New York State Association for Bilingual Education Journal v10 p1-5, Summer 1995

The Teaching of Culture in Bilingual Education Programs: Moving Beyond the Basics

Gladys I. Cruz, Paola R. Bonissone, Suzanne J. Baff

Introduction

Bilingual educators hold a special key to being in the forefront of multi-cultural education. Their linguistic and cultural expertise makes them the logical role models for the advancement of multi-linguistic/multi-cultural education at all levels.

Our world has changed, but in many ways our schools have not. Linguistic and cultural abilities are at the forefront of our ever shrinking world. Yet we continue to shy away from addressing these very real global necessities. Just as no one superpower can dominate without censure from others, citizens must now begin to see their global responsibilities and must learn to move comfort ably from one cultural environment to the next. Persuasion rather than armed coercion has become the way to do things politically and effective persuasion requires that one know the other party's values and manner of establishing rapport. The United States, unfortunately, is lacking in this knowledge, and so has suffered both politically and economically (Nostrand, 1991; Hall, 1976).

How Should Culture Be Defined, Taught and Assessed?

Bilingual Education programs have usually integrated a cultural component. This cultural component has taken different points of view. In some bilingual education programs the approach to culture has been the "set-of-trait" point of view, also called the "3Fs" (Facts, Faces and Fiestas) ap proach. In programs adopting this approach, culture is stereotyped by replacing people with events and concepts with terms. The 3Fs fosters the notion of culture as static (Ovando & Collier, 1985). However, it has been effective in some bilingual programs. Another widely used strategy to culture has been the 'high civilization' view of culture (Ovando & Collier, 1985), reducing it to the knowledge of the best of Western Civilization. Again, this view restricts culture and fosters the notion of culture as static. These two approaches to the teaching of culture have been the most popular in bilingual education programs. Although both have some pedagogical validity, they are incomplete, for culture is a continuous process in constant change that requires knowledge that is inaccessible through these approaches.

As the twenty-first century draws near, it is fast becoming evident that the 3Fs and High Civilization are extremely limited in their capacity to equip students to fit comfortably and productively into the America of the future. The High Culture approach as espoused by Hirsch in Cultural Literacy (1987), does give bilingual students valuable information and background. The 3Fs acquaint students with ways of living different from their own. However, neither approach goes on to the next step. Rather, the former fosters a cookie-cutter "be-like-us" pedagogy, while the latter puts students on the outside looking in. These approaches do not address the reality of a multi-cultural, multi-lingual American society, nor do they go beyond the most superficial definition of culture.

Social scientists and especially anthropologists have been redefining the concept of culture. Although one can find a variety of definitions, many anthropologists have agreed on three basic traits that are common to all (Hall, 1976, p.13). These traits are: culture is shared; cultural components are interrelated and culture is learned. By analyzing the meaning of these cultural traits, it is possible to see the need to redefine the cultural component of most bilingual programs. Culture need not be reduced to a "set of traits" or to the "high civilization" approaches previously mentioned. It is time to open a professional dialogue among bilingual educators about how to redefine culture, based on research and reality, in a way that will bring bilingual students the most benefits. After defining the approach to be used in teaching culture in bilingual programs, it is then necessary to assess cultural learning and proficiency. Bilingual education programs should emphasize and not lose sight of the role that culture has on students' learning and acculturation.

Should students in bilingual programs develop an awareness and understanding of their own culture and the target culture? Should they develop a sensitivity and tolerance to other cultures? Culture anchors language as a system for social communication (Trueba, 1991). To address these questions, bilingual education must be redefined and looked upon as a medium for attaining social acceptance. The ambiguity and vagueness of the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) do not provide a useful framework for incorporating the cultural component in the design of most bilingual education programs (Bilingual Education Act: 1988 revision). Bilingual educators are therefore facing a great challenge.

Psychological & Social Aspects of Teaching Culture

The understanding of such a complex phenomenon as teaching culture requires us to examine its social and psychological aspects. The mainstream American culture is as ethnocentric as any other culture. Often, North Americans view their culture and cultural patterns as superior to those of oth ers. Ethnocentrism can be demonstrated in various ways, both verbally and non-verbally. It can also occur in different classroom relationships, such as in teacher-student, student-teacher and/or student-student (Ovando & Collier, 1985). Language teachers and in particular bilingual teachers must be aware of this cultural characteristic and should promote an environment that fosters acceptance and tolerance of other cultures.

