Bilingual and Multilingual Education in the 21st Century: Building on Experience 9781783090716

Citation preview

Bilingual and Multilingual Education in the 21st Century

BILINGUAL EDUCATION & BILINGUALISM Series Editors: Nancy H. Hornberger (University of Pennsylvania, USA) and Colin Baker (Bangor University, Wales, UK). Bilingual Education and Bilingualism is an international, multidisciplinary series publishing research on the philosophy, politics, policy, provision and practice of language planning, global English, indigenous and minority language education, multilingualism, multiculturalism, biliteracy, bilingualism and bilingual education. The series aims to mirror current debates and discussions. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

Bilingual and Multilingual Education in the 21st Century Building on Experience

Edited by Christian Abello-Contesse, Paul M. Chandler, María Dolores López-Jiménez and Rubén Chacón-Beltrán

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Buffalo • Toronto

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Bilingual and Multilingual Education in the 21st century: Building on Experience/Edited by Christian Abello-Contesse, Paul M. Chandler, María Dolores López-Jiménez and Rubén Chacón-Beltrán. Bilingual Education & Bilingualism: 94 Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Language and languages—Study and teaching. 2. Multilingualism. 3. Language acquisition. 4. Education, Bilingual. I. Abello-Contesse, Christian, editor of compilation. P118.15.B55 2013 306.44'6071–dc23 2013023703 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-070-9 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-069-3 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA. Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada. Copyright © 2013 Christian Abello-Contesse, Paul M. Chandler, María Dolores LópezJiménez, Rubén Chacón-Beltrán and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Techset Composition India (P) Ltd., Bangalore and Chennai, India. Printed and bound in Great Britain by the CPI Group.

Contents

Figures Tables Contributors Introduction and Overview

vii xi xiii xix

Part 1: Lessons from Accumulated Experience in Bilingual and Multilingual Education 1

Bilingual and Multilingual Education: An Overview of the Field Christian Abello-Contesse

3

2

Insights into Bilingual Education from Research on Immersion Programs in Canada Fred Genesee

24

3

Bilingual Education in Colombia: The Teaching and Learning of Languages and Academic Content Area Knowledge Anne-Marie de Mejía

42

4

Perspectives and Lessons from the Challenge of CLIL Experiences Carmen Pérez-Vidal

59

Part 2: Issues in Language Use in Classrooms at the Elementary, Secondary and Tertiary Levels 5

From Bilingualism to Multilingualism: Basque, Spanish and English in Higher Education Jasone Cenoz and Xabier Etxague

6

100 Bilingual Lessons: Distributing Two Languages in Classrooms 107 Gwyn Lewis, Bryn Jones and Colin Baker

v

85

vi

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

7

Native Language Influence in Teaching Subject Matter Content through English in Spanish Tertiary Education Elena Domínguez Romero and Jorge Braga Riera

136

8

From Diglossia to Transglossia: Bilingual and Multilingual Classrooms in the 21st Century Ofelia García

155

Part 3: Participant Perspectives on Bilingual Education Experiences: Students, Language Assistants, Student-teachers and Teacher-educators 9

The Students’ Views on Their Experience in a Spanish-English Bilingual Education Program in Spain María D. Pérez Murillo

179

10 The Use of Native Assistants as Language and Cultural Resources in Andalusia’s Bilingual Schools 203 Nicole A. Tobin and Christian Abello-Contesse 11 Student-teachers and Teacher-educators Experience New Roles in Pre-service Bilingual Teacher Education in Brazil Fernanda Liberali

231

12 Potential Drawbacks and Actual Benefits of CLIL Initiatives in Public Secondary Schools Miguel García López and Anthony Bruton

256

Part 4: The Language Needs of Bilingual and Multilingual Students in Monolingual Schools 13 International School Students: Developing Their Bilingual Potential Maurice Carder 14 Heritage Spanish Speakers in School Settings: Are Their Needs Being Met? Jaime E. Espinoza Moore and Emilia Alonso Marks Index

275

299 315

Figures

Figure 3.1

The continuum of education which promotes bilingualism

Figure 3.A1

Countries of origin of curricular models: International bilingual schools 58

Figure 3.A2

Countries of origin of curricular models: National bilingual schools

58

Figure 3.A3

Countries of origin of curricular models: Schools with intensified English-language programs

58

Figure 5.1

Erasmus students from 1992 to 2009

89

Figure 5.2

Pre-registration in languages of instruction (2011–2012)

92

Figure 5.3

Percentages of Basque-medium enrolments by 1st-year university students

93

Figure 5.4

Number of undergraduate courses taught in English and French at the University of the Basque Country

97

Figure 7.1

Mistake versus error

139

Figure 7.2

Distribution of calques in the corpus

142

Figure 7.3

Types of morphological calques

143

Figure 7.4

Morphological calques according to phases (absolute numbers)

144

Figure 7.5

Morphological calques according to phases (per number of words)

144

Figure 7.6

Types of syntactic calques

146

Figure 7.7

Distribution of syntactic calques according to phases (absolute numbers)

146

vii

48

viii

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

Figure 7.8

Syntactic calques according to phases (per number of words)

147

Figure 7.9

Distribution of lexical calques in the corpus

147

Figure 7.10

Lexical calques according to phases (absolute numbers)

148

Figure 7.11

Lexical calques according to phases (per number of words)

149

Figure 7.12

Distribution of mistakes in the L2 (absolute numbers)

149

Figure 7.13

Phase distribution of mistakes in the L2 (per number of words)

150

Figure 7.14

Distribution of mistakes in the L1

150

Figure 7.15

Phase distribution of mistakes in the L1 (per number of words)

150

Figure 9.1

Graph showing elementary and high school students’ opportunities to travel abroad

191

Figure 9.2

Graph showing 6th graders’ gender differences: Degree of satisfaction with bilingual education

192

Figure 9.3

Graph showing 8th graders’ gender differences: Degree of satisfaction with bilingual education

193

Figure 9.4

Graph showing 6th and 8th graders’ perceptions of BEP: Positive responses

193

Figure 9.5

Graph showing 6th graders’ gender differences: Study abroad

194

Figure 9.6

Graph showing 6th and 8th graders’ perceptions of the BEP: Challenges

196

Figure 9.7

Graph showing 6th graders’ gender differences: Open-ended question

196

Figure 9.8

Graph showing 8th grade students’ gender differences: Open-ended question

197

Figure 10.1

Allocation of each informant’s 12 assigned work hours

211

Figure 14.1

HSS in secondary school Spanish classes in Worthington and district

306

Figures

ix

Figure 14.2

Level of the course in comparison to the enrolled HSS’ competences

306

Figure 14.3

Teachers’ perceptions of HSS’ level of performance

307

Figure 14.4

Teachers intimidated by advanced HSS students

307

Figure 14.5

Teachers who believe a Spanish course for HSS would be beneficial

308

Tables

Table 5.1

Languages of dissertations defended (2009–2010), University of the Basque Country

Table 6.1

Total number of lessons in each age group

115

Table 6.2

Content of lessons observed

116

Table 6.3

Typology based on observation of the use of two languages in classroom

122

Table 6.4

Six-fold typology compared with language background of the students and the language of the teacher in the classroom

124

Table 6.5

Six-fold typology compared with age group

126

Table 6.6

Six-fold typology compared with subject content of lesson

128

Table 9.1

Hornberger’s bilingual education model types

182

Table 9.2

English-medium elementary and high school subjects

188

Table 9.3

BEP regions

188

Table 9.4

6th graders’ ethnic backgrounds

190

Table 9.5

8th graders’ ethnic backgrounds

190

Table 9.6

Elementary and high school students’ perception of the four basic language skills

195

xi

95

Contributors

Editors Christian Abello-Contesse is an Associate Professor at the University of Seville, Spain, where he teaches undergraduate courses in second language acquisition and foreign-language teaching methodology, as well as graduate seminars in bilingualism and multilingualism, bilingual education and intercultural communication. He holds degrees in Applied Linguistics, Education, English and Spanish, and has taught at universities in Chile, Spain and the USA. His areas of interest are the psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic and intercultural aspects of non-native language acquisition and use in both instructed and study-abroad settings. He has been co-editor of the Spanish journal ELIA (Studies in Applied English Linguistics) since 2000. Rubén Chacón-Beltrán is an Associate Professor at the UNED (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia) in Madrid, Spain, where he teaches undergraduate courses in English as a foreign language and sociolinguistics, and graduate seminars in bilingualism and language policy. He holds a PhD in Applied English Linguistics and has taught at various Spanish universities. He is co-editor of the Spanish journal ELIA (Studies in Applied English Linguistics) and head of the research group TISAAL. His areas of interest are vocabulary teaching and learning, materials design, bilingual education and learner autonomy. Paul M. Chandler is Professor of Spanish and Chair of the Department of Languages and Literatures of Europe and the Americas at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA. He holds a PhD in Instruction of Hispanic Language and Literature from Indiana University-Bloomington. He was a recipient of Fulbright grants to teach, conduct research and offer teacher development presentations in Paraguay (2003) and Argentina (1998). His areas of interest are teacher development, second language reading and second language acquisition. He is co-author of several Spanish textbooks in the USA and has contributed to English textbooks in Paraguay. xiii

xiv Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

María Dolores López-Jiménez is an Assistant Professor at Pablo de Olavide University in Seville, Spain, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in English as a foreign language. Her main research interests include vocabulary teaching and learning, materials design and evaluation, and second language acquisition. She holds a PhD in Applied English Linguistics as well as degrees in English, Spanish and Linguistics. She has also taught Spanish as a second/foreign language at undergraduate level in Spain and the USA. She is a member of the editorial board of the Spanish journal ELIA (Studies in Applied English Linguistics).

Authors Emilia Alonso Marks is Full Professor of Spanish at Ohio University, USA, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in Spanish linguistics. Her main research interests include speech perception and lexical access, phonetics, language understanding, second language acquisition and foreign language methodology. She received her PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of Seville, Spain, after doing graduate work in linguistics and applied linguistics at Harvard University and the University of Oregon. Dr. Alonso-Marks has given talks at both national and international professional meetings. She is the author of numerous publications and serves as a reviewer for the US journal Hispania. Colin Baker was Pro Vice Chancellor at Bangor University, Wales, and Professor of Education from 1994 to 2012. He is the author of 16 books and over 60 articles on bilingualism, with specific interests in language planning and bilingual education. His book, Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011), has been translated into Japanese, Spanish, Latvian, Greek, Vietnamese and Mandarin. He edits two Multilingual Matters book series and was Editor of the International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education for 15 years. Jorge Braga Riera (PhD) belongs to the Department of English Philology and CES Felipe II at Complutense University in Madrid, Spain, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in English language and translation. His main research interests include translation studies, literary translation and contrastive linguistics/stylistics, and he has published some studies relating to this area, such as Classical Spanish Drama in Restoration English (1660–1700) (John Benjamins). He is currently a member of the INTRAL research group and of the advisory board of the Spanish journal, Oceánide. He is also part of the English Technical Advisory Committee of the journal IEEE-RITA.

Contr ibutors

xv

Anthony Bruton is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Seville, Spain, where he directs a research group that is dedicated to developing a better understanding of the learning of English in public secondary schools. Of particular significance is the relation between empirical research, theory and actual practice. He has published on various aspects of language teaching methodology in a wide range of international journals. His current interests are communicative language teaching methodology in general, but particularly vocabulary development through glossing and CLIL. Maurice Carder is the former head of the ESL and Mother Tongue Department at the Vienna International School in Vienna, Austria. Previously, he taught L2 students around the world at secondary and undergraduate level. He has focused on improving recognition of the bilingual abilities and needs of students in international schools. He holds degrees in Spanish and Applied Linguistics, and an EdD (International) from the Institute of Education, University of London. He has authored Bilingualism in International Schools, as well as many articles and chapters in books (see http://www.mauricecarder.net). Jasone Cenoz is Professor of Research Methods in Education at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU). Her research focuses on multilingual education, bilingualism and multilingualism. Her publications include Teaching through Basque (2008, as a special issue of Language, Culture and Curriculum), The Multiple Realities of Multilingualism (co-edited with Elka Todeva), Towards Multilingual Education (2009, Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics 2010 Award) and Focus on Multilingualism in School Contexts (2011, co-edited with Durk Gorter as a special issue of the Modern Language Journal). Anne-Marie de Mejía is an Associate Professor at the Centro de Investigación y Formación en Educación at the Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia, where she is the Director of the Doctoral Program in Education. She holds a PhD in Linguistics in the area of bilingual education from Lancaster University, UK, and is author of a number of books and articles in the area of bilingualism and bilingual education both in Spanish and English. Her latest publications include Forging Multilingual Spaces (2008) and Empowering Teachers across Cultures (2011), jointly edited with Christine Hélot. Her research interests include bilingual classroom interaction, the construction of bilingual curricula, processes of empowerment and bilingual teacher development. Elena Domínguez Romero lectures at Complutense University in Madrid, Spain, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in English teaching methodologies and research methods in linguistics. Her main research interests within applied linguistics include technological materials

xvi

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

design and evaluation, and second language teaching. She holds a PhD in English as well as a degree in Innovative Teaching in Higher Education. She has also taught Spanish as a foreign language at Harvard University and Arizona State University in the USA. She is a member of the editorial board of the Spanish journal of educational technologies RITA (http://rita.det. uvigo.es/). Jaime E. Espinoza Moore recently relocated to San Francisco, California. She holds a BA in Spanish from the Honors Tutorial College, Ohio University, and an MA degree in Spanish Linguistics from Ohio State University. She has presented on the topic of heritage Spanish speakers in the United States both at national and international conferences. She has had teaching experience through the FLES (Foreign Languages in Elementary Schools) program and through the elementary Spanish language program at Ohio State University. Xabier Etxague is an Associate Professor in the Department of Didactics and School Organization at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/ EHU). He teaches courses related to didactics in education and social education studies as well as in a European MA in multilingualism and education. His research focuses on teaching methodologies and integrated curriculum. He is Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Sciences at the University of the Basque Country, and he has also been Vice President at the same University. Ofelia García is Professor in the PhD programs of Urban Education and of Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Languages at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. She has been a Professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College and Dean of the School of Education at Long Island University. Her recent books include: Bilingual Education in the 21st Century; Bilingual Community Education and Multilingualism (with Zakharia & Otcu); Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, I & II (with J.A. Fishman); Educating Emergent Bilinguals (with Kleifgen); and Additive Schooling in Subtractive Times (with L. Bartlett). She is the Associate General Editor of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Miguel García López is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Seville, Spain, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in English as a foreign language. He also teaches English in a public secondary school, and he has been actively involved in its bilingual section since 2005. His main research interests include vocabulary teaching and learning, learning strategies, foreign-language teaching methodology and teacher training. He is a member of a research group dedicated to the study of the teaching and learning of English in public secondary schools.

Contr ibutors

xvii

Fred Genesee is Professor in the Psychology Department at McGill University, Montreal. He has conducted extensive research on alternative forms of bilingual/immersion education and his current research interests include language acquisition in preschool bilingual children, internationally adopted children, second-language reading acquisition, and the language and academic development of at-risk students in bilingual programs. He is the recipient of the Canadian Psychological Associate Award for Distinguished Contributions to Community or Public Service, the Two-Way California Association for Bilingual Education Award of Promoting Bilingualism and the Prix AdrienPinard 2013 from the Société Québecoise pour la Recherche en Psychologie. Bryn Jones is a Lecturer in the School of Education at Bangor University, Wales. His principal research interests include bilingualism in education. The focus of his current research work is on language allocation of Welsh and English in the context of teaching and learning in bilingual primary and secondary classes. Gwyn Lewis is Deputy Head of the School of Education, Bangor University, Wales, with specific responsibility as Director of Teaching and Learning. His research interests are Welsh-medium and bilingual education, and his latest publications focus on translanguaging as an emerging and developing methodology in bilingual classrooms. He has held a number of advisory positions with the Welsh government which reflect this expertise. He is joint editor of the series, Trafodion Addysg – Education Transactions, and is a member of the editorial board of Gwerddon, a web-based academic journal established to publish Welsh-medium research papers. Fernanda Liberali has a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo (PUC-SP), Brazil, where she has worked since 2000. She holds a fellowship from CNPq, a national funding agency. She was the Brazilian representative for the International Society for Cultural and Activity Research and now participates in the Global Perspectives on Learning and Development with Digital Video-Editing Media, a project funded by Marie Curie Actions. Her main concerns are related to school management, teaching and learning, citizenship education and multicultural education with an emphasis on argumentation. She has published articles, chapters and books in Portuguese, English and German. María D. Pérez Murillo is an Associate Professor at the School of Education, Complutense University in Madrid, Spain, where she is involved in undergraduate and graduate courses of training for prospective teachers. She holds an MA and a PhD from Lancaster University, UK. She has been a visiting scholar at the School of Education, University of Wales, Aberystwyth and the Institute of Educational Research and Service, at ICU (Tokyo). Her

xviii

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

research interests include bi/multilingual classroom interaction, bi/multilingual teacher development and CLIL. She has published on multilingual literacy (the uses of texts in the classroom) and the evaluation of a bilingual program. Carmen Pérez-Vidal is a lecturer in English and Language Acquisition at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, where she is Principal Investigator of the official research group ALLENCAM (Language Acquisition from Multilingual Catalonia) and President’s Delegate for the Promotion of Languages. She holds an MA in Applied Linguistics from the University of Reading (UK) and a PhD in English Philology from the Universitat de Barcelona. Her main research interests – and those of her group – are bilingual and multilingual development in young children and adolescents, as well as L2 acquisition in formal instruction (FI), study abroad (SA), immersion, and content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Nicole A. Tobin is the Coordinator of Study Abroad at Portland Community College, USA. Her professional experience spans study-abroad program leadership, teaching ESL/EFL at secondary/undergraduate levels, and teaching graduate-level TESOL courses. Her research interests include ‘culture’ teaching, intercultural competence and study abroad. She has a dual MA in Applied Linguistics and Comparative Literature, as well as degrees in English and French. She has worked or studied in France, Mexico, Spain and the USA, and has taught students from all over the world. The deep personal and professional learning that came with those experiences has profoundly and positively impacted her research and life.

Introduction and Overview Christian Abello-Contesse, Paul M. Chandler, María Dolores López-Jiménez and Rubén Chacón-Beltrán

Bilingual or Multilingual Education? Past, Present or Future? Bilingual and Multilingual Education in the 2st Century: Building on Experience is a collection of 14 chapters whose genesis relates to the academic work done by the members of an applied linguistics research group set up in 1995 (originally named The English Language in University Settings) based at the University of Seville in Spain. Half of the chapters included in the volume are revised versions of papers presented at the 11th University of Seville Conference on Applied Linguistics – organized by the same research group in 2010 on the overall theme of bilingualism and multilingualism in school settings – while the other half were commissioned for inclusion in this volume. As a result, 20 scholars from universities in Europe, Latin America and North America have contributed their expertise to a volume that is intended to be both comprehensive in scope and multidimensional in its coverage. The presence of bilingual and multilingual education in the title of the volume suggests that there may be a potential ambiguity in using both terms. Cenoz (2009: 4) defines multilingual education in particular as ‘the use of two or more languages in education provided that schools aim at multilingualism and multiliteracy’. The fact that the more conventional meanings associated with bilingual (two languages) and multilingual (more than two languages) do not necessarily reflect contemporary use in the field of bilingual education should not be surprising. Frequently, the term multilingual(ism) is synonymous with bilingual(ism) in closely related fields as well, particularly in sociolinguistics and bilingualism studies. In his definition of the term bilingualism, Field (2011: 22) asserts that ‘As with the terms bilingual and multilingual, it is often used interchangeably with multilingualism’. Similarly, Swann et al. (2004: 214) claim that ‘in much linguistic writing, multilingualism is a synonym for xix

xx Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

bilingualism, the use of two or more languages by an individual or by a speech community’. However, the same authors also specify that ‘more recently, sociolinguists believe that it is important to keep the two terms apart, reserving ‘bilingualism’ for the use of two languages and ‘multilingualism’ for the use of more than two languages’ (Swann et al., 2004: 214–215). Interestingly, while it is clear that ‘bilingual education’ is the generic term that has typically identified the field in the literature for over four decades, sometimes along with the term multicultural, it may be claimed that some ambiguity – in either direction – may have been present for a long time regarding the exact number of languages used. For instance, some degree of ambiguity was probably present in the 1970s and 1980s when titles referred rather systematically to ‘bilingual education’, yet instances of more than two languages being used for regular instruction were also given consideration. In Learning Through Two Languages. Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education, for example, Genesee (1987) also describes ‘double immersion’ (i.e. trilingual) programs in Montreal, Canada, intended ‘for English-speaking children in which two non-native languages (French and Hebrew) are used as major media of curricular instruction during the elementary grades’ (Genesee, 1987: 62). In addition, it must be emphasized that as less traditional educational contexts and school programs become more accessible in the current literature, clear-cut distinctions between bilingual and multilingual education – desirable as they may be – seem to become increasingly blurred, especially in bilingual societies. In bilingual schools located in bilingual communities, a third language (e.g. often English) may be used – experimentally or otherwise – to teach some subject-matter content. In such situations, English may be systematically used by the teacher although the students may be allowed to participate in any of the three languages they are familiar with. For example, Cenoz and Etxague (this volume) describe a content-based course taught in English at the University of the Basque Country in Spain where students take part in class by asking questions, making comments and giving opinions in English, Spanish or Basque. In other words, the students are free to choose any of the languages they know for speaking and writing as part of a pedagogical approach identified by the authors as a ‘focus on multilingualism’. This example of a less conventional approach – where a course that is consistently based on instructor input in English also incorporates a multilingual space for student output – appears to be representative of a general trend towards flexible language integration rather than strict language separation at present. Consequently, taking into consideration all of the perspectives stated above, and also in agreement with contemporary practice, the more inclusive option of ‘bilingual and multilingual education’ has been used in this book. The subtitle of the volume – Building on Experience – is intended to remind us that, contrary to what many practitioners seem to assume initially, bilingual education is not a ‘new’ or even a relatively ‘recent’ development within education. Bilingual education has actually come of age as a major

Introduc t ion and Over v iew

xxi

field of study within the megafield of applied linguistics. Furthermore, the subtitle is also intended to highlight that a bilingual education initiative that is taking place at an elementary school in Indianapolis, a secondary school in Buenos Aires or a university setting in Madrid in the 2010s is more than likely to be rooted in past initiatives and experiences related to program design, classroom methodology or teacher education that may have taken place, for example, in Montreal in the mid-1960s or in Culver City in the early 1970s. Such an inclusive view might be summarized as the need to look at bilingual and multilingual education at present to illuminate the future while still learning from the past. It may be claimed that four of the main characteristics of bilingual education in the 2010s are: (i) its noticeable expansion, both from the point of view of program design as well as from a research-based perspective; (ii) its widespread incorporation into language policy and planning initiatives in public education at the regional and national levels, both in the global South and the global North; (iii) a growing focus on different types of multilingual (i.e. specifically, trilingual) educational initiatives; and (iv) its increasing incorporation – still at an experimental stage at times – in various types of initiatives in pre-schools as well as in higher education, that is, at both preelementary and post-secondary levels. These developments have helped make bilingual education considerably broader in scope – implemented from pre-school to higher education – as well as truly international – present in all four hemispheres, thus transforming it into an increasingly solid field of research and application. Consequently, it seems more relevant than ever for both researchers and practitioners to develop an awareness of the possibilities and limitations of cross-contextual transferability, that is, the extent to which present bilingual education experiences and practices in various parts of the world, involving different national/ regional characteristics, sociolinguistic realities, sociocultural values, educational systems, professional qualifications and requirements, sociopolitical ideologies and the like, can be usefully promoted and/or applied in other settings that may or may not share the same basic characteristics. It is often the case in education that some attractive program that is promoted and implemented in one part of the world is adopted – rather than adapted – in another with little consideration given to the actual needs and possibilities of the local context. A few examples of transferability questions might include: (i) the extent to which the best-known bilingual education programs (e.g. Canadian immersion-type programs) are readily transferable to monolingual societies where the main aim is to raise their foreign-language learning standards in a reasonable period of time; (ii) the extent to which non-language teaching professionals in a given society are linguistically prepared to take up the fundamental challenge of teaching their respective subject matters – either partly or fully – through a non-native language (L2) (Duff, 1997; Met &

xxii

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

Lorenz, 1997) so that program implementation may become a reality rather than ‘empty rhetoric’; or (iii) the extent to which apparently similar CLIL initiatives that have recently been implemented in several EU countries are actually equivalent and comparable (particularly for research purposes), especially considering the wide range of flexibility that the CLIL approach permits regarding various matters of implementation.

Overview of the Volume The 14 chapters in this volume are organized into four related parts. Part 1 opens with an introduction to bilingual education as one of the fastest growing disciplines in applied linguistics at present. That is followed by discussions of relevant issues together with research findings and complementary educational practices carried out in Canada, Colombia and Spain, respectively. This part is entitled ‘Lessons from Accumulated Experience in Bilingual and Multilingual Education’, and includes the four chapters described below. Chapter 1, ‘Bilingual and Multilingual Education: An Overview of the Field’ by Christian Abello-Contesse, situates bilingual education as a dynamic field of study within the multidisciplinary domain of applied linguistics. Bilingual education is identified as the umbrella term that has been used for several decades in the literature to refer to the regular use of two – or more – languages for teaching and learning purposes in school programs where bilingualism and biliteracy are two of the explicit long-term goals. Bilingual education is defined as a generic concept that refers to various types of educational programs which provide systematic instruction in two or more languages. The author then identifies and briefly describes a classification of four educational contexts where bilingual education programs have been implemented in various countries around the world. Abello-Contesse also refers to ‘content-based instruction’ as the educational approach that has traditionally been used to identify specific curricular models, applications and school programs that emphasize an integration of particular academic content and a foreign/second or third language. Finally, he selects and critically describes six issues in order to provide a representative, yet necessarily limited, overview of specific areas that have become points of discussion within the field. Each of these issues involves challenges that are faced by all those involved in bilingual education in different ways and at different levels. In ‘Insights into Bilingual Education from Research on Immersion Programs in Canada’ (Chapter 2), Fred Genesee argues that since their inception in 1965, second-language immersion programs in Canada have been the subject of extensive research both in Montreal, where they originated, and across Canada. In addition to examining its general effectiveness with respect to the first and second language attainment as well as the academic

Introduc t ion and Over v iew

xxiii

achievement of immersion students, this research has examined a number of other relevant issues. Genesee provides a discussion of the rationale behind immersion programs in the Canadian context as they were initially conceptualized, along with brief descriptions of the main program models (early total, delayed and late) that have been used in Canadian schools. Research that has examined the effectiveness of alternative models is summarized and discussed. Then the author reviews research that has examined the following issues: (a) the effectiveness of content-based language instruction, (b) second language outcomes of students in early versus late models of immersion, (c) the importance of exposure for second language learning, and (d) the suitability of immersion for students who might be at risk for academic difficulty in school. The outcomes of this research have important implications for both program implementation and policy. Anne-Marie de Mejía’s ‘Bilingual Education in Colombia. The Teaching and Learning of Languages and Academic Content Area Knowledge’ (Chapter 3) claims that bilingual education programs, with their dual emphasis on the development of both language proficiency and content knowledge taught through a foreign language, have had a long and successful trajectory in Colombia, as in other Latin American countries. In light of the current interest in CLIL in Europe, the author discusses key aspects related to some of these programs, based on the results of recent research studies carried out in private bilingual schools and schools with ‘intensified’ foreign-language programs, aimed at providing students with high levels of bilingual proficiency, through a content-based approach to language learning. The first part of the chapter describes how a monolingual bias in favor of the foreign language leads to tensions between ‘the foreign’ and ‘the Colombian’ with respect to curricular development, intercultural processes, and the hiring of teaching staff. These issues are examined, as well as the ways in which different schools have attempted to come to terms with these tensions. In the second part, aspects of content-based teaching and learning at the elementaryschool level are discussed, with reference to the results of research carried out in Catalonia, Spain. Finally, the conclusions indicate the need to move beyond developments in private bilingual schools to their influence on incipient initiatives in the public/state schools in Colombia. Chapter 4, ‘Perspectives and Lessons from the Challenge of CLIL Experiences’ by Carmen Pérez-Vidal, provides an overview of content and language integrated learning as an educational approach in vogue in many European countries which is featured prominently within the European strategy towards multilingualism. The author first explores the reasons for the success of CLIL in Europe in recent years and then reviews current research conducted on the effects of CLIL teaching and learning on language progress. The overview takes a special interest in Spanish research on the impact of CLIL programs on learners’ language development. Pérez-Vidal examines its results in the light of the existing research on the respective

xxiv Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

effects of Canadian immersion programs on learners’ progress. Finally, the author argues that CLIL alone is not the ultimate solution to foreign language learning in Europe. If the goal is to educate learners as multilingual citizens capable of developing themselves as students and professionals in an increasingly mobile world, CLIL alone is not enough. Instead, other contexts of learning in addition to formal instruction, such as study abroad, might be the necessary complement to CLIL. This notion is presented in light of the results of research on study abroad and, in particular, the work undertaken within the Barcelona Study Abroad and Language Acquisition (SALA) project. SALA’s main goal is to analyze the effects of these two different learning contexts – study abroad and CLIL – and contrast them with those of conventional formal instruction, respectively. The second part of the volume is centered on controversial aspects regarding language output in bilingual education from the perspectives of both quantity and quality. The main aspects discussed here focus on whether – and to what extent – more than one language are (and should be) used in the same class period or lesson, and whether – and to what extent – the subjectmatter teachers’ proficiency levels in the target language can make a qualitative difference in the classroom. This part is entitled ‘Issues in Language Use in Classrooms at the Elementary, Secondary, and Tertiary Levels’, and contains the following four chapters. In Chapter 5, ‘From Bilingualism to Multilingualism: Basque, Spanish, and English in Higher Education’, Jasone Cenoz and Xabier Etxague discuss the spread of English at the university level and highlight the fact that English is often in contact with other languages. At the same time, the authors focus on the use of a minority language as a language of instruction at this level. In some universities, such as the University of the Basque Country (with three major campuses located in Bilbao, Donostia-San Sebastian and VitoriaGasteiz), Basque is increasingly used as the medium of instruction at the undergraduate level. Teaching through Basque at the university faces more serious challenges than at elementary or secondary levels. The number of university courses offered and their level of specialization create difficulties regarding the availability of teaching staff and teaching materials, although nowadays almost half of the total number of first-year undergraduates at the University of the Basque Country study through the medium of Basque. The use of English as a language of instruction creates additional challenges in this context, where it is a third language, and one that is not normally used in everyday communication. The authors argue that an approach that takes multilingualism and multimodality as its basis can be appropriate not only for teaching through English in the Basque Country, but also for teaching through second and third languages in other contexts. In ‘100 Bilingual Lessons: Distributing Two Languages in Classrooms’ (Chapter 6), Gwyn Lewis, Bryn Jones and Colin Baker assert that bilingual schools tend to keep boundaries between languages. Different lessons use

