Tesolgram Post Convention 2008

P R T E S O L

Visit www.puertoricotesol.org

PRTESOL-GRAM

Post-Convention IssueThe 35 Annual PRTESOL Convention has taken its rightful place in history. Teachers from all over Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic met for two exciting days of training, learning, sharing, planning, and having fun. What a joy it was to meet so many of our readers.

Teaching English is a science (lingistics, phonology, morphology, etc), but it is also an art. The art of communicating, of motivating students, of creating materials, designing lessons, even decorating the classrooms.

We look forward to 2009 with high hopes of seeing PRTESOL grow in influence around Puerto Rico and the Caribbean helping teachers at all levels in both the science and the art of teaching English.

Prof. Carmelo Arbona, PRTESOL-Gram Editor

A publication of PRTESOL: An organization concerned with the teaching of English to speakers of other languages.

Post-Convention HighlightsPresident’s final message

Page 3

Regional Chapters: Directory of new Chapter Presidents

Page 11

Convention Pictures

Page 14-15

Financial Report 2008Page 27

Professional ArticlesLanguage Acquisition: A Critique of the Theories We Apply to the Classroom and Why We Don’t Know More Ann Albuyeh, Ph.D.

Page 4

True progress is bilingualism for all: A response to Porter’s plenary address at the 2008 PR TESOL Conference Miriam Eisenstein Ebsworth, PhD

Page 24

PRTESOL BY-LAWS Page 16

Teach Me how to Laugh Luz Estrella Méndez Del Valle, Ph D

Page 7

Writing Quotations

Page 26

2009 Calendar of Events

Back cover

A Quarterly Newsletter Volume 35, Issue 3 WINTER 2008

http://www.puertoricotesol.org


P R T E S O L - G R A M

2 Visit www.puertoricotesol.org

TESOLGRAMTESOLGRAM is a periodical service to English language educators and administrators published by Puerto Rico TESOL, P. O. Box 366828, San Juan, PR 00936 -6828.

Newsletter Staff Editor: Carmelo Arbona Assistant Editor: Dr. José R. Sellas Aponte

Contributions Articles on English language teaching, theory, and education in general, creative writing, book reviews, poems, and short stories are welcome. Submissions must be typewritten, double -spaced, and no longer than five pages. They should be sent in a diskette or e-mailed along with a letter authorizing its publication. If photos are sent along with the articles they should be properly identified on the back with the name of individuals appearing in the photos. Include school affiliation; return address, e -mail address, and telephone number. Articles are subject to editing for style, space, and other considerations. If photo files are sent, please send them in .jpg, .gif, or .bmp formats.

Copy Deadline for 2008 Articles and advertising copy must be submitted by: February 1 for the spring issue, May 1 for the summer issue, August 30 for the fall (pre-convention issue) November 15 (post-convention issue) for the winter issue. Bibliographies should follow APA or TESOL Quarterly style.

INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Message from the President 3 Cell Phone Use: A Convenience, A Hazard or An Addiction 4About Faculty Resource Network 5Teachers: Who are They? 6Videogames as a Potential Tool for Classroom Instruction 7Pre-Convention Section 9-16 Convention Registration Guidelines Keynote Speakers p.10 Hotel Information p. 11-12 Pre-Registration form p. 13 Concurrent Sessions p. 18-212008 PRTESOL Membership form p. 22

TESOLGRAM Advertising Are you looking for the best audience for your ESL resources?You get maximum exposure for our advertising dollar by placing your ad with Puerto Rico TESOL. ESL teaching professionals, department heads, consultants, and school administrators in both the public and private sectors will see your ad. Circulation: 1,000.

To receive consecutive run discount, the discount must be requested in advance and total amount (price in parentheses) must be paid in advance.

FEES FULL PAGE

HALF PAGE

QUARTER PAGE

1. Per issue / single run

$275 $175 $95

2. (Two consecutive issues - 10% discount)

$249.00

($498.00)

$159.00

($318.00)

$86.00

($172.00)

3. (Three consecutive issues - 20% discount)

$223.00

($669.00)

$143.00

($429.00)

$76.00

($228.00

4. Cover (once inside back- black and white) *(three consecutive issues - 20%)

$300.00

*$720.00

Copyright Notice May reproduce articles for classroom use. Quotations up to twenty - five (25) words are permitted if credit to the author and the TESOLGRAM are included. In other situations, written permission is required.

PRTESOL-Gram




Visit www.puertoricotesol.org 3

POST-CONVENTION MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

Dr. José R. Sellas Aponte

President, PRTESOL 2008

Greetings! PRTESOL Family, It is with great pleasure and joy in my heart that I write my final message as President of the PRTESOL Organization during 2008. We have had an extremely challenging year. It has been a year of many surprises, a year of high expectations, a year where PRTESOL demonstrated that it is one of the finest organizations on this beloved issland. As I reflect upon everything that was carried out during this year, I am extremely proud of our accomplishments. Here is a brief summary of PRTESOL’s major achievements during 2008.

We carried out 6 successful Regional Conferences during this year where we impacted hundreds of classroom teachers and professors Island wide. We had over one hundred ESL Professionals participate of our Summer Institute in UPR, Humacao. We had special activities that were carried out by the Chapters, in addition to the Regional Conferences. These special activities provided additional benefits to teachers, classroom students, and their parents. The 6th Annual – Dominican Republic Outreach was held in Dominican Republic with positive results.

Regarding membership, we had over 500 ESL Professionals with active membership status during this year. Over 100 of these became members for the first time in 2008. In addition to this, we have approximately 20 active members from the United States and over 100 active members from Dominican Republic. This shows that we have a solid reputation as a prestigious organization.

We had three successful publications of the PRTESOL-Gram that included professional articles, pictures of our different activities, and the general information we wanted to share with our membership. Our first PRTESOL-Gram came out in summer 2008 and we sent over 900 copies by mail. Our Pre-Convention Issue came out in fall 2008 and we sent out over 700 copies by mail. Our post-convention PRTESOL-Gram will be sent to over 700 members. I am extremely satisfied with the evolution of this Newsletter, and proud to have carried out 3 successful publications during my Presidency.

The PRTESOL-Website was one of our most challenging and rewarding tasks. Even though it was an immense challenge at the beginning of the year, by the end of the year the PRTESOL-Website was up and running adequately. In addition to our main website, we have three Regions that have created Chapter Websites. And we look forward to the moment, that all six chapters have websites linked to the main website.

We relied heavily on E-Mail to keep in touch with Board Members and also with our Membership. This type of communication became a primary source for the instant promotion of all our activities, by the forwarding of messages to the majority of our membership. This year PRTESOL has take a gigantic step embracing advanced communication technology.

Two of our most important accomplishments this year dealt with the PRTESOL By-Laws and the PRTESOL Election. This year the 2008 PRTESOL By-Laws were ratified through the mail by over 100 members. The By-Laws of PRTESOL had not been revised since 2003. In addition to this, over 100 members voted by mail in the PRTESOL Election. This is the first time in many years that we have broken the mark of over hundred votes counted for each area. This demonstrates the unconditional support of our membership throughout the year to the PRTESOL Organization. Our Membership understands the importance of professional development and that the PRTESOL Organization marks the pace of ESL professional development on the island.

The most important accomplishment for the PRTESOL Organization this year was the 35th Annual PRTESOL Convention & Exhibit, titled: The Next Generation of ESL: Tapestry for Success. Our two-day Convention at the Gran Meliã Hotel in Rio Grande, Puerto Rico was fabulous: 60 presentations, over 30 exhibit tables, over 300 attendees, the PRTESOL Band, 10 ushers that guided and helped our attendees, 2 outstanding keynote speakers, and the extraordinary PRTESOL Board of Directors making sure that every aspect was perfect. Everyone is well aware of the economic difficulties that Puerto Rico and the world are undergoing at this time. I feel extremely satisfied to know that our membership had faith in us and supported our convention.

Finally, I would like to thank all the PRTESOL 2008 Board Members for your outstanding contribution and hard work throughout this year. We have accomplished many things this year. To our attendees, keynote speakers, presenters, entertainers, exhibitors, sponsors, ushers, hotel personnel, family, and friends thank you all for your contribution to the success of the 35th Annual PRTESOL Convention & Exhibit.

I want to extend a warm welcome to Prof. Miguel Camacho our new PRTESOL President and the Board of Directors for 2009. May this year’s journey be smooth and rewarding!

God Bless You All!

Best Wishes,

José R. Sellas ApontePRTESOL President 2008




4 visit www.puertoricotesol.com

Language Acquisition: A Critique of the Theories We Apply to the Classroom and Why We Don’t Know More

Ann Albuyeh, Ph.D.Professor, English Linguistics

University of Puerto Rico- Río Piedras

Abstract

Theories of how people learn language have been around for hundreds of years, but the application of such theories to second language teaching really dates from the 1950’s. Since theories of Second Language Acquisition have been applied to classroom methodology, the degree of optimism they have inspired has been negatively reflected by a notable lack of results in the classroom. This fact, no doubt, explains the following observation made by Rod Ellis (1994, 685) in his ground-breaking book The Study of Second Language Acquisition: “Theories of SLA [Second Language Acquisition] are not usually dismissed as a result of empirical study or powerful argumentation, but, instead, tend to slip slowly and gently into oblivion.”

If one is easily discouraged, the fact that in 2008—after some forty years of sustained research—“the jury is still out” on the most basic questions regarding language acquisition might be cause for despair. And so, Muriel Saville-Troike’s excellent book, pondering Second Language Acquisition over a decade later than Ellis’s, can present us with a coherent picture of the range of confusing views regarding: 1) What is learned?, 2) How is it learned? and 3) Why is the success rate so variable? – but no definitive answers to even one of these questions.

This paper will explore the problems involved in both theorization and classroom application; outline an original – but possibly equally doomed! – suggestion regarding how language acquisition works, and outline a not-so-original application of this to the classroom, intended to avoid the pitfalls of the past.

1. Introduction

Although I’ve been teaching English as a Second Language on and off for 35 years now, by mere coincidence I was exposed to language acquisition theory more than a decade before I had every taught in a classroom. In the late 1950’s, while still in grade school, I had the good fortune to have a babysitter who was an elementary education major at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and, no doubt out of boredom, liked to tell me about what she was learning in her classes. Tracking the linguistic behavior of my infant brother over the two years she babysat for us, Peggy described to me, in simplified form, what she had been taught about how children learn language.

As I realized when I myself attended the UW-Madison as a young adult, what she had described was the theory of behaviorism as applied to language acquisition. But by the period I’m talking about, the 1970’s, linguists discussing language acquisition at the UW-Madison, spoke of behaviorist theory with ill-concealed condescension. I learned that what Peggy had been taught, and had no doubt subsequently applied to her own teaching, was just plain wrong. Innateness was the ticket, and some fellow university student babysitter may have described LAD, Noam Chomsky’s “Language Acquisition Device” to his or her young charges during the 1970’s just as Peggy had passed on to me the accepted truths surrounding behaviorism a generation earlier.

As much as any other field, (and I’ll bring up a parallel point about math education a little later), Teaching English as a Second Language has been plagued both by the force of such theoretical shifts and a natural tendency in the academy to frame theoretical discussion as an “us vs. “them” debate in which “we” are right and “they” are wrong. In fact, from the late 1950’s when Peggy was simplifying the tenets of behaviorism for my benefit, formal, highly publicized debates (which continue to be published) were held between the famous linguist Noam Chomsky and the even more famous psychologists, the behaviorist B. F. Skinner and cognitive development psychologist Jean Piaget. I’m going to first consider these influential views regarding how children learn language, whether first or second, and then bring up adults later in the paper.

