DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 246 665 FL 014 449

AUTHOR Baldauf, Richard B., Jr.

TITLE The Materials Development Problem in Planned Language
Modernization Programs.
PUB DATE [84]
NOTE 20p.
PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Educational Policy; English (Second Language);
*Instructional Materials; *Language Planning;
*Language Standardization; *Language Teachers; Malayo
Polynesian Languages; *Material Development; Program
Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; Teacher
Education
IDENTIFIERS *Malaysia

ABSTRACT
Implementation o. a language modernization process
such as one occurring in the Pacific basin is as important as the
policy development behind it. Three critical factors in
implementation are teacher training, the development of good teaching
materials, and a plan for evaluating program effectiveness. Attempts
to meet the need for good language-based teaching materials
illustrate the difficulties and possible solutions in a language
modernization situation. Literacy materials begin to address the
problem, but are often developed for adults and are not suitable for
school instruction. Vernacular literacy materials have been developed
in some cases, but no complete program of study is now available.
Researchers have developed guidelines for literacy material design
based on recent experience with literacy curriculum: When producing
content area materials, authors must first use creative processes
rather than consulting existing materials to avoid duplication. In
addition, care must be taken to integrate effective but possibly
alien instructional strategies with vernacular material, a process in
which the skills of language planners and linguists are needed.
(MSE)

***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
 THE MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM IN
PLANNED LANGUAGE MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS1

Richard B. Baldauf, Jr.

James Cook University, Australia

ABSTRACT

Language modernization undertaken on a planned basis involves

a number of aspects including planners, plans, and planning. There
has been a tendency for language planning studies tc focus on
planners and particularly their plans without giving adequate thought
to how the planning, that 4s, the implementation and evaluation of a
language plan, will be carried out. These more practical aspects are
often left to the educational system to implement. This lack of
co-ordination across the entire planning process puts strains on the
educational system in two areas. First, there is the question of how
to get adequately trained language teachers. Second, there is the
problem of obtaining and/or creating language teaching materials. The
issues are of course interrelated. The purpose of this paper is to
focus on one of the problems, the materials dr:velopment question,
using examples from the Pacific basin region, to see what difficulties
and possible solutions there are to be found.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

-PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
t ENTER IERIC/
PItTles document has been reproduced as
received horn Ilia person Of 0O116.7,1(10r1
12ptciajTr OnoinilOnO R.

Minor changes have been made to improve

reproduction quality
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES Points of view . mod., st:nad ut this docu
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).- md do 00 ms!,.u0y ruo1.0 oMml NIE
position or policy

2
 PLANNED LANGUAGE MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS

Richard B. Baldauf, Jr.

James Cook University, Australia

Introduction2

We live in an age where rapid physical and ideational change

and development is occuring all around us. Language is no exception.

The mass media and popular music are powerful medium for rapid

lexical and phonological change. Sesame Street has introduced

children around the world to "zee" instead of "zed" and to "zero"

instead of "nought", while television programs like Diff'rent Strokes

for Black English and Dallas for the Southern drawl provide popular

examples of American regional language variation. Although the

"blessing" of television has not yet reached Papua New Guinea, I'm

sure each of you can think of comparable local examples. Whether

these changes will endure is of course far from certain. However,

people now as never before are becoming more aware of language vari-

ation and change.

Linguistic change is of course not new; only the speed with

which it is occuring and is being accepted, is new. Languages are

not and have never been a static product, but have been and still are

more akin to a developing process. Such development occurs through

processes like borrowing from other languages, stretching words to

accomodate new meanings, coining new words, or adopting new styles of

writing. Traditionally, these modernization processes have occurred

spontaneously in response to new linguistic demands, and these

linguistic products have taken long periods of time to find linguistic

and social acceptance.

 However, the traditional patterns of language modernization,

particularly the time constraints, are no longer adequate for most

language development situations. Many newly independent countries

have not been able to wait for either spontaneous development or long

term acceptance of linguistic features to stretch their languages

for modern usage. This need for action has lead to government-

supported efforts, as for example in Malaysia with the formation of

the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, and in Indonesia with the formation of

the Balai Bahasa Pusat, to plan additions to their language to deal

with modern concepts and the growth of terminology for technology.