Introduc t ion and Over v iew

xxv

different languages, for example. At other times, as in ‘dual language schools’ in the USA, whole days or half days are devoted to each language. Other bilingual schools, however, also use two languages yet within the same lesson. This can occur by the teacher working with different groups of learners in different languages, translating from one language to another and occasionally using both languages in a purposeful manner. The research reported on in this chapter studied 100 lessons in elementary and secondary schools throughout Wales, where both languages were predicted by their schools to be used in the same lesson. It analyzes the use of two languages in classrooms, with teachers often directing and managing, but students also initiating and having influence. The use of translation and translanguaging is studied across 100 lessons using quantitative and qualitative approaches. The authors explore issues of language separation as different from a concurrent use of two languages in lessons, and these are found to be connected to the students’ language background, the overall language profile of the children in each classroom, age differences and the subject content of the lesson. Chapter 7, ‘Native Language Influence in Teaching Subject-matter Content Through English in Spanish Tertiary Education’ by Elena Domínguez Romero and Jorge Braga Riera concentrates on Spanish universities and their recent incorporation of English as an additional medium of instruction as a result of current trends in tertiary education, particularly regarding the process of institutional internalization at this level. The authors argue that little research has been conducted concerning the lecturers’ native language (L1) influence on their spoken production of the L2 in this educational setting. Many Spanish professors have been recently requested or required to adapt their syllabus contents to English. This has often resulted in lectures that show high levels of L1-based cross-linguistic influence as revealed by the recurrence of what is sometimes known as ‘through translations’ as well as other non-target-like features. The authors claim that this is due to the instructors’ inadequate proficiency in L2 English as well as their lack of expertise in lecturing through a non-native style of communication. The goal of the chapter is to explore the extent to which such L1-based influence is observable in the classroom. This is illustrated through a corpus of English-medium lectures. The results provide evidence of the presence of non-target-like features at different levels. To support this claim, a second corpus of lectures delivered by the professors in their regular classes taught in Spanish was also used for comparative purposes. The authors suggest that the long-term aims of this research are not only to raise lecturers’ awareness of their dependency on their L1 in CLIL contexts, but also to eventually provide them with tools which might enhance their productive use of the L2. Ofelia García’s ‘From Diglossia to Transglossia: Bilingual and Multilingual Classrooms in the 21st Century’ (Chapter 8) explores the tensions between the position which claims that the languages of bilingual groups must be kept separate and be functionally allocated if they are to be

xxvi

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

maintained, and the opposite position which suggests that language practices of bilingual groups are typically fluid and interrelated. These tensions are explored in a societal space that makes the tension evident, namely, the bilingual or multilingual classroom. The author describes how the separate position, related to the concept of diglossia, has impacted the development of models of bilingual education, as well as pedagogical approaches to bilingualism, throughout the world. By focusing on elementary and secondary classrooms located in New York, however, the chapter portrays how bilingual and multilingual classrooms are violating the separate functional distribution of languages and providing transglossic spaces where fluid language practices are enacted. These complex discursive practices are then turned into effective translanguaging pedagogy for the 21st century. Part 3 of the volume offers an expanded view of the human resources who make a more direct and explicit contribution to the overall bilingual experience by looking into different educational situations that involve students, student-teachers, teaching assistants, regular language (L2) as well as content teachers, and teacher-educators/researchers in bilingual education practices in Spain and Brazil. This part is entitled ‘Participant Perspectives on Bilingual Education Experiences: Students, Language Assistants, Student-teachers and Teacher-educators’ and includes the four chapters outlined below. In Chapter 9, ‘The Students’ Views on their Experience in a Spanish– English Bilingual Education Program in Spain,’ María Dolores Pérez Murillo deals with the students’ views on their Spanish and English bilingual education in Spanish public schools. As part of a three-year evaluation project, an attitudinal questionnaire was administered to a total of 382 students (217 sixth graders and 165 eighth graders) attending bilingual schools in four Spanish regions. Although the learners attended different schools, they were all involved in the same educational project, the Bilingual Education Project (BEP). The BEP is the result of a pioneering agreement signed in 1996 between the Spanish Ministry of Education and the British Council, intended to implement an integrated curriculum in a number of public schools across 10 regions in Spain. The questionnaire consisted of a number of closed questions, with an open-ended question at the end to give students the chance to express their views. It was administered in four elementary schools and four high schools. The aim of the survey was twofold: (i) to gain insights into the students’ attitudes towards their bilingual education, and (ii) to investigate possible differences in their opinions across gender or age. The author states that, overall, the students, regardless of their gender, are developing positive attitudes towards their bilingual education. Interestingly, their few negative comments were often followed by positive remarks. However, some students felt becoming bilingual requires more effort within an essentially monolingual community. In ‘The Use of Native Assistants as Language-and-cultural Resources in Andalusia’s Bilingual Schools’ (Chapter 10), Nicole Tobin and Christian Abello-Contesse highlight the introduction of bilingual education/CLIL

Introduc t ion and Over v iew

xxvii

programs in Spanish public schools at the elementary and secondary levels. Since its origin in 2005, Andalusia’s Plan de fomento del plurilingüismo or PFP (multilingualism promotion program) has made it possible for thousands of native assistants to co-teach at public schools that were designated as bilingual by the Andalusian Department of Education. One of the distinctive features of the PFP is its emphasis on language in partnership with culture. This dual focus facilitates the gradual development of intercultural communicative competence so that reasonably successful communication between cultures may be achieved. As a key part of this initiative, native assistants are intended to serve as ‘cultural ambassadors’ while assisting regular teachers mainly in content-based classes; their role is expected to make a significant contribution to the goal of developing the students’ intercultural competence. The authors report on a multiple case study based on Englishlanguage assistants’ implementation in Andalusia’s schools, with a focus on discovering how ‘teaching culture’ factored into their duties. Interview data suggest that their usage varies greatly and that, in many cases, they are not being employed consistently in accordance with PFP program goals, and are not being used to their fullest potential so as to foster either language or cultural gains among the students at these schools. Chapter 11, ‘Student-teachers and Teacher-educators Experience New Roles in Pre-service Bilingual Teacher Education in Brazil’ by Fernanda Liberali, argues that there is no effective work in the area of bilingual teacher education in Brazil regarding indigenous, sign or prestigious languages. University and extramural courses in this area are still rare, although the number of schools that have become bilingual has increased tremendously in recent years. The author discusses the outcomes and drawbacks of a research project that works with pre-service bilingual teachers (Portuguese/English and Portuguese/ French). The project is conducted within a sociohistorical-cultural perspective and aims to organize teacher education as a network of revolutionary activities in which transformation is defined by a process where new realities are produced for all participants. The movement of participants within a network of activities creates the possibility of novice members moving from a peripheral to a more central participation. The Multicultural Education Project, the focus of this chapter, is organized as a network of activities involving the planning, implementation and evaluation of teaching/learning activities organized by researchers in a bilingual education-like context. The project is developed through a partnership between a private university and a non-profit organization that works with children and teenagers from deprived areas in Sao Paulo. The author presents the theoretical background for the project, the description of the activities conducted, an evaluation of the movement of participants from peripheral to central participation and vice versa, and the discussion of its significance in the development of bilingual education teacher programs in Brazil. In ‘Potential Drawbacks and Actual Benefits of CLIL Initiatives in Public Secondary Schools’ (Chapter 12), Miguel García López and Anthony Bruton

xxviii

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

address aspects of the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach from two complementary perspectives; the first part reviews some of the potential drawbacks of CLIL in public secondary schools from a detached academic and research-oriented perspective. In the second part, this is contrasted with an experiential perspective of the benefits that a CLIL program may bring to a particular school in practice. The drawbacks discussed include: assumptions about giving L2 learning a purpose through academic content learning, together with questions about the motivational aspects of CLIL; the premise of 2-for-1, the teachers’ proficiency in the L2 and the content in the L2; the type of language covered, including the level and the authenticity of the L2; and the additional costs of co-ordination and support teaching. However, the authors acknowledge that this is rather hypothetical in terms of justifying or questioning CLIL, and they look at what happens internally when a CLIL initiative is adopted in a school. According to the authors, there may actually be little soul-searching as to whether the practices adopted are really CLIL-based, or purer or less pure CLIL. The major concern is that the initiative works, especially if it has been adopted voluntarily. In that sense, the significant outcomes of the initiative are more likely to deal with the positive effects it can have regarding aspects such as teacher collaboration, effective coordination among different subjects, more appropriate materials, greater sense of purpose, improvement in teaching practice through cross-fertilization and improvement in content teachers’ L2 proficiency levels. The fourth part acknowledges the contribution of an educational research tradition that has long explored the academic and linguistic needs of non-monolingual students in monolingual educational institutions in various parts of the world. The complementary insights gained from this line of research have had considerable significance for bilingual education practices in recent decades. This part is entitled ‘The Language Needs of Bilingual and Multilingual Students in Monolingual Schools’, and contains the final two chapters. International schools constitute a network around the world to serve the educational needs of the children of the international community. In Chapter 13, ‘International School Students: Developing their Bilingual Potential’, Maurice Carder maintains that English is the language of instruction in some 90% of these schools, but only some 25% offer the opportunity for students to maintain or develop their mother tongue(s). These schools largely follow the educational systems of their country of affiliation, principally the USA or the UK, where legislation on language matters has often followed political pressures rather than pedagogical preferences. The author argues that students at these schools are in an ‘international space’ with no national system to assimilate to, and that the goal of such schools should be one of linguistic and cultural pluralism, where all students have the opportunity to maintain and develop fluency and literacy in their native language(s); Carder further argues that these schools should also develop a flexible institutional

Introduc t ion and Over v iew

xxix

pluralism which reflects the interaction among staff and administrators most likely to promote success for bilingual students. The model for mother tongue instruction developed at the Vienna International School is described, with examples of recorded comments from students, parents and administrators. These comments illuminate perceptions of the program and also point to steps for improvement. Student results in the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme are presented as a sign that the mother tongue program is valid and could be instituted at other schools. In ‘Heritage Spanish Speakers in School Settings: Are their Needs Being Met?’ (Chapter 14), Jaime Espinoza Moore and Emilia Alonso Marks concentrate on the continuum that represents the term heritage Spanish speaker (HSS) in the context of the Worthington Public School District in Ohio, USA. Although most studies on HSS take place in US states with larger Hispanic populations, Latinos in Ohio represent only 1.9 percent of the Hispanic population in the United States. Despite their low population representation, the investigation of Worthington secondary schools provides valuable information about the academic situation of HSS attending Spanish classes meant for monolingual English speakers. These mixed-ability classrooms raise distinct challenges and solutions for monolingual Englishspeaking students and bilingual HSS, respectively. All seven high schools offering Spanish classes in the Worthington school district participated in a study that focused on the teachers’ perspectives. The teachers’ surveys requested their opinions about the influence of HSS in their classes, and if or how they tended to their unique needs. The teachers were generally aware of the presence of HSS in their classrooms and tried to meet their needs by supplementing materials and/or arranging one-on-one meetings with them. Although most of the teachers felt that there should be a class designed for HSS students, some of them felt unprepared to meet their students’ needs. The authors argue that institutional support in the form of training, counseling and awareness is crucial to meet the academic challenges facing the HSS population.

References Cenoz, J. (2009) Towards Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Duff, P.A. (1997) Immersion in Hungary. An EFL experiment. In R.K. Johnson and M. Swain (eds) Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 19–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Field, F.W. (2011) Key Concepts in Bilingualism. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Genesee, F. (1987) Learning Through Two Languages. Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge: Newbury House. Met, M. and Lorenz, E.B. (1997) Lessons from U.S. immersion programs: Two decades of experience. In R.K. Johnson and M. Swain (eds) Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 243–264). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swann, J., Deumert, A., Lillis, T. and Mesthrie, R. (2004) A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Part 1 Lessons from Accumulated Experience in Bilingual and Multilingual Education

1

Bilingual and Multilingual Education: An Overview of the Field Christian Abello-Contesse

What is – and What is Not – Bilingual Education? The implementation of various bilingual education (hereafter BE) initiatives both in the public and private sectors has been increasing rapidly in the last decade all around the world. As a specific field of study and research within the multidisciplinary domain known as applied linguistics, BE is also on the rise. The exponential growth that BE is currently experiencing might be misleading, however, in that it tends to give the professionals concerned with language planning and curricular innovation the impression that it is a new educational development, in short, a 21st-century phenomenon. Soon after a BE initiative has been launched somewhere in the world, a challenge that may be turning into an issue, say, at an elementary school in Seville or at a secondary school in Bogotá at the present time, is more than likely to be well-rooted in past experiences that may have taken place in Culver City or Silver Spring in the 1970s, in the pioneering initiatives implemented in Miami (Coral Way Elementary School) or in Montreal (Margaret Pendlebury Elementary School) in the 1960s, or quite possibly somewhere else much earlier as undocumented educational innovation. In fact, Genesee (1987: 1) claims that ‘there is also evidence of true BE, that is, schools in which instruction takes place in at least two languages, during ancient times’. In education in general, and in BE in particular, it makes complete sense for recent initiatives to be anchored in prior knowledge and experience (Abello Contesse, 2004). BE is the umbrella term that has been used for decades in the literature as evidenced by the numerous book-length publications appearing since the early 1970s in the North American context alone (among others, Alatis, 1978; Cohen, 1975; Fishman, 1976; Lambert & Tucker, 1972; Mackey, 1972; 3

4

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Saville & Troike, 1971; Spolsky & Cooper, 1977; Troike & Modiano, 1975; Trueba & Barnett-Mizrahi, 1979) to refer to the regular use of two or more languages for teaching and learning in instructional settings when bilingualism and biliteracy are two of the explicit long-term goals. Specifically, BE may be defined as a generic concept that refers to various types of educational programs which provide systematic instruction in two (or more) languages for a prolonged period of time. The fundamental principles involved in BE may be summarized as follows (Abello Contesse & Ehlers, 2010): (i) the use of two languages (i.e. the students’ L1 and an L2) as media of instruction in designated content areas or school subjects that are usually part of the standard curriculum at the grade levels involved; (ii) the progressive development of these languages within a school setting – thus promoting the notion of additive bilingualism; (iii) the implementation of some form of the educational approach known as content-based instruction (see the section ‘Content-based Instruction: Essential Principles and Claims’, below); and (iv) the students’ overall academic achievement as well as their cognitive development are given consideration, regardless of the language used in the classroom. Beyond these basic principles, considerable variation can be found in practice depending on the specific educational contexts where BE is implemented (see the section on ‘Educational Contexts where BE Programs are Implemented’). Terms other than BE have also been used in the literature with reference to specific types of BE programs, such as ‘immersion education’ mainly in the Canadian context, ‘dual language/two-way programs’ in the US context or, more recently, ‘content and language (L2) integrated learning’ (CLIL) in the European context. Furthermore, it should be noted that the use of alternative terms may also be associated with different implications and/or connotations. For example, the recent label ‘education for bilingualism’ (Ordóñez, 2010) implies that, although functional bilingualism is the long-term educational goal, this is not necessarily achieved through the conventional implementation of content-based instruction (CBI) in practice. Also, the expression docencia bilingüe (bilingual teaching) is often used in Spain at the tertiary level to refer to elective or required courses taught by some academic departments which include an additional section conducted in English that is open to national and international students as a result of the internalization process that has been taking place at universities and institutions of higher education in Spain and elsewhere. However, regarding rather crucial aspects, such as clear departmental policy, stated continuity/progression of courses offered, effective integration of subject-matter content and foreign language content and permanent availability of qualified bilingual lecturers, such courses do not normally belong to a structured program that might be defined as BE. Similarly, the broader – and, thus, occasionally ambiguous – expressions ‘bilingual/multilingual students’, ‘bilingual/multilingual classrooms’ or ‘bilingualism in schools’ might be preferred when reference is made to educational

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

5

environments where bilingual individuals are consistently present (mainly students, but also teachers and administrators), yet bilingual schooling is not consistently available through the standard curriculum. This may take place, for example, in communities where social bilingualism or multilingualism is widespread, but only one language is officially used in the school system at the national, regional or local level, as is the case in Belgium and Gibraltar. There is consensus among specialists that BE does not include the overwhelming or exclusive use of a foreign or second language across the school curriculum for majority language students, as in the case of emergent Spanish–English bilingual students attending private, all-English-medium, international schools in high-income areas in major cities in Spain. In this situation – sometimes called ‘wild immersion’ or ‘super immersion’ – the students’ native language is limited to a single school subject or is virtually ignored in the regular curriculum. In addition, the educational context of minority language students attending public schools – often located in lowincome areas – where the community’s majority language is the only medium of instruction (e.g. emergent Arabic/Dariya–Spanish bilinguals in Spain) cannot be regarded as BE either. This situation – often known as ‘submersion’ – ultimately leads to monolingualism in the additional language in second-language contexts (i.e. subtractive bilingualism). It is useful, then, to draw a distinction between educational environments where two or more languages co-exist in the students’ minds in spite of the monolingual school system they are in, and educational environments where two or more languages co-exist in the students’ minds thanks to the bilingual/multilingual school system they are in. Keeping in mind this distinction (e.g. in discussions that involve making research-based comparisons), it is also relevant to acknowledge the contribution of educational research traditions that, strictly speaking, do not involve BE proper. A case in point with social and cultural significance for BE is that of researchers and practitioners, often in the fields of foreign/second language teaching and mother tongue teaching, who have long been interested in the academic, linguistic and cultural needs of bilingual and/or multilingual students in essentially monolingual schools, often in an effort to raise teachers’ and administrators’ awareness about inequalities in education concerning students’ first language and cultural backgrounds (see Carder and Espinoza Moore & Alonso Marks, this volume).

Educational Contexts where BE Programs are Implemented Over 20 years ago, BE was appropriately described as ‘a seemingly simple label for a complex phenomenon’ (Cazden & Snow, 1990: 9). In fact, BE has been developed in very different educational contexts over the last four decades.

6

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Broadly speaking, the four contexts where BE programs have been implemented are briefly described below on the basis of their stated purposes.

Contexts where BE is implemented to maintain a minority language This context involves initiatives to preserve a local, regional or national language, often through language revitalization or revival programs; the minority language may be an indigenous/aboriginal (autochthonous) language, a heritage language or a well-established immigrant language spoken in (part of) a nation. Some examples of this context would include BE programs in Spanish and Galician, Spanish and Basque, and Spanish and Catalan in Spain; Spanish and Guarani in Paraguay, Spanish and Quechua in Peru, Spanish and German in south-central Chile; English and Irish in the Republic of Ireland, English and Welsh in Wales (UK), English and Maori in New Zealand, English and Ukrainian in Canada, and English and Hawaiian in the state of Hawaii (USA). An international trend within this context – known collectively as ‘intercultural bilingual education’ – involves relatively recent initiatives in indigenous (American Indian) languages along with Spanish (or Portuguese) in several countries in Latin America.

Contexts where BE is implemented to learn how to use a majority language This context often takes the form of (i) transitional BE programs for minority language students, such as relatively recent and long-established immigrant populations in a society. Most of these are initial, early-exit programs (often two school years) that are not designed to develop the students’ native language (L1), but rather simply intended to prepare them during the initial elementary grades to be able to continue the rest of their education in the majority or official language spoken in the community (i.e. in the students’ L2). In some countries there might also be some (ii) late-exit transitional or maintenance programs for minority language students which may last for six grades. Examples of this context include BE programs in English and Spanish or English and Korean in the USA. As pointed out above, this educational context often leads to monolingualism in the L2 in the long run (e.g. towards the end of high school education).

Contexts where BE is implemented to learn to read and write in a majority language This context, sometimes known as ‘sign bilingual education’, is used in an increasing number of countries around the world in the education of deaf children and adolescents. Following official policy and practice implemented

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

7

originally in Sweden in the early 1980s, sign bilingual education uses both the sign language (minority language) of the deaf community as the L1 and the majority language of the hearing community – in its written form – as the second language (L2). For example, bilingual/bicultural deaf education programs may involve lengua de señas española (LSE) and Spanish in Spain, lingua brasileira de sinais (LIBRAS) and Portuguese in Brazil, Langue des signes française (LSF) and French in France, British Sign Language (BSL) or American Sign Language (ASL) and English in the UK and the USA, respectively.

Contexts where BE is implemented to learn an international or prestigious non-native language In this context, the participating students are native speakers of the majority or dominant language group and live in monolingual or bilingual communities; the foreign language (L2) is most often English – although French, German and Spanish may also be used. This educational context is still associated with private bilingual schools; however, recent initiatives promoting BE in the public sector have become increasingly popular in various parts of the world (Abello Contesse, 1999). Although specific curricular approaches tend to be adopted by different programs and schools, such as total/partial immersion or CLIL-type programs, the essential characteristics of the CBI approach are typically implemented in practice. Due to the fact that English has become the global lingua franca, in many of these schools the only L2 option available may be English.

Categorizations of BE Various categorizations and typologies of bilingual/multilingual education have been proposed by different specialists. For example, Skutnabb-Kangas and McCarty (2008) suggested the following three broad categories: nonforms, weak forms and strong forms. Non-forms of BE do not involve teaching through two different languages and lead to monolingualism (e.g. submersion/ sink-or-swim programs). Weak forms of BE promote strong dominance in the community’s majority language (e.g. transitional, early-exit programs). Strong forms of BE involve regular instruction through the media of two (or more) different languages and lead to additive, functional bilingualism or multilingualism (e.g. immersion programs, dual-language programs, etc.).

Content-based Instruction: Essential Principles and Claims Initial interest in content-based instruction (hereafter CBI; also known as ‘content-based second language teaching’) came about in the mid-1980s

8

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

in the USA. Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) assert that CBI follows the strong version of communicative language teaching (CLT) in which the L2 is expected to be acquired through verbal communication. An interesting antecedent of what was to become CBI was provided by Widdowson (1978), a pioneering proponent of CLT, who suggested implementing a subjectoriented approach where a selection of topics taken from the other subjects in the school curriculum, such as history, geography, art or science would be the most suitable areas of communicative use – as opposed to usage – for language teachers to focus on in the context of foreign language classes at the high school level. Thus, Widdowson proposed what was to be later identified as ‘theme-based’ CBI. CBI is often used as an umbrella term to identify several specific curricular models, applications or school programs that emphasize an integration of particular content and a foreign/second or third language (among others, Brinton et al., 1989; Crandall & Kaufman, 2002; Mohan, 1986; Stryker & Leaver, 1997). Specific types of CBI would include immersion education (Genesee, this volume), sheltered instruction, adjunct language instruction, theme-based instruction, CLIL (Pérez-Vidal, this volume), etc. The list below includes the principles that all these types of CBI tend to share as well as the most common claims made in the specialized literature. (1) Dual focus. CBI is based on a two-way focus intended to integrate language and content, where the former represents a non-native language and the latter usually refers to academic subject matter, such as geography, art, mathematics, history, science, Psychology 100, etc. However, the ‘content’ taught in CBI does not have to deal with academic subjects only. Themes or topics of general interest to students (e.g. different types of music, sports, current events, social and cultural aspects of the target-language countries) that reflect their age level, cognitive maturity and current proficiency level in the L2 are also valid options. Inside the classroom, the emphasis may be placed either on aspects related to the content being taught or on features related to the L2 being used, depending on the specific model or program being implemented. The shifting emphasis on content and language has often been described in terms of a continuum with content-driven programs at one end of the continuum and language-driven programs at the other end. (2) Students’ needs and curricular content. In CBI, students are said to deal with language that is meaningful to them and content that is cognitively demanding (as opposed to anecdotal stories and trivial topics treated rather superficially as found in many foreign language textbooks). The basic assumption is that learning new academic knowledge in the L2, for example, by taking required or optional non-language subjects taught through it, provides students with content that is relevant and

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

9

purposeful as it meets their present academic needs in a school setting (and possibly their professional needs in the future). The L2 content. The selection and sequence of language components and items (e.g. lexical, syntactic, discourse, etc.) and language skills (e.g. reading, listening, etc.) are not the starting point or the organizing principle in CBI. In other words, the language objectives to be achieved do not come from a predetermined language-based syllabus, but emerge from the materials used in class in terms of oral and written texts and tasks. The language used in such texts and tasks is expected to be authentic and comprehensible. The higher the educational level involved, the more the register used is predominantly academic and discipline specific. Emphasis on using the L2 to learn it. The students are expected to use the L2 in order to learn it; thus, the L2 becomes the regular medium or vehicle through which new academic information is introduced, discussed and tested, while increasing L2 proficiency as well. Main advantages. The typical claim made in favor of the approach is that students get ‘two for one’; that is, they gain new content knowledge while improving their levels of proficiency in the L2 at the same time. Wide range of application. CBI is currently directed at students of different ages, various source and target languages and school types, as well as L2 proficiency levels. Specifically, it is implemented at all levels of education from preschools to universities in bilingual as well as multilingual academic programs (see Cenoz & Etxague, this volume).

A Critical Look at Some Issues and Challenges in BE As a well-established discipline, BE tends to be associated with a number of issues and challenges – both old and recent – from different perspectives, such as empirical research, program design and classroom applications. It is beyond the scope of this section to delve into most contemporary issues surrounding BE. Rather, the main purpose here is to identify and briefly describe some selected areas of debate within the field, while touching on the influence of closely related fields – mainly second language acquisition (SLA) research and foreign language teaching methodology – on BE. A critical look at issues in BE may include – but would not be limited to – the following six: (i) the present status of CBI as the basic curricular premise of BE; (ii) the extent to which content and language (L2) are actually integrated in the classroom; (iii) the extent to which BE develops both bilingualism and biliteracy among students; (iv) the question of language distribution in the classroom; (v) the question of content teachers’ proficiency levels in the L2; and (vi) the presence and relevance of sociocultural and/or intercultural aspects in BE.