According to Ovando & Collier (1985, p. 118) a marked culture is "associated with stigmatized and sometimes subordinate status of socio-economically or culturally defined minority groups". The combination of ethnocentrism with marked cultures further exacerbates the problem. Both ethnocentrism and the existence of marked cultures have a negative effect on the social and psychological well being of language minority group members. Language minority students may feel culturally inferior to the dominant language and cultural group as messages are transmitted both implicitly and explicitly from the dominant group. This sense of inferiority may lead them to difficulties in school settings and in the society at large.

One must also consider the issue of cultural identity. Language minority groups feel highly rejected if their cultural identity (identification of the individual with a social and cultural group) is not valued in the dominant culture. Sometimes minority group members feel devalued and do not seem to fit into the dominant culture. This phenomenon affects language minority students in the schools within the nation. Some researchers refer to the cultural clash between school personnel and language minority group students as a 'cultural mismatch.' This paradox has been studied for many years. Vogel (1991) presents a collection of some of the research that has been done during the past 20 years with language minority students throughout the nation's schools. She begins by presenting research that summarizes different perspectives to explain the cultural mismatch between the school and the home. In addition to threatening the cultural identity of language minority groups, this mismatch also affects all areas of their learning. Erickson (1987) cited in Vogel (1991) states that the cultural mismatch between the home and the school disrupts the communication process between students and school personnel. The phenomenon of inter-cultural communication, that is communication between two or more persons or groups of persons that do not share similar cultural patterns, can be largely affected by the cultural mismatch existent between the school and the home. Many school teachers are not aware of this phenomenon therefore cannot help in avoiding it or making it less stressed. Moreover they are not aware of how this cultural feature can become a barrier in the communication process between teachers and students and how this can affect negatively on students' performance in school. Bilingual programs should try to bring the school and home cultures closer in an attempt to insure the academic success of these students. Regular programs must address the culture issue because it is one of the principle reasons for academic failure of our language minor ity groups. It might also be one of the major causes for cultural inadaptation to the society at large.

An important area that can affect the inter-cultural communication process is non-verbal communication. Nine Curt (1984) in a non-verbal communication comparative study between the mainstream American and the Puerto Rican cultures identified four areas of non-verbal communication that can affect the communication process between members of these two cultures. These areas in clude: occulisics eye contact between people when speaking; haptics touching between people when speaking; proxemics the personal space that is comfortable between people when speaking; and kinesics movement of the body while speaking along with gestures. Although Nine Curt's study was limited to the American and the Puerto Rican cultures, the areas identified by her could easily apply to other cultures as well. These areas of non-verbal communication can affect intercultural communication. Teachers in bilingual classroom settings should be aware of non-verbal communication differences and should help their students become aware of these. Teachers in regular classroom settings should also be cognizant of differences of non-verbal communication that are most likely to affect the intercultural communication process.

Language minority students' world view can also affect their psychological well-being. According to Kraft (1978) in Damen (1987) "A given world view is most closely associated with the value and belief system of a cultural group and is concerned with what the group believes to be true, valuable, and significant." The different world views of language minority students can clash with that of the dominant culture. Further conflicts arise with the non-uniformity of bilingual programs. Some programs work toward assimilation (which requires that one exchange the patterns of one's culture for those of the target culture), others toward acculturation (which requires that one have knowledge of and adjust to the target culture), or even toward biculturalism (which requires cultural knowledge and appropriate behavior in two cultures). A program's focus determines the approach used in teaching culture. Regardless of the program type, at some point students will become bilingual and bicultural. Therefore, they will all undergo at least part of the three processes described above. Damen (1987) states that "to become bilingual means to become bicultural to some degree" (p. 4). The process of becoming bicultural can be a very painful one if the students are not attended adequately. Gutierrez (1985) proposes a process model that is based on the research of language minority groups' acculturation and assimilation.

Table I summarizes Gutierrez's model. The first column in the table represents the stages that Erickson (1980) cited in Gutierrez, 1985 proposed. Each stage accounts for social and cultural influences that lead to personal growth. The second column represents the stages of disequilibrium experienced by minority groups. Finally the third column represents the acculturation and assimilation stage that leads to a bicultural personality. An analysis of this table leads to an understanding of the acculturation and assimilation process of language minority students. It is important to under stand that these processes can be painful if educators are not aware of the cultural adaptation difficulties present in this process.

