Download Impact of Language Learning on the Brain: Brain-Compatible Instruction for Second Language and more Lecture notes Communication in PDF only on Docsity!
Language Learning and Its Impact
on the Brain: Connecting Language
Learning with the Mind Through
Content-Based Instruction
Teresa J. Kennedy
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
University of Idaho, NASA Idaho Space Grant Consortium
Abstract: Cognitive sciences are discovering many things that educators have
always intuitively known about language learning. However, the important point is actively using this new information to improve both student learning and current teaching practices. The implications of neuroscience for educational reform regarding second language (L2) learning can clearly be seen in the following categories: brain structures and the corpus callosum; neuronal development and the parts of the brain dedicated to language; the Brain Plasticity Theory and Language Mapping; memory and the Information Processing Model; and of course, developing and utilizing a brain- compatible language curriculum that is meaningfully integrated into the basic content areas covered in all grade levels PreK–12. This article describes a recent study designed to address relationships between the corpus callosum and bilingual capacity, and pro- vides recommendations to language teachers regarding brain-based learning through content-based language teaching.
Key words: brain compatible, brain structures, content-based language learning, corpus callosum, neuroscience
Language: Relevant to all languages
Introduction
The 1990s marked the “Decade of the Brain,” when researchers actively began to study and disseminate new information that could help us to understand how the brain functions. Since then, thousands of new discoveries continue to be reported on a daily basis, especially given the advancement of technology that allows researchers to look inside the brain, examine its physical structure, and monitor the constant activity taking place. Studying how the brain functions through the course of thinking and understanding can provide valuable insight into the learn- ing process. Many researchers predict that the brain research findings highlighted
Teresa J. Kennedy (PhD, University of Idaho) is an Affiliate Associate Professor of
Bilingual/Foreign Language Education at the University of Idaho and the Director
of International/U.S. Partnerships and Outreach for the GLOBE Program at the
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.
Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 39, No. 3 471
472 FALL 2006
today will eventually give rise to compre- hensive changes in education, specifically guiding instructional practices followed in the classrooms of the future. Therefore, edu- cationally speaking, the important next steps must be to apply new findings to the develop- ment of practical strategies and lesson plans that facilitate student learning in general, and more specifically, facilitate second language acquisition (SLA) for all students. The human brain, a 3-pound mass of interwoven nerve cells that controls our activity, is one of the most mag- nificent—and mysterious—wonders of creation. The seat of human intel- ligence, interpreter of senses, and controller of movement, this incred- ible organ continues to intrigue scien- tists and layman alike. (Presidential Proclamation 6158, 1990)
Brain Structures and the
Corpus Callosum
What is known about how the brain receives and processes information is quite complex. During the course of any given moment in time, sensory input travels through the brain by way of the thalamus on its way to the cerebral cortex. This sensory input is fi ltered by the brain stem and limbic sys- tem. It is affected, and sometimes altered, by its passage through the lower, limbic systems of the brain, totally in control of our physical and emotional needs. The limbic brain is made up of clumps of spe- cialized cells rather than the modularities found in the cortex. The thalamus is espe- cially important to second language (L2) learners, as is the amygdala, which controls the emotional response to learning the new language. Information that survives the passage described above, arrives at the frontal cerebral cortex, where information processing and learning begin to take place (see Figure 1). It is at this point that the brain attempts to understand and make sense of the information registered via the senses. Information deemed meaningful and/or relevant is then stored in different
localizations or modularities found in the cerebral cortex. The various parts of the brain commu- nicate by way of neurochemicals. During the past 20 years, the chemical nature of nerve cell communication has been clari- fied significantly. Many neurochemicals, which serve as neurotransmitters, derive from dietary protein that must be included in daily consumption. Over 100 such com- pounds have been described (Armstrong, Kennedy, & Coggins, 2002). An insuf- ficiency or too much of any chemical can cause behavioral imbalance, which in turn effects sensory input as well as information transfer to the cerebral cortex. Studies have demonstrated that the human brain can and does grow new cells in the hippocampus (Eriksson, Perfilieva, Björk- Eriksson, Alborn, Nordborg, Peterson et al.,
- and that the brain is capable of build- ing an infinite number of neuronal connec- tions that strengthen the modularities found within the brain. Cortical pyramidal cells grow by adding dendrites, which when given
FIGURE 1
Information Routing Through The Brain
Sensory information enters the brain by way of the thalamus (1), travels through the Limbic System (2), arriv- ing to the cerebral cortex where is it stored in different localizations or modularities (3).