10

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Should CBI continue to be the basic premise of – or fundamental approach to – BE? A rather broad issue in BE is whether or not the teaching and learning of specific academic content is the most appropriate way to achieve bilingualism and biliteracy in school settings. Specifically, in essentially monolingual societies where the target language is learned as a foreign language, the application of a strong content-based model of CBI, such as total immersion education or sheltered instruction, originally designed to meet the needs of students in second-language settings, might not be the most realistic option to attain functional bilingualism. The broader concept of ‘education for bilingualism’ (de Mejía, this volume; Ordóñez, 2010), as opposed to BE proper, has been introduced to refer to a wide range of educational programs – including conventional content-driven BE – directed toward achieving bilingualism and biliteracy, including a specific initiative where the language and communicative objectives are promoted through the foreign language class only (e.g. in intensive EFL as taught in some schools in Colombia). De Mejía states that students at these schools where an ‘intensified foreign language program’ is implemented receive English (EFL) instruction as a subject for 10–15 hours per week – mainly within a communicative/CLT approach – either as a transitional stage before a full BE program is implemented or as a standard approach. Although some might argue that an intensified foreign language program is not BE per se, it is also the case that this option can easily develop into a ‘theme-based model’, that is, a form of language-driven CBI. As indicated above, Widdowson (1978) recommended what was later labeled ‘themebased’ within CBI, namely, a subject-oriented approach where a selection of topics taken from the other subjects in the curriculum would be the most appropriate areas of communicative use for EFL/L2 teachers to focus on in foreign language teaching. The main point here is that in various BE initiatives across the world, students rarely start their experience around age four at the pre-school level in an early total immersion program. Rather, many students start a BE program at the age of 6, 9 or 12 in a partial-immersion or a semi-partial-immersion (e.g. CLIL-type) program. Consequently, when students reach upper grade levels, they may not have attained the overall language proficiency required to follow a significant portion of the regular non-language curriculum through the L2. In situations like this, an intensified L2 program may well be a sensible solution to the common difficulties reported by BE teachers who have already started teaching relatively abstract and complex concepts in their (elementary school) classes to students who spend only a part of the school day, say one-third, in their L2, and may not be able to understand comparatively advanced material in that language. Met and Lorenz (1997: 258) claim that ‘by the time they reach grade 5, partial immersion students

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

11

are often challenged and frequently frustrated because their cognitive development is at a higher level than their language proficiency’. Cummins (1991 inter alia) made a distinction between social/conversational and academic dimensions of L2 proficiency, often known as BICS and CALP, respectively. Once the early elementary grades are completed, classroom activities gradually become less experiential and more analytic and, thus, more cognitively demanding; the language used becomes more contextreduced and more specialized. As stated above, the higher the grade level involved in conventional BE programs, the more the register used in the content classroom is predominantly discipline specific. These academic aspects of language proficiency usually take considerably longer for learners to understand and produce than conversational aspects. Nevertheless, in conventional BE it is this academic dimension of L2 proficiency that becomes dominant while the social/conversational dimension becomes increasingly limited in practice. Although this may seem contradictory, it reflects the fact that BE is an institutional, school-based environment regarding L2 learning and use, an environment that does not reflect many of the characteristics of sociocultural immersion in a society where the target language is spoken naturally. A relevant example can be found in the upper elementary grades where the L2 often becomes the superordinate (formal) style in the classroom, the language used by students for institutional, academic and public purposes rather than for social, non-academic or interpersonal discourse (Tarone & Swain, 1995). BE students have also been observed to show a rather noticeable lexical gap between their everyday vocabulary – let alone age-appropriate vernacular expressions – and their academic vocabulary, which often includes considerable technical terminology, such as ‘metabolism, combustion, groundwater enrichment, or defenestration of Prague’ (Butzkamm, 1998: 81). This academic vocabulary gradually becomes larger – and of more immediate relevance to them – than their non-academic, everyday vocabulary as needed for informal interaction. Although this lack of a desirable balance in lexical proficiency points to an area that might be considered an inherent limitation in content-driven BE programs, the same situation would be unlikely to occur in an intensified L2 program. In addition, it should be noted that a key factor in developing bilingual proficiency is intensity in terms of both comprehended input and interactive output in the L2, where the input and output requirements do not have to be met through formal, academic-based language. The major drawback to an intensified foreign language program would be for schools to secure the additional class time required for the expanded foreign language class. At a minimum, an intensified L2 program seems to be a very appropriate option as a preparatory stage – or transitional period – between the time a BE initiative is officially announced publicly and its actual implementation through some content-driven program (at least judging by recent CLIL experiences in Spain and Europe). It would also be very relevant to observe

12

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

future research developments at these schools where an intensified L2 program has been implemented, particularly as regards the students’ overall levels of proficiency in their L2 and L1 by the time they graduate from high school.

The recommended integration of content and language in the classroom: A regular practice or a rare occurrence? The conventional relationship between content (non-language subject matter) and language (the non-native language) that is part of BE programs has been reinforced in the recent variant of BE known as ‘content and language integrated learning’ (CLIL) within the European context, an initiative that may be described as semi-partial immersion as regards its level of intensity in the L2. Coyle et al. (2010: 4) assert that ‘CLIL is an approach which is neither language learning nor subject learning, but an amalgam of both, and is linked to the processes of convergence [. . .] the fusion of elements which may have been previously fragmented, such as subjects in the curriculum. This is where CLIL breaks new ground.’ Mehisto et al. (2008: 11) claim that ‘The essence of CLIL is integration. This integration has a dual focus: (1) Language learning is included in content classes [. . .]; (2) Content from subjects is used in language-learning classes. [. . .].’ Coyle (2007: 545) states that while CLIL shares some elements with similar approaches such as BE, CBI, immersion, etc., ‘in essence its distinctiveness lies in an integrated approach, where both language and content are conceptualised on a continuum without an implied preference for either. CLIL has its roots in European contexts where sociolinguistic and political settings are rich and diverse.’ Nevertheless, it is relevant to note that the key concept of integration – or more specifically, its absence – was precisely one of the main outcomes of researchers working in the context of Canadian immersion programs in the late 1980s. The concerns that Canadian immersion researchers had at the time over the extent to which L2 French was incorporated into the teaching of academic content as well as the extent to which non-language content was used in teaching French show that the fundamental notion of integration is not a recent or a CLIL-based development in BE. For example, over 25 years ago, Swain (1988) described the main methodological and discourse weaknesses related to the traditional teaching and learning of academic content in immersion programs and concluded that such characteristics of classroom discourse left much to be desired from the perspective of acquiring an additional language. Among others, Swain (1988) pointed out that: teacher talk, on the one hand, contains many factual questions – as opposed to questions about beliefs, effects, opinions or reasons – based on material that has been presented or read earlier; teachers ask these questions with particular answers in mind in order to check students’ knowledge; teacher talk usually focuses on content and factual errors for correction while language errors tend to be corrected occasionally and inconsistently; the range of teacher talk tends to

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

13

be functionally restricted since some language uses (e.g. language functions such as teasing, speculating, recounting anecdotes, criticizing, expressing moods and feelings, or pragmatic distinctions like that between tu versus vous in French) occur infrequently or do not occur in classroom settings, and diversions from the main topic being treated, as a result of personal experiences, tend to be excluded. On the other hand, student talk often takes the form of specific responses to teachers’ questions; such responses are mostly short and linguistically simple; interactive initiation is rare due to the frequent presence of the IRE discourse pattern (i.e. teacher initiation, student response and teacher evaluation) while opportunities to participate in relatively extended discourse, either in an interactive format (student–student group work) or in a non-interactive one (oral presentation), are considerably limited. These limitations are partly due to the fact that there is typically a fixed distribution of social roles in content as well as in language classrooms with clearly asymmetrical rights and obligations between teachers and students. As a result of these weaknesses, Swain and Lapkin (1989: 150) explicitly caution that ‘in this era of “communicative language teaching”, it is faulty to assume that one accomplishes good language teaching by simply teaching content. Integration of content teaching and language teaching is paramount.’ They explicitly state that the integration under discussion should not be incidental. Rather, these authors suggest ‘[. . .] the need for a carefully planned integration of content and language instruction’ (Swain & Lapkin, 1989: 153, original emphasis). Furthermore, French immersion researchers went on to ask how such integration may be achieved in practice. Genesee (1989: 8) claims that ‘it is probably not merely the integration of content and language instruction that is important, but rather how they are integrated.’ Given the fact that most of the participating foreign language teachers in European CLIL programs – as well as in other BE contexts – have not had formal academic training or teaching experience in other disciplines and most of the participating content teachers have not had formal academic training or teaching experience in L2 pedagogy, the successful integration of contentand-language teaching as well as language-and-content teaching seems to continue in need of answers to practical questions, such as how the desired integration might be effectively achieved through coordinated team work, teacher collaboration, and proposals for specific classroom activities or good classroom practices depending on students’ age level, grade levels, specific subjects taught through the L2, among other aspects. In practice, integration still seems to be much easier said than done in BE.

Does BE develop the students’ bilingualism and biliteracy or mainly their biliteracy? This issue relates to the language skills that usually receive more attention and development in BE (i.e. reading comprehension and writing skills

14

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

versus listening comprehension and speaking/interacting skills). In general, the L2 outcomes to be achieved towards the end of secondary education, either as specified or as expected by most school programs, should be high levels of functional bilingualism and biliteracy. Functional bilingualism is a relatively frequent term in BE, although it is actually used more often than it is defined by authors; it is used to describe students’ productive outcomes in the L2. Field (2011: 75) states that ‘the term usually refers to a bilingual who speaks one language natively (with a high degree of proficiency) and the other in a more limited way, for example, a native speaker of Spanish who speaks a learner’s variety of English, or the reverse [. . .]’. On the one hand, BE – even total immersion programs with an aboveaverage reputation – provide students with more opportunities for achieving academic language proficiency than oral communicative skills. A strong biliteracy component clearly facilitates the possibility of an international education at the tertiary level, either at the undergraduate or graduate level, as well as professional training and development in the future, for example, in the present context of European Union (EU) countries. On the other hand, it may be claimed that the social expectations by members of the local community do include the ability on the part of graduating students from BE programs to be able to participate in relatively fluent and accurate informal, social interaction with proficient users of the L2. However, it is the case that oral skills in the L2 as developed in BE programs – particularly the lack of accuracy in speaking/interacting – have usually received the strongest criticisms from empirical research (among others, Hammerly, 1987; Lyster, 1987; Pawley, 1985; Plann, 1977; Spilka, 1976). Swain (1985), for example, asserts that even in the Canadian context of total French immersion, and when the students in her study had received substantial comprehensible input in the L2 for almost seven school years, ‘results from the immersion data reveal a structure of proficiency reflective of their school-based language learning situation: one which emphasizes written rather than spoken language’. As far as the students’ oral production in the L2 is concerned, Swain concludes that ‘comprehensible output is [. . .] missing in typical classroom settings, language classrooms and immersion classrooms being no exceptions’ (Swain, 1985: 252). In a small longitudinal study of two boys, aged 10 and 11 respectively, in an ESL setting, Ellis (1992) found that that the learners ‘failed to acquire a full range of request types and forms [. . .] they developed only a limited ability to vary their choice of request strategy in accordance with situational factors’ (Ellis, 1992: 20). Ellis points out that in their classroom environment a sociolinguistic need to vary their language according to different social situations may be insufficient. Thus, he concludes that ‘It may be necessary to create such a need artificially and perhaps, also, to draw learners’ conscious attention to the way in which language is used to encode social meaning’ (Ellis, 1992: 21). Dalton-Puffer (2007: 293) asserts that the

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

15

well-known conclusion that in foreign language lessons ‘classroom talk restricts student participation and by extension their acquisition of a second language’ should, in her view, also be extended to CLIL classrooms. She claims that ‘it is necessary to recognize that CLIL classrooms are one specific variant of a more general educational context which cannot be expected to “prepare” learners for other situational contexts in any direct way’ (Dalton-Puffer, 2007: 293). Two erroneous assumptions that tend to be common among teachers and parents who become involved in some recently established BE initiative in their local community are that: (i) BE – regardless of the specific label used locally – is a new or recent development in the field of education in general; and that (ii) by the time the students in the initial classes complete their high school education, their final L2 outcomes in speaking (and writing) will range from relatively high to very high. It is rather unfortunate that what is currently known through several decades of empirical research regarding the relative weaknesses of learning and using an additional language that is limited to a classroom setting has not quite gone beyond academia and reached society at large, or at least the teaching profession. School administrators, coordinators, teachers, parents and students should be better informed about what tends to be typical and atypical in practice so that their expectations may be as realistic as possible as regards productive L2 outcomes through BE.

The question of language distribution in the classroom: Free mixing of languages, judicious language integration or strict language separation? The principle of ‘bilingualism through monolingualism’ as often used in BE, especially in Canadian immersion programs (Cummins & Swain, 1986; Genesee, this volume), argues that it is pedagogically more effective to apply the so-called ‘separation approach’ through which the two languages used in BE settings are kept separate. The ‘separation approach’ has been implemented through various types of divisions in BE programs (García and Lewis et al., this volume), such as time, subject matter, teacher, classroom or building. However, the separation approach is not interpreted as a ‘law’ any longer, but simply as a valid option. As far as L2 instruction is concerned, most L2 teaching specialists feel that there is no need to go back to the strict rule imposed by the direct method in the late 19th century or by later direct methodoriented approaches, such as the regular L2 procedure employed in CLT during the 1980s and 1990s when the students’ native language became once again a neglected resource in foreign/second language classrooms. In CBI, as was the case in CLT earlier, it is often ‘assumed’ that students have never gone through the experience of learning a language – either native or nonnative – before. Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011: 140) maintain that ‘there is no overt role for the students’ native language’ in CBI.

16

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

While the separation of languages may have its benefits in BE programs, for example, as a way to help young children identify each language more easily in the early stages of L2 acquisition or to counteract the strong tendency to use the students’ native/majority language in an institutional setting, strict separation does not reflect what happens in the learners’ brains, particularly when it comes to interactive language use by L2 acquirers or bilingual speakers. Specifically, Cook (2001: 196) claims that it is ‘an illusion that having only the second language in the classroom forces the students to avoid their first language; it simply makes it invisible’. Empirical evidence is provided by Cohen (1994), who studied the extent to which elementary school students in a total Spanish-language immersion school in Saint Paul (USA) used their L1 (English) and the L2 (Spanish) when performing the cognitive operations involved in math problems (math was one of the subjects they studied in Spanish). Cohen concludes that ‘the reality may be that the internal language environment of the pupils is not as intensively foreignlanguage oriented as the outside observer might think’. He claims that ‘there is an underground of English-language use, out of earshot of the teacher, in pupil working groups and, most importantly, in the pupils’ minds’ (Cohen, 1994: 190, 191). In fact, it must be pointed out that regardless of teachers’ professional preferences or departmental policy, in both L2 and contentbased lessons, classrooms are usually bilingual in terms of student talk as opposed to teacher talk. It is also relevant to note that the simplistic assumption concerning the idea that frequent code switching or rather extended use of the students’ L1 might occur more often in content-based rather than in foreign language classrooms may not hold true. Nikula (2002) studied two non-native teachers, a 7th grade EFL and a 5th grade CLIL (mathematics) teacher, in the context of a Finnish public school. She found that the EFL teacher usually used the students’ L1 to perform various pedagogical and classroom management functions whereas English was mainly used in textbook-related talk. Nevertheless, English was used throughout the mathematics lessons. Contrary to simplistic expectations, the author claims that as far as exposure to English is concerned, the students in the CLIL class appeared to be in a more advantageous position than the students in the EFL class. The position of rejecting the judicious and potentially useful presence of the students’ L1 in teacher talk or in teaching materials, especially when relevant contrastive metalinguistic information and corrective feedback are provided, seems to reflect the presence of the monolingual bias that is still prevalent in the field of SLA research and, to a lesser extent, in the field of foreign language teaching methodology. In some BE programs the language criterion to be achieved towards the end of the designated period of instruction may be based on ‘native-speaker’ competence or ‘native-like’ attainment, that is, the proficiency that educated monolingual native speakers of the target language supposedly have. However, it should be obvious that such a

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

17

criterion is inappropriate when applied to foreign/second language learners; by definition, the learner-user of an L2 is not – and can never become – a native speaker of the target language, nor is he or she a monolingual speaker any more. All too often SLA researchers seem satisfied with a generic or even idealized notion of ‘native-speaker’ based on L1 proficiency when assessing L2 proficiency. Cook (2002: 9) rightly reminds the SLA community that ‘Labov (1969) trenchantly argued that members of one group should not be criticised for not meeting the standards of another group to which they can never belong’. Consequently, it must be emphasized that the concept which does offer more appropriate criteria for decisions regarding language distribution and language testing purposes in the classroom is that of the fluent bilingual or multilingual speaker.

The question of content teachers’ spoken and written output in the L2 of instruction This issue is related to BE teachers’ overall proficiency levels in the nonnative language used in the classroom. Although this is likely to be a relevant pedagogical concern under most circumstances, it often becomes crucial when the target language is a foreign rather than a second language in the community (e.g. EFL versus ESL) as the participating content teachers are unlikely to be native or near-native speakers of the language in which they regularly teach. The issue relates to a wide range of language phenomena from teachers’ insufficient pragmatic resources to produce sociolinguistic variation in speech to insufficient fluency or confidence in public speaking in the L2 to a lack of sufficient accuracy in the L2 as evidenced in teacher talk, not only in lecturing but also in classroom management and in occasional social interaction. Given that this is likely to occur in classrooms at any given educational level, it may involve instructors ranging from preschool teachers to university professors (e.g. Domínguez Romero & Braga Riera, this volume). For example, Nikula (2010) describes a case study of a high school biology teacher in Finland who was recorded teaching lessons both in his native Finnish and in his L2 English. Comparing his performance in his L1 and L2, the teacher is said to adopt a more interactive, dialogic style when teaching in English; however, the findings suggest that the greater social symmetry may be the result of his limited means or lack of language resources in his L2 as seen in his reduced ability to express humor, thoughts and feelings of distance from/closeness to the students in negotiating teacher–student power asymmetries. In a different study, Nikula (2002: 463) defines one of the output problems detected as the ‘speakers’ inability to use language in its full potential to express all the nuances of their personality’. Specific training in lecturing in an L2 has been suggested as desirable for university professors; Dafouz Milne and Nuñez Perucha (2010: 230) refer to ‘the fact that there

18

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

seems to be a need for language-oriented teacher education in CLIL university contexts’. Therefore, the question here is not whether the teachers are native or nearnative speakers, but rather if they are proficient non-native users of the target language – or advanced functional bilinguals – specifically for instructional purposes. The fundamental concern is that in many, if not most, cases the input from such teachers may well be the main source of spoken and interactive language for the students. However, there may be a lack of specific L2 requirements for teachers in many BE programs at present, especially in large-scale programs in the public sector. Furthermore, even when some designated proficiency level has been specified as a formal prerequisite for BE teacher candidates, say high-intermediate or advanced, there is also the less obvious – but equally relevant – issue of whether general language proficiency (e.g. as assessed by a local or an international proficiency test) is an appropriate procedure to evaluate prospective BE teachers or whether their skills to teach through the L2 should also be assessed in a more direct and specific manner. From whatever perspective, a teacher is indeed many things. And this also involves language as used in content-based classrooms. The well-known empirical finding – referred to above – that teacher talk, both in language and content classes, includes certain characteristics that may restrict rather than promote the acquisition of the target language, particularly when the classroom is the main or exclusive setting where spoken input is provided and output is produced, does not mean that ‘performing teacher talk’ in a nonnative language is a relatively simple and straightforward achievement. In fact, it may well be the case that in implementing recent BE initiatives, educational authorities – and the teaching profession at large – have considerably underestimated the multifaceted nature of teacher talk and, consequently, the levels of L2 proficiency that may be necessary for content teachers to be reasonably comfortable teaching through it. In other words, BE teacher candidates require L2 levels for professional – specifically, pedagogical – communication in that language. For example, most content teachers at the high school level may well be expected to: make relevant school-related announcements; give definitions, contextualized examples, descriptions, explanations and specific instructions; request specific actions and behaviors; provide positive as well as corrective feedback; modify the language used (e.g. through paraphrase) to make the content more comprehensible; provide brief oral summaries; ask questions or make comments about the students’ academic as well as non-academic lives; encourage and praise students; respond to students’ questions and comments about particular content; round off the lesson; give homework; remind students of their duties and responsibilities; test the knowledge and skills gained by students, and the like. Therefore, the question arises as to whether non-native users of the target language can readily perform all or most of these language functions

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

19

at the high-intermediate level (or B2 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, CEFR), the L2 proficiency level required for content teachers in most regions in Spain. An effective procedure to confront this important challenge at present seems to be for educational authorities at the national or regional level to issue clear guidelines concerning professional standards for pre-service and in-service bilingual/content teacher certification, including a realistic level of general L2 proficiency as well as the period of time when the required test results may be considered valid for pedagogical purposes (a relevant criterion that is often ignored). It is suggested that the inclusion of a complementary component of such teacher certification which is intended to assess an appropriate command of teacher talk in the L2 and familiarity with fundamental principles and strategies used in BE would be a significant step in the right direction.

Is the presence of culture desirable in BE? Should sociocultural aspects and intercultural communication be regarded as ‘symbols of luxury’ in BE? The questions of whether the target language culture(s) should be addressed and, if so, in what ways, are also relevant issues in many BE programs. To begin with, it must be noted that attention given to culture is not an inherent characteristic of CBI. Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011: 140) state that in CBI ‘culture is addressed in teaching to the extent that it is present in the content area being studied’. Baker (2007: 149) admits that one of the limitations of immersion programs is that these ‘have been criticized for being strong on language, but weak on widening immersion students’ cultural horizons’. Lyster (1987), who writes from the more immediate perspective of a teacher in a French immersion program in Canada, asserts that ‘while my students’ awareness of the presence of Quebec in Canada was well-developed, their appreciation of its language seemed as limited as their knowledge of its contemporary culture’ (Lyster, 1987: 702). Paulston (1990: 190) maintains that no attempts have been made ‘to teach the immersion students culturally appropriate behavior in French’; she points out that she once visited a French immersion program with an educated French speaker and that it was this person’s criticism of ‘the un-French quality of the children’s language behavior that showed me another interpretation of the program as one of the lack of respect for the glorious heritage which is French’ (Paulston, 1990: 190). In BE programs there is normally an explicit focus on the target language that is taught as an independent subject; in this situation the treatment of aspects related to the target-language culture(s) becomes highly desirable and fairly often simply unavoidable. Although culture teaching and learning is frequently said to be present in foreign/second language instruction, it has been identified as a weak area in that its ‘presence’ is too often unsystematic,

20

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

unstructured and uninformed. Culture often becomes an add-on activity conducted sporadically, its contents are seldom organized in a coherent manner and it is rarely based on a principled approach. In actual practice, this may indicate that it is a textbook-based set of activities or that it is based on one – or a mixture – of four superficial tactics (Omaggio-Hadley, 1993) often used in L2 classrooms: the ‘4 Fs’ tactic (folk dances, festivals, fairs and food); the ‘Frankenstein’ tactic (stereotypical and picturesque characters, events or objects randomly chosen from different countries or environments); the ‘bythe-way’ tactic (travel anecdotes, bits of information or brief lectures to illustrate sharp contrasts); and the ‘tour guide’ tactic (historical sites, main monuments, major urban centers, etc.). With the partial exception of the ‘tour guide’ tactic, the other three options are clearly inadequate strategies to deal with the sociocultural/intercultural dimensions of the L2 either in language or in content classes. One of the most relevant questions is usually what the cultural focus should be on in the foreign/second language classroom within a BE program. In a few teaching situations, such as in private bilingual schools associated with a particular target culture, the answer may be straightforward and uncontroversial. However, in BE programs implemented in the public sector, decisions must be made concerning: (i) whether the focus on culture should be broad or even global (e.g. French as used for business, tourism or international communication anywhere in the world); (ii) limited to those countries where the target language is spoken natively (e.g. the French-speaking world); or (iii) specific to one or two of those countries selectively (e.g. France and Canada), etc. In addition, related decisions that may need to be made are: (iv) whether or not to include both ‘culture’ and ‘civilization’, a dimension that is often known as ‘capital C’ and ‘small c’ culture; (v) mostly culture (i.e. sociocultural elements and practices present in everyday life); or (vi) mainly intercultural communication (i.e. where the students’ target culture and native culture are both addressed from the perspective of equivalent practices that may be manifested in similar or different ways, including verbal as well as non-verbal behavior (see Tobin & Abello-Contesse, this volume). For example, following recent language learning policies and language teaching guidelines recommended by the Council of Europe (2001) through the CEFR, public bilingual schools in Andalusia, Spain, are officially expected to include aspects of the target language cultures, that is, sociocultural and/or intercultural content in addition to the L2 itself, either in the foreign language class or in subject-matter classes, often thanks to the role assigned to native language assistants. The CEFR (2001) identifies intercultural skills and knowhow such as ‘the capacity to fulfil the role of cultural intermediary between one’s own culture and the foreign culture and to deal effectively with intercultural misunderstanding and conflict situations’ (CEFR, 2001: 105). Within the European context as well as in other contexts across the world, it seems that BE programs may greatly benefit from the presence of culture, particularly

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

21

from an intercultural perspective, when this is a standard procedure as opposed to an occasional occurrence. It does seem that teaching BE students the relevance of being able to deal with intercultural understanding and potential cultural conflict in communication is far from being a luxury as they become educated citizens of today’s increasingly interdependent and complex world. Met and Lorenz (1997) recommend that content teachers integrate culture and content aims rather than treat culture as an add-on topic. They maintain that ‘major efforts to improve the teaching of culture are needed, and teachers must be trained and encouraged to explore the integration of culture objectives with content objectives’ (Met & Lorenz, 1997: 260). Six different issues were critically summarized above in order to provide a representative yet limited overview of specific areas that have become subjects of controversy within the field of BE from the perspectives of empirical research and/or classroom applications. Each of these issues involves important challenges that are faced by all those involved in BE, although in different ways and at different levels (i.e. program planners, school administrators, program coordinators, teachers, parents and students). These challenges, however, are not necessarily dual in terms of appropriate decisions and possible solutions but offer various options for present and future action in BE.

References Abello Contesse, C. (1999) El futuro de la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras internacionales y la inmersión en L2 en la educación pública. In J.M. Becerra Hiraldo, P. Barros García, A. Martínez González and J.A. de Molina Redondo (eds) La enseñanza de segundas lenguas (pp. 83–90). Granada: Grupo de investigación de lingüística aplicada (GILA). Abello Contesse, C. (2004) El aprendizaje de una L2/LE en contextos bilingües. In J. Sánchez Lobato and I. Santos Gargallo (eds) Enseñar español como segunda lengua/ lengua extranjera. Vademécum para la formación de profesores (pp. 351–368). Madrid: Editorial SGEL. Abello Contesse, C. and Ehlers, C. (2010) Escenarios bilingües: Una visión global. In C. Abello Contesse, C. Ehlers and L. Quintana Hernández (eds) Escenarios bilingües. El contacto de lenguas en el individuo y la sociedad (pp. 7–39). Bern: Peter Lang. Alatis, J.E. (ed.) (1978) International Dimensions of Bilingual Education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Baker, C. (2007) A Parents’ and Teachers’ Guide to Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Brinton, D., Snow, M.A. and Wesche, M. (1989) Content-based Second Language Instruction. New York: Newbury House. Butzkamm, W. (1998) Code-switching in a bilingual history lesson: The mother tongue as a conversational lubricant. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 1, 81–99. Cazden, C. and Snow, C. (eds) (1990) English Plus, Issues in Bilingual Education. Newbury Park: Sage. Cohen, A.D. (1975) A Sociolinguistic Approach to Bilingual Education: Experiments in the American Southwest. Rowley: Newbury House. Cohen, A.D. (1994) The language used to perform cognitive operations during full-immersion maths tasks. In A. Davies and J. Upshur (eds) Language Testing (pp. 171–195). London: Arnold. Cook, V. (2001) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold.