2. Philosophical Underpinnings to Views of Language Acquisition

It’s worthwhile to consider the fact that the different views regarding language acquisition held by these three famous scholars, which have continued to inspire language learning theories to the present day, owe as much or more to the opposing Western philosophical world views which directed their thinking than to experimental research results or the like. The nineteenth-century English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote: “The great majority of men live like bats, but in twilight, and know and feel the philosophy of their age only by its reflections and refractions.” Because I think Coleridge was right, I’m going to briefly discuss the philosophical schools influencing the thinking of Skinner, Chomsky and Piaget, and subsequent generations of language theoreticians, to emphasize to what extent, bat-like, we teachers of English as a Second Language have been buffeted about by these reflections and refractions of the major Western philosophies. (Continued, page ??)

http://www.puertoricotesol.com

http://www.puertoricotesol.com



As has often been pointed out, modern epistemology, the branch of philosophy which investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge, has two bases: empiricism and rationalism. Polar world views, the former focuses on the material world, the latter on reason and the mind. To understand to what extent shifting back and forth between the two philosophies has epitomized the western academy, we have to march back in time to fifth-century BC Greece, and contemplate the influence of Socrates who taught Plato who taught Aristotle – the three scholars credited with laying the philosophical foundation of Western culture, no less.

Aristotle’s stress on sense perceptions led in the seventeenth century to John Locke’s affirmation of the foundational principle of empiricism: “There is nothing in the intellect that was not previously in the senses” (Tarnas 1991, 333). The empiricist philosophies of Locke, and later Berkely and Hume led to a “scientific materialism” which was reflected centuries later in the narrowed scope of behaviorist theory and more happily the experimental rigor of its methodology as propounded by the psychologist J. B. Watson in 1924, and generations of scientists thereafter. Famously, of course, linguists such as Leonard Bloomfield applied the theoretical and methodological perspective of behaviorism to their own teachings and research from the 1930’s on.

Rationalism has a parallel history, moving from Aristotle’s student Plato to the seventeenth-century philosophers Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, who in turn influenced the modern linguist Chomsky, culminating in his 1966 publication of a work entitled: Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought.

3. The Three Most Influential Theories Regarding How Language is Acquired

For those who aren’t familiar with them or who may appreciate having their memory refreshed, here is a thumbnail sketch of the different views of language acquisition upon which even the most recent first and second language acquisition theories rest.

Behaviorism tends to conceive of the brain at its initial state as a tabula rasa, a blank slate, to which knowledge is added through sense experience and interaction with the environment, i.e. the focus is on Nurture. Learning typically involves stimulus-response conditioning. In language acquisition this view highlights imitation and feedback. Through the successful imitation of adults and the accidental combination of rewarded sounds, words are learned which are then combined to form short phrases which in turn are combined to form sentences. Skinner conceived of language as “behavior reinforced by other persons” and asserted that language behavior can be accounted for in a way that is in principle no different from the learning behavior of rats in the laboratory. Thus, importantly, in this view language learning is seen as just one type of general learning (See e.g. Malmkjaer 1991, 53—57).

Rationalist thought posits the existence of mental structures in the initial state, i.e. at birth. In language acquisition as conceived of by Chomsky this translates into the proposal that a baby is born with a brain equipped to learn language. The baby’s brain contains innate structures which have sometimes been referred to as LAD (Language Acquisition Device) as mentioned above, or sometimes thought of as a “Universal Grammar” consisting of linguistic principles and parameters.

The term “principles” refers to sometimes highly abstract and specific properties of grammar, often broadly defined to include many aspects of language. These principles have in practice reflected the current version of linguistic analysis being carried out by Chomsky and his followers. The idea is that although a given language will only contain a subset of the total number of principles, no human language will have a structure that contradicts any one of them. An example of an innate principle is the “Projection Principle.” This principle would predispose a child to expect that syntactic structure is determined by entries in the lexicon. For example, the choice of the verb give entails the use of a specific syntactic pattern including a subject and an object.

“Parameters” involve fixing a value or resetting a default based on exposure to linguistic data. Parameters have two or more possible values and the setting of one may imply the setting of others For example, a parameter may involve whether a language is the type that allows the dropping of subject pronouns or not. Thus, the setting would be “Yes, this language does drop subject pronouns” for Spanish, or “No, it doesn’t” for English. (See e.g. Akmajian et al 1995, Field 2004.)

Since the current tendency is to see the brain as being somehow hard-wired for language learning, with innate capacities and cognitive structures already in place, interaction with the environment, following an Innateness view of language acquisition, is downplayed, i.e. the focus is on our genetic endowment and Nature. As you can see from the specificity of the proposed principles and parameters, language learning is unique, special, and distinct from general learning.

If you think that Chomsky’s innateness views are stupid—an intelligent person told me that just the beginning of last semester, or if, as in my own case, you were trained to think that the behaviorist views of B. F. Skinner are stupid (well, my professors didn’t use that word, but that’s what they meant)—you might reflect on the following. The most profound minds in the history of Western culture have swung back and forth between these opposing views of what knowledge is and how it is gained for over two thousand years.

There have been philosophers who have positioned themselves midway between the two extreme viewpoints, and who have also significantly influenced modern thought regarding language acquisition. The eighteenth-century philosophy of Kant is a case in point. Kant criticized Leibniz and the rationalists for believing that reason alone without sense experience can





calculate the universe, and he criticized Locke and the empiricists for believing that sense impressions alone, without a priori concepts of understanding could ever lead to knowledge (Tarnas 1991, 345). A self-proclaimed advocate of “dynamic Kantism,” Piaget rejected both Skinner’s extreme behaviorism and the extreme innateness arguments of the newcomer Chomsky. Identifying himself as “anti-empiricist,” Piaget pointed to the “insufficiency of an ‘empiricist’ interpretation of experience,” arguing that “no knowledge is based on perceptions alone.” But although his focus on the mind makes him essentially a rationalist, Piaget also rejected the strong innateness claims of Chomsky (hence his debate with the younger linguist), arguing “nor do any a priori or innate cognitive structures exist in man . . . the functioning of intelligence alone is hereditary” (Piatteli-Palmarini 1980, 23). Agreeing with Skinner and opposing Chomsky in this regard, Piaget also conceives of language learning as merely a case of general learning.

Using a computer analogy doesn’t totally work here, but you could say that what Chomsky is claiming is innate is what’s on the hard-drive of the brain and what Piaget is claiming is innate is part of the software, a learning program. You might describe Piaget’s view, therefore, as claiming that knowledge structures develop in the mind as a result of the ongoing interaction which occurs between this learning program and the environment.

According to Piaget, the child’s genetically determined developmental program dictates the stages and the pace of the learning. The learning progresses as a result of twin processes called “assimilation” and “accommodation.” In assimilation, the learner’s existing knowledge structures modify perceptual input. In other words, the interpretation of the perceptual input is limited by the level of knowledge which the child has at any given point. In accommodation, the knowledge structures themselves become modified as they adapt to perceptual input. In other words, contact with the environment leads the child to modify and advance his/her state of knowledge. Through these two processes, the learner in effect climbs step by step to new generalizations in the development of language.

For example, a child is at the most basic level 1 linguistically. Using this basic linguistic knowledge the child interprets language input in a limited way. But this partially successful interpretation of language input itself adds to the knowledge the child has of the language. This allows the child to progress to level 2 of linguistic knowledge. Then the child uses this level 2 linguistic knowledge to interpret language input with a bit more success. This more successful interpretation of language itself adds to the child’s growing language corpus and that allows the child to progress to level three of linguistic knowledge. Then the child uses level 3 linguistic knowledge to interpret language input with even more success. This more successful interpretation of language in turn adds to how much language the child knows leading to level 4 of linguistic knowledge. And so on, until the child has mastered the language. Second language acquisition theories which focus on input and interaction as well as “interlanguage” stages owe a debt to Piaget’s model.

Significantly, Piaget’s developmental stages which relate most obviously to language acquisition occur within a time frame which is roughly parallel to that proposed as the “critical period” for language learners. As many of you know, the Critical Period Hypothesis was proposed by Eric Lenneberg in 1967. This notion has been supported in various versions these last four decades and in its most usual form hypothesizes that from about 18 months to nearing the onset of puberty there exists a sort of “window of opportunity” for successful and complete language acquisition. Once this critical period is passed, language learning is both more difficult and probably destined to never achieve complete fluency (See e.g. Field 2004, Lust and Foley 2004.)

4. Second Language Acquisition Theories

If Nature vs. Nurture is essentially a problem which no one should imagine will be solved in the near future, it hasn’t stopped linguists and psychologists from lining up on either side of the debate. (In point of fact, second language acquisition theorists have mostly focused on Nurture.) As Vivian Cook pointed out in 1988, the opposition between these two approaches in language acquisition has been a “long and acrimonious” one in which “neither side concedes the other’s reality.” Something made equally obvious by the historic Chomsky, Skinner, Piaget debates of decades past referred to above and any review of the literature carried out today. The recent state of the Nature vs. Nurture debate is outlined in Ewa Dąbrowska’s 2004 book entitled Language, Mind and Brain, and illustrated throughout the review of second language acquisition theories presented in Mitchell and Miles (2004) and Saville-Troike (2006), for example. Dąbrowska asserts that still today: “One of the most controversial issues in contemporary psycholinguistics is the extent to which our linguistic abilities depend on ‘general purpose’ cognition,” i.e. following Skinner and Piaget vs. what she terms the “modularity hypothesis,” i.e. that language learning is separate, following Chomsky and his supporters. (Dąbrowska in her book argues against the latter view.)

It may be because I proposed my own second-language learning theory in my 1985 Ph.D. dissertation that I think this, but in my opinion, the field of second language acquisition has been more guilty than most in producing a regrettable proliferation of “theoria.”

Certainly this concern was voiced as early as the 1990’s when linguists such as Roger Griffiths (1990), Michael Long (1993) and Rod Ellis (1994) raised the alarm. Weary of the theoretical overload, Ellis complains about “too much theorizing and not enough empirical research.” However, I don’t think the real problem has been any lack of empirical research. There





actually have been a lot of empirical studies done in the last few decades. (I also carried out empirical research in Mexico to test my theory.)

In fact, from the Contrastive Analysis Theory, which focused on teaching the differences between L1 and L2, to the multiple manifestations of Stephen Krashen’s theories, with their various claims regarding how people learn second languages, much sustained empirical research has been carried out—but for all the heroic efforts of the researchers the findings have been, to say the least, inconclusive. Certainly for any happy detail of language learning that has been uncovered, it is no coincidence that a number of people in the field have made recourse to the story of the blind men and the elephant. (I used this myself a number of years ago only to discover that some other linguist had also proposed it, and I’ve since seen it referred to again in relation to second language acquisition.) Of course, each blind man’s concept of what an elephant was depended on which part he happened to grab a hold of.

Lacking the critical understanding of the brain which will light up the whole picture, our philosophic predispositions, the happenstance of the decade in which we received training, the structure of the languages which we are observing (a point made by Ewa Dąbrowski), any number of constraints on our perspective—all of these factors inevitably lead us to the kind of partial truth which rendered each of the blind men both right and essentially wrong when they tried to describe the whole animal. Yes, it will finally be possible to understand the processes of both first and second language acquisition, but I can confidently say it will not happen in our lifetimes. That this view is not mere pessimism, but just a reflection of the reality we face, is supported by Saville-Troike’s (2006, 175) comment regarding basic disagreements as to what constitutes knowledge of a second language: “Resolution of the disagreement is not likely in our lifetimes, and perhaps it would not even be desirable.” She continues with a non-elephant analogy: “I have suggested that we recognize these differences as being like different views we get of Mars through seeing it with different color filters. They complement one another and all are needed to gain a full-spectrum picture of the multidimensional nature of [Second Language Acquisition].”

5. A Possible Model of Second Language Acquisition: My Newer Theory

Here’s a hypothesis:1) What is provided by Nature? Everyone is born with a language specific hard-wired learning device such as

hypothesized by Chomsky which exists in the brain as a result of thousands of years of evolution. Like the discussion of what neuroscientists are discovering about the brain and mathematical learning which I’ll discuss below, the “messy, random process” of evolution has resulted in a complex intermingling of language circuitry with other brain functions, making our sorting out of where this “hard-wiring” is and how it functions even harder to identify. You have this for your whole life and it allows you to learn not only aspects of your first language but any additional languages, including learning languages as an adult.

