Re\.te\\.
Fall
1995.
Mexican American Students
Interaction:
An Overview
n/ Edrtcatrrtnal
l’oi.
Resrarch
62, ,VO 1;. pp
-?~<-?/a
and Classroom
and Critique
Kay IPl. Losey
L’nr\,ersic
Thejaliure
has
been
srrtdenrs
ofL’.S.
well
.Atnerrcan
ihur
classroom
beffer
tnterticrton
rhrouqh
ro srdenr
srandrng
of rhr.r
roptc
room.
tn rile
revtewed
Amerrcan
.-imerrcon
a:tl’e
leurtlolp
and
rhrough
rhe descrtprwe
Ettyirsh-oni),
of-jurrher
crlrlqurd
are
from
a
re\‘tewedsuggesrs
srudetlf
rnwii~emenf
rriiitr~yi~es,
ma\
srudv
secondarv
research
American
IO rhe srudy ofMe.r~can
iangicaqtx use. au& ,7resrnrurfoti
Researchers
siudentr
,Me.rtcatr
The research
,Me.rlcan
ttueresrs.
tnnrnstream.
TOPICS tn need
of
approaches
were/ound.
coiiabor
o/’ srudetlr
related
studies
are
Hill
Mertcan
atwle.
rradirionui
ensure
tnarerlal
srudenrs
rhls
tnreractlon
Four
tnreracrton
can
Jp,prectufion
,;tld
In
Chapel
af
Curol~~a
IO successJrii~~rducare
classroom
perspecr1i.e.
fruchers
ciassroom
schoois
Norrh
documented.
and
Lf’ygorsklan
o/
I~I
accepra~rcr
i!i ciiailrnqrtlg
e:pand
our
o,i .Ilextcan
unu’cr-
Amertcar:
or college-ievei
class-
tdenr$ed.
The failure of U.S. schools IO successfully educate Mexican American’ students
has been well documenred III studies of delayed education. noncompletion of high
school. and nonpersisrence in college. Delayed education for Mexican Americans
IS evident in S~XISIICSfrom 1985 which show that 14% more Mexican Amencan
than White srudenrs were behlnd grade level in the I I th and 12th grades. At the
same tlme. only 1252 of ,Mexlcan Amencans over age 3 had completed high
school. whereas 765 of the resr of [he U.S. population had (Orum, 1986). And jusr
5.5% of rhe Mexican Xmrrlcans tn this age group had completed 1 or more years
of college. while 20% of rhe population
at large had (Arias.
1986). University
retention rates In rhe zrate of Culifomla illustrate the nature of the problem in
hlzhe: educarlon
The cl~ls of 1982 3~the Unlversiry of California. Berkeley. had
five-year
retenrion/sraduarlon
rate> ot’onl)
46% for Chicanos but 77% for Where
studenrs tThomp<on.
I YS7 I. The Callt’omla State Unlverslry system has reporred
rerenrlon raLe\ of 155 tar II\ Chicuno students and 34% for its White students
(Oftic= ot Srucirnr Rc\clrch. IYS.?r
Kunlerouh
rheclrlst
.~[rempr IO c\pialn
rhe low educarlonal
achlevemenr and
arratnmcn[ oi .ilc\liJn
4m<rlc;ln\ in U.S. schools. Some theones focus on the
subordlnale
W[IJ\ OI >tc\lccln
.-\merlcanh as a mmonty group in the United States
(Caner
& SegurJ.
the failure
1’17~). Osbu
ot’ Xlr\~~.m
.!rncrlcdn\
h: lluture-Blanchi.
I\ rhe outcome
3?3
1986).
From
ofeconomlc.
this perspective.
social.
and educa-
ttonal barrters insttruted
and perpetuated by the dominant group in socket!’ in Jn
attempt to mamtain the status quo. Other theories focus on the interacttve nature
of cultures. argutng that minorities resist attempts by the domtnant culture to
socialize
them into roles traditionally
held by their parents and others of their
ethnic background. Such resistance often leads to failure in school and in the
workplace.
and therefore
also serves the ends of the domtnant culture (Gtroux,
1983). ,A third theory also concerns mteractton between cultures but explains
school failure as the result of a cultural mismatch or disconttnuit!,.
Proponents et
thts model argue that mmorities such as .Mextcan Amencans ia11 because they face
different styles of language socializatron at home and at school (Cook-Gumpen
& Gumperz.
198 1: Delgado-Gaitan,
1987: LMichaels. 198 1). Sttil others have
focused on the differentral treatment of minority students by teachers and schools
(Brophy
& Good. 197-I: Oakes. 1985).
These differing theories all have one factor in common: They are 211attempts
to explain the outcomes of schooling-outcomes
that are dec:ded da11~ tn the
cias\room.
However. these explanattons taken alone do little to suezest
hoi\
__
te;icners mrght lower the farlure r;ltes of llrxicsn
.Amencan ittiJ,nt,
In thrl:
cla5sroom>. After riri. it IS In the lnterxtlon
betu,crn brudent 2nd texhe: tha
\tlic:‘sst‘h and farlures are created. The purpose of thus article. thrreiare. IS to
re\‘revb the studies of .Clexican Xmencan student interaction or: the classroom in ar:
attempt to discover how teachers mtght help their students become more successful and how researchers mtght expand our understanding
of this Issue through
addittonal
study
of Mextcan
Amencans
In the classroom.
Theoremal
the
Perspective
The theorettcal perspective driving this critique of studies has its foundatton
Vvgotsktan conceptton of language and learning. From thus perspective,
leamtng
i\ a fundamentally
or more
tndtv iduuls. Vygotsky ( 1978) described the process as follows:
presupposes .I specific social nature and a process by which
learnin:
social
process.
the result
of interacrion
III
ali
between
two
“Human
children
‘Trot< into the intellectual
life of those around them” (p. 88). The social process by
=
which IearnIng occur\ creates a bridge that spans the learner’s “zone of proximal
de~elopmrnt.”
that
determtned
b!
IS. “the
tndependrnt
ment
J\ dctcrmtned
rdtron
N rrh more
distance
between
problem
solving
problem
solving
through
cap~hle
peers”
the actual
developmental
and the level
under
adult
level
of potential
gurdance
as
develop-
or In collabo-
1978. p, 86).
(Vygotsky.
~~‘~ll\ I 1’)s I 1c\ten&d
tht\ notton of learning
through
social interaction
when
he netted th_tt II I\ rhrc)ugh the ne;ottation
of conversational
meantno with others
that one Ic.trn\
n~gott.nton
to IcJrn
hOi\
the Ianyuase
ot <~rn\er\~ttonal
2nd ~1~1 .I nece\\ary
Thcr<:torc.
h~ti~u~c
und~r\t.uldtn:
I[ tjccurs
ILI~I the content
the norm\
.rni
icnnniunit~
I\
\.~luc\
“.I
xpccch. .md rule\
i’)72. p 311
of conversatton
meaning
is both
conditton
for that
through
language.
of a particular
01 the speech communtt):
icmrnuntty
operates:
a major
shartng
tar the rnterpretatton
rules
learning
to take
learning
message.
in which
Collaboration
part of what
in the
the child
place”
involves
has
(p. 26).
more
than
It also involves
grasping
it occurs.
a speech
for the conduct
where
and interpretatton
oiat leasr one lingutsttc
variety”
Of
(Hvmes*
Me.wan
r\t~~r~~at~
ch.~sm,,m
hl~rr~i7~r~ri
Although Vygotsky’s
research rarely considered IearnIng in its naturally occur_
tin: state. such 3~ in school or at home, his findings nevertheless suggest not OnI\
that ieaming is social but ASO that to truly understand its social nature. we muit
study it in context. If we are to gain a greater understanding
of the role of
classroom interaction in the schooling of Mexican Amencan students. we must
recognize. as Vygotsky did. this social nature of learning. In research thts means
considering
the social context in which interaction occurs-from
the factors
directly observable at the site of a given speech event (such as the speakers. the
setttng. the topic. and the language chosen) to less obvious aspects such as the
relatlonshtps between those involved and broader societal and historical factors
that may influence rhose relationships.
In this review I will evaluate the literature on Mexican American interactIon on
the extent to which ICreveals a Vygotskian perspective on language and IearnIng,
that is. on the extent to which it heI% us understand Mexican American classroom
interaction by revealing tt in social context. For a study to reveal a VygOtskian
perspective. it is not necessary that the researcher knew of Vygotsky or intenrionally selected a Vygotskian frame for his or her work: rather. it IS important that [he
method5 emploved allowed the researcher to describe and analyze the soc:ai
nature of leamine at home or in the classroom as accurately as possible. ulrh
careful attention IO attributes of the paniclpants and the conrext. while creaun: ;1~
ltttle
Interference
in rhr
context
3s possible.
of classroom InteractIon is 0’ -.lrticuiar importance in understandin;
the success or failure of ,Mexlcan American students because for them there may
be a \lgnificant difference between (a) the norms and values of language use in the
speech commumtv at home and (b) those in the speech community at school. For
example. one typical and well documented interactional pattern known and expected In the school speech community during instructional speech events (that is,
dunnf “activittes
that are directly governed by the rules or norms for the use
of speech” [Hymen. 1972. p. 521) IS the initiation-response-evaluation
(I-R-E)
exchange (see Cazdcn. 1988. and Mehan, 1979, for further descriptions of this
pattern). This patrern I\ found not only in educarional settings but also in the
home5 of matnstream. mIddIe-clah\ families (Heath. 1983: Wells, 1985).
Whtle I-R-E IS 3 t! p~c;~l mods of instruction in the mainstream school and the
middle-clash
Anglo home. I[ IS not found as frequently in the homes of others.
Inc\udlnf uorklng-cIJ\\
inflos
and rural Blacks (Heath. 1983). Native Xmencans (Erickson 8: ,\loh3tt. I9Y2: PhIlip\. 1972). ethnic Hawaiians (Jordan. 1985).
Inner-clt>
Bl~k !-c)uth I L.tbo\. 19711). Jnd bilingual Chtcanos (Garcia & ~ITXXO.
I 98 I ) Thr conhequrnccx
()I the\e dlffrrent Interactional patterns at home and at
school Jrc‘ \I;nlt.lc:lnt 10r \ludcnt \uc’irh\ In the classroom. Students who come to
school .1lrc3d! fJrntilJr u Irh thz norm\ 2nd values of school discourse have an
ad\antJgc ~l\t’r thtlNc. u hll AI IIOI The! know the discourse appropriate to the
classroom Jnd thcrcttlrc c.~t~ con~cntr~tc on the content of the teacher’s lesson.
wherea\
\tudent\
u ho hJ\c not Ic. ned the typical structure of classroom dlscOur\c: nlu\t Itarn thl\ .J\ \\c’ll _J, rhc cclntcnt of the lesson. a double burden. In
addltlon. \tudcnt\ \Gt,,b JIM.II,~I l.1nlllldr u Ith the discourse of the school may have
$11lir~. IntL*r.lLtin: J\ the trdchcr expects. This difficulty leads to
difficult\
ml5communlc3tl\)n
JI~J i1\~~undJzr~i_mdtng In the classroom. and teachers magi
react nc22tl\cl\
10 ~IuA~nr~ JIICIlIpI~
10 Interact
In a style different from the one
The study
785
LoW\
they expect and prefer (Hull. Rose, Fraser. & Castellano. 1991 J.
]t is important to study classroom interaction also because it IS the medium b!
which teachers express rhetr expectartons for students. It IS in classroom Interaction that differential
treatment of students. particularly on the baste of race.
ethnjcity. and socioeconomic
CI~SS. may be obsemed.
Teachers Interact differently with students they percetve IO be htgh-achievers than wtth those the!, see as
low-achievers. which leads to what has been called the “self-fulfilling
prophet!”
(Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968: Weinstein, 1986). Moreover. perceptions of htgh
and low achievement may be directly or indirectly related to social class. dialect
usage. and ethnictty (Brophy & Good. 1974: Gearing & Epstetn, 1982: K’elis.
I $35; Wilcox. !981).
Ton,ard a Definirlon
of “Mexican
American ”
For the purposes of this article. I am employing the term Mexrcan American 10
drscuss generail!, a _croup whose diversiry must be acknou,ledged and consldered.
Slinchez ( 1983 J has noted that differences exist wIthIn the Mexican Amerlcsn
population on the basis of generatIon (in the Ljmted Stares). nat~\‘~r! t United Stare\
or Mexico). residency (urban or rural). occupation. Income. edtmrlon. and Ian_rua_rechoice (p. 6). Some have lrved rn the L;nlted Stares all of their 1:) es I ;L h\ r
generations before them): others mav be lmmlgrants from .Ltexico Some iomr
from working-class or migrant famll;es: others are from well-to-do. mlddle- and
upper-middle-class
backgrounds.
The language spoken In a Mextcan American home may be Spanish. English.
yet another language. or a combtnarton of languages. Some Mextcan Amencans
speak English and/or Spanish in ways that may be considered by others to be
nonstandard. either for phonological, syntactical. or lexical reasons. In addition. if
rwo languges
are used. it is likely that codeswitching
occurs tn certain contexts.
Some speak Spamsh before learnin g English. some do not speak Spanish at all.
and others learn the fwo languages more or less simultaneously.
Some are literate
in Spantsh. some are not. Some have attended school only in the United States.
u.hereas others have gone to school in Mexico as well (see Valdts. 1988. for
further discussion of these differences).
Whereas some consider themselves Mexican American. others prefer to call
themselves Chicano. Lattno. mextcano. of Mexican descent. Hispanic. or of
Spantsh descent. Each of these labels su,,OOests a significant difference in how
hlexlcan Amencans define themselves and how they wish to be perceived. both
by other hlsxlcun .Americans and by Anslos. as well. The terms carry not only
denotati\,e mrantngs. such as the number of generations of a family that have lived
In the United States. but also connotations about the social and political orientaIIORS
of the bcrdrers.
The dIverhIt> that exlhts among the people commonly called “Mexican American” cannot be underestimated.
part~ularl~
in inrerpreting research about this
group. In an attempt to malntain the integrity of research findings. I will use the
term5 u.\rd by the researchers themselves to describe the group or groups studied.
although the>e term\ ma!’ be less specific than desired. Elsewhere. I will use the
term I\lc.urc~rtr .-imcricarr. largely because of its descriptive nature and relativeI>
apnlir~c~~l
connotation.
IX6
After conducting an ERIC search of the literature on Mexican Americans and
the classroom. I selected those srudles for review that included the actuai obser_
vatIon of interaction between mothers and their children or between [eachers and
rhelr students. These srudies take four distinct approaches to the study ofhlexlcan
Amencan interaction: (a) attemptlng to prove the cuhurai mlsmarch theory through
the studv of interaction at home or at school. (b) analyzmg classroom interactlon
so as to illustrate the differential treatment of Mexican American students. by way
of quanrlratlve analyses of large-scaie observations
or fine-framed
analyses of
case studies. (cj attempting to describe patterns of language use among bihnguals.
with parttcular focus on their use of codeswitchmg and the conditions under which
codesu,rtchlng occurs rn the classroom. and (d) describing classrooms. reachers.
and programs that pro\clde for effective schooling of Mexican Amencans as
proven by srudent success. The studtes were conducted III a va.nery of differen:
cnvlronments.
from mainstream classrooms to maintenance
billnfuai educa:lon
programs. and the InteractIon srudled took place in Spanish. Enghsh. or in borh
ian:uages. I have nor Included (a~ studies of hlexlcan American
lnterxtiofi
in rhe
home that did nor consider II) relarlonshlp to school interaction. ib) studies of
codeswlrchln: that did not use data from the classroom. and (cl studies that did not
speclflcall!, Identify their populations by one of ihe many terms more or less
synonymous with Mexican Amerrcan.