474 FALL 2006
growth. During the period of 16 to 20 years of age, strong connections are developed in the frontal lobes responsible for problem solving and higher-level thinking skills. These major connections continue to grow through adulthood, with new connections continuing to be established, however not as easily as they were during the periods of strong dendritic growth experienced in early youth. This pattern indicates that the brain progresses through formative stages of development during the PreK–12 years. Understanding these developmental stages of the brain and tailoring instruction in a manner that maximizes students’ abilities can make learning more relevant and last- ing for students (Franklin, 2005). Although the brain in not fully func- tional until ages 23 to 29, it is postulated that some variation in growth may influ- ence learning (Hudspeth & Pribram, 1990; Thatcher, 1991). The size and combination of modularities found within the brain ultimately gives an individual his or her unique mental potential. Both nature and nurture are essential components of this equation. Varied experiences then continue to mold each individual’s brain throughout life. The permutations and combinations of modularity type and size are infinite, as are the number of experiences one could have.
The two hemispheres of the brain are connected through axonal links at the cen- tral corpus callosum^1 , a broad, thick band, running from front to back and consisting of millions of nerve fibers, in essence, con- necting the two cerebral hemispheres of the brain down the middle (see Figure 3). Since the corpus callosum is the major commis- sure, or bundle of axons connecting the two cerebral hemispheres, there is a direct cor- respondence left to right and front to back in connections through the corpus callosum. Information received in the brain is trans- ferred from left-to-right, therefore the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body and vice versa. Generally speaking, the left and right hemispheres of the brain process information in different manners. Although the exact function and interplay between the two hemispheres is not yet totally under- stood, in most people, the left hemisphere is more specialized for linear, logical thought and communication, while the right hemi- sphere deals with spatial relationships and is more active when we are relaxed, and in a dream state. As the brain develops, the corpus callosum is responsible for transfer- ring information across each hemisphere, reinforcing connections related to tasks that one is genetically predisposed to, or connec- tions related to areas that are adapting and strengthening. For example, when the left eye sees a word, the right hemisphere will pass the information about the word over to the left hemisphere for processing by the language centers. Therefore, even though we tend to process information using our dominant side, the learning and thinking process occurs only when both sides of the brain participate in a balanced manner. When not actively engaged in learning, the cor- pus callosum acts as a bridge between both hemispheres, enabling the accomplishment of tasks of varying difficulty levels. Again, it is important to note that the research cited above has not conclu- sively determined that all communication between regions in the different halves of the brain are transferred only via the corpus
FIGURE 3
The Corpus Callosum
The two hemispheres are connected through axonal links at the central corpus callosum.
Corpus Callosum
Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 39, No. 3 475
callosum. In spite of the linguistic process- ing dominance of the left-hemisphere (in most people), behavior, including cogni- tion and communication, are the result of unconscious and seamless coordination of activity between both hemispheres via the cerebral commissures. Although investi- gations into the organization of multiple languages indicate that in some instances, functional aspects of two different languag- es may be mediated by overlapping cortical regions, in cases where two languages are processed by separate cortical regions, one would clearly suspect that the commis- sures would undergo some adaptive modi- fi cation in response to the organization of both languages. In cases where different languages do not make use of overlapping or convergent cortical regions, it has been postulated that commissural modification, though less extensive, still happens because of increased processing requirements of linguistic switching (Coggins, Kennedy, & Armstrong 2004; Hernandez, Dapretto, Mazziotta, & Bookheimer, 2001; Price, Green, & Von Studnitz, 1999).
