Cross culture barriers: The idea that cross cultural awareness can and is a real business benefit has

been
around since intercultural training began, in a modest form, 20 years ago. Recently as more companies,
organisations and governments have had to deal internationally the value placed on cultural awareness has
increased. Nevertheless there does remain skepticism that intercultural training is a soft skill that offers very
little benefit to a businesses bottom line.

A recent study compiled in the book, Language and Culture in British Business, now offers some insight into
how intercultural awareness is hampering the success of businesses when doing business abroad.

Research has shown that 20-30% of companies have identified a lack of cultural awareness as an obstacle
to doing business internationally. Although a high figure it is important to question whether this can really
be accurate. A crucial point to consider is how companies have identified when cross cultural differences
have become a problem, i.e. if they don't appreciate that cultural differences can in the first place cause
problems, is it reasonable to believe that they could identify them when they occur? It could very well be
that the figure is lower than in reality.

Among the areas companies identify as posing particular cross cultural barriers are:
. Body language
. Etiquette
. Establishing trust
. Religious beliefs
. Social habits

Other more business related cross cultural barriers included differing approaches to:
. Invoicing and payments
. Credit terms
. Customer preferences
. Packaging - i.e. sizes, colours, typeface

All the above mentioned areas are aspects of doing business which differ from culture to culture and if there
is a lack of synergy between parties it is often hard to create an environment conducive to profitable
business. It is clear from the results of the study that those businesses that are unaware of how culture can
play a role in their business dealings abroad can suffer.

Cross cultural awareness training is a simple, cost effective and long term solution for many companies. As
part of a properly prepared international business strategy the provision of intercultural training to staff can
reap excellent rewards. Equipping key staff such as managers and sales staff with the know how to deal with
other cultures not only guarantees a higher success rate when doing internationally but also immediately
offers a company a competitive edge.

Cultural awareness training offers participants with two types of training. One looks at a specific country or
culture and how to do business with them. For example if a company is planning to start a relationship with
China, a China cultural awareness training course will introduce them to areas such as using intermediaries,
building relationships, gift giving etiquette, how to entertain, etc. The second type of training is a more
general overview of the importance of cultural skills, i.e. developing what is called 'cultural competence'.
Cultural competence is about widening horizons and implementing skills such as self-awareness, flexibility,
open mindedness and cultural knowledge that can be applied across cultures.

Cultural awareness training can make an important impact on any business or organisation wanting to
maximize their potential internationally. With staff that can deal sensitively and effectively with clients,
customers and colleagues from other cultures a business becomes more competitive and more profitable.

Breaking cross culture barriers:

The idea that cross cultural awareness can and is a real business benefit has been around since
intercultural training began, in a modest form, 20 years ago. Recently as more companies, organisations
and governments have had to deal internationally the value placed on cultural awareness has increased.
Nevertheless there does remain skepticism that intercultural training is a soft skill that offers very little
benefit to a businesses bottom line.

A recent study compiled in the book, Language and Culture in British Business, now offers some insight
into how intercultural awareness is hampering the success of businesses when doing business abroad.

Research has shown that 20-30% of companies have identified a lack of cultural awareness as an
obstacle to doing business internationally. Although a high figure it is important to question whether
this can really be accurate. A crucial point to consider is how companies have identified when cross
cultural differences have become a problem, i.e. if they don't appreciate that cultural differences can in
the first place cause problems, is it reasonable to believe that they could identify them when they
occur? It could very well be that the figure is lower than in reality.

Among the areas companies identify as posing particular cross cultural barriers are:

. Body language

. Etiquette

. Establishing trust

. Religious beliefs

. Social habits

Other more business related cross cultural barriers included differing approaches to:

. Invoicing and payments

. Credit terms

. Customer preferences

. Packaging - i.e. sizes, colours, typeface

All the above mentioned areas are aspects of doing business which differ from culture to culture and if
there is a lack of synergy between parties it is often hard to create an environment conducive to
profitable business. It is clear from the results of the study that those businesses that are unaware of
how culture can play a role in their business dealings abroad can suffer.