Language planning efforts such as these are aimed at creating a sound

linguistic basis for and political acceptance of language moderniz-

ation. Efforts in these domains relate to the work of language planners

and their plans. However, there is a third essential component3 of

language planning,,,or the implementation and evaluation of a language

plan. While general guidelines are sometimes provided by planners as

to what needs to be done, (e.g., see Ohannessian and Ansre 1979), the

actual implementation and evaluation of planning are often left to

the national educational system. Yet it is through planning. '-n4h

through government schools and in many countries through church

sponsored programmes such as those developed by the Summer Institute

of 'inguistics (SIL), that language permanence and social acceptance

are supposed to develop. This analysis suggests that there may be a

gap in the typical language modernization program.

Up to this point we have been talking as if language moderniz-

ation involved only intra-language change or intra-language planning.

However, most countries in the Pacific basin are multi-lingual, and

there is a need for inter-language planning and development as well.

Such development stems from at least three communication needs:

4
 (1) for internal communication,

(2) for transmission of science and technology, and

(3) for international communication.

Robert Litteral k1979) has outlined a possible language schema to

meet the communication needs for Papua New Guinea and has sugges'iA

the roles various languages might play in a proposed PNG educational

system (see Figure 1). The proposal is based on a double transitional

bilingual education approach (i.e., vernacular to Pidgin or Hiri Motu

to English) ire which all languages are maintained, at least at the

primary school level.

Another example of the varying roles language can play in commun-

ication needs can be found in Malaysia. For internal communication a

range of vernacular languages are still used by individuals and to

supplement the regional media. However, one of the indigenous languages,

Bahasa Malaysia, has become through an intensive language campaign, the

major language, the lingua franca, for meeting rational internal Lom-

munication needs. In the schools native vernacular languages are not

officially taught and increasingly all instruction is in Bahasa

Malaysia. some English, Mandarin and Tamil medium of instruction

schools ,till exist while English is the major language taught as a

subject in non-English medium schools. Bahasa Malaysia is also the

language used in most Uriversity and technical school instruction,

although many students do further studies overseas in English speaking

institutions. Thus, Bahasa Malaysia and English share a joint role

in the transmission of science and technology while English predomin-

ates as the language for international communication. In both examples

different languages serve different purposes and are used in different

domains.

5
 Thus, the language problems in modernization for Pacific basin

countries may be seen to stem from both a variety of communication

needs (inter-language problems) and from the need for intra-language

development. Many countries in this region are at the point of re-

defining the roles colonial languages are to serve and are considering

how to best develop local language resources. Given limited financial

resources careful planning will be needed if a satisfactory balance is

to be achieved between vernacular, national language, and interno0onal

language development.

While language policy development is obviously critical to the

language modernization process, so is proper implementation. Thoucht-

ful planners and imaginative language plans are all for nought withluc

effective implementation. Three critical factors n the Implement:Yon

process are teacher training and the development of q)od teaching

materials, followed by an adequate scheme to evaluate program effect-

iveness. Thus, I would argue that a sound national program for

language modernization must not only be based on an'adequate survey of

language needs, but must try to specify in realistic terms how these

language needs can be met.

The purpose of the rest of this paper is to examine attempts

which have been made to meet the need for good language based teaching

materials. Both general references and specific examples from the

Pacific basin region will be used to see what difficulties and

possible solutions there are to the materials development need in

the language modernization process.

Is Materials Development Really a Problem?

The first question we must ask ourselves is, is m.erials

development really a problem? Some authors have at least implied

Ps
that the issue is a relatively minor one which is easily solved.

The problem of materials could be solved by training

individuals to write books in their own language or in
Pidjin or Hiri Motu. Many of the larger language groups
already have alphabets and reading materials. They also
have educated people who could write the books needed
for a vernacular program. For languages where there are
no alphabets or written materials, educated members of
these groups could work with linguists and educators to
prepare alphabets and educational materials in their
languages (Gudschinsky 1974). Preliminary efforts to
produce written materials in this way have proved success-
ful (Litteral 1979:162).

Indeed descriptions of such training programs (e.g., Cates and Cates

1975; van Dyken 1977), the use of local authors in literacy schemes

(e.g., Draper 1974), and the fact that the SIL here in Papua New

Guinea use to (still does?) run an annual workshop to train people in

designing primers gives some credence to idea that it is not too

difficult to produce literacy materials. There is also comparable

evidence to suggest that a range of vernacular literacy materials are

also being produced world wide.

However, producing materials for basic literacy only begins to

tackle the problem of language modernization unless the purpose of

the program is merely to create a minimal transitional bilingual

program to bridge to a major, in terms of materials available, second

language. While it is essential to learn to read as part of the

school program, reading is only a skill, albeit the underlying one,

to unlock content. Schools attempt to teach in an efficient manner

content areas which are set out to cover materials which have a

particular scope and sequence. This I suggest requires materials to

be designed on a different basis.