Parts of the Brain Dedicated to
Language
An interesting study of 12 healthy, bilin- gual volunteers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, revealed that the location where the capacity to speak an L2 is stored is found in different areas of the brain depending on when in life a person becomes bilingual (Kim, Relkin, Lee, & Hirsch 1997). This suggests that children who learn an L2 store that capacity, together with their native language, in one sector of the brain, while adult language learners store each new language learned in a sepa- rate area. This finding helps to explain why children who learn two languages develop the ability to speak both with native pro- nunciation and proficiency when provided adequate time, supporting the argument that foreign language instruction should be included in the elementary and middle school curriculum.
In response to second language acqui- sition (SLA) and use, the human brain undergoes cortical adaptation to accommo- date multiple languages either by recruiting existing regions used for the native language (L1), or by creating new cortical networks in distinct adjacent areas of the cortex to handle certain functional aspects of L2. However, regardless of how the cortex orga- nizes the circuitry required to handle mul- tiple languages, all nonreflexive behavior, including cognition and communication, is normally the result of unconscious and seamless coordination of activity between both hemispheres via the cerebral commis- sures. Although language is lateralized to the left hemisphere in over 90% of the nor- mal population, language (subsumed under cognition and communication) normally involves information processing between both hemispheres. Different centers in the brain cooperate to understand and produce speech. Broca’s area, in the left frontal lobe, controls the production of speech sounds. It is located close to the area specialized in the formation of words by the mouth, lip, tongue, and larynx. Wernicke’s area, located in the left temporal lobe, allows for the for- mulation of meaning gathered from words and sentences to be connected into speech. Other regions in the brain assist Broca’s and Wernicke’s roles. For example, one part of the temporal lobe supplies nouns, and yet another joins the two together into logical sentences. Another example of the inter- connected nature of the areas of the brain in relation to literacy skills is to examine the brain of a dyslexic reader, which would highlight the lack of distinct modularities communicating with one another—linking vision to sound to meaning. It is also worth mentioning that the cor- pus callosum has been studied extensively in relation to disease and injury, resulting in many interesting findings related to lan- guage. Post mortem, in vivo, and presurgi- cal studies in humans have shown that lan- guage is susceptible to various impairments due to lesions of certain structures of the brain, but not surprisingly, the relationship
Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 39, No. 3 477
ers beginning their L2 study early in life, during their elementary education. None of the bilingual participants reported being raised in a bilingual environment since early childhood. All teachers reported to pos- sess Advanced to Superior levels of profi- ciency in the L2 according to the established ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (1985). The seven monolingual teachers who partici- pated reported no previous study of an L and all are presently teaching in science con- tent areas. This distinction bears important relevance to the hypothesis that the corpus callosum of the bilingual individuals would have a different formation than the corpus callosum of the participating monolingual individuals in this study. Using a modification of Witelson (1989), the midsagittal corpus callosum images were partitioned plane into five subregions (see Figure 4). Results of the analysis showed that the anterior midbody to total corpus callosum midsagittal area ratio was sig- nificantly larger in the bilingual individuals compared to the monolingual individuals at the 0.05 alpha level. Although this signifi- cance should be interpreted cautiously due to the small sample size available, the results can be interpreted as an adaptive response to bilingual capacity. With respect to L education, the results of this study could suggest that bilingual learning and use can have a profound effect on brain structures in general, and on the corpus callosum in particular, since callosal adaptation might facilitate increased interhemispheric transfer by way of increased myelination, or by way of an increased number of fibers that pro- vide greater cortical connectivity.
