Home     resources

Computer Assisted Text Scaffolding for Curriculum Access and Language Learning/Acquisition

 This paper outlines the rationale underlying an innovative approach to computer assisted language learning that proposes to use target language text as input for learning. The text is made comprehensible to learners as a result of dictionary and learning strategy supports built into a multimedia CD-ROM design. The dictionary supports can be provided in learners’ first and second languages (L1 and L2) and learning strategy supports include graphic organizers to facilitate comprehension of content as well as a variety of vocabulary building and grammar learning supports. These supports represent scaffolding that enables the learner/reader to process the meaning of texts that otherwise would have been inaccessible. Any text in electronic form can be imported into the system and used as authentic input for target language learning.

 At the time of writing, a prototype of the system has been developed and is being field-tested. The title of the present paper incorporates the major features of the system: it is a computer-assisted learning system designed to provide the scaffolding of textual material necessary for second language learners who are being taught through the second language (e.g. ESL students) to gain access to the curriculum; it is also designed to enable L2 text to serve as input for both language learning and language acquisition (Krashen, 1983). The acronym CATSCALLA is used in the remainder of the paper to refer to the system of providing computer assisted text scaffolding for curriculum access and language learning/acquisition.

 The distinction between learning and acquisition was initially proposed by Krashen to refer to the differences between formal, intentional language learning and the informal and incidental acquisition of a language. Krashen (1983) suggested that when students are reading for meaning they are engaged in an acquisition process rather than in a learning process. Acquisition is seen as a subconscious internalization of the semantic and structural features of the language by means of understanding messages (meaning) communicated in an authentic naturalistic context. For Krashen, this process is far more significant in promoting L2 mastery than learning which is viewed as a conscious focus on internalizing the forms of the language through study and monitoring one’s use of the language. Although Krashen’s distinction has been criticized on the grounds that the criteria distinguishing learning from acquisition are difficult to define precisely in an operational manner, the theoretical status of the distinction is not at issue here; the distinction is being used simply to refer to the obvious differences between focusing on getting rapid access to meaning in the target language as compared to studying the language with a view to internalizing its vocabulary, grammar, phonology, and discourse properties. As will become clear, there is no need within the CATSCALLA system to posit the superiority of one approach to language learning over the other.

 The system is based on the following premises:

1. Virtually all applied linguists agree that access to sufficient comprehensible input in the target language is a necessary condition for language acquisition; most applied linguists, however, also assign a role to (a) a focus on formal features of the target language, (b) development of effective learning strategies, and (c) actual use of the target language.

    

2. Formal second language teaching is relatively unsuccessful for a significant number of learners primarily as a result of impoverished input in the target language, both with respect to quality and quantity; consider, for example, the relatively low levels of French proficiency typically attained by English-speaking Canadian school-aged students, despite several years of formal study of "core French" in elementary and high school. Learners usually have minimal interaction with native-speakers of the language and they lack the proficiency to comprehend texts in the target language that would be of interest and intellectually stimulating. Constant reference to dictionaries is cumbersome and frustrating to learners and dramatically slows the pace of reading.

    

3. Target language text has the potential to provide a virtually inexhaustible supply of authentic comprehensible input for language learning if rapid access to meaning could be ensured. Although this research has been largely ignored by policy-makers and practitioners, there is ample evidence that even without the supports envisaged in the proposed system, simply reading carefully chosen target language texts works better in promoting proficiency than formal teaching of the language (see Krashen, 1993, in press, for reviews of this research).

    

4. Current CD-ROM technology can supply the necessary supports or "scaffolds" to make a wide range of target language text comprehensible to learners, thereby fuelling the language learning process; the more learners read in the target language, the more access they get to its vocabulary, grammar, idioms, etc. and the more of the language they learn.

