EAL-BILINGUAL RE: Optimum age for language learning

----------

Amy Thompson
Head of Ethnic Minority Achievement Team
Lambeth Education
6th Floor, International House
Canterbury Crescent
London
SW9 7QE

Tel: 020 7926 9689
Fax: 020 7926 9362

> ----------
> From: 	Jarvis, Ian[SMTP:Ian.Jarvis at rotherham.gov.uk]
> Reply To: 	eal-bilingual at ngfl.gov.uk
> Sent: 	16 December 2002 10:01
> To: 	eal-bilingual at ngfl.gov.uk
> Subject: 	RE: EAL-BILINGUAL Optimum age for language learning
> 
> Karen
> 
> Colin Baker in 'A Parents' and Teachers' Guide to Bilingualism'
> (Multilingual Matters) covers this. He argues that the younger the child,
> the easier the acquisition of a second (or third . . .) language (I
> oversimplify). You may also find useful evidence in the archives of the
> National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (www.ncbe.gwu.edu/).
> 
> Ian Jarvis
> 
> > ----------
> > From: 	Karen Constable
> > Reply To: 	eal-bilingual at ngfl.gov.uk
> > Sent: 	Monday, December 16, 2002 1:04 am
> > To: 	eal-bilingual at ngfl.gov.uk
> > Subject: 	EAL-BILINGUAL Optimum age for language learning
> > 
> > Can anyone help with this point please?
> > 
> > What does research tell us about the best time for us to learn another
> > language. Is it easier for adults or children? If latter, what is the
> best
> > age(s)?
> > 
> > Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND SECOND LANGUAGE
LEARNING  EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE REPORT: 5  
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: WHAT EVERY TEACHER
NEEDS TO UNLEARN   

BARRY MCLAUGHLIN 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ 

1992 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

OVERVIEW 

By discussing commonly held myths and misconceptions, this paper attempts to
clarify a number of important issues in the area of second language
learning. These include the ease and rapidity with which children learn a
second language, the optimal age at which to begin second language
instruction, the importance of the extent of exposure to the second
language, the relationship between oral communication skills and academic
language skills, and cultural and individual differences in language
learning styles. 

Each myth presented in this paper is followed by a discussion of related
research on second language learning and its implications for classroom
teachers. It is important for the teachers of language minority students to
understand that second language learning by school-aged children is a
longer, harder, more complex process than most of them have been led to
believe. 

As more and more children enter schools from families in which English is
not the language of the home, teachers face the daunting challenge of
instructing children who have limited skills in the English language. It is
becoming increasingly obvious that this experience is not limited to
teachers in certain schools or certain parts of the country. All teachers
need to know something about how children learn a second language. Intuitive
assumptions are often mistaken, and children can be harmed if teachers have
unrealistic expectations and an inaccurate understanding of the process of
second language learning and its relationship to acquiring other academic
skills and knowledge. 

As any adult who has tried to learn another language can verify, second
language acquisition can be a frustrating and difficult experience. This is
no less the case for children, although there is a widespread belief that
children are facile second language learners. This is one of a number of
myths that this paper intends to debunk. 

The purpose of this paper is to clarify a number of important issues in the
area of second language learning by discussing commonly held myths or
misconceptions. Throughout, I will try to show the implications of research
on second language learning in children for classroom teachers. A thorough
discussion of these issues is not possible here; the interested reader will
find a more detailed exposition of each of these points and a more extensive
bibliography in Second Language Acquisition in Childhood (McLaughlin, 1
984-1 985). 

MYTH 1: 
CHILDREN LEARN SECOND LANGUAGES QUICKLY AND EASILY 

One frequently hears this proposition in various forms. It is asserted that
children can learn languages faster than adults; that immigrant children
translate for their parents who have not learned the language; and that
child learners speak without a foreign accent, whereas this is impossible
for adult learners. 