2) What is provided by Nurture? I’m hypothesizing that behaviorists were also always right about the learning of particular aspects of language e.g. function words and inflections, and that these aspects of language are learned from input and interaction in a more or less stimulus-response conditioning manner such as hypothesized by Skinner. Also I’m guessing that this allows you to learn aspects of not only your first language, but any additional languages, including those learned as an adult.

3) How does Nature interact with Nurture? Of course, Piaget focused most on child development, and I think there will turn out to be a good reason for this focus with regard to his concept of language learning. If I can continue with the idea of Piaget’s learning model as a software program (when we discuss the brain more specifically below, you’ll see this isn’t quite adequate), my guess is that since the function of Piaget’s general learning program is to allow child cognitive development, it plays itself out and ceases with the onset of puberty. My hypothesis is that this learning program provides a boost to the general learning achieved through a behaviorist stimulus response model. In other words, language learning which relies heavily on input and interaction (e.g. the learning of function words, inflections, pronunciation, etc.) receives substantial assistance from this general learning software between infancy and puberty. This additional assistance accounts for the perfect acquisition of first and additional languages by children who receive sufficient exposure. This software would “run out” at puberty, and this would account for the effects of the “Critical Period” proposed by Lenneberg.

6. Factors that Matter More in Second Language Acquisition than First Language Acquisition

The first group of factors affecting second language acquisition involves internal differences between first and second language acquisition. Obviously, a big consideration here is how knowing a first language affects the learning of a second. At the brain level the questions include: Is the same brain circuitry involved in learning a second language? It seems that the answer will be “No” or at least “not completely.” Another question involves where the second language is stored. Is there an overlap between first and second languages? For example, if the languages are Spanish and English, how are the lexicons





stored? Do the words casa and house share a single storage point? Are they organized with words from their respective languages, but these words are co-indexed somehow? Moreover, if parameters have been set for L1, how are they reset for L2? If the Spanish parameter for no required subject pronoun has been set, how will the brain add a contradictory setting for English? Furthermore, how is processing first one language and then another achieved as language acquisition proceeds? Additionally, if L2 is typologically very different from L1 (say Spanish and Chinese) does restructuring of the brain proceed in a different way than if L2 and L1 are similar (say Spanish and Italian)? Also, age is a significant internal biological factor. Not only may there be fewer learning processes available to the older learner of a second language, but conversely the older learner may profitably take greater advantage of already developed analytic abilities.

The second group of factors affecting second language acquisition more than 1rst language acquisition involves external differences between the two. Social contexts of second language acquisition can be quite different, as can the effect of social factors on learning. As Saville-Troike points out typically, motivation, issues of identity, and the relevant status of L1 and L2 in either a national or global context are considerations which have important consequences for second language acquisition. Additionally, institutional requirements, and the institutional constraints imposed on learners are relevant to much second language acquisition. Furthermore, in a social context, biological factors such as age, and sex, and also group categories like ethnicity, educational level, occupation and economic status affect the learning of second languages. In my opinion, to date, research into external factors has yielded more useful data for the teaching of ESL than any research into the internal factors of second language acquisition.

7. Applying These Views to Education: Lessons from Another Field

In March of this year, The New Yorker published an essay which I found both comforting and scary. Called “Numbers Guy: Are Our Brains Wired for Math?,” the author of this “Annals of Science” piece, Jim Holt, describes the research of the Paris-based neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene. Paralleling the breakthroughs in language-brain mapping that began with the nineteenth-century work of Paul Broca and Carl Wernicke, Dehaene studied a brain-damaged patient who was exhibiting a number processing deficiency grouped under the general name “acalculia.” Acalculia is to math difficulties what aphasia is to language problems.

In the late 1980’when Stanislas Dehaene first brought the language -brain mapping successes of the American cognitive psychologist Michael Posner to the attention of Dehaene’s Ph.D. advisor, his advisor wasn’t interested. Focusing on determining the abstract organization of cognitive functions, Dehaene’s doctoral advisor “didn’t see the point of trying to locate precisely where in the brain things happened” (Holt 2008, 44). In my opinion, this is a shortsightedness regrettably often seen among both researchers and educators interested in second language acquisition.

His advisor, notwithstanding, Dehaene has become a pioneer in a field called “numerical cognition.” Not surprisingly, in the context of our current discussion, these neuroscientists, in the words of Holt (2008, 43), are also “puzzling over which aspects of our mathematical ability are innate and which are learned and how the two systems overlap and affect each other.”

In case Piaget’s compromise position with regard to the Nature/Nurture debate outlined above sounded like a happy solution, the evidence from applying Piaget’s theories to mathematics education provides a sobering lesson. Holt (2008, 45) castigates the “new math” teaching methodology (I can’t remember much of it, but I was taught this in the Madison school system), “now widely thought to have been an educational disaster” both in the US and abroad. Holt explains:

The new math was grounded in the theories of the influential Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, who believed that children are born without any sense of number and only gradually build up the concept in a series of developmental stages. . . . and that there was therefore no point in trying to teach them arithmetic before the age of six or seven . . . .By now it is generally agreed that infants come equipped with a rudimentary ability to perceive and represent number.

If I found it comforting to know that it’s not only the linguists and psychologists who are still tackling the basic questions regarding Nature vs. Nurture, I found it worrisome to reflect on the innocent faith in experts which apparently led countless educators to “do the wrong thing” in the classroom. This has, of course, been the experience of countless other educators, from my babysitter Peggy no doubt to myself and other ESL teachers, as I’ll illustrate below.

8. Science to the Rescue

What’s the problem here? How could essentially the same debate continue for two millennia, and how could the modern research of decades provide educators with so little to go on? To paraphrase the first Clinton campaign: the short answer: “It’s the brain, stupid.”

The good news is that the gross mapping of lesion sites with both linguistic and mathematical aberrations has in just the last decade or so been superseded by the sophisticated technologies of MRI’s, Magnetic Resonance Imaging methods, and the like. And although our picture of what is going on is still relatively crude for example, the same spot in the brain might light up for two tasks but different neurons could be involved for each one—such technology has the capability of





supporting or refuting details of models proposed for theoretical reasons. In the words of Dehaene, “Psychology has become a little more like physics” (Holt 2008, 45).

Over the last few years, neuroscientists such as Judith Rapaport at the National Institute of Health and Paul Thompson at UCLA have been using MRI’s to track the growth and changes in the brain from infancy to puberty. Rapaport states “One of the things we were able to find out, almost at once, was how unexpected the findings are . . . just by following a normative population,” i.e. not looking at aphasia patients but doing MRI’s on normal individuals (De Francesco 2002, 2). An important finding of Rapaport’s team is that development is uneven across the brain. For example, different parts of the brain reach their peak in terms of volume or growth at different ages. Thompson’s color-coded MRI mapping of children’s growing brains illustrates a complex pattern of growth and loss. In particular, Thompson and his colleagues found an unexpected wave of tissue growth which spread from the front to the back of the brain. They found that the frontal brain circuits which control attention and are responsible for learning new skills and being able to think ahead underwent their greatest growth period in children between the ages of three and six (DeFrancesco 2002,.3; PBS 2002, 2). As the brain continued to change, key reorganization was evident in the MRI’s of children of approximately 7 to 11 years of age. Between the ages of 11 and 15, the region known to house language centers underwent a rapid growth spurt and then declined abruptly. This, of course, may be an important reason for the perceived differences in child and adult language learning which motivated hypotheses regarding a critical period which ends around puberty, referred to above. In a PBS interview, Thompson reports that “Perhaps the biggest surprise of all was how much tissue the brain loses in the teen years. Just before puberty, children lost up to 50 percent of their brain tissue in their deep motor nuclei [which] control motor skills such as writing, sports, or piano” (PBS 2002, 2—3) Thompson and his colleagues’ work has been compiled in a “brain atlas,” which you can access on the Laboratory of Neuro Imaging UCLA website (www.loni.ucla.edu) and Thompson 2000 (reproduced on the same site), which show color brain scans which are the first maps of brain growth in individuals and teens.

In the same PBS interview, William Greenough, a neuroscientist at the Center for Advanced Study at the University of Illinois stated:

The principle news based on both newer techniques like fMRI and other technologies is that the brain is a very dynamic place and continues to be so throughout development and even into adulthood. New synaptic connections continue to form between neurons throughout life. Patterns of myelination [the process by which brain cells are covered with a fatty white substance called myelin, which aids in the transmission of information between cells], while perhaps most dynamic from early development through adolescence, continue to change at least into the 4th decade of life. . . . Perhaps most exciting is that at least some regions of the brain continue to generate new neurons in adulthood, and those neurons appear to participate in the learning and memory process (PBS 2002, 2).

Kurt Fischer, director of the Mind, Brain and Education Program at Harvard points to how much still remains to be

discovered. Most of the recent advances in brain science have involved knowledge of the biology of single neurons and synapses, not knowledge of patterns of connection and other aspects of the brain as a system. In time, the new imaging techniques will help scientist and educators to understand how brain and behavior work together, but we have a very long way to go (PBS 2002, 3).

9. Conclusion: What to do in the Meantime; What to Take to the Classroom

A graduate student and ESL teacher in the Puerto Rico school system told me this semester that educational policy now favors an eclectic approach to teaching methods. This was good news. I remember teaching Language Acquisition not so long ago to graduate students who told me that the Department of Education had required them to go out and buy one of Stephen Krashen’s books, The Input Hypothesis, if I’m remembering correctly, and apply it to their ESL teaching because he had been in Puerto Rico presenting this theory. This was just one of a series of five theories that Krashen put forth—that very fact tells you that his ideas were not writ in stone—and these hypotheses were merely in the process of being tested out by him and other linguists to mixed results. In fact, Rod Ellis’s award-winning 800-plus page survey of the study of second language acquisition (1994, 685) which I referred to above specifically points to Krashen’s infamous Monitor Theory as an example of the way in which second language acquisition theories “slip slowly and gently into oblivion.” As the Piaget- new math disaster illustrates, it has been dangerous to adapt teaching methods to the theorizing of even scholars of greater renown, and some would say with a better track record too, than some of the Second Language Acquisition theoreticians who have influenced teaching methodology.

Moreover, if as appears likely, second language acquisition involves multiple structures in the brain and both language specific and general learning processes—and. in the latter case, it appears some which continue beyond childhood and some which don’t—surely language teaching would have to rely on multiple methods to capitalize on all of these factors. In fact, I think that the success of some of the computer programmed teaching, especially supplementing face to face language use, is to a



http://www.loni.ucla.edu

http://www.loni.ucla.edu



great extent a result of the variety built into the tasks of the computer learning programs and the eclectic nature of the second language instruction that’s offered.

Therefore, whether you prefer the analogy of the blind men and the elephant or the multi-lenses with which to view Mars, it’s my firm belief that we let theorizing and even empirical research designed to test second language acquisition theories intrude on teaching methodology at our peril. On the contrary, it will be the eclectic, multi-task methods drawn from the classroom experience of generations of ESL teachers, combined with the more recent stunning technological breakthroughs, that will prove to be the source of successful, innovative ESL teaching for years to come.

[The paper concluded with an eight-minute excerpt of a PBS DVD entitled “The Secret Life of the Brain,” which included the study of the brain of a child learning both Spanish and English, cited below.]

