Linguistic access and participation: English languagelearners in an english-dominant community of practice?

Bilingual Research Journal

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 165-183

  Iddings, Ana Christina DaSilva ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249137725     PISSN: 15235882     EISSN: 15235890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2005.10162829     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Dunguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 78(1), 32-42.
2. Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: U. S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
3. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
4. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogyofthe oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
5. Gebhard, M. (2003). Getting past “See spot run.” Educational Leadership, 60(4), 35-39.
6. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer.
7. Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., & Asato, J. (2001). “English for the children”: The new literacy of the old world order, language policy, and educational reform. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1 & 2), 87-112.
8. Gutiérrez, K., & Larson, J. (1994). Language borders: Recitation as hegemonic discourse. International Journal of Educational Reform, 1(3), 22-26.
9. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
10. Lave, J. (2004, February). Learning as changing practice. Paper presented at Vanderbilt University Visiting Scholars Speakers Series, Nashville, TN.
11. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Lubienski, S. (2003). Celebrating diversity and denying disparities: A critical assessment. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 30-38.
13. Manyak, P. (2002). “Welcome to Salon 110”: The consequences of hybrid literacy practices in a primary-grade English immersion class. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(2), 421-442.
14. Moll, L. (2002). The concept of educational sovereignty. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 1(2), 1-11.
15. No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
16. Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In R. Breen (Ed.), Learners’ contributions to second language research (pp.159-170). New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Pavlenko, A. (2001). “In the world of the tradition, I was unimagined”: Negotiation of identities in cross-cultural autobiographies. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(3), 317-344.
18. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1997). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Shannon, S. (1995). The hegemony of English: A case study of one bilingual classroom as a site of resistance. Linguistics and Education, 7, 175-200.
20. Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice. Toronto, Canada: Multilingual Matters.
21. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000. Retrieved January 27, 2005, from http://www.census.gov
22. Wenger, E. (1998). Community of practice: Leaning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. White, E. B. (1974). Charlotte’s web. New York: Harper Trophy.