Typically, when pressed, people asserting the superiority of child learners
resort to some variant of the "critical period hypothesis." The argument is
that children are superior to adults in learning second languages because
their brains are more flexible (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield & Roberts, 1959).
They can learn languages easily because their cortex is more plastic than
that of older learners. (The corollary hypothesis is the "frozen brain
hypothesis," applied to adult learners.) 

The critical period hypothesis has been questioned by many researchers in
recent years and is presently quite controversial (Geneses, 1981; Harley,
1989; Newport, 1990). The evidence for the biological basis of the critical
period has been challenged and the argument made that differences in the
rate of second language acquisition may reflect psychological and social
factors, rather then biological ones that favor child learners. For example,
children may be more motivated than adults to learn the second language.
There is probably more incentive for the child on the playground and in
school to communicate in the second language than there is for the adult on
the job (where they often can get by with routine phrases and expressions)
or with friends (who may speak the individual's first language anyway). It
frequently happens that children are placed in more situations where they
are forced to speak the second language than are adults. 

However, experimental research in which children have been compared to
adults in second language learning has consistently demonstrated that
adolescents and adults perform better than young children under controlled
conditions. Even when the method of teaching appears to favor learning in
children, they perform less well than do adolescents and adults (e.g., Asher
& Price, 1967). One exception is in the area of pronunciation, although even
here some studies show better results for older learners. Similarly,
research comparing children and adults learning second languages as
immigrants does not support the notion that younger children are more
efficient at second language learning (e.g., Snow & Hoefnagel-Hoehle, 1978).

Nonetheless, people continue to believe that children learn languages faster
than adults. Is this superiority illusory? One difficulty in answering this
question is that of applying the same criteria of language proficiency to
both the child and the adult. The requirements to communicate as a child are
quite different from the requirements to communicate as an adult. The
child's constructions are shorter and simpler, and vocabulary is relatively
small when compared with what is necessary for adults to speak at the same
level of competence in a second language as they do in their first language.
The child does not have to learn as much as an adult to achieve competence
in communicating. Hence there is the illusion that the child learns more
quickly than the adult, whereas when controlled research is conducted, in
both formal and informal learning situations, results typically indicate
that adult (and adolescent) learners perform better than young children. 

What does this mean for the teacher? 
One of the implications of this line of research is that teachers should not
expect miraculous results from children who are learning English as a second
language (ESL) in the classroom context. At the very least, they should
expect that learning a second language is as difficult for a child in their
class as it is for the teachers as adults. In fact, it may be more
difficult, as young children do not have access to the memory techniques and
other strategies that more experienced learners can use in acquiring
vocabulary and in learning the grammatical rules of the language. 

Nor should it be assumed that children have fewer inhibitions or are less
embarrassed than adults when they make mistakes in a second language. If
anything, children are likely to be more shy and more embarrassed before
their peers than are more mature adults. Certainly, children from some
cultural backgrounds are extremely anxious when singled out and called upon
to perform in a language they are in the process of learning. Teachers need
to be sensitive to these feelings and not assume that, because children
supposedly learn the second language quickly, such discomfort will quickly
pass. 

MYTH 2: 
THE YOUNGER THE CHILD, THE MORE SKILLED IN ACQUIRING A SECOND LANGUAGE 

A related myth concerns the best time to start language instruction.
Certainly the optimal way to learn a second language is to begin at birth
and learn two languages simultaneously. However, when should a young child
who has acquired a first language begin a second? Some researchers take a
younger-is-better position and argue that the earlier children begin to
learn a second language, the better (e.g., Krashen, Long, & Scarcella,
1979). However, at least with regard to school settings, the research
literature does not support this conclusion. 

For example, a study of 17,000 British children learning French in a school
context indicated that, after five years of exposure, children who had begun
French instruction at age eleven performed better on tests of second
language proficiency than children who had begun at eight years of age
(Stern, Burstall, & Harley, 1975). The investigators in this study, the
largest single study of children learning a second language in a formal
classroom setting, concluded that older children are better second language
learners than are younger ones. Similar results have been found in other
studies by European investigators: studies of Swedish children learning
English (Gorosch & Axelsson, 1964), of Swiss children learning French
(Buehler, 1972), and of Danish children learning English (Florander &
Jansen, 1968). 

