Teaching and testing culture: Old questions, new dimensions

CHAPTER 3

TEACHING AND TESTING CULTURE: OLD QUESTIONS, NEW DIMENSIONS Z E N A T. M O O R E The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Austin, TX 78712-1294, U. S. A.

Abstract This chapter deals with the teaching and testing of culture in the foreign/secondlanguage classroom. An overview of three decades of discussions on the inclusion of culture in language teaching is presented and of the need for redefinition of the term "culture" in this context. Then, there follows a review of the documentedtechniques used by teachers. Techniquesfor teaching culture am discussed in terms of their effectivenessfor developingcultural literacy.Finally,testing and assessment procedures, including traditionally used formats, am presented for their strengths and weaknesses in measuring cultural skills. A recommendation is made for the use of portfolios that provide a better fit between instruction and measurement. Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Introduction In 1994 foreign/second language instruction was added to the national core curriculum for all school children in the U.S.A. beginning at the kindergarten level (ACTFL, 1992). Such a decision is indicative of two facts. First of all, the American government recognizes the limitations of a monolingual society to compete successfully in an ever expanding economic global market. Second, it realizes the importance to develop in its citizens the ability to exist harmoniously with speakers of different languages and cultures. The committee charged with designing the national standards in foreign language education (comprising national associations of teachers of German, French, Spanish and Portuguese), declared that the true content of the second language course was not the grammar and vocabulary of the language, but the culture expressed through that language (NSFLE, 1995). Such a declaration places major emphasis on the teaching and testing of culture and demands that there be an adequate assessment of the needs in these areas. This can begin with a review of the history of culture teaching and testing. The recent emphasis on teaching culture demands that the profession assess its teaching programs, teaching competences, instructional material and evaluation procedures. This chapter 595

596

z.T. MOORE

attempts to begin such a dialogue. It presents an overview of the discussions on the inclusion of culture in the language classroom and the implications for classroom teaching. Next, it describes some of the techniques and strategies suggested for teaching and testing culture. Finally it focuses on assessment procedures with specific attention to the use of the portfolio for teaching and testing culture. It is hoped that by reviewing the past and examining the present the profession may gain greater insight for assessing the needs for the future.

Teaching Culture The teaching of culture has captured more attention than any other area of language education (Lafayette, 1976). This chapter will highlight three major concerns drawn from the vast body of literature both synchronically and diachronically. The first concern deals with the treatment of language as inseparable from culture. The second deals with practical implications for curriculum planning and the third with techniques for the teaching and testing of culture. Beginning in the 1930s and continuing well into the late 1950s the anthropological linguistic works of Hall (1959, 1976); Sapir (1949) and Whorf (1956) urged linguists to recognize the fact that language was not simply a system of signs to be coded and decoded on paper, but, more importantly, it was a bearer of cultural values and norms and, as a medium of communication, it was highly contextualized, community-specific and in many instances non-verbal. Critics challenged the linear structure on which most language instruction was based as inadequately and unsoundly framed (Brooks, 1968; Kennedy, 1973). Language, they argued, is first of all spoken and is used for expressing and communicating basic human needs, wants, and desires. Such needs, wants, and desires vary from person to person, from community to community, and from generation to generation. As a result of these discussions a vigorous movement began to convince teachers to break the barriers that confined language learning to memorizing a set of grammatical rules and vocabulary (Brooks, 1971; Damen, 1987; Galloway, 1981; Hall, 1959; Kennedy, 1973), and to do "the unthinkable thing" by integrating culture into a traditionally language-based curriculum (Crawford-Lange & Lange, 1987). To do otherwise would be to teach a set of uncontextualized symbols to which the student is likely to attach the wrong meaning (Brown, 1987; Higgs, 1984; Nostrand, 1974, 1989), because in addition to learning an incredibly complex system of phonology, syntax, and lexicon, the child also learned "a multitude of rules of functional appropriateness.., how to be tactful, evasive, persuasive, inoffensive and defensive" (Kennedy, 1973, p. 70). There are also sociopolitical and socioeconomic advantages to be gained from the inclusion of the study of other cultures. Paul Simon of Illinois had for a long time complained about the tongue-tiedness of the average American, a disability which, he believed, both impeded progress in the international market and placed the U.S.A. behind other industrial communities which apparently profited from their multilingual and multicultural competences. Cultural blunders and linguistic misinterpretations committed by high-level government and business personnel can be avoided if the education system places importance on cultural literacy and linguistic proficiency (Simon, 1980, 1981).

