PARTE II – LA ESTRUCTURA DEL UNIVERSO
III. Las Galaxias
In terms of extending the frontiers of knowledge, it is expected that the research would be important in the following ways. In contrast to existing gesture studies conducted in Math and Science classrooms, this study is conducted specifically in reading instruction within L1 and L2 settings. Furthermore, rather than searching the theoretical and empirical literature to identify elements that make a difference in general classroom talk, the study starts from the ground of a distinct learning environment to identify instructional efforts or features of reading instruction that may facilitate or impede the utilisation of semiotic resources for meaning making and deeper understanding. More importantly, a new model of multimodal approach to scaffolding is offered to reflect dialogic teaching and learning - where teachers’ and students’ use of gesture complement the formulation of scaffolding strategies to facilitate meaning making and deepen understanding. (See Figure 16 in Chapter 5)
The study’s contributions to knowledge cover two areas. First, a redesigned framework of multimodal approach to scaffolding, employing effective teacher utilisation of multisemiotic resources (speech and use of gestures) is offered. As Reiser and Dempsey (2002) highlight, there is very little high quality empirical literature to support the contribution of instructional design to effective instruction. Thus, this study aims to develop teachers’ professional learning as task designers of reading instruction - where teachers are able to utilise multisemiotic resources (speech and gestures) within the “context of scaffolding in the classroom” (Alibali and Nathan, 2005), such that there is “effective coordination of strategies, tools and activities occurring at different social levels” (Fischer and Dillenbourg, 2006). This study promotes the multimodal approach to pedagogic discourse, focusing on mediation of multisemiotic resources. Also, the multimodal approach entails exploring the interactions and interplay across semiotic resources in the constellation of meanings made.
Second, anecdotal evidence from this study suggested that students responded to teacher’s ‘gesture scaffold’. With the trouble source identified, the teacher was able to provide an other-initiated-repair employing the use of gestures to complement
language used during scaffolding strategies. Furthermore, students experience successful self-repairs when given the opportunity to use gestures in demonstrating their understanding and facilitating their meaning making in the classroom. Thus, in extending the theory of scaffolding and language learning, this study presents evidence that non-verbal resources (e.g. use of gestures) can be successfully employed as repairs during pedagogic discourse of scaffolding. In addition, this study highlights the use of ‘other-initiation strategies’ (Radford, 2010), like variations of prompting, hinting and even demonstrating. More importantly, it highlights that other semiotic resource like the use of gesture is crucially employed in the classroom, as do verbal elements (Radford & Mahon, 2010).
6.1 Conclusion
Reflecting on the findings of the study, it is believed that this study’s line of enquiry will provide opportunities to move from a description of the structure and meaning- making potentials of multimodal semiotic resources, to a detailed description of how teachers and students can and do use those potentials in reading comprehension instruction settings, and on to a close study of how teachers and students differently ‘configure’ and put to work multimodal semiotic mediation in their meaning making experiences. The fields of multimodality, scaffolding and classroom talk particularly in reading comprehension instruction individually may have a noteworthy corpus of literature. However, there is a gap in the literature of studies that draw a relationship between the fields, which this study aims to address.
Alexander (2008) emphasised that talk, which in an effective and sustained way should engage children cognitively and scaffold their understanding, is much less common than it should be. He highlighted that teachers rather than learners control what is said, who says it and to whom. In fact, it is teacher rather than learner does most of the talking (p. 93). In moving towards dialogic interactions and effective teaching practices, this study provides clear evidence that there is potential in gradual release of power and control by the teacher, such that student autonomy is encouraged. In elucidating the evidence of effective teacher practice in this study, echoing Hattie’s (2012) definition of effective teaching, the findings suggest that the support provided by a teacher can be timely, in a classroom culture of safety and success. Learning can become an interactive partnership between teacher and student
(Hattie, 2012).
Indeed, there has not been a defined and strategic approach to support the pedagogical effect of multisemiotic discourse for teachers to adopt effectively (Sen, 2010). Given the gap in literature specifically addressing the mediation of multimodal resources in relation to English language learning and reading instruction, more empirical exploration as discussed in chapter five is needed; particularly in the promotion of desirable pedagogical effects for practitioners’ uptake and professional learning.
References
Abd-Kadir, J., & Hardman, F. (2007). The discourse of whole class teaching: A comparative study of Kenyan and Nigerian primary English lessons. Language and Education, 21(1), 1–15.
Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell.
Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Dialogos.
Alexander, R. (2008). Culture, dialogue and learning: notes on an emerging pedagogy. In Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.) Exploring Talk in School. London: SAGE, pp. 91-114.