The proposed system could, in principle, be applied in any language learning context. To illustrate its application, consider an ESL high school student who has been learning English in and outside school during the two years since his/her arrival in Canada. This student will usually have acquired reasonably adequate conversational skills in English but still be far behind grade expectations in academic aspects of English (e.g. reading, writing). Research has documented repeatedly that a period of between 5 and 10 years is typically required for ESL students to catch up academically with native-speaking peers who are also developing their English academic skills throughout their schooling (Collier, 1987; Cummins, 1981; Klesmer, 1994). The formidable task faced by many immigrant students is shown by Watt and Roessingh’s (1994) finding that approximately 75% of ESL students in a Calgary high school over a four year period failed to graduate. The drop-out rate was particularly evident (95%) for those who entered grade 9 as beginning learners of English. This high drop-out rate is partially a function of the cap of age 19 imposed by the Alberta government on high school enrolment. In Ontario , which does not have a similar upper age limit for enrolment, a 50% drop-out rate was documented for recently-arrived immigrant students (Radwanski, 1987).

 The proposed system would serve the academic development and language learning needs of this type of student in the following manner: curriculum-related texts in English and other content areas (e.g. Literature, Science, History, etc) could be prepared or made available in electronic form (e.g. through the Internet, CD-ROM, etc.). When the student came to a word or phrase s/he did not understand, s/he could click on the word and obtain any or all of the following supports: (a) a dictionary definition in English, (b) a first language translation equivalent, (c) the English pronunciation of the word, (d) grammatical information related to the word or phrase (e.g. verb tenses), (e) idiomatic expressions, (f) cognates between the first language and English where they exist.

 The system is largely self-regulated insofar as students themselves choose the level and type of support they require. The system can also permit students (or their teachers) to test their growing proficiency and to monitor growth over time. Thus, all words that students clicked in a passage could be re-presented in a variety of test formats both to reinforce learning and to monitor growth. Students might read the passage initially for meaning, using primarily first language supports, but subsequently when they are in a "study" mode check on their comprehension/retention of the words previously unknown and also access deeper levels of grammatical and semantic information.

 The theory underlying this system differs from (but also complements) current approaches to both conventional language teaching and multimedia design for language learning. Regardless of the emphasis in current approaches on structural versus communicative syllabus design, the starting point of both instruction and curriculum materials is didactic. The syllabus design of these programs incorporates pre-determined language structures or functions and vocabulary that the system is designed to teach. There is usually little flexibility to accommodate the learning styles and interests of individual learners – one size fits all. By contrast, in the CATSCALLA system, individual learners (or teachers) can choose the material to be read according to their interests or needs, thereby increasing the likelihood of strong motivation; learners also self-regulate the kinds of supports they invoke and the learning strategies that they themselves find useful. Access to first language dictionaries takes a matter of seconds rather than minutes, with the result that the flow of meaning is minimally interrupted. ESL students are enabled to read grade-appropriate academic content that previously was inaccessible.

 The CATSCALLA system draws on research and theory in a multitude of areas. Some of these areas are sketched below and this is followed by a review of research that directly addresses the theoretical issues underlying the approach.

1. Language learning and teaching. While there is theoretical consensus on some general issues (as noted above), there is considerable acrimony on many other issues such as the extent to which instruction should focus on meaning versus form, the role (if any) of corrective feedback, the extent to which the first language should be used as a stepping stone to meaning or excluded as interference, the role of explicit instruction in language learning strategies, the appropriate time to introduce reading and writing in the target language, the age at which second language teaching should begin, etc. Most of these issues become irrelevant in the proposed system because learners self-regulate the type and degree of support they desire or need.

    

2. Academic achievement of ESL or minority language students. Overrepresentation of minority language students in special education and drop-out statistics has been documented in many countries (Cummins, 1984) and debates about appropriate educational intervention have become highly volatile in countries such as the United States. These debates have tended to focus on the theoretical and empirical issue of the role of students’ first language in learning academic skills in English. The CATSCALLA system provides a means whereby English language learning students can access L2 grade appropriate curriculum and academic language at a much earlier stage than would previously have been the case, thereby reducing the risk of academic failure.

    

3. Appropriate ways of teaching literacy. The public debates on "whole language" versus "phonics" approaches (and related issues) tend to obscure a vast amount of research and theory on the reading process and appropriate forms of reading and writing instruction. In the context of the rationale underlying CATSCALLA, a consistent finding is that "large amounts of time for actual text reading" is the most significant predictor of reading comprehension (e.g. Fielding & Pearson, 1994).