The Teachingof Culture and Languagein the Second Language Classroom

597

Integrating Culture into the Language Classroom Convincing teachers to include culture teaching in the second language classroom was the first systemic change in instruction for cultural literacy. A second, and perhaps more formidable task was to develop the type of curriculum that reflected this integration. There was no doubt that teachers wanted to teach culture. They simply did not know what to teach nor how to teach it (Brooks, 1968). A (re)definition of the term was clearly needed. Historically, educators tended to define culture in terms of Big C or Little c. Language teachers were inclined to adopt this dichotomous approach by viewing culture as either aesthetic (the Fine Arts, the Great Books, the opera, and architecture), or anthropological (festivals, dances, music, and food). However, with the inclusion of authentic everyday material in classroom instruction, teachers became increasingly aware of the need to broaden their definition of culture to include everything related to the world-views of people/individuals who live in specific locations, speak a common language, and have accepted ways of behaving appropriately or inappropriately in specific situations. It was not enough simply to teach about culture, it was equally important to plan for the development of cultural competence (Saville-Troike, 1985). This modified (and more accurate) definition of culture led to a third challenge, that of designing suitable programs for teaching culture. Teachers needed new skills to plan for adequately and deliver effective instruction. Most colleges, however, lacked suitably qualified faculty to deliver culture courses to second language pre-service and in-service teachers. It was not surprising, then, that many of the attempts to teach culture became part of the four main approaches which Galloway (1985) called: (1) The Frankenstein Approach: A taco from here, a flamenco dancer from there, a gaucho from here, a bullfight from there. (2) The 4-F Approach: Folk-dances, festivals, fairs, and food. (3) The Tour Guide Approach: The identification of monuments, rivers, and cities. (4) The "By-the-Way" Approach: Sporadic lectures or bits of behavior selected indiscriminately to emphasize sharp differences.

Goal Statements and Objectives In order to avoid such sporadic and unsystematic teaching of culture, educators presented teachers with ways and means of creating objectives and goal statements. Nostrand (1974) and Nostrand and Nostrand (1970) led the field by constructing a theoretical framework from which students could move in a procedural way from simply learning facts about different cultures to synthesizing, analyzing, and comparing cultural patterns. Later, their work was modified by Lafayette and Schulz (1975), and also by Allen (1985). But it was Nostrand's (1974) goal statements, Seelye's seven goals of instruction (1974, 1991), and Lafayette's revised work (1988) that emerged as popular models for planning culture instruction. Nostrand believed that the culturally competent student should be able to: (a) react appropriately in a social situation; (b) describe or ascribe to the proper part of the population a pattern in the cultural or social behavior; (c) recognize a pattern when it is illustrated; (d) explain a pattern; (e) predict how a pattern is likely to apply to a given situation and (O describe or manifest an attitude important for making one acceptable in the foreign society. Seelye modified Nostrand's goals and created subsets of what he called his "supergoal, that all students will develop the cultural understandings, attitudes and performance skills to func-

598

z.T. MOORE

tion appropriately within a society of the target language and to communicate with the culture bearer" (1991, p. 49). Seelye believed that to be purposeful, classroom activities should be tied to one of these seven goals which he defined as: (1) the sense, or functionality, of culturally conditioned behavior; (2) interaction of language and social variables; (3) conventional behavior in common situations; (4) cultural connotations of words or phrases; (5) evaluating statements about society; (6) researching another culture; (7) attitudes toward other cultures. Lafayette (1976) believed that culture can be learned either as active cultural knowledge, or as passive cultural knowledge and based on this he developed a list of 12 goals suggesting that teaching strategies should fall into one of four main typologies: (1) strategies for information and understanding; (2) strategies for teaching students to behave appropriately in the target culture; (3) strategies that allow students to do cross-cultural analysis; and (4) strategies that afford students opportunities to understand culturally conditioned behavior. In spite of the fact that there was general agreement about the need for statements of goals and objectives two main concerns remained unresolved. Lafayette referred to one concern when he himself confessed that simply establishing guidelines and creating objectives was insufficient as long as teachers lacked appropriate instructional material (1988). Seelye alluded to the other, the difficulties of testing culture learning, when he admitted that his goals were "not measurable in their present form" (Seelye, 1991, p. 49).