Many language teachers are not aware of this phenomenon. Furthermore, many do not know what culture to teach (Damen, 1987). In bilingual programs that emphasize biculturalism both the native and target cultures should be taught. But what happens to language minority groups' culture when the bilingual program does not emphasize biculturalism? Is the native culture forgotten? Does this affect the language minority students social and cultural adaptation to the society at large? What happens to language minority students that are mainstreamed into regular programs? Are the teachers culturally sensitive? Even more important is the argument that these students are the responsibility of the educational system as a whole. Their well-being will be reflected in the well-being in the society at large.

Looking Toward the Future

The redefinition of culture and its inclusion as an important and central objective of bilingual programs is at the heart of this paper's discussion. We propose that bilingual educators add a dimension to their working definition of culture-the concept that culture and language are inseparably in tertwined. The language and culture that each individual brings to the classroom must be taken into account. Bilingual programs are essential in the preparation of active, prepared citizens ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Therefore we believe that bilingual education is not an end in itself, but the bridge to a cohesive multi-cultural society when it taps the students' cultural and linguistic heritage.

We believe that cultural understanding and its role in all aspects of education and language are at the core of promoting global peace and harmony. Figure 1 demonstrates how utilizing a student's culture can enhance learning and understanding among linguistically and culturally diverse students. Students come into the classroom with both community and individual languages and cultures. It is important to tap the cultural/linguistic heritage and knowledge of each student to provide the basis for an effective curriculum. Such innovative methodologies used in Langer's work (1994a; Langer, in press) and also Moll and Díaz (1987) can be looked upon as starting points for curriculum development in bilingual education programs. Langer's research utilizes the students' cultural and linguistic heritage via narratives, while Moll and Díaz tap the community's cultural resources for use in the classroom curriculum. In so doing, students utilize their cultural and linguistic heritage while learning new skills. Curricular emphasis on cultural diversity need not mean group isolation and separation, but rather should enhance students' awareness and ability to understand the interconnectedness of cultures and peoples.

As stated in the introduction, cultural diversity is a fact in American classrooms. It is also a fact in American society, the sphere within which our students operate when they leave the classroom. If we provide consistent, thoughtful and meaningful cultural teaching for our bilingual students, they will be better equipped for the 21st century than their mono-cultural counterparts, be they native speakers of English or native speakers of a language other than English. Indeed, bilingualism and biculturalism are not only a step toward the future, but also an intermediate stage in the journey toward multi-culturalism in its most positive sense, and perhaps ultimately to a shared global vision of world peace.

References

Bilingual Education Act: 1988 Revision.

Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gutierrez, F. J. (1985). Bicultural personality development: A process model. In E. E. Garcia & R. V. Padilla (Eds), Advances in Bilingual Education Research (pp. 96-124). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture , New York: Anchor Press.

Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know . New York: Houghton-Mifflin.

Langer, J. A. (1994a). Tales from home/Cuentos de mi herencia . Albany, NY: The National Research Center for Literature Teaching and Learning.

Langer J. A. (in press). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature instruction . Unpublished manuscript, University at Albany. State University of New York, Albany, NY.

Nine Curt, C. J. (1984). Non-Verbal communication. Cambridge, MA: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.

Nostrand, H. L. (1991). Basic intercultural education needs breadth and depth: The role of a second culture. In E. Silber (Ed.), Critical issues in foreign language education. (pp.131-159) New York: Garland.

Ovando, C. J. & Collier, V.P. (1985). Bilingual and ESL Classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Trueba, H. (1991). The role of culture in bilingual instruction: Linking linguistic and cognitive development to cultural knowledge. In O. García (Ed.), Bilingual Education: Focusschrift in honor of Joshua Fishman on the occasion of his 65th birthday (pp. 17-51). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Vogel, V. (1991). Social and cultural dimensions of the education of language minority students. In A. An. Ambert (Ed.). Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language: A research handbook (pp. 3-54). New York: Garland.

Return to Table of Contents, Vol 10.

The HTML version of this document was prepared by NCBE and posted to the web with the permission of the author/publisher.

NCBE Home Page
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu