Morrell & Duncan-Andrade
- Morrell and Duncan-Andrade argue that students benefit from culturally relevant instruction, yet there has been (and continues to be) ardent resistance insofar as rethinking or recapitulation the “canon” is concerned. Why do you feel that there has been continued resistance to the incorporation of this kind of pedagogy?
- The authors cite Ferdman (1990) who argues that cultural valuation leads to higher levels of literacy acquisition; why do you believe this is the case? More specifically, do you feel that cultural valuation (i.e., valuing a student's culture) in fact leads to higher levels of literacy acquisition?
- Why is it important for students to be taught in their own “native” tongues; and, what kind of transformational experiences do the authors attribute to this kind of instruction?
Anzaldua
- · Anzaldua writes that the "home" tongues are the languages spoken among family and friends; according to Gee, what type of discourse is this? Please provide an example of the differences between your particular "home" tongue and the tongue you most frequently adopt when not at "home".
- · Anzaldua argues that language is, essentially, twin-skin to culture; that is to say, that language both instantiates and carries culture. Please discuss what it is that she means by this; and, argue for why you agree or disagree with this argument?
- · How can linguistic suppression, or worse oppression lead to negative mis-identification? More specifically, how can linguistic oppression lead to the internalization of pejorative associations for linguistically marginalized groups?
Rose, I just wanna be…
- · Based on his experiences with Vocational education, it seems as though Rose invokes his buoyancy metaphor, (students will float...), pejoratively; is there way in which it can be viewed positively? (Please explain)
- · Rose described the “Voc Ed” track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected”; first of all, what does he mean by this? And, secondly, do you feel that remedial tracks still represent a “dumping ground” of sorts? Why or why not?
- · What does it mean to be “groomed for the classroom”? On page 37 of the reading (the last full paragraph), Rose describes his subjective experience with literacy: which of Scribner’s three metaphors best encapsulates the relationship that Rose depicts?
- · Many readers find Rodriguez problematic: Do you agree? How do you think other academics might respond to Rodriguez's stance in relation to cultural heritage and language? If you're familiar with Gloria Anzaldua's work, how do you think she would respond to Rodriguez's perspectives on culture, education, and assimilation?
- Sociologically, race is classified as a social construction (i.e., not an irrefutable biological reality); that is, it is defined as an abstract notion, so to speak. Is this designation problematic for Howard; and, do you see any potential problems with this classification? Please explain.
- What are “legitimizing myths”; and, what purpose do they serve (according to Howard)?
- Why does Howard consider the notion of meritocracy, as delineated in our distinctly Westernized, Eurocentric National ethos, to be mythical (pp. 37 of original text)? Please explain.
- Also on page 37 of the original text, Howard discusses what he terms “social arrangements of dominance”: please provide examples of said social arrangements, and, explain just how they fit into the definition that Howard provides.
- · On page 53 of the original text, Douglass recounts the vicissitudes of his own literate awakening. What does his account speak to regarding the internalization of negative, oppressive reinforcement?
- · What caused Douglass’ aversion to thinking? Why did it quickly become the bane of his existence?
L.S. Vygotsky: Mind in Society
- · Beginning on Page 80 of the reading, three theoretical positions, regarding the relationship between learning and development, are posited, which of the the theoretical postulations seems most plausible? And contiguously, which of the three positions (re-conceptualizations) would be most efficacious with regard to pedagogy?
- · How does the Zone of Proximal Development represent a paradigmatic shift in the way in which the relationship between learning and development is conceptualized?
- · Vygotsky argues that “writing must be relevant to life (pp. 118 of reading)”, what does he mean by this? Is this argument consistent with conceptualizations of culturally relevant pedagogy?
- · According to Vygotsky what is the difference between (merely) teaching written letters and actually teaching written language?
- Would it be fair to argue that the quest to offer a universal definition of literacy can be explained, at least in part, by an over-reliance on classification or scientism that (arguably) pervades western intellectual thought? Why or why not?
- Do you agree with Scribner that definitions of literacy can only be arrived at synchronically, i.e., at a particular moment as opposed to diachronically (over time)? Why or why not?
- How is literacy a social justice issue? To this question, how has literacy been used as a "hegemonic tool"; and, how can the obverse be made true, that is, how can literacy be used as a tactical, subversive tool? Offer an example.
- In Freire’s critique of the banking model of education, he argues that students are posited as receptacles or depositories (pp.72 of original text). For Freire this is problematic because he considers the banking model inherently oppressive. Do you see a way or ways in which this metaphor can be appropriated and/or re-envisioned as something positive and or generative?
- Why is it in the best interest of the oppressor to “change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them (pp.74)”?
- Freire argues that the inherent contradictions, which he feels are constitutive of the banking model of education, will eventually lead the oppressed to “turn against their domestication and […] attempt to domesticate reality (pp. 74 of original).” What are the inherent contradictions that he is referring to? And, what would an attempt to domesticate reality look like?
- On page 98 of the original text, Freire argues that: “…the notion that literacy is [only reducible to] learning the standard [i.e., dominant] language still informs the vast majority of literacy programs…” Freire clearly has a problem with this; why?
·
On page 99 of the original text (fourth full
paragraph), Freire appropriates Althuasser’s (1971) conception of the
ideological state apparatus (i.e., ISAs, which we discussed briefly in class)
to describe the educational atmosphere in former colonies. Is the analysis of
the situation that he describes limited to former colonies or can it also be
applied to contemporary local and National contexts? Please explain.
·
In this chapter, Freire lists four approaches to
literacy: the academic approach, the utilitarian approach, the cognitive
development approach, and the romantic approach. Do you see parallels between
Freire’s approaches and Scribner’s metaphors? Please explain.
Freire argues for a problem posing pedagogy in
order to subvert and counteract the damage caused by the banking model of
education: what are the primary differences within these educational paradigms
(pp.79)?
Lam
- Why does Lam feel that it is problematic, when engaging discourses, to focus on binary oppositions? And, do you feel that her concern is warranted?
- What does Lam mean by “transnational social fields (pp.83 of source text)” and how are they potentially counter-hegemonic (according to Lam)? Please explain.
- According to Lam, the development of intercultural voices and perspectives are vitally important for youth, especially immigrant youth. According to Lam, what do these two terms denote; and, do you agree with her regarding their intrinsic significance?
Howard: We can't teach what we don't know
ReplyDeleteAccording to Howard, legitimizing myths are the structures that have supported as well as fueled White domination. The deeply rooted existence of these legitimizing myths, such as those found in religion and theology, have resulted in the assumption of rightness amongst this dominant group. Although these doctrines were not created for the purposes of coercion, Howard explains that within the application of phrases such as the “chosen few” and “one true God”, a natural course of dominance took over the Christian race, because with it came an a sense of obligation to bring “others” within this rightness. “Dominant group don’t hold ‘perspectives’ they hold ‘truths’”, states Howard to illustrate how legitimizing myths, through the result of the assumption of rightness, has created a disregard of “others” truths and individual cultures and religions. In current times, this sense of rightness has bestowed itself amongst Whites through a novel means of domination. Howard explains how the ideas of colorblindness represent a means of disregard for the struggles and mere existence of colored people rather then a method towards creating equality. Because to say “ I do not see color” means that you choose to not acknowledge the injustice and past that colored people faced and currently face. An understanding of legitimizing myths is essential to the demolishment of White dominance because through its understanding, the foundations in which White dominance was founded can be challenged and uprooted. I believe that through the historical background of White dominance, society, especially Whites, can finally acknowledge and understand the hardships that fills the lives of colored peoples past/present without a desire to regress back to ignorance.
Anzaldua: Question 3
ReplyDeleteSome of our earlier texts this summer have focused on the connection between language and identity - Friere's "reading the word and the world", for example - seeing the former as the key way in which the latter is expressed. This makes sense enough, seeing as much of how we communicate and present ourselves is conducted verbally.
By suppressing certain languages and dialects, then, what schools and authority figures are really doing is suppressing the cultures and identities that students bring with them into the classroom. Especially in young children, such suppression reinforces negative associations with their native culture - being told that you must do something a certain way and that your own way "isn't correct" can eventually cause an acceptance of inferiority, whether or not that realization is subconscious or not.
Conversely, such suppression also serves to promote another brand of language [and the identity associated with that language] as superior. In other words, as kids are told that their OWN languages/cultures/identities are wrong and inappropriate for the classroom, the idea is reinforced that something ELSE is better, which is equally harmful. Often times, what is "better" is "standard" [white] English, which only serves to further create feelings of inferiority in minority students.
Because I think I'm still an entry behind, I'll also write about an article we read this week - Lee's work on model minorities. Sorry if you're tired of hearing me talk about this already, haha.
ReplyDeleteQuestion - Despite this article's intense focus on Asian Americans, what can we come to understand about education and race at large? The value of such a question, I think, is due to the fact that teaching is a constantly re-evaluative process; with each new discovery or article exists the potential for new realization, something I'd like to explore within my answer.
Answer - For one, I think some of Lee's findings remind us that we should never try to assume things about people's immigrant experiences - or even about students in general, the way that Ogbu advocates. Immigration is an extremely complicated and delicate issue, as Ming's story indicates...and it is dangerous to think that some students choose to do well [or don't do well] because of how they arrived here.
Instead, I feel as if this article is trying to remind us that teachers need to do a job of trying to understand and work with each student's needs, as they all bring a unique set of problems/issues/dilemmas/experiences to the classroom. Not even the best teachers can force a student to be successful, but a student's struggles should never result from a teacher not trying hard enough. We are supposed to be guides for students as they work out such issues themselves - expecting them to live up to certain assumptions and stereotypes [like that all Asians should be good at math, or that all minorities HAVE to learn how to speak english] that we have only acts to exacerbate those issues, not solve them.
Rodriguez question:
ReplyDeleteAfter having read Rodriguez’s piece, I’m curious as to how people would find his writings problematic. Granted, I haven’t read the whole book, but it seemed clear that he was expressing his opinion, which is why I find it difficult to see how people would find his own experiences and childhood ‘problematic’. He seems to look at his childhood view of education as a wrong way to view education and heritage, which I think is clear throughout his descriptions of his childhood. He always knew that a good education would get him anywhere, a thought probably engrained by his mother, and that’s exactly why he was so focused on his studies. He eventually became robotic, expecting to gain knowledge from texts by simply reading their words and understanding the sentences. He even though that a book’s message was all there was to learn from a book, and he said that throughout his education he lacked a point of view. He admits he was a bad student, and I think he means this in the sense that he was too bookish and that he believed that separating himself from his culture would free up his opportunities in education. This alienation went farther than just his heritage, however. He says that he even felt alone in college, where there were supposed to be more students like him, because all of his ideas were essentially borrowed. He lacked a unique point of view because he had ignored his heritage and culture, which would have given him a fresh perspective. I think he expresses his dissatisfaction with the way he approached education when he relates how he left England to be with his family after reading the Hoggart book, which he says gave him comfort because he discovered that there were other students with similar life experiences. He goes home, and he finally feels close to his family. This makes him feel like he had finished his education, which I think expresses his love for his culture and family because it was something he incessantly sought for.
Rose - "I Just Wanna be Average", 2nd question
ReplyDeleteThe "dumping ground for the disaffected" that Rose describes is a place for students to get a watered-down version of "average" school curriculum because their history of low grades indicates that they are not up to par with College Prep standards, and are most likely unable to ever catch up to them. This is unfortunate because a student's grades say very little about the student's intellectual capabilities. I think sometimes, students who are put into programs similar to Rose's Voc Ed track are there because they grew up in under-resourced educational environments that didn't prepare them well enough, if at all, for the daunting standardized tests that determine whether they could go on to have a college prep education or not. Remedial tracks today still represent to a certain extent the kind of "dumping ground" that Rose talks about. In my high school, there is a remedial math class called "Finite Advanced Algebra," or just "Finite Math," which is a math class meant for students who will probably not pursue precalculus, calculus, etc. in high school. On one hand, completing this class means that the student is technically able to graduate from high school and go on to higher education. On the other hand, the term "finite" suggests that this is all there really is to math that you essentially need to know in life, and the rest is up to you, if the concept of a remedial finite math class has not already discouraged you from moving on to higher levels of math. In essence, remedial tracks today don't necessarily have to be "dead ends," as Rose described it, but the connotations of remedial tracks and finite classes definitely make this type of education seem nothing more than an unfortunate dumping ground.
I can see how Rodriguez's reading is problematic. He is coming from a very pro-assimilation standpoint on education. His view is one of several views that Latinos have about education and literacy. Contrary to Anzaldua's writings, Anzaldua discusses the importance of understanding one's language as a means to interpret the world and conditions that one lives. Anzaldua is critically analyzing her condition as a Xicana lesbian through a state of consciousness that contests Western hegemonic forces. Anzaldua incorporates different languages in her writing to illustrate this very point. I believe that Anzaldua would try to understand where Rodriguez is coming from. Rodriguez understand the importance of reading/analyzing books-- a fundamental goal of literacy. The question then turns to "who's worls" is Rodriguez reading about? Other academics would argue that students need culturally relevant texts for them to understand concepts in schooling. This is especially important when a student's first language is not English.
ReplyDeleteAnzaldua’s statement about “home” tongues that are the languages spoken among family and friends refers to Gee’s “secondary discourse.” Gee states that, “most people are not very good at attaining functional use of a second language. However, people who have acquired a second language in a natural setting don’t make good linguist, and some good linguists can’t speak the languages they learned in a classroom.” Anzaldua mentions that in school, she would get hit for speaking Spanish at recess or being sent to the corner of the classroom for “talking back” to the teacher when she was just trying to tell the teacher how to pronounce her name. Not being able to speak the languages people use at home in a classroom can be very hard, especially for immigrants because their parents cannot teach them English because they cannot speak it. Second languages can also be lost if not used in schools or home often. My little sisters do not know much Vietnamese because their siblings speak English to them everyday. That’s why my grandparents always tell us to speak in Vietnamese to each other at home and everywhere we get a chance so they will not lose their native tongue completely.
ReplyDeleteAnzaldua says that she uses Anglicism, words borrowed from English. My family also has these words because certain words are not in Vietnamese. For example, we say paking for parking or coop for a measuring cup. Certain words for objects in America are not used in Vietnam, so we don’t have words for them in Vietnamese. I speak Vietnamese to my parents, which is considered the “home” tongue. At school, I speak Standard English. However, the English is different when speaking to a friend (“home” tongue) or a teacher. Similar to Anzaldua, I too switch back from English to Vietnamese in the same sentence when speaking to my family.
Anzaldua writes that the "home" tongues are the languages spoken among family and friends; according to Gee, what type of discourse is this? Please provide an example of the differences between your particular "home" tongue and the tongue you most frequently adopt when not at "home".
ReplyDeleteAccording to Gee, this is a type of primary discourse. Gee mentions two types of discourses, secondary and primary. He describes discourse as "a combination of acts: saying, writing, doing, being, valuing..." It is very similar to culture. It is very much related to social practices and interaction with people of that culture. He says that primary discourse is "attained from being a part of something." Being Korean, my language and primary discourse--culture, background, etc--- all come from my Korean heritage. I was born and raised--up to 1st grade-- in Korea, so my native tongue and language is Korean. I still only speak Korean at home, and our culture is still deeply rooted in Korea. I never took learning English as learning the "enemy's language," as an example in Anzaldua states. It was an opportunity for me. I speak English outside of my home, but it's still very quick and easy for me to switch back to my home language when I'm in a comfortable setting with friends and family. I was never forced to stop speaking English or Korean in any of my environments, and I value the fact that I am still fluent in both Korean and English. I don't necessarily see one or the other as my "home" language, although I do speak Korean at home and English outside of my home. Both are primary languages to me.
Anzaldua
ReplyDeleteAnzaldua writes, “ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity—I am my language.” By this statement Anzaldua emphasizes the interconnection of language and culture. It’s like language is ones brain and culture is one’s heart. Heart by itself cannot last very long, it will die; likewise, culture without language cannot be processed and it will be very difficult to pass on to coming generations. And brain itself has no much of a use, unless you have a heart to feed it with oxygen. Latin is an example of a language without a culture; it’s like a brain sealed in a jar of formalin sitting on a lab bench. There are no feelings and sensations associated with it. It is the culture that flavors the language, yet without language culture can’t survive. I can imagine that it can be hard to grasp this idea by someone who only speaks one language; however, being able to speak three different languages fluently, I can very much see a unique culture in each of the languages. It’s almost like language expresses the mentality of the culture; its like language personifies culture. Similarly, when someone is learning a new language, he/she learns that culture simultaneously. It’s like observing a painter to draw something; in the beginning you just see bunch of lines and scribbles that don’t make sense, but as he gets closer to finishing, you are able to see the picture with all of its attributes. Same situation is with language; as you get more fluent in the language, you start to see the big picture—the culture.