I have llmired my overview to research with Mexican American participants
only. Not only are they the largest Hlspanic group in the United States (8.7 million
tn 1980. or roughly 60% of the Hispanic population: Bean Br Tienda. 1987), their
hlstoncal. social. and cultural situation differs from that of other Hispanic groups
In the Ljnited States and has led to a unique educatlonal history that continues to
Influence their educatlonal situation today (see. for example. San Miguel. 1987;
1978). Moreover. there are linguistic differences
Weinberg
1977: Wollenberg,
among Hispanic populatlons that also suggest the need to consider their cases
separately (Sdnchez. 1963: Peklosa.
1980).
The purpose of this review. therefore. is to discover what has been learned
about the Interaction of Mexican Americans in the classroom on the basis of
research done both In the home and at school. A thorough examination
and
inregratlon of the<e findings ma! lead to a greater understanding
of how to help
Mexican American hrudents succeed in the classroom. Moreover. this review will
critique studies tram LIV! p~slr~;ln
perspective on language and learning in order
to gain an underhrandlng of hou successfully the research reviewed examines and
explain\ kleslcan Amencan lnrrraction in context. From this critique will come
approprlale dlrecrion\ tar neu re\carch in the fleid.
In our attempr> IU better understand and thereby serve Mexican American
student>. II IS Important that wx do not reduce our understanding
to a cultural
stereotype appltcd I\ lthout conhlderatlon of the needs of the individual student.
That would be little dlffercnr from Ignorant prejudice. The purpose of this iiterature revlru IC tn tinllshren and inform so as to Increase the awareness and
287
sensttivit\
of teachers and researchers.
Cultural
not
to
limit
1t tn
any
ua!
>Iismatch
Inrroducriou
Studies reponed I” this section all approach the issue of ,Mexlcan Amencan
classroom interaction from the perspective of the cultural mismatch or cultural
discontinuities
hypothesis. although they do not necessarily call tt such. The!
attempt to either prove or disprove the theory that the culture of the school. uhlch
is based primarily upon that of the White mlddie class. is different from the culture
of the homes of these students. The focus of these studies is on differences in the
home and school ways of speaking and interacting, in terms of both the content
and the structure of those interactions. Some of these studies look oniv at !hc
mother and child Interaction and m&e hyporheses regarding school success basrd
on the findings; others look only at the inreracuon of teachers and students x~d
make
hypotheses
about
the home
environment.
There
are numerous
other
\xnA-
110”s on rhese research designs. but what the’ all have In common IS their att~~mpr
to find differences between the home and school modes of rnrerxtton.
and to l~ni;
them
to school
success
or failure.
These
studies
generally
arye
that
teachers
should have a greater awareness of cultural differences among their students III
order to help them succeed in school.
Findings from these studies su,,uoest that there may be some basis for the
argument that cultural differences in interactIona styles exist between the homes
of some IMexican Americans and mainstream schools, However. because of the
vast differences in th:: linguistic and social circumstances of Mexican Americans,
generalizarions to this effect musf be made with caution. In addition. because of
differences tn data collection. analysis, and descriptions of populations in these
studie5. conclusions
must be tentative.
~Man~ of these studies do not collect or analyze data from real-life interactIons
I” actual \rttin_rs. Rather. they provide experimental tasks or topics for motherchlid trachlns and often study this interactlon in a special lab setting. Sometimes
author\ do not dezcrlbe the setting of the study at all. Of course. presenting
.subJrcr< *.lth Ihe s;lmc: tasks in the same sertmg has Its purpose in sllmmatlnE
variable\: howe\,er. If we consider these studies in light of the Vysotskian finding
that Iearnln_c occurs through social interacnon, we find that it IS imponant to
examine real-life IearnIng Tituations in order to understand the cultural differences
in ln[cractlon xurroundln;
teaching and learning.
In interaction.
where conte.‘ct is
so cruuc1a1. \ arlable\ \uch as setting and content of interaction cannot be considered 3~ c\rruneclu\
or unknown. In fact. according to interactional theory. the vefl
contcnl 01 .tn Inlcr:lcllon can determine in part its structure. as can its setting and
II\ p;~n~~~p.~nt~
Thcrclore. by limiting the Interaction to mother and child. to 3
pre~<l~ircd top~i. .~rid to LIspecific location. one loses a sense of the real mterac’
tlon
01 Ill< h WIT
.A n~~rnh~r
(11 rhctc ~~ucf~e:s also use rating scales either to record observations
Of
10 m~‘;(\ur~ Ic;l<hcr clr Nrudenr atritudes. beliefs. and preferences about interacl@‘.
Though Ihzxc \CLIIC\ help researchers to discover some beliefs of the parucipant’
and 10 L.~NI~Ihchu\ Ior\. they limit the range of behaviors char can be observed and
ltmtt the rxlgtIII rc\ponse>
to given questions
by providing the answers @
‘XS
f+fe*mn
Amencan
Clas.Ir,,,,,7,
/,,,fru‘
,,,,,,
informants.
Furthermore. interpretin ? self-repon data IS always a matter of con_
tern. patt~cuiarly when the data deal with such sensitive issues as race and
ethnicity.
Some researchers do not fully describe the populations studied. in term5 of
either language spoken or social srtuation. The reader cannot be sure of anY
generalizations
made from the findings of such studies. In addition. thouzh 3
number of studies focus on the influence of education and/or socta] class on
interactional styles within the Mexican American cultures, other studies do not
attempt to even desctibe the social class of their participants. Such differences are
rmponant. however. if we are to come fo a complete understanding of the roles of
culture. class. and education in the interaction of Mexican American students,
Finally, studies of home-school differences have been restricted to youn: chlldren. which leaves researchers to guess at the role of home interactional patterns
for older
students.
Mlsma:ch
Studies:
Mother-Chiid
lnleracrion
Several studtes have found that for some Mexican
differences
bet\bern
the mother-chtld
teachtng
strxe:tes
Americans
employed
there
ma>’ be
at home
and
Fo, _.~~mple. several studres haie
found that as elthrr the educational
level or the soctoeconomic
level of .Meatcan
Amencan mothers Increases. so does their use of the I-R-E interactanal
style
found in mtddle-ciass schools.
Laosa ( 198 1. 1983-J studied 43 Chicano women. 40 Anglo women. and their 5
year-old children in the Los Angeles area. He selected the participants to be as
“representattve
as possible” of Angles and Chicanos in the United States with
respect to educatronal and occupational levels. He asked the Anglo and Chicano
mothers to teach the same skill to their children and found that “the higher the
mother’s level oi education. the more she used inquiry and praise as teaching
strateptes. The lower the mother’s level of formal education
. . the more she used
modeling as a teachtng straregy” ( I98 I. p. 153). Finishing the 1lth grade seemed
to be the stgntficant educattonal factor in a Chicano mother’s use of inquiry and
pratse more frequently than modeling. Laosa noted thar inquiry and praise are
technrques typ~cail! ussd by schoolteachers and clearly reflect the influence ofthe
mother‘s schooltnr
There arc: 31 ie;lit two Important
conclusions that can be drawn from this part of
Laosa‘s I 198 I. 1987) research. First of all. his research reveals that there is more
than one “r~ptcul” tctJchtnz style among Mexican American mothers. Therefore.
we cannot asyurnc’ that Jn tnteracttonal style discovered in one or a few Mexican
hmrrtc;ln fsrntlte\ \\ould nccessanly be t’ound in all IMexican American families.
SecondI!. rhtb rehetirch help\ u> understand how some Mexican Americans may
adapt e;lh~i:. to rhc rnteractlonal patterns of school while others have difficulty.
Unt’orrun~tel!. LJO\;L doe: not state whether parental schooling must occur only
in the U.S. context t’clrthese tindtngs to hold constant.
It I\ tmponzu
to ncjtc thr: nature of the teaching task used in Laosa’s ( 198 I.
19821 study. The: tutuher\ were to teach their children how to make a Tinkertoya
model. Some chtidren m31, h3i.e had previous experience with Tinkertoys’ whereas
others ma! not hd\ e bud \uch exprrtence. In addition. telling a mother “IO teach”
a child “hou to mahe” 2 pantcular shape with the toy could be suggesting an
the teacher-student
strategies
used tn school.
359
_
- 349
-
act~vtty to a parent who might not normally engage m such teaching behavtor.
McGou*an and Johnson (1984) also studted mother-child relationshtps among
Mexican Americans and the children’s eventual academic performance. These
researchers used a variety of psychometric scales to collect and analyze data. The!
videotaped 86 working-class 3-year-olds and their mothers completing five different tasks dunng which the mother was “IO help her child learn from the a\.aiiable
materials”: a children’s book, a set of blocks for sortmg. a set of blocks for
creatq
designs. a “play village,” and “free play” (p. 2 12). One-mmure segments
of the videotapes were rated on three 5-point scales: the mother’s use of reasonmg.
her encouragement
of the child’s verbalizations.
and the level of mother-child
Inreracrlon. These three scales were reasoned to shou, the mother’s “intentional
attempts to promote her child’s cognrtive development”
and served as the “Mother
Srlmuiatlon” unable.
whrch. according 10 the reseruchers. “apparenti!’ promoted
Independent. task-onented classroom behavior” bu: did nor necessarii), Influence
tntelltfence (p. 210).
iMcCouan and Johnson (198:) found that the number of years a mother had
been In school m the Lintted States had powerful dtrect effects on 3-year-olds 2nd
both dtrect and Indirect effects on the classroom and achievement test petformantes of their 7- to 9-year-old children. where classroom performance was
measured by report card grades and by teachers ’ “behavioral ratings” of children
based on then independence,
intelligence. and task-oriented interactional styles.
The authors noted that the mothers wtth more schooling had children who tended
to prefer Engltsh. This preference among the children seems to have helped on the
achievement test scores but not the classroom scores. a findq
that makes sense
because the achievement tests are given only in English.
Unfortunately. no sense of the actual interaction that led to these ratings is made
available tn McGowan and Johnson’s (1984) article. nor is any more detailed
descnptron or definttton of then vanables. Also, the tasks were provided to the
parttctpsnts.
as in Laosa’s (1991( 1992) research, and the use of scales and
Inventones may have limited both the range of teacher reactions to students and
the range of possible maternal behaviors that might have been observed as
promotrng success In the classroom.
In addrtton IO level of educational attainment, language of instruction is a factor
in mother-child interaction styles among Mexican Americans. Steward and Steward ( I971 I tuu_rhr a game to 12 Anglo American (6 middle-class, 6 lower-class).
18 !vle\ican .Amertcan t6 English-speakin E, 6 Spanish-speaking.
6 bilingual). and
12 Chtne\E: .Amerrcan (6 English-speaking.
6 Chinese-speaking)
mothers of 3year-old b(,! \. then ob\erv,ed as the mothers taught the game to their children. The
Spanr\h-\pcaI,rn;
%le\tcan Americans and the Chinese-speaking
(dialect is not
specrl‘rcd I Chtncxe .L\mrricans were filmed in their homes. The others were filmed
rn Jocal ccmmuntt!
centers or schools.
.Ancll! \I\ (11the \ tdeotapes v.as made using predetermined categories at preset
tlmr: Inter\ (II\ t20 \c<cn-tds 1. Steward and Steward ( 1973) found that Anglo American\ prcrv ~dcd the lurgest number of “instructional loops”-a
series of turns much
like the I-K-E e\ch;lngr
found in classrooms-at
the fastest pace, followed by the
Spantth-\pcaktng
Xlctcan American mothers. The bilinpual Mexican American
mother\ pro\ uled the fewest tnstt-ucrional loops and took much longer to complete
each lo(>p thdn an! other _rroup because the!. pro\,ided more corrections and
‘40
Me*lcanAmencan
Classroom
~~~~~~~~~~~~
clanfica~~ons than other mothers. Spamsh-spcakmg
~~~~~~ Amencan mothers
were found 10 use more nonverbal instructions
than any o&er group wh,{e
the
Spanish-English
bilingual mothers provided the leas1 mount of verbd help, And
Mexican
American children were found, to be most likely to *.accept** a task.
whereas Anglo Amencans
were least likely. The Spanish-spe&ng
Mexican
Amencan children asked for the most help or support from thcrr mothers,
Steward and Steward (1973) invoke a variety of explanations to account for the
dtfferenccs between the teachtng patterns of Anglo and Mexican Amencan moth_
crs and then children. They chum that rlthough Mexican American children
acccpr or respond to then mothers’ requests. as would be expected $\,cn (he
authontanan
homes assumed by the researchers. .%iexican Amcncan chridrcn do
nor succeed rn school because of a lack of flexibility They tend to sia> wr:h 2
~rn~ir strategy for accompirshrnc 0 a task. whether I! IS successful or not unfonu_
:13tc!>, rhcre are no da:a In this study that seem fo ei:hcr suppon or den!, this c]alrn.
In addltlon. they claim that the I’lexrcan Amencan mother sees herself in the rojc
oi moral iru~de rather man ncadcmrc rnstructor. .-?;am. thus conclusron does no:
~~-~I>from the data In this stu(
nppe:~r IO come dir,,,
The srud~cs bk Laosa t 199 I, 1LPI:!I and XlcGou an and Johnson : 1984 I rcv~:ij
tne importance of consrdenng language and soctoeconomtc factors when iookrng
JI the marcmai reachrng srylcs of various cultures. Steward and Steward‘s (1973)
srud!. b> Contras:. looks at socroeconomtc differences only in the Anglo mothers
and focuses instead on language-use
differences m the Chinese and Mexrcan
.kmerlcan mothers. thereby tgnonng
the possibiltty of class differences or lan;uazc drffcrenccs I” the mrnonry mothers as possible explanations
for their
findIngs. in addrtron. researchers I” this study, like the others presented SO far in
thrs sectron~ present a rask to the mothers and tell them to “teach” their children.
FInall>, Steward and Srcuard
also use a series of preset categories in their analysis
of the data. thereby rncreasrnz the possibility that new trends in the data will not
be norlccd or accounted for.
Slmllariy.
Garcia and Carrasco i I98 I ) analyzed recordings of the English and
Spanish Instructtonal discourse of btlingual Chicano mothers and their children.
Four mother-child dyads comprised of mothers informally assessed as balanced
britnguals and children assessed as English-dominant
were selected from a coopcratr\sc bilingual preschool program where the mothers served as instructors (see
also Garcia. 1983). The recordings took place in an experimental room at the
preschool where the mothers were asked to speak either in Spanish only or in
English only. usIns a circus picture as a sttmulus for the “lesson” (p. 152).
Garcia and Carra\cc~ ( I YS I I anal! zcd SIX 1. -minute sessions per dyad (three in
English and three In Sp;lni\hl
u\~ns a modified
I-R-E model: mother initiationchlid repI!-mother
rrpl! Thr! tc)und that the most frequent pattern of interaction
rn Spanr\h cl~\el\ t~ll~l\\ed the model often found in mainstream classroomsnamei!. mother ~IICII\. child rc\ponds. and mother evaluates the child’s response
tn one u a! or another HOU t’\ cr. the most common pattern of English interaction
among the\c bilrngu~l~ \\.I\ 11L.cthat of ordtnary conversation: mother elicitation,
child rcpl! mc)thcr tll~rt;ltlon. chrld reply. ucith no evaluation turn.