    

4. Critical language awareness. This area has emerged strongly in recent years as an important focus for both research and practice (e.g. Andrews, 1995; Corson, 1995, 1998). In the context of the potential of the CATSCALLA system, the issue becomes how to incorporate linguistic information that would encourage learners to explore the social and political functions of language use in addition to simply its referential functions.

    

5. Cognitive strategy instruction. The issue of how to maximize the efficiency of learning in general has occupied cognitive psychologists since the origins of the discipline. Of particular importance for the present project are the research and theory articulated by Chamot and O’Malley (e.g. 1994) and Pressley and his colleagues (1990), although there are many other researchers whose work is also relevant. In view of the fact that text is being used as the major source of L2 input, it is imperative that learners make optimal use of this input by means of efficient reading and learning strategies.

    

6. Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and multimedia design. These fields are experiencing extremely rapid growth as more powerful and inexpensive computers open up new possibilities in artificial intelligence and teaching/learning. However, as Watts (1997) points out, the technology is only as powerful as the learning theory upon which the system design is based. The challenge for the present project is to design a flexible and "user-friendly" system that maximizes the learning of language and academic content within the constraints imposed by a rapidly-evolving technology. As noted above, the starting point in this design process (self-regulated second language learning using text as input) is very different from that of any current multimedia package which invariably set out to teach a pre-determined range of vocabulary, structures, and functions using a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

The research that relates most directly to the CATSCALLA rationale concerns (a) the relation between reading and language learning, (b) the role of the student’s L1 and particularly access to L1 dictionary support in L2 reading. Research on these two areas is considered below.

 Nation and Coady (1988), in reviewing research on the relationship between vocabulary and reading point out that "vocabulary difficulty has consistently been found to be the most significant predictor of overall readability". Once the effect of vocabulary difficulty (usually estimated by word frequency and/or familiarity and word length) is taken into account, other linguistic variables, such as sentence structure, account for little incremental variance in the readability of a text. They summarize their review as follows: "In general the research leaves us in little doubt about the importance of vocabulary knowledge for reading, and the value of reading as a means of increasing vocabulary" (p. 108). One example of the research demonstrating the extent to which vocabulary can be acquired from context is Nagy, Herman and Anderson’s (1985) demonstration that the probability of learning a word from context after just one exposure is between .10 and .15. As learners read more in their second language, repeated exposure to unfamiliar words will exert an incremental effect on vocabulary learning.

 The power of reading in promoting knowledge of the target language is supported in a wide variety of studies. Elley and Mangubhai (1983), for example, demonstrated that 4^th and 5^th grade students in Fiji exposed to a "book flood" program during their 30 minute daily English (L2) class in which they simply read books either alone or with the guidance of their teacher, performed significantly better after two years than students taught through more traditional methods. Elley (1991) similarly documented the superiority of book-based English language teaching programs among primary school students in a variety of other contexts.

 The importance of time spent reading has also been documented in large-scale international studies of first language reading development. Postlethwaite and Ross (1992) in a large-scale international evaluation of reading achievement in 32 systems of education showed that the amount of time students reported they spent in voluntary reading activities was amongst the strongest predictors (#2) of a school’s overall reading performance. The first ranked indicator was the school’s perception of the degree of parent cooperation. The significance of reading frequency in promoting reading development is also evident from the high rankings of variables such as Amount of reading materials in the school (#8), Having a classroom library (#11), and Frequency of borrowing books from a library (#12). With respect to teaching methods, a focus on Comprehension instruction was ranked #9 and Emphasis on literature was ranked #17, both considerably higher than whether or not the school engaged in explicit Phonics teaching (#41).

 Krashen (1983, in press) has reviewed an extensive body of research demonstrating what he terms "the power of reading" for both L1 and L2 academic language development. One study (Mason & Krashen, 1997) will suffice to illustrate the typical outcome of these studies.

 Working with Japanese university students of English as a foreign language (EFL), Mason and Krashen demonstrated in three experiments that extensive reading in English

In a similar vein, Lightbown (1992) reported that New Brunswick elementary school students learning English as a second language through listening to tape-recorded stories and other material while following the written text with no formal teaching learned at least as much between grades 3 and 6 as did students in a more traditional aural-oral program. Both programs lasted for 30 minutes per day and in the experimental program student autonomy was strictly respected insofar as there was "no teaching, no testing, no probing students’ comprehension" (p. 356).