Works Cited

Albuyeh, Ann. “The Constituent Analysis Theory of Complexity.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1985. Akmajian, Adrian, et al. Linguistics: an Introduction to Language and Communication, 5th ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.Chomsky, Noam. “Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior.” Language 35 (1959): 26—58. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: Harper and Row, 1966.Coburn, Kathleen., ed. Inquiring Spirit: A Coleridge Reader. London: Minerva Press, 1951. Cook, Vivian. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988.Dąbrowska, Ewa. Language, Mind, and Brain: Some Psychological, and Neurological Constraints on Theories of Grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.DeFrancesco, Laura. “Watching How the Brain Grows: MRI Offers New Insights into Brain Development.” The Scientist 16[3]:27 (February 4, 2002), 6 pages. http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/PNAS/thescientist.html/ [June 11, 2008].Ellis, Rod. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994Field, John. Psycholinguistics: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge, 2004.Griffiths, Roger. “Speech Rate and NNS Comprehension: a Preliminary Study in Time-Benefit Analysis. Language Learning, 40 (1990): 311—36.Holt, Jim. “Numbers Guy: Are Our Brains Wired for Math?” The New Yorker, March 3, 2008, 42—7. Krashen, Stephen. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman, 1985.Long, Michael. “Assessment Strategies for SLA Theories.” Applied Linguistics, 14 (1993): 225—49.Lust, Barbara and Claire Foley, eds. First Language Acquisition: The Essential Readings. London: Blackwell Publishing [check, now part of Wiley], 2004.Malmkjaer, Kirsten, ed. The Linguistics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, 1991.Mitchell, Rosamund and Florence Miles. Second Language Learning Theories, 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold, 2004.PBS Online and WGBH/Frontline. “How Much Do We Really Know about the Brain?” Frontline: Inside the Teenage Brain. 2002. Reported in http://www,loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/PNAS/pbs_brain_interview.html/ [ June 11, 2008]. Piatteli-Palmarini, Massimo. Language and Learning: The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Saville-Troike, Muriel. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 The Secret Life of the Brain, prod. by David Grubin, 5 hours, PBS, 2002, DVD.Skinner, B. F. Verbal Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1957.Tarnas, Richard. The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View. New York: Harmony Books, 1991. Thompson, Paul, et al. “Growth Patterns in the Developing Human Brain Detected Using Continuum-Mechanical Tensor Mapping.” Nature 404 (March 9, 2000), 190-193. http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/JAY/nature_paper.html/. [June 11, 2008].



http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/PNAS/thescientist.html/

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/MEDIA/PNAS/thescientist.html/

http://www

http://www

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/JAY/nature_paper.html/

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/JAY/nature_paper.html/



PRTESOL 2008 ElectionsMeet the Regional Chapter Boards

During the Convention each regional chapter held meetings and events including elections. It is vital that every member attend his or her chapter meeting. Find your chapter below and make sure you take an active role in all your chapter’s activities.

METROCHAPTER

President:Dr.GladysCruz,InterAmericanUniversity

BayamónCampus

email:[email protected]

website:http://metro.prtesol.angelfire.com

President:Dr.EvelynLugo,UniversidaddelEste,Carolina


website:http://easterntesolpr.webnode.com

NORTHERNCHAPTER

President:CarlaRodríguez,StudentInterAmericanUniversity,Arecibo


SOUTHERN CHAPTER

President:CelesteMorales,UniversityofPuertoRico,PonceCampus


WESTERNCHAPTER

President:Prof.EnriqueChaparro,ManuelMoralesFelicianoElementary,Aguada

email:[email protected],[email protected]

CAGUAS

President:DeniseFerrer,DepartmentofEducation


IN MEMORIAM

Professor Idia Rodríguez González, of the University of Puerto Rico in Arecibo (UPRA) died on Friday, January 23, 2009 of pancreatic cancer. Idia had been a long-time member of PRTESOL and a member of the committee that revived the Northern PRTESOL Chapter in 1990. She later served as President of the Northern Chapter from 1994-96. Idia also served as Higher Ed representative and was a familiar face both as attendee and workshop presenter at many a PRTESOL conference throughout the years. Before her illness, she had been director of the Honor program at UPRA and had been coordinating The Center for Faculty Development at the Arecibo campus. Totally involved in campus life, she served from 2000-2003 as Academic Senator and from 1996 to 2000, she was director of the English Department as well as a member of the Administrative Board.

The University and the English Department benefited enormously from Idia’s service as a professor, administrator, and colleague. She was a versatile and dynamic professor who served on numerous committees within the University. She was a vibrant and resourceful colleague who will be sorely missed.

Professor Rodríguez had a Master’s Degree in secondary education from the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras. She is survived by her husband, Edgardo Cabán and her two sons Edgardo and Leonardo. Her funeral was held on Sunday, January 25 in Arecibo.





Teach Me How to Laugh: Humor in the Teaching-Learning ExperienceLuz Estrella Méndez Del Valle, PhD

UPR, Utuado

“A merry heart does good, like medicine, but a broken spirit dries the bones.” Proverbs 17: 22

Abstract

Humor through time, has been considered an important factor in human socialization (Pollak and Freda 1; Cassidy 1; Granick 74). It has the capability of easing an individual’s daily routine, and making life more bearable during moments of great strain (Goldstein and McGhee xiii; Granick 73; Millicent 268). Research reveals that humor can reduce the negative feelings that provoke sickness, tension, and stress burnouts (Cousins 1979; Check 1997; Laurence and Dana 1982; Coleman 1992; Ziegler 1998; McMahon 1999; Cornett 2001; Lawson 2001; Weaver and Cotrell 2001; Olsson 2002). Because of this, many researchers have suggested the presence of humor in the classroom setting. According to their findings, humorous classroom interactions reduce the anxiety students confront when being exposed to rigorous study and unknown concepts (Monnot and Kite 1974; Gomes de Matos 1974; Trachtenberg 1979; Maurice 1988; Deniere 1995; Khelr et al.1999; Thorne 1999; Korobkin 1988). Moreover, many students consider a good sense of humor as one of the most important characteristics a teacher should have (Pollack and Freda 1; Berk 4).

Hence, the purpose of this particular study was to briefly review the definitions, theories and taxonomies concerning the concept of humor offered by various researchers (Robinson 1977; Morreall 1983; Glasser 1986; Granick 1995; Long and Graesser 1998; Ziegler 1998; Cornett 2001; Schmitz 2002). The investigation focused on how humor affects the classroom setting, and how it is used as a motivational tool in teaching (Vizmuller 1980; Koestler 1964; Nilsen 1999; Minchew 2001). Through the use of a brief questionnaire, this study examined how a specific group of college professors teaching at a campus located in the central mountain region of Puerto Rico used and perceived humor in their classroom interactions. The study objective was to assess these college professors’ perceptions and usage of humor in order to reaffirm what other studies have stated: humor is also a powerful motivational instrument for college level instruction (Cohen and Herr 1982; Moses 1985; Lowman 1994; White 2001).

Findings :

1. College teaching dynamics have dramatically evolved from the strict monotonous lecture to the energetic interaction of thought, creativity and technology (Korobkin 1988).

2. Humor has not weakened the educator’s standing. On the contrary, teachers have become strong role models that use humor to transform their teaching strategies, enhance the classroom setting, and the way in which their students view the world (Khelr et al. 1999). Sixty-five percent (65%) of the respondents admitted using types of humor in their classroom interaction.

3. Personal experience (93%) and funny anecdote (93%) were preferred in general as a group and by gender.

4. Gender differences showed that women were more willing to make fun of themselves in front of their students contrary to men. On the other hand, sarcasm (15%) was rejected by all respondents (Ziegler 1998; Sudol 1981).

5. Sixty-four percent (64%) of the respondents used various media channels for humorous interaction in their

classrooms. Books (90%) and articles/news prints (85%) were preferred by group and gender.

6. The findings on the whole disclosed the faculty’s perceptions on the effects humor has in their teaching dynamics. Eighty-five (85%) of the participants stated that humor should be used to: relieve stress, motivate, create a healthy

environment, promote thinking and gain attention. Humor as a mechanism to discipline students negative attitudes, developing students’ self-image, helping students understand other cultures and handling unpleasant situations was totally rejected by the respondents.

Overall, humor wisely used has the capacity of changing poor pupils into outstanding achievers.





Works Cited

Berk, Ronald. Professors are from Mars and Students are from Snickers. Virginia: Stylus Publishing, 2003.Cassidy, A. “And Then the Elephant Said…” Parent Magazine 71 (1996): 96 – 98.Check, John. “Humor in Education.” Physical Educator. 54.3 (1997): 165 – 168.Cohen, P, and G. Herr. “Using an Interactive Feedback Procedure to College Teaching.” Teaching of Psychology. 138 (1982): 138-140. Coleman Jr., Gordon. “All Seriousness Aside: The Laughing-Learning Connection.” International Journal of Instructional Media. 19.3 (1992): 1-7.Cornett, Claudia. Learning through Laughter: Humor in the Classroom. Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1986.Cousins, Norman. Anatomy of an Illness Perceived by the Patient: Reflections on Healing and Regeneration. New York: Norton, 1979. Deniere, Marc. “Humor and Foreign Language Teaching.” International Journal of Humor Research. 8.3 (1995): 285 – 298.Glasser, William. Control Theory in the Classroom. New York: Harper and Row, 1986.Goldstein, J., and McGhee, P. The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues. New York: Academic Press, 1972.Gomes de Matos, Francisco. “Humo(u)r, A Neglected Feature in Foreign Language Teaching.” Creativity: New Ideas in Language Teaching. 8 (1974): 1-2.Granick, S. “The Therapeutic Value of Laughter.” USA Today. 124 (Sept. 1995): 72-74.Khelr, Neeleam, Susan Molstad, and Roberta Donahue. “Using Humor in College Classroom to Enhance Teaching Effectiveness in Dread Courses.” College Student Journal. 33.3 (1999): 400 – 407.Koestler, Arthur. The Act of Creation. London: Hutchinson, 1964.Korobkin, Debra. “Humor in the Classroom: Considerations and Strategies.” College Teaching. 36.4 (1988): 154- 158Laurence, Peter, and Bill Dana. The Laughter Prescription. New York: Ballantine Books, 1982.Lawson, Wendy. “Engaging with Humor.” Adult Learning. 12.8 (2001): 1- 4. The Living Bible. London: Tyndale House, 1973.Long, Deborah, and Arthur Graesser. “Wit and Humor in Discourse Processing.” Discourse Processing. 11 (1988): 35-60.McMahon, Maureen. “Are We Having Fun Yet? Humor in the English Classroom.” English Journal. 88.4 (1999): 70 – 72.Maurice, Keith. Laugh while Learning another Language: Technologies that are Functional and Funny. English Teaching Forum. 26.4.2 (1988): 20-24. Millicent, Abel. “Interaction of Humor and Gender in Moderating Relationships Between Stress and Outcomes.” Journal of Psychology. 132.3 (1998): 267 – 277.Minchew, Sue. “Teaching English with Humor and Fun.” American Secondary Education. 30.1 (2001): 58 – 65.Monnot, Michel and Jon Kite. “Puns and Games: Paronomasia in the ESL Classroom.”TESOL Quarterly. 8.1 (1974): 65-71. Morreall, John. Taking Laughter Seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983. Moses, I. “High Quality Teaching in a University: Identification and Description.” Studies in Higher Education. 10 (1985): 301-313.Nilsen, Aileen, and Don Nilsen. “The Straw Man Meets His Match: Six Arguments for Studying Humor in the English Classroom.” English Journal. 88.4 (1999): 34-42.Pollack, Judy, and Paul Freda. “Humor, Learning and Socialization in Middle Level Classroom.” Clearing House 00098655, 70.4 (1997): 1- 5. Robinson, Vera. Humor and the Health Profession. New Jersey: Charles B. Slack, 1977. Schmitz, John. “Humor as a Pedagogical Tool in Foreign Language and Translation Courses.” Humor. 15-1 (2002): 89-113.Sudol, David. “Dangers of Classroom Humor.” English Journal. (1981): 26-28.Thorne, Michael. “Using Irony in Teaching the History of Psychology.” Teaching of Psychology. 26.3 (1999): 222- 225.Trachtenberg, Susan. “Joke Telling as a Tool in ESL.” English Teaching Forum. 13.1 (1979): 89-99.Vizmuller, Jana. “Psychological Reasons for Using Humor in a Pedagogical Setting.” The Canadian Modern Language Review. 36.2 (1980): 266-271.Weaver, Richard, and Howard Cotrell. “Ten Specific Techniques for Developing Humor in the Classroom Setting.” Education. 108. 2 (2001): 167- 179.White, Gayle. “Teacher’s Report of How They Used Humor with Student’s Perceived Use of Such Humor.” Education. 122.2 (2001): 337 – 348.Ziegler, John. “Use of Humor in Medical Teaching.” Medical Teacher. 20.4 (1998): 341-344.





