Sergio+&+Jessica+Full+Summary

Full Narrative Summary Submitted by Sergio Espinoza & Jessica Saikley
 * Chapter 12 – The Sociocultural Context in Which Children Acquire Literacy**

The Socio-cultural context in which children acquire literacy raises numerous ethical and pedagogical issues because of the sheer magnitude of the variables/factors involved. The studies presented in chapter 12 do not report any outcome data nor do they include technical data. The studies only include informative descriptive data on socio-cultural factors. The Hypothesis in the research suggest that there is an influence of these socio-cultural factors on student literacy outcomes. In addition, cognitive, affective and social development are affected by socio-cultural backgrounds. Schools must also be aware of the home-school discrepancies, discontinuities and conflicts that arise from different experiences and expectations that language minority children face. The studies were finally trying to find evidence that bridging discontinuities or accommodating socio-cultural differences by teachers and schools can yield improved literacy and school experiences. The factors the research focuses on, that are related to literacy development of language minority students included:
 * Differences in discourse and interaction characteristics (3 studies)
 * Other socio-culturally related factors (10 studies)
 * Parents and families (5 studies)
 * District, state and federal policies (1study)
 * Language status or prestige (6 studies)

The discourse and interaction characteristics studies yielded results that were not surprising. Three studies examined how discourse or interaction patterns varied between the home and school settings. All three studies found discontinuities between home and school discourse and interaction patterns (ie. use of only 2nd language at school, teacher-student discourse patterns that decreased the adult-child interactions, less opportunity for student rehearsal of appropriate responses and isolated skill practices). Fewer discrepancies where found when an explicit attempt to match home discourse and classroom instruction was made. The studies on socio-cultural characteristics of students and teachers focused on the role these factors/characteristics have on teachers and students. There were six studies at the elementary level. In the studies, teachers allowed students to self select reading and writing experiences that were relevant to them (social dimension), ability to select language of preference to express themselves, and an attempt to craft curriculum aligned with cultural concepts (cultural dimension). Numerous studies also demonstrated the socio-cultural sensitivity by teachers.

Possible limitations of the studies include:
 * All factors examined were not explicitly instructional, rather they were more intertwined.
 * More opportunities for students and teachers to bring socio-cultural and personal elements into the classroom curriculum and instruction are needed.
 * Alienation was experienced by some of the culturally different children when no effort to integrate them was made
 * Studies do not provide a definitive answer to the issue that classroom socio-cultural accommodations actually help children develop literacy skills.
 * Numerous studies demonstrated the socio-cultural sensitivity by teachers.
 * The possibility exists for motivation, purpose, and interaction to occur in classrooms even if the native language is not used.

Further research focused on studying the effects of parents, families, community, federal and state policies, as well as, language status and prestige, on the development of second language literacy. A number of the studies described differences between home-community and school literacy beliefs and practices. It appears from the studies that many of these misunderstandings were a result of cultural differences. Findings cautioned against overgeneralizing individuals’ attributes on the basis of nominal group (e.g., cultured or ethnic) membership.

Researchers found that many misunderstandings between the home and school were a result of cultural differences. In contrast, with the teacher’s beliefs, students were actively engaged in literacy activities in their first and second languages at home. In three of the studies investigating the influence of parents and families on second language acquisition, literacy was found belonging to a religious community, with respect to more pedadogical practices. Literacy practices in homes tended to be more “rigid and formal,” such that the meaning of texts were seen as inherent and not open to negotiation. Many of the studies linked literacy activities with social interactions involving at least one other person at home, and in some instances, in school.

It was disappointing that researchers could only locate one study on the influence of state and federal policies on first- and second-language literacy outcomes. This study indicated that state and federal policies played out differently in classrooms than they were envisioned to do, and a host of other factors also affected the quality of second language instruction and integration, such as, “the local school context, the teachers’ political and ideological views, pedagogical reactions to the new policy, and their instructional histories, is likely to play a large role in determining the nature of instruction,” (Stritikus, p. 305).

The final variable analyzed, affecting second language literacy, was language status and prestige. Overall, the findings suggested that, when teachers value students’ first language it tends to be accepted by students in the class and when teachers fail to value it, students are less likely to have a positive attitude about it. In schools where peers with the most status spoke the second language, students tended to value that language, as students were influenced by the status of their peers. Also, value placed on the first language may not be sufficient to promote first-language literacy development and studies suggest that any potential effects of language prestige cannot be evaluated without consideration of related sociocultural variables, such as, SES, ethnicity, and cultural differences.

The report was candid in it’s honesty that the findings of these studies were not significant enough because of either unclear or incomplete data collection or there weren’t enough studies with the same results, so that causal links could be established. A majority of the studies were also completed in other countries, which was surprising because we would have thought they would have used more studies performed in the United States, so that the findings would be more relevant for teachers in our country. Studies would benefit from information about the relative frequency of writing in English and Spanish for our ELL students as well as others in the classroom, and how it changed over time to help make the case that conferring status on both languages helps promote biliteracy. Also, the studies documented situations that were idealistic, in which the parents were literate and educated, to some extent, and valued and supported their child’s education. The studies neglected to find case studies that were more realistic to what we actually experience with some of our families, such as, illiteracy of both parents in both languages, neglect, and inconsistent or non existent literacy practices in the home. It would have been extremely interesting to see the literacy development of students coming from these types of home and community environments, and whether or not these negative sociocultural factors did have a negative affect on a student’s progress. Regardless of these set backs, in our past experiences, we have seen and compared students, who were academically similar, but whose dedication and determination to master a second language, created dramatically different results. For future research, we would like to see a study on how a students’ motivational level impacts the development of their second language literacy skills.

The studies made several recommendations on how to bridge the gap between home and school communication, such as, teachers participating in home visits to their second-language students, teachers modeling an activity and involving both parents and students, professional development aimed at clarifying these cultural differences, and classroom intervention characterized as teaching to the students’ “bilingual zone of proximal development,” as a form of differentiation. Also, providing a forum for discussion about the cultural differences should be an important component of a school’s program to ameliorate any misunderstandings between home and school-community. The studies showed that it is plausible that the teachers’ beliefs about the value of biliteracy and their use of both languages in the classroom helped create an additive language-learning environment where children felt comfortable communicating in two languages.