The dlft~rcn~r h~~~ccn the rntrmction patterns used in the two languages was
explained a, the rc\utt 01 mc)rhcr\ rctnforcing proper Spanish pronunciation in the
Spanish
>e~,,on\
10 thcrr Enrlr\h-domrnant
children. In English. they were not
LAJJP!
teachlnf vocabulary.
but simply carrying on a conversation about the clrcuj
picture. One dlfficulry with this conclusron. hourever. IS that the rese&rchers u~d
the I-R-E pattern as rhetr defimtlon of instruction. assuming that InstructIon
occurred only in this pattern. If Instruction had occurred in another fashion-for
example. modelin, o-it would not have been recognized as such. The concluston
of the study presumes that the I-R-E pattern described by Mehan ( 19?91 and the
I-R-I-R pattern oi everyday conversation
described by Sacks. Schegloff. and
lefferson c 1973) hold across cultures. The researchers did nol consldcr. ho\+e\‘e:.
what “reaching” mlghr occur differently In English for these mothers. nor did rhc!
consider Ihe educational and occu,par~onal levels of their pan~c~panr>.
.-llthough Garcia and Cmasco
i 198 I) provided the task for their ;~:~;!p~ln~~
the! did no! .U_C~PS:ihar fhe mothers
“teach” their ;;lridren. ,Y;e\,er;n:~!~~,~,w;;?c ,;s
[!,” I?Cf\ iic:t‘ rrl3is 2: :ilr prexhooi and because the rnorhe:s ur:: :zil ;,:.~:r~:~:.
p:irenl~ rhrr-, rile !~?a ~naf me morners “leach” IX;!; have been ;::I;>I:c::;: cr~ct’:~,ri-iod
siiinn1cn
i’:on~ ti,CSe SiUGiC.5 01 ,?.lexrzm
.Arnencan mo~iWr-ch~ld ~nw:;i::ii)r:. \i r i;ir:
rentatl\,ely conclude that there are differences in the tnteractlonai patterns of
,‘vlexlcJn Amencan
and .Anglo .Amencan mothers and rhat rhese yap based on
factors such as the educational attainment of the mothers and the language of
rnreracrron. These conclusions
must be renrative. however. as the \oalidity of the
studies-that
IS. the degree to which they are actually measunng what they claim
IO be measuring-may
be questloned from a Vygotskjan perspecrive. None of
these srudles examined mother-child
interaction In a natural settmg or \vlth a
narural task. Therefore. II cannot be assumed that the interaction observed by the
researchers resembles the authentic interaction between mothers and their children In the home. To rruly understand the social context of learning, one must
examine II as II naturali!, occurs. Otherwise one learns only about interaction as II
occurs In the social context of the experiment. Moreover. while some studies have
shown that lnteractlon can vary along such indexes as social class and educational
artamment, other studies do not describe their participants in terms of these
kanables. n,hlch makes I[ impossible to generalize accurately from the results.
Flnall?. some of the researchers describe class, language, or educational differences between the pmlcipants.
but they do not necessarily (with the exception of
Laosa) use these differences to help explain the results of their studies or draw
conclu\lon\
from them.
,111YI~IQIC/ISr~tdies: Teacher-Sruderlf
lnreracrlorl
The ktudle\ rr\ I~U ed In this sectIon describe the interaction of Mexican American children in the classroom and attempt to explain it in terms of differences
berttern the home and school cultures. Several of these studies have found that
there I\ ;I difference
between the home Interaction patterns of many Mexican
.Amerlcanh. \r.hich could be described as cooperative. and the prevalent interactional pattern in mainstream
classrooms. which is competitive. Unfortunately,
mo\t 01’lhevz srudles. u,hile iniormatlve about the school context. fail to examine
the home< oi the hlexlcan American students studied: nonetheless. they draw
conclu\lc)n\ ahour those homes.
7Q2
hfcxfcai: Ammar:
ClaSsruc,m /nlprot,,ol:
McClure ( 1976) studied three teachers. one teacher’s aide, and 70 students__15
hjexlcan Amencan and 35 Anglo American hndcrga.rtners and firs1 graders_rn
the bilingual and mainstream classrooms of a rural Mrdwestem communrty, Tape
recordmgs, field notes. and quantifications
of teacher-student
interactions were
collected dunng the 2 years of this project. McClure found differences in how
Mexrcan American and Anglo Amencan students interacted in maInstream class_
rooms. Under normal wcumstances.
the Mexican Amencan students asked as
many questrons as, and sometrmes more questions than. the Anglo Amencan
students in their mamstream classes. But the Mexican Amencan students were
unwillrng to ask questions of guest speakers who came to visit In the marnstream
classrooms. Interestrngly. the Mcx~can American students were more likely IO ask
questrons of visrrors m the bihngual classroom than In the mainstream ciass.
.A related rnteractronal difference was in the frequency u,tth h,h)ch !vlexrcan
.amencan and Anglo Amencan
students addressed comments to the :eachrr
Jlexrcan .Amencan students were at the bottom range of frequent!, for d:rrcrlng
comments toward the teachers but at the middle (In krnderganen~ or upper !rn itrs:
grade) range for asicIng questions oi their teachers. Anglo XXIXICXI SIUCI~~~S ~C:D
much more Irkel!’ to direct comments than questrons al therr teachers. XlcClure
/ 197s) concludes that Mexican American student Initiations seemed “rnatni!~
drrected toward obtarnrng gurdance” (p, 43).
Mexrcan Amencan kmdereartners in mamstream classrooms did not respond to
teacher questrons approxrmately 50% of the trme whereas AnFio Amencan kmdergartners failed to respond only 15% of the time. even though teachers asked
nearly the same number of questrons of their Mexican American students as they
drd of therr Anglo American students. The Mexican American children were more
likely to respond to their bilmgual teacher: they failed to answer her only 17% of
the trme. By first grade, Mexican American children in mainstream classrooms
were found to answer “almost all questions directed at them” (McClure. 1978. p.
43). Mexican Amencans were also found to volunteer to answer questions less
frequently and join in choral responses “belatedly and/or more quietly” than the
Anglo Amencan students in marnstream classrooms; however, in bilingual classes
“the children responded enthusiastrcally
to general questions in unison and indi\,)dually” (p. 43).
McClure’s ( 1978) study suggests that Mexican American students interact
much like Anglo Amencan students when they are in the context of a bilingual
classroom, u+here they apparently feel more at ease, but are more reserved in their
interactions m the regular classroom. where they respond only when spoken to.
rnrtrate only to ask academically
oriented questions of the teacher. and fail to
v,oIunteer responses or make other types of comments or questions. It is interesting
to note here that the btlrngual teacher was Anglo. although her aide was Mexican
.Amencan Because the hlesrcan Amencan children seemed to interact much like
Anglo students u hen they were separated from them in bilingual classes, it is
unclear If the tnteracrronal differences noted by McClure can be attributed to
cultural differences rn rnteractronal styles per se. Other factors in cross-cultural
rnreracrton ma!’ be at vv.ork here. such as attitudes toward other ethnicities and
perceived power drfl’erences. Also. there is no clear description of the socioeconomrc level of the srudenrs or the educational backgrounds of the parents.
Another study of the classroom interaction of Mexican American students
393
found
both
the tendency
10 be less vocal
and the tendenc!
( 1983) studied
Mexrcan
Amencan
poned
reachers)
such a~ frustrarron.
and
b) rherr
concluded
problem
lors
thar
of
\‘ar-ytns
I[ 15 not
knoum
In
In [he L;nlred
“rn!cranI
i fotind
,.
ip~~uous.
group.
with
se\‘ere
t; u ~rii
rhe
Bliingua!
although
came
!o me Unried
ar least
one parenr
b\
-
beha\
3 ihrough
measured
r<-
[he child’s
a~ ihe classroom
Grades
(as
ia\
a\,ordance.
i u’ere born and :a~sed In hlex~co.
and ieil
The
classified
rended
[erm
in this
Sraies. and 6 u ere born ~13
bum
In hlex~cc
s:ticlent<
different
,411 of [ht‘
N<:C
zI;li~:!it’i:
from
were
racism
home
and
studied.
“composirlon
con\:r~ric~n.
l3ngua:e
Truebd
“Children’s
and
that
under
proresr”
attnude
who
youp
were
the other IWO were
one monolingual
revsealed a high
tone
of
the
level
to rhe coping
Trueba
mechanisms
found
of parucipanrs.
Interactron.
or time
of dlscomforr.
which
that students
appeared
subject
of da!‘”
ip.
fear.
from
Interactron
lnherenr
to
of rhe
anxiety.
stem
are nor necessaril!’
of oven
ihat I[ was a combrnsrron
is. therr behavior
group
are responses
TIC l-they
led
contexrs-that
of the
manifestations
mal~dlu~tmenr
peer\.
personnel
He concluded
of these srudents.
lor In different
ot
of the
and all but
in this
Spanish,
racism
beha\
IJCIUII\.
boys
students
five
dormnant.
and migrant.
school
IO rhr
e\pre\\ton\
three
patterns
be a redcilLrn
no[r’\.
All
an aggressive
One was monoilnyal
In the schools
\oclalizatron
rhelr
The
j[u-
schooi\cork
brlln~ual.
In the InteractIonal
modllird
levels.
parucrpauon
with
[hose
their
mos[ successful
Spamsh
“selective
Spanish-En_rj~sh
ulth.
ofthe
?:I‘
:II;:>:$-
four13 10 be :rl !nlk
IO ckcnbe
u\eo
performance
One was Mexican
.Amencans.
v.?:e
obsessed
students
I 1983) Infer\ mews wtth school
Trueha.
and coven
was
hIiid!cii[.,
untie:
cnno!~ced.
or b~i~nsuai
bilrngral.
Finally.
ihf!SC
e nzr-!ic;pa!:i)rl
studrnrz
the behaviors
those
in
;c::i:::
ICU s. Truer:,.
IK;~:\
“IC :t‘m.~!n
Spanish
and defensive.
each other.
and the other
revealed
preferred
academic
manner
;:2is:3oz:>.
WX::ST
;Ind “seiec:t\
to. or even
low
mrgrant.
Sl;i~dr:!!b'
“:2313dluscmcn!5”
“o\,erpanlclpa:ion”
d~srupr~\e
Klexlcan
ine
ioiiectec
‘p. SO51 Five
used IO descnbe
IO become
Engilsh.
of
monolrngual
only
31~0 classified
nonmlgranr
types
they mlmlcked
bur achreved
u’as a category
ens ant
IO be dedicated
IO Trueba.
one were
di:iOT, ,:;
ie:
aione”
of them
u,ho appeared
students
OhSe?
“unaerpJnlclpated”
one
studcnis.
,Accordln_r
other.
students
En_rilsh
and
rhe more
looked
and 2 of rhe ,%le\crc:rn .4menz2i:
Drirnar!
who
bur
In rhe class
of
and
“o\‘er~)an~c~pat~ori.”
~kolaied
ail
mrgrant
quite
Spanish
ciassroom
rhrer
.’ Students
denrs
Amencan
(1: panlZ;?:!ll:
Judioraped
‘unde~~n~c~pailon.”
let:
Mexican
Srares
studenrs
monih5
hr
i l9F.T
parenrs.
” Truck
probicms
aggrcssjon.
anxret!.
the
IO “act-out
“adjuslmeni”
I). Trueba
(p. -II
ismliles
with
”
5
\J :IIC~
ltrerate
13 chrldren.
Of the
urhen their
,SZcxjcan-born
in
and
proficlencles
Measure).
less
10 school”
13 Mexican
Syntax
raised
“the
In adjusrrng
students
406).
or other
u-ith
In the children”
ip.
4061.
Trurh;i
one‘\
I I YS7 J concluded
parrnr\.
\~h~~ol-----rh~~
in school\
school-1)
the
more
I\. ;I\ dr~iirt~
In dddltlon.
pr XII\
h! a rrtdcher
en\ lrc,nmcnr\
rhat rhe more
likeI>,
well
one
with
the more
for
ltterate
(elrher
IO be
perceived
the unique
able
111e\ and behavior.
or Lrurhrd
u’as
21 h! a peer. Bur man!’
iiudenth
u.ho
did
not
for behavior
and the more
students
teachers
to
found
familiar
ulth
were to be sanctioned
and peers created
ha1.e the ad\,anrage
0
YY
or English)
as well-adjusted
expectarlons
Ilngursrrcall~
the less likely
In Spamsh
stressfui
of socrailza[lon
31
home [ha{
would
prepare
[hem
(0 deal
ulth
[he expectat,ons
of school,
Ijnfonunalely.
Trueba
(1983)
does not repon actually
enrenng [he home\ of
any of these children.
so hts conclus,ons
about parenml ~~~~~~~~levels 3re based
on teacher
repon.
school
and studies
thar have
rhar
from
come
According
families
to Trueba.
conceprs”
records
shown
with
h,gh
students
and are taught
assumed
Ihat migranr
abour
the home
soc,aljzat,on
that the best-adjusted
hlerac)
srudenrs
levels.
such famlhes
from
“school
Mex,can
behawor”
were
in
Engi,sh
are [ho5e
or ln Spanish,
have ways of*~organlzlnf
m the home
from
of these s,udenrs.
Amencans
less literate
buslc
(p. 3 101. He apparenrlL
homes.
( 1983). Gumbiner.
Knrght.
and Kagan ( 198 I) studied ihe ,nterac_
[ion of Mexican American students and their teachers. Fifteen th,rd- through fifrh_
Like
rrade
Trueba
reachers
and their
were obsertred
room
ci,mare”
(cohes,on
45 m,nures
_ju~~:,,);l~n;.
Iduai.
in
UJ\
t1i.e.
Or
pret.errrd
b!
compei,r,on.
Studenrs
yr:n::<
0:
cij:
I:x;r‘:;::;_~
::15:IC::!GT
:::j..:
children‘s
bolstered
and _ru,dance.”
studenri.
who
berween
these
h\
to\(~lrd
develop
structure
COODe:3-
whether
Ihe\
~‘a8 measured
were
classroom
Influenced
than
climate
than
,dent,ries”
home
“need
Americans
are Anglo
as a result
env,-
for affil,ar,on
that Mexican
Csibl,ngs)
and lack
The authors
by the children‘s
that has suggested
and
in determln,n_r
self-esreem.
students’
reache:
srudenrs.
significant
children’s
.American
“heparare
more
Amencan
were
However.
and peers
reiai,\el!,
0ne:::s.
COr;l~e:lIl~e.
to show
of Mexican
Amencan
the \lexican
tamli!
re\ex:nr:i
So<;2
Self-esteem
classroom
atrention
based on ?L~>I research
onenred
cod ed 35
self-esrecm.
Anglo
rhar rhe>e ditferences
ronmenl~-part,cularl\,
tnf
cl,mate.
that
as pos,tlve
a[tenl,on
are more
iarc>.
the soc~ai onenratlon
such
wh~ct;
orien:aiion.
or ,ndiv,duailsm.
classroom
.Amer,can
hypothesized
each ciassr~o:,
:a;k. :\:.::‘r.
from
,.i
ant
chose
i 196 I i found
\,anables
:;!\ks
:hree
use of situat,on
as NX
er al.
determIned
of leacher
(P?Children’<
infl,i_
and “dial,_
obsena[,on
‘ii. !I:. :>e mc>de
it/f’-.rsrrcm.
cooperation.
a quesr,onna,re.
that leacher
.!i(\T,;
complc[ed
;hr
b\
~nd,~~,dua!~s~,c.
beha\,,ors
,ori.
cilm;lie.
measurer!