Teaching Techniques and Instructional Material The lack and inappropriateness of instructional material which Lafayette identified became a major concern. Teachers relied heavily on the textbook as a primary source of cultural information only to find that many textbooks presented rather stereotypical depictions not only of Euro-American cultures but also of other minority cultures. For example, Ramirez and KellyHall (1990), and Arizpe and Beningo (1987), found that Spanish textbooks spoke of Hispanic culture as if it were monolithic and that the material was gender biased, sexist, and classist. Joiner (1974), Moreau and Pfister (1980), De Meo (1982), Kramsch (1983), and Graci (1989) made similar findings in other languages. Second language journals gave greater voice than they had previously to articles and essays that describexl successful use of material that was authentic and that promoted more creativity on the part of the teacher. Conferences, too, devoted many sessions to collegial sharing of "strategies that work". Researchers interested in culture instruction encouraged teachers to use native informants (Galloway, 1981; Seelye, 1991), or audio-taped and video-taped interviews with native speakers as more effective and authentic ways of allowing students to develop an understanding of the target culture (Omaggio-Hadley (1993). The suggestions by Galloway (1981) and Omaggio-Hadley (1993), though admirable and laudable, and perhaps more applicable to college settings, were not without problems. First there was the difficulty of locating native informants. Second, there was a greater challenge in identifying suitably qualified native informants who were knowledgeable and reliable sources of information. Third, such ad-

The Teachingof Cultureand Languagein the SecondLanguageClassroom

599

ditional activities became burdensome and time consuming in an already over-demanding profession in which there were few incentives and low remuneration. This resulted in continued polarity and dichotomy in the profession. On the one hand, there were the theorists who were dissatisfied with strategies that allowed only for cognitive knowledge of the target culture as presented in textbooks, and who struggled to devise other ways of helping students to achieve higher level cultural competences, such as cross-cultural understanding, comparisons and analysis. On the other hand, there were the practicing teachers in the real classroom, for whom teaching culture was reduced mainly to imparting factual knowledge of the culture, and if time allowed, to some participation in "cultural activities", usually songs and dances, celebration of festivals, and sampling exotic foods. Researchers continued to look for ways and means of encouraging culture learning that was "more authentic". For example, Kramsch (1983) believed that one of the principal values of learning culture was to develop an understanding of one's own culture. She believed that culture learning must begin with an understanding of one's own cultural behavior, its idiosyncrasies and contradictions, its prejudices and ethnocentric outlook. Such an understanding can be used as a base for making cross-cultural applications and analysis. She therefore urged teachers to begin culture instruction from the point of view of the students' own culture. The emphasis on a cross-cultural perspective attracted many a supporter. Such an approach had the promise and potential for encouraging cross-cultural comparison and analysis which allowed students opportunities to better understand how culture influences behavior (Breslin, 1993). As a result we witnessed the creation of several cross-cultural techniques designed to sensitize students to similarities and differences across cultures. One such technique specifically designed for American students planning to go abroad was the culture assimilator, an episode or a series of episodes containing an element of crosscultural confusion, a "critical incident" (Fiedler, Mitchell & Triandis, 1971). Another technique, the culture capsule, consists of a paragraph explaining one minimal difference between an American and a target custom, for example, bread in America and bread in France. The vignettes are contextualized around a specific theme, for example, having breakfast, and are accompanied by authentic and appropriate realia (Taylor & Sorenson, 1961). The culture cluster, as the name suggests, consists of several capsules that relate to a specific topic and culminates in a dramatization (Meade & Morain, 1973). The most recently advocated technique for cross-cultural study is the Kluckhohn Model which provides a systematic way of allowing students to study different cultures through an investigation of commonly held value orientations (Ortufio, 1991). The culture capsule, the culture assimilator, the culture cluster, and the Kluckhohn Model are believed to be effective in encouraging greater analytical thinking and cross-cultural comparisons. Their strength lies in the fact that they do not reduce the teaching of culture to imparting unrelated bits and pieces of information. The problem, however, resides in their practical implementation. The techniques demand that the teacher and/or students undertake the task of creating the situations/vignettes. This assumes prior knowledge and familiarity with culture specifics as well as the technical knowledge necessary for developing appropriate teaching material. These additional tasks create an added burden for the teacher working within an already overcrowded timetable. For these very reasons classroom teachers do not frequently use them (Moore, 1993). More in keeping with the realities of the classroom and with the (in)accessibility of instructional material, teachers select more practical ways of teaching culture. They use authentic material as sources of linguistic and cultural input. They have students read the cultural notes in the textbook. They lecture on topics, using slides and other realia (Galloway, 1985). They have