22

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Cook, V. (2002) Background to the L2 user. In V. Cook (ed.) Portraits of the L2 User (pp. 1–28). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D. (2007) Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 541–562. Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. (2010) CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crandall, J.A. and Kaufman, D. (eds) (2002) Content-based Instruction in Higher Education Settings. Alexandria: TESOL. Cummins, J. (1991) Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual contexts. AILA Review 8, 75–89. Cummins, J. and Swain, M. (1986) Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of Theory, Research and Practice. London: Longman. Dafouz Milne, E. and Núñez Perucha, B. (2010) Metadiscursive devices in university lectures: A contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 teacher performance. In C. DaltonPuffer, T. Nikula and U. Smit (eds) Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms (pp. 213–232). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. PhiladelphiaAmsterdam: John Benjamins. Ellis, R. (1992) Learning to communicate in the classroom. A study of two language learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14, 1–23. Field, F. (2011) Key Concepts in Bilingualism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fishman, J. (1976) Bilingual Education: An International Sociological Perspective. Rowley: Newbury House. Genesee, F. (1987) Learning Through Two Languages. Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge: Newbury House. Genesee, F. (1989) Second language learning in school settings: Lessons from immersion. Paper presented at the Conference on Bilingualism, Multilingualism and Second Language Learning in Honor of Wallace Lambert, Esterel, Quebec, Canada. Hammerly, H. (1987) The immersion approach: Litmus test of second language acquisition through classroom communication. The Modern Language Journal 71, 395–409. Labov, W. (1969) The logic of non-standard English. Georgetown Monographs on Language and Linguistics 22, 1–31. Lambert, W.E. and Tucker, G.R. (1972) Bilingual Education of Children. The St. Lambert Experiment. Rowley: Newbury House. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Anderson, M. (2011) Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lyster, R. (1987) Speaking immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review 43, 701–717. Mackey, W.F. (1972) Bilingual Education in a Binational School. Rowley: Newbury House. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. and Frigols, M.J. (2008) Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan. Met, M. and Lorenz, E.B. (1997) Lessons from U.S. immersion programs: Two decades of experience. In R.K. Johnson and M. Swain (eds) Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 243–264). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mohan, B. (1986) Language and Content. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Nikula, T. (2002) Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness: A look at EFL and contentbased classroom settings. Pragmatics 12, 447–467. Nikula, T. (2010) Effects of CLIL on a teacher’s classroom language use. In C. DaltonPuffer, T. Nikula and U. Smit (eds) Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms (pp. 105–124). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

23

Omaggio-Hadley, A.C. (1993) Teaching Language in Context. Proficiency-oriented Instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Ordóñez, C.L. (2010) Educación para el bilingüismo en contexto monolingüe: Dos lenguas conectadas desde el currículo. ELIA: Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada 10, 41–76. Paulston, C.B. (1990) Educational language policies in Utopia. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins and M. Swain (eds) The Development of Second Language Proficiency (pp. 187–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pawley, C. (1985) How bilingual are French immersion students? Canadian Modern Language Review 41, 865–876. Plann, S. (1977) Acquiring a second language in an immersion classroom. In H.D. Brown, C.A. Yorio and R.H. Crymes (eds) Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice (pp. 213–225). Washington, DC: TESOL. Saville, M.R. and Troike, R.C. (1971) A Handbook of Bilingual Education (revised edn). Alexandria: TESOL. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and McCarty, T.L. (2008) Key concepts in bilingual education: Ideological, historical, epistemological, and empirical foundations. In J. Cummins and N.H. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 5: Bilingual Education (2nd edn) (pp. 3–17). New York: Springer. Spilka, I. (1976) Assessment of second-language performance in immersion programs. Canadian Modern Language Review 32, 543–561. Spolsky, B. and Cooper, R.L. (eds) (1977) Frontiers in Bilingual Education. Rowley: Newbury House. Stryker, S.B. and Leaver, B.L. (eds) (1997) Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Models and Methods. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S.M. Gass and C.G. Madden (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–253). Cambridge: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1988) Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada 6, 68–83. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1989) Canadian immersion and adult second language teaching: What’s the connection? Modern Language Journal 73, 150–159. Tarone, E. and Swain, M. (1995) A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal 79, 166–178. Troike, R.C. and Modiano, N. (eds) (1975) Proceedings of the First Inter-American Conference on Bilingual Education. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics. Trueba, H.T. and Barnett-Mizrahi, C. (eds) (1979) Bilingual Multicultural Education and the Professional. From Theory to Practice. Rowley: Newbury House. Widdowson, H.G. (1978) Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2

Insights into Bilingual Education from Research on Immersion Programs in Canada Fred Genesee

Introduction French immersion programs were first instituted in Montreal, Quebec, in 1965. They were established to provide English-speaking Canadian students living in Quebec with an opportunity to acquire proficiency in French. French is the only official language of Quebec and, along with English, one of Canada’s two official languages. Extensive research has been carried out on the outcomes of immersion in Canada (e.g. Genesee, 2004; Lambert & Tucker, 1972). This chapter provides an overview of immersion program models and the results of evaluations undertaken to assess their effectiveness. Factors that influence their effectiveness and their suitability for all students are also discussed. In brief, in French immersion programs in Canada at least 50% of academic instruction is delivered through French during some part of elementary and/or secondary school. Immersion programs are a form of additive bilingual education because they aim for functional proficiency in both the student’s first language (L1) and French, their second language (L2). The overall goals of immersion programs include: • • • •

advanced levels of functional proficiency in French reading, writing, speaking and listening comprehension; age-appropriate levels of English language competence; grade-appropriate levels of academic achievement in non-language subjects, such as mathematics; an understanding and appreciation of French Canadian culture. 24

Insight s into Bilingual Educat ion f rom Research on Immersion Programs

25

Immersion programs were designed initially to create the same conditions that are associated with first language acquisition, namely, socially supportive environments in which the learner is motivated to learn the target language in order to communicate with significant others about meaningful and important matters (Genesee, 1987, 2004). This is accomplished in immersion programs by teaching academic subjects through French; immersion teachers use only French for instruction during all or significant portions of the school day. Students inductively learn French as needed to explore and communicate about academic subjects. Students are encouraged, indeed expected, to use French once they have acquired basic proficiency in it, on the assumption that using the language will promote its acquisition. Although immersion teachers use French at all times, immersion students use their L1 during the early months of the program with one another and with their teacher. They begin to address comments in class to one another and their teacher in French as they acquire more proficiency in the language. In the beginning, teachers make instruction through French comprehensible to students through extensive use of non-verbal/gestural communication, visual demonstrations, social interaction and hands-on learning experiences. They also use a modified speech register which is slower, more context embedded and grammatically simplified in comparison to language that would be used with native speakers of French. Teachers assist language learning by modeling correct and appropriate language and by paraphrasing, expanding and repeating students’ incorrect, incomplete or inappropriate utterances with correct or appropriate forms. Teachers associate communication patterns with routines that occur regularly during the school day (e.g. putting coats away, preparing for lunch and recess, and so on). Because the primary focus in immersion classes is on meaningful communication, French language learning in immersion is often characterized as incidental to the academic learning and social interactions which comprise classroom life. Formal, direct instruction in the target language is provided during daily language arts periods. As well, teachers often provide incidental language instruction in the course of teaching academic subjects when they observe that students are struggling with aspects of the language that are unfamiliar to them. There is growing emphasis on more direct language instruction and error correction to promote greater accuracy in the use of French, a point that will be addressed later (Lyster, 2007). The rationale underlying immersion programs is characteristic of other content-based approaches to second language teaching, variously referred to as content and language integrated learning (CLIL), content-based instruction (CBI), and communicative or functional language teaching. These approaches contrast with more conventional methods which focus on the systematic and direct teaching of vocabulary, grammar and conversational patterns, and provide explicit feedback with respect to the correctness of students’ language use.

26

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

The immersion approach that was pioneered in the mid-1960s in Montreal was a predecessor of and, indeed, one of the first programs to build on a content-based approach that emphasizes language learning through the meaningful use of the language for communication purposes.

Program Models The first immersion program in Quebec was an early total immersion program. Since that time, alternative varieties of immersion using different language combinations have emerged in Canada, the US and in certain other countries around the world (see Genesee, 2004; Johnson & Swain, 1997, for reviews). The major program models in Canada include early, delayed/middle and late immersion.

Early immersion alternatives/early total immersion Early immersion begins in kindergarten or grade 1 (when students are about five years of age). In early total immersion programs, only French is used for instruction during the primary grades. English is introduced as a medium of instruction in some schools in grade 2 and, in other schools, it is delayed until grade 4 or even later. When it is first introduced into the curriculum, English is used to teach language arts. In successively higher grades, both English and French are used to teach different academic subjects, such as mathematics and science. The same school subjects are usually not taught in both languages in the same year. The use of English in the higher grades varies from as little as 20% of total instructional time to 60% or 70%, depending on the school. As much as possible, different teachers teach through English and French, and it is preferable to use native speakers of each language in order to provide an enriched and authentic language learning environment. At the secondary school level, the students are offered selected academic courses by subject specialists in history, science, mathematics, etc., in the L2. This phase of the program is important because it allows students to maintain and further develop their L2 skills. The subjects available to immersion students in secondary school may be content-based courses, such as history or geography, or language-based subjects, such as literature or drama. In Quebec, they are usually the same courses that are taught to native Frenchspeaking students attending French language schools in the province. In early partial immersion alternatives, approximately half of the instruction in all elementary grades is presented through French-L2 and half through English. Different subjects are taught through each language from the beginning; in other words, the same subject is never taught in both languages. One exception to the one-language/one-subject rule is language

Insight s into Bilingual Educat ion f rom Research on Immersion Programs

27

arts, which are taught in both languages. Teachers are usually discouraged from translating information that has been presented in the L2 into the L1 so that students can understand it more easily. It is thought that overuse of translation results in students relying on translation to understand classroom instruction and ‘turning off’ when the L2 is used. Recently, educators have begun to explore instructional methods that use both languages judiciously at the same time (Lyster & Genesee, 2011; Lyster et al., 2009). In secondary schools, optional language-based or content-based courses are provided in French. The number and types of such courses available to students depends on the school.

Early double immersion In a number of schools in Quebec, native English-speaking children are taught through two second languages, for example, Hebrew and French (Genesee & Lambert, 1983). French is one of the second languages because of its social, cultural and economic importance in the day-to-day lives of those families that reside in Montreal. Hebrew is also used as an immersion language because it is an important religious and cultural component of the students’ Jewish heritage. There are at least three schools in Montreal that offer double immersion in French, Hebrew and English and have been evaluated systematically. In one school, English is not used for instruction until grade 4, at which time English language arts are taught. From kindergarten to grade 4, French is used to teach the conventional academic curriculum comprised of mathematics, science, social studies and French language arts. Hebrew is used to teach language, history and religious and cultural studies. All teachers are native or native-like speakers of the languages. In most other respects, these programs are the same as immersion programs of the single language variety. These programs are of interest to educators and parents in other regions of the world where learning two second languages is important (e.g. in Spain, where French-L2 and English-L2 might be considered important because of their European and global significance).

Delayed immersion In these programs, English-L1 students receive instruction through English from kindergarten until the middle elementary grades. The use of French-L2 as a medium of instruction is delayed until the middle elementary grades, usually grade 4 (when the students are about nine or 10 years of age). At that time, either all instruction, with the exception of English language arts, or approximately 50% of curriculum instruction is presented in French, with all other instruction in English (see Genesee, 1987: 21–22, for more details). In subsequent grades, the students receive some academic instruction through English and some through French. The amount of instruction

28

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

they receive in each language varies somewhat from school to school. Students entering these programs have generally had some prior instruction in French-as-a-L2.

Late immersion In Canada, late immersion usually begins in the first year of secondary school, when students are about 12 years of age (see Genesee, 2004). The students have had some prior instruction in French; the amount varies depending on the school district. Such prior exposure is necessary if students are to make a successful transition to schooling in their L2. All subjects, except English language arts, are taught in French by native or native-like speakers of French. French is used as the primary medium of academic instruction for one or two years. The curriculum during this time is essentially the same as that in a regular English-language school program, the difference being that it is taught in French. In the higher grades, selected subjects, such as history, chemistry and mathematics, are taught in French. In Quebec, these courses are the same as those prescribed by the Ministère de l’Education du Québec for native French-speaking students. As in early immersion alternatives, the students are required to address all classroom comments in French and, of course, all of their reading and written assignments in their French classes are done in that language as well.

Program Evaluation There have been extensive evaluations of French immersion programs in Canada and especially in Quebec. In this section, the results of that research will be reviewed. Three general issues have been examined thoroughly by researchers in Canada, among others: • • •

The impact of schooling in French on students’ English-language development; the effect of academic instruction through French on academic achievement; the effectiveness of the program in developing students’ functional competence in French (see Genesee, 1987, 2004, for detailed summaries of these results).

In Quebec, the performance of immersion students has been compared to that of carefully selected comparison groups at corresponding grade levels. Two types of comparison groups have often been used: (1) students who are native speakers of French attending French-language schools, and (2) students who are native speakers of English attending English-language schools.

Insight s into Bilingual Educat ion f rom Research on Immersion Programs

29

The students comprising the control groups have usually been equated on intellectual and socio-economic indices by means of statistical or other subject selection procedures. In some studies, students with particular characteristics, such as low levels of academic or native language ability, have been identified for special evaluation. Discussion of the extensive findings that have resulted from the numerous evaluations of immersion programs in Canada is necessarily limited here (see Genesee 1987, 2004; Lambert & Tucker, 1972; Swain & Lapkin, 1982, for more details). This summary will highlight the general results from early total and late immersion along with comparisons of selected alternatives. It is important to point out that the available evidence is based on programs with optional participation and, thus, pertains only to similar voluntary programs. Parental support for these programs is extensive and, undoubtedly, plays a significant role in accounting for the overall success of these programs. While the focus here is on research findings from Canada, and Montreal (Quebec) in particular, the following patterns of results have been reported by researchers working in other communities and countries.

Early total immersion Typically, students in early total immersion programs show a lag in the development of English literacy skills during those grades when no instruction in English is provided (e.g. kindergarten to grade 2) (Genesee, 2004). Generally, they demonstrate no lags in English speaking and listening comprehension skills during these grades. After one year of formal English language arts instruction, immersion students achieve parity with English control students in all skills, except spelling where they continue to lag. Subsequent testing in higher grades reveals that immersion students continue to perform as well as control students in all English language areas that have been assessed, including spelling (Genesee, 1987, 2004; Lambert & Tucker, 1972; Swain & Lapkin, 1982). It is noteworthy that immersion students are able to complete – and score reasonably well on – English reading tests prior to receiving instruction in English language arts, and they also catch up with students educated entirely in English within one year of having English language instruction. These findings suggest that skills acquired in French can be and are transferred to English. The quick catch up in English reading may also be due to the students’ extensive exposure to written forms of English outside school. In short, there has been no evidence of long-term deficits in the English language development of early total immersion students. There have been interesting comparisons among above-average, average and below-average immersion students in comparison to comparable English control students (Genesee, 1976a). Academic ability was defined by the students’ performance on IQ tests. Specifically, it has been found that

30

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

below-average immersion students score at the same level as their belowaverage counterparts in English school programs and, as expected, belowaverage students in both programs score lower than average students who, in turn, score lower than above-average students. In other words, participation in a French immersion program does not pose differential challenges for less gifted students than what they would face in an L1 program. Immersion students have been found to score at the same level on standardized tests of mathematics and science administered in English as English control students even if the immersion students have received all math and science instruction through French. It has also been found that the test scores of below-average immersion students are comparable to those of below-average English control students. In other words, below-average students benefit academically from immersion to the extent that one would expect, given their level of academic ability. It has been found that the French proficiency of immersion students is significantly superior to that of English control students in all-English programs who have had conventional French-as-a-second-language instruction; this has been found to be true for all abilities of French (i.e. speaking, listening, reading and writing). In comparison with French control students, immersion students often score at the same level on tests that assess comprehension skills, listening and reading. The performance of immersion students on tests that assess production skills, such as speaking and writing, is generally very impressive; they are able to understand and make themselves understood in all academic contexts and they demonstrate an uninhibited and creative use of French for communication that is seldom achieved by students in more conventional French-as-a-second-language programs. These conclusions pertain to the use of the L2 in school settings and do not necessarily generalize to non-academic settings. Immersion students often report that they have difficulty communicating in French outside school when they encounter native French speakers. This is not surprising in light of the fact that immersion students’ main exposure to French is in school where they are exposed to a primarily academic language register. At the same time, immersion students’ use of French is less than nativelike: (a) there is often transfer from the English lexicon and syntax; (b) they often have restricted vocabulary and simplified grammar; and (c) their usage is non-idiomatic (see Genesee, 1991; Harley, 1993; Lyster, 1994). Moreover, detailed analyses of immersion students’ grammatical accuracy indicate that they do not acquire native-level syntactic competence. This finding is discussed further in a later section. Research has also revealed that the acquisition of literacy skills in French is associated with students’ overall intellectual ability, as assessed by tests of general intelligence, so that above-average students score higher on French tests of reading and writing than average or below-average students. In contrast, the acquisition of interpersonal communication skills in French,

Insight s into Bilingual Educat ion f rom Research on Immersion Programs

31

i.e. listening comprehension and speaking, is not correlated with overall ability to the same extent so that below-average students are often rated as highly as above-average students on listening comprehension and speaking (Genesee, 1976a). It would appear from these results that students representing a wide range of academic ability levels are equally able to acquire interpersonal communication skills in French in early immersion programs. These findings are consistent with those of other researchers who have found that general intellectual ability is not the only or most important determinant of L2 achievement (e.g. Gardner & Lambert, 1972).

Late immersion There has been no evidence that the English language development of students participating in late immersion programs suffers. Evaluations of late immersion students’ English language achievement indicates that they score at the same level as comparable English control students in all-English programs. Nor has there been evidence that below-average students in immersion programs are handicapped in their English language development as a result of the immersion experience; their language skills have been shown to develop as well as those of below-average students in English programs, albeit lower than those of average and above-average students in both types of programs. The academic achievement of late immersion students is not impeded by the use of French for academic instruction. Evaluations in Montreal have found this to be the case for below-average students as well as average and above-average students. This has been demonstrated using standardized achievement tests as well as examinations prepared by local educational authorities (Genesee, 1976b; Genesee & Chaplin, 1976). The latter results are of particular interest because they involve the direct assessment of achievement in academic subjects, such as geography, chemistry and history, which have been taught in school. The results of French testing in late immersion follow the same basic pattern as those found in early immersion: immersion students achieve native-like or near native-like levels of proficiency in French comprehension skills (listening and reading) but less than native-like competence in production skills in French (writing and speaking). As in early immersion, the acquisition of French literacy skills has been found to be positively correlated with students’ general academic ability. However, in contrast to early immersion results, the acquisition of interpersonal communication skills in French by late immersion students has also been found to be correlated with their general ability. Whether this latter finding is due to student selection factors or an actual difference in the language learning style of adolescents is not clear. In any case, it attests to the differential effectiveness of late immersion depending on the ability of the individual student; such differential effects are much less evident in early immersion.

32

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Critical Issues Research on alternative immersion programs, described earlier, has afforded opportunities to learn much about factors that influence the outcomes of immersion education. In this section, lessons learned from this research are discussed with respect to the following issues: (a) content-based language instruction; (b) age; and (c) amount of L2 exposure.

Content-based language instruction A distinctive feature of immersion education and other content-based approaches to L2 instruction is the integration of language learning with content instruction and learning (Cloud et al., 2000; Coyle et al., 2010; Echevarria et al., 2000; Mehisto et al., 2008; Met, 1998). In effect, content is the vehicle for teaching the L2 and content instruction provides opportunities for students to acquire and use the target language, much like native speakers learn their L1 as a result of meaningful, significant and sustained communication with others. As a result, L2 learning in immersion programs is often incidental to the learning of academic skills and knowledge and is said to occur ‘naturally’. The L2 is also used for social interaction in class and elsewhere in the school so that additional opportunities are created for students to learn the language by using it for interpersonal social reasons. The integration of language with academic content instruction (especially in the case of young school-age children) takes advantage of young learners’ natural language-learning abilities because, in effect, it simulates the conditions that characterize L1 acquisition. It also promotes the acquisition of authentic language skills, skills needed for success in school. Teaching second languages in isolation, as in more traditional approaches, risks teaching language skills that are not useful outside the language classroom. The integration of L2 instruction with academic instruction has the added pedagogical benefit of efficiency because significant blocks of time do not need to be set aside for the sole purpose of direct teaching of the L2 (Genesee, 1987). In support of the effectiveness of content-based L2 instruction, extensive research on immersion programs for majority language students, as just reviewed, has shown that immersion students acquire high levels of functional proficiency in the second language that is significantly superior to that achieved by students in more conventional second/foreign language programs while acquiring grade-appropriate competence in academic subject matter (see Genesee, 2004; Johnson & Swain, 1997, for reviews). Notwithstanding evidence in support of content-based language instruction, there are signs that an exclusive focus on meaning or the functional use of the L2 in immersion is not optimal for developing students’ L2 competence. For example, research on the language skills of French immersion students in Canada has revealed that, despite participation in immersion

Insight s into Bilingual Educat ion f rom Research on Immersion Programs

33

programs for many years, they often fail to master important aspects of the target language, such as verb tense, pronouns, prepositions and sociolinguistic forms (Adiv, 1980; Harley & Swain, 1984; Lyster, 1994). There is additional evidence that students in immersion programs with extended exposure to the target language do not always outperform students with less exposure (findings that will be discussed later) on tests of linguistic competence, suggesting that simply extending exposure to and functional use of the L2 do not necessarily lead to increased linguistic competence (Genesee, 1987; Lyster, 2007). Students in immersion programs that emphasize functional use may fail to exhibit continuous growth in both their repertoire of communicative skills and the accuracy with which they use the language because they are able to get by using a limited set of functional and linguistic skills and are not compelled by teachers to extend their linguistic competencies (Lyster, 2007). Arguably, more systematic and explicit language instruction that is linked to students’ communicative needs in the classroom along with more explicit focus on the linguistic forms that students have difficulty acquiring is called for in order to advance students’ L2 competence. Indeed, there is evidence that instruction that focuses on the structural properties of the target language within the context of content-based language teaching can enhance students’ L2 competence (Norris & Ortega, 2000). Explicit language instruction that draws learners’ attention to problematic forms and gives them opportunities to self-correct appears to be especially effective in this regard (see, for example, Lyster, 2004, 2007; Swain, 1998). Canadian educators are now challenged to develop curricula for immersion programs that optimize language acquisition through a balanced approach that focuses on form and function.

Age One of the most controversial issues in L2 learning is the question of age. It is widely believed that ‘younger is better’ when it comes to L2 learning. Indeed, an early start to L2 instruction has much to recommend it. Early exposure to an L2 takes advantage of young children’s natural language learning abilities (Genesee, 2004), and it also takes advantage of young children’s openness to new experiences, including new languages and cultures. Moreover, the integrated approach to L2 instruction that is integral to immersion and other content-based approaches, such as CLIL, is particularly appropriate and feasible in the early grades when education is often experiential and student centered. It can be much harder to achieve such integration in the secondary school grades when advanced, sophisticated language skills are needed to master academic content and skills that are complex and abstract in themselves. In a related vein, elementary school teachers are more likely to be familiar with and be prepared to integrate language instruction with

34

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

content instruction (so-called ‘language across the curriculum’) than secondary school teachers who specialize in specific content areas and seldom see themselves as language teachers. An added advantage to starting L2 learning early in school is that it affords more time outside school for use of the L2 and thus for learning it. Extracurricular language learning affords students opportunities to broaden their repertoire of language skills beyond those that can be achieved in school settings. Of course, this is a particular advantage in communities where the target language is used, such as Montreal, where French speakers are common. However, even in relatively monolingual communities, parents and educators can create extracurricular opportunities for students to learn the target L2 through family holidays in countries where the language is spoken, school or family exchanges, and so on. Notwithstanding some clear advantages to starting L2 learning early, the issue of age is, in fact, complex, as is demonstrated by research which shows that older students often make faster initial progress than younger students. Evaluations of two-year late (grades 7–8) French immersion programs in comparison to early total (grades K–2) French immersion programs for English-speaking students in Montreal indicate that late immersion students can sometimes achieve the same or almost the same levels of L2 proficiency as early immersion students in some domains of language, even though early immersion students may have had two to three times more total exposure to French than late immersion students (Genesee, 1981). The impressive short-term gains that older students make when it comes to L2 acquisition are not limited to immersion-type programs since this has also been reported in evaluations of less intensive forms of L2 instruction (e.g. Burstall et al., 1974, in Britain). Before proceeding, it is important to point out that an early start to L2 learning is more likely than a later start to result in native-like proficiency in a second language in the long run if learners are given exposure to the L2 outside school, although this may not pertain to a foreign-language context, such as English in Spain. There are a number of reasons why older students can make such rapid initial progress in acquiring an L2 in school. First, older students have the benefit of a well-developed L1 and, in particular, they have fully developed, or well developed, L1 literacy skills. Literacy skills acquired in one language can facilitate literacy development in an L2 (Genesee & Geva, 2006; Riches & Genesee, 2006); this is especially true for languages that are typologically similar and/or have similar orthographies (French, Spanish and English, for example). Older students may also be faster L2 learners than younger students in school settings because language teaching and learning in school settings are generally abstract and context reduced (Cummins, 1981), and thus probably call on acquisitional strategies that are better developed in older learners. That older students can be effective L2 learners is important to consider because it means that educators and parents can choose an early or delayed

Insight s into Bilingual Educat ion f rom Research on Immersion Programs

35

start to immersion in the L2 and still expect success. It also means that parents and educators could opt for trilingual programs using a content-based approach with considerable success. For example, Hebrew–French–English immersion schools in Montreal use Hebrew-L2 and French-L2 as languages of instruction during the first three grades and introduce English-L1 as a medium of instruction in grade 4. These programs have been shown to be very effective (Genesee & Lambert, 1983). Alternatively, a trilingual program could be adopted in which one L2 along with the students’ L1 is used in the elementary grades and a second L2 is introduced in secondary school (see Cenoz & Valencia, 1994, for examples from the Basque Country). It might be questioned whether academic subjects can be taught through an L2 in secondary school without diminishing the students’ academic achievement because the academic curriculum in these grades is complex and abstract and requires sophisticated language skills. Studies in Montreal on late immersion programs that provide 80% of instruction through French-L2 in grades 7 and 8 to English-L1 students have found that the participating students demonstrate the same levels of academic achievement as similar English-L1 students who receive academic instruction through English (Genesee, 1981). Academic achievement was assessed in these studies using different kinds of tests: (1) commercial standardized tests in math and science, (2) state/provincial high school examinations, and (3) local achievement tests.

Amount of second language exposure Another controversial issue in discussions of L2 learning in educational settings is the matter of time. It is often assumed that ‘more exposure is better’ when it comes to L2 learning in school; this is often referred to as ‘time on task’. Indeed, one of the reasons we begin instruction early (be it in second languages, mathematics or other school subjects) is to provide more time for students to learn. Time is clearly important and often, although not always, students learn more when they spend more time studying a subject. This is true for L2 learning as well; we know that students in total immersion programs generally acquire greater proficiency in the L2 than students in partial immersion programs. However, there are upper and lower limits to the importance of time. At the lower limit, variations in exposure to an L2 probably make little difference: 20 versus 30 minutes per day, for example, is probably an unimportant difference. Likewise, at the upper limit, there may be diminishing returns for extended exposure. As noted earlier, late immersion students in Canada perform as well or almost as well as early total immersion students in some domains despite the fact that they have had significantly less exposure to their second language (Genesee, 1981). Time alone cannot account for differences in L2 achievement found in alternative immersion programs in Canada. Research in Montreal that

36

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

compared two groups of grade 7 students, both in late immersion programs, illustrates this point well (Stevens, 1983). In one case, the students spent 80% of their school day immersed in French; all regular academic subjects were taught through French. The other group, in contrast, spent only half as much time – approximately 50% of their school day – in French. Despite the time advantage of the first group, they did not score higher than the second group on a variety of L2 tests. An explanation for the impressive performance of the students who received less exposure can be found in the pedagogical approach used in their program. The 60% program was student centered and activity based so that students had choices about what they would study and how they would meet curricular objectives. Moreover, the program provided extended opportunities for the students to use the L2 during the school day because it emphasized student interaction and group work. In contrast, the 80% program was characterized by a teacher-centered approach which provided less choice and less opportunity to practice using the L2. Clearly, the nature and quality of the curriculum and instruction are equally, if not more, important than the length of exposure in accounting for L2 outcomes in immersion. That time is not directly linked to the level of learning should not be surprising, since time is not a psycholinguistic variable. Time must be translated into effective learning opportunities. Indeed, as illustrated in the earlier-discussed Stevens study of the activity-centered late immersion program in Montreal, effective pedagogy can compensate for reduced exposure. Immersion and other forms of dual language education must use time efficiently and effectively since students and teachers must cover the same standard curriculum as monolingual programs and, at the same time, they must promote acquisition of an additional language within the same number of school hours. To use time effectively, educators in bilingual programs must have a long-term, as well as a short-term, plan that links language and academic instruction. The foundations for the advanced language skills that students need in higher grades of immersion are built up during the early grades. Without a plan that identifies what those advanced language skills are, it is likely that important foundational work will not take place in the primary grades and thus make it difficult for students to acquire advanced language competence later on. The importance of L2 exposure can also be influenced by the status of the languages in question. Studies carried out in Canada on L2 immersion programs for majority group students and studies in the United States on bilingual programs for minority language students (see Genesee, 1999, for a description) both indicate that there is no consistent relationship between the amount of exposure to English and English learning outcomes; however, there is when it comes to acquisition of a minority language like Spanish in the United States or French in Canada (Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2012). That time is less important when it comes to learning English in North

Insight s into Bilingual Educat ion f rom Research on Immersion Programs

37

America is probably linked to its high status and extensive availability in the community at large. In effect, reduced exposure to English in school is offset by its availability outside school. In contrast, length of exposure to Spanish, French or other minority languages in North American schools is relatively more consequential because they have lower status and there are far fewer opportunities to use them outside school.

