary knowledge), language form (e.g., knowledge of the sound system as well as grammar and sentence structure), and/or language use (e.g., turntaking and other conversational skills). Deficits of language content are evident in conversational interactions in poor word comprehension or use of nonspecific vocabulary (e.g., this, that, or general descriptions of target words). Nonspecific vocabulary and word-finding difficulties seem to be manifested in similar ways across languages and dialects. However, knowledge of specific vocabulary is highly related to experiences. For bilingual children, one must be careful to consider knowledge across both languages. For children who use dialects or who are from low socioeconomic backgrounds, single word-vocabulary scores may be low even if they do not have language impairment. Additional tasks for these children to test vocabulary knowledge may include those that require use of itemlevel words that they know, definitions, descriptions, categorization, or analogies. Deficits of language form can be observed when children use sentences that are shorter than expected or when many of their utterances are not grammatical because of errors on single words (e.g., ‘‘walk’’ when the child meant ‘‘walked’’) or in sentence structure. In English, children have special difficulties with L forms such as the past tense ‘‘–ed’’ (e.g., ‘‘walked’’) or the third person singular present tense ‘‘–s’’ (she walks). In Romance languages, such as French, Italian, or Spanish, verb tense marking tends to be accurate but children have difficulties with forms such as definite articles: ‘‘el niño’’ (‘‘the boy’’ in Spanish) or ‘‘la table’’ (‘‘the table’’ in French). Furthermore, differences in dialect must be accounted for when evaluating children’s language skills. Across language groups, difficulties in the domain of language use are more likely to be observed in contexts in which a child must observe social communicative rules (e.g., conversation with peers, teachers, or parents, in classroom contexts). Children might have difficulty initiating interactions, providing an appropriate amount of information in conversation or narrative, or following turn-taking rules. Across cultures, children may follow different social conversation depending on who is in the interaction. Thus, for children from multicultural backgrounds especially, samples across these different domains will help to differentiate between language differences and language impairment. Clinical evaluation of language impairments should consist of a combination of interviews with parents, sampling of conversation and/or narrative language, and structured (standardized or nonstandardized) language measures. Developmental history can shed light on possible causes of language impairment. Language impairment can be associated with health conditions (e.g., hearing loss or epilepsy), developmental disabilities (e.g., Down syndrome, autism, or fragile X), or acquired conditions (e.g., traumatic brain injury). Some children demonstrate language deficits with no identifiable cause. When these children achieve scores in the average range on nonverbal IQ tests and demonstrate significant difficulties on standardized measures of language development, they may be referred to as having specific language impairment (SLI). When children demonstrate the same language difficulties but score from 70 to 85 on nonverbal IQ measures, they may be referred to as having general language impairment (GLI). The nature of the language-learning difficulties and the outcomes for children with SLI and GLI seem to be quite similar. See also: > Assessment of culturally diverse children; > Bilingualism; > English language learners; > Language proficiency 571 572 L Language needs in the multicultural classroom Suggested Reading Craig, H., & Washington, J. (2006). Malik goes to school. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Leonard, L. (1999). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books. Language Needs in the Multicultural Classroom Erica Ramos . Kristin Orlovsky . Emily A Rentz . Vincent C Alfonso In recent years the United States (U.S.) has witnessed an increase in the cultural and linguistic diversity of its classrooms. For instance, students of ethnic minority groups currently make up more than 39% of the total student population. Approximately 35 million people living in the U.S. speak languages other than English. While these cultural and linguistic differences enrich society and provide new perspectives, they also present unique challenges for educators who must develop ways to teach students a new language and culture while also being sensitive to their primary language and culture. As the cultural and language diversity of the student population increases, that of teachers remains largely unchanged. Currently, for instance, the majority of teachers are White, female, and monolingual. As such, teachers face the challenge of learning about the cultural and linguistic differences among their students so they can effectively meet their educational needs. Teachers’ Roles It is important that teachers are supportive and sensitive to the delicate process of acculturation that children experience as they interact with a new culture and language. An emphasis on positive student attributes can further instruction. This calls for a focus on the students’ linguistic, cultural, and intellectual resources as the basis for schooling rather than a mere focus on the difficulties immigrant students face as they adapt to the new dominant culture. One way to promote cultural sensitivity is for teachers to establish social networks with families to bring existing knowledge from the community into their classrooms. Additionally, teachers can think about literacy in fundamentally new ways, beyond the skills of reading and writing, to encompass broader social and cultural practices with intellectual significance. Moreover, it is important for teachers to critically reflect on the social, political, and cultural nature of their work to effectively meet the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students. This involves adapting a reciprocal learning process that takes into account both the teacher’s and the student’s cultural experiences. Gaining true understanding and sensitivity of cultures and languages other than one’s own requires much more than recognizing and accepting differences in clothing, food, music, and so forth. It requires an increased sensitivity to the subtleties of cultural attitudes and beliefs, and how they differ from their own. This understanding will allow teachers to communicate a respect for cultural differences and an awareness of how their nonverbal behavior may reflect the customs of their students and the students’ family members. When such subtleties are overlooked, miscommunication between students and teachers may result. For example, whereas it is appropriate for some cultures to maintain direct eye contact to demonstrate respect, these cues may be interpreted as disrespectful for people from other cultures. Similarly, it is important for teachers to be cognizant of the power and authority they may represent for individuals from different cultures. Due to a respect for the authority that the teacher role invokes, for instance, people from some cultures may be unwilling to contradict a teacher’s comments. Language Differences It can be particularly challenging for teachers to meet the diverse linguistic and cultural needs in the classroom. These students, who are typically referred to as English Language Learners (ELLs), are therefore often placed in classrooms that provide instruction in their native language and in English, so that they may gradually acquire the new language as they follow the curriculum. Programs such as English as a Second language (ESL), Immersion Education, and many others aid in second language acquisition. An important educational aspect that is often overlooked, however, involves how to maintain the student’s native culture and language while simultaneously promoting processes of acculturation and second language acquisition. Language proficiency L When one speaks of language needs in the classroom one readily thinks of bilingual students or ELLs, however, native English language speakers often have their own language needs that may be overlooked. Among English language speakers born and raised in the U.S., there are many nuances in dialects that often reflect cultural differences. As with ELLs, it is important that teachers recognize these nuances not as deficits, but as a result of cultural differences. much sooner than they are able to use language in a more complex academic situation. While it takes approximately 2 years for ELLs to become proficient at conversation in a new language, it may take 5–7 years to acquire the level of language mastery necessary to conduct academic work in the second language. Thus, while students may appear proficient through their verbalization of the new language, they may in fact need more time to produce academic work in the recently acquired language. Addressing Language Needs in the Classroom See also: > English language learners; > Language arts, Teaching of ; > Teaching of English as a Second Language (TOESL) There are several ways that educators can address the language needs of students in the classroom. One way to aid in the acquisition of a new language is to provide a classroom environment conducive to language acquisition. For instance, it is beneficial to label objects and display pictures or graphics that help the student understand his or her surroundings. These labels and pictures can be representative of student language and culture by including their primary language along with English and displaying pictures that include diverse cultural content. This presentation of visual stimuli not only aids in understanding a new language it also encourages the development and maintenance of the primary language by preserving a sense of cultural identity. It is also beneficial to provide students the opportunity to practice newly acquired language skills by listening to clear instructions and interacting with their English speaking peers. Two strategies can promote these goals. First, teachers can speak clearly and properly using appropriate gestures and body language so that the students recognize verbal and nonverbal cues. A routine is beneficial for younger students so they spend less time trying to understand instructions and can instead focus on the task. Second, activities that pair proficient English speaking students with ELLs provide an opportunity for students to socialize in a different language. It is also helpful for teachers to determine the level of linguistic understanding a student has acquired. Given that a disproportionate number of ELLs are referred for special educational needs, it is helpful for teachers to be aware of the different levels of language use and expression that may resemble disorders but are in fact, simply a part of the process of language acquisition. For instance, students are often able to use a newly acquired language in a conversational situation Suggested Reading Brice, A. E. (2002). The Hispanic child. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Delpit, L., & Kilgour-Dowdy, J. (2002). The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom. New York: The New Press. Suggested Resources New Horizons for Learning—http://www.newhorizons.org/ strategies/multicultural/adkins_dunn.htm: This website provides an international network of people, programs, and products dedicated to successful, innovative learning. In the Classroom: A Toolkit for Effective Instruction of English Learners—http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/practice/itc/divneeds. html: This is the website for the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. It provides classroom resources for English language learners. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory—http://www. ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/reading/li400. htm: This website provides ideas about how to develop curricula, strategies for teaching, and policies to promote student success. Language Proficiency Louise C Wilkinson . Elaine R Silliman Students’ success in school depends upon their being proficient in academic language, the language of classroom instruction. Whether English is the first or 573 574 L Language proficiency second language, academic language proficiency is a critical competence for students and refers to their learning to read, write, and spell. Academic language proficiency for students learning English as a second language in school means that students have mastered advanced English oral language skills sufficiently to think and talk like books and to participate in all classroom activities. In talking, reading, and writing, they can understand and easily use the vocabulary and grammar of the curriculum in subjects ranging from language arts to science to history and mathematics. Just like the home and community, United States (U.S.) classrooms are also special social situations, with their own requirements regarding the ways that teachers and students use language to communicate the curriculum. Three negative outcomes are likely when English language learning students lack proficiency in understanding and using academic language: First, they are unlikely to learn as they must from classroom experiences, including reading and writing activities. Second, their participation in classroom activities is significantly reduced. Third, this reduction in participation then interferes with their overall adjustment to school and hinders their subsequent academic achievement. Students differ in their language and communication skills when they enter formal schooling. Because prior school experiences are combined with home interactions, some children enter school knowing about how to use language for a variety of ‘‘schoollike’’ purposes, that is, they know a good deal about academic language. For example, in many North American families, infants and toddlers are introduced to story books even before they begin talking and learn to do ‘‘pretend reading’’ with their caretakers. These caretakers often teach the ‘‘story book routine,’’ in which questions with known answers are asked and answered by caretakers, such as ‘‘What is this (picture)?’’ ‘‘Where does the bunny live?’’ Eventually, young children can participate in their questionanswer exchanges and even begin to ask their own questions about the content of storybooks. These types of question-answer sequences are the roots of academic language because, in school, children are expected to answer questions as a way to evaluate what they know. However, not all families teach their young children in this way. Some may tell their young children oral stories and not use book-based stories. Their children are not asked known answer questions because the family’s cultural belief is that young children do not have the skills to participate in conversational exchanges. This second group of students, many of whom are English language learners, may enter school with more of a cultural and linguistic mismatch between the expectations of their home and the expectations of school for how to participate in classroom activities. Mismatches can influence routine classroom events as, reading aloud, question and answer exchanges with teachers, and receiving evaluation of their oral contributions from teachers. How well English language learning students participate in these exchanges determines their success in learning. Although many English language learning students may enter school having some level of proficiency with everyday social language skills, such as skills in face-to-face talk, everyday social language knowledge is not enough for academic success. The educational failure of some English language learning students may be caused in part by differences in their academic language proficiency, particularly for those students who come from cultural and linguistic backgrounds that differ from the teacher and/or other students. While academic language plays a mediating role in well-run and successful classrooms—where all learners can learn—the social dynamics of classrooms are also critical for English language learning students to become proficient English readers and writers. Social dynamics are determined in large part by what students bring to school—their funds of knowledge or ‘‘capital.’’ There are four types of capital: (a) symbolic capital or the academic knowledge that mediates children’s social identities and status as competent readers and writers and is socially determined by how people interact with each other, the social organization of events, and how these events unfold; (b) cultural capital, the know-how valued by particular cultures, including the academic culture, to engage in the social behaviors appropriate for that culture; (c) linguistic capital, knowledge about spoken and written language and the academic purposes for which language is used in the classroom; and (d) economic capital, the material resources of families and schools that support children’s learning. These types of capital together influence differences in social identity, status, and power relations in the classroom. Many English language learning students who enter school not speaking English, are at risk for reading failure due to their minority linguistic status. As a group, too many of these students from lower income backgrounds enter school with insufficient symbolic Language proficiency capital, which then increases their risk for not having sufficient attention and status in the classroom. Because their English-speaking teacher and peers may not readily understand them, the English language learning student may lose the motivation to learn and withdraw from classroom participation. These social dynamics can potentially deny them the numerous and varied opportunities needed to become successful readers and writers. Best practices of teachers who successfully address this student need include: Hands-on and discovery based learning, and sharing of common goals, such as establishing a classroom community and maintaining high expectations for the success of all students. What are examples of key academic language proficiencies? One example is the depth of a student’s vocabulary knowledge. For English language learning students to become proficient readers, they must have a strong command of the general academic lexicon. What is in-depth vocabulary knowledge? Vocabulary knowledge includes distinguishing between basic meanings that, most likely, English language learners know in their first language, such as baby, clock, walk, eyes, happy, and sad, among others, and meanings more frequently acquired and used in English classroom situations as part of second language learning. Basic meanings are referred to as Tier 1 words, while meanings associated with talking like books are described as Tier 2. Examples of Tier 2 meanings include reality, sinister, mention, detest, splendid, absurd, conflicted, and entomologist. Many Tier 2 meanings are derivations; that is, prefixes and suffixes can change the meaning and pronunciation of a root word, such as real or critic, when the suffixes –ity and –ism are added to the root word. Tier 2 meanings combined with an understanding of word derivations are an essential aspect of academic language proficiency. Another example of academic language proficiency has been provided in 2005 by Terri Edwards, a second language teacher, who paints a rich portrait of the English language knowledge and strategies that students and teachers both need to handle their classroom learning effectively in English. Edwards describes five categories of academic language strategies: 1. Essential Survival Phrases: Such as asking for help, asking about language, polite requests and responses; ‘‘Could you repeat that?’’ ‘‘How do you say ‘bright’ in English?’’ 2. Classroom-Only Language: As exemplified by IRE sequences (i.e., question-answer-evaluation L sequences) which consist of an initiation (I) by the teacher, a response (R) by the student, and an evaluation by the teacher (E); ‘‘What’s the answer to number one?’’—‘‘Five.’’—‘‘Yes, correct.’’ 3. Discussion Language-Opinions, Agreeing/Disagreeing, Suggestions, Advice, Negotiating: These strategies include invitations to participate in the classroom conversation or creating opportunities for more complex language expression through invitations to expand in meaningful ways; ‘‘What makes you think that?’’, ‘‘How might that concept be important?’’ ‘‘How did you calculate that sum?’’ 4. Grammar Terminology or ‘‘Metalanguage’’— Language used to describe language, which is often encountered in textbooks, such as ‘‘Which tense is used in his opening sentence?’’, ‘‘How would you divide that word into sounds?’’, and ‘‘Write sentences that include connectives.’’ 5. Teacher’s Classroom Management Language (also known as Teacherspeak!)—Teachers’ use of language to provide instructions and manage students’ behavior; ‘‘Ask me?’’ ‘‘Open your reading book to page 15,’’ and ‘‘Who knows what is the second problem to solve?’’ What can teachers and other educational professionals including parents do to help students develop academic language proficiency? First, how to best teach academic language knowledge and strategies remains a challenge. Teachers play the key role in creating a classroom environment where all students’ intellectual assets are maximized through a challenging curriculum that emphasizes academic language proficiency. Second, for native English speakers, this includes teachers’ responding strategically to differences in students’ ways of using language and conveying expectations for high levels of language and literacy in the classroom. For English language learners, in addition to those requirements, teachers must address vocabulary needs that are consistent with the demands of academic language. New word learning should be integrated across the curriculum. Finally, all educational professionals are responsible for mediating students’ learning of academic language; they must explicitly teach the kinds of word analysis approaches that support students’ vocabulary growth, as well as the comprehension strategies that, scaffold and promote students’ reading comprehension. See also: > Bilingualism; > Limited English proficiency 575 576 L Latin Americans Suggested Reading Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford. Christian, B., & Bloome, D. (2004). Learning to read is who you are. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 365–384. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Wilkinson, L. C., & Silliman, E. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning. In M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 337–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Latin Americans Liliana López Levi Latin American people live in several countries, they communicate in different languages, and they belong to various ethnic groups. However, most speak Spanish or Portuguese, they are predominately Catholics, and they share a similar colonial past, a history of wars of independence, and attempts to integrate the cultural region that defines Latin America. Latin America is a cultural region that occupies Central America, Mexico, South America, and some Caribbean Islands. The concept of Latin America was created in the mid-nineteenth century in opposition to northern Anglo American countries. Basically, it refers to those countries that have Romance languages as the official language, even if there is a rich diversity and local variations, in coexistence with Native American languages, such as Aymara and Quechua spoken in the Andes region (e.g., Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Chile), Guarani, spoken in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay, the Mapuche language spoken in Chile and Argentina, the Mayan languages spoken in southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras and El Salvador, and Nahuatl spoken in central Mexico. Latin America is the region of the American continent that was mainly conquered by the Spanish and the Portuguese, although some territories of the Caribbean that where French colonies are also included. In preColumbian times, the region was populated by different settlements, some of which formed important civilizations, such as the Incas, the Mayas, and the Aztecs. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the continent was conquered by the Europeans, who established their own socioeconomic and political organization and ruled for over 300 years. In the early nineteenth century, wars of independence occurred in most regions of Latin America under the leadership of men like Miguel Hidalgo, Simon Bolivar, and José de San Martin. With the triumph of their movements, local groups gained control of their territories and formed independent countries, mainly between 1810 and 1825. It was then that the actual political division of the continent was basically established. However, some changes continued until the twentieth century, for example Panama’s separation from Colombia and the independence of some British colonies, all of which led to the formation of the countries that today form the region. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the major part of Latin America was formed by independent nations such as Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Mexico. However, there are still some territories that belong to First World countries, as states, provinces, or that are under their rule. This is the case of French Guyana, Guadalupe Island, Martinique, Puerto Rico, and Guantanamo. According to the United Nations Statistics Division, approximately 536 million people live in Latin America. They are a people of multiethnic origin who form multicultural groups. The great diversity comes mainly from Native Indian groups, the Europeans who migrated in colonial times, and the African population that was brought to the continent as workers and slaves. Other significant migrations have enriched Latin American culture in the past two centuries. There have been migrations in search of better economic conditions and money, such as the Italians who went to Brazil and Argentina, and migration for political reasons, such as the Jews who escaped from the Nazi and fascist regimes in Europe, or the exiled in Mexico as a consequence of the civil war in Spain (1936–1939). All of these groups became a very important part of the intellectual and economic life of their countries of destiny. Local groups and migrants, with their traditions, have formed the heterogeneity of today’s Latin American culture, which manifests in a wide range of expressions through popular art, music, gastronomy, literature, archaeological and colonial sites. Even if Latino/Latina American youth there is a strong influence of North American and European culture, there are local interpretations that emerge from tradition. The celebration of the Day of the Dead in Mexico, for instance, is a mixture of Catholic and pre-Hispanic traditions in which those who have died are remembered. Some communities of indigenous origin have developed alternative ways to understand, explain, and express the world. For example, in central Mexico, the Day of the Dead is a joyful party. People feast with food, visit their dead ones in cemeteries, and write humorous poems about how the living will die. The colonial past has played an important role in constructing a common regional identity, often referred to as the Bolivarian dream. Simon Bolivar, leader of various independence movements in South America, spread the will to unite Latin America. He had the idea of creating an American federation between all the Latin American republics that were gaining independence in the early nineteenth century. The region’s geographical diversity has also been a strong force toward the subcontinent’s fragmentation in terms of local, social, cultural, economical, political, and environmental differences. Latin American people face diverse social, cultural, and economic problems; the primary ones being poverty, crime, and social inequity. Many Latin Americans are forced to migrate to look for better opportunities, and many have gone to the United States, forming an important community that has expanded Latin American culture to the north, beyond its traditional frontiers. See also: > Hispanic Americans; > Latino/Latina American youth; > Puerto Rican youth Suggested Reading King, J. (Ed.) (2004). The Cambridge companion to modern Latin American culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Suggested Resources Latin American Information Center—http://lanic.utexas.edu/: This website of the Latin American Information Center in the University of Texas at Austin offers Internet-based information about Latin America. It has links to other sites with thematic information on the region. L Latino/Latina American Youth Kristina Metz ‘‘Latino American’’ generally refers to individuals with ancestral ties to the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean, including even those nations in which Spanish is not spoken. However, since ‘‘Latino’’ is considered an ethnicity instead of a biological attribute, such as race, the definitions of ‘‘Latino American’’ vary greatly throughout the United States (U.S.). Since 1980, the U.S. government has used the terms ‘‘Hispanic’’ and ‘‘Latino’’ interchangeably, but even with this categorization system, census definitions of ‘‘Latino’’ differ across state borders. For example, an individual with a Puerto Rican father and African American mother would be categorized as Hispanic/Latino in Michigan, African American in California and biracial in Ohio. For this reason, the U.S. tends to simply categorize these individuals by their race, such as ‘‘African American,’’ ‘‘Caucasian,’’ ‘‘Asian,’’ or ‘‘Other.’’ Although individuals within the Latino community do distinguish between the various Latino races with terms such as ‘‘guerro/blanco’’ (light skin) and ‘‘moreno/prieto’’ (dark skin), the majority of Latinos define their ethnicity by the country of their ancestors’ origin. Here, the 2000 Decennial Census report definition of ‘‘Latino’’ is used that includes individuals residing in the U.S. who categorize themselves as Spanish/Hispanic/Latino descent from Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other Latin American nations. History and Culture Despite the common misconception that Latino Americans are a cohesive group of newcomers to the U.S., Latinos are actually quite a diverse group who have resided in the U.S. for centuries. Since the early 1500s, Spanish explorers, with whom many Latinos claim ancestral ties, have settled in the Caribbean and Southern areas of the U.S., frequently expanding into the Latin American region. These Spanish explorers often intermarried with Native Americans, which constitutes the group of individuals who now identify themselves as Native American Latinos. In addition, these Spanish 577 578 L Latino/Latina American youth settlers recruited individuals from Asian nations to work as contract laborers in Cuba and Central America and imported Africans to work as slaves on sugar plantations in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. These individuals comprise the majority of Latino Americans of Asian and African descent. Therefore, since Latin and Caribbean Nations have included individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds/races for centuries, Latino Americans also consist of individuals from a variety of backgrounds and races. This diversity within the Latino American population leads to between-group differences such as immigration status, fertility rates, family structure, socioeconomic status and education. Despite these vast differences, however, Latino American individuals continue to share many cultural aspects. The California Identity Project reported that, despite variations in age and race, 96% of Latino Americans base their identity within the family, 84% considered Latino culture important, 78% were Catholic, and 67% were Spanish speaking. In addition, Latina women were usually considered a source of strength for family members and Latino men consistently reported their values to be family, valor, dignity, and honor. The study also found that the most prominent similarity between all Latino individuals is the large emphasis and importance placed upon creating and maintaining close relationships with both immediate and extended family. Demographics Throughout the twentieth century there has been an enormous influx of immigrants coming to reside in the U.S. Since 1960, more than 50% of these immigrants have been of Latino heritage. In 2000, the Census Bureau reported approximately 35.5 million Latino Americans were residing in the U.S., accounting for approximately 12.5% of the total population. Although it may seem that the Latino American population is only a small portion of the entire U.S. population, it is the fastest growing group of classified individuals in the U.S. Between 1990 and 2000 the Latino population grew 58%—more than doubling a population within a decade. In fact, within the last 5 years the U.S. Latino population has increased by over 5 million, a 27% increase rate. This rate is three times faster than the growth of the entire U.S. population. Due to high fertility rates, 26% per 1,000 women (compared to 12.9% of the White population), which leads to a high level of growth within the Latino community, and high levels of immigration, Latino Americans are expected to become the largest minority group by the year 2010. If this trend continues, it is estimated that by 2050 there will be 130 million Latino Americans residing in the U.S., accounting for nearly a quarter of the population. Since the Latino population is rapidly growing, it is no surprise that the Latino youth cohort is expanding exponentially. In fact, of the 35.5 million Latino Americans residing in the U.S., approximately 30%, or 12.5 million, are under the age of 18 while only 24% of the non-Latino population is under age 18. The discrepancy between the two growth rates becomes even more evident in younger cohorts. In fact, children under the age of 6 account for 14% of the Latino population while this age cohort only accounts for 6% of the non-Latino population. In addition, only 31.6% of White families, compared to 58% of Latino American families, have children residing in their households. This reveals that although the Latino American population may currently be a smaller fraction of the entire population, with its exponential and rapid growth, Latino Americans will account for a very large portion of American youth in the near future. Although the Latino American population is quickly growing, this growth is concentrated in certain areas. Of the 35.5 million Latino Americans residing in mainland U.S., 57%, or 20.4 million, of this population currently reside in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. In addition to being highly concentrated in south and southwestern states, Latino Americans tend to reside in urban areas. It is important to note, however, that with the exponential growth of Latino youth, the population of Latino Americans in other areas is steadily increasing. Latino American Youth and Education With the Latino American population growing rapidly, there is also a great influx of Latino American children into school systems. An estimated 42.5 million students are enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12 in the U.S. Approximately 6.8 million, or 16.2%, of these children are Latino. Yet, despite the fairly large percentage of Latino youth within the educational realm, school systems appear to be failing these children. Educational gaps between Latino American children and their counterparts are undeniable. This Latino/Latina American youth gap starts at an early age with pre-kindergarten Latino American children facing the added challenge of a language barrier. Although some Latino American children speak English fluently or even as their first language, the majority of Latino American youth start pre-school or kindergarten knowing little to no English. This language barrier within English speaking classrooms can cause the Spanish speaking children to lag behind their counterparts. In addition, even within a Spanish speaking classroom, a lot of emphasis and time is put toward learning the English language, taking time away from other academic areas. Additionally, a majority of academic assessments are given in English, often tracking Spanish speaking children into lower academic ranges due to poor performance that results from a language barrier. The gap in academic success between Latino and non-Latino children becomes even more evident as the children increase in age. For example, the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress report found that only 16% of eighth grade Latino American children were proficient in reading while this percentage was 45 for White children. By the age of 18, approximately 21% of Latino American youth drop out of school, over double the 10% national drop out average. Additionally, of the Latino American youth who do receive high school diplomas, less than 10%, compared to 30% of the rest of their peer counterparts, receive any type of advanced degree such as technical training or college. Since education level and income are positively correlated, the lack of education for some Latinos also leads to financial difficulties. In 2000, the median income of a Latino family was $34,397 while the median income for a non-Latino White family was $54,698. This decreased income leaves 29% of Latino American families living in poverty, compared to 13.1% of White American families. In addition, approximately 27.8% of Latino American children are living in poverty and, even if not below the poverty line themselves, 45.3% of Latino American youth are residing in neighborhoods where more than 18.6% of the families live in poverty. Although discrepancies between Latino American and non-Latino American populations in educational success and income are indisputable, the reasons behind these disparities are often a topic of debate. In the first half of the twentieth century, geneticists considered low performance on intelligence tests and difficulties of educational success among racial/ethnic minorities L to be a reflection of genetic inferiority. Fortunately, this theory was quickly refuted. More recent theorists have stated that the incongruence between home life and school environment placed children of color at a greater disadvantage. Since 90% of teachers are White and 30% of students are children of color, cultural differences that effect learning are bound to exist. For example, the Latino culture tends to emphasize the ‘‘group’’ over the ‘‘individual,’’ and consider it rude to look directly at authority figures who are conversing with the individual. This can result in Latino American children being less individualistic and avoiding eye contact with superiors in the school environment. Although these are appropriate behaviors at home for Latino American children, an Anglo-Saxon school may often mistake this group dynamic as a lack of confidence, lack of motivation, and lack of respect for authority figures. Many theorists also believe that Latino Americans are not succeeding academically due to remnants of discriminatory beliefs, such as the geneticists’ theory that still linger in the educational realm. Theorists claim that societal constructs determine learning and that an overwhelming amount of individuals, including professionals within educational systems, expect less academic success from Latino American children than their counterparts. These lowered expectations stem from past false beliefs and the fact that much research on Latino American youth, despite good intentions, often emphasizes deficits, instead of the strengths, of Latino American communities. These negative views can create a self-fulfilling prophecy, harming the child’s educational progression and also discouraging educational employees from attempting to incorporate cultural difference within the school