Cross cultural awareness training is a simple, cost effective and long term solution for many companies.
As part of a properly prepared international business strategy the provision of intercultural training to
staff can reap excellent rewards. Equipping key staff such as managers and sales staff with the know
how to deal with other cultures not only guarantees a higher success rate when doing internationally
but also immediately offers a company a competitive edge.

Cultural awareness training offers participants with two types of training. One looks at a specific country
or culture and how to do business with them. For example if a company is planning to start a
relationship with China, a China cultural awareness training course will introduce them to areas such as
using intermediaries, building relationships, gift giving etiquette, how to entertain, etc. The second type
of training is a more general overview of the importance of cultural skills, i.e. developing what is called
'cultural competence'. Cultural competence is about widening horizons and implementing skills such as
self-awareness, flexibility, open mindedness and cultural knowledge that can be applied across cultures.

Cultural awareness training can make an important impact on any business or organisation wanting to
maximize their potential internationally. With staff that can deal sensitively and effectively with clients,
customers and colleagues from other cultures a business becomes more competitive and more
profitable.

Cultural Barriers to Effective

Communication
Effective communication with people of different cultures is especially challenging. Cultures
provide people with ways of thinking--ways of seeing, hearing, and interpreting the world. Thus
the same words can mean different things to people from different cultures, even when they talk
the "same" language. When the languages are different, and translation has to be used to
communicate, the potential for misunderstandings increases.

Stella Ting-Toomey describes three ways in which culture interferes with effective cross-cultural
understanding. First is what she calls "cognitive constraints." These are the frames of reference
or world views that provide a backdrop that all new information is compared to or inserted into.

Second are "behavior constraints." Each culture has its own rules about proper behavior which
affect verbal and nonverbal communication. Whether one looks the other person in the eye-or
not; whether one says what one means overtly or talks around the issue; how close the people
stand to each other when they are talking--all of these and many more are rules of politeness
which differ from culture to culture.

Ting-Toomey's third factor is "emotional constraints." Different cultures regulate the display of
emotion differently. Some cultures get very emotional when they are debating an issue.  They
yell, they cry, they exhibit their anger, fear, frustration, and other feelings openly. Other cultures
try to keep their emotions hidden, exhibiting or sharing only the "rational" or factual aspects of
the situation.

All of these differences tend to lead to communication problems. If the people involved are not
aware of the potential for such problems, they are even more likely to fall victim to them,
although it takes more than awareness to overcome these problems and communicate effectively
across cultures.

e.g.

Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication

Obstacles in International Diplomacy
by

Raymond Cohen

Cohen argues that cross-cultural differences have significant effects on diplomatic negotiations.
Failure to understand and appreciate theses differences can have serious consequences for
negotiations. In this text Cohen explores the role cultural differences play in shaping the content,
process, and style of negotiations.

Cultural Differences

"Diplomatic negotiation consists of a process of communication between states seeking to arrive

at a mutually acceptable outcome on some issue of shared concern."[p. 7] This process of
communication can be profoundly affected by differing cultural conventions, norms, meanings,
assumptions, ideals and perceptions. The problems of inter-cultural communication have
received increased attention in recent years, and Cohen reviews briefly some of the main
theorists working in this field. Cohen's own approach is to combine these theoretical frameworks
with analyses of case studies, focusing particularly on cases of negotiation between Western and
non-Western states.

Cohen rejects the notion that a single international diplomatic culture has developed, which
makes diplomats' native cultures largely irrelevant. He finds that seasoned diplomats reports that
cultural differences have a significant impact. Theoretic studies show that culture plays a large
role in shaping the individuals' character. This constitutive impact of culture cannot be erased by
mere exposure to other cultures.