Bilingual Education for All? A practical and ethical issue of concern for educators, parents and policy makers is whether immersion or other forms of dual language education are suitable for students who are disadvantaged in school owing to home background, cognitive, linguistic or other factors (Genesee, 2007). The specific issue is whether students who struggle to learn to read and write and to master academic subjects in school should be included in programs in which two languages are used because they will be held back in their educational development if they are taught through a language they do not know. These concerns are predicated on the assumption that dual language learning is a linguistic, cognitive and educational burden and students who are at risk academically will be at even greater risk in dual language than in monolingual programs. It could be considered unethical to admit students who are at risk for academic difficulty to immersion programs if they are not likely to benefit from them or if the experience is likely to worsen their educational difficulties. In contrast, it could be considered unethical to exclude at-risk students from such programs since to do so would, arguably, deprive them of the opportunity to acquire valuable language and cultural skills that would benefit them in their future personal and professional lives. The latter perspective takes on particular relevance in communities where the additional language is pertinent from a real-world perspective, as in the case of English in Spain, for example, which would be considered important for future professional and economic success. Indeed, with increased globalization, it could be argued that proficiency in other languages and exposure to other cultures is important for all students and that we are doing all students a disservice if we do not provide them with opportunities to learn additional languages in school. Research in Canada has examined the suitability of immersion programs for students with personal or background characteristics that put them at a disadvantage in school (Genesee, 2007). There is evidence with respect to: (1) low academic ability (or intelligence) (Genesee, 1976a); (2) low socio-economic background (Bruck et al., 1975; Genesee, 2004); (3) poor first language ability (Bruck, 1978, 1982); and (4) minority ethnic group status (Genesee, 1992; Jacobs & Cross, 2001). Research indicates quite consistently that majority language students (or students who speak a non-standard variety

38

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

of a majority language), who have learner or background characteristics that put them at risk for academic difficulty or failure, can attain the same levels of L1 competence and academic achievement in immersion programs as comparable at-risk students in programs that use only the native language and, at the same time, they acquire higher levels of L2 proficiency. At-risk students in immersion programs generally perform less well than students in the same program who are not at risk, but their progress is not differentially impeded in comparison to comparable at-risk students in native language programs. This has been shown to be the case for students with all of the learner characteristics identified earlier, although the evidence for students with language learning impairments is limited. At the same time, at-risk students can benefit from immersion education by acquiring advanced levels of functional proficiency in an L2. There is no published research that I am aware of on the performance of students with severe sensory-perceptual, cognitive or socio-affective disorders. This limits our understanding of the suitability of immersion programs for these students considerably and poses real practical difficulties for school authorities who seek to integrate specialneeds students in the same classrooms. This is clearly an issue that requires much more investigation. Practically speaking, the available evidence does not justify arbitrary exclusion of at-risk students from immersion programs on the assumption that they are incapable of benefiting from academic instruction through an L2 or that they will be held back in their L1 and academic development as a result of such instruction. Decisions to exclude individual students can only be justified by well-documented difficulties for individual students and a sound rationale for why and how these difficulties are likely to be remedied or avoided if they participate in monolingual L1 programs. This is not to say that dual language education is recommended for all at-risk students since, as was pointed out earlier, the effectiveness of dual language instruction for students with severe sensory-perceptual, cognitive or socio-affective problems has not been investigated systematically.

Conclusions French immersion programs in Canada have been found to be feasible and effective forms of education for students who speak English, a majority language in Canada. Even students with characteristics that often limit their academic performance have been shown to progress as well as comparable students in conventional English-medium school programs while attaining superior levels of French-L2 proficiency. Comparisons among a variety of immersion program alternatives indicate that no single alternative is necessarily better than all the others, although early immersion and total immersion alternatives are often more effective (Genesee et al., 1989). Studies in

Insight s into Bilingual Educat ion f rom Research on Immersion Programs

39

Canada have also demonstrated that the effectiveness of immersion depends on a combination of factors, including amount of exposure to the second language, the age of the learners and pedagogical approach. There has been increased attention in recent years to pedagogical issues and, in particular, the effectiveness of more systematic and explicit instruction in linguistic structures that immersion students have difficulty in acquiring in French. There is a renewed interest in the performance of students who are at risk in school due to learning disabilities (e.g. Erdos et al., 2011; Genesee & Jared, 2008) and the results of this research should help to fill gaps in our knowledge about the effectiveness of immersion for such students.

References Adiv, E. (1980) An analysis of second language performance in two types of immersion programs. PhD dissertation, Department of Second Language Education, McGill University, Montreal. Bruck, M. (1978) The suitability of early French immersion programs for the language disabled child. Canadian Journal of Education 3, 51–72. Bruck, M. (1982) Language disabled children: Performance in an additive bilingual education program. Applied Psycholinguistics 3, 45–60. Bruck, M., Tucker, G.R. and Jakimik, J. (1975) Are French immersion programs suitable for working class children? Word 27, 311–341. Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S. and Hargreaves, M. (1974) Primary French in the Balance. Slough: NFER. Cenoz, J. and Valencia, J.F. (1994) Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics 15, 195–207. Cloud, N., Genesee, F. and Hamayan, E. (2000) Dual Language Instruction: A Handbook for Enriched Education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. (2010) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1981) The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In C.F. Leyba (ed.) Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework (pp. 1–50). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M.E. and Short, D.J. (2000) Making Content Comprehensible for English Language Learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Erdos, C., Genesee, F., Savage, R. and Haigh, C. (2011) Individual differences in second language reading outcomes. International Journal of Bilingualism 15 (1), 3–25. Gardner, R. and Lambert, W.E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House. Genesee, F. (1976a) The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language Learning 26, 267–280. Genesee, F. (1976b) Comparative evaluation of the early French immersion, grade 7 French immersion and FSL programs: A follow-up study. Report submitted to the Instructional Services Department, Protestant School Board of Gerater Montreal, Quebec. Genesee, F. (1981) A comparison of early and late second language learning. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 13, 115–127. Genesee, F. (1987) Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Rowley: Newbury House.

40

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Genesee, F. (1991) Second language learning in schools settings: Lessons from immersion. In A. Reynolds (ed.) Bilingualism, Multiculturalism, and Second Language Learning (pp. 183–201). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Genesee, F. (1992) Second/foreign language immersion and at-risk English-speaking children. Foreign Language Annals 25, 199–213. Genesee, F. (1999) Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students. Educational Practice Report No. 1. Washington, DC/Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Genesee, F. (2004) What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students? In T.K. Bhatia and W. Ritchie (eds) Handbook of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism (pp. 547–576). Malden: Blackwell. Genesee, F. (2007) French immersion and at-risk students: A review of research findings. Canadian Modern Language Review 63, 655–688. Genesee, F. and Chaplin, S. (1976) Evaluation of the 1974–75 grade 11 French immersion class. Report submitted to the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal, Quebec. Genesee, F. and Geva, E. (2006) Cross-linguistic relationships in working memory, phonological processes, and oral language. In D. August and T. Shanahan (eds) Developing Literacy in Second Language Learners. Report of the National Literacy Panel on Minoritylanguage Children and Youth (pp. 175–184). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Genesee, F. and Jared, D. (2008) Literacy development in early French immersion programs. Canadian Psychologist 49, 140–147. Genesee, F. and Lambert, W.E. (1983) Trilingual education for majority language children. Child Development 54, 105–114. Genesee, F. and Lindholm-Leary, K. (2012) The education of English language learners. In K. Harris, S. Graham and T. Urdan (eds) APA Handbook of Educational Psychology. Washington, DC: APA Books. Genesee, F., Holobow, N., Lambert, W.E. and Chartrand, L. (1989) Three elementary school alternatives for learning through a second language. Modern Language Journal 73, 250–263. Harley, B. (1993) Patterns of second language development in French immersion. French Language Studies 2, 159–183. Harley, B. and Swain, M. (1984) An analysis of verb form and function in the speech of French immersion pupils. Working Papers in Bilingualism 14, 31–46. Jacobs, K and Cross, A. (2001) The seventh generation of Kahnawà:ke: Phoenix or dinosaur. In D. Christian and F. Genesee (eds) Case Studies in Bilingual Education (pp. 109–121). Alexandria: TESOL. Johnson, R.K. and Swain, M. (1997) Immersion Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lambert, W.E. and Tucker, G.R. (1972) The Bilingual Education of Children: The St. Lambert Experiment. Rowley: Newbury House. Lyster, R. (1994)The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15, 263–287. Lyster, R. (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 399–432. Lyster, R. (2007) Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lyster, R. and Genesee, F. (2011) Immersion education. In J. Cenoz and D. Gorter (eds) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell. Lyster, R., Collins, L. and Ballinger, S. (2009) Linking languages through a bilingual readaloud project. Language Awareness 18, 366–383. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. and Frigols, M.J. (2008) Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan.

Insight s into Bilingual Educat ion f rom Research on Immersion Programs

41

Met, M. (1998) Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds) Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education (pp. 35–63). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417–528. Riches, C. and Genesee, F. (2006) Cross-linguistic and cross-modal aspects of literacy development. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders and D. Christian (eds) Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence (pp. 64–108). New York: Cambridge University Press. Stevens, F. (1983) Activities to promote learning and communication in the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly 17, 259–272. Swain, M. (1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 64–81). New York: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1982) Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

3

Bilingual Education in Colombia: The Teaching and Learning of Languages and Academic Content Area Knowledge Anne-Marie de Mejía

Introduction Bilingualism and multilingualism have had a long history in Colombia, dating from before the arrival of Columbus and the Catholic missionaries in the 15th century. However, it is only relatively recently that the characteristics of different modalities of provision of bilingual education have been studied in any depth. Some of the most well-known of these are associated with the programs offered by private bilingual schools in different international languages, principally English, set up to cater to students from the higher socio-economic strata of society. Although these schools are traditionally regarded as highly successful in the development of students’ bilingual competence, a recent research study (de Mejía et al., 2006) demonstrates that many of these institutions subscribe to a monolingual ethos, foregrounding the use of the foreign language (FL) and culture rather than the development of the students’ first language (usually Spanish). This, in turn, leads to tension between the foreign and the Colombian in relation to curricular development, intercultural processes and the hiring of teaching staff. In this chapter we will first examine some evidence of how different types of bilingual schools have tried to address these tensions, focusing specifically on the differing conceptions of what is considered to constitute bilingualism and bilingual education and to what extent these notions are 42

Bilingual Educat ion in Colombia

43

reflected in pedagogical practice. We will then refer to results from a recent research project (Truscott de Mejía et al., 2012) which examines how teachers address issues of language and academic concept development at the primary school level from a bilingual perspective.

Sociolinguistic Context Colombia, a geographical gateway between Central and South America, was officially recognized for the first time as a multi-ethnic and pluricultural nation in the Colombian Political Constitution of 1991. At the same time, the 65 different Amerindian vernacular languages, as well as the English and Spanish-based Creole languages (known as Islander English and Palenquero, respectively), were given co-official status with the dominant Spanish language in the areas where these others are spoken. In addition, bilingual education was recognized – also for the first time – as the form of education to be implemented in these territories. According to Hamel (2008), it is possible to distinguish two different spaces1 with their respective educational systems which, in different ways, aim at bilingualism or multilingualism in Latin America: areas where Amerindian languages are spoken, and areas where prestigious foreign languages are used. Colombia is no exception, offering bilingual programs in international languages to majority language speakers, and ethno-education programs designed for members of ethnic minority communities, both Amerindian and Afro-Colombian. The visions of the communities that support bilingualism in these two spaces are very different. Bilingual education in majority language contexts is associated with FL teaching and, as such, is connected with input from foreign-based organizations, such as the British Council, Goethe Institut and L’Alliance Française. The families who send their children to bilingual schools come from the Colombian middle and upper-middle classes, the international community and those working for multinational organizations, particularly in the capital, Bogotá. In contrast, the families whose children study in ethno-education programs are generally of Indian and Afro-Colombian origin, who come from isolated rural communities, and who suffer the consequences of exclusion, marginalization and in some cases armed conflict. Ethno-education programs are implemented mainly in public/state schools which depend on the Ministry of Education at the national level and the local Education Secretariats at the regional level. In some cases, these programs are partially supported by community organizations which have educational programs (such as the Indian Regional Council established in the Cauca Department in the southwest of the country) and various NGOs, which promote the notion of indigenous education with the support of international resources. Academic support comes

44

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

from Colombian anthropologists, ethnographers and, more recently, ethnolinguists. Furthermore, in Colombia bilingualism in internationally prestigious languages, such as Spanish-English, Spanish-French and Spanish-German, is considered worth investing considerable sums of money in, as it provides access to a highly visible, socially accepted form of bilingualism which leads to the possibility of employment in the global marketplace. However, bilingualism in minority Amerindian or Creole languages leads, in most cases, to an invisible form of bilingualism in which the native language is undervalued and associated with underdevelopment, poverty and backwardness (de Mejía, 1996). In this chapter we will be principally concerned with bilingualism in English and Spanish in private bilingual schools. These schools have had a long history within Colombia, dating from the early 20th century, and are enjoying a renewed boom in the context of increased globalization and internationalization which characterizes developments in the 21st century in much of Latin America, including Colombia. They are found mainly in urban areas, particularly in the cities of Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Cartagena and Barranquilla, and are estimated to number between 200 and 300, mostly offering Spanish–English bilingual programs. The longest established institutions were founded in the 1910s and 1920s in order to provide the sons and daughters of the representatives of multinational companies stationed in Colombia and members of the expatriate communities with access to suitable bilingual and bicultural programs. Since then, this type of educational program has been extended to cater to Colombian nationals and today most of the students in bilingual schools come from monolingual Colombian families who hope to do postgraduate study abroad (de Mejía, 1996). According to the results of a study carried out in two well-established Spanish–English bilingual schools in Cali (de Mejía, 1994), the majority of parents surveyed wanted their children to receive a bilingual education to enable them to study abroad at university level and to have better job opportunities when they returned. Contrary to the situation in many European countries, where the education system provides state or public education for the majority of pupils, in Colombia there is a strong tradition of private education, particularly due to the fact that space in the state system is very limited in relation to demand, and middle-class families tend to register their children in private schools. As Tomasevski notes: In Colombia state investment in education is equal to private [investment]; both represent nearly 4% of the GDP [⋯]. Nearly 30% of pupils are in private schools at the primary level, 45% at the secondary level and 75% in higher education.2 (Tomasevski, 2004: 9) Thus it can be seen that private bilingual schools play an important role in the Colombian educational context and, in fact, are often seen as referents

Bilingual Educat ion in Colombia

45

for more recent initiatives promoting bilingualism and bilingual education in the public sector.

Categorization of Bilingual Schools In a recent study, the 36 participating private schools from different regions of Colombia fell into three main categories: international bilingual schools (7), national bilingual schools (16) and schools with intensified foreign language (English/EFL) programs (13) (de Mejía et al., 2006). Subsequently, this classification was used on a nationwide basis by the Ministry of Education (MEN) as a referent for the differential scale of fees permitted to be charged by these types of institutions. A synthesis of the characteristics of each of these types of school will now be provided in order to inform the subsequent discussion.

International bilingual schools (1) Many of these institutions are accredited or are undergoing accreditation by an international body, such as the Southern Association of Schools and Colleges in the United States or the International Baccalaureate Organization. (2) These schools were generally founded by non-Colombians and thus have close contact with a foreign country, sometimes receiving funding and staff from abroad. They normally are co-educational and nondenominational. Most of the students come from monolingual, Spanishspeaking homes; however, there are also a considerable number (43%) who come from mixed (Colombo-foreign) families. (3) There is a high level of contact with the FL in the curriculum (more than 50%). Both languages are used as the media of teaching and learning and most of the pedagogical material and textbooks are imported from abroad. Most are characterized by early partial immersion programs, although some reflect an English-medium orientation. Beginning literary instruction is carried out by 57% of these schools in Spanish, while 28.6% start the teaching of reading and writing in English and 14.4% use both languages simultaneously. The majority of the schools in the study claimed that they had adopted a content-based instructional approach. (4) The schools encourage direct contact of their students with foreign countries through exchanges and stays abroad. In order to graduate, students must pass an international examination which demonstrates their level of FL proficiency and the national Baccalaureate examination in Spanish. (5) This type of school generally promotes a bicultural orientation to their programs based on knowledge of both the Colombian and the foreign

46

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

culture and a considerable number of students intend to do their university studies abroad. This type of international orientation has been described by two of the bilingual teachers taking part in the research in the following manner: [I]ncreasingly there have been programs started which are based on the North American educational system . . . something else which supports this [bilingualism] is the number of foreigners employed every year by the school [. . .] this allows us to improve the quality of bilingualism in the school. (de Mejía et al., 2006: 42)

National bilingual schools (1) Most of these institutions were founded by Colombians and the majority of the principals, coordinators and staff are Colombian nationals. (2) As in the international bilingual schools, there is a high level of contact with the FL in the curriculum (more than 50%). Both languages are used as media of learning and instruction and most of the pedagogical material and textbooks used are imported from abroad. Most are characterized by early partial immersion programs. Initial literary processes are carried out by the majority in Spanish; 18.8% use both languages simultaneously; 6.2% use English. Most of these schools claim to use a communicative or a content-based instructional approach. (3) To graduate, students need to pass an international examination which demonstrates their level of FL proficiency, as well as the national Baccalaureate examination in Spanish, as in the case of the international bilingual schools. Most intend to study in higher education programs in Colombia. (4) These programs generally promote an intercultural orientation in that they encourage a critical comparative analysis of aspects of the students’ home culture and those of the foreign cultures referred to in the program. This type of school may be characterized in the words of one of the English department coordinators, originally from the USA, who took part in the study. He stressed the fact that: We’re not an English school, nor an American school. We’re a Colombian school for Colombians, with the highest bilingual standards possible. We’re not trying to find a lot of native American teachers, native British speakers; we’re trying to train the Colombians to teach the Colombians. That’s the whole focus of the school. (de Mejía et al., 2006: 48)

Bilingual Educat ion in Colombia

47

Schools with an intensified foreign language (English) program (1) The majority of the schools in this group were founded by Colombians and the principals, coordinators, and teachers come from this country. Most of the staff members are monolingual speakers of Spanish, except for the English teachers. (2) Pupils normally study English 10-15 hours a week as a subject in the curriculum. Most of the schools participating in the study say they have adopted a communicative approach, while a few refer to a content-based orientation. Students must pass a FL examination to graduate and the vast majority intend to study at Colombian universities. (3) Several of the schools in this group confirm that they are transitioning to a full bilingual program, although others say that they have deliberately chosen this modality for cultural, educational or ideological reasons. This was described in the following way by an English department coordinator in Bogotá: We used to be [a bilingual school] when we began [. . .] but the school philosophy changed radically, or in fact, there was even more emphasis in [sic] something which we have always had, which was that we wanted a school which was committed to the country [. . .] So, in this case, the name of the school was changed; we stopped being bilingual and we opted for an intensive English program instead. (de Mejía et al., 2006: 58) It is interesting to note that, while these schools are not strictly speaking bilingual schools in the sense of implementing a program where ‘two languages are used equally as media of instruction’ (Romaine, 1989: 216), they have been referred to as programs which promote bilingualism (educación para el bilingüismo) in the sense that they aim at students achieving a reasonably high level of bilingual proficiency by the time they finish their secondary education. Indeed, different educational options may be grouped together in the form of a continuum which ranges from monolingual provision in the second or foreign language to traditional FL courses, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. It is interesting to note that only seven out of 36 institutions in the study characterized themselves as international bilingual schools, in spite of the prestige commonly associated with an international perspective. Most described themselves as national bilingual schools, emphasizing their Colombian heritage. The third group (schools with an intensified FL program) were a more heterogeneous collection. Some said that they were in transition towards becoming bilingual schools, while others refused the label of a bilingual school, arguing that this detracted from the spirit of identification with Colombian culture and identity. Still others claimed that the high costs involved in providing a program of bilingual education made this a remote possibility.

48

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

More contact with L2/FL

Less contact with L2/FL

Monolingual programs in L2 Transitional bilingual programs Total immersion programs Partial immersion programs Dual language programs Intensified foreign language programs Non-intensified foreign language programs with less linguistic support in the school context Foreign language programs

Figure 3.1 The continuum of education which promotes bilingualism Source: Adapted from Abouchaar and de Mejía (2011)

Tensions Between a Monolingual Ethos and the Development of Bilingualism We now turn to the question of tensions noted between a monolingual ethos favoring the FL and the development of bilingualism – which characterizes some of the institutions surveyed in our study. We also examine how different types of bilingual schools have tried to address these issues. At the national level, Valencia has noted the tensions involved in any discussion of bilingualism in Colombia with regard to the predominance of English: ‘As a result of globalisation and widespread use of English worldwide, the term bilingüismo has acquired a different meaning in the Colombian context. It is used by many [. . .] to refer almost exclusively to Spanish/ English bilingualism’ (Valencia, 2005: 1). In our study, we found there was a general tendency to equate bilingualism with the notion of balanced bilingualism (Grosjean, 1985), where the emphasis is on the development of a similar level of proficiency in the two languages or ‘two monolinguals in one person’ (Grosjean, 1985: 469). Only one national bilingual school referred to the development of two languages according to the individual needs of students, stating that bilingualism was understood as an individual’s capacity to develop intellectually, academically and socially in any of the languages he or she has been in contact with (de Mejía et al., 2006). This notion reflects a more holistic view of bilingualism which conceives of the bilingual as having ‘a unique and specific linguistic configuration’ (Grosjean, 1985: 471). However, that being said, there was also a marked tendency among the schools in the study to place greater emphasis on the development of the FL rather than the first language, due to the generally accepted belief that the first language develops naturally outside the school setting. This can be illustrated by the following statement by one of the teachers in the study who claimed:

Bilingual Educat ion in Colombia

49

The school is totally bilingual because first of all we have total immersion and almost all the subjects are studied in English from preschool, such as math, science, and in secondary school, world history, and geography; there are few subjects taught in Spanish and we talk to the children all the time in English. (de Mejía et al., 2006: 50) The fact that many of the models of bilingual education which characterized the schools in the study are based on models derived from monolingual (English-speaking) schools brought over from the countries of origin of these institutions explains the close relationship between these international bilingual schools and the countries they are most associated with. Historically, these schools can be seen as originating from the community schools established to cater to the sons and daughters of foreign executives and diplomats who were working in Colombia on a temporary basis. These were increasingly seen as appropriate models for high-quality bilingual education; however, there has not been any marked interest in adapting them to the demands of the Colombian context. Baetens Beardsmore warns against the automatic adoption of a foreign model of bilingual education: No matter how well-tried, without the necessary modifications to specific local circumstances [. . .] merely because the research background has proved [its] effectiveness in the context for which [it was] developed. (Baetens Beardsmore, 1995: 140) The tension between the foreign and the Colombian is reflected in curricular models underlying the bilingual programs of the schools participating in the study. As can be seen in Figures 3.A1, 3.A2 and 3.A3 in the Appendix, most of the international bilingual schools based their curriculum on models deriving from the United States. In the other two types of school, while the influence is more mixed, there is still a lot of foreign influence, particularly from the US and the UK. The textbooks used in the three groups of schools are also mainly imported from the United States in a practice accepted as normal even though the cultural content is often distant from experiences of Colombian students who are constructed as the other, according to Guerrero (2010: 299). Perhaps one of the scenarios in which these tensions are most apparent is in relation to school and classroom language use, particularly regarding code-switching. The most common position is that of a rejection of mixed language use, as evidenced in the following statement from the coordinator in a bilingual school in the city of Cali: There is no Spanglish, no code-switching. There are some classes in English, some in Spanish, with different teachers, precisely so that the

50

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

children too, right from the beginning, identify the language with the person. (de Mejía et al., 2006: 53) This separationist approach to school language use simulating a monolingual climate of interaction actively discourages students from making reference to what they know in their first language to help them learn in their new language. Although not many of the participants openly supported bilingual classroom language use, there was evidence of a certain degree of acceptance of the value of code-switching among some of the teachers who participated in the study, as one explained: In fact there are times when you can use the first language in the English classes, we do this very rarely, only when strictly necessary. For example, if a child says níspero,3 it is not forbidden to use this in the first language, but we try as much as we can, not to do so. (de Mejía et al., 2006: 53) One primary school teacher, however, argued positively in favor of codeswitching in the following terms: Code-switching is important and it’s necessary and although we try to [encourage] our students to use the English language during our classes and during the regular activities, there’s also a moment when we privilege the use of Spanish as a reference for them to understand, especially when we are doing structures and grammar. It’s very important for them to use their native language, so we privilege [. . .] code-switching which is very valuable for them. (de Mejía et al., 2006: 53) The general refusal to endorse dual language use in the classroom reflects a monolingualist tendency which has traditionally characterized both FL teaching and learning and also immersion pedagogy, until recently. Indeed, Phillipson (1992) noted that embedded in the monolingual tenet is the idea that an exclusive focus on English will maximize the learning of this language. Pennycook, too, acknowledges that the ideal ELT classroom is not a place where ‘languages can be truly used and exchanged’ (Pennycook, 1994: 169), while Swain (1983) espoused the development of bilingualism through monolingualism, also referred to as language separation, which is one of the guiding principles of Canadian immersion programs. However, the marginalization of code-switching in these bilingual educational settings goes against what Wei and Martin (2009) see as normal bilingual behavior. They maintain that: Code-switching is, perhaps, the most common, unremarkable and distinctive feature of bilingual behavior [. . .] It would probably go unmentioned

Bilingual Educat ion in Colombia

51

and unnoticed in classroom contexts, too, were it not [. . .] that language policies imposed from above are imbued with and influenced by pervasive and persistent monolingual ideologies. (Wei & Martin, 2009: 117) In similar fashion, the results of the study revealed the tension evident in the hiring of foreign teachers and bilingual Colombian staff. Although there is general acceptance of the advantages of native foreign language teachers, because of their native language proficiency and cultural knowledge, several participants, particularly from national bilingual schools and language intensification programs, expressed reservations about hiring foreign teachers, due to their transient status and their ignorance of Colombian idiosyncrasies. It is not only in Colombia that monolingualism is encouraged and sometimes enforced by teachers. In other world contexts, there are those who view the native speaker as the only legitimate speaker. Nevertheless, recently, in discussing the development of English as a global language, Graddol (2006: 14) has referred to the ‘increasing irrelevance of native speakers and the norms of native speakers’. He has highlighted the importance of the recognition of New Englishes, which are local varieties of English that arise from the contact of English with vernacular languages in many postcolonial contexts. In addition, Graddol emphasizes what he refers to as ‘[a]n inexorable trend in the use of global English [. . .] that fewer interactions now involve a native speaker’ (Graddol, 2006: 87), predicting that in the future there will be increasing recognition of the role of the non-native but proficient bilingual speaker who retains traces of national identity in terms of accent, but who has the specific skills necessary for the negotiation of meaning with another non-native speaker. One area where the tension between the foreign and the Colombian is particularly strong concerns the teaching of culture in the curriculum. There is an increasing awareness among many teachers and school administrators of the importance of educating young Colombians who are conscious of their cultural heritage and identity, while also developing the skills necessary to interact with others in a globalized world. Thus, several of the teachers and coordinators in our study celebrated the importance of safeguarding students’ cultural awareness and identity without, however, being sure of how to develop a critical intercultural vision in practice. As noted in an earlier study in this area at the primary school level, there is evidence of ‘inconsistency and insecurity with which the issue of the treatment of Colombian and North American cultural manifestations is approached at [the] primary school level’ (Buitrago, 2002: 164). Sometimes there is a tendency to relegate the discussion of different cultural traditions to the celebration of traditional days, such as St Valentine’s Day or Thanksgiving, and not to include this as a cross-disciplinary strand in the curriculum. This reflects an awareness of difference that often lacks a deeper reflection about causes and implications. This reminds us of Fishman’s criticism of the bilingual programs in the United States as leading to ‘the

52

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

trivialization of biculturalism [. . .] singing and dancing routines’ (Fishman, 1977, cited in García, 1991: 12).

Language and Content Teaching and Learning As noted above, many of the schools which participated in the Colombian study on bilingual schools (de Mejía et al., 2006) referred to the use of both English and Spanish as the media of teaching and learning in different areas of the curriculum. In light of the current interest in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in the teaching and learning of foreign and second languages in the European context, I think that it is important to contribute to the present debate the results of studies carried out in other latitudes centering on issues involving what traditionally has been referred to in the Americas as content-based instruction. I begin by referring to Joshua Fishman’s prophetic words of nearly 40 years ago: There is simply no way in which language teaching which focuses on language as a target of instruction can fully capture the total impact upon the learner which is available to language teaching which also capitalizes upon language as the process of instruction. (Fishman, 1976a, cited in García, 1991: 7) To date, little research has been carried out on language and content teaching in Colombia, particularly at the primary school level, a statement which is also true of the situation in Catalonia, according to observations by Victori and Vallbona (2010). In a qualitative research project, which was carried out jointly with two other universities, Universidad El Bosque in Bogotá and San Jose State University in the United States, we decided to focus on the teaching and learning of content areas through English at the primary school level. Our aims were: • •

to characterize current practices in the teaching and learning of academic content areas in bilingual educational contexts at the primary school level; to identify strengths and limitations and the needs of the different participants with a view to proposing effective ways of teaching and learning in these areas.

We selected a sample of eight private bilingual schools in Bogotá, taking into account institutions which represented the characterizations described at the beginning of this chapter. Classes at grades 1, 3 and 5 were observed in each school, semi-structured interviews were carried out with the content teachers, the coordinators and principals of each institution, and key policy documents relating to content-based teaching and learning were analyzed.

Bilingual Educat ion in Colombia

53

The data were analyzed from a grounded theory perspective and the emerging categories were grouped into six macro categories of analysis: • • • • • •

institutional characterization, language and educational policies, teachers, students and parents, methodology, evaluation.