Rose described the “Voc Ed” track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected”; first of all, what does he mean by this? And, secondly, do you feel that remedial tracks still represent a “dumping ground” of sorts? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIn "I wanna be average," Rose’s descriptive writing style very clearly conveys his perspective about vocational education as he tells his story as one of the students in “Voc ed” track. He clearly states that his poor grades were the primary reason that got him into “Voc Ed” track. In addition, he achieves a better picture of “Voc Ed” tack as he analyzes and understands his classmates—what is their story, why are their grades bad? Of course, his ultimate goal was to convey the reader that these low profile students in the “Voc ed” track are not intellectually less capable then the students in the college prep track and its just that they either don’t care much some reason, or don’t have the motivation in order to do well at school. Thus, by “dumping ground for the disaffected” he means that school sorts out the students that have the potential and willingness to pursue higher education—students that already value education and know its significance in the their future life—and gets rid of the rest by “dumping” them in the “Voc ed” track. I don’t think that the remedial tracks represent a “dumping ground” in the present as much as they did in the past; however, I think that they still have negative influence on the students. Students loose the willingness to succeed; they become mentally weak and unstable. It’s just like telling you can never be the best; at most you are going to be an average. But we all know that most of the students in the college prep tracks are not going to be the best as well, but have they not been in the college prep track, they could have ended up far worse.
In gaining his ability to read the written word, Douglass learned how to apply the written word to the world. The reading he did of “The Columbian Orator” explained the world around him through word in a way that was seen as dangerous by his master and the world in which he lived. He began to understand the power structure that was in place and how it shaped the world around him. As his Master “predicted [the discontentment that] would follow [Douglass’] learning to read [would] come,” Douglass felt the double-edged sword that was reading as a slave. Literacy of the written word would be a curse, for it opened a world up that Douglass would continue to reach for (53). With the ability to read the word came the ability to know what Douglass was missing out on in the world. As the cliché goes, ignorance is bliss, became true to Douglass, for now in everything he heard, he heard freedom, tormented him. While this hope for freedom tormented Douglass, it also kept him alive with hope (54). Douglass’ negative feelings of reading because of its ability to inspire discontent within the soul, plays on what was placed on him by his master, for his master knew the discontentment that would come. Though this discontent would enslave Douglass even further in his own slavery, he would later use it to finally grasp his own freedom.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it important for students to be taught in their own “native” tongues; and, what kind of transformational experiences do the authors attribute to this kind of instruction?
ReplyDeleteIt is important for students to be taught in their own “native” tongues because they will be able to understand what they are learning better. The students who are not being taught in their own “native” tongue are kept at a disadvantage of other students because they are blamed for not being able to comprehend and are considered below average as a result. The transformational experiences that the authors attribute to this kind of instruction is the ability to expose students to literary canon. Students were able to grasp not only what it says, but also what it means. Students will learn the real meaning of literacy canon and develop their own understanding of it, which helps them better grasp what they’ve learned. Being able to analyze hip-hop music juxtaposed with the canonical poetry, the students could draw many analyses from the pieces of literature and gain confidence. This way, they are more comfortable.
Lam -- Border Discourses
ReplyDeleteAccording to Lam, the development of intercultural voices and perspectives are vitally important for youth, especially immigrant youth. According to Lam, what do these two terms denote; and, do you agree with her regarding their intrinsic significance?
According to Lam, the term intercultural voices means the ability to create a “third space” that will allow people who are or were members of more than one cultural group to examine each of these groups and re-define who they are, not based on the generalized and stereotypical social groupings placed on them by the dominant discourse. The term immigrant youth is more straightforward and describes those like Willis from Lam’s case study—young people who have left their native countries to find home in their new adopted countries. Lam states multiple times that by creating a “third space” from a border culture, people can better think critically about their cross-cultural experiences, which makes sense theoretically. However, Lam also says that by reading Japanese comic books and thus “participating in a transnational discourse…he [Willis the immigrant from Hong Kong] was also associating himself with a third community of Japanese popular culture that does not necessitate any sociopolitical affiliations”. This is questionable to me; just because something does not necessitate any sociopolitical affiliations doesn’t mean that it’s not probable, which would thus complicate the situation. Nevertheless, I agree with Lam’s reasoning regarding the intrinsic significance of developing intercultural voices because ultimately, dominant discourse does not accurately describe these experiences and we can only come close to truly understanding them through the individual perspectives of the immigrants themselves.