It may be that these findings reflect the mode of language instruction used
in European countries, where heavy emphasis has traditionally been placed on
formal grammatical analysis. Older children are more skilled in dealing with
such an instructional approach and hence might be expected to do better.
However, this argument does not explain findings from French immersion
programs in Canada, where little emphasis is placed on the formal aspects of
grammar, and therefore, older children should have no advantage over younger
ones. Yet English-speaking children in late immersion programs (in which the
second language is introduced in grades seven or eight) have been found to
perform just as well or better on tests of French language proficiency as
children who began their immersion experience in kindergarten or grade one
(Genesee, 1981, 1987). The research does not always show an advantage to
children who begin at an older age, but differences in performance are by no
means as great as relative amount of classroom exposure would lead one to
expect. 

Pronunciation is one aspect of language learning where the younger is-better
hypothesis may have validity. A number of studies have found that the
younger one begins to learn a second language, the more native-like the
accent one develops in that language (Asher& Garcia, 1969; Oyama, 1976).
This may be because pronunciation involves motor patterns that have been
fossilized in the first language and are difficult to alter after a certain
age because of the nature of the neurophysiological mechanisms involved. It
may also be that we do not understand very well how to teach phonology in a
second language. Perhaps if we could develop more advanced (e.g.,
computer-assisted) methods of instruction, older learners might do better at
acquiring a native-like accent in the second language. 

Aside from the question of pronunciation, however, the younger-is-better
hypothesis does not have strong empirical support in school contexts. The
research suggests that younger children do not necessarily have an advantage
over older children and, because of their cognitive and experiential
limitations when compared to older children, are actually at a disadvantage
in how quickly they learn a second language--other things being equal. 

What does this mean for the teacher? 
The research cited above does not mean that early exposure to a second
language is in some way detrimental to a child. An early start for foreign
language learners, for example, allows for a long sequence of instruction
leading to potential communicative proficiency. It also allows children to
view second language learning and the insights they acquire into another
culture as normal and integral parts of schooling. However, instruction of
children with limited English proficiency in the United States involves
different considerations from foreign language instruction in the United
States or Europe or from French immersion in Canada. Language minority
children in American schools need to master English as quickly as possible
while at the same time learning subject-matter content. This suggests that
in the American context early exposure to English is called for. However,
because second language acquisition takes time, children will continue to
need the support of their first language, where this is possible, so as not
to fall behind in content-area learning. 

But teachers should not expect miracles of their young English language
learners. The research suggests that older students will show quicker gains,
though younger children may have an advantage in pronunciation. Certainly,
beginning language instruction in kindergarten or first grade gives children
more exposure to the language than beginning in fifth or sixth grade. But
exposure in itself does not predict language acquisition. This is the next
myth. 

MYTH 3: 
THE MORE TIME STUDENTS SPEND IN A SECOND LANGUAGE CONTEXT, THE QUICKER THEY
LEARN THE LANGUAGE 

For many educators, the most straightforward way for children from
non-English-speaking backgrounds to learn English is for them to be in an
environment where they are constantly exposed to English. This is the
rationale behind what is called "structured immersion," an instructional
strategy in which children from language minority backgrounds receive all of
their instruction in English and have the additional support of ESL classes
and content-based instruction that is tailored to their language abilities. 

Such a program has the advantage of providing more time on task for learning
English than in a bilingual classroom. On the face of it, one might expect
that the more English children hear and use, the quicker their English
language skills develop. However, research evidence indicates that this is
not necessarily the case. Over the length of the program, children in
bilingual classes, where there is exposure to the home language and to
English, have been found to acquire English language skills equivalent to
those acquired by children who have been in English-only programs (Cummins,
1981; Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991). This would not be expected if time on
task were the most important factor in language learning. 