A case study of each school was constructed and then a cross-case analysis was developed based on the six macro categories identified. To preserve confidentiality each school was given the name of a Colombian flower. According to the results of the data analysis, some of the findings that have emerged are the following. As each of the schools in the study has followed a different process in the implementation of content-based language learning, unlike with the introduction of CLIL in Spain, there are many particularities in each program which reflect the different ethos and philosophy of the eight participating schools in Bogotá. However, we also identified some important similarities. One of these relates to attempts to plan an integrated and cross-disciplinary bilingual curriculum, based on interdisciplinary collaboration across the different departments. Two of the schools refer to this as a process of curricular mapping (mapeo curricular), while another refers to a transversal map related to English (mapa de transversalidad en relación con el inglés) in which the proposed linguistic and content objectives are established. A fourth institution created Foreign Language Area Committees to guide the process in the different curricular areas. The majority of the schools and teachers in the study showed a clear preference for the development of content areas, rather than a focus on FL proficiency. As the coordinator of the preschool section and first primary grade in Colegio Las Astromelias pertinently observed: It is English as a vehicle, but what they are learning is the subject. It’s just that they have, that they begin to develop all the logical-mathematical part through the language which is our vehicle but not our goal. (Truscott de Mejía et al., 2012: 67) This position is supported by the primary science teacher in Colegio Los Anturios who highlighted the effort made to flexibilize the process in order to allow for use of the student’s L1 to ensure concept understanding, declaring: I teach science in English and for me it is a bonus that the children can answer clearly in English, yet if I see that a child is having difficulty answering in English, but understands the concept and shows me that

54

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

he does in Spanish, I say ‘this person is doing what I expect of him’ because I am the science teacher and [what] I have to evaluate is science, not English. (Truscott de Mejía et al., 2012: 166) In the Colegio Las Astromelias the math teacher referred to an institutionalized sequence of teaching language and content based on a differing functional distribution of the two languages, reminiscent to some degree of preview-review methodology, outlined below: • • • •

concept presentation in a game-like fashion (English); use of basic instructions/classroom language (English); in-depth explanation of concept (Spanish); practice activities (English).

However, many of the teachers who are involved in teaching content areas through English have not been trained to teach content areas in a foreign language. Most of them are graduates of university foreign language programs which have focused on a linguistic and communicative view of English language teaching as an objective in its own right. Thus, many teachers expressed anxiety about how to take on this new challenge. One solution to this problem is to seek the latest method to help deal with the situation, as revealed in the following comment by a teacher in a bilingual school taken from a preliminary survey on language teaching needs in Bogotá: At our school, we frequently talk about the needs of our SLL students and how teachers can fulfill those needs [. . .]. As educators, we must be proactive and try methods that help our students. As teachers we should be exposed to the latest methods successful teachers are utilizing in their classrooms. Fortunately, this collaboration is discussed, but sadly, our training doesn’t really include any methods. For example, we all know we should be teaching literacy across the content areas, but the specific methods to implement literacy are not taught to the teachers. Teach us the methods! (Universidad de los Andes, 2008)

Conclusions What can we conclude about the contribution of bilingual education programs in Colombia to the debate on the teaching and learning of languages and academic content area knowledge? First of all, I think we can see the so-called tensions between the foreign and the Colombian identified at many different levels in Colombian bilingual schools, as opportunities for critical reflection and possible change. In particular, the questioning of a monolingual bias in FL teaching and learning programs aiming at high

Bilingual Educat ion in Colombia

55

levels of bilingual proficiency may lead to a blurring of rigid divisions in classroom language use. This, in turn, opens the way to what García has called ‘the ability to work in the gap, to hold a heteroglossic view of how language is negotiated’ (Garcia, 2008: 53) rather than strictly compartmentalized and separate domains of language use, as has historically been advocated in much applied linguistics research. Secondly, I think we may conclude that there is increasing interest in finding effective ways of integrating languages and content areas, whether we refer to this as CLIL or content-based instruction. As Pavón Vázquez (2010) notes: ‘[T]he real debate does not revolve around whether or not CLIL should be used, but how to use it.’ There is thus a case to be made about examining how teachers are actually coping with the demands of teaching content areas such as math and science through a foreign or second language, and how far it is a question of methodology or of appropriate materials which determines effective pedagogical processes. This has been put forward by Victori and Vallbona (2010) as a possible explanation for the fact that after 35 hours of teaching there were no major differences found between CLIL and non-CLIL students in their recent study of primary students in Catalonia. The researchers identified some of the possible reasons for this as the lack of training of teachers in CLIL methodology leading to limited cognitively demanding tasks and teaching strategies, lack of time to prepare lessons and a lack of suitable and available CLIL materials. However, it may be argued that a reliance on pre-packaged teaching methods and methodologies ignores the current emphasis on post-method pedagogies (Kumaravadivelu, 1994, 2003, 2006) and perpetuates a state of teacher dependency. The developing of a critical, reflective capacity (Pennycook, 2001) to evaluate current and new developments in contentbased language teaching methodologies and approaches through pre-service and in-service courses should help teachers value their own constructed pedagogical knowledge and insights. It also should allow teachers to gain insights from those working in different settings and help them find ways of bringing students to the possibility of constructing their own knowledge and meanings, without imposing a particular frame of reference (Gieve & Magalhães, 1994). Perhaps one of the things we need to bear in mind as a result of this discussion is that, as the Colombian Ministry of Education (MEN) explicitly recognized in 1999, it is not only a question of certain elite schools providing ever more successful processes of bilingualism and bilingual education, but also that these developments may help to inform incipient processes of bilingual education in Colombian public/state schools. In other words that: ‘The capital and the wealth that plurilingualism produces for a country [may become] linguistic capital for each individual and that plurilingualism [may become] an educational priority’ (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 1999: 1).

56

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Notes (1) There is, of course, a third space, not mentioned by Hamel: bilingual education programs designed for the deaf, involving Colombian Sign Language and Spanish. (2) The translations to English from the Spanish originals in this chapter are by the author. (3) The níspero or medlar is a tropical fruit found in the coastal regions of Colombia.

References Abouchaar, A. and de Mejía, A.M. (2011) Orientaciones para programas bilingües. Unpublished document. Bogotá: Ministerio de Educación Nacional. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1995) European models of bilingual education. In O. García and C. Baker (eds) Policy and Practice in Bilingual Education. Extending the Foundations (pp. 139–151). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Buitrago, H. (2002) Aprender de una cultura versus aprehender otra cultura. Un enfoque intercultural para colegios bilingües. In A.M. de Mejía and R. Nieves Oviedo (eds) Nuevos caminos en educación bilingüe en Colombia (pp. 155–169). Cali: Universidad del Valle. de Mejía, A.M. (1994) Bilingual teaching/learning events in early immersion classes: A case study in Cali, Colombia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Lancaster University, Lancaster. de Mejía, A.M. (1996) Educación bilingüe: consideraciones para programas bilingües en Colombia. El bilingüismo de los sordos 1, 21–25. de Mejía, A.M., Ordóñez, C.L. and Fonseca, L. (2006) Estudio investigativo sobre el estado actual de la educación bilingüe (inglés–español) en Colombia. Unpublished research report. MEN/Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá. García, O. (ed.) (1991) Bilingual Education: Festschrift in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. García, O. (2008) Teaching Spanish and Spanish in teaching in the USA: Integrating bilingual perspectives. In C. Hélot and A.M. de Mejía (eds) Forging Multilingual Spaces (pp. 31–57). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gieve, S. and Magalhães, I. (1994) On empowerment. In S. Gieve and I. Magalhães (eds) Occasional Report 6: Power, Ethics and Validity (pp. 121–145). Lancaster: Centre for Research in Language Education. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. London: British Council. Grosjean, F. (1985) The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, 467–477. Guerrero, C.H. (2010) Is English the key to access the wonders of the modern world? A critical discourse analysis. Signo y Pensamiento 57, 294–313. Hamel, R.E. (2008) Plurilingual Latin America: Indigenous languages, immigrant languages, foreign languages. Towards an integrated policy of language and education. In C. Hélot and A.M. de Mejía (eds) Forging Multilingual Spaces (pp. 58–108). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994) The postmethod condition: Emerging strategies for second/ foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 28, 27–48. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003) Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006) TESOL methods: Changing traces, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly 40, 59–81. Ministerio de Educación Nacional (1999) Lineamientos Curriculares: Idiomas Extranjeros. Bogotá: MEN.

Bilingual Educat ion in Colombia

57

Pavón Vázquez, V. (2010) Guidelines for implementing multilingual teaching programs: Curricular and methodological adaptations. Paper presented at the 11th ELIA Conference, University of Seville, Seville. Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. New York: Longman. Pennycook, A. (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Romaine, S. (1989) Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Swain, M. (1983) Bilingualism without tears. In M. Clarke and J. Handscombe (eds) On TESOL ‘82: Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 35–46). Washington: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Tomasevski, K. (2004) Los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales. El derecho a la educación. Informe de la relatora especial. New York: Consejo económico y social, Comisión de derechos humanos, Naciones Unidas. Truscott de Mejía, A.M., Peña Dix, B., Arciniegas de Vélez, M.C. and Montiel Chamorro, M.L. (eds) (2012) Exploraciones sobre el aprendizaje de lenguas y contenidos en programas bilingües. Una indagación en la escuela primaria. Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes. Universidad de los Andes (2008) Bilingual education survey. Unpublished document. Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá. Valencia, S. (2005) Bilingualism and English language teaching in Colombia: A critical outlook. Paper presented at the ELT Conference, Universidad del Quindío, Armenia. Victori, M. and Vallbona, A. (2010) The implementation of a CLIL program in primary education: Empirical results. Paper presented at the 11th ELIA Conference, University of Seville, Seville. Wei, L. and Martin, P. (2009) Conflicts and tensions in classroom code-switching: An introduction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12, 117–122.

58

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Appendix various

Eur. Union

USA 71,43%

14,29%

14,29%

1

Figure 3.A1 Countries of origin of curricular models: International bilingual schools

COL

GB

GB Col USA

GB USA

USA

USA Col

31,25%

18,75%

18,75% 12,50%

12,50% 6,25%

2

Figure 3.A2 Countries of origin of curricular models: National bilingual schools

GB

GB USA

None

USA

USA/GB

USA Col

30,77% 23,08%

23,08%

7,69%

7,69%

7,69%

3

Figure 3.A3 Countries of origin of curricular models: Schools with intensified Englishlanguage programs

4

Perspectives and Lessons from the Challenge of CLIL Experiences Carmen Pérez-Vidal

What Makes CLIL So Attractive? Almost everyone would agree that content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has managed to win over politicians, families, educators and researchers in most European member states. Spain is no exception in this respect. Nowadays CLIL approaches to education are often seen as the ultimate opportunity to practice and improve a foreign language, after facing problems with previously attempted initiatives, such as an ‘early start’ in learning languages. Undoubtedly, CLIL is an attractive prospect today as it is found on several agendas. It is on the European political agenda; it is on the agenda of many families; it is also on the educational agenda of most member states, following European recommendations; and finally it is on the research agenda of applied linguistics, as might not have been expected otherwise. Indeed, CLIL is currently embraced by a large number of policy makers and administrators, parents and teachers as a solution for all learners across all educational levels – from elementary school to higher education. The term CLIL itself is well established these days in the European discourse on the matter, perhaps at the expense of bilingual education, a term previously used to refer to educational initiatives in which the language used as the medium of instruction is an additional language, different from the first language(s) of learners and frequently from that of the teachers as well. Only a decade ago, CLIL seemed to be a rather exclusive option, only adequate for specific types of learners in Europe. But in the past few years we have witnessed an exponential growth across countries in the number of CLIL programs set up since the European institutions issued Teaching and Learning: Towards a Learning Society, the 449 White Paper on Education 59

60

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

and Learning (EC, 1995), whereby citizens should be functionally proficient in their mother tongue and two other foreign languages. The reasons for such initiatives are worth exploring.

CLIL on the European political agenda Nearly 10 years after Baetens Beardsmore’s (1993) European Models of Bilingual Education was published, to name but one ground-breaking book of the time, Grenfell’s (2002) Modern Languages Across the Curriculum was already presenting a number of relatively new CLIL initiatives in a handful of countries: Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Italy and Spain; Germany is perhaps the most advanced, with some 300 programs already established at the time. The reason for the momentum gained by CLIL programs during the 1990s may partly be explained by the fact that bilingual education became increasingly prioritized within the European Union (EU) as a major educational initiative in those years. This culminated in the European Council’s (2005) recommendations that CLIL should be adopted throughout the entire union, as Coyle et al. (2010) have recently reminded us. Indeed, during that decade and well into the new millennium, applied linguists and educators representing not only the above-mentioned countries but also The Netherlands, Hungary, Norway, Portugal and Eastern European countries joined European-funded projects, often under the umbrella of very active Commission-funded associations such as the European Language Council, and more recently the independent association of universities (ILCHE). They sought to offer the community an innovative educational approach with languages at its core. Projects such as the Distance In-Service Education for Enhancing Second Language Learning (DIESeLL), the CLIL Compendium, the Advanced Level Program in Multilingual Education (ALPME), the Spanish Técnicas de la información y la comunicación combinadas con contenidos en el aprendizaje de lenguas (TICCAL), the Teacher Initial Education – CLIL (TIE-CLIL), the Curriculum Development at Initial and Intermediate Level for Bilingual Teaching (CDI-BIT), and the Catalan Avaluació de tasques collaboratives i assoliment d’objectius en aules AICLE de ciències en llengua estrangera (ARTICLE), visible on the world wide web, allowed for transnational communication among experts for the exchange of ideas and coordination and, as Dalton-Puffer (2007: 5) explains: ‘to disseminate best practice and encourage professionalization’. Together they succeeded in coining the term CLIL for primary and secondary education (Nikula & Marsh, 1997) and ICL for higher education (Wilkinson, 2004). Most importantly, they refined the CLIL concept, modeled after content-based language teaching in the USA, or immersion programs in Canada (see Brinton et al., 1989; Genesee, 1987; Wesche, 2001), but nonetheless, as some authors have argued, it is fundamentally distinct and unique (see Coyle, 2005; Marsh et al., 2001; Pérez-Vidal, 2004, 2009b).

Perspec t ives and Lessons f rom the Challenge of CL IL E xper iences

61

Such European institutional support of CLIL has been described on several occasions by Pérez-Vidal (2008a, 2009a, 2009b) as the aftermath of the European Strategy towards Multilingualism. Indeed, since the early days of the establishment of a united Europe, it became increasingly clear that the new European scenario needed to preserve and promote multilingualism. In such circumstances, a new impetus needed to be given to the teaching and learning of foreign languages. A range of declarations and statements were issued over a number of years that made recommendations to the member nations on the promotion of foreign language learning (for the most recent documents, see EC, 1995, 2003, 2008). The main tenets within the European Strategy listed in Pérez-Vidal were set out as follows: (i) Diversification of modern languages learned as early in life as possible. (ii) Promotion of democratic access to knowledge for all European citizens, whatever their first language(s). (iii) Priority given to the development of linguistic abilities in very young children for a second/foreign language beginning in nursery school. (iv) Intensive and transdisciplinary teaching of this second language in primary school [that is CLIL]. (v) Intensive and transdisciplinary teaching of at least a third modern language in secondary school [again CLIL]. (Pérez-Vidal, 2009a: 5) To this list we would like to add a sixth strand: (vi) mobility of students which has been enhanced through the Erasmus-Socrates, Leonardo and Comenius program as a direct consequence of the Schengen Treaty (1985), ratified for all educational levels in Amsterdam (Pérez-Vidal, 2007). With what exact purpose were the above measures taken? It is of crucial importance not to lose sight of the ultimate aim of this set of measures: the education of our younger generations as citizens of Europe, and the world at large, to prepare them to use several languages in an ever-growing, multilingual society. This means that the ultimate goal in education is to help raise our future generations as individuals with a ‘multilingual ethos’, with the understanding that for some of the languages one learns, the objective may simply be gaining partial competence in that language, not achieving ‘nativelikeness’ (see Cook, 2002).

CLIL on the agenda of many families There is little doubt that the European recommendations concerning language learning presented in the previous section were already being implemented in many countries beginning in the 1990s, as was the case in Spain. A new Spanish Education Law was issued in 1990 which changed the timing of foreign language instruction in both elementary and high school education. It entailed an earlier introduction of the foreign language in elementary

62

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

education from the 6th grade (11 years old) to the 3rd grade (8 years old), and sometimes even earlier. The problem was that the total number of hours of foreign language instruction barely increased. Assessments by official agencies examining proficiency levels in a foreign language in learners leaving mainstream education were soon put into place. They presented a bleak reality as standards in English were very much at the same level as they were before the new law took effect (see, for example, Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu, 2004, 2008). Results from bilingual immersion programs in Spanish regions (autonomous communities) with two official languages nonetheless attested to students’ proficiency in both first languages as being age appropriate, and at least as good as that of students in monolingual cohorts or, on some tests, even better (see PISA, 2003, 2006). Such results on the impact of early-start foreign language programs were confirmed by research carried out in Spanish universities by Cenoz, GarcíaMayo, García-Lecumberri and their colleagues in the Basque Region, and Muñoz and her colleagues in Catalonia (see Cenoz, 2002; García-Mayo & García-Lecumberri, 2003; Muñoz, 2006; Navés et al., 2006; Tragant & Victori, 2006). They offered an explanation of the state of affairs: the hours of instruction had remained approximately the same and consequently the intensity of the instruction had decreased as it was distributed over more years, something which does not help learners achieve greater progress. Moreover, even if the number of hours had increased, one must recognize that ‘Devoting more time to learning the foreign language(s) can be good, but the time-proficiency equation is not a straightforward one, as time must be translated into effective teaching’ (Genesee, 2008: 279; see also Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010). This may have been part of the reason why we then saw a rapid transition to other programs by families who had first pinned their hopes on the adoption of the ‘early start’ policy. In reaction to the lack of improvement, they moved on to the other strands in the European strategy – strands (iv) and (v) – which address ‘interdisciplinarity’ cum CLIL, and the new strand we propose (strand (vi)), which deals with student mobility. Indeed, the change was rather apparent: around the year 2000 any school that was getting ready to launch a CLIL program would have had to deal with parents’ concerns with the practicalities of the program and, most importantly, with the difficulties children might encounter with both language and content. As a result, books for parents were issued to try to promote the programs and on occasion purposefully designed leaflets were distributed among parents addressing frequently asked questions (Marsh & Langé, 2000). What, then, changed the families’ views? We would argue that in countries such as Spain it was the failure of the early learning programs to improve foreign language abilities substantially which made parents pin their hopes on this new, and perhaps quicker, way to spur linguistic progress.

Perspec t ives and Lessons f rom the Challenge of CL IL E xper iences

63

In addition, society’s accelerated internationalization at a professional level has had a continued and undiminished impact on education. Today no one would deny that our school systems must prepare for an increasingly mobile society, with mobile communications taking place in different languages, and most importantly in English as a lingua franca (Crystal, 2003; Graddol, 2006; Jenkins, 2007; Prodromou, 2010). Hence, the interest of families has grown exponentially in educational exchanges which prepare young learners for such experiences, either later in their academic lives, or in their future professions. Last but not least, Coyle et al. (2010: 9) point at ‘global change, converging technologies, and adaptability to the subsequent Knowledge Age [as well as] lifestyle change concerning the learner’s mindset’ as being well accommodated within the CLIL framework. Parents seem to have realized that CLIL has the potential to motivate students to learn.

CLIL on the educational agenda The state of affairs described above regarding poor achievement in foreign languages caused authorities to spring into action with new initiatives throughout the whole of Europe. In 2008 the effects were already visible, as is shown in the Eurydice report which established four different scenarios in Europe in terms of the implementation of CLIL programs. According to Eurydice (2008), CLIL programs are present across the board in some countries such as Luxemburg and Malta. Then CLIL is part of mainstream education with stable programs in a large proportion of the remaining European member states, although not universally implemented across the whole educational system. This is the case in Spain, where the majority of the 17 regions (officially known as autonomous communities) have set up institutional programs, however, not for the whole educational system.1 The third scenario is represented by the countries and communities in which CLIL only exists in the form of temporary pilot projects in specific schools. Such is the case in Catalonia (Naves & Victori, 2010; Pérez-Vidal & Juan-Garau, 2010). Finally, we find a small number of countries where no CLIL programs have been implemented, such as Greece and Denmark. The focus of this chapter is the situation in Spain, a country which has witnessed a particularly spectacular increase in CLIL programs set up with institutional support over the past 10–12 years, at all educational levels: elementary, high school and higher education. The ‘standardization’ programs designed according to official regulations in 1983 in Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque region had re-established the use of regional/autonomous languages that had been suppressed during the dictatorship; these represented a good basis on which to build, design and implement CLIL programs involving foreign languages (Lasagabaster, 2001; Pérez-Vidal, 2009a; Vila, 2008). The first CLIL initiative at the elementary and high school levels was undertaken by the Spanish Ministry of Education in cooperation with the

64

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

British Council in Madrid in 1996 (see Llinares & Dafouz, 2010, for a complete account).2 Ruiz de Zarobe and Lasagabaster (2010: 281) give the following estimate of the number of schools with CLIL programs in different Spanish regions: Andalusia with 518 schools (256 in elementary and 262 in secondary education); the Basque region with 36 schools in the public sector and many more in the private sector; Catalonia with 135 schools (77 in elementary and 58 in secondary education); Galicia with 200 schools (for a total of 600 bilingual sections); La Rioja with around 20 schools; and Madrid with 206 bilingual schools (about 4000 students and 1400 teachers). Asturias, Murcia, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Melilla, Ceuta and other Spanish regions with no figures listed in the book also have developed initiatives for the implementation of CLIL programs. At any rate, these figures reveal numerical differences, and also disclose differences in the course of developments as far as local educational language policies and the institutional implications of each community are concerned, as a result of political decentralization in the field of education. Nonetheless, they do have one thing in common: English is overwhelmingly well represented in all programs in comparison to French, German and Italian, the other three languages taught in mainstream education, as is the case in Europe in general. From a pedagogical point of view, CLIL is an innovative approach to education which has attracted language and content teachers alike in Spain, however challenging and time-consuming teaching through CLIL may be. Hence, it is evident that just as CLIL can motivate learners, it can also motivate teachers. Pérez-Vidal (2009a) has argued that this is because CLIL represents the ‘second time around’ or an improvement on communicative language teaching (CLT), after the success of the communicative approach in the 1980s (see Brumfit & Johnson, 1979, on CLT). The decade of the 1980s was truly a turning point in language education which brought communication and meaning into language teaching through a thriving new academic area, namely applied linguistics (see the seminal presentation of the field by Corder, 1973). Nowadays CLIL is essentially the natural development of communicative approaches, updated with the incorporation of the effects of recent developments in the field of teaching and learning. These developments include: new views on autonomous learning, based on awareness and individual responsibility; technological development with the widespread use of the internet and ICT; and social relations through the world’s growing internationalization and student mobility frameworks, in particular Comenius, Leonardo and Erasmus, discussed previously. In sum, we would like to emphasize that CLIL encompasses such changes and hence has enormous innovative educational potential. Finally, with regard to higher or tertiary education, not only general European policies, but specifically the Bologna declaration (1999) and the dissemination of good practice by European platforms, gave sustainable guidance on the need for European multilingual language policies. CLIL in

Perspec t ives and Lessons f rom the Challenge of CL IL E xper iences

65

English featured prominently when these initiatives were presented as a means to internationalization, with additional languages increasing professional value (Tudor, 2008). As Dafouz and Núñez (2009: 101) have stated, ‘this is the year [1999] when English-medium teaching at [the] tertiary level in Europe as a rule rather than an exception began. The Netherlands and Finland, followed by Germany, ranked the highest in number of higher education institutions with English-taught programs’. Figures, of course, have increased since then. As a result of such new views concerning university language policies, Plans of Action for Multilingualism (PAM) geared towards the regularization of multilingual teaching and CLIL programs became the rule rather than the exception in settings such as Catalonia and the Basque region (Sotés, 2010). The PAM designed at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona became a model for the rest of the institutions in the Catalan university network (Pérez-Vidal, 2008b). Such plans sought to set up a multilingual profile not only for teachers and learners, but for the institution as a whole.

CLIL on the research agenda in Spain As a natural consequence of the state of affairs described, evaluation of CLIL programs was soon under way in Spain. On the one hand, institutionally funded programs, that is, top-down initiatives, required impact assessments for accountability reasons. These eventually included grassroots activities undertaken by individual teachers or teams at the school level, that is, bottom-up initiatives. On the other hand, CLIL programs and more recently study-abroad (SA) programs as another core element in the European agenda aroused growing academic interest among linguists and educators. In recent years research has been gathering momentum in two complementary directions across Europe. The impact of CLIL and SA programs has been under focus. Indeed, program features and their impact on linguistic progress (or lack thereof) have begun to attract the attention of researchers, often along with qualitative data on learners’ beliefs, attitudes, behaviors and experiences. On the other hand, the pedagogical side to CLIL programs has also become an issue of great concern, namely, in the areas of curriculum development, teacher education and methodologies. As for Spain, the linguistic and content outcomes of CLIL approaches and of different CLIL task designs have been analyzed and compiled in several recent volumes. Lorenzo et al.’s RESLA Monograph (2007) was the first publication containing a wide spectrum of CLIL-related issues, although the volume was short on empirical data. With a few more years of experience in the new programs, Ruiz de Zarobe and Lasagabaster’s (2010) recently edited volume includes empirical studies from seven autonomous Spanish communities, in spite of the fact that research ‘is still in its infancy’, as the authors themselves explain (Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010: 280). Ruiz de

66

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Zarobe and Jiménez Catalán (2009) and Ruiz de Zarobe et al. (2011) also examined both the empirical and the pedagogical side of CLIL, including international contributions in their volumes. Cenoz (2008) focused on the Basque region, Safont (2005) on the Valencian region, and Dafouz and Guerrini (2009) on the Madrid region, although they also included other studies. Pérez-Vidal et al. (2008) edited a volume gathering bilingual and multilingual studies of both child and adult development in natural and formal conditions, CLIL and SA. Regarding studying abroad, Pérez-Vidal and her colleagues undertook the first research project on the impact of SA, and in contrast with formal instruction (FI) and CLIL conducted in Barcelona and the Balearic islands (see PérezVidal, 2011; Pérez-Vidal & Juan-Garau, 2010; Pérez-Vidal et al., 2011; Trenchs, 2009). Their work is conducted within the Barcelona SALA project, devoted to the analysis of SA effects on learners’ linguistic progress, in contrast to the effects of FI or CLIL. Since then, Llanes (2010) also has analyzed the progress made on SA programs by both adolescent and adult learners. In summary, it would seem that there are important reasons to explain why CLIL is such an attractive prospect for families, teachers and administrators – the CLIL stakeholders – with Spain as a case in point. An extremely positive effect seems to derive from CLIL programs, an increase in motivation on the part of the three groups of interested parties. The few existing studies gathering empirical evidence on the results of the programs seem to point in the same direction. However, one of the first questions that comes to mind when reading these works is whether the CLIL classroom is equally defined and described in all cases for purposes of replicability. The same question applies to the features of SA programs. Therefore it seems methodologically sound to try and identify what features characterize CLIL and SA here.

How Are CLIL and SA Contexts Best Described? Research needs to analyze the effects of CLIL classrooms in contrast with FI classrooms. In pragmatic terms, during CLIL lessons language is neither the designated subject nor the content of the interaction that takes place, but rather is the medium through which content is conveyed. Contrastingly, in FI contexts, the content of the lessons consists of talking about the formal features of the target language, particularly correctness. In terms of discourse, Dalton-Puffer (2007: 12) has explained that ‘this [the content matter in CLIL lessons] is reflected in the fact that CLIL texts used in class are authentic need-to-know texts related to curricular topics, whereas FI texts are non-authentic’. Instead, texts in FI are used because the language contained in them is the topic under focus in a given lesson. Hence, it seems clear that the quality of the input in a CLIL lesson will be higher

Perspec t ives and Lessons f rom the Challenge of CL IL E xper iences

67

because it will focus on meaning and communication, instead of dealing with metalinguistic knowledge and, at most, some information on the target culture. However, in both contexts, the quantity of input provided to learners remains somewhat unknown. Moving beyond the a priori definition of CLIL given above to a more realistic one, Dalton-Puffer has reflected on the variability in the amount of code-switching present in CLIL discourse patterns in the following terms: ‘A common denominator [for CLIL] is that a non-L1 is used in classes other than those labeled as “language classes” . . . its use may range from occasional foreign-language texts to the whole curriculum’ (Dalton-Puffer, 2007: 2). The extent to which this statement might also apply to FI lessons is an intriguing question in itself which is beyond the scope of this chapter and will not be pursued further at this time. At a cognitive level, Dalton-Puffer noted that in CLIL programs, ‘Classrooms are widely seen as a kind of language bath which encourages naturalistic language learning and enhances the development of communicative competence . . . with learning through acquisition rather than through explicit teaching and learners acting as language users not as novices’ (Dalton-Puffer, 2007: 3). The essential reason given for the benefits of CLIL is precisely this: the nature of the interaction in CLIL-driven communication, in addition to the increase in the amount of exposure to the target language learners have access to when CLIL programs are implemented alongside, or instead of, conventional FI. The nature of the learning experience is also central to the assumed beneficial effects of SA learning contexts, as Howard defined them: ‘The instructed learner assumes the status of the naturalistic learner during a period of residence in the target language (TL) community while often simultaneously following language or content courses’ (Howard, 2001: 132). When looking at SA from a discourse perspective, SA falls nearer to CLIL than to FI in that, while learners spend a period of time abroad, communicative interaction takes place with a focus on meaning rather than on form. This would lead us to think that SA input is similar to that of CLIL lessons. However, the similarity is only partial, as CLIL and SA differ in their sociolinguistic and discourse features. As Kasper and Rose (2002) have pointed out, SA contexts offer learners massive exposure to target language input, in a variety of situations, while taking part in different speech events, as well as taking on different roles within a variety of human relationships and in a myriad of social domains. It must be noted, nonetheless, as Freed et al. (2004: 183)pointed out, that ‘learners differ in their ability and readiness to benefit from the extracurricular communicative opportunities available during SA’. However, contrary to the very stimulating environment of SA, CLIL’s sociolinguistic variety is constrained to the walls of the classroom and the academic content of the particular subject matter taught. How then can we compare the relative futility of the conscious efforts made when learning in the FI classroom with such meaning-oriented

68

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

approaches as CLIL or SA (with its stimulating environment), since both allow for implicit mechanisms to come into play? It is no wonder that the benefits accrued in a CLIL context are different from those related to FI, on the one hand, or from those related to a period of time spent in the target language country, on the other. The following section is devoted to this question.