Implications of Neuroscience
for Educational Reform
Theories have been developed to inves- tigate the optimal age to undertake the study of an L2. Research has shown that the Brain Plasticity Theory (Baker, 1993; Chugani, 1996; Nash, 1997), the Biological Predisposition Theory (Lemke, 1990; Genesee, 1996), the Imprinting Theory (Asher & Garcia, 1984; Celestino, 1993;
Hart, 1983) and the Native Language Magnet Theory (Kuhl, 1994) commonly share the theme that the younger the indi- vidual is when he or she is exposed to a new language, the greater the probability of acquiring native pronunciation as well as profi ciency in that language. Lending further support to this thought, researchers often refer to a newborn’s mind as unpro- grammed circuits of a computer that have almost infinite potential, additionally com- paring the mind to Pentium chips found in a computer before the factory has preloaded the software (Begley, 1996). Begley reported that the circuits in the auditory cortex of the brain are wired by the age of one year, concluding further that the learning window for total language learning is from birth to 10 years of age. This implies that the critical periods for language learning close with each child’s passing birthday. More recent research has concluded that the window for acquiring syntax may close as early as age five or six, while the window for allowing for the addition of new words may never close (Nash, 1997). However, Nash found that the ability to learn an L2 undergoes a steady and inexo- rable decline after the age of six. Many researchers postulate that after this critical period, brain plasticity becomes slowly less effective, in other words, the brain may be less able to make particular changes that organize the location of specific informa- tion processing functions resulting from experiential effects (“Language Learning and the Developing Brain”, 1996). Others have documented studies that support early language acquisition and believe that there clearly appears to be a “window of opportu- nity” when the brain is particularly efficient in learning (Chugani, 1996). Information released from the UCLA School of Medicine stated that the learning experiences of a child determine which connections in the brain become developed and which will no longer function (“Language Learning and the Developing Brain”, 1996). Additional reports released also document studies that have shown that the brain of a two-year old
478 FALL 2006
has twice as many synapses or connections as an adult’s brain. Consequently, the failure to learn a skill during this sensitive period holds important significance because the young brain must use these connections or they will be lost. Since the fixing of speech habits occurs at about the age of 10, the consequent age barrier in language acquisi- tion is directly linked to psychological as well as neurophysiological factors (Clyne, 1983; Krashen, 1976). Examining the methods that enhance L1 learning, and the types of activities and environments that positively affect the learning process, provides teachers with an insight into truly creating a brain-compat- ible classroom for students that are trying to acquire an L2 after the initial neuronal pruning stages have occurred. Almost all language skills are more easily acquired through natural language acquisition expe- riences, even for adult learners. The natural approach to language learning outlined by Krashen and Terrell (1983) maintains that beginning language learners should be taught a new language in the same manner that they acquired their fi rst, encouraging observation, listening, and understanding before developing skills in speaking, read- ing, and writing. Of particular importance is the variable of time. Studies have shown that it takes thousands of contact hours to achieve the ability to function beyond the tourist level in Spanish and French; four to five times longer for other languages such as Arabic, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, or Russian (Brown, 1997). In fact, the Foreign Service Institute—the U.S. Federal Government’s primary training institution for officers and support personnel of the U.S. foreign affairs community—documented that it took at least 720 hours of intensive study for adults with high aptitude to become proficient at an L2 (Omaggio Hadley, 2001). Research has also reported that the length of time students study an L2 relates directly and positively to higher levels of cognitive, as well as metacognitive, processing skills (Rosenbusch, 1995). It is important to note