Cohen draws primarily on Lorand Szalay's theory of inter-cultural communication. Szalay begins
by distinguishing between the form and content of a message. The form of the message serves to
encode its meaning. Understanding a message is a matter of the receiver correctly decoding it, so
that the receiver's intention matches the sender's meaning. Szalay says, "Since the encoder and
the decoder are two separate individuals their reactions are likely to be similar only to the extent
that they share experiences, that they have similar frames of reference. The more different they
are, the less isomorphism there will be between encoded and decoded content."[p. 20] Cultural
similarity provides a shared frame of reference, while individuals from divergent cultures are
more likely to have different experiences and frames of reference. Cohen draws on this model to
identify several very basic, very general differences between cultures. First is the contrast
between cultures with an individualistic ethos and cultures which emphasize interdependence
and collective identity. In collectivist cultures, communication tends to be very context-sensitive.
Communication forms emphasize politeness, relationship-building, tact, and even indirectness.
Individualistic cultures de-emphasize the communication context and personal relationships.
Communication is direct and explicit, with little patience for rhetoric, allusion, or complex
etiquette.

Another important contrast is between cultures with polychronic and monochronic concepts of
time. Monochronic cultures tend to regiment time. Schedules and timetables are given great
weight. Haste is a virtue. Such cultures are future-oriented; the past is important only insofar as it
affects present and future plans. Polychronic culture take a more leisurely view of time. Time
moves in greater and lesser cycles, independent of human wants. Patience and steadiness are
virtues. Polychronic cultures tend to have a richer sense of the past; past events live on in the
present. Cohen calls collectivist, polychronic cultures high-context cultures. Individualistic,
monochronic cultures are then low-context.

Cohen suggests that supposedly universal models of negotiation may instead reflect an
individualistic, monochronic culture. Models which take an instrumental approach to
negotiation, which emphasize separating people from issues, and which prioritize creating
efficient, maximally beneficial outcomes, may seem foreign to cultures that place primary value
in human relationships and have a less urgent sense of time. Not every issue is negotiable. Which
issues are considered to be open to negotiation and which are not often depends upon cultural
factors. National pride and the necessity of equal treatment are non-negotiable issues for most
countries. Often a reaffirmation of national pride or status is required in order to bring a nation
into negotiations. Collectivist cultures may be especially sensitive to perceived slights or insults.

Most cultures will be extremely reluctant to negotiate sovereignty issues. However different
cultures focus their need for sovereignty in different areas. Often past events come to symbolize
wounded national pride. Being associated with such events can provoke stiff resistance. Many
nations' senses of sovereignty rest in maintaining their cultural traditions. States which were once
under colonial rule are often sensitive to anything reminiscent of colonialism. The presence of
foreign military, for example, may be a non-negotiable issue to such states. North American and
Northern European nations tend to treat matters of human rights as non-negotiable issues. Many
of the other nations do not attach such basic importance to human rights. The list of human rights
set forth in the UN Declaration of Human Rights has been criticized as reflecting the
individualistic cultural bias of the West. Some people have argued that these individualistic
rights are less applicable or appropriate to collectivist cultures.

Stages of Negotiation

Cohen explores the effects of cultural differences in the four different phases of the negotiation
process. The phases Cohen identifies are the preparation phase, and the beginning, middle and
end phases of negotiations. Cohen notes that the various ways in which the negotiation process is
described and divided are themselves culturally loaded. Cohen's divisions are made simply for
the sake of convenience, and are not meant to refer to necessarily distinct stages.

For high-contrast negotiators, the preparatory stage focuses on building personal relationships
with the other side. Accustomed to acting within a rich network of interdependent relations,
high-context negotiators start by attempting to build such a network with the opponent. Low-
context cultures see issues as separable from personal relations, and prefer to act in relatively
anonymous ways. High-context cultures also tend to take a long term view, focusing on
cultivating and improving the parties' relationship. Low-context cultures tend to have a more
short term focus on the issue at hand.