Interest and motivation are also essential both in the school

and in reading programs. Many of the literacy materials referenced

were created for adult literacy programs and were aimed at adult
interests. It is not an easy matter to transfer materials from one

domain to mother.

Thus, while native speaker produced materials is a starting point

for planned language modernization, it is not a sufficient basis on

which to develop an instruction program for schools. I would not

accept it as adequate for my child's education. Nor do I believe that

most Pacific basin countries ultimately want minimal transitional

bilingual programs. The notion of needs discussed earlier suggests

that languages must be further modernized to meet the range of demands

placed on them within their domain(s). If this is not done, ultimately

the languages will be displaced by others that can meet those needs.

Producing Literacy Materials

A variety of methods have been tried to produce vernacular

literacy materials. We have already discussed briefly the success

some linguists have had in getting adult native speakers to produce

a variety of reading materials. However, McKinnon and Humphreys

(1981:39) report that, in the main, teachers do not possess the

ability to write suitable reading materials. Another approach which

has been tried in Peru, rather unsuccessfully as it happens in terms

of student learning outcomes, has been to get primary school children

to make their own materials in the classroom (Weber and Sola 1980).

However, Gray (1982) has had more success in getting Northern Territory

Aboriginal primary children to develop "whole texts" through an oral

approach. This strategy has lead to written ESL texts around which a

reading program has been developed.

The most intensive program I know of to train native vernacular

language literacy workers was begun in 1974 in Hawaii to train groups of

Micronesian educators to use recently developed dictionaries and

8
 f I 411. WI .3y,Auvl ir4;u",,AitAl

ational materials (Topping, 1975). This program progressed to the

point where in 1977 the. Pacific Area Languages Materials Development

Center (PALM) was created and the production of literacy materials

begun (Gibson 1979-1980). The development of good writers has taken

a lot of time and is still an on going process. Today there are

over 800 books in the 11 major Micronesian languages and in Samoan

and Pilippino. While most of these books were written specifically

for their vernacular language audiences, translation (being aware of

the potential problems that this method introduces) has been used

where stories or materials were appropriate across cultures. Although

materials are being produced at different levels and across a range

of subject matter, a complete program of study is not as yet being

produced.

These few examples suggest that it is important for materials

development to take place as part of a planned language modernization

program so that individual efforts and resources can be used to their

best effect. While individual teachers may make valiant efforts, the

general aims of language learning will be frustrated until there is a

planned attack on the materials development problem.

Once it has been decided on the best way to create literacy

materials, the focus can then be shifted to how they will be produced.

There are a number of references available in this area focusing on

topics like the preparation of textbooks (McCullough 1974), designing

primers (Gudschinsky 1973), adapting and writing language lessons

(Stevick 1971), and adaptation, o language teaching (Madsen and Bowen

1978).

The most relevant work for this discussion is that of McCullough

\
(1974) and McKinnon and Humphreys (1971). They have used their

9
experiences in India with Hindi readers and Papua New Guinea with ESL

readers to provide some general principles for and concrete examPles

of the development of a program of literacy materials. Stevick's

(1971) work focuses too narrowly on the design of language te,-,ching

mdterials and is thus more appropriate to the language codification

aspect of the language planning (Haugen 1983). Alano (1977) and

Madsen and Bowen (1978) focus on the adaptation of materials which

although an important technique is not usually a procedure available

to languages in the process of modernization.

Let us briefly then summarize some of the important points these

authors make.

First, the overall planning of the series or set of materials is

essential. In curriculum terms we must define the scope and sequence

of our work. It is here that the language planning skills of the

sociolinguist in surveying children's interests, the psycholinguist in

accounting for childreris developmental needs, and the linguist in

helping to determine appropriate structural and lexical content and

sequence have a potentially important role to play. Where possible

these roles should be interactive ones with the writers and with the

consumers of the materials. Where interaction is not possible and

discrepancies occur, research suggests that the overall editor is

better to trust the consumers judgment than to err on the side of

theory.

When looking for specific guidance for developing a program of

materials McKinnon and Humphreys (1973) provide a list of eight

constraints on the writing plan they followed to design the "Pacific

Horizons" reading scheme. These may be briefly described as follows:

10
(a) Subject Matter move tram tne Known to tne unKnow n DUI Keep

the subject matter worthwhile and interesting. (See McKinnon

imd Humphreys (1971) , McCullough (1975) , Russo and Harris

(1982) for suggested topics.)