Furthermore, many researchers caution against withdrawing the support of the
home language too soon. There is a great deal of evidence that, whereas oral
communication skills in a second language may be acquired within two or
three years, it may take up to four to six years to acquire the level of
proficiency for understanding the language in its instructional uses
(Collier, 1989; Cummins, 1981). This is a point I shall return to in the
next myth. 

What does this mean for the teacher? 
Teachers should be aware that giving language minority children the support
of their home language, where this is possible, is not doing them a
disservice. The use of the home language in bilingual classrooms enables the
child to avoid falling behind in school work, and it also provides a
mutually reinforcing bond between the home and the school. In fact, the home
language acts as a bridge for children, enabling them to participate more
effectively in school activities while they are learning English. 

The research indicates that, over the long nun, children in bilingual
programs will acquire as much English as children who have more exposure
from an earlier age. Furthermore, if the child is able to acquire literacy
skills in the first language, as an adult he or she may be functionally
bilingual, with a unique advantage in technical or professional careers. 

On the other hand, language majority children in foreign language immersion
programs have been shown to benefit from extended intensive exposure to the
foreign language. The Canadian research clearly shows that immersing
children in a foreign language is not detrimental to learning content
material in that language, as long as the home language continues to develop
and Is supported (Genesee, 1987). 

MYTH 4: 
CHILDREN HAVE ACQUIRED A SECOND LANGUAGE ONCE THEY CAN SPEAK IT 

Often, teachers assume that once children can converse comfortably in
English, they are in full control of the language. Yet for school-aged
children, there is much more involved in learning a second language than
learning how to speak it. A child who is proficient in face-to-face
communication has not necessarily achieved proficiency in the more abstract
and disembedded academic language needed to engage in many classroom
activities, especially in the later grades. For example, the child needs to
learn what nouns and verbs are and what synonyms and antonyms are. Such
activities require the child to separate language from the context of actual
experience and to learn to deal with abstract meanings. 

A great deal of research has been done on the differences between embedded
and disembedded language, and the consensus is that the distinction is a
real one, although we are dealing with a continuum of linguistic skills
rather than with a dichotomy (Snow, 1987; Wong Fillmore, 1982). The Canadian
educator, Jim Cummins (1980a), cited research evidence from a study of 1,210
immigrant children in Canada indicating that it takes these children much
longer (approximately five to seven years) to master the disembedded
cognitive language skills required for the regular English curriculum than
to master oral communicative skills. Cummins and others speak of the
"linguistic facade,"whereby children appear to be fluent in a language
because of their oral skills but have not mastered the more disembedded and
decontextualized aspects of the language. 

What does this mean for the teacher? 
Teachers and other staff need to be cautious in exiting children from
programs where they have the support of their home language. Exiting
children who are not ready for the all-English classroom may be harmful to
the children's academic success. In fact, Cummins (1980b) has argued that it
is inappropriate for programs to exit children into an all-English classroom
on the basis of language assessment instruments that tap only oral
communication skills. 

Aside from this question, all teachers in all programs need to be aware that
a child who is learning in a second language may be having language problems
in reading and writing that are not apparent if the child's oral abilities
are used as the gauge of English proficiency. It is conceivable that many of
the problems that children from minority language backgrounds have in
reading and writing at the middle school and high school levels stem from
limitations in vocabulary and syntactic knowledge in the second language.
Even children who are skilled orally can have these gaps. As we have seen,
learning a second language is not an easy enterprise and is not finished in
a year or two. 

MYTH 5: 
ALL CHILDREN LEARN A SECOND LANGUAGE IN THE SAME WAY 

Most likely, if asked, teachers would not admit that they think all children
learn a second language in the same way or at the same rate. Yet this seems
to be the assumption underlying a great deal of practice. There are two
issues here: The first relates to differences among linguistically and
culturally diverse groups and the second to differences among learners
within these groups. 

Research by cultural indicates that mainstream American families and the
families of many children from minority cultural backgrounds have different
ways of talking (Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1982). Mainstream children are
accustomed to an analytic style, in which the truth of specific arguments is
deduced from general propositions. Many children from culturally diverse
groups are accustomed to an inductive style of talking, in which fundamental
assumptions must be inferred from a series of concrete statements. 