system. There are current trends that seek to address and eliminate gaps in educational achievement. Organizations and individuals have pushed for adequate funding within low-income schools, which often have a large percentage of Latino American students. In addition, these organizations want to incorporate Latino culture into educational programs/schools, involve families and parents in the programs, and promote the use of culturally and linguistically sensitive professionals in the school culture. Programs that employ these objectives are being implemented at both state and national levels. For instance, at the state-level, programs such as ‘‘Expanda Su Mente Y Lea’’ (translation: Expand Your Mind and Read) are being created. This program is delivered 579 580 L Learning disabilities within a pediatric center in New Haven, Connecticut and works to increase literacy within Latino communities. The pediatric center donates books to families, discusses the importance of literacy with Latino parents, and works directly with children ages 6 months to 12 years on language and literacy skills. One of the most prominent examples of a national program is Head Start. This program provides educational, psychological, and social services to families and children from low-income areas, including Latino families. Services include free daycare for children where they work on academic skills that include reading, writing, and learning English if it is not their native language. Conclusion Latino Americans are the fastest growing population. They are soon to be the largest minority group residing in the U.S. With this population growth comes the increase of Latino American youth. This youth cohort must be studied to implement programs and services to help these children succeed academically within what is currently a predominantly Anglo-Saxon school system. Although Latino American children currently tend to lag behind their counterparts in the educational realm, a key area of intervention concerns the inadequacies of school systems and communities to meet the educational needs of this under-served population. See also: > Academic achievement in minority children; > Assessment of culturally diverse children; > Ethnic minority youth; > Racial/ethnic group differences Suggested Reading Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2003). Latino children: State-level measures of child well-being from the 2000 census. Kids count pocket guide. Balitmore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Hispanic Border Leadership Institute, Arizona State University (2002). A compromised commitment; society’s obligation and failure to serve the nation’s largest growing population. A report on the educational experience in five western states. Tempe, AZ: Hispanic Border Leadership Institute, Arizona State University. Hernandez, R., Siles, M. E., & Rochin, R. (2001). Latino Youth: Converting challenges to opportunities. JSRI Working Paper #50. Ann Harbor, Michigan: Michigan State University, Julian Samora Research Institute. White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans (2000). What works for Latino Youth, (2nd ed.). Jessup, MD: ED Pubs. Learning Disabilities Misha Graves . Rebecca S Martı́nez A learning disability (LD), broadly defined, is a condition that causes people to learn basic skills or information at a significantly slower rate than their peers. People with learning disabilities have an average range of intelligence, but differences in neurological processing result in problems with information input, integration, memory, and output. Although several distinct learning disabilities have been classified based on these specific mental processes, LD is often characterized by its effect on academic achievement in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics. Not all learning difficulties—including some that fit the broad definition above—can be classified as learning disabilities. Children without LD can have difficulty learning due to low intelligence, emotional disturbance, or impairments in vision, hearing, or motor skills. In addition, people are not considered learning disabled if the disparity between their ability and achievement is due to cultural or environmental issues, such as limited proficiency in the English language or a lack of access to quality education. Significant progress has been made in the last 30 years in the study of learning disabilities. Although there are still many unanswered questions about LD, research has helped us to better understand the mechanisms of learning disabilities, and the effect that LD can have in all aspects of a person’s life. Also, major changes in the law have helped to guarantee access to appropriate education for children with learning disabilities, and encourage early identification and intervention using research-based instructional methods. Despite these advances, there is still significant debate among professionals and policymakers on how to best define learning disabilities, as well as identify and teach students with learning disabilities. Historical Foundations Early Research. Learning disabilities have most likely always existed, but research on LD as a construct did not begin until relatively recently and public awareness surrounding learning disabilities has an even shorter history. The foundations of LD research began in the early nineteenth century, when neurologists began to Learning disabilities investigate the relationship between the brain and human behavior by observing patients with brain damage. They soon discovered the phenomenon of brain localization (specific brain regions controlling specific behaviors), which made possible the idea that people could have normal intelligence, yet have specific skill deficits in reading, writing, and motor ability that did not affect other areas of functioning. In the late 1800s, researchers in Europe began to study otherwise intelligent adults who possessed severe reading deficits. The number of published case studies of adults with this condition, originally referred to as ‘‘word-blindness,’’ increased dramatically and in 1896, a child in England was identified with ‘‘congenital word-blindness.’’ Until the publication of this case, it had been assumed within the scientific community that dyslexia (a term that was slowly gaining favor) was an acquired neurological condition, since it had previously only been documented in adults. Following the publication of this report, dyslexia in children was reported more frequently, allowing researchers to identify trends, such as elements of heritability and a disproportionate number of boys with the disorder. In the United States (U.S.), research into reading disorders gathered momentum in the 1920s, and due to the relatively recent compulsory education requirement, educators observed that reading disorders were much more prevalent than previous estimates indicated. The cause of dyslexia was believed to be brain damage, based on similar symptoms observed in soldiers with brain injuries. Toward the mid-twentieth century, researchers, notably William Cruickshank, began to move beyond the then-current neurological paradigm and search for ways to effectively educate students with reading disabilities. Increased Public Awareness The term ‘‘learning disability’’ was first published in 1962 by Samuel Kirk, using a definition stressing differences in skill levels within an individual. Within 2 years, another definition was published that included the requirement that a learning disability involve a significant discrepancy between aptitude and achievement. Soon, a federal government project began to study ‘‘minimal brain dysfunction,’’ the common clinical term for learning disabilities, and commissioned two separate task forces to decide on a name and develop an operational definition of LD. The first L panel, a group of medical professionals, elected to keep the name ‘‘minimal brain dysfunction’’ and defined the disorder based on clinical manifestations and suspected neurological etiology. The second task force, a group of educators who agreed on the term ‘‘learning disability,’’ was unable to agree on a single definition and therefore published two definitions. The first definition, similar to the one proposed by Kirk, defined LD in terms of skill and processing deficits within an individual, while the second definition identified LD as a significant discrepancy between estimated academic potential and actual academic functioning. Congress passed the Education of the Handicapped Act in 1966, granting federal assistance and protection for children with disabilities in several areas. However, learning disabilities were conspicuously absent as a protected category from the Act, due to political pressure from traditional disability advocacy groups who were concerned that limited federal resources would be diverted to children with LD. In 1966, the U.S. Department of Education formed a committee, chaired by Samuel Kirk, to report on and create an official legislative definition for LD. The resulting definition, similar to Kirk’s original that did not mention an ability-aptitude discrepancy, was adopted by the federal government and still serves as the basis for LD law. Shortly after the committee report was issued, Congress passed The Children with Specific Learning Disabilities Act of 1969, that did not grant LD equal status with other disabilities, but did allow federal funding of research, teacher education, and pilot programs for LD service delivery. Learning Disabilities received full federal recognition in 1975, when Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This law granted all children with disabilities the right to free and appropriate public education (FAPE). When the law was fully implemented in 1977, schools were required to identify all children with disabilities and conduct a comprehensive evaluation of all students suspected of having a disability, and make any accommodation necessary to assure these students had access to high quality education. Schools were also required to include parents in the process of disability identification and the development of an individual education plan (IEP) for students with disabilities. The IEP would be updated annually with input from teachers, school psychologists, parents, and appropriate support personnel. The specific regulations of the law stopped short of providing states with a severe discrepancy formula for determining the presence of a learning 581 582 L Learning disabilities disability, but they do endorse the concept of an aptitude-ability discrepancy as a requirement for LD. While this law has been amended several times, most recently in 2004, it remains the basis for learning disability education today. Identification of Learning Disabilities The Discrepancy Model Since states are legally required to provide services for students with learning disabilities, most of them have adopted the significant aptitude-achievement discrepancy model as a part of their requirements for LD identification. Until the most recent revision, which became effective in 2006, IDEA stipulated that the multi-disciplinary team evaluating suspected learning disabilities could determine the presence of LD if two conditions were satisfied: (a) the child must be performing below the level expected for his or her age and ability level, and (b) the child must have a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability. A determination of a severe discrepancy is usually made following the administration of a standardized test to measure achievement in a particular academic area and a test of cognitive ability (IQ) by a school psychologist. Since both tests are usually norm-referenced with the same mean score and standard deviation, spotting a discrepancy is relatively straightforward. For example, if a reading disability is suspected, reading sub-score from the cognitive assessment (which represents ability, or expected performance) would be compared to the score on a reading achievement test. If the reading achievement score is 86 and the cognitive assessment reading sub-score is 109, the significant discrepancy would be presumed. On the other hand, if both scores were 86, then no significant discrepancy would exist, and the child would not be identified as learning disabled. Although the child’s reading achievement is significantly below that of his or her classmates (whose scores would theoretically average 100), the level of achievement would be expected based upon the cognitive ability score. Although the use of the discrepancy model is no longer required by IDEA or state education agencies, most schools continue to use it as a criteria for LD identification. However, because the process is straightforward and seemingly objective, in many cases a determination of LD is made only on the basis of an aptitude-achievement discrepancy. For a number of reasons, the discrepancy model may not accurately identify or exclude the presence of a learning disability and other factors should be considered in a diagnosis of LD. The discrepancy model is less effective when comparing scores from some assessments to others. Different tests measure different abilities, and each assessment has its own set of subset scores that may not compare directly with a similar subset score from another test. Without a thorough understanding of what tests are measuring, practitioners could misinterpret the results. Also, IQ is