Alexander, R. (ed.) (2009a). Children, their World, their Education: Final Report and Recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. London: Routledge. Alexander, R. (ed.) (2009b). Cambridge Review Briefings: The Final Report.
Retrieved from www.primaryreview.org.uk.
Alexander, R. (2010). ‘Speaking but not listening? Accountable talk in an unaccountable context’, Literacy, 44(3), 103-111.
Alexander, R. (2012). Neither National Nor a Curriculum? Forum, 54(3), 369-383 Alexander, R. (2015, in press). Dialogic pedagogy at scale: oblique perspectives. In
Resnick, L. C., Asterhan, C. and Clarke, S. (Eds). Socialising Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue, Washington DC, AERA.
Alibali, M. W., & DiRusso, A. A. (1999). The function of gestures in learning to count: More than keeping track, Cognitive Development, 14, 37–56.
Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2007). Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understanding: Evidence from an early algebra lesson. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 349–366). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Alibali, M. W., Kita, S., & Young, A. J. (2000). Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, therefore we gesture, Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 593–613.
Allen, L. Q. (2000). Non-verbal accommodations in foreign language teacher talk. Applied Language Learning, 11, 155-176.
Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading (pp. 2-24). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1996). Linking reading comprehension instruction to language development for language-minority students. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 295-309.
Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, J., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children’s arguments. Cognition and Instruction,15, 135–167. Anghileri, J. (2006) Scaffolding practices that enhance mathematics learning, Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 33–52.
Anthony, H. M., Pearson, P. D., and Raphael, T. E. (1993). Reading comprehension: A selected review, in L. M. Cleary & M. D. Linn (Eds.), Linguistics for
Teachers. McGraw-Hill.
Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685-730.
Alvermann, D., Dillon, D., & O’Brien, D. (1984). Using discussion to promote reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Alvermann, D., O’Brien, D., & Dillon, D. (1990). What teachers do when they say they’re having discussions of content area reading assignments: a qualitative analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 296-322.
Alvermann, D., Young, J., Weaver, D., Hinchman, K., Moore, D., Phelps, S., Thrash, E., & Zalewski, P. (1996). Middle and high school students’ perceptions of how they experience text-based discussions: A multicase study. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 244-267.
Babayiğit, S. (2014). The role of oral language skills in reading and listening comprehension of text: a comparison of monolingual (L1) and bilingual (L2) speakers of English language. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 22–S47. Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. (2006). The practice of Social Research. Cape Town:
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Toward a methodology in the human sciences. In Bakhtin, M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (McGhee, V. (Trans.), Emerson, C., & Holquist, M. (Eds.) Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 159-172.
Baldry, A. P. (2000). Multimodality and multimediality in the distance learning age. Campobasso, Italy: Palladino Editore.
Barnes, D. (1990). Oral language and learning. In S. Hynds & D. Rubin (Eds.), Perspectives on talk and learning (pp. 41-54). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Barnes, D. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring Talk in School (pp. 1-15). London: SAGE.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 251–276.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. NY: Routledge.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Biemiller, A. (1999). Language and reading success. Cambridge, MA: Brookline. Biemiller, A. (2004). Teaching vocabulary in the primary grades: Vocabulary
instruction needed. In J.Baumann & E. Kameenui (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 28-40). New York: The Guilford Press. Birr Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the Disciplines in Secondary Literacy Teaching
and Learning: A Call for Change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107.
Blaxter, L. Hughes, C. & Tight, M. (Eds.). (2001). How to research (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Block, C. C., & Duffy, G. G. (2008). Research on teaching comprehension. In C. C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (Vol. 2). New York: Guilford Press.
Boardman, A.G., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J. Murray, C.S., & Kosanovich, M. (2008). Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: A practice brief. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Boehm, A. E., & Weinberg, R. A. (1997). The classroom observer: Developing
observation skills in early childhood settings (3rd ed.) New York: Teachers College Press.
Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: A function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2),141-169.
Brevik, L. M. (2014). Making implicit practice explicit: How do upper secondary teachers describe their reading comprehension strategies instruction? International Journal of Educational Research, 67, 52-66.
Bridges, D. (1979). Education, democracy, and discussion. Windsor, England: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Broaders, S.C., Wagner-Cook, S., Mitchell, Z., Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136 (4), 539-550.
Brouwer, C. E. & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1): 29–47.
Brown, A.L. & Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: a historical and conceptual perspective. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 21- 34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. MA: Harvard University Press.