What Linguistic Progress is Achieved as a Result of CLIL? As mentioned above, the current state of affairs regarding CLIL programs offers a very rich basis for research studies that analyze learners’ foreign language development and towards multilingualism and content learning. This section provides an assessment of empirical studies conducted in the Spanish regions (autonomous communities) mentioned above, in the light of previous studies on the effects of immersion programs in Canada. Of the Spanish publications previously referenced, only studies undertaken by officially funded research projects will be discussed. A general appraisal of the results of Spanish empirical research on the effects on linguistic progress of CLIL programs is put forward by Ruiz de Zarobe and Lasagabaster (2010: 284): ‘The first conclusion to be drawn is that there is a dearth of studies on the effects of CLIL in the Spanish context. [. . .] However, there is very interesting work in progress and many university research teams are hard at work’. They go on to describe the following picture: ‘The most outstanding outcome derived from the implementation of CLIL is related to foreign language proficiency. In fact, studies unanimously conclude that the CLIL approach exerts a significant positive effect on students’ language proficiency’ (Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010: 284). This is what is shown in a number of studies included in the book and in previous publications. The results from the Andalusian context reported in Lorenzo et al. (2010) attest to such progress: ‘It emerged that the CLIL learners were clearly outperforming their mainstream peers in a relation of 62,1% for the CLIL [group to] 38% for the controls’ (Lorenzo et al., 2010: 18). They even describe implicit learning taking place: ‘CLIL learner output features rhetorical moves and discourse patterns such as hedging and tentative language, hypothesizing, impersonal structures and metaphorical grammar, typical of academic discourse but not addressed within primary or early secondary L2 syllabi’ (Lorenzo et al., 2010: 19). In the Basque region, Lasagabaster reported similar benefits: ‘CLIL provides a yield in language learning, as students’ foreign language competence is significantly higher as a result of this approach, when measuring pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and content in oral production and in

Perspec t ives and Lessons f rom the Challenge of CL IL E xper iences

69

written production, this holistically’ (Lasagabaster, 2008: 32). Both groups of learners compared in the study, CLIL and FI, had had the same number of hours of exposure to English. Furthermore, Egiguren found that ‘Basque 8 year-old starters catch up with 4 year-olds in just a year and a half. The teaching of art in English among the 8 year-olds was enough to eliminate significant differences among the two groups once they had reached the age of 10’ (Egiguren, 2006: 35). This author’s interpretation pointed to the possibility that it was not the amount of hours of exposure, but rather the quality of the exposure which might account for the fact that the group which had started EFL earlier (at age four) and had had more hours of exposure was caught up with at the age of 11 by another group starting later (at age eight) while having had fewer hours of exposure, but with part of the time being CLIL hours. These results add further evidence showing the weaknesses of the time–progress equation previously mentioned. In Galicia, San Isidro (2010) included results based on self-reports concerning language level, both receptive and productive, and attitudes. He also found improvement in the CLIL groups in Galicia. Finally, studies tapping into the Catalan CLIL programs by Navés and Victori (2010) gave evidence of the same phenomena as Egiguren, namely that CLIL learners analyzed in the 8th grade outperformed non-CLIL students two grades ahead, that is, in the 10th grade. These authors similarly interpreted that this was due to the qualitative effect of CLIL hours which may be the reason behind the linguistic progress shown, rather than the amount of exposure, which was lower in the CLIL group than in the FI group. In a different vein, Pérez-Vidal (2007) explored teachers’ input strategies in four Catalan CLIL classrooms. She was interested in examining the amount of focus-on-form moves in each of the lessons analyzed. Her results showed that 25% of teachers’ turns were used to elicit learners’ responses, 21% to discuss content meaning, 17% to check learners’ understanding of the lesson, and less than 10% was distributed among other aspects of the lesson such as discussing the materials, the syllabus, the part of the lesson or adapting the content and the language. Finally, and most importantly, she found that there was no code-switching (0%), nor were there any focus-on-form moves. This study was exploratory in nature. However, the picture that emerges from it, in conjunction with the positive results from the previous studies summarized above, poses several questions regarding the extent to which results can be generalized: • • •

Is such lack of attention to form somewhat representative of a general practice among CLIL content teachers? If it is, isn’t it intriguing that accuracy results in the previous studies reported are so good? How do these results compare with those reported by Canadian scholars regarding Canadian immersion programs?

70

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

An overview of the published results of immersion programs in Canada is disconcerting when compared to the Spanish CLIL results summarized in the previous section. All authors without exception have attested to the fact that while learners in highly communicative classes (in immersion programs in Quebec) achieve high levels of fluency and communicative ability, these do not lead to high levels of accuracy or more refined sociolinguistic skills (Genesee, 2004; Harley et al., 1990). Furthermore, Lyster (1987, 2007) showed that there was a certain weakness in learners’ productive abilities, spoken and written, in grammatical and sociolinguistic competence. The conclusion drawn by Canadian experts was that, in order to redress this imbalance, it was advisable to balance the experiential and analytical approaches, that is, introduce approaches that focus on form. The previous positive results of Spanish research coincide with evidence which has been accumulating in Europe in the past few years showing that CLIL learners in general achieve higher levels of proficiency than their FI peers. On the basis of such empirical evidence Dalton-Puffer (2007: 5) suggests that there is significant evidence for certain competences, while ‘the jury is still out on others’, as Moore’s (2009) recent review states. The language skills and components which are favorably affected are: (a) receptive skills, (b) vocabulary, (c) morphology, (d) fluency, (e) creativity, (f) risk-taking and (g) emotive-affective factors. Those which are either unaffected or for which research is non-existent or inconclusive are: (a) syntax, (b) writing, (c) informal/non-technical language, (d) pronunciation and (e) pragmatics. Regarding receptive skills, higher results are shown in Hellekjaer’s (2006) study on reading abilities by secondary CLIL learners in contrast to mainstream learners. As for productive skills, writing in particular, Ackerl (2007) shows that CLIL learners’ writing might be more sophisticated with regard to the type of errors made and type/token ratio verb use. When turning to Spanish research, and looking in more depth at existing studies, the picture which emerges is somewhat more complex than that offered by the studies which document the superior performance of CLIL learners over their L2 peers in general language competence. A number of studies report mixed results, or clearly reflect deep methodological issues in the CLIL research used. The first study that did not find ‘pro-CLIL’ results, to use Dalton-Puffer’s (2007: 2) expression, comes from Llinares & Whittaker (2009) who conducted a study with CLIL secondary schools throughout metropolitan Madrid. The study used a post-teaching written task administered to a social science class. They found that a significant share of the texts produced remained off target on a number of criteria, from the fulfillment of the required discourse function, via cohesion and coherence, to grammar and appropriate style. An unexpected and thought-provoking result was presented by JuanGarau (2010) in the Balearic Islands within the framework of the SALA Project. She compared a CLIL and a non-CLIL group in a pre-test post-test

Perspec t ives and Lessons f rom the Challenge of CL IL E xper iences

71

treatment design with an oral narrative task based on a picture story. Her findings showed that CLIL learners had a statistically significant advantage over their non-CLIL counterparts already in the pre-test, in accordance with the fluency measure used: they were more fluent and their pauses were shorter. Then, after one year of CLIL (90 hours) the gap between both groups was even wider. Contrary to this finding, as regards degree of foreign accent on a reading aloud task, this same author found that CLIL learners did not show a statistically significant improvement after a CLIL course, but rather only a minor improvement.

Possible Explanations of Contradictory CLIL Research Findings There are three possible explanations for the mixed results just presented. The first explanation lies in the area of methodology. As Moore (2009: 121– 122) pointed out, CLIL methodology is fraught with serious difficulties which should be dealt with before conclusions can be drawn from research: • • • •

It is difficult to have valid control groups of FI with the same number of hours as the CLIL group; the CLIL group often meets for ‘extra’ time. The groups compared are not really ‘comparable’. CLIL groups often include ‘selected’ students. Adequate instruments to measure conflated content and language are lacking. Most CLIL classrooms are experimental; results should not be extrapolated.

The second explanation is related to learners’ starting levels. As was mentioned above, graduating students in Catalonia reportedly achieve poor results in EFL. The most recent survey issued by the Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu (2004, 2008) identifies three levels upon graduation from high school: 68% of learners have reached an A2 level of English as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference. An average of 38% have reached a B1 level in all four skills and grammatical competence tests. The total number of hours of instruction is around 1050. As some authors have stated, gifted learners attain very good results, even high proficiency via normal EFL classes. However, CLIL significantly enhances the language skills of a broad group of students whose foreign language talents or level of interest are average. This might explain why the low-level learners in our context do well when following CLIL programs. The third explanation relates to language learning strategies. As Lorenzo et al. (2010: 12) argue in relation to the outstanding performance of their

72

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

group of learners: ‘A considerable degree of positive transfer in the manipulation and maintenance of some linguistic abilities, such as the use of cohesion and coherence in discourse was found among learners.’ To summarize, research on the effects of CLIL programs in the Spanish context is still scarce. However, the academic community is investing itself in the analysis of the effects of the many programs set up in past years. The work done so far mostly proves a significant positive effect of CLIL on learners’ progress. However, other research shows the opposite effect. Either CLIL learners seem to benefit little, or seem to outperform FI learners in the first place, when measured before the CLIL treatment. Methodological problems at the heart of the nature of CLIL may account for such surprising discrepancies. In contrast, European studies seem to point to benefits appearing in specific aspects of L2 proficiency – in the domain of receptive skills, particularly reading, vocabulary, attitude and creativity. Meanwhile, no clear benefits seem to be obtained regarding syntax, pragmatics or writing. In addition, this section has placed heavy emphasis on the contradiction between the positive effects arising from CLIL programs in Spain, and the relatively more nuanced reports of Canadian immersion programs. As a result of the discrepancies and the imbalance within the existing empirical evidence, SA effects seem to offer new possibilities to learners striving to achieve linguistic progress in all communicative abilities in parallel. Indeed, a careful appraisal of the above-mentioned state of affairs leads us to posit that, inasmuch as CLIL can be beneficial for learners’ linguistic progress, CLIL alone does not suffice to improve learners’ overall linguistic competence as in some L2 components and skills of L2 proficiency they do not seem to make substantial progress. Such a view is reinforced by the results of the impact of SA as another specific learning context, as a vehicle towards multilingualism.

What is There Beyond CLIL? Study Abroad Few language acquisition contexts are as rich and complex for research as SA. The educational programs reviewed thus far involving integrated content and language approaches (CLIL) represent perhaps the other unconventional acquisition context with its own specific features. What this section explores is how the benefits obtained in each of these two contexts complement one another by first summarizing the beneficial effects of SA and then contrasting them with the effects of CLIL.

The impact of SA programs on learners’ progress Interest in studying the effects of stays abroad in the 1990s reappeared early in the next decade (Collentine & Freed, 2004; DeKeyser, 2007; Dewaele

Perspec t ives and Lessons f rom the Challenge of CL IL E xper iences

73

& Regan, 2001; DuFon & Churchill, 2006; Freed et al., 2004; Howard, 2001, 2005; Kinginger, 2009; Regan et al., 2009). Since then, more recent studies analyzing the impact of periods spent in the country where the target language is spoken by foreign language learners have focused on the following aspects: (a) the linguistic benefits of SA and the cognitive processes learners experience while abroad, i.e. the type and degree of linguistic practice the new context allows them to experience (DeKeyser, 2007; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004); (b) the non-linguistic benefits that accrue during SA – the use and the momentum given to the development of learners’ self-regulating abilities, in addition to the degree of contact learners have with speakers of the target language, hence the opportunities for interacting in such languages of which they avail themselves (Collentine & Freed, 2004; Pellegrino, 2005); (c) the effect of SA program design – length and type of stay (Paige et al., 2002); and (d) the methodological issues in SA research (for a summarized review, see Rees & Klapper, 2008). With regard to aspect (a) above, that is, linguistic gains, a quick overview of the effects of SA, often measured in comparison with FI, shows that the greatest linguistic benefits obtained during SA occur in oral production, in the areas of fluency, lexis and grammatical accuracy (DuFon & Churchill, 2006; Freed, 1995; Milton & Meara, 1995). Here we can also cite our own comparative work in the SALA project, which confirms these results in pause and temporal fluency, and in a tendency toward improved accuracy and complexity (Pérez-Vidal et al., 2012). When measuring oral abilities in the SALA corpus with advanced university Catalan/Spanish bilingual EFL learners experiencing a compulsory three-month period abroad, Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2007) and Valls Ferrer and Mora (2009) found that the SA context resulted in significantly higher gains than the FI context on two tests: an open-ended problemsolving role-play test, and a semi-guided oral interview, both between peers. When analyzing development in written production with a timed composition on a given topic results were similar. Pérez-Vidal and Juan-Garau (2009) found that learners also appeared to improve significantly in the three areas of fluency, lexical complexity and accuracy, in agreement with previous studies such as Sasaki (2007). Again such a positive effect was also found when testing listening comprehension with an authentic radio interview task. In accordance with Allen and Herron (2003), the SALA data analyzed by Beattie (2008) showed a robust positive effect of the SA context, as learners appeared to improve significantly in such skills. In contrast, when measuring phonetic competence with the SALA data, as tested via fine-grained perception and production tasks focusing on vowel and consonant sounds – the former of particular difficulty for Catalan/ Spanish learners – no improvement was found as a result of SA, but rather as a result of FI, and often to a significant degree (Mora, 2008). This was contrary to our expectations, but, nonetheless, in accordance with previous findings by Diaz-Campos (2004).

74

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

A similar result was found when measuring lexico-grammatical skills by means of two tests: a cloze and a sentence manipulation test, as reported by Juan-Garau et al. (2010). It could be argued that the linguistic and communicative abilities which improve most as a result of a SA context were those measured by integrative tasks such as the role-play, interview, composition and listening tasks. In contrast, discrete-point tasks used to measure phonetic and grammatical ability gains evidenced greater progress as an effect of FI, rather than as an effect of SA. Regarding pragmatic skills (i.e. use of colloquialisms and speech functions), Trenchs (2009) reported a significant improvement after a sojourn spent abroad by the SALA participants, in accordance with a consistent body of research such as Regan et al. (2009) and Dufon and Churchill (2006), who also analyzed general sociolinguistic competence. With regard to (b) above, that is learners’ development while abroad, both linguistic and non-linguistic, initial language level has been analyzed in relation to the cognitive processes of practice, procedure and automation of the language and, in turn, in relation to linguistic progress. It is understood that SA is beneficial if participants begin with a functional mastery of the target language, in which case SA is the ideal context for automation (DeKeyser, 2007). As for learners’ non-linguistic social and communicative abilities, we use Dörnyei’s (2005) term ‘self-regulation’ for the cluster of attitudinal, emotional and personal skills learners develop in their effort to improve their linguistic and interpersonal skills. The existing SA literature relates such abilities to the degree to which learners manage to avail themselves of the contact opportunities with native speakers during the sojourn abroad. Indeed Collentine and Freed (2004) conclude and explain that it is not the context per se but the type and intensity of contact that the learners establish with the target language that conditions the benefits that university students gain from different contexts of acquisition. Our SALA results confirm this view: The benefits in the role-play task, as reported by Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2007: 128) showed in learners that stated that they had had a high degree of contact with native speakers with whom they shared an apartment. They also reported having carried out a considerable number of academic activities, having worked hard at learning English, and having had a great desire to learn, while maintaining a low level of anxiety when speaking. These would appear to be consistent predictors of success. As for written ability, the results reported by Pérez-Vidal and Juan-Garau (2009: 288) seemed to conform to previous findings such as Collentine and Freed (2004) in that high achievers carried out extracurricular academic activities, besides interacting with target language speakers. Furthermore, learning and emotional awareness, eagerness to learn, self-awareness in learning progress and talking to speakers of the target language seemed to correlate with high achievement rates. The accommodation which proved

Perspec t ives and Lessons f rom the Challenge of CL IL E xper iences

75

most fruitful was either living with a family or in housing with target language speakers, rather than in halls of residence or housing with peers from their home university. Finally, learners with a relatively lower onset level seemed to reach higher SA benefits as shown both in the role play and the written tests. Concerning aspect (c) above, that is, what program features seem to contribute to the development of linguistic competence while abroad, the literature is not entirely conclusive. Regarding the length of stay, mixed results have been found, calling for further research. However, DuFon and Churchill (2006: 26) point out that even short programs seem to be beneficial, except for the areas of pronunciation and pragmatics. Regarding living conditions and work opportunities while abroad, accommodation seems to play a role, as living with a family seems to bring the greatest benefits, followed by living in an apartment, and then living in a hall of residence, as does finding employment (DuFon & Churchill, 2006: 6). Juan-Garau and Pérez-Vidal (2007: 128) confirm this point in that ‘students who lived with native speakers do better than others’. This study also identifies a significant effect of finding employment on the learners’ linguistic progress. Finally, regarding aspect (d) above, that is, the methodological issues involved in SA research, the difficulties encountered by many existing studies have already been mentioned above. They are mainly related to the difficulty in finding comparable samples of learners, and the special conditions of CLIL and SA contexts of learning. In summary, SA research seems to point at certain skills and domains of linguistic competence as experiencing significantly greater progress than others after a sojourn abroad: oral proficiency, and most particularly fluency, lexis, and listening and pragmatic abilities, as opposed to writing and general accuracy. Moreover, evidence is accumulating as to the positive impact on linguistic development of the quantity and quality of contact with the target language. Quality has been related to academic work carried out with an interest in learning and self-awareness, in addition to having contact with the media, versus quantity which has been related to increased interaction as a result of working and living in families or in apartments with native speakers. The benefits that accrue as a result of CLIL programs in contrast with those obtained after a SA program seem to complement one another. While CLIL develops receptive skills, mostly reading, vocabulary and positive attitudes toward the target language, SA clearly fosters learners’ oral proficiency, as well as listening, writing, and pragmatic and sociolinguistic abilities (see Valls-Ferrer et al., 2010). The case for offering learners the opportunity of experiencing both contexts of learning seems of crucial importance. Moreover, in the first section of this chapter we stressed the need to bear in mind the ultimate goal of multilingual policies: the education of our new generations as citizens of Europe and the world at large with a ‘multilingual ethos’. In light of the overview of SA effects presented in the preceding section, it would

76

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

seem evident that such a goal is well served through CLIL programs, as stated above, and that it is even better served by SA programs.

Conclusions CLIL programs have succeeded in becoming an interesting prospect in Europe for policy makers at the local level and for families and educators. In a sense, while other strands, such as the early start with a foreign language or the No ‘English-only’ policy, do not seem to have succeeded in becoming a reality, CLIL has. There are many reasons for this; however, one seems to standout. It is the fact that CLIL is a motivating force for the stakeholders mentioned, but also, and most importantly, for the learners themselves who probably see that CLIL fulfills some of the demands of their mindsets, such as new technologies, access to mobility and global communication. Hence, in the last few decades we have witnessed the accelerated growth of CLIL programs in Europe, where Spain is, perhaps, a prime example. With CLIL programs, learners seem to make substantial linguistic progress, however, not at all levels of language competence. Even if some Spanish CLIL studies seem to show benefits at all levels, others report contrary results, or results which are surprising, such as the fact that CLIL learners are better than their non-CLIL counterparts from the start. This may be due to the fact that CLIL learners are often ‘selected’. In addition, CLIL programs are mostly pilot programs; hence, results obtained from them cannot be extrapolated to other mainstream situations. In sum, CLIL programs seem to improve learners’ receptive skills, their vocabulary and their creativity, by and large. SA is another specific context of learning that has been recently scrutinized in Europe, and more recently in Spain. Research results from learners enjoying a sojourn in the target language country reveal that the greatest benefits obtained are at the level of oral fluency, listening, pragmatics and writing. These domains are complementary with the domains in which CLIL seems to offer the greatest benefits. This seems to indicate that our learners should have access to both CLIL programs and SA programs if we want to obtain the objective of multilingual education. A combination of these two specific contexts of learning, in addition to the conventional FI context, should help them develop as young multilinguals, able to communicate in an increasingly changing international society in which knowledge of languages and positive attitudes toward multiculturalism are important requisites for success.

Acknowledgements This research would not have been possible without the support of two research grants, FFI2010-21483-CO2-01 and ALLENCAM (2009 SGR 140),

Perspec t ives and Lessons f rom the Challenge of CL IL E xper iences

77

from the Spanish Ministry of Education and the Catalan Government, respectively. The author is very grateful to the members of the SALA project team for their constant collaboration. Special thanks are due to Rebecca Lara and Isabel Tejada for their editing work.

Notes (1) Among them, Andalusia would stand out as the community with the most recent and robust plan (Andalusia, 2005). (2) Since then so much has happened that international colleagues refer to it as the Spanish tsunami!

References Ackerl, C. (2007) Lexico-grammar in the essays of CLIL and non-CLIL students: Error analysis of written production. Vienna English Working Papers 16, 6–11. Allen, H. and Herron, C. (2003) Mixed-methodology investigation of the linguistic affective outcomes of summer study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 36, 370–385. Andalusia (2005) Plan de Fomento del Plurilingüismo. Una política lingüística para la sociedad andaluza. Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía. Andalucía: Consejería de Educación. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1993) European Models of Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Beattie, J. (2008) Evaluating the acquisition of English listening comprehension skills in the framework of the SALA project. Monografías de aula abierta, estudios de desarrollo del lenguaje y educación 32, 301–309. Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo. Brinton, D., Snow, M. and Wesche, M. (1989) Content-based Second Language Instruction. New York: Newbury Press. Brumfit, C. and Johnson, K. (eds) (1979) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cenoz, J. (2002) Age differences in foreign language learning. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 135–136, 125–143. Cenoz, J. (ed.) (2008) Teaching Through Basque: Achievements and Challenges. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Collentine, J. and Freed, B. (2004) Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 153–171. Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu (2004) La situació de la llengua inglesa al batxillerat a Catalunya. Informe d’Avaluació 7. Generalitat de Catalunya: Departament d’educació. Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu (2008) Resultats de llengua inglesa de l’alumnat de 4t d’ESO de Catalunya. Informes d’Avaluació 12. Generalitat de Catalunya: Departament d’educació. Cook, V. (2002) Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Corder, S.P. (1973) Introducing Applied Linguistics. London: Penguin Educational. Coyle, D. (2005) Developing CLIL: Towards a Theory of Practice (APAC Monograph 6). Barcelona: APAC. Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. (2010) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2003) English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dafouz, E. and Guerrini, M.C. (eds) (2009) CLIL Across Educational Levels. Madrid: Richmond.

78

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Dafouz, E. and Núnez, B. (2009) The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education. In E. Dafouz and M.C. Guerrini (eds) CLIL Across Educational Levels (pp. 101–113). Madrid: Richmond. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DeKeyser, R.M. (2007) Study abroad as foreign language practice. In R.M. DeKeyser (ed.) Practice in a Second Language. Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 208–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewaele, J. and Regan, V. (2001) The use of colloquial words in advanced French interlanguage. In S. Foster-Cohen and A. Nizegorodcew (eds) Eurosla Yearbook 1 (pp. 51–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Díaz-Campos, M. (2004) Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 249–273. Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DuFon, M. and Churchill, E. (eds) (2006) Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. EC (1995) Teaching and Learning: Towards a Learning Society. 449 White Paper on Education and Learning, DGV. Brussels: European Commission. EC (2003) 590 Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004– 2006. Brussels: European Commission. EC (2008) A Rewarding Challenge: How the Multiplicity of Languages Could Strengthen Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Egiguren, I. (2006) Atzerriko hizkuntza goiztiarraren eragina gaitasuneleaniztunean. Doctoral dissertation, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz. European Council (2005) European Council of the European Union. EDUC 69 Resolution. Brussels: European Commission. Eurydice (2008) Content and Language Integrated Learning at School in Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Freed, B. (ed.) (1995) Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Freed, B.F., Segalowitz, N. and Dewey, D. (2004) Context of learning and second language fluency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 275–301. García-Mayo, P. and García-Lecumberri, M.L. (2003) Age and the Acquisition of English as a Third Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Genesee, F. (1987) Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Rowley: Newbury House. Genesee, F. (2004) What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students? In T.K. Bathia and W. Ritchie (eds) Handbook of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism (pp. 547–576). Malden: Blackwell. Genesee, F. (2008) Insights from immersion research. Plenary talk. CLIL Fusion Multilingual Mindsets in a Multicultural World Conference, Tallin. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. London: British Council. Grenfell, M. (ed.) (2002) Modern Languages Across the Curriculum. London/New York: Routledge. Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J. and Swain, M. (1990) The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hellekjaer, G. (2006) English for occupational purposes: The case for CLIL. CINOP Ezine. http://www.slideserve.com/trinh/english-for-occupational-purposes-thecase-for-clil.

Perspec t ives and Lessons f rom the Challenge of CL IL E xper iences

79

Howard, M. (2001) The effects of study abroad on L2 learners’ structural skills: Evidence from advanced learners of French. In S. Foster-Cohen and A. Nizegorodzew (eds) Eurosla Yearbook (pp. 123–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Howard, M. (2005) Second language acquisition in a study abroad context: A comparative investigation of the effects of study abroad and formal language instruction on the L2 learner’s grammatical development. In A. Housen and M. Pierrard (eds) Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 495–530). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Juan-Garau, M. (2010) Oral fluency development in secondary education CLIL learners. ViewZ (Vienna English Working Papers) 19, 42–48 (special online issue). Juan-Garau, M. and Pérez-Vidal, C. (2007) The effect of context and contact on oral performance in students who go on a stay abroad. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4, 95–117. Juan-Garau, M., Prieto, J.I. and Salazar, J. (2010) The interaction of learning context and learner attitude and its effects on L3 lexico-grammatical competence. In M.J. Lorenzo Modia et al. (eds) Proceedings from the 31st AEDEAN Conference (pp. 329– 338). Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. Kasper, G. and Rose, K. (2002) Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kinginger, C. (2009) Language Learning and Study Abroad. A Critical Reading of Research. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave McMillan. Lasagabaster, D. (2001) Bilingualism, immersion programs and language learning in the Basque country. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22, 401–425. Llanes, A. (2010) Children and adults learning English in a study abroad context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Barcelona, Barcelona. Llinares, A. and Dafouz, I. (2010) Content and language integrated programmes in the Madrid region: Overview and research findings. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and D. Lasagabaster (eds) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp. 96–114). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Llinares, A. and Whittaker, R. (2009) Writing and speaking in the history class: A comparative analysis of CLIL and first language contexts. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula and U. Smit (eds) Language Use in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., de Alba, V. and Moore, P. (eds) (2007) Models and practices in CLIL. Revista española de lingüística aplicada (RESLA) – Models and Practice in CLIL Monographic Issue, 27–39. Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. and Moore, P. (2010) The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics 31, 418–442. Lyster, R. (1987) Speaking immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review 43, 158–176. Lyster, R. (2007) Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Marsh, D. and Langé, G. (2000) Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Marsh, D., Maljers, A. and Hartiala, A. (2001) The CLIL Compendium. Profiling European CLIL Classrooms. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Milton, J. and Meara, P. (1995) How periods abroad affect vocabulary growth in a foreign language. ITI Review of Applied Linguistics 107/108, 17–34. Moore, F.P. (2009) On the emergence of L2 oracy in bilingual education: A comparative analysis of CLIL and mainstream learner talk. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Seville, Seville.