600

Z.T. MOORE

students undertake projects (Hickey, 1989), and they teach students songs, dances, and proverbs (Hendon, 1980). Impact on the Classroom

How has all this affected the language classroom? One area that has shown general improvement is in the amount of instructional time given to teaching culture. Teachers today spend more time on culture instruction than they did 10 years ago (Moore, 1993). Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that teachers now devote more time than they previously did to teaching culture, they are still not employing the type of teaching techniques described as more desirable by Seelye (1991), Kramsch (1983), and Galloway (1985). Teachers defended their selection of techniques by arguing that they were constrained by timetabling schedules, that they lacked adequate knowledge and suitable instructional material, and most of all that they needed training in techniques and methods of culture teaching (Moore, 1993). Twelve years ago Kramsch (1983) criticized approaches to teaching culture that omitted an investigation and examination of deeper cultural questions of beliefs, values, and attitudes. According to recent findings by Tedick & Walker (1994), the situation has not changed. If we hope to witness real improvements we have to create drastic reforms in teacher education aimed at addressing the imbalance of methods courses that focus heavily on teaching language and minimally on teaching culture (Tedick & Walker,1994). In-service and preservice teachers must have the opportunities to pursue courses and programs that focus specifically on pedagogy vis-h-vis cultural instruction in interdisciplinary settings. Testing Culture In stark contrast with the literature on teaching culture, the literature dealing with testing/ assessing culture learning is remarkably sparse. For example, in one review of the literature on the topic of culture and second language learning, the author, Morain (1983), listed 25 articles of which only three dealt with the testing or evaluation of culture. One was the work of the Nostrands in 1970, the second was that of Lafayette and Schulz in 1975, and the third was that of Born also in 1975. Twelve years were to elapse before a fourth article appeared that dealt specifically with the use of the portfolio in assessing culture learning among high school students (Moore, 1994). Two possible reasons can explain this paucity of literature. The first is that testing culture is "even more difficult than testing language" (Damen, 1987, p. 292), and the second is that very few language teachers have had training in testing (Stevenson, 1985). But there may be a more fundamental explanation that is directly related to the area of educational measurement and testing. Historically the quantitative paradigm dominated the area of research as well as the area of testing. Tests have to be valid, reliable, and standardized. Their robustness rests on this tripod. One of the criteria for (content and construct) validity is that a test has to contain items that represent the instructional objectives set out in the program of instruction. Test designers created the type of objective (easily scored) tests to measure students' knowledge of geographical information, and historical and cultural facts and figures. Questions such as 'What is the capital of France?', 'Where is La Prada?' 'In what year did the Berlin Wall fall?' were common (Born, 1975; Lafayette, 1976; Valette, 1977).

The Teachingof Culture and Languagein the SecondLanguageClassroom

601

Nostrand (1974) criticized the limitations of objective tests as being incapable of measuring more than geographical and historical facts and he believed that they did greater damage since they reduced teaching and learning to a study of fragmented, incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate pieces of information. Lafayette and Schulz (1975) approached the testing of culture differently. They believed that there were only three culturally oriented goals that could be tested in most schools in the U.S.A. (knowledge, understanding, and behavior). They formulated tests on material that was different from the traditional but continued to use multiple-choice questions which tested students' reading and listening skills more than their cultural knowledge. There was general consensus on two matters related to testing culture. First, there appeared to be general agreement on the need for clearly stated instructional goals that would guide assessment and the creation of tests. Second, there was a common call for more creative ways of testing cultural literacy. For example, Seelye (1991) agreed that instructional goals must be used as guidelines for devising ways of assessing attitude changes, but he cautioned against the "endemic weaknesses" of tests which confused literary knowledge with behavior patterns and urged teachers to "explore the possibilities of tactile tests" (p. 188). Damen (1987) emphasized the need for creativity in devising ways and means to test all five senses - - touch, sight, hearing, and all the means by which human beings communicate. But she, like Seelye, gave no examples or suggestions of what these tests could look like. More creative tests were developed along multiple-choice formats and true/false statements, but these actually tested students' reading more than their knowledge of the culture. Their validity was seriously questioned, as in the case of the New York State Examinations that disbanded their culture examinations when they were shown to encourage memorization of unimportant bits and pieces of information and perpetuation of stereotypes (New York State Education Department, 1992). At present there are no state-administered culture tests in the U.S.A. However, there are other countries that do administer culture tests based on the conviction that unless the subject is tested it would not be taught (Caribbean Examination Council, 1979).