Schools in America emphasize the language functions and styles of talk that
predominate in mainstream families. Language is used to communicate meaning,
to convey information, to control social behavior, and to solve problems. In
the upper grades, especially, the style of talk is analytic and deductive.
Children are rewarded for clear and logical thinking. It is no wonder that
children who come to school accustomed to using language in a manner that is
very different from what is expected in school experience tension and
frustration. 

Furthermore, there are social class differences. In urban centers of
literate, technologically advanced societies, middle-class parents teach
their children through language. Instructions are given verbally from a very
early age. This contrasts to the experience of immigrant children from less
technologically advanced non-urbanized societies. Traditionally, teaching in
such cultures is carried out primarily through nonverbal means (Rogoff,
1990). Technical skills, such as cooking, driving a car, or building a
house, are learned through observation, supervised participation, and
self-initiated repetition. There is none of the information testing through
questions that characterizes the teaching-learning process in urban and
suburban middle-class homes. 

In addition, some children in some cultures are more accustomed to learning
from peers than from adults. From their earliest years, they were cared for
and taught by older siblings or cousins. They learned to be quiet in the
presence of adults and had little experience in interacting with them. When
they enter school, they are more likely to pay attention to what their peers
are doing than to what the teacher is saying. At this point, the other
children are more important to them than adults. 

Besides these differences among cultural groups, there are also differences
within groups in how children react to school and learn. Some children are
outgoing and sociable and learn the second language quickly because they
want to be like their English-speaking peers. They do not worry about
mistakes, but use limited resources to generate input from native speakers.
Other children are shy and quiet. They learn by listening and by attending
to what is happening and being said around them. They say little, for fear
of making a mistake. Nonetheless, research shows that both types of learners
can be successful second language learners. In classrooms where group work
is stressed, the socially active child is more likely to be successful; in
the traditional, teacher-oriented classroom, children who are "active
listeners" have been found to be more successful than highly sociable
children (Wong Fillmore, Ammon, Ammon, & McLaughlin, 1984). 

What does this mean for the teacher? 
Teachers need to be aware of cultural and individual differences in learner
styles. Many culturally and linguistically diverse children enter school
with cognitive and social norms that differ from those that govern the
mainstream classroom. These differences, in turn, affect the teacher's
expectations of the child's ability and the teacher's response to the child.
Within the school environment, behaviors such as paying attention and
persisting at tasks are valued. Because of their cultural background,
however, some children may be less able to make the functional adaptation to
the interpersonal setting of the school culture. Unless the teacher is aware
of such cultural differences, the child's lack of attentiveness and lack of
persistence can influence the teacher's expectations and the way the teacher
interacts with these children. 

Effective instruction for children from culturally diverse backgrounds
requires a variety of instructional activities--small group work,
cooperative learning, peer tutoring, individualized instruction, and other
strategies that take the children's diversity of experience into account.
Many of the important educational innovations in current practice such as
untracking and mixed-age grouping--are the direct result of teachers
adapting their teaching to the challenge posed by children from culturally
diverse backgrounds. 

Finally, teachers need to be aware of how the child's experiences in the
home and in the home culture affect values, patterns of language use, and
interpersonal style. Children are likely to be more responsive to a teacher
who is sensitive to their culture and its behavioral patterns. This means
going beyond such cognitive activities as history lessons, slide shows of
life in Mexico, Cambodia, or the like. Such cognitive activities, while
important, do not reach children effectively. Effective education of
children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds affirms the
values of the home culture and develops in children a positive emotional
attitude toward their background. 

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 

Research on second language learning has shown that there are many
misconceptions about how children learn languages. Teachers need to be aware
of these research findings and to unlearn old ways of thinking. For the most
part, this means realizing that quick and easy solutions are not appropriate
for complex problems. Second language learning by school-aged children takes
longer, is harder, and involves a great deal more than most teachers have
been led to believe. We need consciously to rethink what our expectations
should be. 