that in nearly all adults (90%), the language center of the brain resides in the left hemi- sphere, but interestingly enough, the brain appears to be less specialized in children. According to a recent PBS special on the brain, “scientists have demonstrated that until babies become about one year old, they respond to language with their entire brains, but then, gradually, language shifts to the left hemisphere, driven by the acqui- sition of language itself” ( The Secret Life of the Brain, 2002)^2. Emotion, experiences, and learning of meaningful information strengthens useful connections and results in cortical pyramidal cell branching. The physiological architecture of the brain changes in response to life experi- ences, adapting in response to environmen- tal stimuli. It is not surprising to find that studies show young infants are predisposed to attend to the language spoken by oth- ers around them, using context to figure out what someone must mean by various sentence structures and words. Language development studies illustrate that chil- dren’s biological capacities are set into motion by their environments (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Research has also shown that we are born with an abil- ity to distinguish among different language sounds (Kuhl, 1994). Similar sounds are chunked together into one single category, and according to Kuhl, “language magnets” are developed that attract babies’ ears to the specific phonemic sounds found in the language(s) they are accustomed to hear- ing. For example, a baby that listens to Swedish (16 vowel sounds) will have dif- ferent language magnets than a baby who hears Hangul (10 vowel sounds), English ( or 9 vowel sounds) or who hears Japanese (5 vowel sounds). According to Kuhl, while the Swedish baby retains all the distinc- tions, the babies lose the ability to distin- guish those vowels because their languages do not contain or utilize them. Kuhl’s research postulates that infants’ percep- tual systems are established by six months of age and are at that time configured to acquire their native languages. She further
480 FALL 2006
the next topic and to initiate closure at stra- tegic times throughout each class session, in either small-group discussions or simply taking time to verbalize thoughts aloud or in writing. In order to stimulate active involve- ment and evoke memory hooks that engage the learner, it is recommended that teach- ers provide their students with multiple opportunities to use vocabulary in mean- ingful and creative ways that stimulate the mind, which directly affects the growth of enriched neuronal connections (Jensen, 1998). Words should be heard and spoken before seen in written form to assure cor- rect pronunciation as well as to facilitate memory recognition and word retrieval. Avoid providing lengthy word lists until after the students are familiar with the vocabulary words. Visual imagery elicits memory retrieval, reinforcing the con- cept that we need to introduce vocabulary through the senses using visual methods, such as through TPR, pictorial teaching through a mnemonic device, or strategies found in the Gouin series as described by Curtain and Pesola (2004). The Multiple Intelligences theory (Gardner, 1999) suggests that there are eight or possibly nine, intellectual vari- ables associated with human performance. This theory is supported by the contention that the frontal cerebral cortex is made of thousands of modular units responsible for our conscious thinking, remember- ing, and behaving (Gazzanaga, 1989). This theory suggests that some individuals could possess different language competencies due to their experiences in each of the areas, as identified by Gardner, which allow them to readily make connections with the vocabulary. Since vocabulary must be heard between 40 to 80 times, depending on the complexity of the word, before it is stored in long-term memory, language teachers must create learning experiences for their students that are centered around many dif- ferent activities. The multiple intelligences theory provides a guide for language educa- tors to create meaningful experiences using
language in a variety of areas, and more importantly, developing areas that may not have extensive experience.^3 The finding of plasticity, and the growing understanding that brain activities are directly linked by networks of neurons that simultaneously perform a variety of operations, suggests that education must broaden its scope to integrate language learning across the entire school experience. The tendency for the brain to consider the entire experience and to search for meaningful patterns calls for thematic, content-based interdisciplin- ary language instruction at all levels.