Impact on the Classroom

The absence of culture tests is embedded both in a failure to devise clear goals and statements and in a lack of creativity and innovation in devising ways of assessing cultural literacy. Almost three decades have passed since the many recommendations were made for more creative forms of testing, yet teachers continue to use true/false statements and multiple-choice questions as the most frequently used formats for testing culture (Moore, 1993). While this is undeniably discouraging, there is hope if language teachers look to other disciplines. What is still clearly needed is a much different form of assessment as described by Renwick over 15 years ago (1979). He argued that it was important that the formats or methods used for evaluating culture be compatible with "the values, preferences, and customary modes of response of the students" (p. 219). He also recommended several untraditional ways of allowing teachers to observe students' knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, skills, and patterns of behavior. These included self-reports, check-lists about attitudes, rank ordering, role-play, simulation, production, observation, and prediction. Renwick's conviction and recommendation made in 1979 have found supporters in those educators who advocate the use of more authentic forms of assessment. Over the last decade we have seen a shift in paradigms in educational testing and assess-

602

z.T. MOORE

ment. We have witnessed increased attempts to adopt greater qualitative-based procedures in assessing students' behavior. Research studies on the use of "authentic assessment" and "performance assessment" reveal that they provide data that give a more accurate description of what students know and how they learn (Wiggins, 1989). The newness of these assessment devices and the enthusiastic reception which they enjoy have created a snowball effect in academic circles. Portfolios are now being used at the school level, at the district level and at state levels. The State of New York, for example, has begun to examine the possibility of using portfolio assessment in areas of foreign language learning (NYSAFLT, 1993).

Focus on the Learner: The Portfolio and Culture Learning Tierney, Carter and Desai (1991) described portfolios as "systematic collections by both students and teachers that can serve as the basis to examine effort, improvement, processes, and achievement as well as to meet the accountability demands usually achieved by more formal testing procedures" (p. 41). A portfolio is a collection of evidence used by the teacher and student to monitor growth of the student's knowledge of content, use of strategies, and attitudes toward the accomplishment of goals in an organized and systematic way. Those who use and advocate portfolios attest to their ability to capture the richness, depth, and breadth of a student's learning, and to show evidence of growth not measured by standardized tests. The students themselves are involved in setting their goals and striving to accomplish them themselves (Tierney, Carter & Desai, 1991; Valencia, 1990). Portfolios are more popularly used for testing/assessment purposes and less so for teaching. But the portfolio can be used as an extremely effective teaching tool. For example, one of the most frequently documented benefits in using the portfolio is the enthusiasm and zeal which are infused into classroom activities and into learning in general, as a direct result of renewed interest of the teacher. Tierney referred to this when he said, "When teachers are given autonomy and respect, they can create classrooms with positive, supportive environments that can foster excellence among students" (Tierney, Carter & Desai, 1991, p. vii). Moeller (1994) points to the pedagogic fit between the goal of foreign and second language study and portfolio assessment. The goal of foreign and second language study is to develop abilities to function in everyday life situations. One of the principles of the portfolio is to encourage learning in natural settings allowing students to continue the classroom activities by engaging in more "real-life" activities. The recommendation in the national standards is that young learners should be given many opportunities to be exposed to the peoples whose language and culture they are studying. Such exposure can be in the visual form of films, pictures, videos or in scribal forms such as books, magazines, brochures, and pamphlets, commonly referred to by foreign language teachers as authentic material.

Culture Learning Begins with Learning about One's Own Culture In addition, portfolios provide the opportunity for students to know themselves (Hansen, 1992). This development of self-knowledge is well in keeping with another goal of culture learning, that of developing an awareness of one's own culture. In order to truly develop cultural