Maintaining face (reputation or honor) is generally more important in high-context cultures than
in low-context. Because of the importance of maintaining face, high-context negotiators
generally try to minimize uncertainty and to prevent crises, confrontations, and surprises. Being
caught by surprise is likely to result in a loss of face for someone. Similarly someone is likely to
lose in a confrontation, with the attending loss of face. Low-context cultures are less concerned
with issues of face, and so are more open to uncertainty, competition and confrontation. The
beginning phase of negotiations can be complicated by differences between hierarchical and
egalitarian cultures. Egalitarian cultures assume negotiations will proceed by the parties taking
turns presenting their concerns, and reciprocating initiatives in kind. Low- context negotiators
tend to open negotiations by first setting forth their position, assuming that the other side will
respond by stating their opposing position. Low-context cultures view declaring a opening
position to be risky and confrontational. The opening positions reveal the party's interests. When
this statement of positions is not reciprocated it gives the reticent party an advantage.
Hierarchical cultures may view the parties' relationship as that of supplicant to superior, and so
be "quite happy to demand one-sided concessions in payment of a supposed moral debt or as the
duty of the stronger party."[p. 84]. Cultures also differ in their preference for agreement on
specifics or on general principles. Low-context negotiators are likely to rely on the factual-
inductive mode of persuasion, which focuses on examining the facts at hand and crafting a
conclusion to fit those facts. High context negotiators may prefer the axiomatic-deductive mode
of persuasion, which seeks agreement on general principles and then applies those principles to
the case at hand.

Different cultures may have different expectations as to what should occur during the middle
phase of negotiations, and how much time this phase should take. Low context cultures such as
the U.S. expect that the middle phase will be a period of bargaining, a process of trade-offs and
concessions in which the parties gradually converge on a shared position. Many high context
cultures see such a process of "haggling" as appropriate to price negotiations, but inappropriate
to matters of principle. High status individuals do not lower themselves to haggle over small
points. Polychronic cultures are usually willing to draw out the middle phase. Monochronic
cultures are usually in more of a hurry to reach an agreement. Monochronic cultures are often at
some disadvantage when negotiating with polychronic cultures, since their greater sense of
urgency will prompt them to make greater concessions in order to close the deal quickly.

Different cultural approaches to authority can also complicate the middle phase. Collectivist
cultures tend to base authority relations on the father-child model. Authority is centralized,
hierarchical, and tends to be absolute. Individualist cultures tend to disperse power and authority,
and to encourage questions and even challenges to authority. The American system of
governmental checks and balances is typical of a individualist culture. Difficulties have often
arisen as negotiators from collectivist cultures over-estimate the power and domestic authority of
the U.S. President. Japan is an anomaly among collectivist cultures, in that political decision-
making relies on consensus.

Different cultures favor different means of negotiation and persuasion. The emphasis on personal
relationships and group harmony in high context cultures means that persuasion focuses on
cultivating a close, trusting relationship with the other side. High context cultures are generally
uncomfortable with overt aggression, confrontation, and adversarial styles of interaction. Low
context cultures find facts and reasoned arguments to be more persuasive, and tend to favor a
more direct, explicit and even aggressive style of communication.

Low context cultures prefer direct communication, while high context cultures are generally
more indirect, relying on strong personal relationships to support mutual understandings. Cohen
notes that "a striking feature of collectivistic, high context speakers...is their dislike of the
negative; a direct contradiction is invariably avoided."[p. 113] When pressed for a direct answer,
high context negotiators may resort to expressions of polite agreement which are without
substance. Or they may offer ambiguous answers. Misunderstandings often result from such
politeness being mistaken for substantive agreement. Nonverbal communication also varies
widely from culture to culture, as does the acceptability of displays of emotion. High context
cultures employ, and may be particularly moved by, symbolic gestures.

As noted above, monochronic cultures, with their perpetual sense of urgency, tend to rush the
end phase of negotiations. In particular, low context negotiators tend to overlook the importance
of presenting face-saving alternatives when high context parties are involved. For a proposal to
be acceptable in a high context culture, it must not only meet the parties material interests, it
must also be presented in such a way as to preserve the prestige and status of each party. High
context negotiators may reject even materially favorable proposals if agreeing would involve a
significant loss of face. Conversely, symbolic gains may make a materially unfavorable proposal
acceptable. One way to save face is to rely on informal, unwritten agreements, since these can be
repudiated should they become too embarrassing. This however runs counter to the low context
preference for specific, explicit, written agreements.