Gumb,ner
\lex,cdn
b-5::\
obsen,ed
3second
studenr\
behavior
vs. cooperar,ve].
researchers
thin>
:‘a r) 1°C amounr~
rhe chlldrcn
siassroom
IiOn
The
and coded
Amencan
and teacher
none
_,dd~t~~r-i.
j-‘--mined
b<C.
and 30 Mexican
snucfures
(comperltlve
VS. fncr,onr.
to an hour
2nd heipi?r
oi
Amencan
c1assroo.n
onenrat,on”
5Iruc:’ tic.< and rh:
;il\rroom
:n31\
how
” social
ence “\elf-esteem.”
for
77 Anglo
to discover
Amencan
of their
smaller
families.
Del_rado-Galtan
tive
c 19S7 I al\0
orlenratlnn\
,n her
ground\.
and ,n rhe clux\room\
famtiies
She ob\er\
play
as uppo~d
found
I X-month
of \e\‘en
cd rhc ,nIeracl,onal
IO rhc,r
in[eracr,c,n
en_ra_red ,n CO~/WII\ r u clri, JI home
Llheu IYC.\hr
~‘a\’ a~ who01
from
thar of rhr
\chocjl
found
Though
reacher\
borh a\\,;nrJ
~J\A,
allowed
10 dec,de
IO c;lrr\
gl\‘en
out
a treat
rhos;
a conflict
stud!
ho\r
IO
rs\pon\,bll,r,ex
.Mex,can
collectwe
children
,n rh? classroom
I-3)
children
at home
and found
was organized
rhe authontv
structure
and school
were
children
alike
Bur ,n ichool.
Delgadka,tan
four
and a~
that the children
in a competitive
different
in that parents
In the Mexican
little
from
of the home
OUI a rask and \t.hen ir should
and relat,vel\
on the p/a!-
(Grades
hur that work
rhe ch,ldren.
and comperl-
in the homes.
zr\,les of Mexican
home
deal of rc\pc>n\,b,l,t\
between
conducted
be done.
d,rect,on
found
and
homes
u’ere
They
were
,n hour to c”
rhar teachers
not
295
only assigned tasks but also controlled how those tasks were carried out-where,
when, with what materials, how loudly, and in what language. Delgado-Cattan
also found differences in the multidimensional
nature of the children’s activtties
in the home and at play. and “limited opportunities
for the development
of
multiple competencies not only cognitively, but social” in school tasks (p. 357).
She noted that the schoolwork she observed in the four classrooms attended by
these children was primarily linear, rote. abstract, individual work. whereas the
children had many more diverse abilities as active learners as a result of then
experiences in the home.
DeJgado-Gaitan‘s
(1987) work represents a significant step forward in the
methods of home-school
culturai mrsmatch studies. She is one of the feu resezchers in rhts field u,ho has actualiy observed and reponed rnteracrton rn bc:h
settings: home and school. In additton, she followed the same children from rbel:
homes to the:r school. so that acrual c/arms sased on emprncsl evidence couid be
made for these chtidren. Unfortunately,
the question of the soctoeconomrc status
of these famiires would need IO be addressed in order to meanlngiully
compare
I>e!rado-Ga~tan’s
study IO other research 111:his area.
s ummcr-.
The research reviewed in this section on cultural mtsmatch In the school
suggests that for some Mexican Amencans,
although not all, there may be
differences In the interacttonal styles of the home and those expected at school.
Some Mexican Amencan mothers and therr children. dependtng on educational
attatnment. language use, and social class, may use interactional patterns different
from the I-R-E style frequently found in schools. Furthermore, whereas compention or tndivtduaiism is the dominant mteracttonal structure in U.S. classrooms (an
orientation encouraged by I-R-E interaction), Mexican American s&dents may
respond differently than Anglo American students to such a structure. Some
research suggests that Mexican American students respond differently solely
because of the cooperattve Interactional style of their home environments, whereas
others find that the soc~ai context of the interaction at school also influences
Mexican American student response to it.
From a Vygotsktan perspective. however, much of this research must be
interpreted with caution. IMany studies fail to fully examine both the home and the
school setttnps. assumtng certain characteristics of one or the other without having
directlx ob\er\ed
them. It is dangerous to make assumptions about the sock
context
of rhc home based on observations
at school and vice versa. Moreover,
these srud~~k r;ltlrc questtons
about certain social factors-for
example.
which are not examined in discussions
of the
wc~o~tm~ml~c~
or rthnrcttvfindIn;\.
FI~LIII!. the studies do not present comparable demographic data on
pxuc~p~nr~.
and
\o generalizations
are difficult to make.
Differential
Treatment
lnrroduc[ion
The ~IU~IC\ rcponed in this section examine Mexican .4mericans and classroom
Interactton tram the perspecttve of differential treatment. In these studies, the
cla5sroor-n Intrractton of .Llextcan Amencan students and their teachers reveals
that Mexican Americans are treated differently from other studenls, Those uho
have found such data maintain that these differences in interaction patterns are
Ultimately detrimental lo Lhe success of Mexican American students because the,
“may reinforce. or even increase inequalities of knowledge and skills” (Caden,
1988, p. 81).
Most of the researchers in this domain see differential treatment as the class_
room outcome of larger instltutional and societal forces. These studies are carried
out in two ways. Some of them are rather large-scale studies of Mexican Amencan
students conducted across a number of classrooms or in a single classroom. while
others are case studies of Individual stud:nts negotiating classroom InteractIon
u,lth their teachers and peers.
Probably the most frequently cited stud?’ of the differential treatmen: oi Mext;~n Amencan
students was pubilshed
In 1973 b>, the U.S. Commission
on Civ11
Rights as part of a large: srudv examlmng InequalIties in hlexican .Arnencan
education and the socletai posltlon of Mexican Amencans. By quantliying behav]ors. the cornmIssIon found a dlspanty In the number of “per pupil InteractIons”
\~.e.. the number of times a panlcular beha\,lor IS directed toward a student of 3
pa~~~cuiar ethnIcit? divided by the number of students of that ethnlclt!, In the
classroom) over several types of teacher interactions with Mexican American and
,~~.nglostudent<. Teachers were found to initiate significantly fewer of the following behaviors with Mexican American students than witi Anglo students: (a)
pralslng and encouragmg.
(b) accepting and/or using students’ ideas, and (c)
questlonlng. The authors of the report noted that these behaviors were all either
noncrltlclzlng or positive teacher Interactions and. therefore, Mexican American
students failed to benefit from positive teacher attention in equal proportions to
Anglo students.
This report (U.S. CornmIssIon on Civil Rights. 1973) also found that Mexican
,Amerlcan students talked slgnlficanrly less in the classroom, both in responding
to and In lnltiatlng InteractIons H,lth the teacher. Though the authors noted that this
reiatlve qlience could be explained to some extent by the influence of Mexican
Amencan cultural values and possible difficulties with or insecurities about the
English language. they argued that the Mexican American students talked less
because of the reachers’ relative lack of attention to them. Certainly this explana“on accounts for the fewer student responses among Mexican Americans. After
~1. teachers asked them 2 1% feuer questions than they asked Anglo students.
11can be argued thur questlonlng may be too threatening to students. especially
if the! come from ;I culture In u hlch such interaction is considered rare. but the
comml\\ion
noted that tczzher qushtlonlnc 0 has been positively correlated with
student dchle\-ement In prr\‘lou t xtudles. The commission concluded,
II IX rhc rr~pc~n~thlllt! 01 the \ihool and the teacher to accept the child as he
cnmrt 10 hchool .mJ 10 (went rhc proyam to his cultural and lingulstlc needs.
Tht, th< \ch~l~4. $11 ltlc Stluth\\e\r ha\,e failed to do. (U.S. Commission on
Cl\11 RIsh[\. I{)-;. p l;r
The report noted
iJ I
Ihc ILICL(11J reie\ ant cumculum.
relevant textbooks.
and
197
other marcrials and (b) the fact that teachers were untrained to incorporate the
expericnccs of Chicano children into clans discussions. According to the repot-t+
these factors contributed to the feeling among these children that school is alien
to them and of little rdeuncc
to their lives. Thus begins a cycle of “lowered
interest, decreased participation, poor academic performance and lowered sclffor this cycle of educational
esteem. . . . The schools bear major responsibility
failure” (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1973. p. 44).
An unexpected finding in this study (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 1973)
was
that Mexican American teachers did not provide any more praise for Mexican
American students than did Anglo teachers. Moreover, they praised Anglo students even more than the Anglo teachers did. Although this finding has been
called into question bccausc of the few Mexican .rimcrican tcachcrs involved in
the study, it may suggesr that cthniciry alone dccs not make one .morc or !css
scnsitivc to the needs, cultural or academic, of students.
Parsons (1965) also found significant diffcrenccs in the trcarmcnt of Mexican
students in his study of a small, agricultural town in central California and its K8 school. Hc found that teachers regularly called on Anglo students to “help”
Mexican students if the Mexican srudents showed any sign of hesitation in
responding to a question. He also found that teachers asked general questions af
the class and allowed class members to shout out answers whenever they thought
of them. However, the Mexican children did not participate in this type of
interaction: only the Anglo students did.
Moreover. Parsons ( 1965) found that homogeneous ability-grouping
practices
across and within classes led to the sc,srcgation of Mexican and Anglo students
because nearly all of the Mexican students were placed in lower-level groups.
Within the classrooms that were informally labeled “Fast American” and “Slow
Mexican” by the teachers. srudents were seated according to their reading or math
groups. As a result of this Ogroupseating. the Anglo students (generally placed in
the higher groups) sat closer to the teacher than the Mexican students, leading to
more formal interactions between the teacher and the Mexican students. Whereas
the Anglo students could carry on informal conversations with the teacher at her
desk. the Mexican students had to raise their hands to do so.
Foley ( 1990) studied a rural town in Texas with demographics and political and
racial divisions similar to those described by Parsons (1965). For 16 months in the
early 1970s. Foley conducted an ethnography that examined not only the educational but also the political and social fabric of the town. He spent 125 hours in
high school classrooms in “North Town” looking at a variety of students from
differing CL\ backgrounds and cthniciries in “practical” and “advanced” classes.
He fwu&
p;lnrculurly on the classrooms of eight teachers that represented a
range 01’ teacher \I! Ie\ and student characteristics.
He found the school highly
tracked. u nh a prcplnderance
of Mcxicanos in the lower track. and teachers with
ncgatt\r ;IIIIIU&\ tttwurd Mcxicanos ranging from misinformation
to outright
prcjudtce. .\l~~rco\~cr. ,Mcxicanos and Angles sat in separate sections of the classroom.
Folc~ t IYYO) kepr field notes of the interaction he observed and held informal
IW x u tth teachers. students. administrators,
and other townspeople.
His
obscnatton\
revealed that teacher-student interaction in this school was charactcrized hy trachen and xtudcnts eneaecd
in “making out games” like worken in a
- _
inten
‘9%
Marcan
Amrrrcnn
Classroom
ln/rroc/tan
factory (p. 1 12). A “m&w2 OUI ga.me”is“tic way that workers co~laboratc u,Ih
each other to make thC work tasks easier. theEby achieving the same or higher pa\,
rates for less work, or the SXne work in less time” (p. 112). S[udcnB a[[,-mptcd 1o
make the academic work teachers wanted them to perform easier and mOre
enjoyable. much a~ workers at their jobs might try make work productlo” mOrr
humane.
The types of “making out games” varied wtth the teaching style and the Social
group of the student initiating the game. According to Foley (1990). there was a
marked “ethnic and class pattern” (p. 221) to these games. with teachers and
students interacting differently depending on these factors. For example. Folev
wrote of one incident in which middle-class Anglo boys sued
a “making o;t
game” that was picked up on by the working-class Mexican0 “vatos.” The vatos
were punished with detention for their misjehavlor whereas the Anglo boys were
not punished because thetr behavior was not interpreted negatlvcly by the teacher
(pp. 1?4- 115). Foley concluded that teachers reinforced and reproduced the
ethnic and class patterns In these “mting
out games” and ultlma:?!! renew :c‘
reproduce the social and cconomtc lncquailtlcs in the communlr!
Lose\ (In press! compared the InteractIon of male and female ~fes~can .Ame:;can and Anglo Amencan community college stuoents in a small IoWn In Cal~iornta. In a two-year microethnography.
the researcher collected audiotapes oi
In about the communtty in
classroom and tutonal mteractton as well as info.
which the program existed. She analyzed the Interaction ustng Mehan‘s ii979) IR-E model and found differences across ethmctty and gender in the classroom.
Though 55% of the students in the class were Mexican Amcncan and the rest
An&lo American, she found that 81% of the student initiations and 81% of the
student responses in the class were camed out by Anglo Amencans. In other
words, the Anglo Americans used twice as much floor time as their numbers in the
classroom would have suggested.
Within the Mexican American cthmc group, a gender analysis of the interaction
revealed that although Mcxlcan American men were very few in number in the
class. they responded one third more often than expected, whereas the Mexican
American women responded one fifth as often as expected. given their numbers
In the classroom. In other words. the relative silence of the Mexican AmCriCam in
the class was actually the silence of women. because the men spoke in percenww
nearing the Anglo Amencan
norm. Losey (in press) found that the Mexican
Amencan women did participate openly in tutorials or when they received social
suppon for interaction in the classroom from peers, tutors. and/or the teacher.
Further. she found that Mcxlcan American women interacted with the teacher by
turning in more untren assignments and revisions than the Mexican American
men.
Losey (In press) concluded that while her study corroborates previous research
that has found Mcxlcan Amencans quiet w &heclassroom rel&vc to their Anglo
Amencan peers. there are lmponant distinctions that need to be made in how the
genders respond and Interact u IthIn these ethnic groups. The traditional sU-t~cWe
of interaction In the classroom. the course conrent, the gender roles. and the
sociocuiturai positron of ,McxIcan Americans in the particular community studied
all contributed to the silenctng of the Mexican Americans in her study.
From the Vygotskian perspective described earlier in this article, the larger
299
socre~~~
~.stin~is also
conducted
( 1990). and Losey
the cl3s4room
Interactron
(in press)
in order
and interaction
obsemation
[hi\ research
requires
charms about
Unlike
srudied
IntervIew>
with
AS lesson
key
school
from
those
uerr
b,htch
conducted
drill-
from
dt\cusstons
were
ltmtts
in these
placed
documenti
her obser\,attons
she conciuded
ci~sro~~m<
left
1r1brilrtgu,i
were
1977).
Engltsh:
was
that the
u;ls
;~LII:~-
First,
therefore,
much
skills,”
than mainstream
more common.
tnteractlons
AgaIn.
:he
In
used
~‘a>.
Second.
sifntficanti~
of the
more
where
concluded
Hispanic
rrachtng.
this
and because
classrooms,
&tiz
between
of
atde.
classrooms.
in Spanish
these classrooms
In a
IJJ ‘blltn_ruai
or the same amount
in regular
lessons
M here
altered
teachers
to the teacher’s
as students
to conduct
prograin<
sl;nlficanti\
the same type of interactton
exercrses
quai~r>
Based upon
Interaction
teacher
“baste
conducted
and collected
and students.
see also Ort~z.
was unable
She ob>en,ed
dtstncts.
students.
nonoltnguai
a qualified
folders.
u err often
tn Spanish.
need to teach
or te;lchtn;
to mA.e
contests
school
personnel.
students
of Angie
students
and ~oorkheet-type
xrudenr
research
successfully.
classrooms.
California
teacher.