(b) Structure Too rigid structuring makes it impossible to

produce natural, quality materials of interest to children.

Many simple pieces of writing include grammatically difficult

structures (i.e., the passive voice). Structure can be

dealt with by controlling levels of forms of a structure and

by restricting or expanding sentence length and complexity.

(c) Vocabulary Maintain rigid control of vocabulary during the

first four years of the program, but allow it to expand

rapidly thereafter. It is at this level where much of the

new vocabulary would relate to "modern life and technology"

(McKinnon and Humphreys, 1971:33). [At this point language

modernization would become an increasingly important element

in the development of literacy materials]

(d) Sentence Length Set a maximum sentence length for various

levels, but keep in mind that an effective writing style

combines long and short sentences.

(e) Idiom Use idiom but avoid over use.

(f) Topic Length Topic lengths were suggested for various

levels, but experience showed that length was not always

related to level.

(g) Type Size The type size was specified and was gradually

reduced in size. McCullough (1974) makes the point that

type size must be related to script complexity (Hindi) and

that there are a number of other factors which relate to

legibility of print (Tinker, 1963).

(h) Illustration Some illustrations were used to raise interest

11
 level and to orient the reader, but not to tell the story.

A number of other points also were considered. I first, additional

materials were needed to make the program work. These included thing!.

like teacher's manuals, exercises, and dictionary cards. there was

also a need to empirically test the reading level of the material!, to

see that the program was well sequenced. The dote procedure was used

to do this. Finally, there was the problem of publication, or how to

keep costs reasonable while getting a good quality product.

Props t (1910 provides a final warning for literacy curriculum

developers. If your program is successful and children become avid

readers then a demand will be generated for more extensive reading

materials. In the light of this, it is important that language

nization programs also have long term language development plans.

Finally, we might ask if any advice is available for the individual

writer about literacy materials devel ment. 011er suggests "that

story-telling techniques may be helpful in making ESL/EFL (and vernacular

materials?) meaningful, comprehensible, recallable, and in a word

learnable (1983:39)". The eleven principles 011er suggests and explains

include: I: Respect logic and causality

II: Be aware of plans and goals

III: Use surprise to motivate learning

IV: Operate with facts or believable fiction

V: Do not ask students to comprehend nonsense

VI: Find interesting characters

VII: Look for meaningful conflicts

VIII: Find material with ac,,,on

IX: Ask questions

X: Cut the elephant (i.e., episode) into small bites

XI: Make Multiple meals out of the elephant (i.e., make

multiple passes through the story)

(011er, 1983:49-52)
 This brief review of some of the issues in literacy materials

development suggests that the issues and complex planned approach to

the problem would help to make a difficult task easier.

Producing Content Area Materials4

Much of what has been written about materials development has had

"literature" as a focus. However, if we intend to teach content in

the vernacular as a modernized language would need to do, or indeed

if we want texts in English which are culturally suitable for our

students, we must also be able to produce content based materials.

According to Edwards, first and foremost curriculum developers

must think of their writing as a total package designed to communicate.

The use of a double page spread production grid on which all the

elements (the words, illustrations, photographs, drawings, newspaper

clippings, etc.) can be assembled will allow the developer to see how

it will look to the reader and will ensure everything fits. This

procedure emphasizes the importance of visual materials in content

area materials development and means there must be a shift the

literacy writers thinking about them.

Many of articles cited earlier on literacy have stressed the

importance of motivation and interest. Creating aesthetically

pleasing double page spreads which lead the student down the pages

through the material is vital for creating interest in subject matter

materials. Like writing, layout and design are skills that can be

learned. Edwards indicates that after a 10 week course at RECSAM

(at University Sains Malaysia, Penang), relatively inexperienced

teachers were producing "curriculum units which (would) stana up well

against any materials in the world in the area of design and commun-

ication (p.2)". The important point is that design is part of the

writing process, not an after thought.

 The writing process itself is very important and linguists like

Malcolm Coulthard (1982) are beginning exploring ways text analysis

can be applied to the teaching of reading and writing, especially as

it relates to organization and simplification. The latter is a

particularly difficult area for writers as they must strive for

precision and correctness while avoiding over-formality, and must

write simply for the intended audience while avoiding oversimplific-

ation and vagueness. For the ESL student in particular we must

remember that content subjects are still mainly language courses

(Smith 1980) and the language used must be written with this in mind.