Burgoyne, K., Kelly, J.M., Whiteley, H.E. & Spooner, A. (2009). The comprehension skills of children learning English as an additional language. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 735–747.
Burgoyne, K., Whiteley, H.E. & Hutchinson, J.M. (2010). The development of comprehension and reading-related skills in children learning English as an additional language and their monolingual, English-speaking peers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 344–354.
Burns, C. & Myhill, D. (2004). Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 35–49.
Campbell, R. (1981). An approach to analysing teacher verbal moves in hearing children read. Journal of Research in Reading, 4(1), 43–56.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning (2nd edition). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chamberlin-Quinlisk, C. (2008). Nonverbal communication and second language classrooms: A review, In S. G. McCafferty & G. Stam (Eds.), Gesture: Second language acquisition and classroom research (pp. 25–45), London: Routledge Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and
learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chiappe, P., Glaeser, B. & Ferko, D. (2007). Speech perception, vocabulary, and the development of reading skills in English among Korean- and English-speaking children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 154–166.
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. London: Continuum.
Cienki, A. (2008). Why study metaphor and gesture? In A. Cienki & C. Müller (Eds.) Metaphor and Gesture (pp. 5-25), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Commeyras, M., & DeGroff, L. (1998). Literacy professionals’ perspectives on professional development and pedagogy: a national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 434-472.
Cook, S. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The role of gesture in learning: Do children use their hands to change their minds? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 211-232.
Coppola, J. (2003). Meeting the needs of English learners in all-English classrooms: Sharing the responsibility. In G. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 182-196). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Cummins, J. (1994). The acquisition of English as a second language. In Spangenberg-Urbschat, K., & Pritchard, R. (Eds.) Kids Come in All Languages: Reading Instruction for ESL Students (pp. 36-62). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Daniels, H., Cole, M., Wertsch, J. (Eds.) .2007. Cambridge companion to Vygotski. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Denscombe, M. (2002). Ground Rules for Good Research. Maidenhead: Open University Press
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), (2001). The national strategy for key stage 3: framework for teaching English. London: DfEE.
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). (2013). The National Curriculum in England: framework document, London: DfE.
Dillon, J.T. (1988). Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. London: Routledge.
Droop, M. V., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78–103. Duke, N., Pearson, D., Strachan, S., & Billman, S. (2011). Essential Elements of
Fostering and Teaching Reading Comprehension. In S. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 59-91), International Reading Association.
Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read. (6th ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E. & Short, D. J. (2008) Making content comprehensible for English learners; the SIOP model (Boston, MA: Pearson Education).
Edwards, D., & Furlong, J. (1978). The language of teaching: meaning in classroom interaction. London: Heinemann Educational.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: the development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
Edwards, A.D. and Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk. 2nd ed. London: Falmer Press.
Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (2012). Clinical handover as an interactive event: Informational and interactional communication strate-gies in effective shift- change handovers. Communication & Medicine, 9, 215–227.
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fisher, R. (2005). Teacher child interaction in the teaching of reading: a review of research perspectives over twenty-five years, Journal of Research in Reading. 28(1), 15 – 27.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). What does it take to create skilled readers? Facilitating the transfer and application of literacy strategies. Voices in the Middle, 15(4), 16-22.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp.231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Flevares, L. M., & Perry, M. (2001). How many do you see? The use of non-spoken representations in first-grade mathematics lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 330-345.
Flewitt, R. (2006). Using video to investigate preschool classroom interaction: Education research assumptions and methodological practices. Visual Communication, 5, 25–50.
Flowerdew, J. (2013). Some thoughts on English for research publication purposes (ERPP) and related issues. Language Teaching, 1-13.
Freebody, P., Luke, A., & Gilbert, P. (1991). Reading positions and practices in the classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 21(4), 435-457.
Freedman, S., & Delp, V. (2007). Conceptualizing a whole-class learning space: A grand dialogic zone. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(3), 259-2007. Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., & Pell, A. (1999). Changes in
patterns of teacher interaction in primary classrooms: 1976-96. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 23-37.
Garber, P., Alibali, M. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1998). Knowledge conveyed in gesture is not tied to the hands. Child Development, 69(1), 75-84.
Gaskins, I. W., Anderson, R.C, Pressley, M. Cunicelli, E.A. & Satlow, E. (1993). Six Teachers’ Dialogue during Cognitive Process Instruction. Elementary School Journal, 93(2), 277-304.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Glenberg AM, Robertson DA (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: a comparison of high dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 379–401.
Van Gelderen, A. V., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R. D., Glooper, K., Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 477-491.