Hrspantc
did not receive
the teacher
percetved
and
classroom
mtsmarch
IIS claims
socl;ll
as matnstream
southern
cumulatt\,e
1988;
often
students
because
as well
of teacher-student
c‘!assrooms
of attentton
Foic!
them.
and classroom
oi
of v+avs (Ortrz.
H~spanrc
beru,een
the cultural
to make
of multtple
between
the school,
that Htspanrc
patterns
~3s
consideratton
in several
between
,itfie:rnt
number
close
espenrnces
the norm;li
Like
such 2s thosr
i 1965),
in both the communtty
about the relationship
in the communtry.
plans and student
i~r’:nc tntc:Jctton
She iound
obsenarions
rn both home and school
in bilingual
classrooms
t:\ cl\
Studlet
Plrrsons
classrooms
tnreracrton
~~uc3ttclnA
dtrect
clatms
relarionshtps
riementdr!’
\uch
make
of learmng.
Rr_rhrs ( 1973).
( 1965). Foley (1990). and Losey (in press). all of’ u,hom looked
and the communities
surroundin_g
them. Ort~z i 1988)
Parsons
at Engltsh-only,
context
on Ct\,il
to suppon
that requrres
broad
part of the social
by the U.S. Commissron
teacher-
that this method
students
and then
teach-
ers
In matn\tream
t?Jcher\
\\ere
n;lmes.
torgrtttng
and tatlrn:
\h\
albert
closeness.
e\pl;lrnrd
or hud poor
dt;)erencz
to call
students
on students
to tnciude
Hispamc
that 2 Hrspantc
Engltrh
hct\\trn
skills
Hl,parnc
between
differentlv.
child
Ontz
students
Hispanic
There
and of Interaction
out or ktn_cle out Hispanic
;1loud.
otten
InteractIons
Ilmrred.
ot ph! sd
contact.
leave
classrooms.
;iko
in general.
by forgetting
when
everyone
children
tn bilingual
Teachers
was given
upon
notes
and then
of rye
tended
or mispronouncing
in groups
u’as not called
(1988)
students
Was an avoidance
a chance
and teams.
because
one si_enificant
classrooms
The
to
student
to read
teacher
he or she was
interactional
and those
in tradi-
rtcrn.tl il;l~~fo~~ni~
This /atlcr
/Hr\p;ln~c
itudents
tn matnstream
classrooms]
have learned to
rc\pund to the teacher dtrectly in a clear. concise way and ask
IhJl rhc tcdchrr
IOCA at rhem Srudents in the bilingual classrooms may lower
th~lr hc.ldx. looi, ;)\\a!
md rn some mstances giggle. (p. 79)
JddrO\
Student\
Jnd
\I ho \<ere
t~~uncl In htltnrual
placed
cirt\\rooms
tnto
marnstream
sere
often
classes
judged
with
the
negattvely
interactronal
by
their
style
teachers.
Me.r~co~Amerrcon Ciossrnom
/nrrrur:~r~l:
while 11 may seemthat learning to Interact with leachers ,n the dlrec[
described above would lead to better relations htwccn teachers and
students. 015~ found this ~2s not necessarily
the case. Instead, straifhtfonvard
beha!,lors such a~ eye contact and the lnitiatron of interactjons w,th teachers bv
Mexican American students were inrcrpreted In manstream classrooms as 3. s,F”
of arrogance. particularly in Hispanic females. These students were therefore *n an
lnteractlonal Catch-22 of sons.
Like Onlz (1988). Townsend and Zamora (1975) examined the lnleracllon of
teachers, reachers’ aldes. and bilingual students. They repon the results of ;i z_veA_
study in San Antonlo that illustrate how the interactional behaviors of teachers
differ from those of teachers’ assistants, u,hlch may result in dlfferentlal treatmcn!
of Spanish-English
blIln@
students. Townsend and Zamora Compared the ver_
bal and nonverbal patterns of Interaction of 56 bilingual Ieachers and ass1s~3,~~~,
(53 of uhom were hlexlcan Amenc3n) a~ an earl!, childhood cen[eT s-nl~f 7. ;i:Ic
~-year-old Xiexlcan .?,mencan children. Obse~arions
oi approxlmna~ei~ 10 ml,,_
ures in length occurred ai four different rimes (two l*isirs 10 coliec: lnte:ac:io~z~
data I:: Eniii\h and [SO \‘ISI!S for Spanish). Dunn; :he obser\atlons.
\ r:ba! 23;
noni em31 heha\-lors u’ere codrd according to rhe S!,slem for Codlnf lnre:ac:lo~s
u~rh ,\lul:lpie Phases. or SCI.\IP. desIgned b> Townsend \s~lt To~~serrd. !‘3;i,.
for a detalied dIscussIon of thus svsreml.
Tou nsend and Zamora i 19’5 j round “sl,gnlficanr differences.” both \,erbai ani;
nonverbal. between rhe beha\,lors of teachers and the behaviors of asslstan[s.
Verball>. reachers gave more praise. acceptance. and encouragement.
and the!
JIlou,ed for more studenr response than their assIstants. ln contrast. the assistants
[ended IO use more “teacher-talk” techniques, such as the lecture. h;onverbally,
assls[an[s ensaged In more nesatlve behaviors than teachers-for
example. head
noddIn: 10 shou, dlsazreemenr wlrh a student response and the use of the eyes to
five stem looks.
ljnl~he mosr dlfferenrlai rresrment studies. Laosa (1977) looked at language
domrnance. as ueli as ethnIcIt>. as a factor In interaction between teachers and
their hlexlcan .+,merlcan srudcn:s. He studled 13 elementary classrooms (8 kinderzarten and 6 second grade) In a Los Angeles-area
school district where approxlmarel! [MO rhlrds of rhe studenrs in each class were Mexican American. All of the
p+=pttwo. who were Mexican American. Srudents
teachers studied were Anglo ex,_
were ciasslfied as either En_rilsh- or Spanish-dominant
based on the Cmow Test
for AudIroT Cornprehenslon of Language: EnglisNSpanish. Students were matched
on the basis of gender. occuparlonal
status of the household.
and achlevemenr
levels tdetermlned through srandardized tests). Then threesomes were created in
the folloulnz
manner’ one .~nglo. English-dominant:
one Mexican American.
En_cIlsh-domlnan:. and one \le\lcan
Amencan. Spanish-dominan!.
In Llnderfansn.
.-tnglo \\udents made verbal attempts to _eain the teacher’s
attention rno\[ trequenrl!
tollnu,ed b!, English-dominant
Mexican American
students. Spanl\h-domlnclnt
,5lr\lcan Amencans were the least likely 10 atlempt to
_raln the teacher’\ 3ftentlon \rrhall~. In second grade. English-dominant
Angles
and Jle\lcan .\merlcdn\
made lewer \*erbal attempts to gain the teacher’s attentlon. u hlle Spani\h-dominant
Mexican students made more attempts. However,
second-srade
Spanl\h-domlnani
Mexican Amencans received more disapproval
from their reJ!chers than rhe others. Moreover. Anglo and English-dommant
Moreover.
manner
301
L_l,rr i
hlexlcan
American
mation
than their
concluded
from
decreaslnf
second
these
!t could
could
American
also
teacher.
iois-.
.Accordlnz
or language
h:ehe;-le\rl
n3ture.
qur\:lon<
enihus~astic~ll~
10 ~11\u’er
student5
group
In
the
\ocdbular\
word\
lor
20 mlnutei
of the Ie:\on
i minutes.
Although
students
personally
11 the!
attempted
\L lrh the word
DIAL
The!
iLloil.
ered
rhlrdSan
trdchir,
readers
the
were
asked
only
rlcnl~fit~~
Through
En;li\h
scnooi.
;In JnJl!,sr\
tedchcr
hdd
tn the ILINC\I
\\a\
hA\cd
r;llh<r
th.lrl
rcddln:
(111 1112 p.1~~‘. tt~
In*: rhc
\\ctrclx
readlnl:
The .lulh~~r.
~LWJII (II
tea~nr::
more
opnc:nt,-
She iound
l/i,:;
:3:hec
thei:
3x2
::3nL!i
on tt::‘ same one or [UC
tne
low
vocabuiaq
factual
about
groups
drill
lasted
questions
on
how
they
the main
point
would
oni),
the
ha\,e
students
of a text.
work
for
about
in a text, In contrast.
about
the
Students
In
and
was marked
group.
to
krudents
archer
This
were
error
measure
they
did
treatment
one
had two
language
students’
reading
in pronounc-
not
understand
occurred
becomes
discovadvanced
in assessment
use of oral
had some difficulty
assumed
LI~OUI hou
who
teacher‘s
iomprehrnslon
in their
they
the researchers
students
readins
Enrlish
program
videotaped
class. for which
many
classrooms.
education
were
of the i,ldeotapes.
L~~IIL.IuJL~L thdr dlt lerentiai
Illl\illlJir\t.:licll(l..\
m biilngual
In a bilingual
reading
placed
Engll5h
on
students
<ru>ents
ab1111\. BCCLIUW IIIC .\~.lni\ll-J~llllln;inr
rhc
to ante
to wnte
lour:h-grade
utxlil~~-
proltctrnc\
however.
i iYX(-rl ~180 \rudled
-rid
D~r;c)
in SpJnl\h
01. student
group:
she drilled
was also given
L-IJ~\ 2nd III rhclr Eng!lsh
readin:
that
rroup
pt’r\ onAil>, IO the text. their wntten
Il~n~n
and
In a southern
dltt’ercnt
TV\’ the::
tne tb’pes of ~n!e::j,-
Jo~CI~IY
obher\,ed
Sp;lnl\h
group.
group
a\!,ed
IL) rc\pond
of a group
to :!ICI\C o: r? ilie:.!;
called
addltlon.
~roupln~.
. =
u.t-10 had been dl\ Ided
f:ou;x\
in rhe iou
:he :eacher
In
in the hlzh
v.c:e
graders
llmlted
If the\, had been characters
group\
abilitv
IS manures and left them IO rend Indivlduall>,
of
group
responded
rhe lvu-level
questions.
the high
rn rhts
were
hlexiccln
of differ-
ins:ructlon
:,han the IOU ;r<,:J::h
ali 01 the 5:udenis
3 tool
ilterac!
ga\‘e :’ P high
e \KIIIL
Amencan
a bilingual
not as a result
readins
each group.
repeatedi!.
apath!,
or
of homogeneous
second
atiou~ the text
2nd ~l:hou_rh
occurred
nlgn-level
co:ntt~\
and
of Spanish-
of hlexlcan
u-tth
t i Qk’9i. the reacher. througil
IC er:!?ace In with
in the IOU group\.
text.
an 1 [No
dlscouragcment
the careers
treatment
the Spanish
Xmencan
Injor-
( I 977)
L_aosa
artentron-seekIn
classroom
but as a result
hlexlcan
academic
counterparts.
(p. 62).
treatment
and recorded
one mlddir-.
10 prac!lc?
txrual
In a bilingual
IO Deigaoo-Galran
\hc choe
iIllle\
“dtsruptlve
of airenatlon”
differential
observed
Spanish-speaking
Into Iwo
tlon
Here.
in ethnlclry
Deifado-Galtan
of15
Into
forms
happen
none\‘aluatlve
throughout
( 1989) found that differential
Delgado-Gaitan
students
more
Amencan
continued
turn
work-both
recel\‘ed
Mexican
that if the trend of incrcailng
Information
students.
for academic
ences
findln_rs
academic
dominant
graders
Spanish-dominant
the
in this case as
literate
in a second
1LIn L’u J g C
&reC-\L.Jk
ha\c
ence\.
hut 21~1 .t\ .t rc.\tlll
even J~IIII\
IntcrJctl\
re\c;lrihcrx
;02
\IU~IIL.\ 01 11w dlll~rrnri~l
th.11 Inlc.r.lctltw.ll
t;~nJ
. ~r~~upIn;
_
\L Irlllrl
T 2nd IC‘.I< t I\
th.11 XIUJCIII
treatment
Jlttsrcnce\
OI I.lnguqe
occur
of Mexican
not only
differences.
rhc hlllngual
c II.IILI~C01 cta\kroom
classroom.
American
because
peer culture
They
experiences.
~L.II.I\ lor\ m;lb \I r’ll be reactions
students
of ethnic
differ-
influences,
have also revealed
rermndmg
to teacher
and
the
teachers
and
behaviors.
not
hfexlCanAm-mun
Ciassroom
jn~eracrir~n
JUSI the result of cultural or home influences.
These studies have often attributed the diff crcnttal tRatmenI of Mexican Amcrlcan students to iargcr socieral faCIOrS. but they vary greatly In the cxtcnt to which
they have considered the fuller contcxLs in a manner sufficrerrt to draw conclu_
stons about the sources of interacttonal differences. From a VyFotskran perspcc_
trve. the larger societal setImg 1s part Of the Social conlcxl of leamtng: tf uSed to
cxplatn partems of interaction. it should be directly observed and fully dcvc]oncd.
Some researchers spent ttme in the communities
af well as in the classroom. which
adds IO the ‘broad clatms of their research. Others hmlted themselves to naturaitstrc
obscnatton
In the classroom
and keot their claims
whin
rhar Social context,
Others. however. used preextsrtng scales 10 measure classroom intcractlon. po[en.
11311)llmlllng the!r dcscnptton of what occurred In the ciatsroom.
The ~tuuxs cescnbec! here have focus& on rcvealtng tne .,~‘cncths of lic~,:can
j_ cjassroorn ihat of!e::20 unobsen
2:; 0~ ::8;:1ers.
~a~-,lc~,imcnc2n \tudcnrc. in the
larit !ho;e that I?C:U: dunnz peer ~ntcract~on q”ronposed to :ea~hcr-s~ud~n; inl.p:,K:IOR C.!r:;i~o. Vera. and Cazden ( 198 1j rc+)ncd the resu:ts oi a stud! on peer
rcachtn_c tn\olvtng a voung Spantsh-domtnant.
Mextcan rime:;can gtrl named
“\ erontc3 ” Vcrontca k.as taught a spellmg lesson by her teacher that she was to
repeal to the teacher and then teach to another student of a stmt1a.r background and
graue level Ftnally. she u’as to report her expericncc to the teacher. Carrasco et
al noted that the chrid’s rather nonrcsponstve rehearsal of the lesson and her seifreporr of the teachtn_c episode suggested that she had done poorly at it. However,
the teacher drd not observe the actual tutoring session and an unplanned sesston
tn uhtch Verontca “practrced.” by herself, the skill she would teach.
Both the practtce hesston and the teachtn g session were captured by the rcsearchers on \,tdeotape. and both scsstons revealed that Vcronrca had many more
skulls. both cogntttvc and linguistic. than appeared to the teacher. Her rutonng
sesqton showed an abtllt!, IO use teacheriv langua_ec and to meet the needs of her
audtence b), elaborattn~ on the lesson The practice session showed her willinpness to learn Engltsh. aithouch she had been refusing to take Enpiish-as-a-sccondian:ua_re (ESL) classc\. The-researchers concluded that it IS important for teachers
IO observe students. espectally biltngual students, in many settings if they arc to
accurately access rhe~r abtilrtes
A second study b! Carrasco t 1% 1) found “Lupita,” a ktndergartner born in
htextco. to ha\ c qk~ll\ that u err unc)krved
by her teacher. a Chtcana. The teacher
dtd not call on Lup1t.l II-Istrhcr \<h~\le-c’~~cs or small-group discussions. and the
chtld N .I\ rencr;lll\
“tn\ t~thlc” u hen the teacher and her atdes were Tivtng
tndt\ ~du_~lJttcnttcln k;~xc
\hr aI\\ .I! x behaved appropnatel>. In explarntng why
she drd nt~r call on Lup~t~ the tc-lchcr satd that
h~c~u~* 01 Luplt~‘b hl~t~~n JnJ home background and her lack of the skills
rrqurrcJ IW~XIKI~.JI~ cttc~~~\cl\ In these [class] sessions. she decided not to
humiir.rr~ or crnhdnJ\x Luptt~ In tronr of her peers for not berng able to
an\ucr or pcrtornl .&yu~~cl~
cp 1691
303
.