The Teaching of Culture and Language in the Second Language Classroom

603

literacy we must extend culture learning beyond the school confines and into the real world. For example, French students in Baton Rouge and Gros Tete can be given the opportunity to study those communities and the vestiges of "French" life and culture there. This could begin with a study of the origin of the names of places. Students in Upstate New York can cross the border into Montr6al to learn of the Qu6b6cois and the similarities and differences in European French culture. Haitian communities in Brooklyn and Miami can become great sources of French/creole-speaking post-colonial cultures. Moreover, the United States is fast becoming the third largest Spanish-speaking country in the world. It is the home of Spanish speakers from almost every Spanish-speaking country (U.S. Census Data, 1994). Natriello (1990) predicted that by the year 2000 classrooms will be typically more diverse than they were. Our future teachers will come from "new" population groups and we must accept the responsibility of expanding our own concepts of cultural literacy, beginning with the cultural diversity of the communities that surround our schools. Educators in general and schoolteachers specifically can involve students in studies that incorporate changing lifestyles and values as a result of such population shifts. What are the bicultural values of our students? Are there cultural conflicts in generations within their own families? How do their parents and children adjust to these changing values? Such questions can provide insights into the lives of students who historically tend to occupy the margins (Apple, 1982). The contents of the portfolio can provide teachers with glimpses of the students and can allow them to get to know the whole child. The entire school can learn more about the students if we make the communities part of the learning experiences of the students. According to recent demographic data (U.S. Census Data, 1991) there are over 500,000 Koreans living in New York City alone. The largest Polish community outside Moscow is in Chicago. The largest Vietnamese population in the U.S.A. is in Houston. The largest Colombian population outside Colombia is in New York. The largest Chinese population and the largest Caribbean population in the U.S.A. are in Los Angeles. These are the four largest cities in the U.S.A. and along with the other metropolitan cities are the homes of 80% of the total population (U.S. Census Data, 1994). The same is probably true of fast-growing cities such as Toronto, London, Sydney, and Paris. The challenge for the language/culture teacher is not easy. Inter-racial conflicts, national strit'es, inter-ethnic wars, and international political rivalries are real issues that face our students every day. The study of cultures cannot continue to be an addendum to the language syllabus. It must be part of a "whole language" approach that forms a broad context for language and culture learning, as Tedick and Walker pointed out (1994). The focus must now be on the students.

Challenges for Teaching and Testing Culture: Expanding our Frontiers The traditional second language curriculum has been organized with the following priorities: listening, speaking, reading, writing and culture. Greatest emphasis continues to be placed on writing and reading although it is true that within the last decade or so listening and speaking skills have received greater attention. We have relegated culture to a fifth and inevitably last position in this hierarchy of skills. Damen (1987) called it the fifth dimension. There must be a reflection of the importance placed on culture instruction by designing curriculum that is culture based. In addition, there must be renewed efforts to devise ways of

604

Z.T. MOORE

measuring the culture learning of our students. Colleges and universities must respond to these needs by including in their degree programs courses that focus on culture teaching and culture testing/assessment. We must continue an ongoing effort to encourage teachers to include culture in all their lessons. As we focus on vocabulary building as the most important skill in our beginning students (Higgs, 1984), we cannot afford to omit the cultural connotations of the words. For example, we often neglect to teach our students that the very words "Adios" or "Adieu" tell a lot about the culture of the speakers of the word. Foreign languages include less frequently taught languages such as Japanese, Arabic, and Chinese in which religious influence on vocabulary is likely to be very different. Over 25 years ago, Brooks called for a "widely agreed upon definition" of culture, one that "is meaningful in terms of events in a language classroom" (1968). Brooks was probably alluding to the need to relate the culture of second language learning to the cultural setting of our students. In other words, an approach to second language teaching must recognize that it is one of many learning experiences of the student. Through the language curriculum, we hope to contribute to the goals and objectives of general/global education. In addition to this, or as a consequence of this, we must remember that we are not second language teachers alone. Our definition of language instruction must be more international and less ethnocentric. We cannot afford to teach Spanish without reference to the many linguistic and cultural variations in Spanish-speaking communities. Students cannot be left with the impression that bullfights are an everyday activity in all Spanish-speaking cultures, or that Spanish is the only language spoken in "Spanish-speaking" countries. Instruction in French must include cultural samples of speakers of French from Africa, from Qu6bec and from the Caribbean. The world at large is experiencing a growing, urgent need for schools to address more realistically the needs of the communities they serve. That these communities are changing is evident. The school curriculum, i.e. the learning experiences, must reflect these changes. We must offer the students diverse opportunities to develop ways of dealing with the changing community, and the changing world. Present ethnic and tribal warfare, religious intolerance, homophobia, bigotry, and racism attest to the fact that as educators we have a responsibility to address issues of inter-cultural, inter-racial, and multi-ethnic diversity. The anticipated changes in the population must also be taken into consideration in any curriculum planning (Natriello, 1990). These changes (i.e. West Indians of second and third generation in London, Vietnamese and Korean students in Sydney and Melbourne, Pakistani, Indian and West Indian children in Toronto, third-generation African students in Paris) dramatically indicate increases in the size of the ethnic diversity in the classroom. Cultural sensitivity and tolerance must become goals of a cultural literacy program. Finally, multicultural education has been seen as a peripheral subject that arose out of the U.S. civil rights furor of the 1960s. Timetabling problems, shortage of specifically trained teachers, lack of instructional material continue to militate against its inclusion in curriculum offerings. Many of the objectives of multicultural education can be addressed in second language programs which are designed to integrate language and culture. In fact, apart from the social studies curriculum, no other discipline allows for the inclusion of multicultural topics like language programs, and, as second language programs will be included as core curriculum offerings, it is easier to restructure the existing programs than it is to restructure the school curriculum for the inclusion of yet another subject. The challenge is for language teachers to develop strategies for inter-disciplinary and crossdisciplinary studies, for team teaching, and for cooperative teaching. It is a well-accepted fact