Genesee, F., & Geva, E. (2006). Cross-linguistic relationships in working memory, phonological processing, and oral language. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners: A report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 175– 183). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibbons, P. (1998). Classroom talk and the learning of new registers in a second language. Language and Learning, 12(2), 99-118.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediated language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom, TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247-274.
Gibbons, P. (2006). The teacher: Teaching as mediation. Bridging Discourses in the ESL Classroom. London: Continuum.
Glenberg, A. M.; Robertson, D. A (1999) Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28(1), 1-26.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Kim, S., & Singer, M. (1999). What the teacher's hands tell the student's mind about math. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 720-730. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2000). Beyond words: The importance of gesture to researchers and learners. Child Development, 71, 231-239.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). How gesture works to change our minds, Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 3, 4–6.
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Gesture’s role in speaking, learning, and creating language, Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 257–283.
Gong, W. G., Zhang, L. J.,Zhang, D. L., Kiss, T., & Ang-Tay, M. Y. (2011). Socio- psychological factors and strategy use in Singaporean schoolchildren’s English literacy learning. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 10(1), 1-23. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and
hearers. New York: Academic.
Gregory, K & Clarke, M. (2003) High Stakes Assessment in England and Singapore. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 66-74.
Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., Hammerness, K., Wyckoff, J., Boyd, D., &
Lankford, H. (2010). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and Teachers’ value added scores. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 16015. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16015
Gullberg, M. (2006). Handling discourse: Gestures, reference tracking, and communication strategies in early L2, Language Learning, 56, 155–196
Gutierrez, K. D. (1994). How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning: a cross-case comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education, 5, 335-
365.
Hammadou, J. (1991). Interrelationships among prior knowledge, inference, and language proficiency in foreign language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 27–38.
Hammond, J. (Ed.). (2002). Scaffolding teaching and learning in language and literacy education. Newtown, Australia: PETA
Hammond J., & Gibbons P. 2005. Putting Scaffolding to Work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, Special Issue, 20(1), 6–30. Hanley, H., Masterson, J., Spencer, L., & Evans, D. (2004). How long do the
advantages of learning to read a transparent orthography last? An investigation of the reading skills and reading impairment of Welsh children at 10 years of age. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 57(8), 1393-1410.
Hardman, F., Smith, F. and Wall, K. (2003) 'Interactive Whole Class Teaching' in the National Literacy Strategy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 197-215. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the age of
insecurity, Maidenhead, Open University Press.
Hargreaves, L., Moyles, J., Merry, R., Paterson, F., Pell, T., Esarte-Sarries, V. (2003). How do primary school teachers define and implement 'interactive teaching' in the National Literacy Strategy in England? Research Papers in Education 18(3), 217-236.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. London, UK: Routledge.
Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, England: Routledge.
Hattie, J.A.C. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London, England: Routledge.
Have, P. ten. (1991). Talk and institution: a reconsideration of the 'asymmetry' of doctor-patient interaction. In: D. Boden & D.H. Zimmerman, (Eds.) Talk and
social structure (pp. 138-63). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Higgins, S., Smith, H. & Wall, K. (2005). The visual helps me understand the complicated things: student views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards, British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 851-867. Hoffman, J.V., O’Neal, S.F., Kastler, L.A., Clements, R.O., Segel, K.W. & Nash,
M.F. (1984). Guided oral reading and miscue focused verbal feedback in second-grade classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 367–384.
Hogan, D. J., Towndrow, P. A., Abdul Rahim, R., Chan, M., Luo, S., Sheng, Y., et al. (2011a). Interim report on pedagogical practices in Singapore in Secondary 3 Mathematics and English, 2004 and 2010. National Institute of Education, Singapore.
Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Cambridge: Brookline.
Hofstede, G. (1986) Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10(3), 301-320.
Hutchinson, J.M., Whiteley, H.E., Smith, C.D. & Connors, L. (2003). The
developmental progression of comprehension-related skills in children learning EAL. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 19–32.
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241-267.
Karlsen, B., & Gardner, E. (1994). Stanford diagnostic reading test. San Francisco: Harcourt Brace.
Kasuya, M. (2007). Classroom Interaction Affected by Power Distance. Language Teaching Methodology and Classroom Research and Research Methods. Kendon, A. 1988. How gestures can become like words. In Potyatos, F. (Ed),
Crosscultural perspectives in nonverbal communication (pp. 131-141). Toronto, Canada: Hogrefe.
Kendon, A. 2000. Language and Gesture: Unity or Duality. In D. McNeill, (Ed.) Language and Gesture: Window into Thought and Action (pp. 47-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.