Content-Based Instruction—
Integrating Brain-Compatible
Language Curriculum
Integrated language and content instruc- tion offers a means by which students can continue their academic cognitive develop- ment while they are developing a fuller proficiency in not only their L1, but in all languages of study. An approach that inte- grates L2 instruction with the content of other curricular subject areas commonly found in the K–12 experience allows class- room teachers to reinforce “the basics” while ensuring that L2 instruction is meaningful, and therefore motivating for the students to actively acquire new languages. Although teachers are increasingly embedding content into their language teaching, for example using the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; 1996), the balance between language and content often varies depending on the academic setting. In immersion and bilin- gual settings, the success of content-based programs becomes “critically dependent on students’ mastery of the academic content to the same degree and level as students in native-language classrooms” (Genesee, 1998, pp. 103–105). However, the academic content in other language programs typi- cally serves as the medium for language instruction even though greater emphasis is actually placed on the acquisition of lan- guage skills, rather than on the academic or cognitive skills associated with the content
Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 39, No. 3 481
(Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989; Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989). All in all, the end result of content integration into both scenarios is that the language classroom becomes an environment where rich discussions occur, ultimately improving language fluency while reinforcing the content taught in many dif- ferent academic areas. It should be noted that past research efforts have also documented academic achievement related to language learn- ing. For example, research has shown that children who have studied a for- eign language during their elementary school experience, integrating language study across the curriculum, achieve expected gains and receive even higher scores on standardized tests in reading, English language arts, science, mathemat- ics, social studies and geography, as well as show greater cognitive development in such areas as mental flexibility, creativity at solving complex problems, divergent thinking, and higher order thinking skills, when compared to monolingual children (Armstrong & Rogers, 1997; Bamford & Mizokawa, 1991; Genesee, 1979; Genesee, Holobow, Lambert, & Chartrand, 1989; Kennedy, 1998; McCaig, 1988; Rafferty, 1986; Swain, 1984). In addition, research has shown a difference of more than 250 points in average composite SAT scores (a set of standardized college entrance exam- inations used in the United States that assess student reasoning based on knowl- edge and skills developed by the student in past school coursework) between stu- dents that had no experiences studying foreign language and those who had five or more years (Cooper, 1987). It has been further reported that while four years of any particular subject increased SAT scores, four years of foreign language edu- cation specifically produced the highest verbal scores compared with four years work than any other subject. Other studies have also shown that individuals who are competent in more than one language out- score those who are speakers of only one language on tests of verbal and nonverbal
intelligence (Bruck, Lambert, & Tucker, 1974; Hakuta, 1986; Weatherford, 1986). Combining language study with other subject areas not only increases academic performance, but it also allows students to see the connections between what they are studying and the world around them. In other words, content-based language learning provides students with a valid or meaningful reason for using the language they are learning.
GLOBE—A Model for Content-
Based Language Teaching
One program that has been shown to successfully integrate academic content into the language classroom is the GLOBE Program^4 (Kelly, Kennedy, Eberhardt, & Austin, 2002; Kennedy, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006; Kennedy & Canney, 2000; Kennedy & Henderson, 2003; Kennedy, Nelson, Odell, & Austin, 2000; Kennedy, Odell, Jenson & Austin, 1998). GLOBE (Global Learning and Observations to Benefi t the Environment) is a hands- on, school and Internet-based science and education program that unites students, teachers, and scientists around the world in study and research about the dynam- ics of the Earth’s environment. Since its inception in 1994, over 35,000 teachers representing over 100 countries around the world have attended professional devel- opment workshops to become certified GLOBE teachers. Currently over a mil- lion GLOBE students in more than 18, schools worldwide have taken important environmental measurements for use in their own research, also making their data, over 15 million measurements, available to scientists around the world. The GLOBE program can bring virtu- ally every classroom in a school together to work on a single project with other students and scientists on an international level. Although GLOBE’s primary focus is science (through activities related to atmosphere and climate, hydrology, land cover biology, and soils), it also provides students studying an L2 with authentic
Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 39, No. 3 483
Acknowledgments
Illustrations of the brain (Figures 1 and 3) found on pages 472 and 474 were created by Maureen Murray of Moez-art (http:// www.moez-art.com). A special thank you to Tricia Stout, student at the University of Colorado who helped copyedit this article.
Notes
- The term corpus refers to the main por- tion of any anatomical part, structure, or organ. The corpus callosum is an arched mass of white matter, found in the depths of the longitudinal fissure of the brain. It is composed of three layers of fibers, the central layer con- sisting primarily of transverse fibers connecting the cerebral hemispheres. The subsections, from anterior to pos- terior, are called the rostrum, genu, trunk (truncus), and splenium. An extended definition can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_ callosum.