Conclusions
Cohen concludes his study with the following general suggestions for low context negotiators
when facing high context cultures. Study the history and language of the other culture. Begin to
cultivate a warm personal relationship with the other side's negotiators even before negotiations
start. Do not assume the other side interprets things in the same way that you do. Be alert and
sensitive to nonverbal or indirect communication, and be aware of your own nonverbal cues. Be
aware of and respect the importance of maintaining face. Fit your negotiating strategy to the
opponent's cultural needs, haggling when appropriate or starting from general principles.
Compromising in the face of an opponent's intransigence may simply confuse the situation, since
their stubbornness is often calculated to make you reveal your bottom line. Low context
negotiators must cultivate patience. Finally, agreements must be presented in a form which
preserves face all around.

Tactics for Removing Cross CulturalCommunication Barriers

Once we have established the prerequisites for understanding communication issues, we should
then seek to remove cross cultural communication barriers from the school environment. The
major tactics that might be employed for this purpose fall under two categories:

 Removing language which appears to stereotype students; and

 Reducing violations of cultural rules during discussions and conversations.

With respect to removing stereotypical language, the following strategies might be useful:

- Be aware of words, images and situations that suggest that all or most members of a racial
group are the same.
Example: "Why can't Joe ever be on time?" "He's African American, isn't he?"
- Avoid using qualifiers that reinforce racial and ethnic stereotypes.
Example: "The articulate African American student" implies that African
American students typically have low verbal skills.
- Avoid racial identification except when it is essential to communication.
Example: "Judy, an outgoing student" is preferable to "Judy, an outgoing African
American female student."
- Be aware of possible negative implications of color symbolism and usage that could offend
people or reinforce bias.
Example: Terms such as "black magic" or "black market" can be offensive.
- Avoid language that has questionable racial or ethnic connotations.
Example: Phrases such as "culturally deprived," "culturally disadvantaged" and
"you people" have racist overtones. With respect to changing communicative
behaviors which violate the cultural rules of others, the following strategies may
be useful:
- Be aware of rules for attentiveness during conversation.
Example: The constant maintenance of eye contact while listening during a
conversation often violates a conversational rule in working class African
American and Hispanic cultures.
- Be aware of rules regarding the distance between speakers during conversation.
 Example: In some cultures, speakers stand close enough to touch often. In other
cultures, distance is maintained to denote respect.
- Be aware that objects, characters and symbols may reflect different beliefs or values for
different groups.
Example: The confederate flag and Uncle Remus stories may offend African
Americans because they reflect the culture of slavery and the Old South.
- Be aware that cultures may vary in what they consider humorous or taboo.
Example: Ethnic humor is often perceived by many groups as evidence of racial
prejudice. Discussion of in group cultural rules and behaviors with outsiders is
considered taboo within many cultures.
- Be aware of different rules for taking turns during conversations.
Example: African American children frequently perceive "breaking in" to
reinforce or disagree with another's point to be perfectly permissible, indeed
desirable.
- Cultures may use different standards for loudness, speed of delivery, silence, attentiveness
and time to respond to another's point.
Example: Many Native American societies place high value on contemplation and
tend, therefore, to feel little responsibility to make immediate responses during
conversation.
- Be aware of different cultural rules for entering into conversations in progress.
Example: African American students tend to consider conversations as private
between recognized participants. Therefore, anyone, including the teacher, who
"butts in" is viewed as an eavesdropper and rebuked.

One way to improve relationships across cultural lines, particularly in the upper grades, is to
develop a unit on "Communicating with One Another." The purpose of such a unit would be to
teach students how to communicate more effectively across cultural lines and how to address and
negotiate differences.

It is also useful for teachers to brainstorm with one another on how to remove communication
barriers. In addition, a well designed staff development program can lead to better relations
among staff and generate effective cross cultural communication activities for the classroom.

It can also be useful for teachers to ask parents to identify sources of miscommunication and
socially offensive behavior or language. Parents may be asked to suggest ways that school
personnel can improve communication with students, adults and the communities.

While schools have a responsibility to teach students the behavioral I codes of the society at
large and to expect students to adhere to them, they have a similar responsibility to reduce
culturally induced discipline problems and to avoid misinterpreting cultural differences as
behavioral problems.

Patton's (1986) research on cross cultural communication behaviors and their relationship to
discipline problems at the junior high school level provides excellent reading on this topic. Other
readings are Gappa and Pearce's (1983) Removing Bias: Guidelines for Student Faculty
Communication; Kochman's (1981) Black and White Styles in Conflict; and Pickens' (1982)
Without Bias: A Guidebook for Nondiscriminatory Communication.

Why Do Nonstandard English Speaking Children Fail to Acquire Standard English?

Many arguments have been advanced to explain the low achievement levels of nonstandard
English speaking children, particularly African American children, in acquiring oral competence
in standard English. The most tenable argument suggests that the philosophy, assumptions and
traditional classroom methodologies employed in language arts education have failed because
they have been prescriptive and corrective and have focused too much on language structure
rather than on communicative competence (Taylor, 1985). Moreover, traditional teaching
methodologies have not typically been culturally sensitive, nor have they made use of
indigenous, nonstandard dialects. These significant deficiencies are probably due to naivete, or to
negative attitudes toward language variations by language arts teachers.

Toward More Effective Teaching of Standard English

In recent years, a number of educators have begun to devise and implement instructional
strategies which take into account the various language systems that students bring into the
classroom. In general, these strategies are based on modern sociolinguistic learning theory and
on established principles of second language teaching.

In 1981, California became the first state to recognize the importance of indigenous dialects in
teaching standard English. Focusing primarily on the language of African American nonstandard
English speaking children, California's State Board of Public Instruction stated in part:

Many Black learners come to the school setting speaking a language that is linguistically
different from standard English. The language they speak is an integral part of the Afro-
American culture . . . It is a unique language which serves a uniquely rich culture. However, the
school setting and that of the larger American society, including the economic and commercial
communities, represent another linguistic sphere in which the student must learn to move and
speak successfully. To the extent that the young student fluently communicates in either
language, he increases his opportunities in both realms ....

Therefore, to provide proficiency in English to California students who are speakers of Black
Language and to provide equal educational opportunities for these students, it is recommended
that the State Board of Education and the State Department of Education hereby recognize:

That structured oral language practice in standard English should be provided on an ongoing
basis.

That special program strategies are required to address the needs of speakers of Black language.

That parents and the general public should be informed of implications of educational strategies
to address the linguistic needs of Black students.
Teaching Standard English from a Cultural Perspective

Teaching the standard language from a cultural perspective differs from the traditional language
education approach in that it does not blame the victim. Standard English instruction from a
cultural perspective does not presuppose the devaluation or elimination of a learner's indigenous
language as a pre-requisite for learning. It recognizes that students need to retain their home
dialect where its use is appropriate.

Several major requirements for teaching standard English from a cultural perspective follow.
Instruction should:

 Focus on both the structure of language, and on how to communicate;

 Maintain an oral basis;
 Concentrate on the structure of language, situational language requirements and
language as a vehicle for thinking;
 Be linked to clearly defined long term goals; and
 Be integrated across the curriculum.

A successful culturally based standard English program recognizes that learning proceeds in an
orderly way from the introduction of a particular aspect of language through its mastery. The
model which has enjoyed the widest use and greatest success was designed in the late 1970s by
the San Diego Oral Language Program. It has been used with modifications in Standard English
as a Second Dialect (SESD) programs in Dallas, Texas, and in Richmond and Oakland in
California. The model lists several necessary steps for learning a new linguistic system while
preserving the student's indigenous system. The model includes the following eight steps:

 Developing positive attitudes toward one's own language. The first and
continuing job of the teacher is to counteract negative evaluations of the students'
indigenous language. Lessons on the historical development of various dialects
and on language diversity are useful in accomplishing this goal.
 Developing awareness of language varieties. Students develop a sensitivity to the
various forms of a given language via stories in standard English, poems in
different dialects, and records, tapes or video recordings of various speakers. At
this stage, specific likenesses and differences are emphasized.
 Recognizing, labeling and contrasting dialects. Students learn to recognize
differences in various languages and dialects and to associate specific features
with each linguistic system.
 Comprehending meanings. Students learn to recognize differences in meanings
and intentions when an idea is translated from one language or dialect to another.
 Recognizing situational communication requirements. Students determine the
types of speech appropriate to various situations.
 Producing in structured situations. Students practice producing successive
approximations of standard English. Initially, students follow a model at this
stage, e.g., a script, choral reading or poem.
  Producing in controlled situations. Students receive instruction and practice in
producing standard English without a model, e.g., role playing or retelling a story.
 Matching the language to the situation. Students practice speaking appropriately
in real life, spontaneous situations leading to communicative competence.