Because of Lup~ta’s apparent lack of s~I]~s. the teacher decided to rewn Lup~ta
another year.
&-rasco’s ( I98 1) video camera. however. captured Lupita in scenes that the
teacher did not observe. where she behaved as a competent leader and teacher of
her peers. She was fully able IO complete her own work and to help a number of
friends complete theirs, as well. She also directed her friends’ behavior so the)
would please the teacher. Once Carrasco allowed the teacher to view this side of
Lupita. the teacher immediately began to reassess Lupita and noted that Lupita’s
behavior changed in class as a result of this reassessment. Carrasco hypothesized
that the child’s behavior became “visible” to the teacher because the reacher’s
behavior toward Lupica had changed in some way. In this way, the researcher
acknowledged the mteractlve nature of classroom discourse.
Summa0
The large-scait studirs of dlfi::rntial
treatment ii_ Xlexrcan .?irne:lc:in srudcnt,
IUW iound !ha: these students ma>’ recetve differen:lal
treatment not onI\, because
of rthnlc driierences but also as a result of language differences and abihr\
;rouplng ulthln the bilingual classroom. These studies have also revealed rhe
Interactl\‘e and reactive nature of the classroom. reminding teachers that student
brha\,lor
IS as much a reactlon
to teacher
rr3ponw to student beha\,lor.
The cahe studies reponed
In this section
beha\lor
as tescher
behavior
1s a
have also illustrated that hlexlcan
.imertcan Atudents receive dlfferentiai treatment, but here the aid of ethnographic
methods has revealed the cause of this treatment as inappropriate assessment of
students’ abilities. largely because of the structure of the classroom and students’
responhex lo It. These studies have emphasized the importance of assessmg
\rudenrk on a number of skills and abilities in a number of different contexts.
Many 01 the studies conducted from this perspective have assumed the importance of \ocl;li context In Interaction and learning. This Vygotskian perspective
has led to more direct obsenation
of actual interaction between panicipants than
has been made In studies of cultural mismatch. Therefore, the studies of different1a1treatment pro\,lde a berter understanding of the real social context of learning
tar hlrxlcan Amencan students. However, the use of preexisting scales and
Inventorle\ IO codify behaviors raises the possibility that some types of interac[Ion. and e\rn the luci, of Interaction, have not been accounted for. Further,
although II I\ tmponant 10 determine and consider language ability and/or domindncs. the \~c~hne\\e~ of certain tests designed for this purpose need to be
JddrLYW_/
ad
JCL’oUrIiCd
tar In the consideration of findings and results.
l’dtttrn\
of Language
Use Among
Bilinguals
lnrroducrron
The T~\c‘.I~~h dc\ir~h& In rhe following section focuses on the classroom
InIcr;titlclu 01 Jlc\ridn .-\mencan bilinpuals in an attempt fo describe the patterns
111~JI~~LJ.I;c U\C. pdruiularl!, codeswirching, in this population. Although not all
>l~\~c_:m
.\rllcrliJn\
;1rc bilingual. enough are that bilingualism
should be an
Imponanl ,~~n\&r;1llon
In the study of Mexican American interaction in the
c 1;1\\F~~cUllI~IIII~~u.III~~~ I\ a normal adaprlve response to livinr n a situation
.I(11
where two languages are used--one
primarily for official, pubitc purnoses. and
the other for informal, private functionssuch as the situation which exists t,,
many Mexican American COmmUnitiCS
WaldCs, 1988, pp. 11&_I 17). fit st”die~
described in this SCCtiOn a.~ klpxlant
proof that CodeswitChing
s-,ou]d
h
ex_
pectcd in a classroom with bilingual students.
One of the unique abilities of bilinguals living in communitjcs where fwo
languages arc spoken is the ability to codeswitch. Codeswirching
may & &fined
as “the alternating USC of TWO languages on the word, phrase, clause, or sentence
level.” such that there is a “clean break berween phonemic systems’* (valdes_
Fallis, 1978, p. I ). For the most part. the stuliies revtewed in this section examrne
the language use of bilingual Mexican American chiidren in the classroom ,,,
order to determine when they use Spanish or EngIish and what tnggers a codeswttch
berween the two languages in this context. The studies generally describe the
functions of the different codes for these students and attempt to understand the
development
of the ability to codeswttch. These studies find that the use of
codeswrtching is determtned by audience charactenstics
such as language attltudes and profictency as well as rhetorical purpose and intention. Funher. I[ IS
governed by certarn rules of usage that hold for all bilinguals.
McClure’s ( 198 I : also reported in McClure. 1977; McClure 6: NcClure. 1975)
study of the form and function of codeswitched discourse in children was based
upon 90 hours of audiotaped data collected among bilingual Mexican American
children in the Southwest. Her informants were 8 three- to four-year-olds In a
Head Start classroom. and 39 students in kindergarten through fourth grade in
their classrooms, their homes. and their neighborhood park. McClure found that
the ftrst codeswitching done by children is based upon their understanding of the
listener’s language proficiency, language preference, and social identity. and done
for the purpose of accommodating
their listeners. The older the children were. the
better able they were to judge these characteristics in their audiences. and these
characteristics
were the single most important factor in the occurrence of a
codeswitch. Topic was not as stgnificant in determining a codeswitch. Researchers found that these children were able to talk about their experiences in both of
their languages, although some topics were more likely to occur in one language
than in the other: for example. family, child care, and food preparation were
usually discussed in Spanish.
The functions of codeswitching
for the children were numerous, including
quotatton. specialization of addressee. emphasis, clarification. elaboration. focus.
and attention attractton and retention. Although no uniform sequence of development of these functions u’as found. codeswitching to clarify meaning and attract
attention was learned early (by age 3) and codeswitching to focus on a particular
part of a sentence and to spectfb an addressee was acquired relatively late (ages
7 and 6. respectively,). By far the most common stylistic functions of codeswitching
were (a) attention attraction and retention and (b) emphasis. In addition. children
were found to adhere to syntactic rules in their codeswitching. just like adults.
McClure ( I98 I ) concluded that rather than being a deficit. the ability to codeswitch
allows for double the rhetorical effect on an audience.
Genishi (1981 ) reported similar findings in her case studies of four bilingual
Chicano 6-year-olds in the ktnderganen classroom. at the playground. and at the
day care center. She found that of the five variables considered-setting.
activity.
305
Lae?
features of the addressee, IOplC. and linguistic tntentlon--+n~~~ the lingulsil:
ability of the addressee affected the language choice of these children on a regul~
basis. The only topic IO trigger a language shift u’as that of Mexican holidays. and
tie onIs Intentions that caused children IO change languages were garn,ng favor
from an adult and rattling. That is, children CodeswItched to Spanish to please
Spamsh-speaking adults; in tattling, they codeswitched IO the language the “tartlee”
understood besr. SO that that child would know that he or she was being tattled on.
From an analysis of instances of situattonal codeswitching ioccumnf
between
episodes) versus conversauonal
codeswttching (occurring wlttun episodes). Genlsh!
(198 1) dlscovered that children codeswttched wlthln episodes oni!, IO accommodate the lm:ulstlc
abilities of their audience. She hypothesized that the reiat!\e
iaci, of con\,ersationa!
codeswttchlng
In children as compared IO adults 15 IlLsi! 2
funcrlon of development. because con\sersatlona] codes% arching requlrej 2 ;recr
deal of sopnlslIcatlon
rn Judging a rhetorical situation
I_I& McClure
J4 i ,,
Genlshl concluded that the children she studle:’ :ould 1~: De consldereci. !:I x;
sense deficient
because the) were bilingual.
In fact, she found tha: the) :oa~d
communicate WII~ speakers of both ianguares quite successfull>.
Rodriguez-Brown
and Elias-Oilvares ( 19gj) studied the questioning p~~tem~ 01
SIX Spanish-English
blllngual third graders in a ChIcago ciassroom. The children
ivere selected
because of their differences
in Spanish and English proficrenc>
based on the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) and on teacher, parent. and
researcher evaluatjons. A11 but one of the children in this study were of Mexican
descenr: the other child was Pueno &can. Children were videotaped in the
classroom. and a coding system for the tapes was devised after observatjon and
taping.
The quanrltative analysts of questions showed that these children tended to ask
questtons more frequently In the language In which they were most proficient: and
uhlchever language they preferred. all children asked roughly the same number of
questlons. In addltlon, requests for Information and yesino questions were the
most common Lnds of questions tn both languages. One difference related to
language profictency and use did appear, Two types of questioning-requests
for
permisslon and requests for clarification-occurred
more frequently among students with high English proficiency.
Rodriguez-Brown
and Elias-Olivares
( 1983) concluded that although the data
show that the same kinds of questions are asked of children in both languages.
“children who are more proficient in English seem to have access to a greater
\‘arlet!’ of questlonln_r strategies” (p. 39). The researchers noted. however. that the
more balanced biilnguals u’ere grouped wth monolingual English speakers whereas
those u.ho ttert’ less fluent In English were grouped rogether and sat with a
teacher’s aIdS. The classroom structure. as well as numerous other factors such as
Ian_rua_re a.rtltudcb. ma! have affected students’ use of panicular questioning
srrareges In a panlcular language. Such influences were neither controlled nor
examined In thl\ stud\.
Sapien5 t 1982, stubled the use of Spanish and English and the functions of
codesu-ltchlng dunng a I -hour bilingual civics lesson. The class consisted of high
school seniors. all but two of whom were Mexican or Chicano. All vaned in their
Spanlsh and English proftclencies. although two thirds of the class was informally
assessed al Spanish-dominant.
An anal!x~s of the reacher’s language choice for
X6
.~ll~~l~Llli .‘\~fll~ril <iii (‘iCi! ,,,, i,,,
the clusLroom
English
purpose5
bilingual
classroom.
teacher
students
whereas
the teacher
falrl!,
codeswItched
IO lecture
teacher.
The researcher
I!:LiT Enzitsh
rr\ :zls
more
I\ the
dnorhrr
not codesu,lrch
~ecau\:’
01 hI\
SL~;7tcni.
\iuc:rni\
In some
role
I< u\ed
IO build
did nor consider
.A flnai
In Southern
about
uked conslderabl!,
En_rilsh
more
Ten IO fifteen
proym.
children
The zeal
pro\,ldlng
Ilterac!
actl\‘lties
nolo_r!.
The
cultural
knouiedge”
r\ant”
program
Two
undergraduate\
with
students
oni!.
The chlidrrn
the children
I\ hen the)
that \rudrnt\
in the prcjsr-“n
little
<hlldrcn
nanr
\II~
tccllne
thcm\cl\
cho\<
In\c;urc
r‘\
“Jl\iur\i\e
or
nlort
IO uw
\~JL,c\”
IdI\
\ .~\qur~
tried
Spdnlxh
I~UJ/\
art
literacy
language
classes
skills
b!
tech-
and
Mexican
“contextually
served
El Maga.
rel-
\;isquez’s
Vbsquez.
as collaborators
or “the
through
rhelr progress
from
to create
wizard.”
was
electronic
mail
in the course
classes
and
responded
a bllln_rual-blcultural
o\‘er Spanish
English
and even
to use the llmtted
u hen dlctattng
to
Engllsh~
to understand
cn?agrd
that
those
in face-to-face
that the children
students
the!,
with
had. The
insisted.
or joking
Vdsquez
among
examined
the
when
two
of conversations
Interacrion”
preferred
pan
to the Spanlsh-doml-
and u~hen playing
“ponlons
she
taking
site coordinators
this phenomenon.
IS.
setting.
while
English
writing
the Spanish-dominant
\\r~ttrn
rred
cue5
children
1 I/?-hour
for the
the actl\‘ttles
the acrivttles.
cho\e
111the program.
I I YLjl: I JIXI~\
a week
“Spanish
to u<e E .;llsh
onl!
I hcc~uw
In ~111attempt
as a result.
women from the community).
pkferred
;~hr~ur thtlr
commu-
and telecommunications
to El Ma_ra about
prclerred
111 En:ll\h
coorJin~tor\
in a hlexlcan-onFIn
El 1Llaga was available
Balclnc~ed htllncu;ll\
cc)rnpc[cni!
M.II~ her;:
IO El \laga.
( IQY?I
clrdrl!
u ere t’rl-ndl!
p. 207).
Undergraduates
\i’rote
\‘:i\quez
.Alrhough
tound
to
71,
USC of En_chsh and Spanish
the children’s
unrverslry
throurh
u ere to \i’rlre
accordins
In the program.
to make
1993.
In the prorram.
iiu~~
The i!uu-nt~
conc;:neroi
was preferred:
to Integrate
\‘;i\quez’s
to a\;i( for help on prolectc
held
computer
I I\lexican-orlzln
ah the\, worked
rhe sole authorit!
:nr!
~;:mfj!,
:r.-
C!C il !lh inen-,.
he _’
“p!wrr’n
chlldrcr:‘\
language
the marenais
trom
Itchlnc
although
W~I~LI:
with
cL’55quez.
site coordinators
and
zodesu
Codesu,ltchlng.
was to develop
attempted
for the children
of
peer
than Spanish
coupled
Into
use
5:iiool
the area met three times
of the program
the
USC 0:
t 1993) found that subtle yet imponant
u,hlch
from
FIX:.
SeconL.
program
\‘ri\quez
\vere Tent IO the chlidren
IO the
the studrn!s‘
c!assrofl!T..
the teacher.
eltamlned
after-school
Callfornla.
these findinTs
u,lth
for
J 3eer. airhot!::::
th!s :rlicher
teucher
u hen talkln_r
in th:Q b~l~nrual
than
rr:n!c>rcr
<tudh ofcodesw~tchrny
In LI hiilnrual-biculturai
nit!
and
of the
the
mos: oi them were Spanish-dominan:.
the
rathe:
the
IO pro\,tde equal accesb
lrom
langu3.fr
~43~; uitn
as teacher
;Ilthou;h
tntrapersonall!
combined
message”
xcon~cc~~~~~r~~
h!
Spdni,h
;I,
asked questlunb
And
conc’usionh
e\‘en though
equall!
as often
,I,~,
,n th,,
their peers.
and control.
adv3nt3grc~us
ruie
socl;ll
used
the reacher
rricLI~eu
and control
r&Ice
English.
did so with
u’as a “hidden
were
his ou’n utterance)
IWO lmponant
the teacher
that there
and
I u,lthtn
instruction
to address
English
used Enfhsh
did not codeswItch
said they
dreu,
for
and
for Instruction
e\‘en though
Spanish
students
the!’
LIW of English
English
Spamsh
“lnrrapersonall)”
matenai.
although
ku_r;estI
in
and soc~;li reia\lon~
choice
The students
a questton.
equally
control.
language
for soc1a1 purposes.
u,hen asking
j~d
of instruction.
was the ovewhelmlng
,,,,, ,,/ ; ,,,,
(p. 21 i ).
to speak English
because
the program could not escape appeanng to be a school-like env’tronment (man! of
the actrvtttes were school-like). The children obvrously perceived tt as such.
because they called the adults present “teacher.” Vrisquez reasoned that m school
Spanish is generally less preferred. and the children followed that rule In the afterschool program.