The cloze procedure and readability formula are useful aids in

determining what is at an appropriate level, but the ultimate test

is the child. Where possible draft materials should be tried out with

the intended reading audiences to gauge both interest and readability.

Remember what is appealing and brilliant for an adult may be dull and

uninteresting for a child. Finally, curriculum materials have a lot

of instructions in them. A soft sell approach (i.e., "You may like

to try doing ...") rather than a directive one (i.e., "Take out your

note book and write ...") will make your materials "more friendly"

and make the reader feel more involved in the process.

Where will the ideas for these materials come from? Once you

have selected a topic, talk to other writers, specialists, teachers,

practitioners in the field and competent professionals. Get out into

the community. Do NOT look at existing curriculum materials until

you've done your own thinking and research; They will only stiffle

creativity. Remember, unless the text you are producing is signific-

antly different from existing materials, there is little point in

producing it. If there is currently no available text, why produce one

which obviously needs to be replaced.

14
 Finally, most curriculum materials contain activities. These

must be trialed before they are included. Even if the writer is

familiar with the activity, try it out, using local materials and

write down in detail what you do. Then try it with someone else,

preferably a potential consumer under the conditions in which it

will be used, Only then include it if it works!

Curriculum development in content areas in vernacular languages

will almost unavoidably involved in language modernization. Literary

reading materials can be set within current experiences or the tradit-

ional domains of a language. However, content area curriculum

materials development requires terminological development and possibly

the use of structures and logic alien to the vernacular language and

the culture in which it is set. In the language transfer sense, these

are problems that ESL students face as well. As such this is an area

where the skills of linguistic and language planners are needed to aid

in language modernization.

Discussion and Conclusions

In the preceding pages, I have argued "that production of learning

materials is one of the most difficult and neglected areas of educat-

ional development (McKinnon and Humphreys 1971:9)". If you don't

believe this is true, pick up a few standard English language school

texts and see how terrible many of them are both in terms of content

and design.

For our ESL or vernacular language materials we haven't the time,

the money or the expertise to waste on producing poorly planned programs

which contain poorly written or designed materials. Since the current

low state of funding is unlikely to change overnight, I believe we

must strive for planned language modernization programs which seriously

consider the problems of quality materials development and staff

15
training as part of the overall planning process.

We can contribute and help to better understand the whole

language modernization process in two ways. First, when we under-

take planned language modernization activities, we should monitor

our actions to see what changes seem to result from them. Second,

we can look for recent documentable examples of language moderniz-

ation and then try to analyze them and apply the results to other

language modernization projects. I hope this paper will help to

stimulate some discussion towards these ends.

Language of Instruction Language as a Subject

700
ernac-
ulars

English, Pidgin, Hiri Motu

NATIONAL

English
INTERNATIONAL

Figure 1. Communicative Networks of Papua New Guinea in relation to

Proposed Roles for Languages in the Primary School System
(Based on LitteraI 1979:156,161)
 FUNNUTES

'Paper presented at the 17th Language Society of Papua New Guinea

Conference, University of Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, July 5,
1983. This research was funded in part by a Special Research Grant
(SRC -61) from James Cook University.

2A number of ideas on which this section is based come from proposal

materials for the "Modernization and Language Development Project"
developed and co-ordinated by Bjorn H. Jernudd, East-West Culture
Learning Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii.

3For a discussion of the elements involved in the language planning

process see Baldauf (1982), Rubin (1979) and Rubin (1981). For
another approach see Haugen (1983 p.275).

4Based on an unpublished paper entitled."Producing your own curriculum

units" and comments by John Edwards who worked for three years at
RECSAM at the University Sains Malaysia in Penang and for three
years with ASEP developing Science teaching materials.

REFERENCES

Alano, A.C. 1977. Colli,ct, adapt and use varied reading materials.
The Reading Teacher 30 (8): 875-879.

Baldauf, R.B., Jr. 1982. The language situation in Aiierican Samoa:

Planners, Plans, and Planning. Language Planning Newsletter
8 (1): 1-6.

Benton, R.A. 1981. The Two Samoas. In The Flight of the Amokura.
Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Bronson, V. 1968. A System Manual for The Staff and Faculty.Pago

Pago: Department of Education.

Cates, L.E. and Cates, A.F. 1975. Authors for Papua New Guinea.
In K.A. McElhanon (ed.) Tok Pisin I Go We? Kivung Special
Publication No.) Ukarumpa, PNG., pp.134-137.

