Search results

When bilingual teachers are first hired, many say they are pressured to teach material only in English (Menken, 2008). Removing instruction in a child’s native language is not likely to improve scores on English standardized tests (Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005), and long term, English-Only instruction reduces academic success and reduces graduation rates (Iddings, Combs, & Moll, 2012). This chapter looks at bilingual classrooms in a Texas school district, through classroom observations, interviews, and a large-scale survey seeking to answer the question, what do officially bilingual classrooms look like when they operate monolingually? Results showed that administrators exerted pressure, and teachers used methods they expected not to work. Some bilingual classrooms had teachers who either could not speak Spanish, or chose not to. Because classrooms operated without the legally required amount of first-language instruction, the district’s “bilingual” programs undermined accountability data while harming emergent bilinguals. Teacher educators have not prepared bilingual teachers for the reality of anti-bilingual schools. New teachers need to know how to not only implement research-based instruction but also defend their instructional choices. Wherever lawmakers, agencies, and administrators have allowed transitional bilingual programs to become de facto monolingual, there may be a role for colleges of education to play, monitoring, assisting, and, if necessary, publicizing lack of compliance. Study findings are limited to one specific district; even in districts with similar phenomena, the manner in which a bilingual program ceases to be bilingual will vary substantially.

This paper seeks to identify various factors affecting knowledge culture in some of the large organizations and suggest realistic strategies for developing knowledge culture.

In‐depth case studies were conducted at six large distributed organizations to investigate and assess knowledge management (KM) practices and associated organizational culture. The core data collection is based on semi‐structured interviews with senior managers who play a significant role in KM programs at their respective organizations. A range of internal documents of these organizations has also provided some important inputs for the empirical analysis.

The study identified ten major factors affecting knowledge culture in organizations. These include leadership, organizational structure, and evangelization, communities of practice, reward systems, time allocation, business processes, recruitment, infrastructure and physical attributes.

Perhaps, the major limitation of this research study is associated with the sample selection. All of the companies participated in this research project, were large‐scale distributed organizations. Therefore, the findings may not be applicable for small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs). Furthermore, the derived conclusions would be more assertive if they were tested as hypothetical propositions through a consecutive research survey.

This study provides illustrations and rationale for a diverse range of factors influencing the knowledge culture. Some of the findings deviated from established notions in contemporary KM literature, especially in the issues such as organizational structure, leadership and reward systems. The organizational dimensions explored in this study provide some original thoughts for building sustainable knowledge cultures.

The factors described in this paper are based on the existing KM practices at organizations with well‐established KM programs. These can serve as pragmatic guidelines for KM practitioners in developing knowledge culture.