English was used more frequently also because most of the computer materials
were written in English: therefore. discussions about them regularly occumd
in
English. Moreover. the undergraduate students from Vasquez’s class spoke little
Spantsh. so the children spoke to them in Engiish in order that thetr questtons
would be understood. These same undergraduates responded electrontcail\
to the
children’s messages to El Maga. and therr Spantsh responses were shone: 3 i-1
:.
more formal than those that the), gave In English. TherefiJi-::. students acz;ess::
El Maya m Engltsh rn order to eitctt better responses.
While Visquez’s c1993) conclusions are tnrercstmg. hi;\4 she reached :,+~en:::
dlfftcuit IO dlscen. She provtdes no clues to her data _.~iiec:~or, or ZI;Z~J>;>
methods. making II tmpossrble IO evaluate her stud!, and ;::‘: conciustoni
Sunlnlan
The studres dtscussed In this section reveal the tmpresslv e range of expression
available IO btlrnguai students a~ an early age. Bilrnguals choose 10 codesu,irch for
reasons such as the language proficiencv of their auditors. their reiattonshlp utth
the audrence. the topic, and then desired rhetoncal effect. and they do SO xcordtng to rule-governed
patterns. Unfortunately.
because classroom teachers often
measure language skills only in one language. Engltsh. they are unaware of the
sum of all rhe Irngutstic abtltnes of then bilingual students.
Because these studies were designed to drscover new tnformarton about the
form and functton of codeswitchmg among Mexican Amencan Spanish-English
biltnguais. researchers recorded their observarlons and allowed the data to dic:ate
the caregones of analysis rather than superimposing preexisting scales on the data.
Thts allowed the researchers to discover and account for previously unknown
patterns of tnteractton among btltnguals. Furthermore, because current linguistic
research assumes that social context ts tmponant
in determining decisions to
codeswitch. these studres used data collectlon and analysis methods which yield
important informatton for those who wash to understand the context of learning
from a Vygotshtan perspective.
Successful
Classroom
Environments
lnrroducrron
In tht\ \cctton I r<\ te\c \rudtes that have documented classrooms in which
teacher-student
2nd \tuJenr-xtudent
interaction has led to success for Mexican
Amertcan student\
In general. these studtes look at classrooms or teachers that
have heen dc\tgnJted h! an authority as excellent. or classrooms in which an
Inter\-entlon Jc\t;ncd
IO help Mexrcan Amencan students u*as implemented.
Amman t I YSFI dr~nhd
the charactensttcs
of the most successful SpanishEnglish hiltnsu.tl classroom tn a study that examined seven such third-grade
classroom> (we I\‘ctns Fillmore. Plmmon. McLaughlin. & Ammon. 1985). From
an m;ll!.~lt OI \tuclent\‘ 1~~1s..\mmon found that although these students appeared
MPIICU~
Amerrcurl
~11u urlllllll
l/rr~~r‘,, I,,,,,
have a number of problems u,rth therr Enfltsh wntlnf.
rh,s class brouFh,
abou,
the most significant lmprovcmenr In wntmg. in areas such as cohes,on. reference,
elaboration. and conventional
usage, as measured by studen, galns on ur,tinf
10
samples
taken
by the researcher
over
the course
of a year, apron
described
the
In this classroom that may have led to this SUC,~~~. Student5 moved
around the classroom a great deal. and they were allowed to speak to one unother
In etther Spanish or Engltsh. In addmon. students were allowed to wrtte LIbout the
topics that interested
them. and the teacher seemed fenulnely interested rn wha,
tnteractton
the students
wrote.
Diaz. Mall.
and
Mehsn ( 19861 described
community
wrtttn;
and
matnstream
English
classrooms
Worktng
from
the
a theoretrca!
In dewi the results of their stud) of
implementatton
of
specific
modules
tn thre,p southern San Drezo !untor
framework
that assumes
that
iI!erac\
In ESL
and
high \choois
L\ !eJmed
ir,
the uses of u’n:lng In rhr honks ~‘1
Ott-xrcan .+,mencan famtltes
tn order for teachers to d:au upon those func:lons ip,
the creation of modules.
Diaz et ai. found that shopptng 11~t.iand phone mes~~es
soc~ai tnteractton.
u’ere
u rlttng
the most
events
the
researchers
common
forms
tn the home
studted
of
untten
surrounded
communlcat1on.
rhe chlldren‘i
home\*ork
The
most
extended
:sslpments.
The
tnreres: at all ases in SOC:;~\ \siue\.
many of uhrch were directly
related to schooitnf and language Issues. Modules
were built on top~cr; of Interest to the students and important to their communtt>.
One such toptc u’as a survey of community
attttudes toward biltn$uaitsm. The
reacher actl\bei!, Involved
the students by sendmg them Into the communtt)
to
sur\‘e> adults and peers about thetr attitudes toward biltn:ualism.
The children
too); part in deveioptng the assignment
by adding their own questions to the
sur\pey after a few required
by the teacher. Diaz et al. (1986) noticed that once the
creatton of the surveys be_can. students took control of the material covered tn
c&s. The teacher chose not to “hand-feed”
students but rather to let them ask each
other and the teacher u,hat the\ could not work out for themselves as problem
501vers.
Trueba f 1987 )_ reponrn,o
on the same project described
by D&Z et al. ( 19%).
-:nnog:ao’hers
noted
that
also dtscovered
the
spectal
modules
the pen’astve
destgned
for
these
students
allowed
them
to
have more control of the
cias5room. and IO engage In more class discussion and small-group work. Trueba
found that the module\
led to r\,tdence of greater reasoning and rhetoricaf capabilrties in the student wrtting.
In additron.
Trueba found a statistically sig-iificant
_raln In the score\ ~11;11l the students In the study on the district writing proficiency
exam and tmprn\ cmr‘nt I alrhourh not stattsticallv significant) on the scores of the
exdrn\ \\ rltten ‘P! Sprll,h-yurndmrd
rtudenrs. These ftndin,os must be interpreted
carefull!, ho\\ ~1cr. ;1- Truth> did not gather evidence of the type of instruction
\tudcnt\ r<crt\c~ nrttlr 10 the rrnpiementatton
of the modules. nor did he use an\
pro\,rde
more
contrtbl
group\
input
on
therr
own
assignments.
to
;11 IIW II~W (I! the \tud\‘.
by Diaz et al. (1986) and Trueba
that Garcia. Rores. Mall. Pneto. and
Zucker t n.d. ) hJ\‘c tJL.ntttrc’d .I\ Important for the effective schooling of Hispanics.
Garcr2 et ;II ‘\ preftnrtnJry reptIn 01 srudtes In seven successful classrooms (some
btfrngu~f. \c)mc tnglt\h
CWII> I .II three dtfferent
elementary
schools in the Phoenix.
.+.rtzonA. arca ,h,luc4
thdr ~~ce~~ful
classrooms had students collaboratin_r on
The or;anr~~trc~n
( ]YK~I
ha.
m.tn\
01 the cld\\rc)om
described
$11 the. <h;lr~iterl\tlcs
309
almost alI assignments. and thcrcfore had very 11ttie tndi\iduallzed
work. The!
also had a very Inforrn~. almost “familial” reiattonship between teachers and
students. Students
wrote on a daily basis in these ciasscs and engaged in d)scuTslons with each other on the instructional
topics. The teachers all felt thev uperr
gtven enough leeway from the admrnistratron to create or change the curncuium
In any’ way they felt necessary. and all were quite able to articulate their reasons
for doing SO.
hloll ( 1988) identified stmilar characteristtcs as outstanding in hts obsen+arrons
of two 5th-grade teachers. one monolingual English and the other Spanish-Engirsh
biltngual. He found that for these teachers literacy was first and foremost commumcarion. and they, treated it as such in the classroom, provtdtng nch and vaned
language expenences for their students. These teachers also had high expecranons
2nd provided challenging cumcula to their students. often using rhelr own x::r!\ed
autonom\
IO go bevond district e,xpectations or requirements
F:nal!:.
rncse
reachers pro\,tded for a dtversity in tneir tnstructlonai methods and c:e:i
un,ijn students expenences to help tnem understand the content of thc~: lessons ;n
s’mrsn~n~iui u a\’ Because thus IS not the ior-mai re?on of a stud!. hou,e\,e:. I: ;k
drft?cuI! to dlscern the bases for these conclusions.
Re>es and Lsiibeny (1992) report results from a year-ion;
obsenanon
OI
L.Ulbeny ‘5 sue,,--ssful fourth-grade bihngual classroom. In the classroom studied.
14 students were of Mexican descent (10 were limited-English-proficient
[LEP]
students) and 12 were Angie native English speakers. Reyes and Lalibeny report
tne success they, observed when LEP students who had previously received all of
rhelr language
instruction from a bilingual resource teacher were invited to take
part tn the literacy activtties in which the rest of the class was highly engaged.
Students collaborated on stories in both English and Spanish that were made into
“books” and shared with parents and school administrators. By the end of the
school year. three of the LEP students of Mexican descent had written at least one
SIOT)’ in Engitsh wrth no pressure from the teacher. Moreover, three Angie
students had pro\,ided Spanish translations of their English stories.
Reyes and Lalibeny ( 1992) point to a number of classroom factors to explain
these successes. The teacher provided a bilingual environment that validated the
use of both English and Spanish, and encouraged writing and “publication”
in
Sparush as well as English. Moreover, she grouped students heterogeneously
so
that they were constantly exposed to two languages. As a result, students with
proficiency in both languages became highly regarded because they could mediate
rhese cmall groups. The teachtnp of literacy “at the same time. in the same context.
ior ail learner\”
cp 7741 ws particularly important in validating Spanish in the
class as an equal language that could be used for academic purposes. Furthermore,
Re\r\
and Laijhert!
note an overall “warm and open learning environment”
(p_-. L
_/>I
Though Reyes and Lalibeny (1992) took the social context of learning into
constdersrion b> examining how, social factors influence student success, they fail
to pro\tde the reader uith important information about their study. Most importantly. u r Jo not knoG, hou frequently the researcher observedthe classroom. or
u hat kind of data collectton and analysis procedures were used. For example. we
do no! knou u hat beha\,lors
were classified as “warm and open.” Nor do we know
hou otten \uch an en\‘ironment
was obsemed and who found it that way. Such
%
%
d
Mexican
d
Iii
1
L
1
I
I
1
I
Amertcon
Classrcwm
lnterocllon
basic information 1s cruciai for cvaiuatmf the study and knowjng how to app,y 1t5
conclusions.
In a different study. Reyes ! ! 99 1) PC~Q~ on a type of classroom instruction lhat
is partly successful for Mexican Americans but needs some refinement, Reyes
studied classrooms in which teachers used a bilingual approach and the la,est
methods for teaching hUrgua&e XtS. PXtlClpmtS
in her study were 50 sixth graders
from a “Mexican-origin”
communtty; IO of these students served as case studies,
Of the 10 case-study students, 7 were considered LEP. and 3 were bilingual but
performing poorly in school and therefore still enrolled in bilingual education
classes. Well trained teachers used two methods of writing instruction. dialogue
joumais and literature logs. that have been ;uccessful with mainstream, native
speakers of English as part of a whole language/writing
process pedagogy. A
diniopue JOUm0/ is “a form of written
COmmUnlCatlOn
between ihe students and
the teacher about topics that either parry wtshes to discuss” (p. 192). and lireror~re
iors are students’ wnrren responses to weir reading. which teachers respond to in
mm.
Keyes (I99 1) compared students’ responses in the dialogue journals and he
Iirerature logs. She found that ail of the case-study students wrote longer. more
detailed responses in the dialogue journals than I ‘.- literature logs. Reyes
provrdes a number of explanations for this phenomenon.
For instance. students
were allowed to express their feelings and wnte about personal, family. and other
“cuIturaIly relevant” topics (p. 198) in the dialogue journals. but it was clear from
student responses that such topics were not considered appropnate for literature
logs. Instead, in the literature logs. students wrote one- or two-line summaries of
thetr stories or excuses for not having a book or for not having responses to teacher
questions (p. 298).
Reyes ( 199 1) found that teachers interacted differently with the two journals, as
well, which might help explain student responses. In the classes studied. students
and teachers wrote in both Spanish and English in dialogue journals. but in
literature logs students and teachers wrote only in English. In the literature logs
teacher responses were more business-iike and less affectionate. unlike the teacher
responses in the dialogue journals. Moreover, teachers did not provide students
with any direct instruction about choosing books or reading them, although the
students appeared to need it.
Reyes (1991) believed that the dialogue journal was successful because students were in control of the topics and could write in either English or in Spanish.
In iiterature logs. on the other hand. students wrote less because they were not far
enough along in their English reading and wntmg development to complete the
assignments successfully. Reyes concluded from her study that writing process
and whole language instruction as traditionally ,dught to teachers may not be as
successful for non-nattve speakers of English as for native speakers of English.
“Cultural and Ilngutstlc modifications” (p. 310) may be necessary, as in the case
of the Ilterature logs tn her study,.
Like Reyes ( I991 ). Gutierrez ( 1991) examined the interaction surrounding
urittng tnstructron for Mexican Amencan students. Guttet-rez conducted a twoyear study of 7 second- and third-grade classrooms with a population of Latin0
students who were 75%-80% Mexican. She specifically observed teachers who
were known as good teachers of unting as a process. the state-of-the-art pedagogy
311
Ll\C’\
in arttin:
classrooms.
Observtng
in the classroom
at least IWICC uerll!.
Cu~~errcr
collec[ed videotapes of the classroom. field ~OIC.. and teacher and student intervieu’s. From her observations
she discovered
differences
in instructton
and how
tho\e
dlffercnccs
Gurwrcz
251).
in instnkxion
(1992)
One
found
“recitation
of these.
usually
a series of questions
followed
b\s an evaluation
early
tn this article.
classroom
Interaction
conversation.
initiated
not only
i
de\,elopment
\i’ere
extent
thal
recitatrton
instruction.
which
on [her:
abilities
BUI
Ideas
because
students
in little
their
ideas
and
voice
limited
opinions,
rnr:r
developing
tine
IO
lo:mJr
to reacher
language
si,iIls
for srudent
[her:
L! :~:e~~tz:
of ~nter2ctioh
;?luation
responses
allowed
Siud~n!\
sk~ils
,ujer-e\
to develop
ied 1~: betrc:
instruction
as rh e l::-:marv
instructton
uerc
of !n?rru;-
rhan an ;~uI~L>~II\ ficure
i.:ngua~e
to shon
the
11he
and questions
instruction
of the quesrlon-an
were
u 3s more
In rhls form
re c;Ia:ion
and use thrlr
opportunity
their
e\*a!uarion.
than
described
of interactionin
form
of the cla<\
that used recttatton
that
resulted
a member
.srudenrs and
Instruction
Instructron”
as much
rp.
Insrrucllon.
ansv+ers from
responsive/collaborat~\~
responstvcicollaborative
~&as.
specific
but also by the student5
language
in classrooms
in the classroom\
as tn the I-R-E
the most common
IS
IO be more
student
concluded
tions.
IO ehclt
It did nor Involve
IO e!abor3ie
than
designed
leamInt_.
scripts”
was reacher-dominated
of each response.
found
Gu~~crrez
srudcms
in “responsiWcollaboratrve
came
i?Y2)
of
able
instrucrlon,”
b>, the teacher
the reacher
Gu~~rrrez
kttino
“mstructlonal
Such instruction
ordlnac
lion.