 While extensive reading alone can result in significant gains in L2 vocabulary and other aspects of L2 competence, there is also evidence that focused vocabulary instruction can enhance learning. Paribakht and Wesche (1997), for example, found that university students learning English as a second language gained from both a Reading Only (RO) treatment where they simply read target language texts and answered comprehension questions related to them and also from a Reading Plus (RP) treatment where they completed a variety of vocabulary exercises related to the texts in addition to reading the texts. The gains for the latter treatment were considerably greater than for the first and in addition the researchers found that students in the Reading Plus treatment gained greater depth of vocabulary than those who just read the texts: "… many learners in the RP treatment seem to have passed the recognition level of target words and to have achieved greater depth in their knowledge of these words" (p. 189). These findings are consistent with the high ranking of Comprehension instruction in the international survey of reading achievement reported by Postlethwaite and Ross (1992).

 In summary, there is overwhelming evidence that written text can serve as an important source of comprehensible input for the L2 language learning process. Furthermore, focused comprehension instruction can supplement the impact of target language reading. Paribakht and Wesche’s conclusion from their study captures well the emerging consensus of the field:

Opportunities to engage in both acquisition and learning processes are incorporated into the CATSCALLA system and we expect that different learners will use these opportunities in different ways according to their preferred learning strategies, previous learning experiences, and purposes for learning. Because the system is based on self-regulation there is no need to argue for the superiority of one approach over the other in any absolute sense. Thus, the critiques of the acquisition/learning distinction are not applicable to the proposed learning approach since our use of this distinction does not entail any strong theoretical predictions beyond the proposition that there are important differences between focussing on meaning in authentic communicative contexts as compared to studying the formal features of the language outside of authentic communicative contexts. As suggested by the research on mastery of L2 (and L1) vocabulary and reading, it is desirable to incorporate opportunities for learners to engage in both acquisition and learning processes. At the same time, Krashen’s emphasis on the primacy of acquisition appears justified insofar as reading alone can produce significant gains without supplementary instruction whereas instruction of components of language in isolation appears to have very limited potential for most learners.

 Both applied linguists and practitioners have tended to discourage students’ use of bilingual

dictionaries on the grounds that recourse to the L1 will slow students’ internalization of target language forms and appropriate usage. These views continue to reflect the widespread suspicion of the historically dominant grammar-translation method and the relatively uncritical adherence to direct method (or more recently "communicative") principles (see Stern, 1983 for reviews of these approaches). The new orthodoxy claims that the target language should be used exclusively for instructional purposes and recourse to the L1 and translation should be avoided. These perspectives are evident in the following quotations:

Laufer and Kimmel (1997, p. 362) similarly summarize the research by noting the "paradox between the users’ realization, on the one hand, that the monolingual dictionary is more helpful and, on the other hand, their preference for the bilingual dictionary." Their study examined the potential benefits of combining the usefulness of the monolingual dictionary with the usability of the bilingual dictionary. Both monolingual (target language) definitions and L1 dictionary equivalents were presented together and learners’ look-up patterns were examined. They report that the resulting bilingualized dictionary is very effective and compatible with all types of individual preferences. They note that "learners may prefer one language for some words, the other language for other words, sometimes two languages are resorted to" (p. 368).

 Two recent empirical studies compared the use of bilingual dictionaries with learning words from context. Contrary to the assumptions of many applied linguists and practitioners, in both studies dictionary use was found to result in better short-term vocabulary learning. Luppescu and Day (1993) randomly assigned 293 first year Japanese university students learning English as a foreign language to treatment and control groups; the treatment group was permitted to use their bilingual dictionaries while reading a short story while the control group was not permitted dictionary use. Subsequent vocabulary testing immediately after reading the story demonstrated that the students who used a dictionary scored significantly better (by about 50%) than those who did not use a dictionary. The authors conclude that "this evidence strongly goes against our hypothesis that there would be no difference between the two groups, and provides support for the claim that the use of a bilingual dictionary by EFL students while reading can significantly improve indirect or incidental vocabulary learning" (p. 271). However, on the negative side, the dictionary group read the passage much more slowly than the non-dictionary group (88 words per minute versus 156 words per minute). The authors note that there was minimal correlation between time taken to read the passage and test performance so that the superiority of the dictionary group cannot be attributed to the additional time they took to read the passage.