not always an accurate reflection of the level at which a child could be expected to perform. IQ is simply a statistically weighted, general measure of intelligence and does not always translate to a specific ability. Cognitive assessments are also limited in their ability to measure a child’s true aptitude when cultural, language, or economic factors influence the score. The discrepancy model has been criticized for not identifying learning disabilities early enough, when educators have a better chance of a successful intervention. By its very nature, the discrepancy model requires that a child is performing significantly below his or her ability, which often indicates that the child is failing in school. If the discrepancy model is used as the sole determining factor in LD identification, children need to fall behind far enough to fail to receive special education services. Children who have learning disabilities but are highly intelligent or those with mild learning disabilities may perform in school comparatively to their peers for some time. When these children eventually fail, it may be too late for special education services to help them overcome the failure. Response to Intervention Although there are 2.8 million children in U.S. schools who are currently eligible for special education services under the specific learning disability (SLD) designation, many of these children do not have genuine learning disabilities. Many of the students currently labeled as having a learning disability are instructional casualties who simply never have been taught how to read. In the last 25 years, schools in the U.S. have experienced a 283% increase in the number of students identified with SLD and receiving special education services. Population-based models, such as response to intervention (RTI) emphasize universal prevention and swift intervention of basic academic problems. These models hold significant promise for ensuring Learning disabilities that all students master basic academic skills and consequently reducing the overrepresentation of SLD in special education. The U.S. Department of Education reports that there were approximately 2.9 million students who had learning disabilities during the 2001–2002 school year. This number represents an increase from the 1.2 million cases reported in 1970–1980. Some recent research indicated that the increased representation of students with learning disabilities in special education may be attributable to the overidentification of students who do not have learning disabilities, misidentification of students with disabilities other than LD, and underidentification of students with true LD. RTI holds significant promise as a method for preventing many learning difficulties, especially reading problems. RTI is built on a framework and a set of activities that emphasize prevention and swift, data-driven intervention as soon as student difficulties are detected. Unlike traditional educational approaches that address learning problems after students have experienced academic failure (e.g., the wait-to-fail discrepancy model), RTI emphasizes global prevention and focuses on positive academic outcomes for all students. RTI is a data-driven systematic method for identifying and responding to the needs of students who demonstrate academic and/or behavioral difficulties. It consists of a set of school-wide procedures intended to promote successful school outcomes for all students. When implemented with fidelity, RTI is a program where school personnel apply a twofold system of reliable high-quality instruction and frequent formative assessment of student progress. Decisions in RTI are anchored within a multi-tier system of options that correspond to student need. Decision makers in RTI include both regular and special education teachers as well as other key stakeholders including paraprofessionals, school psychologists, administrators, parents, and other related services personnel. Decision making in RTI emphasizes the prevention of problems, including learning disabilities, and timely interventions at the first sign of risk. The Importance of Early Identification With a new provision permitting the allocation of 15% of federal funding to early-intervention initiatives, IDEA 2004 provides a tangible incentive for schools to embrace a new model of prophylactic service delivery. In addition to the use of a RTI model to identify L LD, and other direct instructional efforts, early intervention could take such varied forms as professional development. Teachers learn to deliver evidence-based instruction and provide educational and behavioral evaluations and support. LD and the Law Since 1977, children with learning disabilities have been guaranteed access to free and appropriate public education. On October 13, 2006, the final U.S. Department of Education regulations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004) part B, became effective, almost 2 years after Congress passed this important reauthorization. Many of the changes to the IDEA legislation are intended to align this legislation more closely with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and therefore reflect broader trends in education, placing greater emphasis on research-based practices, early identification and intervention strategies for students determined to be at-risk, and higher standards of accountability with a focus on personnel qualification and measured improvement. While the changes in IDEA 2004 are broad, key provisions most likely to impact LD identification and service delivery fall under the following categories: (a) greater support for early-intervening services and scientific, research-based alternatives to identification of learning disabilities, such as response to intervention (RTI), (b) reduction of disproportionate disability identification based on race or ethnicity, and (c) changes to individual education program (IEP). Several of the final IDEA 2004 regulations grant states and school districts considerable latitude in adopting specific criteria for making a disability determination, deciding which services are warranted, as well as determining the appropriate personnel to deliver those services. States, however, may no longer require that schools use the severe aptitude-achievement discrepancy model in determining the presence of a specific learning disability. In addition, state regulations governing LD identification must allow the use of an RTI model that the U.S. Department of Education defined as ‘‘a process that examines whether the child responds to scientific, research-based interventions’’ in 2006. Although IDEA 2004 does not actively discourage the use of the discrepancy model, support for evidencebased models, specifically RTI, represents a major change from the previous version of IDEA. The change allows for seamless integration with NCLB, which also 583 584 L Learning disabilities strongly supports the use of evidence-based instruction. Adapting another theme from NCLB, teacher accountability, IDEA 2004 prohibits LEAs from determining that a child has a disability if the determining factor is a lack of appropriate instruction. This provision has important implications for many students, including those who have limited English proficiency and otherwise may be misdiagnosed as having a learning disability. The use of an RTI model is one way to increase the likelihood that students will receive appropriate instruction based on their specific needs. In a discussion published with the final regulations, the Department of Education acknowledged that the use of RTI represents a major paradigm shift in special education, with an increased focus on achievement and successful outcomes for all students. To enable schools to successfully implement RTI models, The Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) will provide funding for training and technical assistance. The office is developing a RTI resource kit to assist schools with implementation. Unfortunately, large-scale change of this nature will be difficult, and undoubtedly, it will meet with resistance from some educators, those who have dismissed RTI as a viable alternative to the status quo. These educators have misconceptions or the mistaken idea that RTI has yet to generate any empirical support. IDEA 2004 contains several important revisions aimed at increasing the flexibility of IEP planning and revision processes. In an effort to streamline the process, provisions in IDEA 2004 also promote the consolidation of reevaluations with other IEP meetings and allow the implementation of changes to an IEP. They may be amended rather than completely redrafted without the need to reconvene the IEP team. In recognition of the preparatory function of education, new language requires IEPs to include specific, individualized postsecondary transitional goals for children 16 and older. The Department of Education is establishing two pilot programs in 15 states (a multi-year IEP program and a paperwork reduction program) with the goal of streamlining the IEP process. Cultural Considerations Disproportionality in Special Education Since the inception of federally mandated special education programs in the United States, minority students have been significantly overrepresented. Children belonging to racial and ethnic minority groups are referred for special education services by classroom teachers more often than their White peers, and they also are more likely to be identified with a disability and removed from the classroom. The largest disproportionality exists in children identified as mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed. Although the actual incidence of LD identification is not significantly disproportionate in minorities as a whole, African Americans and Native Americans are significantly more likely to be identified with a learning disorder than White students. In addition, the nationally aggregated data for disproportionality tends to have a leveling effect and obscure data from individual states that show a significant disproportionality in LD identification for all minorities. The cause of minority disproportionality has been conclusively identified, but many researchers believe a complex interaction of unconscious bias, limited resources in predominantly minority areas, and reaction to high-stakes testing to be responsible. By addressing other factors likely to inhibit a student’s achievement, early identification and intervention can be a useful tool in preventing unnecessary referrals for services or misidentification of disabilities, especially in the area of minority overrepresentation. While the allocation of federal funding for early intervention is generally left to the discretion of school districts, schools with a significant racial or ethnic disproportionality in special education referrals are required to fund early intervention efforts at the maximum 15% of their special education funding. To address the disproportionality of racial and ethnic minority students receiving special education services, states are required to collect and examine data on disability identifications, disciplinary referrals and actions, and placement in particular educational settings for these students. If a significant minority overrepresentation is determined, states must require school districts to provide comprehensive early intervention services for these groups as well as inform the public of efforts in place to reduce minority overrepresentation in special education. A greater awareness of the pervasive problem of LD over-identification and the importance of early identification and intervention were important factors in prompting lawmakers to reconsider the exclusive use of a discrepancy model in LD evaluation. In conclusion, the federal legislation allowing states to work out many of the details of intervention provides school psychologists with a new opportunity. They can influence the Learning styles implementation of these regulations by establishing research-based practices aimed at reducing minority disproportionality. See also: > Labeling ; > Special education Suggested Reading Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, S. M. (2005). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice. New York: The Guilford Press. Fuchs, L., & Vaughn, S. (March 2006). Response-to-intervention as a framework for identification of learning disabilities. Communiqué, 34(6), 1–6. Graner, P. S., Faggella-Luby, M. N., & Fritschmann, N. S. (2005). An overview of responsiveness to intervention: What practitioners ought to know. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 93–105. McCook, J. E. (2006). The RTI guide: Developing and implementing a model in your schools. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications. Suggested Resources Response to Intervention Reference List and Web Links—http:// www.nasponline.org/advocacy/rtireference.pdf National Research Center on Learning Disabilities—http://www. nrcld.org/ National Center on Student Progress Monitoring—http://www. studentprogress.org/ Learning Styles Mark Kiang Learning is a process in which knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values are acquired through experience and study. Learning can cause a measurable, lasting change in behavior and allows for the creation or revision of mental constructs such as attitudes or values. Learning is vital to human development. Learning style denotes the ways that individuals receive and process information. Several of the more widely recognized models used for researching learning style include the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the DiSC assessment (Carlson Learning), and Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Model. Gardner’s theory is that the human being is capable of several relatively independent forms of information processing, each form referred L to as an ‘‘intelligence.’’ These intelligences are logicalmathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. According to Gardner, individuals differ in their specific profiles of intelligences. One of the most accepted models is the visual, aural, and kinesthetic (VAK) approach, which was advanced by American researchers Rita and Ken Dunn. While there are many different theories of learning and theorists may disagree on the specific terminology, most agree on three basic learning styles: VAK. A fourth category, reading/writing, is also sometimes listed. Collectively these learning styles are referred to as VAK or VARK (with the inclusion of reading/writing). Visual learners learn by seeing. In a classroom setting visual learners take comprehensive detailed notes and tend to sit in the front. They are generally neater, cleaner, and more organized. Visual learners like to see what they are learning and will often close their eyes to attempt to visualize or recall information. Visual learners are more receptive to illustrations and presentations that use color and are attracted to written or spoken language rich in imagery. Visual learners prefer stimuli to be isolated from auditory and kinesthetic distraction. Auditory learners learn by hearing. In a classroom setting they will sit where they can hear but do not necessarily need to pay attention to what is happening at the front of the room. Auditory learners remember best by verbalizing lessons to themselves and facilitate the acquisition of knowledge by reading out loud. Without these auditory tools, this type of learner has difficulty reading maps and diagrams as well as tackling conceptual tasks like mathematics. Kinesthetic learners learn by doing. They sit near doors or places where they can easily get up and move around. They tend to be uncomfortable in classrooms that lack hands-on opportunities. Hands-on activities such as cooking, construction, engineering, and art facilitate kinesthetic learners’ comprehension. Kinesthetic learners prefer to be active while taking frequent breaks. Their communication is often accompanied by hand and body gestures and touching. The kinesthetic learner is a tactile learner who becomes fidgety when bored. While this type of learner may remember an assignment he or she may have a hard time recalling details of what was said or seen. The fourth and less commonly mentioned type of learner is the reading and writing learner. This type of learner is most comfortable learning by processing text. Individuals can fall into any one or more of these four categories to varying degrees. The aforementioned 585 586 L Learning styles descriptions are archetypal cases of these learning styles. While it is possible for someone to have above average learning in more than one of these styles, an individual typically is stronger in one learning style than in the others. Some researchers criticize the VAK or VARK (from here on referred to only as VAK) models as not being adequately validated by independent research. Others, however, continue to stand by the VAK model. The VAK model offers a general yet encompassing means to assess and accommodate learning styles. While more specific factions of learning exist, an educator who models the classroom and activities while taking into consideration the VAK model can attend to the majority of his or her students’ learning needs. Learning Styles in Schools While there undeniably exists a variety of styles in which individuals learn, primary, middle, and high schools across the United States (U.S.), which serve students from kindergarten through 12th grade, often cater to some styles of learning at the expense of others. It has been observed that schools tend to emphasize visual and auditory types of learning rather than the kinesthetic mode. This means that students who prefer to be more physically active do not get the same opportunity to learn in a manner in which they are most effective. Two such examples are standardized tests and learning by way of textbooks—in general, neither emphasizes the tactile elements of learning. The result is that many schools, in their efforts to challenge and assess students, fail to effectively engage them to their full ability. Cultural Influences on Students’ Learning Styles Learning styles are often developed through cultural and environmental experiences. It is not known exactly how culture influences learning, however, educators and researchers agree on the importance of understanding students’ different backgrounds and to respect and accommodate their similarities and differences. Spencer J. Salend asserts that our schools are predicated on the mainstream, middle-class culture and that this is pervasive in both the academic and social expectations of students. This often results in biases against students of color. Cultural differences also affect the way individuals process, organize, and learn material. Students of color may have learning styles based on variation, movement, divergent thinking, inductive reasoning, and an emphasis on people. Without an acknowledgment of these styles, teachers may negatively misinterpret behavior in the classroom that is based on culturally influenced learning styles. Salend presents one such example. This involves a male African American student’s actions as he prepares for a performance. The student looks over an assignment in its entirety; rearranges posture; elaborately checks pencils, paper, and writing space; asks teachers to repeat directions that have just been given; and checks fellow student’s perceptions. While the African American student may see these actions as necessary, the teacher may interpret them as avoidance tactics, inattentiveness, disruptions, or signs that the student is unprepared. Polychronic cultures should be taken into account when considering the learning styles that exist within a multicultural class. The dominant U.S., Canadian, and European cultures tend to be monochronic. This implies a culture that prefers activities to be sequential and generally perform actions one at a time. Monochronic cultures place a priority on orderliness, punctuality, and meeting deadlines. These preferences and values translate into students who prefer to learn with one activity at a time and to work at a desk in the absence of conversation. The monochronic student finds engagement in multiple activities at the same time, such as talking and writing an essay, both unproductive and uncomfortable. Latin America, the Arab part of the Middle East, and sub-Sahara Africa are polychronic cultures. Polychronic cultures favor less structure and the freedom to change from one activity to another at will. A polychron enjoys taking on several tasks at the same time and is industrious in doing so. Teachers must recognize how this culture trait, which many ethnic minority students possess, relates to learning style in the classroom. It is important that teachers are cognizant of classroom exercises and structures that cater to monochronic learning styles and adjust activities to be receptive to polychronic learning styles. For instance, in the case of an assignment where book reports are written in class, the teacher may allow students to engage in open discussions while writing. Teachers should also guard against being critical of polychronic behavior when it is the favored learning style. Life cycle Accounting for Individual and Cultural Differences Educators should be careful not to view research on learning styles as they pertain to cultures uncritically while making sweeping generalizations of particular groups. This can have the undesired effect of promoting prejudice when the goal is that of openmindedness. One can imagine cases in which the assumption of a learning style based on a student’s racial/cultural background can be detrimental. For example, a teacher’s assumption that a student ofcolor prefers group work to individual work and is therefore never given the opportunity to express herself individually can seriously inhibit the student’s development of self expression. There are vast differences among learners within diverse racial/ethnic groups. Appreciating a Student’s True Abilities Nieto asserts that Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is relevant in assessing intelligence in crosscultural settings. The theory of multiple intelligences goes beyond the limited definition of intelligence in most schools, which often focuses on the logicalmathematical and linguistic intelligences and examines all forms of intelligence. This is of significance because profiles in these intelligences vary not only across cultures, but also from individual to individual. To merely consider a student’s ability to reason, make calculations and master language, which schools tend to focus on, is a severe oversight. Gardner’s theory goes beyond the VAK model and recognizes that individuals can be interpersonally, intrapersonally, and musically intelligent. In some cases, these forms of intelligences are a stronger predictor of success than those more traditionally accepted. For instance, several studies have shown that those with a strong emotional quotient (EQ), and therefore demonstrate stronger interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences, generally have more successful careers and report higher levels of happiness and satisfaction. Strength in any of the various modes can imply an individual’s intelligence, while a deficiency in any one cannot negate it. To understand learning styles in all forms is to appreciate people of different strengths. L See also: > Cross-cultural learning styles; > Intelligence/ Intelligence Quotient (IQ); > Multiple intelligences; > Nondiscriminatory testing Suggested Reading Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education. Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices for all students (5th ed.). Prentice Hall, NJ: Pearson. Suggested Resources Teacher.net—http://www.teachernet.gov.uk: This website is dedicated to aiding teachers and school managers in teaching, professional development, management, school-wide issues, and research Life Cycle Patricia M Lenahan Human life-span development is a constant process, beginning before birth and ending only with death. It is a process that is mediated by culture and includes biological processes as well as age-related norms and developmental tasks. The United States (U.S.), among other countries, is experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of individuals and families who are migrating here from other countries. Mass exodus of refugees and immigrants from war-torn areas of the world is introducing countless millions of children into a new cultural and social environment, one that often poses significant difficulties related to language barriers, expectations and assimilation into the majority culture. Many of these children may have also experienced physical or psychological trauma. Traumatic experiences place additional demands on the mental health system. School psychologists must become familiar with culturally acceptable ways to assess potential psychological disorders and respond to trauma. Similarly, educational institutions are faced with the challenge of providing services to children in multiple languages whose ethnic and cultural backgrounds are 587 588 L Life cycle increasingly varied and whose life experiences may have included exposure to violence. Parenting across Cultures Parenting is a universal phenomenon but approaches to child-rearing vary among cultures. What may be viewed as normal learning and emotional development in one culture may be seen as strange or even pathological in another culture. Most cultures, however, share a similar belief: our way is the healthiest way to raise a child. Behaviors of infants and children vary across cultures as a result of these parenting styles. Emotional behavior is learned during the first several months of life. These early experiences of infants and children are formative and help establish behavior patterns that will continue into adulthood. Parental goals for their children contribute to the child’s learning style and development. Several goals among U.S. parents, for instance, include helping their children become emotionally independent from their parents and developing expressive and language skills. American mothers may spend more time talking to their infants, looking at them, smiling, and otherwise interacting with their children. This emphasis on verbal interaction with infants is often accompanied by less touching and holding of infants and greater tolerance of infant crying. As a result, these infants may be described as more ‘‘fussy’’ and become more stressed. Behaviors associated with verbal interaction and holding/touching differ greatly from many other cultures where infants may not have the same type of verbal interaction but are held and touched more often. In many cultures, infants are held on or near a parent or family caretaker’s body most of the day and