- The Secret Life of the Brain, a David Grubin Production, is a five-part series that initially aired in the United States on PBS in the winter of 2002. It revealed the processes involved in brain development across a lifetime and provided new information in the brain sciences from the foremost researchers in the field. See http:// www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/3d/index. html for visual imagery that can help explain the complicated manner in which the brain functions.
- For more information regarding the brain research discussed in this article as well as suggested activities associ- ated with each of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences, refer to the following Web site: Language Study and the Brain (http://www.teresakennedy.com).
- GLOBE is an interagency program funded by NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the U.S. government) and NSF (National Science Foundation), supported by the
U.S. Department of State, and imple- mented through a cooperative agree- ment between NASA, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. GLOBE is NASA’s premier international K–12 program, and all teachers and students in the United States can participate. Internationally, countries must sign bilateral agree- ments with the U.S. State Department and NASA before GLOBE activities can occur. All GLOBE activities are conducted under the guidance of GLOBE-trained teachers. The first step in becoming a GLOBE teacher in your school is to attend a training workshop in your state. Schedules for workshops and registration forms are available on the GLOBE Program homepage. To join GLOBE, go to http://www.globe. gov, click on the link to U.S. Partners on the navigation bar, then click on your state and contact the nearest part- ner to your school. For more details on The GLOBE Program see http://www. globe.gov.
- For a complete listing of bilingual materials available from NASA and other science organizations see h t t p : / / w w w. t e re s a k e n n e d y. c o m / NASALanguageMaterials1.htm.
- Brain Awareness Week (BAW) consists of a series of events around the world typically held in March each year to increase public awareness about the brain. Go to http://web.sfn.org/baw/ for more information.
References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (1985). ACTFL profi- ciency guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author. Armstrong, P. W., & Rogers, J. D. (1997). Basic skills revisited: The effects of for- eign language instruction on reading, math, and language arts. Learning Languages, 2 (3), 20–31.
484 FALL 2006
Armstrong, T. A., Kennedy, T. J., & Coggins, P. (2002). Summarizing concepts about teacher education, learning and neurosci- ence. Northwest Passage: NWATE Journal of Education Practices, 2 (1), 9–13.
Asher, J., & Garcia, R. (1984). The opti- mal age to learn a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 53, 334–341.
Baker, C. (1993). Canadian immersion class- rooms. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 227–235. Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters.
Bamford, K. W., & Mizokawa, D. T. (1991). Additive-bilingual (immersion) educa- tion: Cognitive and language development. Language Learning, 41 (3), 413–429.
Begley, S. (1996, February 19). Your child’s brain. Newsweek, 55–59.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds. 1999). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. [Online] available: http://books.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/ch6. html. The National Academy of Sciences.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruc- tion. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Brown, C. (1997). A case for foreign lan- guages: The Glastonbury language program. Learning Languages, 2 (2), 3–8.
Bruck, M., Lambert, W. E., & Tucker, R. (1974). Bilingual schooling through the ele- mentary grades: The St. Lambert project at grade seven. Language Learning, 24 (2), 183–204.
Celestino, W. J. (1993, December). Total physical response: Commands, not control. Hispania, 76 (4), 902–903.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). Learning strategies in second language acquisi- tion. Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1996). The cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA): A model for linguistically diverse classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 96 (3), 259–273.
Chugani, H. T. (1996). Neuroimaging of developmental non-linearity and develop- mental pathologies. In R. W. Thatcher, G. R. Lyon, J. Rumsey & N. Krasnegor, (Eds.), Developmental neuroimaging: Mapping the development of brain and behavior. San Diego: Academic Press.