 Prince (1996) also demonstrated the superiority of vocabulary learning under a translation condition as compared to a contextual condition. Forty-eight university students learning English in France were presented with unknown target words either in a L2-L1 paired translation mode or with the target words inserted into sentences with participants instructed to try to guess the meaning of the words from context. Both advanced and weaker learners performed significantly better under the translation condition but weaker learners had difficulty transferring their knowledge into L2 contexts. Prince summarizes the main conclusions as follows: "… the results of the experiment do, in fact, appear to be unequivocal as regards the main conclusions, namely (a) L2 words are easily learned when presented with their translations and (b) this is no guarantee that they will be successfully accessed for use in an L2 context" (p. 488). He suggests that alternative learning strategies that combine the advantages of the two techniques should be explored.

 In the context of the CATSCALLA system, these debates about the relative advantages and disadvantages of contextual learning versus learning from dictionaries are largely irrelevant. Consistent with the research findings reviewed above, provision of both contextual and L1/L2 dictionary (and cognate) supports are seen as appropriate and the expectation is that individual learners will use these supports in different ways that are consistent with their individual learning styles, previous learning experiences, and purposes for reading. Again, this expectation is consistent with the research reviewed above (e.g. Laufer & Kimmel, 1997). The research, however, is important in unequivocally refuting the ill-conceived assumptions of some direct method/communicative advocates that the learners’ L1 is a source of interference and should be banished from the instructional context, whether it is the classroom or computer. 

It is also worth noting that the major problem identified with dictionary use (the time entailed in looking up words and the rupturing of learners’ focus on meaning) is minimized in the CATSCALLA system as a result of the availability of the L1 or L2 semantic information on-line, with the result that it takes seconds rather than minutes to access the meaning.

The major research and theoretical underpinnings of a novel approach to computer-assisted language learning have been discussed. Most current CD-ROM programs employ a didactic approach, using multimedia to teach a predefined set of lexical, grammatical, and phonological information and skills in the target language. By contrast, the CATSCALLA system invites learners and their teachers to import any text in the target language that is of interest or relevance to them and the system provides the built-in scaffolds that enable learners to gain access to the meaning of these texts and to use them as input for language learning. The self-regulated nature of the system encourages learners to use both acquisition and learning processes, broadly defined, according to their preferences. The semantic, grammatical, and phonological resources to facilitate both acquisition and learning (study) processes are built into the system. It is envisaged that in the future, supports for more complex aspects of critical literacy and language awareness will be incorporated.

 With respect to second language acquisition theory and research, the approach is based on the evidence that target language text can serve as a powerful source of authentic L2 input. Thus, the more learners read in the L2, the more they get access to the semantic, grammatical, discourse, and (potentially) phonological properties of the language. However, the approach also endorses the potential usefulness for many learners of an explicit focus on both the formal properties of the target language itself and learning and reading comprehension strategies. These are not useful in isolation but only in the context both of extensive reading of target language text (which they help make comprehensible) and the learner’s autonomy in choosing what linguistic or learning strategy supports are likely to be useful for him or her.

 Finally, the CATSCALLA approach rejects direct method/communicative assumptions regarding the inadvisability of translation and L1 use in second language learning and teaching. Under appropriate conditions, bilingual dictionary use can provide rapid access to the meaning of target language text and eliminate the frustration that derives from attempting unsuccessfully to infer meanings from context. Similarly, thinking in the L1 and using L1 to construct the message and conceptual structure of the target language text can play a useful role in text comprehension at a deep semantic level. This tolerance and encouragement of L1 use within the system is not in any sense an argument against use of contextual cues, which should be very strongly encouraged. Nor is it an argument for translation in any absolute sense – the goal of the system is to maximize the quantity and quality of target language text processing in a wide variety of genres. Translation is simply both efficient and necessary for learners to get access to the meaning of target language text that might be very much beyond their current level of competence in the language. It enables learners to proceed through the text, staying in the target language to the extent that their competence permits. Obviously, the rapidity of access to semantic information (in both L1 and L2) removes one of the major impediments to the efficient use of dictionaries in a non-computer environment.