night. These parents attend to crying infants more quickly, often feeding the child. Overall, it is believed that the incidence of crying seems to decrease as a result of this type of parental behavior. The family and extended family members provide the childcare rather than relying on non-related babysitters. The American norm of placing newborn infants in their own cribs, often in their own room, is viewed as part of the process of encouraging the child to develop independence, a highly valued goal. This has been described as a pedagogic model of parenting. It may also have a historical basis in that for many generations, newborns were separated from their parents in the hospital and parents of hospitalized children with chronic illnesses weren’t always permitted to stay with their children in their hospital rooms. This American value of separation and individuation prepares the child for greater independence and self-responsibility as he or she grows, a common expectation of individualistic societies. These views of parenting are not shared by all cultures. Many groups, faced with high infant mortality rates, have developed survival practices which include keeping the child near them at all times. This has been described as a pediatric model where the most important parental goal is to protect the health and survival of the child. In these pediatric models of parenting, infants and mothers sleep together, allowing the mother to more easily breast feed the infant on demand. It is believed that this pattern of frequent breast feeding has helped to decrease infant mortality rates by increasing weight gain and maintaining adequate hydration especially in areas where there are high rates of diarrhea. Unlike the American value of independence and self-responsibility, the goal of the pediatric model group is to raise children who are quiet and respectful and obedient to their parents and other adults. Eating behavior is also a learned behavior. Parents and children are often in conflict regarding what to eat. Parents who promote healthy eating and who apply food rules that emphasize healthy diets rather than allowing the child to select his/her own meals, frequently containing high fat and sugar, are likely to produce healthier children. Some studies have demonstrated that children whose parents have a higher socioeconomic status are likely to have better family dietary habits. Poorer families may not be able to purchase healthier food alternatives as a result of their income or reliance upon food banks. Sleeping and Feeding Behaviors Significant cultural variations exist in sleep practices for infants and young children. These include bedtime rituals and routines (such as singing lullabies), soothing techniques, and familial/co-sleeping arrangements. Learning through Play The value of play also varies across cultures. Parents can influence a child’s socialization and development Life cycle through how they view play, what toys are offered or what games are encouraged. Gender role identification can be fostered through parental expectations and admonitions regarding ‘‘male’’ or ‘‘female’’ toys and games and participation in sports. Children learn how to socialize and how to share through the process of play. Stress, Trauma, and Coping Styles of Children There is a great deal of evidence to support the view that children as young as infants can be affected by negative and traumatic experiences. Children of different ethnicities may experience significant differences in the types of stressors they encounter. Children learn how to cope with traumatic events through their culture. Coping strategies, the cognitive and behavioral responses children employ in response to stressful situations, vary among cultures. They are learned during childhood and progressively change throughout the child’s development. Individualistic cultures, those that tend to view trauma as shameful and something the individual should have controlled, avoided, or dealt with alone, do not make coping with stress and trauma easy for their children. If trauma is viewed as shameful, then it is not openly discussed which may worsen the effects on the child. These ineffective coping strategies can result in negative physical and psychological health. Children across cultures have numerous ways to cope with stress and trauma. Activities such as drawing, playing games, eating, drinking, and watching TV are employed frequently. Gender differences in coping have been identified among young children. Girls often cope by crying and cuddling with their pets while boys are more likely to watch TV or yell or scream. TV watching as a coping strategy has been observed among children dealing with parental violence and substance abuse. Preventive health experts consider watching TV as a contributor to childhood obesity, development of a sedentary lifestyle, onset of sleep disorders, decreased self-esteem, and social withdrawal. L of an individual’s life and a major source of support. Individualistic cultures place a value on the individual (e.g., personal achievement, independence, competitiveness), while collective cultures focus on the family as the unit of support and emphasize loyalty and respect for others within the family and filial piety. The family provides the context in which values, traditions, health beliefs and practices are transmitted. Better family functioning may be associated with improved psychosocial well-being and higher self-esteem. Children and adolescents from collective cultures may experience more acculturation stress and intergenerational conflict as a result of their attempts to assimilate into the dominant culture. Discipline Cultural variations exist in the types and extent of discipline that is commonly employed. This may include behavioral techniques such as ‘‘time out’’ or use of corporal punishment. Many cultural misunderstandings have occurred during the last three decades regarding cultural practices like ‘‘coining’’ which initially was viewed as child abuse rather than a culture-bound method for treating a health problem. Parents may expect schools to discipline their children for misbehaving while others believe that all discipline should come from the parents, not the school. Communication across Cultures Cross-cultural communication issues include more than potential language barriers. Nonverbal communication difficulties may contribute to greater misunderstandings. Factors such as personal space, smiling, eye contact, the use of touch, silence, and time orientation are important nonverbal forms of communication. Parents may serve as the ‘‘culture brokers’’ for teachers and school psychologists in learning to understand the significance of these factors in relating to the children in their care. Academic Achievement Family and Family Structure The concept of family and family functioning varies by culture/ethnicity. Families may be seen as a central part Cultural differences can be observed in the way in which families emphasize academic achievement. Parental styles may be proscribed, expecting absolute 589 590 L Life cycle obedience and respect for authority. Other parenting styles may encourage independence, individuality and recognize the rights of the child. These culturallymediated parenting styles may create tension for the educator whose value system differs from that of the parent. Adolescence The developmental tasks of adolescence are often difficult for both parents and adolescents. However, these developmental stages differ among various cultures. In some cultures, childhood leads directly to adulthood and the assumption of adult roles and responsibilities, without experiencing the developmental stage of adolescence. Intergenerational stressors may develop as a result of the adolescent’s desire to adopt new cultural norms, lack of adherence to family values, traditions, and religious beliefs, the inability to communicate well with older family members due to language barriers, and failure to comply with traditional roles and beliefs. The physical and hormonal changes and the psychosocial issues of adolescents underscore the need to provide increased health and mental health resources for this at-risk age group. Preventive efforts should address sexual information and health, mental health disorders, and substance use. LGBTIQ Adolescents One group of adolescents may be at increased risk for psychosocial and mental health problems. The health needs of LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, intersex, and questioning) youth represent a core cultural competency concern. These needs must be addressed within a framework of preventive intervention, with the school providing a vital service component. It is important to identify ways to increase the knowledge base for school social workers and psychologists regarding the LGBTIQ students. This should include an increased understanding of the relationship between sexual attraction, behavior, identity and the provision of health-related information and services. Health and mental health risks faced by LGBTIQ youth including HIV infection and increased suicidality. Like all adolescents, LGBTIQ adolescents also need effective direct counseling services to treat teens facing unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s). One implication is that cultures that train for independence and self-responsibility may risk having more post-traumatic stress (PTSD) later in life. This outcome is thought to be due to the fact that these cultures do not support infants during stressful and traumatic events to the same extent as do cultures that emphasize dependence and mutual support. Summary Parenting styles, cultural values, beliefs, and the role and function of the family may vary among different ethnic and cultural groups. While each group may be convinced that their child-rearing practices are ideal and those of other societies may be viewed as harmful, it is clear that all cultural and ethnic groups share a common goal: to attend to the psychological and physical well-being of their children. Teachers, school social workers, and school psychologists must be able to recognize their own cultural values and beliefs. They also must be able to identify situations where their values and beliefs may affect their understanding of the behaviors and the needs of children and adolescents from various backgrounds. Cultural competence is a process that includes ongoing self-assessment, avoidance of stereotyping individuals and groups based on their cultural or ethnic identity, an awareness of the cultural/ethnic expectations related to academic achievement and an openness to addressing the individual learning styles and needs of culturally diverse children. See also: > Adolescence; > Childhood; > Cross-cultural families; > Culture; > Ethnic minority youth; > Family therapy Suggested Reading Buehler, C. (2006). Parents and peers in relation to early adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 109–124. Mandara, J. (2006). The impact of family functioning on African American male’s academic achievement: A review and clarification of the empirical literature. Teachers College Board, 108(2), 206–223. Limited English proficiency Limited English Proficiency Anna M Peña The term ‘‘limited English proficient’’ or ‘‘LEP,’’ refers to an individual whose primary language is other than English and whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual the ability to meet the state’s proficient level of achievement on assessments, the ability to achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English, and/or the opportunity to participate fully in society. Most students living in the United States (U.S.) read, write, speak, and understand English at a level that allows them to function successfully in the academic setting and society as a whole. There are many individuals, however, for whom English is not their primary language. According to the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA), approximately five million LEP students were enrolled in public school nationwide during the 2005–2006 school year. This number represents approximately 10% of total public school student enrollment, and a 57% increase over the reported 1995–1996 public school LEP enrollment. Currently, students who are LEP reflect current immigration trends of the past decade, with most LEP students reporting Spanish as their native language, followed by Vietnamese (2.4%), Hmong (1.8%), Korean (1.2%), and Arabic (1.2%). Students who speak a language other than English at home are not equally distributed across the country. California had the most LEP students in the country, with nearly 1.6 million, followed by Texas (684,007), Florida (299,346), New York (203,583), Illinois (192,764), and Arizona (155,789). In the U.S., limited English proficiency carries unique socioeconomic challenges. The link between socioeconomic status and English proficiency is complex and varied, but not necessarily causally linked. Likely, new immigrants with limited education and limited English proficiency have limited access to jobs that require both high levels of education and English proficiency. According to results from the 2000 Census, 65% of LEP children lived in poor families compared with 51% of bilingual children and 32% of English monolingual children. This supports the fact that LEP children are twice as likely to live in families L whose income is below 185% of the federal poverty guidelines compared with either bilingual or English monolingual children. Limited English proficiency can be a barrier to accessing important benefits or services, understanding and exercising rights, or understanding information provided by federally funded programs. In the past, such barriers had an impact on access to curriculum for LEP children. There are several U.S. Supreme Court, state federal, and federal legislation decisions that helped shape the education of language minority students in the U.S. Some of the most influential federal legislation and court decisions for language minority students include Lau v. Nichols (1974), Castañeda v. Pickard (1981), and Title VI regulations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin. Most recently enacted federal laws that are particularly relevant to language access and include Executive Order 13166. Issued on August 11, 2000. Executive Order 13166, commonly known as the Limited English Proficiency Act, requires that all federal agencies develop and implement reasonable steps to ensure that LEP individuals have meaningful access to federally conducted programs and activities. Based on the current trend, it is estimated that the number of LEP children will continue to grow in the coming decades. States and districts will need to recognize the importance of designing LEP programs that provide equal access to linguistically diverse children. Programs implemented to address the special needs of LEP students will continue to be critical in assisting the academic development and future success of this growing population of students in the years to come. See also: > Bilingualism; > English language learners; > Language needs in the multicultural classroom; > Language proficiency Suggested Reading Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services. Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 591 592 L Literacy Suggested Resources National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA) http://www. ncela.gwu.edu/: The NCELA supports the Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) and is authorized to collect, analyze, synthesize, and disseminate information about language instruction educational programs for LEP children. U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/: The U.S. Census Bureau is a branch of the Commerce Department and responsible for taking the census. This website provides demographic information and analyses about the U.S. population. Literacy Gigliana Melzi . Adina Schick In a 2003 United Nations lecture Kofi Annan stated that ‘‘literacy is the key to unlocking the cage of human misery. . . to delivering the potential of every human being. . . to opening up a future of freedom and hope.’’ These powerful words convey the vital need to provide all members of society with the literacy tools necessary for their successful participation in today’s world. Defining Literacy Historically, literacy has been tied to ancient symbolic representations, to the written word and to the printed text. To be deemed literate, an individual has needed to attain basic reading and writing skills in a given language to function successfully on a daily basis. This traditional perspective is representative of an etic approach to literacy, portraying literacy skills as universal, that is having the same meaning across cultural groups. The etic approach has proven to be well suited for research as it assumes a global definition and standard criteria for literacy. Moreover, this particular view allows for the development of measures to assess literacy competency across various populations irrespective of language or cultural background. Although following an etic approach has much merit, by assuming that literacy transcends culture and is universally quantifiable, it fails to consider the diversity of the human experience. In the late 1970s, a group of researchers began to question this established view of literacy and suggested a broader conceptualization that took into account cultural variations and practices. This emic approach views literacy as culturally defined, encompassing skills and abilities valued by a particular community. Within this framework, literacy can only be understood and measured within a given society rather than being a universally definable construct. As an illustration, in some societies being able to read and write is no longer sufficient. Successful members of society must have at least basic computer literacy skills. Individuals who are unable to operate a computer might not be able to participate fully in their community and therefore might not be considered literate. In other societies, the oral transmission of language is valued more than the written-word. In some West African societies, as an example, children do not attend formal schooling. Instead, they are educated via oral tales and folklore, transmitted by the esteemed griots who, born into the noble caste, serve as teachers, librarians, and entertainers, sharing endless tales, epics and myths with their community. Surely the griots have amassed a wealth of knowledge and skill. Yet, are they ‘‘literate’’? If a strict etic approach were to be followed and literacy were measured by the ability to read and write, the griots would be deemed as lacking literacy skills. However, the emic perspective highlights that in societies such as this one, literacy is not related to reading and writing. Rather a literate individual is one who can remember oral tales, internalize them, and effectively share them with others, thereby transmitting traditions, values and beliefs to future generations. Thus, cultural norms are relevant when determining whether or not one is literate. In addition to cultural variations in how literacy is defined, there are socio-cultural variations as to the functions of literacy. While typically literacy is associated with educational achievement and opportunity, as well as with economic growth and success, in some cultural groups, literacy might be tied to other functions, such as religion. In these societies, for example, individuals lacking the literacy skills needed to perform religious tasks might be considered illiterate, even if they can read and write proficiently in the language used by the country in which they reside. Literacy Both the etic and emic approaches to literacy have value. While there are numerous advantages to viewing literacy as a universal construct, cultural practices cannot be ignored. The etic and emic approaches need not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Literacy skills can be conceived of as the ability to use cultural tools and representations to amass and share knowledge, evaluate information, solve problems and communicate with others. By blending the etic and emic approaches, cross-cultural comparisons remain feasible, while cultural variations are noted and considered. Literacy Acquisition Recognizing cultural variations and nuances is imperative when considering how to promote literacy in young children in our current multicultural world. For schools to address literacy issues effectively, educators must be sensitive to the differing literacy experiences children have prior to attending schools, experiences which are grounded in their community’s practices of and beliefs about literacy. Years of research have highlighted the importance these emergent literacy experiences have for children’s literacy attainment in the school years. A challenge for current educators is to find ways to enhance knowledge of the varying factors that underlie literacy acquisition and, most importantly, to incorporate this knowledge effectively in the design of pedagogical practices and curricula. Numerous factors influence the acquisition of children’s early literacy; these can be categorized as child, home and school factors. Child factors might include, for example, the particular child’s cognitive ability, linguistic skills and attention span. Home variables might be maternal education, access to books, types of daily conversations, and the use of literacy by others in the home. Finally, school factors might include teacher-student ratio, teacher beliefs regarding literacy, classroom materials, as well as interactions between teachers and students, and among peers. Although all these factors individually play a role in both the process and outcome of children’s literacy development, a single factor is not as important as the adequacy of the combination of all factors. Depending on the home experiences and the skills children bring to school, diverse pedagogical approaches will work better for different children. Schools serve as mediators in the development of literacy, teaching L requisite skills, while at the same time transmitting socio-cultural beliefs regarding what comprises literacy in mainstream society. Current practices engaged in by schools often do not correlate with the literacy practices children from diverse backgrounds experience at home. This is a matter of grave concern, as research has demonstrated that a mismatch between home and school use of language and literacy can have detrimental outcomes for children. The sharing of storybooks or oral storytelling between adults and children at home, for example, provides opportunities for children to engage in discourse with others, and, thus, supports emerging literacy skills. Numerous studies conducted in the U.S. demonstrate that children whose parents read to them show a greater interest in reading and have an easier time learning to read in school. However, the practices of book reading per se are culturally influenced. Parents from diverse backgrounds might differ in the extent to and the manner in which they read to their children. For instance, some parents might prefer to be the sole narrator rather than actively engage the child as a co-narrator. Given our pluralistic society, recognizing and incorporating these differences in our pedagogical practices is imperative. Preschool teachers need to also be attuned to the notion that even for children who have been highly socialized to literacy, the manner in which storybooks are shared in a school setting might likely be a new experience. As an illustration, teachers typically share books with large groups of children at a time. Since early storybook reading is often a home activity shared between mother and child dyads, children might not be used to listening to storybooks in this manner. Furthermore, children might be used to being allowed to interject, ask questions, and make comments, while a storybook is being read aloud. In contrast, other children might be used to listening to the story as it is read, without actively participating in the process. When classes are made up of students from diverse backgrounds and of varying ability, it becomes difficult to address each child’s accustomed style. However, an effective teacher will make an effort to incorporate children’s preferred styles and build on their existing literacy base. While it might not be realistic for teachers to read to children on a one-on-one ratio, perhaps they might be able to read to smaller groups of children. This would afford them a greater opportunity to observe 593 594 L Literacy the literacy skills the children have amassed, and enable them to better work with particular styles and preferences. Moreover, successful teachers engage parents in the literacy process and collaborate with them, as a way to build upon the socio-cultural literacy styles the children are exposed to at home, while at the same time guiding parents to support their children’s emergent literacy skills. While mainstream Western society typically associates literacy with reading and writing, in diverse cultures there might be different ways in which literacy is defined. Irrespective of the approach one takes in defining literacy as a construct, educators and researchers alike need to recognize the multiple factors involved in the development of early literacy skills. Only when all facets are considered and incorporated can literacy be effectively promoted in all children. See also: > Cross-cultural learning styles; > Cultural issues in education; > Early childhood education; > Home-school partnerships; > Language needs in the multicultural classroom Suggested Reading Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. New York: Cambridge University Press. Melzi, G., & Caspe, M. (2005). Variations in maternal narrative styles during book reading interactions. Narrative Inquiry, 15(1), 101–125. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1978). Literacy without schooling: Testing for intellectual effects. Harvard Educational Review, 48(4), 448–461. Van Kleeck, A. (2004). Fostering preliteracy development via storybook-sharing interactions: The cultural context of mainstream family practices. In C. Addison Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Appel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 175–208). New York: Guilford Press. Wagner, D. (1991). Literacy as culture: Emic and etic perspectives. In E. M. Jennings, & C. Purves (Eds.), Literate systems and individual lives: Perspectives on literacy and schooling (pp. 11–19). Albany: State University of New York Press. Yaden, D. B., Rowe, D. W., & MacGillivray, L. (2000). Emergent literacy: A matter (polphony) of perspectives. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 425–454). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.