Clyne, M. (1983, April). An immersion program in Australia. Babel: Journal of the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers, 18 (1), 6–15. Coggins, P. E., III. (2002). Corpus callo- sum variability in pre-adolescent children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (02B), 678–817. (UMI No. 3043267). Coggins, P. E., Kennedy, T. J. & Armstrong, T. A. (2004). Bilingual corpus callosum variabil- ity. Brain and Language, 89 (3), 69–75. Cooper, T. C. (1987). Foreign language study and SAT-Verbal scores. Modern Language Journal, 71 (4), 381–387. Curtain, H., & Pesola, C.A. (2004). Languages and children—Making the match: New lan- guages for young learners, grades K–8, 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Diamond, M. C. (2001). Response of the brain to enrichment. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 73, 211–220. Eriksson, P. S., Perfi lieva, E., Björk-Eriksson, T., Alborn, A. M., Nordborg, C., Peterson, D., & Gage, F. H. (1998). Neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus. Nature Medicine, 4 (11), 1313–1317. [Webpage] Retrieved July 23, 2006 from http://www.nature.com/nm/ journal/v4/n11/full/nm1198_1313.html. Franklin, J. (2005, June). Mental mileage: How teachers are putting brain research to use. Education Update, 47 (6), 1–7. Gardner, H. (1999). A multiplicity of intel- ligences. Scientific American Presents, 9 (4), 18–23. Gazzanaga, M. S. (1989). Organization of the human brain. Science, 245 (17), 947–952. Gazzanaga, M. S. (2000). Cerebral specializa- tion and interhemispheric communication: Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain, 123, 1293–1326. Genesee, F. (1996, Winter). Integrating lan- guage and content: Lessons from immersion. Learning Languages, 15–16. Genesee, F., (1998). Content-based language instruction, (Introduction to Chapter 5). In M. Met (Ed.), Critical issues in early second language learning (pp. 103–105). Reading, MA: Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley. Genesee, F. (1979). Scholastic effects of French immersion: An overview after ten years. Interchange on Education Policy, 9 (4),
486 FALL 2006
McCaig, R. (1988). The effect of the elementary foreign language program on aspect of elemen- tary education: A longitudinal study. Ferndale, MI: Ferndale, Michigan Public Schools.
Nash, J. M. (1997, February 3). Fertile minds. Time, 49–56.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (1996). Standards for for- eign language learning: Preparing for the 21st century. Yonkers, NY: Author.
Omaggio Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context, 3rd ed. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Pettito, L. A., & Kovelman, I. (2003). The bilingual paradox: How signing-speaking bilingual children help us resolve bilingual issues and teach us about the brain’s mecha- nisms underlying all language acquisition. Learning Languages, 8 (3), 5–18.
Presidential Proclamation 6158. [Webpage] (July 17, 1990). Retrieved September 15, 2005 from http://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/pro- claim.html.
Price, C. J., Green, D. W., & Von Studnitz, R. (1999). A functional imaging study of trans- lation and language switching. Brain, 122, 2221–2235.
Rafferty, E.A. (1986). Second language study and basic skills in Louisiana. Louisiana State Department of Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 360.
Rosenbusch, M. (1995). Language learners in the elementary school: Investing in the future. In R. Donato & R. Terry, (Eds.). Foreign language learning: The journey of a lifetime (pp. 1-36). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language education. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (2), 201–217.
Swain, M. (1984). A review of immersion education in Canada: Research and evalu- ation studies. In J. Lundin & D. P. Dolson (Eds.), Studies on immersion education: A col- lection for U.S. educators. Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 239 509.
Thatcher, R. W. (1991). Maturation of the human frontal lobes: Physiological evidence for staging. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7 (3), 397–419.
Weatherford, H. J. (1986). Personal ben- efi ts of foreign language study. ERIC Digest, Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 276 305. Witelson, S. F. (1989). Hand and sex differ- ences in the isthmus and genu of the human corpus callosum: A postmortem morphologi- cal study. Brain, 112, 799–835. Witelson, S. F. (1990). Structural correlates of cognition in the human brain. In A. B. Scheibel, & A. F.Wechsler (Eds.), Neurobiology of Higher Cognitive Function (pp. 167–181). New York: The Guilford Press.