The Teaching of Culture and Language in the Second Language Classroom

605

that teachers teach as they were taught. Surely we can bring about much needed changes in the profession, beginning in the classroom, that allow our students to experience more effective teaching styles that are based on mutual sharing and learning. References Allen, W. (1985). Towards cultural proficiency. In A. Omaggio (Ed.), Proficiency, Articulation, Curriculum: The Ties That Bind. Reports of the Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference. American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1988). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: Culture. Yonkers, New York: ACTFL. American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1992). ACTFL Newsletter, 5(1), i-3. Apple, M. (1982) Cultural and economic reproduction in education: Essays on class, ideology and the state. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Arizpe, V., & Beningo, A. (1987). Mexican, Puerto-Rican and Cuban ethnic groups in first-year-college-level Spanish textbooks. Modern Language Journal, 71(2), 125-137. Born, W. (1975). Goals clarification: Implementation. In W. Born (Ed.) Goals clarification: Curriculum, teaching, education (pp. 53-73). Middlebury, VT: Northeastern Conference. Breslin, R. (1993). Understanding culture's influence on behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich. Brooks, N. (1968). Teaching culture in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 1, 204-217. Brooks, N. (1971). "A guest editorial: Culture - - a new frontier". Foreign Language Annals, 5, 54--61. Brown, D. J. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Caribbean Examination Council (1979). Modern language syllabus. Mona, Jamaica: Caribbean Examination Council. Crawford-Lange, L., & Lange, D. (1987). Integrating language and culture. How to do it. Theory and Practice, 26, 258-266. Damea, L. L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. De Meo, P. (1982). Proposition pour l'analyse du contenu socio-cultural des manuels de fran¢ais iangue seconde. French Review, 55, 503-509. Fiedler, E, Mitchell, T., & Triandis, H. (1971). The culture assimilator: an approach to cross-cultural training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 95-102. Galloway, V. (1981). Communicating in a cultural context: The global perspective. Proceedings of the 1981 Summer Cross-Cultural Workshop for Foreign Language Teachers. Columbia, SC: South Carolina State Department of Education. Galloway, V. (1985). A design for the improvement of the teaching of culture in foreign language classrooms. ACTFL Project Proposal. Graci, J. (1989). Are foreign language textbooks sexist? An exploration of modes of evaluation. Foreign Language Annals, 5, 477--489. Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publication. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press. Hansen, J. (1992). Literacy portfolios: Helping students know themselves. Educational Leadership., 40(11), 66-68. Hendon, U. (1980). Introducing culture in the high school foreign language class. Foreign Language Annals, 13, 191-199. Hickey, L. (1989). Ethnography for language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 13, 475--481. Higgs, T. (1984). Teaching for proficiency: The organizing principle. ACTFL Foreign Language Series, Vol. 15. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook. Joiner, E. (1974). Evaluating the cultural content of foreign language texts. Modern Language Journal, 58, 242-244. Kennedy, G. (1973). Conditions for language learning: In J. Oiler & J. Richards (Eds.) Focus on the learner: Pragmatic perspectives. (pp. 66-82) Rowley: Newbury House Publishers. Kramsch, C. (1983). Culture and constructs: Communicating attitudes and values in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 16, 437--448. Lafayette, R. (Ed.) (1976). The culture revolution in foreign language teaching. Stokie, IL: National Textbook. Lafayette, R. (1988). Integrating the teaching of culture into the foreign language classroom. In A. Singerman (Ed.), Toward a new integration of language and culture: Proceedings from Northeast Conference, (pp. 47-62). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Lafayette, R., & Schulz, R. (1975). Evaluating cultural learnings. In R. C. Lafayette (Ed.), The cultural revolution in foreign languages: A guide for building the modern curriculum. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook. Meade, B., & Morain, G. (1973). The culture cluster. Modern Language Journal, 6, 331-338. Moeller, A. (199,4). Por(folio assessment: A showcase for growth and learning in the foreign language classroom. In Meeting the challenges in the foreign language classroom, Central States Conference Report (pp. 103-114). Lincohiwood, IL: National Textbook.