Influenced
dfffenng
01
que\or their
IO elaborate
lanriuage
skills
in the
process.
Loire other
instruction
\rud\,
research
reconrnzcs.
process
that
for Mexican
has examined
Amencan
in its careful
ins;ruction
the
students
analvsis
can be effective
effecri\‘eness
(see Rcyes.
of
classroom
for Latin0
students
199
of
writinp
process
1). Gutierre;‘s
interaction.
( 19911
that
({delivered
uriting
appropriatei!,.
Sumulan
The
studies
~cnerull!,
on successful
agree that providing
student
interests.
lan;uaye
environments
learntns.
a sense of belonging
usage. and a challenyng
ultimately.
student
success.
of classroom
interaction
reason
for
however.
concern.
ed learning
Il<\reo\rr.
importance
studies
enhance
mcludc
of
classroom
strong
descnption
studies
data
context
or not. the\e
methods
they
in classroom
studies
use. these
learning.
revseal a theoretical
Conclusions
Thl\
\tate
IX the appropriate
of
ln+cad.
;I:
rr\earch
;1 critique
in
and.
of the social
reviewed.
to support
There
is
claims
studies
of
all acknowledge
e them
on
utth
place
to pull
stance
that is congruent
together
Amcncan
recommendations
stated
with
understanding
a
of
and Implications
some coherence
Mexican
the
in most cases. wrhether
\ CCH\~,ILIII
re\ ~e\\ed and ;I\
around
flexibility
interaction
_ipproach. resultIn:
in research that vieids a greater
_
IIW \OCI~I contr\t
in u hich the tnrcracrion
described
occurred.
\
Americans
community.
a wider
than most of the other
in the lack
Mexican
outcomes.
in the research
ot soctal
t\pi~cltl!
for
lesson plans designed
to the classroom
cumculum
These
context
iriipro\
classroom
coliaborattve
all of the findings
for the reader.
classroom
for
future
Unfortunatei!,.
Interaction
research
of the research
the current
prevents
that.
seems appropriate
rlven what this re\*icur has found.
As staled in the begmnmg of this anlcie. classroom lnleracrlon IS lan;ud;e. and
,( needs IO be studied as such. Because language IS a social tool iVygorsk>
I 978 1.
,I musebe considered in social context. Therefore. WCneed [o gain an understand,n; of classroom interaction in the immediate eni’ironmeni of [he classroom and
31so study how larger societal factors may influence that InteractIon. However.
many of the studies of Mexican American inreractlon ha\,e failed to collecr data
[hat could shed light on a myriad of soclai factor5 thal may have Influenced the
lnreractlon observed. For example. most of [he mismatch studies looked a[ mter2c11on In which [he social contexr remained the same but the cuitural and language
b3chg:ounds of pakcipanrs differed. From such s:ud~es II :: eas> IO co:::iude rha:
^
5oc~dl zonrexr has no beanng and Ihat erhnlc;[\ an7:: l,.n
‘1 g ~z?l~e;~e :ne A”;‘\ r3cior~
!:: lnier;l::lonal differences. Because these srud~es never examlnyc :UW: factors
,u;I: x social context, they assumed [hz[ rhe L,ari3:7ics thei s:udled hnc 3 gre31c:
,~npac: Ihan ma! be accurate.
.3 lath oisenslrl\‘it)’ to social context also led some researchers to assume rhal
: contrived learning activlt)’ In an expenmt-nrai si:uat~on would e11c1r rhe same
1i~Ie:;iC:lOfl3lpalterns as an actl\‘iI!’ Inlriated b\. :he :v-L!riiClpL13iS In 3 Ti3!3:3; tet!ln;
?loreo\er. the>, frequently assumed thar ushat the\ nad learned abour ln[eractlon
from such acrl\‘ltles u’as sufficient to maAe cla~rns abour ln:erac:Ion in home
en\‘tronments they had never observed.
Describing the Immediate social contexr surrouncilng classroom In[eractlon IS
lrnpunant because II provides InformatIon abour ho\s, InteractIon vanes on the
basi$ of changes in speakers. settings. and topics. But broader social factors
Influtncmg the school and community are also Important to consider. Studies
exsmrnlng cultural mlsmarch and patterns of language use have generally failed
[o consider these soclai aspects. as have some of the studies of differential
[reatment. These narrow studies have led to an incomplete picture of the phenomenon under stud! and have tended to find what the) were looking for because they
failed [o consider other variables that are suggested by theoF and research in the
~0~121
context of learning.
Srudles of cultural mismatch and differential treatment have frequently applied
preexlstlng scales and caresones of analysis to the classroom Interaction of
Mexican American students and their teachers. Such an approach limits our
understanding of social context because preexisrin_p measures are developed from
our exlstin_r knowledge In the field and therefore measure phenomena that we
already knou to occur In InteractIon. Such preexisting scales and categories
preclude meshurlnz [he unexpected or unknown.
From ;i \‘!~or\i~an
per>pecrlve. the research of Diaz. Mall. and Mehan (1986~
~lnd Truebs I lW71 pro\lde\ an excellent model for the examination of social
conrext In the cla\croom. The\e studies also allou dath analysis to grow naturally
OUI 01. the data Itself. Thor studies suffer. howe\,er. from a lack of sufficient
e\ ldrncr IO kuppon claim\ of lmpro\,ed learning outcomes. as do most of the
crudlec examlnlng clasqronm en\.lronments.
Future rrltc’arch In the clakqroom lnreracrlon of Mexican Americans needs to
* \rud\ redI tnrrructlnn In a \ arlet\ of SOCI~ contexts through dtrect obsematlon,
htud\ both the lmmedlate qoc~al context and rhe broader social sltuatlon In
u hlsh tnlrr~cllc~n occur\.
r
l
Y2 3
,hJ\C\
. ~l/ou
careyone!,
. provide
l
pro\lde
Taking
descrlprlons
comparison
3 Vygotsklan
Amencan>
does
differenriai
spccr~\e
for d3ta anaiys~s
comple!e
InreracrJon.
perspeave
on rhe classroom
the possibiliry
language
[he dam.
.NI~
ir uiil
I~I~KICIIO~
of examlnlng
use. or successful
for the considerzmon
Ulrlmareiy.
from
srudied.
groups.
nor eilminare
rreatment.
allow
natcrzll>
IO emrrye
of the popuiarlons
of many
more
IeJd ro 3 grea[er
classrooms
vanables
ot
culrural
Sleu~c~~n
ml\maich,
11s broader
per.
that I~hsiy ~niiuencr
undersrandlng
of one phrnnmen3
obser\,ed.
G~vrn
[he mynad
concerns
raised
classroom
Interacrion
of Mexican
sratemenrs
about
teachers
needs of >!vlexican
broader
bulid
how
;imencan
should
srudenrs.
perspective-one
which
2 \ol~d emp1nca.i
foundation
~ri :h- :!3\.sroom
about
rhe SLIW of research
Amencans.
alter
examines
from
rhelr
Only
classrooms
through
the soaal
which
conducred
an!
IO accommodars
lhf
conrlnued
context
:o heip \Iex~ca:l
on rhr
to proffer
I[ see.ms premarure
research
oileam~np--u
.Sm~r:c:~n
from
3
111ue
\:t:~c’:;[c
Inrerprerive dmogr=ph? ofeduca~lonolhomeandabro~(pp, 333_359,,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Del&ado-Gartan. C. ( 1989). Classroom Iiteracy acttvtty for Spalsh-swting
hngulsrics
and Educatton.
H,,,,dalc
sludcn,s,
1. 285-297.
Diaz. S.. Mall. L. C.. B Mchan, H. (1986). SoclocuItural,rcsources
in ,nsvucl,on
A
context-specific
approach. In BeFond language:
SOCIU! nnd cdura/
focrors
,”
schooltng lunguuge mtnorrc srudents (pp. 187-230). LOS Angeles: CaIifomta State
University, Evaluauon. Dissemination
and Asscssmcnr Center.
Enckson. F., & Mohan. G. (1982). CuI~uraI organization of participation sm~c~ur~
in
two
classrooms of Indtan students. In G. Spindler (Ed.). Doing the ethnogroph! oj
schooling: Educational anthropology in actton (pp. 132-174). New York. HoIt.
Rtnehan & Wmston.
Foley. D. E. ( 1990). Learmng captmlist culrtrre’ Deep m the heart oj Te)cs. Phrladelphia: Untverstty of Pcnnsylvanta Press.
Ga:cia. E. E.. Fiores. B., XloIi. L.. Pneto. A.. S: ZUC~C:.
S. in.&). !?,$<c:I~,c’;rnon!r;bi
!ftspcntcs
Lnpubitshed
manuscript.
probe into the
Ccznnc 0’ F.. 6 Epstein. P ( 1962). Learning to wart’ :i:: ethnorraphtc
operarrons oi an item of the htdden cumcuium.
In G. Sptndler (Ed.). Dotng the
ethnograph\ o_/schooitng: Educarronal anthropolog!, tn actton (pp. 240-167). New
York: Hoit. Rinehart & 1%‘tnston.
Gentsht. C. ( 198 I ), Codeswttchtng
in Chicano SIXyearolds. In R. P. Durin (Ed.). Luttno
ionguape nr~d comm~nlcn~rve behuvror (pp 133-152). Nowood.
NJ: Ablex.
Ctroux. H. A. ( 1983 J, ?%eon, and restsrunce tn educarion. South Hadiey. MA: Bergin
6: Garvey.
Cumbtner. 1.. Kntght. C P.. & Kagan, S. (1981). Relations of classroom structures and
teacher beha\ tars to social onenrarton, self-esteem, and classroom climate among
Anglo Amencan and hlexrcan American children. Hispantc Journui ofthe Behav[oral Scrertc es. _?. 19-20
Gutterrez. I(. D. ( 199’1) A comparison of instructtonal contexts in writing process
classrooms u tth Lattno children. Educurion and Urban Socier), 24, 2@-262.
Heath. S. B (1983). ~‘o\s H/~/I words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hull. G.. Rose. hl.. Fra\er. Ii 1.. & Casteliano, M. (1991). Remediation as a social
construct: Perspectttes
from an analysis of classroom discourse. College Composrtion and C~~ntn71~~7~cu11~111.
43. 799-329.
Hymcs. D. H. ( 1972) hlodeis of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J.
Gumperz b: D H\ mes t Ed\ 1. Dfrecrtons m soctolinguistics (pp. 35-7 1). New York:
Holr. Rtneh;ln & wtn\ton
Jordan. C. ( IO.‘iSI Tr-nxlsrlng culture: From ethnographic
information to educattonal
proFr;Lm .-\/trltr,~/~~li~~~\~1~1~1
Edtccutton Qu :erlF, 16. 105-1X3.
L.z~tw\, \\’ t I q-2 I [AIIICI(~I:C,
tt~rite tnner tip: Studies tn the Black Engitsh vernucuiur.
Phtladclpht~
1 nc\er\tt\
01 Prnnsylvama
Press.
I Incqu_tltr\
tn the classroom: Observational
research on teacher,_JOU.
,_
.\I
t Iv-:
\tudcnr ~ntzr~~~t~~~rw7%~lrttc~rr~utronulJournal ofChicano Studies Research. 8, 5 Ih?
diversity in modes of family
L3cKl. L 31 t IL)\ I I \lJicrndl behavior. Soctocultural
tnirr~~ttcln In R \\ Hcn&r\on
(Ed.). Purent-child tnteruction: Theory. research.
trrtd pmstw 11 I Pp I Zi- 167 t ?;ew York: Academtc Press.
315
L_oSC\~
i
Laosa. I_. M. C1982). School. occupation.
culture and family: Tnc Impact of parcnta]
schoollnf on the parcnr-child relationship. Journni o/&‘duca~~on~l Ps~choi~~~.
71,
79 l-817.
Loscy. Ii. M. (in press). Listen IO the silences: Mexican American lnteracrfan in ihe
compos~r~on classroom and the communq.
Not-wood. NJ: Ablex.
McClure. E. (1977). Aspects of code-swttchtng
tn the dtscourse of biltnguai hjextcanAmcncan children. In M. Saviile-Troike (Ed.), Georgetotin Unr\,ersryv Round Tub/e
on Longuapes and Lngursfics 1977 (pp. 93-l 15). Washmgron. DC: Georgeroun
Untversit!~ Press.
McClure, E. C1978). Teacher and pupil questtons and responses and the Xlex~;anAmencan child. Tite Biirnguol Revte~?: La Rev~sra Biitnxue. 5. @-u.
McClure. E ( I98 1I Formal and funcnonal aspects of the codesutrched
dtscour!,e of
btltnguai chtldren. In R. P. D&n
(Ed.). Lntfno ionguagr and communlcu:(\e
b~ha~vor ~pp 69-93)
Norwood. <NJ: i2blex.
,\\lcClure. E F.. & McClure. M M (1975). Codesu~tc-hlnr among ~lcxl~an-.~~:1~:lc3r!
zh~idren in H Shanfi (Ed.). Front meontng [o sound.-fa,pers,+om
the 19;~ ,tf~o.4mericuj: L/ncu!s/rcs Cyierence
f pp. i30- 1-t6) Ltncoln Untverstty of Nebraskc?
>IcCow;ln. R J.. h Johnson. D. L. ilQP4i T‘ne mother-c.itid reiattonshtp and othc:
antecedent5
01 ;tcadcmtc per-form;~ncc .A causal anal~%. Nl~,rX2nir ./ourrm! i)/
Berkb~ioral Socrfces. 6. 305-214.
\!lehan. 1% C1979 t Leornmg lessons. C‘ambndge CambrIdge L;ntverstt\ Press
iltchaei~. S / 198 I J “Shanng time”: Children’s narratrve styles and dtffekntlril azcecs
to Ilteracy /._LJ~~,~~uu~P
rn Sacred. IO. 41342.
&loll. I_ C ( 1988) Some ke> Issues in teachtng Latmo students. Language Arts. 65.
365177.
Oakes. J ( 1985 ). h’eeprng [rack: Her, schools structure lnequaiq.
Piew Haven, CT.
Yale L:ntverstty Press
Offtce of Student Research. ( 1983). Background data for discussion of retenrton qf
underrepresented
mlnorrc students. Berkeley: Liniverstty of California. Office of
Student Research
Ogbu. 1. U.. 8: Mature-Btanchi.
M. E. (1986). Understanding
sociocultural
factors:
Knowledge.
tdenttr!,. and school adjustment.
In Beyond language: Socral and
rul~uraifacrors III schooirny /a~,guage mrnori? srudenrs (pp. 73-142). Los Angeles:
Caltfomta
State cnrverstty.
Evaluation. Dissemination
and Assessment Center.
Ontz. F I i 1977 ). Btitngual educatron program practices and theireffect upon students’
performance
and self-tdenrtr!,
The lnrematronal Joumoi of Chicano Studies ReTeorch. 8. 17-17-l
0n1z. F. I c 1988 I HIspanic- Amencan chtidren’s experiences in classrooms: A compLtrt\on berurcn Ht\panrc and non-Htspantc children. In L. Weis (Ed.). Class. race.
0nc/ certder rrf .imrr/rc~u educ-ili/nn Ipp 63-86). Nebb York: State University of New
Y’ork Pre\\
Re>s\.
>1 de I.1 I:ur
ancl llkw~ur~
i(yt
1IYY I ) i process
approach to literacy using dialogue journals
with \c<:ond lanzuaae learners. Resenrch in rhe lenching
0-1
.
a