I will be answering the second question regarding Rose’s article. I would like to define disaffected using the dictionary definition. Someone who is disaffected is one who is “dissatisfied with the people in authority and no longer willing to support them.” Rose is saying that the “Voc Ed” track brings together a group of disaffected people and strands them in that atmosphere and environment; as a result, these students are unable to apply themselves as adeptly as possible. I cannot say for sure that remedial tracks represent a dumping ground of sorts because I feel like it depends on the type of person and their motivation. Some students could be motivated to work harder and do better when placed in such a setting, but others might give up completely and accept it as a fact that they are not as intelligent as others and refuse to refute that mentality. Delpit discusses the effect of certain lessons called Distar lessons in which the same lesson is repeated over a long period of time, but and a child who misses a day will be at a disadvantage because others who have studied the exercise more will be able to express their experienced knowledge on those students who are “behind,” classifying them as remedial. I do feel like this classification has a largely negative effect on many students and creates a “dumping ground for the disaffected.”
ReplyDeleteIn response specifically to the first question on the Morrell & Duncan-Andrade reading, I believe there are a multitude of reasons why there has been a resistance to teaching students in a culturally relevant way. I think probably the most significant reason is that many people are quick to discount culturally relevant material as fundamentally non-academic and out of place in the classroom simply because it lies outside the mainstream approach to academia. Similar to opposition to ethnic studies programs, opponents of culturally relevant curricula probably share many of the same views and arguments. To go further, perhaps there is an underlying degree of racism when discounting culturally relevant teaching. Personally, I think that teaching from a model solely based on culturally relevant material does students a disservice. While it can certainly be effectively integrated, to base an entire curriculum and model off of it would put these students at a disadvantage in their later lives when they encounter situations that they would need to appropriate some level of mainstream American practices. For instance, in university or in the workforce some of these students would unfortunately need to understand that certain practices are still viewed as inappropriate and unprofessional. While many of us would like to believe America is a progressive and forward-thinking nation, many facets of our society and culture are indeed backwards and antiquated. As a result, students need to understand this and learn this reality which is an unfortunate and sad fact.
ReplyDeleteMorrell and Duncan-Andrade both say that it is important for students to be taught in their own "native" tongues because it is how they will learn the best. They will be able to understand the material better and they will be able to relate to the material as well. In Duncan-Andrade's article Hope Required When Growing Roses in Concrete, he explains how teachers need to be willing to help the student. He not only says that teachers need to do this through critical hope, but also teachers need to be willing to help connect the lessons to children's everyday lives. Just like Jeremiah told us... When he plays with his son, he uses dinosaurs to help Judah understand how to add or subtract. He is more familiar with dinosaurs than he is with numbers. Not only does this get Judah's attention because he is able to play with the toys he loves, but he is also learning and having fun with something that he plays with everyday, his "native" tongue.
ReplyDeleteMany readers find Rodriguez problematic: Do you agree? How do you think other academics might respond to Rodriguez's stance in relation to cultural heritage and language? If you're familiar with Gloria Anzaldua's work, how do you think she would respond to Rodriguez's perspectives on culture, education, and assimilation?
ReplyDeleteMany readers find Rodriquez’s piece problematic because he separates culture and school. He says the only why he succeeded in school and life was because he isolated his origins and culture from school. He was embarrassed by his parents for not finishing school and not being able to help him with his schoolwork when he needed it. I do not agree with him because culture is a part of who he is, and the reason why he did so well in school was because he appreciated it a lot more than other students. I believe that the appreciation for school and the urge to succeed was from his culture. Gloria Anzaldua believes in the opposite. She got in trouble for speaking Spanish at school, but kept doing it because she wanted to bring her culture into the classroom in order to succeed. She had a lot more appreciation for her cultural heritage and language than Rodriquez. I believe the reason why Rodriquez felt the need to separate the two was because schools did not promote the use of other languages or bring works of other cultures into the classroom. This makes students like him feel uncomfortable speaking another language at school or feel embarrassed if their parents do not speak English fluently.