The 35th Annual PRTESOL in Pictures

Workshops gave teachers effective tools they can use.

The 2008 PRTESOL Board of Directors conclude a successful year.

Exhibitors eager to help teachers.

Exibitors made available a wide range of materials and resources Regional chapters met and elected new leadership.

Hundreds of teachers met at the Gran Melia Hotel and Resort for two dynamic days of professional renewal.





The 35th Annual PRTESOL in Pictures

Some of the many winners of excellent prizes at the many raffles.

Professor Inocencia Nieves, winner of the Lifetime

Achievement Award, is congratulated by Prof.

Miguel Camacho.

An excellent lunch is the perfect time for participants to share with new friends or renew friendships with former classmates and mentors.

Participants had the opportunity to choose from over 60 workshops, and they also enjoyed two excellent keynote speakers, Dr. Mario Herrera and Dr. Rosalind Porter.





TheBylawsofPuertoRicoTESOLAnAffiliateofTeachersofEnglishtoSpeakersofOther

Languages,Inc.

I. Name:Thename ofthisOrganiza1onis PuertoRico TESOL (PRTESOL), an affiliate of TESOL(Teachers of English to Speakers of OtherLanguages)

II. PurposePRTESOL,incorporatedbythePuertoRicoStateDepartment under the Ley General deCorporacionesparaelEstadoLibreAsociadodePuerto Rico (January 9, 1956), is a non‐profitprofessionalOrganiza1onthatisdedicatedto:

1. promo1ng scholarship and professionaldevelopment;

2. providingopportuni1esforstudyandresearch;3. dissemina1ng informa1onandresearchonthe

teaching of English to speakers of otherlanguages;

4. wo r k i n g c o o p e ra 1 ve l y t owa rd s t h eimprovement of instruc1on in all programswhich seek to provide students with theopportunity to become proficient Englishlanguagelearners;

5. coordina1ng informa1on with the local,stateside, and interna1onal professionalorganiza1onswithsimilargoals;

6. promo1ng the recogni1on of English as anaddi1onal language tool for communica1on,andnotas asupplan1ngmeans ofexpressionatthe expenseof the second language learner’sna1velanguageandculture.

III.MembershipA. MembershipinPRTESOLisopentoallwhoare

concerned with the teaching of English tospeakersofotherlanguages.

B. All paid‐up individual or joint members areen1tledtovoteinelec1ons andbeadmiWedtoallmee1ngsheldbyPRTESOL.

C. Representa1ves of ins1tu1onal membersenjoyallmembershipprivilegesexceptvo1ng.

D. Membershipshallbefortwelvemonths.

IV.GeneralMeeHngsA. A general mee1ng is one in which the total

membershipisinvitedtoaWend.

B. At least one general mee1ng, known as theAnnualConven1on,willbeheldeachyear.

C. Themembershipwillbeno1fiedofthe programforthegeneral mee1ngat least30daysprior tothescheduleddate.

D.Memberspresentwillcons1tutequorum.E. The agenda of the business mee1ng shall be

distributed to the membership at the annualconven1on.

V.OfficersA. Officers of PRTESOL are the President, Vice‐

President,andImmediatePast‐President.B. Theymustbemembers ofPRTESOL andTESOL

Interna1onal.C. The officers of PRTESOL and the Execu1ve

Secretary, the Membership Secretary, and theTreasurer shall compose the Execu1veCommiWee.

D. The term of office for the President, VicePresident, and theImmediatePastPresident istheperiodestablishedinAr1cleXIV.

E. Theterms ofoffice for theTreasurer,Execu1veSecretary, and Membership Secretary areestablishedinAr1cleXIV.

F. The elected and appointed officers shall performdu1esasprescribedinAr1cleXIV.

VI.BoardofDirectorsA. It shall consistof thePresident,Vice‐President,

Immediate Past‐President, five representa1veselectedby thetotal membership, the RegionalChapter Presidents or Vice‐Presidents, theExecu1veSecretary,theMembershipSecretary,t he Trea su re r, t h e Commun i ca1on ’sChairperson, Sponsorship Chairpersonand thePublishers’Liaison.Thelastsix,all appointedbythe Board, have a voice but no vote on theBoardofDirectors.

B. Theelectedmembers shall serveterms ofofficespecifiedinAr1cleXIVandmay not holdmorethanonevo1ngposi1onontheBoard.

C. Thefiveelected representa1ves on theBoardshall represent theOrganiza1on’s membershipa s a who le bu t sha l l be chosen a srepresenta1ves of the following professionalareas: Elementary Educa1on, SecondaryEduca1on, Higher Educa1on, Private School,and Student Representa1ve (ESL or teachertraining. This person must have an ac1veprogram of 12 undergraduate credits or 6graduatecredits.).

D. Only PRTESOL members who are EnglishEducators orstudents ofEnglishEduca1onmayformpartoftheBoardofDirectors.





E. Toavoidany semblanceof a possible conflict ofinterests, noneof the posi1ons of theExecu1veCommiWee of the Board of Directors will beoccupiedby mul1plemembers of a family unit,eventhoughtheymaybePRTESOLmembers.

VII.AnnualElecHonA Onesecret mail ballot shall be provided toeach

eligible member for the annual elec1on of theVicePresidentandotheryearlyvacancies.

B. Under no circumstances will lost ballots bereissued.

C. Ballots with the slate of candidates andinforma1onaboutthecandidatesshall be senttoevery member at least thirty days before theAnnual Conven1on. In addi1on to the slate ofcandidates,the ballots shall providea spacefor awrite‐incandidateforeachposi1on.

D. Ballots will be accepteduptothefirstdayoftheAnnualConven1onbynoon.

E. The Nomina1ng CommiWee, the Execu1veSecretary, and the President shall oversee thecoun1ngofthe ballots andshall cer1fytheannualelec1onresults.

F. Any cand idate who w i shes to have arepresenta1ve present at the coun1ng of theballots may do so by making a wriWen requestthat specifies the name and address of therepresenta1ve. The representa1ve must be amember ofPRTESOL.Thispersonmaywatch,butmaynotpar1cipateinthecoun1ngofballots.

G. Unless there is a viola1on of the Bylaws, thecer1fied results of the official coun1ng of theballotsarefinal.

H. Theresults oftheelec1onshall beannouncedtothemembership before theclose of the AnnualConven1on and subsequently acknowledgedthroughthe Organiza1on’sdifferent publica1ons,such as the PRTESOL‐GRAM and its officialwebsite.

VIII.CommiLeesA. TheStandingCommiWeesofPRTESOLshall bethe

Nomina1ngCommiWee,MembershipCommiWee,ProgramCommiWee,Communica1onsCommiWee,AwardandScholarshipCommiWee,Socio‐poli1calConcerns CommiWee, Conven1on Evalua1onCommiWee,andCommiWeeontheBylaws.

B. The CommiWees shall perform du1es asprescribedinAr1cleXVI.The Board of Directors may establish Ad HocCommiWees.

C. CommiWee membership and chairs shall endaccordingtotheperiodestablishedinAr1cleXIV.

IX.RegionalChaptersA. Each Chapter shall be composed of those

members of PRTESOL who reside or work in apar1cularregion.

B. EachChaptershallabidebythePRTESOLBylaws.

C. Each chapter may accept members from otherlocal chapters whohaveindicateda preference ofaffilia1onotherthanbygeographical designa1on,butnomembercanbe affiliatedtomorethanonelocalchapter.

X.AmendmentsA. Amendments tothe Bylawsmaybeini1atedby a

majority oftheBoardofDirectorsorsubmiWedina pe11on to the Board. The MembershipSecretary shall validate ape11on to amend theBylaws if it is signed by at least twenty‐fivemembers.

B. The Membership secretary is required toannounce the valida1on of the pe11on to thePresident and the Board at the next Boardmee1ngaeerreceiptofthesame.

C. TheMembershipSecretarywill mail the proposedamendment to the vo1ng membership withintwenty‐one days of its announcement to theBoard.

D. Aproposedamendmentmustbera1fiedby two‐thirds of the ballots cast within 15 days of itsmailingtobecomeeffec1ve.

E. Ballots will be counted and cer1fied by acommiWeeof three appointed by the PresidentwiththeapprovaloftheBoard.

F. Theresults shall beannouncedtotheBoardattheBoardmee1ngaeerthe deadlineforreceivingtheballots.

G. Whenever theBylawsare amended, therevisedversion of the Bylaws shall be published anddistributedtothe membershipwithin120daysorpublishedinthe next issueofthePRTESOL‐GRAMandbemadeavailable fordownloadingpurposesfromthePRTESOLofficialwebsite.

XI.AffiliaHonPRTESOL shall comply with the requirements ofTESOL to retain affiliate status and enjoy allbenefitsdueit.

The President, Vice President, or Past Presidentshall act as representa1ves totheTESOLAffiliateCouncil. The Board of Directors will selectalternaterepresenta1ves.

XII.ConsultaHveAuthorityRobertsRulesofOrder,latestedi1on,shall governthe conduct at all mee1ngs to which they areapplicable andinwhichtheyarenot inconsistentwiththeBylaws.

XIII.Membership,Dues,andFeesA. The term of membership shall be for twelve

months.B. Duesshallnotberetroac1ve.C. Fees for adver1sing, exhibi1ons, the Annual

Conven1on, and other ac1vi1es are determinedbythePRTESOLBoardofDirectors.





D. Membership dues shall be determined by theBoard.Ins1tu1onal membershipwill en1tlethe memberto receive the PRTESOL‐GRAM and otherOrganiza1onal informa1on. The dues for saidmembershipwillbedeterminedbytheBoard.

E. Informa1on about dues and fees shall bepublishedinthePRTESOL‐GRAMatthebeginningofeachyear.

F. No regional chapter may impose a separatemembershipfeetoitscons1tuents.

XIV.DuHesofBoardMembersA. President

1. Thepresident begins aone‐year presiden1alterm thirty (30) days aeer the AnnualConven1on.Thepresidentwill preside overallPRTESOL mee1ngs during the term s/heassumesoffice.

2. Thepresidentprepares anannual planfortheyear.

3. ThePresident and the treasurer will prepareanannualbudgetthatwill besubmiWedtotheBoard of Directors for approval at the firstmee1ng. The President, not the organiza1on,will be responsible for any amount notapprovedbytheBoardofDirectors.

4. The President, along with the Board ofDirectors,will organize theannual conven1onaccordingtotheproposedbudget.

5. The president appoints all Chairpersons ofS tand ing CommiWees not otherwisedesignatedbytheBylaws.

6. Thepresident serves as anex‐officiomemberof all commiWees except the Nomina1ngCommiWee and the Conven1on Evalua1onCommiWee.

B. ImmediatePast‐President1. Serves asvo1ng member of theBoardupon

comple1on of his or her term of office asPresident.

2. Acts as the Liaison Officer with TESOL andotherprofessionalorganiza1ons.

3. Receives a life1memembership in PRTESOLwith the approval of the Boardbefore hisorhercomple1onoftermofofficeasPresident.

4. Chairs the Bylaws and Policy ManualcommiWee.

5. Should this office become vacant, it shall remain vacant un1l the current Presidentcompletes her/his term of office. In suchcases the President shall assume theresponsibili1esofLiaisonOfficer.

C. Vice‐President1. Succeedsto the presidency uponcomple1on

ofthecurrentPresident’stermofoffice.2. Shall actas PresidentwheneverthePresident

is absent. If the posi1on of Vice‐ Presidentshould become vacant before June 30, a

special elec1on by the membership will beheld to fill the posi1on. If the posi1onbecomesvacantaeerJune30,theNomina1ngCommiWeewill addtheposi1onofPresidenttotheballot.

3. AssumestheofficeofPresident ifit becomesvacant andwill con1nuein thisofficeduringthefollowingyear.

4. Assists the Presidentinorganizingthe AnnualConven1on.

5. ChairstheAnnualConven1onProgram.6. Isavo1ngmemberoftheBoardofDirectors.7. Acts as liaison with regional chapters to

coordinatethecalendarofregionalac1vi1es.8. Servesasparliamentarian.

D. Treasurer1. Is appointedby theBoardfor a termof one

year.2. Assists thepresidentinpreparingabudgetfor

theyear.3. Presents an annual financial report to the

Boardat thelastmee1ng,a wriWensummaryreport to the membership at the AnnualBusiness Mee1ng. It is published in thePRTESOL‐GRAM.

4. Presents a current report of the financial status of the Organiza1on at each Boardmee1ng. It shall cons1tute the first item ofbusiness followingthe readingandapprovaloftheminutesofthepreviousmee1ng.

5. Organizes, with the Membership Secretary,theregistra1onoftheAnnualConven1on.

6. Presents the Board with the report of anoutside audit of the Organiza1on’s financialstatusattheendofeachyear.

7. As an appointed member of theBoard, theTreasurerhas avoicebutnovote ontheBoardofDirectors.

E. MembershipSecretary1. Is appointedby theBoardfor a termof one

year.2. Keeps an up‐to‐date membership list for

purposes ofcorrespondence,dissemina1onofinforma1on, distribu1on of the PRTESOL‐GRAM, for use in determining the vo1ngmembershipforall elec1ons andforvalida1ngpe11ons.

3. Presents anannual membershipreport,whichshall includeinforma1ononthe geographicaland profess ional d istr ibu1on of themembership. Thisreportwill bepresentedtotheBoardandtotheNomina1ngCommiWeeChair.

4. Preparesthemailingofcorrespondencetoall members.

5. Organizes the registra1on of the AnnualConven1on.

6. Confirms membership by issuing a validmembership card to all members and is



P R T E S O L G R A M


responsible for sending renewal no1ces tomembers to remind them to send in theirmembershipdues.

7. Supplies regional chapter presidents withup‐to‐date lists of members in theircorrespondingregionsatleasttwiceayear.

8. is responsible for 1) valida1ng pe11ons toamend the Bylaws, 2) distribu1ng suchpe11ons to the Board, and 3) mailingproposedamendmentstothemembership.

9. ChairstheMembershipCommiWee.10. As anappointedmemberof theBoard,the

Membership Secretary has a voice but novoteontheBoardofDirectors.

F. ExecuHveSecretary1. Is appointed by the Board for a one‐year

term.2. Records theminutes ofall mee1ngs;no1fies

theBoard and themembershipofmonthlymee1ngs; validates the receipt of allcorrespondence; distributes mail to thecorresponding Boardmember(s) and, withthe consulta1on of the Board, respondstoallleWers.

3. Supplies all newBoardmembers withacopyoftheofficialPRTESOLBylaws.

4. Shall supply a copy of theofficial PRTESOLBylaws to any member of PRTESOL whorequestsone.

5. Oversees, in coordina1on with theNomina1ng CommiWee and the President,the coun1ng of the annual elec1on ballotsandthecer1fica1onoftheresults.

6. As anappointedmemberof theBoard,theExecu1veSecretary has a voicebutnovoteontheBoardofDirectors.

7. Promo1onalflyers,posters,etc,shouldhavethe PRTESOL address and not personaladdressesbecauseofmoneyissues.

G. CommunicaHonsChairperson1. Coo rd ina te s t he d i s sem ina1on o f

informa1on to the membership and thegeneralpublic.

2. ChairstheCommunica1onsCommiWee.3. As anappointedmemberof theBoard,the

Communica1ons Chairperson has a voicebutnovoteontheBoardofDirectors.

H. PRTESOL‐GRAMEditor1. Solicits, selects, edits, and publishes

professional ar1cles, book reviews andinforma1on of interest and value to themembership.

2. Solicitsadver1singforthePRTESOL‐GRAM.3. Appoints the Assistant PRTESOL‐GRAM

Editor.

I. Webmaster1. Managesandmonitorsthewebsite.2. Keeps the membership informed on the

Organiza1on’sac1vi1es.3. Provides basic documents andar1cles that

canbedownloadedbythemembership.4. Pollsthemembersonissuesofimportance.5. Makes provisions to assure ownership by

PRTESOLofsaidwebsitedomain.

J. Publishers’Liaison1. Shall, onaregular basis,beresponsible for

making recommenda1ons to the Execu1veBoardregardingits rela1onshipwith currentpublishing companies whocollaborate withtheOrganiza1onandwithotherprospec1vesectors of industry wishing to becomeinvolvedinPRTESOL.

2. Makes recommenda1ons to the Board ofDirectorsonexhibi1onfees,adver1singfees,publisher membership status, and on anyotherper1nentissues.

K. E lected RepresentaHves : E lementaryEduca1on, Secondary Educa1on, HigherEduca1on, Private School, and StudentRepresenta1ve.

1. Thefiveelectedrepresenta1vesshall servetwo‐year terms. Thenewmembers shall beelected following the same procedures asotherelectedofficers.

2. Electedmembers may serve nomore thantwoconsecu1vetermsinthesameoffice.

3. The Elementary Educa1on, SecondaryEduca1on,HigherEduca1on,PrivateSchool,andStudentRepresenta1ves:a. Represent theinterestsofthe members

intheirpar1cularprofessionalareas;b. Par1cipate in ac1vi1es and/or affiliate‐

level commiWees related to theirprofessional areas and, in this capacity,will serve on affiliate‐level commiWeescharged with promo1ng and judgingpresenta1onproposalsatall professionalac1vi1es;

c. Promoteandhelporganizeac1vi1es andpresenta1ons for members in theirprofessionalareas;

d. Will prepare on an annual basis up‐to‐date lists of all members in theircons1tuency basedontheMembershipSecretary’smailinglistandwill usetheselists toac1velyrecruitnewmembers andcommunicatewithcurrentmembers;





e. Recruit possible newmembers for theOrganiza1onthrough thepromo1onofdifferentcampaignini1a1ves;

f. Par1cipate ac1vely on the PRTESOLBoardanditscommiWees;

g. Assistwith theAnnual Conven1on, theSummer Ins1tute, and any otherprofessional ac1vi1es related toPRTESOL;

h. Will receive an annual alloca1on ofmoney, the amount to be determinedannually by theBoard, to be budgetedforpromo1onalac1vi1es,andwill issuea budget reportat theAnnual BusinessMee1ng.

L. Regional Chapter President and VicePresident:

1. Are elected on a yearly basis by theirchaptermembers onsite duringtheannualconven1on.

2. Can be represented at Boardmee1ngs bythe Chapter Vice‐presidents whenever theChapter President is unable to aWend amee1ng. The Chapter Vice‐president shallassumethevoiceandvote of the ChapterPresidentatthemee1ng.

M. OverallResponsibility1. Ifa boardmemberdoes notcomplywithhis

or her du1es, the vo1ng board members,aeer discussion and vote, will declare theposi1onvacantandwill voteforor appointanotherPRTESOLmemberfortheposi1on.

XV.BoardMeeHngsA. RegularMeeHngs:

1. Therewill be from 6 to 8 boardmee1ngsperyear.A. Nomore thanfour(4)hours, ifdoneon

Saturday.B. Board Mee1ngs may be weekend

mee1ngs (Residen1al). The residen1alwill begin on Friday night and end onSundaybynoon.Example:aweekendinJanuary, March, June, August, andOctober.

2. The1meandplaceof all regular mee1ngsare determinedatthefirstmee1ngpresidedoverbyeachnewPresident.

3. Anagenda is madeavailable bymailand/ore‐mail to all Board members at least oneweek prior to the regular mee1ng and isavailable toanymemberoftheOrganiza1onuponrequest.

4. Vo1ngmaynotbedonebyproxy.5. The membership will be provided a

schedule of the 1me, date, and place of

Board mee1ngs at the beginning of eachyear either through a mailing or in thePRTESOL‐GRAM.

6. Members areinvitedtoaWendanymee1ngoftheOrganiza1on.

B. Quorum:1. Thirty‐five percent (35%) of vo1ng Board

membersshallcons1tutequorum.2. If the absence of quorum does not allow

holding two consecu1ve regular mee1ngs,the President and Treasurer may carry onwhatever business is necessary for thefunc1oningoftheOrganiza1on.

C. ALendance:1. All membersoftheBoardofDirectorsmust

aWendtheregularmee1ngsoftheBoard.2. Ifamember cannotaWenda mee1ng,s/he

mustinformtheExecu1veSecretarypriortothemee1ng,whowill thenrecordit intheminutesasAbsent‐Excused.

3. A vacancy may be declared if a vo1ngmember, an appointed member, or anymemberoftheboardofdirectorshas three(3)absencesinayear whetheror not theyare excused.Declaringavacancy requires a2/3voteoftheBoard.

4. Vacancies causedby resigna1onordeclaredsobytheBoardofDirectors shouldbe filledby this body tocomplete thepredecessor’syear of office. The vacancy is thensubmiWedonceagainfor the membership’sdetermina1on in the Organiza1on’s nextelectoralprocess.

5. A mo1on to remove any Board Memberfromofficerequiresa2/3 vote in favor bytheBoardofDirectors.

D. ExtraordinaryMeeHngs:An extraordinary mee1ng may be called if amajorityoftheBoarddeemsitnecessary.

E. AnnualBusinessMeeHng1. Prior tothemee1ng, themembershipshall

be no1fied of all items of business to beconsidered.

2. Thosemembers present shall cons1tute aquorumnecessarytoconductthemee1ng.

XVI. CommiLeesA. DuHesoftheCommiLees:1. NominaHngCommiLee:

a. TheBoard shall select theChair of theNomina1ng CommiWee, and the Chairselects the two other members of thecommiWeewith Board approval. Thesethree members shall reflect the broad





spectrum of the total membership bothprofessionally and geographically. Thisdistribu1on shall be based on themembership report of the MembershipSecretary.

b. Its membersmay notbemembers oftheBoardnorcandidatesforaboardposi1on.

c. Its members shall be confirmed no laterthanMarch.

d. ThecommiWeeshalloversee: theprin1ngand mailing of the call for nomina1ons;thereceivingofnomina1ons; theprin1ngandmailingoftheofficial ballots;andthecoun1ngoftheballots.

e. The commiWee establishes the slate ofcandidatesfortheannualelec1on.

f. ThecommiWeeac1vely iden1fiespoten1alcandidatesfortheBoardofDirectors.

g. The commiWee, verbally and throughwriWen communica1on, familiarizes allnomineeswith the du1es of their officeand the requirements and restric1onsimposed by the Bylaws prior to theiracceptanceasnominees.

h. The commiWeeno1fies the Board of theslateat least sixtydaysbefore theAnnualConven1on.

i. The commiWee oversees the mailing ofballots with the slate of candidates andtheir biographical informa1on to everymembe r, a s d e te rm ined by t heMembership Secretary, at least forty‐fivedaysbeforetheAnnualConven1on.

j. All ballots shall provide a spaceforawrite‐incandidateforeachposi1on.

2. MembershipCommiLeea. This commiWee is responsible for

promo1ngtheOrganiza1onandrecrui1ngmembers.

b. It maintains an updated membershiproster.

c. It is responsible for an annual renewaldrive to draw new members to theOrganiza1on.

d. It is responsible for designingrecruitmentmaterials.

3. ProgramCommiLeea. This commiWee is responsible for the

prepara1onoftheprogramfortheAnnualConven1on.

b. It provides a printed program of theconven1on and collects copies of thepaperspresented.

c. It shall maintain a list of speakers,consultants, and workshop leaders whohave appeared, or may par1cipate, inprogramssponsoredbytheOrganiza1on.

d. It is responsible for the call for papers,selec1on of papers, andprogramming ofthepresenta1ons.

e. It is responsible for overseeing thecrea1onandprin1ngoftheprogram.