Before beginning to teach standard English from a cultural perspective, the teacher and school
need a clear language arts philosophy which embraces modern principles of ethnology,
sociolinguistics and second language instruction The philosophy and assumptions statement
developed by the Richmond Unified School District in California is a good example of what
schools and teachers may usefully adopt. (See Appendix I.)

Finally, before beginning program implementation, the teacher and school community must
become thoroughly familiar with the following general principles of second dialect instruction:

 Instruction should be preceded by a non biased assessment of each learner's

knowledge of his or her first dialect and of the second dialect.
 Students must feel positive toward their own dialects.
 Students must want to learn another dialect. If motivation is not present, the
teacher must help students discover the advantages of acquiring the second
dialect.
 Instruction must consider the language goals of students, their families and their
communities.
 Instruction must take into account cultural values associated with learning and
teaching.
 Instruction must accommodate the preferred cognitive learning styles of the
students. Some children prefer a field independent (object oriented) cognitive
style. Others prefer a field dependent (social oriented) cognitive style. Both are
valid, however, schools tend to be more oriented toward the field independent
style. See Appendix II for a summary of these two preferred cognitive styles.
 Both the teacher and students must be able to contrast the linguistic and
communicative rules of the existing and targeted dialects.
 Linguistic and communicative features of the existing dialect should be compared
with those of the targeted dialect.
 Instruction should be integrated with students' experiences.
 Both the teacher and students must believe that it is possible to acquire a second
dialect.

What Is a Good Approach to Implementing Standard

English as a Second Dialect (SESD) Programs?

Minimum standards must be established for evaluating the validity of culturally based SESD
curricula and teaching/learning strategies. An SESD program should:

 Permit students to demonstrate their listening skills by summarizing, responding,

paraphrasing or following directions.
  Allow varied and frequent opportunities for students to communicate with each
other.
 Provide students opportunities to summarize, analyze or evaluate oral or written
communication completed by themselves, their peers or the teacher.
 Provide students opportunities to listen and respond appropriately to the teacher,
their classmates or audio visual materials.
 Allow students to use speech for different purposes in a variety of situations, e.g.,
persuading, informing, imagining, questioning or asserting.
 Teach students how to evaluate the effectiveness of their own communication.
 Stress that learning new speech patterns is linked to short term and long term
goals.
 Underscore the importance of situation, audience or topic during communication.
 Indicate that oral communication activities will be included throughout the total
curriculum.
 Have a clear language and communication focus.

The Richmond and Los Angeles school districts in California and Dade County Public Schools
in Miami, Florida, have developed lessons and support materials for implementing SESD
programs. Names and addresses of information sources on SESD programs are presented in
Appendix III.

How Can Aides and Parents Help?

The teaching of a second dialect cannot be solely the responsibility of the classroom teacher, no
more than it can be limited to the language arts classroom. Teacher aides and parents can support
the instructional process and assist children's language development in general and SESD
instruction in particular by:

 Encouraging children to speak in a variety of situations and before many

audiences;
 Establishing talking as a frequent, enjoyable and secure activity;
 Modeling and expanding students' speech into language appropriate for the topic,
situation and audience;
 Pointing out what language and communicative behaviors are appropriate as
situations occur;
 Discouraging teasing about speech;
 Not over-correcting students' speech;
 Linking corrections of speech to the situation;
 Providing the school and teachers with examples of speech used in the home and
community to incorporate in instruction, assessment and teacher training;
 Reinforcing writing or reading activities with activities that include talking;
 Providing an abundance of verbal stimuli for students irrespective of language or
communication competencies;
 Encouraging students to engage in conversations with a variety of people and on a
variety of subjects; and
 Encouraging students to recount their experiences in narrative form as often as
possible and before a variety of audiences.