 In summary, research clearly needs to be carried out to assess the potential of the computer-mediated language learning system described here. My intent has been to map out the theoretical location of the system and its consistency with current research. The claim embedded in the paper is that the system is highly consistent with current theory and research in L2 teaching/learning despite the fact that it departs radically from much current practice and (ill-conceived but influential) theoretical assumptions in both CALL and classroom-based L2 pedagogy.

Andrews, L. (1995). Language exploration & awareness: A resource book for teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Brasche, H.P. (1991). The design of a computer-mediated reading tool for the enhancement of second language reading comprehension through the provision of on-line cues. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Toronto.

 Chamot, A. U. & O’Malley, M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

 Collier, V.P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641.

 Corson, D. (1995). Using English words. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Corson, D. (1998). Language policy across the curriculum. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics,2, 132-149.

 Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

 Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education. 

Cummins, J. (1997). Minority status and schooling in Canada. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 28(3) 411-430.

 Cummins, J. & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

 Elley, W.B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41, 375-411.

 Elley, W.B. & Manghubai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67.

 Fielding, L.G. & Pearson, P.D. (1994). Reading comprehension: what works. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62-68.

 Klesmer, H. (1994). Assessment and teacher perceptions of ESL student achievement. English Quarterly, 26(3), 5-7.

 Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

 Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading. Englewood, CO.: Libraries Unlimited.

 Krashen, S. (in press). The comprehension hypothesis: Recent evidence. English Teachers’ Journal (Israel).

 Laufer, B. & Kimmel, M. (1997). Bilingualised dictionaries: How learners really use them. System, 25, 361-369.

 Lightbown, P.M. (1992). Can they do it themselves? A comprehension-based ESL course for young children. In R. Courchene, J.J. Glidden, J. St. John, & C. Therien (Eds.) Comprehension-based second language teaching. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

 Luppescu, S. & Day, R.R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43, 263-287.

 Mason, B. & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25, 91-102.

 Nagy, W.E. Herman, P.A., & Anderson, R.C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2): 233-253.

 Nation, P. & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.) Vocabulary and language teaching. (97-110). London: Longman.

 Paribakht, T.S. & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (Ed.). Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

 Postlethwaite, T.N. & Ross, K.N. (1992). Effective schools in reading: Implications for educational planners. An exploratory study. The Hague: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

 Pressley, M. & Associates. (1990). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children’s academic performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

 Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 478-493.

 Radwanski, G. (1987). Ontario study of the relevance of education and the issue of drop-outs. Toronto: Ministry of Education.

 Rivers, W.M. (1981). Teaching foreign-language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 Schulz, R.A. (1983). From word to meaning: foreign language reading instruction after the elementary course. The Modern Language Journal, 67, 127-134.

 Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Watt, D.L.E. & Roessingh, H. (1994). Some you win, most you lose: Tracking ESL students’ drop out in high school (1988-1993). English Quarterly, 26(3), 5-7

 Watts, N. (1997). A learner-based design model for interactive multimedia language learning packages. System, 25(1), 1-8.

The Case for Bilingual Education Why Bilingual Education? by Stephen Krashen ERIC® Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation ... read more. How effective is bilingual education?  Elizabeth Howard, Center for Applied Linguistics... read more. Visit James Crawford's Language Policy Web  Possibly the most in-depth bilingual education site on the web. Highlighted ESL Sites and Tools Instant Multi-Language Translator Great tool for the ESL writing workshop classroom.  SETTING EXPECTED GAINS for Non and Limited English Proficient Students Edward De Avila, Ph.D. Mathematics For Students with Learning Disabilities from Language-Minority Backgrounds: Recommendations for Teaching Diane Torres Raborn Rethinking Schools:  Online Urban Educational Journal. Dr. James Cummins is a leader in second language learning and literacy development research. This website is an expanding resource for educators the world over. Top of Page i teach i learn.com © 1999-2003 Educators. Technology. Connected.