4. CommunicaHonsCommiLeea. Will be chaired by the Communica1ons

Chairperson,whoshall be appointedwiththeapprovaloftheExecu1veBoard.

b. Is composedofthe PRTESOL‐GRAMeditor,AssistantEditor,the Webmasterandotherinterestedmembers.

c. Shall oversee the appointment of theP R T E SO L ‐ G RAM Ed i t o r a n d t h eWebmaster.

d. Selects, edits, and publishes ar1cles andnews of interest and value to themembership. This may include financialand membersh ip reports on theOrganiza1on.

e. ThePRTESOL‐GRAM is published at leasttwiceayearwhile otherpublica1ons,suchas the Bulle1n from the Board, will bepublishedasneeded.

5. AwardandScholarshipCommiLeea. This commiWee is responsible for

iden1fyingoutstandinglanguage students,teachers , or scho lars wi th in themembershipofPRTESOL.

b. It shouldestablishcriteria for the awardsand grants which provide recogni1on totheaboveindividuals.

c. It should seek sources of funding andsupportfortheseawardsandgrants.

d. Itshouldencourage PRTESOLmemberstoapply forawards andgrants by publicizingtheminmailings.

e. Itshouldestablishandcarryoutthenormsfor reviewingandselec1ng therecipientsoftheawardsandgrants.

f. It should inform both the Board andmembership of the names of therecipientsoftheseawardsandgrants.

6. CommiLeeontheBylawsa. Between the announcement of the new

Board at the annual conven1on and thefirst mee1ng of the New Board, thiscommiWee will discuss the PRTESOLBylaws andprovide orienta1ontopreparenew Boardmembers to fulfill their roleson the Board. The Immediate Past‐PresidentshallchairthiscommiWee.

b. The commiWee shall also periodicallyassess orevaluatetheBylaws forpossibleimprovementanddiscrepancies.





7. Socio‐PoliHcalConcernsCommiLeea. This commiWee is responsible for

exploring, iden1fying and informingabout per1nent issues that affectteachers,students,andESLandbilingualeduca1onprogramsinPuertoRico.

b. Itshouldplanworkshops,panels,and/orconferencesconcerningtheseissues.

c. It should publish and educate u1lizingt h e P R T E S O L ‐ G R AM a n d t h eOrganiza1on’s other official publica1oninstruments.

d. It should gather informa1on aboutper1nentlegisla1onandassisttheBoardindevelopingpolicystatements.

8. ConvenHonEvaluaHonCommiLeea. ThePRTESOL BoardofDirectors selects

theChair of the Conven1on Evalua1onCommiWee. Its members exclude anycurrent members of the Board and allcurrent candidates wishingtorunfor aboardposi1on.

b. T h e c omm i W e e o v e r s e e s t h edevelopment of the conven1onevalua1oninstrument, theprin1ng anddistribu1on of the instrument, and itscollec1onattheconven1on.

c. ThecommiWee tabulates andreportstotheBoardofDirectorsthe results oftheevalua1ons concerning the conven1onandtheperformanceofpresenters.

9. SponsorshipCommiLeea. This commiWee is responsible for

obtaining dona1ons and sponsorshipsfortheOrganiza1onandthe conven1on.Itwill alsoassistinsolici1ngadver1singfortheorganiza1on’spublica1ons.

10. SpecialInterestGroupCommiLeesa. They may be created to serve specific

needs.b. They will present a statement of

purposeandreportperiodicallyontheirac1vi1es.

C. CommiLeeChairpersons1. All of the chairpersons of standing

commiWees shall be appointed fromamong theBoardMembers except theNomina1ngCommiWee andSponsorshipCommiWee.

2. The Chairpersons of the followingStanding CommiWees are: MembershipCommiWee the Membership Secretary;ProgramCommiWeetheVice‐President;Communica1ons CommiWee the

Communica1ons Chairperson; and theCommiWee on t he By l aws t heImmediatePastPresident.

3. CommiWee Chairpersons select andpresent to the Board for approval thenames of their proposed commiWeemembersnolater thanthirtydays aeertheirappointmentaschairperson.

4. Chairpersons of Standing CommiWeesshouldpresent a periodic report totheBoard.

XVII. ExpensesA. The Board of Directors authorizes the

compensa1on of all services deemednecessary for the reasonable conduct oftheOrganiza1on’sgoals.

B. The President and the Treasurer are authorizedtopayregularexpensesthatarebelow the amount established by theBoard of Directors each year. Amountsabove that requiretheBoardofDirectors’approval.

C. As thefinancial officer, theTreasurer pays all uncontested bills within thirty days ofreceipt.

D. The membership may ques1on the expenditures at any regular or businessmee1nganddemandanaccoun1ngofthefinances.

E. The membership dues will be usedexclusively to provide services to thememberssuchas:membershipcardand/orcer1ficate, publica1ons, promo1onaldocuments relatedtoconferences,elec1onballots,andanyothermailing.

F. An audited Financial Report will be submiWedtotheBoardofDirectors by theendofeachyear.

G. At the end of each term, the officers (President, Past President and/or VicePresident) will update all paperworkconcerning the Good Standing status ofPRTESOL, Department of State, andTreasury Department, or any otherdocumentrequestedbytheState.

H. Board members that travel from distantareastoaWendboardmee1ngs will receivea flat rate s1pend for gas and tolls. Theamountwill bedeterminedbythe BoardofDirectorsatthebeginningofeachyear.Theamount will depend on the financialsitua1onoftheorganiza1on.

I. ThePresident andVice‐President’s trip totheAnnual TESOLConven1onwill include:fl i g h t 1 c ke t , h o t e l s t a y, me a l s ,transporta1on, and conven1on fee. Thes1pend will depend on the financial





situa1onof the organiza1on. The PresidentandVice‐Presidentwillsubmitallreceipts.

XVIII. RegionalChaptersA. Each Chapter shall elect its own governing

body at thePRTESOLAnnual Conven1on. Itwill consist of at least a President, Vice‐President,andTreasurer.

B. The officers will exercise their func1ons inharmony with those of PRTESOL and in linewiththespiritoftheBylaws.

C. Chapters should organize annually at leastone professional ac1vity toservelocalneeds;it may be a conference, a symposium,colloquium, workshop, seminar, luncheon,dinner,orou1ng.

D. Each governing body shouldmeet accordingtochapterneeds.

E. New chapters will receive a s1pend tounderwrite start‐upcosts.This s1pendwill bedeterminedbytheBoardofDirectors.

F. Each chapter will receive an appropriateannuals1pendincompliancewiththeBylaws.Theamountwill bedeterminedby theBoardofDirectors.

G. Financial and chapter reports will besubmiWed in wri1ng to the execu1vesecretary at the mee1ng, or sent throughe‐mailaweekbeforetheBoardmee1ng.

H. Achaptermay be decer1fiedbythePRTESOLBoardofDirectors forfailuretoadheretotheBylawsofPRTESOL.

I. Ayearlyfinancialandmembershipreportwill be presented to thePRTESOL Boardand tothechaptermembers at theannual mee1ngthatisheldduringthePRTESOLConven1on.

J. A copy of the financial documents from thebank will be submiWed to the PRTESOLTreasurerandtothe newchapterpresidentattheendoftheyear.

K. Each chapter should have a bank accountunder its name and not under a personalaccount.This will guaranteethat the chaptermay chargeafeefor their ac1vity,exhibitors,andtorequestsponsorship.

L. Each chaptermusthaveanExecu1veBoard:President, Past President, Vice‐President,Secretary, Treasurer, and MembershipSecretary. In Addi1on, the chapter mayinclude the following representa1ves:Member‐at‐Large, Secondary Representa1ve,Elementary Representa1ve, Private SchoolRepresenta1ve, and Higher Educa1onRepresenta1ve.

M. If achapter receives a s1pendbut does notcelebrate any ac1vity for its members, thechapterwill returnthe moneytotheBoardofDirectors, no later than a month aeer thescheduledconference.

O. Al l documents related to a chapterconference(flyer,registra1onfee,preliminaryprogram)will be submiWed to theBoardofDirectorsatleasttwomonthsinadvance.

P. The Chapter Board will prepare an annualbudgetthatwill besubmiWedtotheBoardofDirectors for approval at the first BoardMee1ng.

XIX. PolicyManualThe Board of Directors shall ini1ally establishaddi1onal procedures and policies for theopera1onofPRTESOL.Theseshall be referredtoas the PRTESOL Policy Manual. They shall beamended thereaeer in accordance with theproceduresestablishedinthePolicyManual.

Ra#fiedattheAnnualBusinessAssembly

ofPRTESOLatthe35thannualconven#ononFridayNovember21,2008.





True progress is bilingualism for all: A response to Porter’s plenary address

at the 2008 PR TESOL Conference*

Miriam Eisenstein Ebsworth, PhD

Plenary speaker Rosalie Porter’s characterization of bilingual education as a recent experiment that prevented immigrants from learning English is not accurate. Her suggestion that ESL is an alternative to bilingual education sets up a false dichotomy. And finally, her claim that the elimination of bilingual programs has resulted in “progress” and success for English learners is contrary to the facts. Actually, the value of bilingual education in promoting successful acquisition of the second language (English in the US) and the benefits of knowing more than one language have been replicated in scientific studies not only in the US but in research on a global scale.

Defining and Designing Bilingual EducationFirst and foremost, as indicated by the name of the construct, bilingual education involves the acquisition of two languages and has been going on the in US since the country began (Kloss, 1998). In the mainland US context, one of these languages is English and the other is the mother tongue of the learner. While some programs for immigrants may exist that do not actually expose learners to English input, these are not bilingual programs- they are monolingual programs. So Porter and I agree that any US program that fails to teach students English should be changed. Indeed, Porter framed her discussion by noting that when mainland Latinos were asked whether they want their children to learn English they responded with a resounding “yes.” What she failed to point out is that there is overwhelming evidence that the most effective way for non-natives to acquire English is through bilingual programs. Another important issue ignored by the speaker is the fact that in designing a bilingual program for learners, there are many models to choose from. The major categories include transitional bilingual education, maintenance bilingual education, and 2-way or dual immersion programs. Under each of these umbrellas many additional options are possible. All bilingual programs begin by presenting some content in the native tongue while developing the learners’ command of English. The transitional model initially provides both L1 and L2 instruction using a biliterate approach and shifts to an all English program over time, usually just a few years (Crawford, 1999). Maintenance bilingual programs increase learning through English as learners’ acquisition moves forward while developing academic language and literacy in the mother tongue. The additive value of such programs, also referred to as “late exit” have also been confirmed in the research (Ramirez et al, 1991; Thomas and Collier, 2002).

This brings us to the 2-way bilingual or ‘dual’ model and a second area of agreement with Porter who believes this is a positive approach. Dual bilingual education helps all participants by giving them what

most educated people in the world have- an opportunity to know a second language and become aware of another culture both through academic pursuits and acquaintance with international children. Krashen (2004) reviewed several recent studies on bilingual programs and cautions that while results to date are promising, more information is needed on two way bilingual programs to judge them relative to other bilingual models. The Oyster School in Washington DC (Freeman, 1998) which teaches in Spanish and English is one of the most well known, but many exist. The Dual Language and Asian Studies High School in New York City develops Chinese, learners’ first language, while teaching them English and teaches English-speaking students Mandarin. Ranked 31 on the U.S. News & World Report’s list of top high US high schools (Stotsky, 2008), every student in the first two graduating classes has gone to college, except for one who joined the military. However, despite her acknowledgement that the dual model is successful, Porter dismisses it as a possibility for US immigrants, ostensibly because ELL’s change schools more frequently than natives do. There is no logic to this argument. By the same reasoning, we should not expose children to an innovative approach to learning math or science because other schools do it differently. In reality, children who arrive in new schools continue to adjust to changes in programs and policies which should always be the best that we can offer. And many children remain in the same school and district throughout their education.