Too often one hears of the "problem" of cultural and linguistic diversity in
our country's schools, rather than the "opportunity"that diversity provides.
Children from diverse backgrounds enrich our schools and our other students.
Student diversity challenges the educational system, but the educational
innovations and instructional strategies that are effective with diverse
students can benefit all students. 

In fact, although the research of the National Center for Research on
Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, as well as the research of
many other investigators throughout the country on instructional
conversations, active learning, mixed ability groupings, collaborative
learning, holistic instruction, and authentic assessment has been directed
at children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, much of
it applies equally well to mainstream students. The challenge of educating
diverse students effectively promotes needed educational reform at all
levels and for all students. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

REFERENCES 

Asher, J. J., & Garcia, R. (1969). The optimal age to learn a foreign
language. Modern Language Journal, 53, 334-341. 

Asher, J. J., & Price, B. S. (1967). The learning strategy of a total
physical response: Some age differences. Child Development, 38, 1219-1227. 

Buehler, U. B. (1972). Empirische and lernpsychologische Beitraege zur Wahl
des Zeitpunktes fuer den Fremdsprachenunterrichtbeginn:
Lernpsychologischinterpretierte Leistungsmessungen im Frage
Franzoesischunterricht an Primaerschulen des Kantons Zuerich. Zurich: Orell
Fuessli. 

Collier, V. (1989). How long: A synthesis of research on academic
achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509-531. 

Cummins, J. (1980a). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency:
Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL
Quarterly, 14, 175-187. 

Cummins, J. (1980b). The entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education. NABE
Journal, 4(3), 25-29. 

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting
educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and
language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: California
State University, Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center. 

Florander, J., & Jansen, M. (1968). Skoleforsog i engelsk 1959-1965.
Copenhagen: Danish Institute of Education. 

Genesee, F. (1981). A comparison of early and late second language learning.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 13, 115-127. 

Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and
bilingual education. New York: Newbury House. 

Gorosch, M., & Axelsson, C. A. (1964). English without a book: A bilingual
experience in primary schools by audio-visual means. Berlin: Comelsen
Verlag. 

Harley, B.(1989). Age in second language acquisition. San Diego: College
Hill Press. 

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in
communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge. 

Krashen, S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, rate, and eventual
attainment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 573-582. 

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967).The biological foundations of language. New York:
Wiley. 

McLaughlin, B. (1984-1985). Second language acquisition in childhood
(Vols.1-2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. 

Newport, E.(1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive
Science, 14, 11-28. 

Ochs, E. (1982). Talking to children in Western Samoa. Language in Society,
14, 77-104. 

Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period for the acquisition of nonnative
phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 261 -284. 

Penfield, W., & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and brain-mechanisms. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Ramirez, J.D., Yuen, S.D., & Ramey, D.R. (1991). Longitudinal study of
structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional
bilingual education programs for language minority children. Final Report.
Volumes 1 & 2. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. 

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in
social context. New York: Oxford. 

Snow, C. E. (1987). Second language learners' format definitions: An oral
language correlate of school literacy. Los Angeles: University of
California, Center for Language Education and Research. 

Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Hoehle, M. (1978). The critical period for language
acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development,
49,1114-1118. 

Stem, H. H., Burstall, C., & Harley, B. (1975). French from age eight or
eleven? Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 

Wong Fillmore, L. (1982). Language minority students and school
participation: What kind of English is needed? Journal of Education,
164,1431-56. 

Wong Fillmore, L., Ammon, M. S., Ammon, P., & McLaughlin, B. (1984).
Learning English through bilingual instruction (Final Report). Washington,
D.C.: National Institute of Education. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

This report was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (OERI) of the U.S. Department of Education, under
Cooperative Agreement No. R117G10022. The findings and opinions expressed
here are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the
positions or policies of OERI.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

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

Return to: NCRCDSLL Publications 

NCELA Home Page 
www.ncela.gwu.edu 

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************