606

Z.T. MOORE

Moore, Z. T. (1993). Teaching and testing culture: A way and ways. Workshop conducted at NYSAFLT Annual Conference, New York. Moore, Z. T.(1994). The portfolio assessment and culture learning. In C. Hancock (Ed.) Teaching, testing and assessment: Making the connection. (pp. 163-182), Proceedings from Northeast Conference. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Moraln, G. (1983). Commitment to the teaching of foreign cultures. Modern Language Journal, 67(4), 402-412. Moreau, P. H., & Pfister, G. C. (1980). An analysis of surface culture and its manner of presentation in first-year college French textbooks from 1972-1978. Foreign Language Annals, 13, 47-52. National Standards in Foreign Language Education (1995). The national standards in foreign language education. New York: Author. Natriello, G. (1990). Schooling the disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers' College Press. New York State Association of Foreign Language Teachers (1993, Fall). NYSAFLT Bulletin. New York State Education Department (1992). Foreign language syllabus. New York: Author. Nostrand, H. (1974). Empathy for a second culture: Motivations and techniques. In G. Jarvis (Ed.), Responding to new realities (pp. 263-327). ACTFL Review of Foreign Language Education, Vol. 5. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook. Nostrand, H. (1989). The beginning teacher's cultural competency: Goal and strategy. Foreign Language Annals, 22(ii), 189-193. Nostrand, H., & Nostrand, E (1970). Testing understanding of the foreign culture. In H. N. Seelye (Ed.), Perspectives for teachers of Latin-American culture (pp. 161-170). Springfield, IL: Superintendent of Public Instruction. Omaggio-Hadley, A. (1993). Teaching language in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Ortufio, M. M. (1991). Cruss-cultural awareness in the foreign language class: The Kluckhohn model. Modem Language Journal, 75(4), 449-459. Ramirez, A., & Kelly-Hall, J. (1990). Language and culture in secondary level Spanish textbooks. Modem Language JoUrnal, 74, 48--65. Renwick, G. (1979). Evaluation: Some practical guidelines. In M. Pusch (Ed.), Multicultural education: A crosscultural training approach (pp. 205-230). Chicago: Intercultural Press. Sapir, E. (1949). Culture, language and personality. Berkeley: University of California Press. Saville-Truike. (1985). Cultural input in second language learning. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 2-10). Boston: Newbury House. Seelye, N. (1974). Teaching culture: Strategies for foreign language educators. Stokie, IL: National Textbook. Seelye, N. (1991). Teaching culture: Strategies for intercultural communication. Stokie, IL: National Textbook. Simon, P. (1980). The tongue-tied American: Confronting the foreign language crisis. New York: Continuum Publishing. Simon, P. (1991). Priority: Public relations. A decade of change to a decade of challenge. Foreign Language Annals, 24(1), 13-18. Stevenson, D. K. (1985). Foreign language testing: All of the above. In C. J. James (Ed.), Practical applications of research in .¢breign language teaching (pp. 153-203). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook. Taylor, H. D., & Sorenson, J. L. (1961). Culture capsule. Modern Language Journal, 45, 350-354. Tedick, D., & Walker, C. (1994). Second language teacher education: The problems that plague us. Modem Language Journal, 78(3), 300-312. Tierney, R., Carter, M. A., & Desai, L. E. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the rending-writing classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon. U.S.Bureau of the Census (1991). Census population by state. U.S.Bureau of the Census (1994). Population estimates for metropolitan areas as of June 1993. Valencia, S. (1990). Assessing reading and writing: Building a more complete picture for middle school assessment. Technical report. Urbana: Illinois Center for the Study of Reading. Valette, R. M. (1977). Modem language testing: A handbook (2nd exl.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich. Whorl, B. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings. Cambridge: Technology Press of M.1.T. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703-713.