Coulthard, M. 1982. Text analysis and its application to the

teaching of reading and writing. Paper presented at the 7th
Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. Perth, November
23.

Department of Education. 1979. A Proposal for English Language Arts

(ESL) in Grades 1-8. Pago Pago.

Department of Education. 1980. D.O.E. Instructional Program. Pago

Pago: Division of Instructional Development.

Draper, S. 1974. Adult literacy for the Papua New Guinea villager.
Papua New Guinea Journal of Education. 10 (2): 12-17.

Gibson, R.E. 1979-80. Putting the mother tongue back into the
classroom: ESL and Bilingual Education in Micronesia. NABE
Journal 4 (2): 49-58.
Gray, B. 1982. Developing the language skills of aboriginal
children in the classroom. Paper presented at 7th Association
of Applied Linguistics of Australia Conference, Perth,
November 25.

Gudschinsky, S.C. 1973. A Manual of Literacy for Preliterate Peoples.

Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Gudschinsky, S. 1974. Vernacular literacy as a base for formal

education. Eighth Waigani Semiar. Port Moresby. May.

Haugen, E. 1983, The implementation of corpus planning: Theory

and practice. In J. Cobarrubias and J.A. Fishman (Eds.),
Progress in Languae Planning. Berlin: Mouton, p.269-289.

Kneubuhl, J. and Evans, B. 1979. A Proposal for a New Samoan

Language Arts Program, Grade 1-12. Pago Pago: Department of
Education.

Litteral, R. 1979. A proposal for the use of pidgin in Papua New

Guinea's educational system. In J.3. Pride (ed.), Socio-
Linguistic Aspects of Language Learning and Teaching. London:
Oxford University Press, pp.152 -163.

C.M. 1974. Preparation of Textbooks in the Mother Tongue.

Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.

McKinnon, K.. and Humphreys, J. 1971, Preparation of Curriculum

Materiitls in. Developing Countric: A Case Study. Port Moresby:
Department of Education.

Madsen, H.S. and J.D. Bowen 1978. Adaptation in Language Teaching.

Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

National Association for Asian and Pacific Arcerican Education. 1978

Education Concerns of Asian and Pacific Americans. Conference
!:Qport. US Office of Education.

Ohannessian, S. and Ansre, G. 1979. Some reflections on the educational

use of sociolinguistic surveys. In J.B. Pride (ed.), Socio-
linguistic Aspects of Language Learning and Teaching. London:
Oxford University Press, pp.57-70.

Oiler, J.W.,'Jr. 1983. Storr writing principles and ESL teaching.

TESOL Quarterly. 17 (1): 39-53.

Propst, I.K., Jr. 1975. A serious deficiency in the SPC English

language program. South Pacific Bulletin. No.2.

Rubin, J. 1979. Concerning Language Planning in 1979. AILA

Bulletin. No.1 (25): 1-6.

Rubin, J. 1981. Spanish language planning in the United States.

Paper presented at El Espanol en Estados Unidos Conference.
Chicago. October 3: 28pp.

Russo, C. and Baldauf, R.B. Jr. 1983. Language development without

planning: A case study of tribal Aborigines in the Northern
Territory, Australia. Unpublished paper.

19
Russo, C. and Harris, S.G. 1982. Developing a written Aborininal
literature. In R. Lipscombe dnd D. Burns (Eds.), Abor',ginal
Literacy: Bridging the Gap. Adelaide: Australian Reading
Association.

Schramm, W., Nelson, L.M, and Betham, M.T. 1981. Bold Experiment:
The Story of Educational Television in American Se.ma. Stanford:
Stanford University Press

Smith, A.C. 1980. Eighty percent language, twenty percent content:

Teaching the core Canadian history course to ESL students.
TESL Talk. 11 (2): 47-53.

Stevick, E.W. 1971. Adapting and Writing Language Lessons. Washington,

D.C.: FSI, Department of State.

Tinker, M.A. 1963. Legibility of Print. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State

University Press.

Thomas, R.M. 1.974. A pattern for teaching indigenous culture.

Comparative Education. 10 (1): 49 -55.

van Dyken, J. 1977. Towards readable writing. Literacy Work.

6 (3): 17-34.

Weber, R-M. and Sold, D.F. 1980. Developing instructional materials

for a bilingual education program in the Peruvian Andes.
The Reading Teacher. 34 (3): 296-302.

20