Another term, sometimes associated with bilingual education, is immersion. This refers to teaching children in a single language. It is the “sink or swim” approach recommended by groups espousing an “English only” policy. In Canada, the term was associated with schools that taught native English speakers exclusively in French. These mostly middle class students from literate English speaking backgrounds who lived in an English dominant society learned French in school and developed English language and literacy outside of school, what Krashen (2003) calls “de facto bilingual education.” The Canadian French learners had continual English input and were motivated to retain and develop their English as it was the more powerful language in the country. However, for immigrant populations in the US, English immersion is a very different experience. Their first language input is limited and English is the language of power and prestige. The result is first language loss and limitations on English acquisition as learners must wait until their English is strong enough to use it as a medium of content learning.

The term immersion must be distinguished from bilingual immersion which uses both languages. Interestingly, in her text Forked Tongue (1990) and in the handout for her talk Porter mentions the Bilingual Immersion Pilot Project in El Paso, Texas. In this study, half the students were enrolled in a transitional bilingual program and the other half in a ‘bilingual immersion’ program. Porter writes in her book, "The Bilingual Immersion students outscored students in the TBE program at every grade level.” However, Dicker





(2003 and personal communication) in her analysis, points out that the bilingual immersion program actually exposed students to more Spanish than the alternative approach! Hence, contrary to Porter’s implication, the program in which students received more first language Spanish input resulted in a better outcome!

The results of the English only mandatesNow we come to what for me was the most

frustrating part of Porter’s talk. She insisted that immigrants in the states in which bilingual programs have been eliminated are now successfully learning English while bilingual programs did not teach them English, the source of the term ‘progress’ in her presentation. The facts say otherwise. Ostensible short term gains reported for English only approaches have been criticized on several levels. (See Butler et al 2000; Monzo 2005, on California, Wright, 2005 on Arizona, and on MA: Markey, 2008 and Sacchetti,, M., and Jan, T. 2006 on Massachusetts.) Goldenberg, 2008 notes,“Local or state policies, such as in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, that block use of the primary language and limit instructional modifications for English learners are simply not based on the best scientific evidence available. Moreover, these policies make educators’ jobs more difficult, which is unconscionable under any circumstance, but especially egregious in light of the increased accountability pressures they and their students face” (pp42-23).

Let us consider the vote in Massachusetts energetically promoted by Porter, widely known as “Question 2.” Its mandate is as follows: All children . . . shall be taught English by being taught in English and all children shall be placed in English language classrooms. Children who are English learners shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one school year. (Question 2 Section 4 of G.L. c. 71A)

First, the idea that English learners can acquire sufficient English to function successfully in mainstream classes after only one year of ESL instruction is simply preposterous. While some highly educated non-native speakers may find this time period sufficient for a reasonable transition, most immigrant students require a much longer transition period which researchers find may range from 3-7 years, depending on the circumstances (Genesee et al., 2006). Students must learn not only conversational English but also must become familiar with academic English, the language, the constructs, and the abstract cognitive approach involved in academics (Cummins, 2000). The best that can be said of a one year approach is that it is probably better than nothing and will help some children while leaving many others to flounder in a setting in which they cannot succeed. Furthermore, Brisk (2006) notes that “infringement on local and parental control, two of the arguments

initially used to attack bilingual education, are major characteristics of the English only programs.” (p.52)

The experience of ELL’s in English only classes and what the research actually says.

Perhaps the most poignant aspect of Porter’s presentation was her frequent reference to her own experience as an English language learner in an English immersion setting. Born in Italy, Porter's first language was Italian. She came to the United States at the age of 6, knowing no English. She said that sat in the back of the class not understanding anything and cried every day when she came home. But in bilingual programs students don’t need to go through such a traumatic experience. They can start learning and progressing right away using their native language. Thomas and Colliers (2002) compared a range of treatments for English language learners and found the following order from most to least successful outcomes: Two way/dual bilingual programs, maintenance bilingual, transitional bilingual, ESL, and least successful was English immersion which has also been referred to as submersion, in light of its devastating impact on learners’ first language, culture, and self esteem.

Since then several meta-analyses have reviewed research studies on bilingual vs. monolingual approaches to educating English learners on the in local and international contexts: all have reached the same conclusion: Students in bilingual programs have better outcomes in learning English, literacy skills and content while reaping cognitive and economic benefits, and retaining the advantage of knowing an additional language and culture (Krashen & McField, 2005; Goldenberg, 2008).

A final note: Amazingly absent from Porter’s entire talk was

a consideration of ESL and bilingual education in the Puerto Rican context where English is typically a foreign language, or where an alternative variety of Puerto Rican English exists for bilinguals (Fayer et al., 1998). Is Porter suggesting that immigrants and return migrants to the island be placed in Spanish immersion? Would she suggest duplicating the loss of language engendered by the English only policy she espouses?

And what would Porter’s recommendation be for Puerto Ricans who have migrated to the mainland US? Although Puerto Ricans are US citizens, Brisk (2006) points out that they are often treated as immigrants by the general American public. And furthermore, attacks on bilingualism are directed mainly against immigrants of Spanish speaking background.

In Puerto Rico, my home away from home, I am proud that my friends, colleagues, and extended family live in a place where a second language is taught to everyone from the beginning of schooling. Our goal should not be to eliminate bilingualism. Rather, in Puerto Rico and on the mainland, we





should continue to work with researchers, teachers, and curriculum developers to improve our language teaching and give all learners the gift of two languages. That’s progress.*AcknowledgementI want to thank several colleagues who have helped me with references and thoughts including: Angel Arzan, Theresa Austin, James Crawford, Sue Dicker, Timothy Ebsworth, Kate Menken, and Stephen Krashen.

ReferencesBrisk, M. (2006). Bilingual Education: From

Compensatory to Quality Schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Butler,Y., Orr,J., Gutierrez M., & Hakuta,K (2000) Inadequate conclusions from an inadequate assessment: What can SAT9 scores tell us about the impact of proposition 227 in California?: Bilingual Research Journal. 24:1-2, 141-216.

Crawford, J. 1999. Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory & Practice, 4th Ed. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Education Services., Inc.

Crawford, J. (1996) Revisiting the Lau Decision – 20 Years After: Proceedings of a National Commemorative Symposium Held on November 3-4, 1994, in San Francisco, California . Oakland, CA: ARC Associates.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Dicker, S. (2003) Languages in America: A Pluralist View (2nd edition). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fayer,J., Castro, J., Marta Díaz, M. & Plata, M (1998). English in Puerto Rico. English Today, 14, 39-44.

Freeman, R. (1998) Bilngual Education and Social Change. Clevedon:UK: Multilingual Matters

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. 2006. EducatingEnglish Language Learners. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Goldenberg, C. (2008) Teaching English language learners: What the research does and does not say. American Educator. 80-23, 42-44.

Kloss, H. (1998). The American Bilingual Tradition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Krashen, S. (2003) Condemned without a Trial: Bogus Arguments against Bilingual Education Westport CT: Greenwood Press

Krashen, S. (2004). The Acquisition of Academic English by children in two-way programs: What does the research say? Presented at the annual NABE Conference, Albuquerque, NM http://sdkrashen.com/articles/the_2-way_issue/all.html Retrieved from the Internet Jan 12, 2009.

Krashen, S. & McField, G. (2005) What works? Reviewing the latest evidence on bilingual education. Language Learner. 7-10, 24

Monzo, L. (2005) The aftermath of proposition 227. Bilingual Research Journal, 29:2, 365-386

Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual Education. New York: Basic Books

Question 2 ,Section 4 of G.L. c. 71A www.doe.mass.edu/ell/chapter71A_faq.pdf Retrieved from the Internet, December 20, 2008.

Ramírez, J. David; Yuen, S.; & Ramey, D. (1991). Final Report: Longitudinal Study of Structured Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit, and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Programs for Language-Minority Children. San Mateo, Calif.: Aguirre International.

Sacchetti,, M., & Jan, T. (2006, May 21). Bilingual law fails first test: Most students notlearning English quickly. The Boston Globe. Retrieved December 28, 2008 http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/05/21/bilingual_law fails first test/

Stotsky, S. (2008) School with ESL students ranked with nation’s elite. Downtown Express. 21:33. Retrieved from the Internet Dec 20, 2008.

Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A National Study of School Effectiveness forLanguage Minority Students’ Long-Term Academic Achievement. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence

Wright, W. (2005) English language learners left behind in Arizona. The nullification of accommodations in the intersection of federal and state policies. Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 1, 1-29.

Writing quotations

If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are rotten,either write things worth reading or do things worth the writing.

Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)

No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem.

Booker T. Washington (1856 - 1915)

Detail makes the difference between boring and terrific writing. It’s the difference between a pencil sketch and a lush oil painting. As a writer, words are your paint. Use all the colors.Rhys Alexander, Writing Gooder, 12-09-05

True g lory cons ists in do ing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read; and in so living as to make the world happier for our living in it.

Pliny The Elder (23 AD - 79 AD)

There are three rules for writing the novel. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.

Somerset Maugham, The New York Times Book Review,

September 30, 1984



http://sdkrashen.com/articles/the_2-way_issue/all.html%20Retrieved%20from%20the%20Internet%20Jan%2012






http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/chapter71A_faq.pdf

http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/chapter71A_faq.pdf

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/05/21/bilingual_law




http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/05/21/bilingual_law_%20%20%09%09fails_first_test/

http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/05/21/bilingual_law_%20%20%09%09fails_first_test/



2008 PRTESOL FINANCIAL REPORT

EXPENSES 2008 Amount

Awards $992.14

Bank Fees $501.80

Chapter Stipends $2500.14

Department of State Fee (Hacienda) $616.00

Lunch - Monthly Board & Executive Board Meetings $1523.46

PRTESOL Equipment $1352.12

President's Trip to Convention $3065.84

Photocopies $459.34

Publications $3987.75

Summer Institute $400.00

Telephone Calls $78.80

Global TESOL International Dues $300.00

U.S. Postal Service (Box, Fees, Postage) $1376.74

Office Supplies $2376.99

Travel Expenses $739.45

Board Shirts $689.08

PRTESOL Insurance Policy $563.00

Dom. Rep. Out Reach $1000.00

TOTAL $22522.65

CONVENTION EXPENSESConvention Site – Gran Melia of PR $41616.06Flowers $155.00Banners $356.31Caribe Audio Visual $2255.00Convention Entertainment $150.00Programs $1605.00Student Usher’s $189.10

Subtotal $46326.47

Total $68849.12

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages PUERTO RICO AFFILIATE

General information on Banks AccountsINCOME

Beginning Balance 01/31/08 $27634.52Onsite income $12594.60Membership Dues $6780.00Exhibitor Fees $23125.00Pre-Registration $12950.00

Total $55449.60Total Balance 83084.12

Expenses 68849.12Ending Balance 14235.00

Pending IncomePark-Ville School $680.00

TOTAL 680.00

Respectfully Submitted

Enrique Chaparro Ramos José R. Sellas Aponte 2008 PRTESOL Treasurer 2008 PRTESOL President

February 1st, 2009 February 1st, 2009




PRTESOL VOLUME 35, Issue 2, Fall 2008

PRTESOLP. O. Box 366828 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936 -6828

NonprofitOrganization US Postage

PAIDSan Juan, PRPermit 3329

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

MARK YOUR CALENDAR FOR PRTESOL EVENTS IN 2009(dates and locations are tentative)

MARCH 7

SPECIAL SESSION:

BRAIN BASED LEARNING, Ponce

JUNE 6:

SUMMER INSTITUTE,

UPR Aguadilla

SEPTEMBER 26:

SOUTHERN CONFERENCE,

Ponce

MARCH 14:

NORTHERN CONFERENCE,

IAU Arecibo

AUGUST 22:

CAGUAS CONFERENCE,

Escuela Libre de Música, Caguas

OCTOBER 3:

METRO CONFERENCE,

IAU Bayamón

APRIL 18:

WESTERN CONFERENCE, UPR

Mayagüez

SEPTEMBER 12:

EASTERN CONFERENCE,

Fajardo

NOVEMBER 20-21

36 ANNUAL CONVENTION