80

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Mora, J.C. (2008) Learning context effects on the acquisition of a second language phonology. In C. Pérez-Vidal, M. Juan-Garau and A. Bel (eds) A Portrait of the Young in the New Multilingual Spain (pp. 241–264). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Muñoz, C. (2006) The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF project. In C. Muñoz (ed.) Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1–41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Navés, T. and Victori, M. (2010) CLIL in Catalonia: An overview of research studies. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and D. Lasagabaster (eds) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp. 30–54). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Navés, T., Torras, M.R., Celaya, M.L. and Pérez-Vidal, C. (2006) Age and IL development in writing. In. C. Muñoz (ed.) Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning (pp. 156–183). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nikula, T. and Marsh, D. (1997) Language and Content Integrated Learning in the Primary and Secondary School Sector. Helsinki: National Board of Education. Paige, M., Cohen, A., Kappler, B., Chi, J. and Lassegard, J. (2002) Maximizing Study Abroad. A Students’ Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use. Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. Pellegrino, V.A. (2005) Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2004) Lectures and talks given on content and language integrated learning in Europe: A European approach to education. In C. Pérez-Vidal and N. Campanale-Grilloni (eds) Content and Language Integrated Learning in Europe: Teaching Materials for the Secondary School Classroom (pp. 15–39). Barcelona: European Commission – Pompeu Fabra University. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2007) The need for focus on form in content and language integrated approaches: An exploratory study. In F. Lorenzo, S. Casal, V. de Alba and P. Moore (eds) Models and Practices in CLIL. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA) Volumen monográfico (pp. 39–53). Logroño: Asociación española de lingüística aplicada. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2008a) El enfoque integrado de contenidos y lengua en Europa. Aula de Innovación Educativa 168, 7–17. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2008b) Política lingüística universitària catalana dins l’EEES a la Universitat Pompeu Fabra: El pla d’acció pel multilingüisme. In A. Martí and J.M. Mestres (eds) El multilingüisme a les universitats en l’espai europeu d’educació superior: Actes del seminari del CUIMPB-CEL 2007 (pp. 115–140). Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2009a) The integration of content and language in the classroom: A European approach to education. In E. Dafouz Milne and M. Guerrini (eds) CLIL Across Educational Levels: Experiences from Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Contexts (pp. 3–13). Madrid: Santillana Educación. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2009b) Ciudadanía europea. Cuadernos de Pedagogía 395, 52–54. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2011) Language acquisition in three different contexts of learning: Formal instruction, study abroad and semi-immersion (CLIL). In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J.M. Sierra and F. Gallardo del Puerto (eds) Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts (pp. 25–35). Bern/Berlin: Peter Lang. Pérez-Vidal, C. and Juan-Garau, M. (2009) The effect of study abroad on written performance. Eurosla yearbook 9, 269–295. Pérez-Vidal, C. and Juan-Garau, M. (2010) To CLIL or not to CLIL? From bilingualism to multilingualism in Catalan/Spanish communities in Spain. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and D. Lasagabaster (eds) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp. 115–138). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Perspec t ives and Lessons f rom the Challenge of CL IL E xper iences

81

Pérez-Vidal, C., Juan-Garau, M. and Bel, A. (eds) (2008) A Portrait of the Young in the New Multilingual Spain. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pérez-Vidal, C., Juan-Garau, M. and Mora, J.C. (2011) The effects of formal instruction and study abroad contexts on foreign language development: The SALA project. In C. Sanz and R. Leow (eds) GURT ‘09 Proceedings. Implicit and Explicit Conditions, Processes, and Knowledge in SLA & Bilingualism (pp. 194–215). Washington: Georgetown University Press. Pérez-Vidal, C., Juan-Garau, M., Mora, J.C., Valls-Ferrer, M. (2012) Oral and written development in formal instruction and study abroad: Differential effects of learning contexts. In C. Muñoz (ed.) Intensive Exposure Experiences in Second Language Learning (pp. 213–234). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. PISA (OECD Program for International Student Assessment) (2003) Learning for Tomorrow’s World – First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: PISA. http://www.pisa.oecd.org. PISA (OECD Program for International Student Assessment) (2006) Learning for Tomorrow’s World – First Results from PISA 2006. Paris: PISA. http://www.pisa.oecd.org. Prodromou, L. (2010) English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-based Analysis. London: Continuum. Rees, J. and Klapper, J. (2008) Issues in the quantitative longitudinal measurement of second language progress in the study abroad context. In L. Ortega and H. Byrnes (eds) The Longitudinal Study of Advanced L2 Capacities (pp. 89–105). New York: Routledge. Regan, V., Howard, M. and Lemée, I. (2009) The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in a Study Abroad Context. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and Jiménez Catalán, R.M. (2009) Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and Lasagabaster, D. (eds) (2010) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J.M. and Gallardo del Puerto, F. (eds) (2011) Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang. Safont, P. (2005) Third Language Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. San Isidro, X. (2010) An insight into Galician CLIL: Provision and result. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and D. Lasagabaster (eds) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp. 55–79). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Sasaki, M. (2007) Effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL writers: A multiple-data analysis. Modern Language Journal 91, 602–620. Segalowitz, N. and Freed, B.F. (2004) Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 173–199. Sotés, P. (ed.) (2010) La presencia y uso del euskera en la universidad: del bilingüismo al plurilingüismo/Bat Soziolinguistika Monografía. Navarra: Universidad de Navarra. Tragant. E. and Victori, M. (2006) Reported strategy use and age. In C. Muñoz (ed.) Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning (pp. 208–237). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Trenchs, M. (2009) Effects of formal instruction and stay abroad on the acquisition of oral fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes 65, 365–393. Tudor, I. (2008) Higher education language policy. Why? and How? In K. Lauridsen and D. Toudic (eds) Languages at Work in Europe (pp. 51–67). Göttingeng: V & R Unipress. Valls-Ferrer, M. and Mora, J.C. (2009) Study abroad effects on the oral production of advanced L2 learners: The interaction between fluency, accuracy and complexity. Paper presented at the Annual American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Denver, CO.

82

Par t 1: Accumul ated E xper ience in Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion

Valls-Ferrer, M., Roquet-Pugès, H. and Pérez-Vidal, C. (2010) The effect of practice in different contexts of language acquisition: Contrasting FI, SA and CBLC. In R. Caballero and M.J. Pinar (eds) Ways and Modes of Human Communication 129, 219–229 (online). Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla La Mancha-AESLA. Vila, X. (2008) Language-in-education policies in the Catalan language area. In J. Cenoz and D. Gorter (eds) AILA Review. Multilingualism and Minority Languages: Achievements and Challenges in Education (pp. 75–95). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Wesche, M. (2001) French immersion and content-based language teaching in Canada. Canadian Modern Language Review 58, 1–8 (special issue). Wilkinson, B. (ed.) (2004) Integrating Content and Language. Meeting the Challenge of a Multilingual Higher Education. Maastricht: Maastricht University.

Part 2 Issues in Language Use in Classrooms at the Elementary, Secondary and Tertiary Levels

5

From Bilingualism to Multilingualism: Basque, Spanish and English in Higher Education Jasone Cenoz and Xabier Etxague

Introduction Estimates about the current number of multilinguals are not easy to make, but there is no doubt that a large number of people in the world speak two or more languages in everyday life. This is no wonder if we consider that there are between 5000 and 7000 languages in the world. Some countries are known for their linguistic diversity. Papua New Guinea has approximately 830 languages, Indonesia over 733, India 445, China 296 and Nigeria 521 (Gordon, 2005). Although the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia are considered English speaking, many other languages are used in these countries along with English. The United States is listed by Ethnologue as having 364 languages, while the UK has 56 and Australia has at least 207 languages (Gordon, 2005). Some large cities in these countries may boast even higher numbers of languages. According to the New York Times, New York City is considered the ‘most linguistically diverse city in the world’ with approximately 800 languages spoken (Roberts, 2010). According to the UCL database, at least 230 languages are spoken in London (UCL, 2011). Multilingualism is also reflected on the internet. English is the most important language, but the use of other languages is growing due to the everincreasing access of the population to the internet. Graddol (2006) reports that the use of English on the internet dropped from 51.3% to 32% between 2000 and 2005. Data from 2010 indicate that English is still the top language on the internet with 536.6 million users, but this number amounts to only 27.3% of the total number of internet users (Internet World Stats, 2011). This means 85

86

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

that 72.7% of the internet users communicate or have access to information in other languages. Chinese, with 444.9 million users and Spanish with over 153 million users in numerous countries are the second and third most widely used languages, respectively. As these examples illustrate, multilingualism exists around the world, but increasingly so among non-native speakers who use English as well as their first language(s). Nowadays multilingualism is ‘a powerful fact of life around the world, a circumstance arising, at the simplest level, from the need to communicate across speech communities’ (Edwards, 2007: 447). The need to learn other languages in order to communicate is not the same for all speakers. Many native speakers of English do not feel the need to learn other languages and, in fact, according to the European Union’s Eurobarometer survey, the UK and Ireland have lower numbers of speakers of other languages than other countries (EC, 2006). There are also important differences between languages that have a high status and are often learned as foreign languages (English, French or German) and languages that are used by minorities or immigrants. In Europe, these high-status languages are combined in contexts where minority languages are spoken and also in cases involving immigrant students. In this chapter we will focus on multilingualism in education with particular attention paid to higher education. First, the trend to move from bilingualism to multilingualism in education will be explained and then we will focus on the spread of English in higher education. Later sections will examine the shift from bilingual to multilingual education in higher education in the Basque Country; in this context, an autochthonous minority language, Basque, is used along with the national language, Spanish, as well as English, the language of international communication.

From Bilingualism to Multilingualism in Education Many schools in different parts of the world have multilingualism as one of their educational aims and in most cases this includes achieving communicative competence in English. English is often considered a tool that brings new opportunities, but other languages are of course useful for their speakers in their everyday lives. The idea of learning at least the mother tongue plus two languages has been proposed as a long-term objective for European citizens (EC, 2005). For many speakers, learning a second or additional language is not limited to foreign language instruction but implies learning the language of a host country. Menken (2011) highlights the fact that in New York City 27% of all schoolchildren were enrolled in English as a second language (ESL) and/or bilingual education programs; these children speak languages other than English at home. While Spanish is the most common home language, others such as Chinese, Bengali, Arabic and Haitian Creole are also spoken. Immigrant children in Europe also face the challenge of using

From Bilingualism to Mult ilingualism

87

additional languages. In some cases they have already had contact with several languages. For example, a Moroccan speaker of Berber may have studied Arabic and French at school before having contact with one or more additional languages in Europe. The study of English as a third, fourth or even fifth language is becoming more common in the case of immigrant children who have been exposed to other languages at home and at school in their country of origin. Immigrants’ home languages are not usually taught at school, but in some cases there are special language programs either as part of the school curriculum or as extra classes (Etxeberria & Elosegi, 2008). In some European contexts, a minority language is used alongside a national language with English added as an additional subject; Catalonia, the Basque Country and Friesland are clear examples (see Cenoz & Gorter, 2008). There are important differences regarding the educational language policy of the different areas where minority languages are spoken. The use of Catalan, Basque or Welsh in education is more strongly supported than the use of languages such as Frisian or Gaelic. Research on third language acquisition has shown that there are both similarities and differences when compared with second language acquisition (Cenoz, 2013). Third language learners can be regarded as more experienced learners because they have already developed strategies to acquire another language. They also have a larger number of resources at their disposal because they previously have acquired the syntax, lexicon, phonology and pragmatics of two other languages. In Europe, the acquisition of second and third languages is often associated with content and language integrated learning (CLIL). CLIL has been defined as ‘a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language’ (Coyle et al., 2010: 1). As they point out, CLIL is closely related to other practices in bilingual education and immersion (see also Cenoz et al., 2013). In this chapter we look at a situation that combines bilingual education in a minority language with the acquisition of English as a third language with a particular focus on multilingualism in higher education. Differences will be shown between higher education and the multilingual contexts in elementary and secondary school. The double focus on content and language that is proposed by CLIL (Coyle et al., 2010) when school subjects or part of subjects are taught through an additional language usually shifts to a focus on content at the university level. For example, when a second or foreign language is used as the language of instruction to teach biology or chemistry at the university level, it is difficult to have ‘a dual-focused educational approach’ because the aim of the course is not to improve language abilities. This does not mean that learners do not improve their abilities in the language of instruction, but this improvement is more of an added benefit rather than a goal of the course. When a

88

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

CLIL approach is used to teach these same subjects in secondary school, the double focus on language and content is more likely to occur as coordination often takes place between language and content teachers. Minority languages tend to be used more often in kindergarten and elementary school than in secondary school and their use at the university level is more unusual. The use of a minority language as the language of instruction at the university faces important challenges. The number of subjects taught in elementary or secondary school is more limited than the number of undergraduate and graduate courses in higher education. One of the challenges of minority languages in elementary and secondary education is to develop educational materials, a challenge that is even greater in higher education. The level of specialization required of the teaching staff in higher education is also greater than at lower levels of education, creating additional challenges in the case of minority languages that traditionally receive limited use in disciplines such as science and technology. English is the main language of science and technology, and access to information on science and technology in higher education is thus highly dependent on knowing English. English is also crucial for mobility, as we will see in the next section. Even though English is increasingly used for some functions in many countries, elementary and secondary school students often use English only in their English language classes. Another difference is that university students often need to read articles and have access to English resources on the internet.

English in Higher Education The intensity of the use of English in higher education is a new global phenomenon that cannot be compared to the use of other languages, such as Latin, in the past. The spread of English in higher education is obviously linked to the general status of English as the language of international communication, while some specific facts are related to higher education (see also Cenoz, 2009). We have already acknowledged that English is the main language of science and technology. Nowadays most academic books and journals are published in English, making reading fluency in English a requirement to access information. Scientific publications are rarely translated into different languages since they are highly specialized. Students who are not proficient in English will have limited access to knowledge through publications in other languages, creating a serious problem in many regions. The problem is even more serious if scholars cannot keep up with the results of research in their fields due to a lack of knowledge of English, because English is predominant in books, journals and conference papers. Furthermore, the scientific production that is not published in English has limited circulation and is less accessible to international scholars.

From Bilingualism to Mult ilingualism

89

As stated above, another growing need for English relates to mobility, both for students and for academic staff. In fact, mobility is one of the objectives promoted by the Bologna Declaration. Particular attention is paid to: • access (for students) to study and training opportunities and to related services; • recognition and acceptance of teaching, training and conducting research in a European context without prejudice to the statutory rights of teachers, researchers and administrative staff. (Bologna Declaration, 1999) The Bologna Declaration was signed by 29 European nations in Bologna, Italy, in 1999 to standardize higher education and create the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The aim of this process is to increase the competitiveness and mobility of European students and to attract international students. There has been a notable increase in mobility in the past few years. In the European context, the Erasmus program has attracted over two million university-level students since it was created in 1987 (EC, 2011). The number of students participating in the program has increased steadily over the years, as can be seen in Figure 5.1. There are differences in the number of students from each country participating in the Erasmus program. Spain is the country with the highest mobility of both outgoing and incoming students (EC, 2011). Many of these students, who spend one or two semesters in another European country, do 200000 180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0

1992

1997

2002

Figure 5.1 Erasmus students from 1992 to 2009 Source: EC (2011)

2007

2009

90

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

not speak the language of the country where they study and prefer to take courses taught in English. Many European universities also have an increasing number of students from countries outside Europe. The use of English as the language of instruction is closely linked to mobility both for students who take English-medium classes before traveling to other countries and for international students who have already traveled to a different university. In fact, according to a survey of 52 programs taught in English in Nordic universities in Europe, mobility is the first reason for setting up these programs (Hellekjaer & Westergaard, 2003). There are important differences in the number of international students going to different countries. Some countries, such as The Netherlands, attract a large number of students who wish to pursue graduate degrees, and English is used as the main language of instruction at that level. The labor market is another important factor, closely linked to higher education, which increases the need for proficiency in English. English is the main language of interaction for international business all over the world and students who have English as a language of instruction at university are certainly in a better position for job placement. In essence, proficiency in English is often required to land well-paid jobs in Europe. The spread of the use of English as the language of instruction is not homogeneous and there are significant differences between northern and southern European universities. However, it is an important trend all over Europe (see also Fortanet-Gómez & Räisänen, 2008; Wilkinson & Zegers, 2006). Such a trend of using English as the language of instruction at university level – either for some or all of the courses – can also be found in other parts of the world. For example, Yu (2008) reports that the Ministry of Education in China promotes the use of English as the language of instruction at Chinese universities.

Multilingualism in Basque Higher Education English is frequently the third language of choice in areas such as the Basque Country where two other languages are spoken by much of the population – Basque and Spanish (or Basque and French in the French Basque Country). Basque is a minority language spoken by approximately 700,000 speakers on both sides of the Pyrenees. Basque is included in the UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger in the category of ‘vulnerable’ (Moseley, 2009). It is a language of unknown origin and its structure and vocabulary are completely different from Spanish or French. Basque is an inflected language including the ergative case for the subject of transitive verbs. For instance, in Example 1 the word ‘girl’ (neska) requires a final ‘k’ because it is the subject of a transitive verb, but in Example 2 it does not because it is the subject of an intransitive verb.

From Bilingualism to Mult ilingualism

91

Example 1 Basque: Neskak etxea erosi du [The girl+erg house+the bought has] Spanish: La chica ha comprado la casa French: La jeune fille a acheté la maison English: The girl has bought the house Example 2 Basque: Neska etxera joan da [The girl home+to go aux] Spanish: La chica ha ido a casa French: La jeune fille est rentrée chez elle English: The girl has gone home The examples above indicate that word order in Basque is different from word order in French and Spanish. Basque is a SOV (subject + object + verb) language, while the verb precedes the object in Spanish and French. The examples above also illustrate that the Basque lexicon varies greatly from those of its contact languages, Spanish and French. Nevertheless, after many centuries of co-existence, Basque includes a large number of loanwords from both Spanish and French. Over the last 30 years there has been a strong language policy to protect and develop the use of Basque in the most populated region of the Basque Country, the Basque Autonomous Community, where Basque is spoken along with Spanish (see Cenoz, 2009). In this region, Basque has become the main language of instruction in elementary and secondary schools. Nowadays, Basque first-language speakers and also a great number of Spanish firstlanguage speakers have some or all of their school subjects taught in Basque. Unlike some other regions where minority languages are used only in elementary school, Basque is also the main language of instruction at the high school level. Figure 5.2 shows the percentages of schoolchildren registered to complete their studies only in Spanish (in black), with half of the subjects in Basque and half in Spanish (in gray) and only in Basque (in white), for the academic year 2011–2012 in the Basque Autonomous Community. The data indicate that most schoolchildren have Basque as the language(s) of instruction. The percentage is higher in preschool/elementary education than in secondary education but it is likely to increase in secondary education in the future since most schoolchildren tend to keep the same language of instruction in both elementary and secondary education. The general trend observed so far indicates that the percentage of students with Basque as the language, or one of the languages, of instruction will continue to increase for the near future. The choice of Basque as the only language of instruction has increased from 67% to 74% in the last five years in preschool/ elementary education and from 50% to 57% in secondary education. There is a strong demand to study through Basque at university because students want to continue using the same language of instruction they

92

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms 80

74

70 57

60 50

Spanish Basque & Spanish

40 28 30 20 10

Basque

22 15 4

0 Preschool/elem.

Secondary

Figure 5.2 Pre-registration in languages of instruction (2011–2012) Source: Basque Government Department of Education

experienced in high school and most students in the Basque Country continue their studies at a local university. According to recent statistics, almost 50% of undergraduates choose Basque as the language of instruction at the University of the Basque Country, the largest university in the Basque Country (Irazusta, 2010). This percentage is likely to increase over the next few years, taking into account the fact that there was an increase of 3.4% in the number of students taking the university entrance exam in Basque in 2011 as compared to 2010 (Lerate, 2011). University students who have Basque as the language of instruction come from programs with Basque as the main language of instruction in elementary schools and high schools, and they also take the university entrance exam in Basque. Figure 5.3 shows the percentages of first-year university students enrolling in Basque-language instruction in four-year increments between 1997–1998 and 2009–2010. These data clearly indicate that the number of students choosing Basque-medium coursework at university level has steadily increased over the past 12 years. The rest of the students have Spanish as the language of instruction except for the courses taught through English or French, which are described in the next section, and the specialized language studies in the College of Humanities. Most compulsory courses are offered in Basque and Spanish, but bilingual students have more choices because some optional courses are not offered in both languages. Undergraduate students who enroll in Basque-medium courses are offered an optional course in the Basque language in order to gain better knowledge of the specific terminology for their disciplines.

From Bilingualism to Mult ilingualism

93

70 60 50

42 36

40 30

46 Basque-medium Instruction

23

20 10 0 1997-1998

2001-2002

2005-2006

2009-2010

Figure 5.3 Percentages of Basque-medium enrolments by 1st-year university students Source: Universidad del País Vasco (2010)

Thus far we have focused on the University of the Basque Country, but other small, private universities in the Basque Country (e.g. the University of Deusto and Mondragon University) actively promote the Basque language as well. The challenges of using a minority language as one of the languages of instruction in higher education are shared by these three universities. There are other bilingual and multilingual universities with English as a third language of instruction in some other regions where minority languages are spoken. For example, Catalan and Galician are used in higher education, but the linguistic distance between these Romance languages – Catalan, Galician and Spanish – is much smaller; Spanish speakers often acquire receptive skills in Catalan or Galician with relative ease, if sufficiently exposed to them. While Catalan has minority status, the number of Catalan speakers is actually larger than the majority languages in some European Union (EU) states. Thus, the challenges faced regarding teaching staff and materials in Catalonia are not as serious as those experienced in the Basque Country. The challenges faced by the Basque language at university level are, to a certain extent, similar to those of Welsh because Welsh is linguistically distant from English and the relative vitality of Basque and Welsh is closer than that of Basque and Catalan. An important difference, however, is that English already serves as the second language of the vast majority of Welsh speakers, while it is a third language in the Basque Country. As has been illustrated above, the use of Basque as the language of instruction at university level is now widespread but still faces many difficulties because of its minority status. Some of the main challenges are related to teaching staff, materials and research, which are addressed in the next sections of this chapter.

94

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Teaching staff Unlike subjects taught at high school level, and especially at elementary level, university courses are highly specialized and the number of lecturers and professors who can deliver instruction in Basque is sometimes insufficient to meet the increasing demand. Currently 35% of the full-time teaching staff at the University of the Basque Country are bilingual and can teach in Basque, but figures are lower in technology and health science. As we have already seen, the number of Basque-speaking students is increasing each year, but the number of Basque-speaking academic staff is not increasing to the same extent (Universidad del País Vasco, 2010). This ultimately means that some courses are only taught in Spanish. The primary means of increasing the number of bilingual professors is by replacing retiring Spanish-speaking professors and lecturers with bilingual ones; in some cases new positions are also created. All academic staff must have a certificate of proficiency in Basque in order to obtain a ‘Basque-medium position’, and the University of the Basque Country funds Basque language classes for its faculty. However, it is quite an effort for a Spanish-speaking instructor to learn enough Basque to teach a specialized course. Those teaching in Basque can get language support from the university’s Basque language service. As the tradition of using Basque for some subjects is very recent, Basque-medium instructors may also have their course materials reviewed by this service. In the past few years, the language policy at the university has included support staff who have the right to free Basque language classes while at work. Each position is assigned a specific level of Basque according to the functions and expectations required of that position.

Materials One of the main challenges of teaching through a minority language is the limited availability of textbooks and other teaching materials in the target language. Currently a wide range of materials is available in some disciplines such as law, social sciences and the humanities, but resources are still lacking in natural science, technology and health science. While books are available in Basque (or in translation), more economical and practical materials are being produced in Basque on CD and DVD. Nevertheless, the number of specialized publications in Basque compared to Spanish, French and English materials remains extremely low. Instructors teaching Basquemedium courses often have to work with source materials in other languages. This practice can be positive in itself, but is quite demanding when the classes must be taught in Basque and the terminology is of a rather specialized nature. The situation continues to improve with the development of an important Basque corpus and the production of specialized dictionaries for different disciplines.

From Bilingualism to Mult ilingualism

95

Research The use of Basque in research is much less common than in Spanish, French or English. The number of doctoral dissertations written in Basque is also much lower than the number of dissertations completed in Spanish. And while the completion of dissertations in English is not very common, that frequency seems to be increasing (see Table 5.1). The distribution of doctoral dissertations completed in all three languages, Basque, English and Spanish, at the University of the Basque Country for the 2009–2010 academic year is illustrated in Table 5.1. The first column lists the disciplines in which the dissertations were produced with the number of dissertations in that area listed in parentheses. A breakdown of the languages of the dissertations completed during the 2009–2010 academic year is shown (by discipline) in the remaining columns. The total row at the bottom of the table lists not only the total number of dissertations completed in each language, but also the percentage of the total for that year. During the 2009–2010 academic year, 251 out of 321 dissertations completed at the University of the Basque Country were written in Spanish, i.e. 78.2%. The data show that more dissertations were written in English in natural science and technology, while more dissertations were completed in Basque in disciplines related to the social sciences and humanities. A large proportion of dissertations are still written in Spanish in all disciplines. Publications in international journals are usually written in English and these tend to be valued more than local publications in Basque. Still, faculty and researchers are encouraged to publish their work in Basque, and such publications are considered crucial for the continued development of the Basque language corpus. Importantly, they are also valued for internal promotion. Furthermore, some scientific journals are currently published in Basque, and professional research written in Basque is given priority for publication at the university’s publishing house.

Table 5.1 Languages of dissertations defended (2009–2010), University of the Basque Country Discipline (number of dissertations)

Basque

English

Spanish

Natural Science (82)

5

21

56

Technology (64)

3

13

48

Health Science (47)

1

7

39

Social Science (82)

8

3

71

Humanities (46) Total 321 (100%) Source: Universidad del País Vasco (2010)

7 24 (7.5%)

2 46 (14.3%)

37 251 (78.2%)

96

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

In sum, higher education in the Basque Autonomous Community is bilingual with Basque and Spanish as the languages of instruction. The fact that one of these languages historically has had a minority status and is not spoken outside the Basque Country creates special challenges in higher education, in particular with regards to the availability of teaching staff and instructional materials. At the same time, the use of a minority language in higher education has positive implications for the development of its language corpus and its social status and, therefore, for the very future of the language.

English as a Third Language of Instruction in Higher Education In this section an additional challenge faced by higher education in the Basque Country is discussed, namely, the need to move from bilingualism to multilingualism due to the increasing need for English. Basque-medium and Spanish-medium elementary and secondary school programs in the Basque Autonomous Community include English in the curriculum as a third language. English has become more important in the curriculum in the last few years both because it is taught beginning in kindergarten and because it is becoming an additional language of instruction at other levels (see Cenoz, 2009). In some schools, English is a school subject throughout compulsory education and it is also used for other subjects, such as social science, technology and computer science. The idea is to combine content and language to provide students with more exposure to English at school as it is not used in everyday communication. Thus, most children are only exposed to English at school, while some also receive additional afterschool classes in other venues, such as private language schools. As we have already seen, English is becoming extremely important in higher education in the EU because mobility is one of the aims of the Bologna Agreement. In this context, the use of English as the medium of instruction at the university can be useful for Basque students and international students alike. The Basque Autonomous Community and Spain in general do not have a long tradition of internationalization, but this is changing; Spain strongly supports student mobility. Foreign students who come to the University of the Basque Country are often interested in taking some of their coursework in English. Those courses offered in English attract more international students as well as those who are fluent in Spanish. Instruction delivered in English provides good training for those students who previously studied English but do not necessarily feel confident about their level of knowledge and abilities. By taking one or more courses in English at their own university, they can improve their confidence in order to study at other European universities. One concern is that those students who took courses taught in English in high school may have all of their university courses

From Bilingualism to Mult ilingualism

97

taught in Basque or Spanish, causing them to forget their English, unless they manage to use it outside the university. By having some courses taught in English, students can maintain or perhaps even improve their English. Thus, the use of English as the language of instruction at university level can be an important follow-up to the multilingual experiences they had at earlier stages. In the past few years the University of the Basque Country has developed several programs for the use of the Basque language at university level. In 2005, the ‘Program to Foster Multilingualism’ was officially introduced (Universidad del País Vasco, 2011). This recent program additionally offers the possibility of choosing either English or French as the language of instruction for elective courses. In the academic year 2009–2010, 129 courses were taught in either English or French. The number of the faculty qualified to teach in English or French has gone from 130 during the 2005–2006 academic year to 511 in 2009–2010. This number excludes teaching staff who specialize in English or French Studies in the College of Humanities or in the College of Education (i.e. teacher training institutions). The number of courses offered though English and French has also increased since the program was introduced in 2005 (Universidad del País Vasco, 2011). The data for these two languages appear in Figure 5.4. The data illustrate the sharp increase in the number of courses taught in foreign languages since the implementation of the multilingual program. The number of courses in English is much higher than in French, as expected, due to the extended use of English for science and technology courses. Still, the total number of courses remains small when compared to the number of courses offered in Basque and Spanish in the entire university. The distribution of the courses is widespread across the various disciplines, but more courses are taught in English in the fields of science, technology and economics than in

140 115 120 96 100 English

80 60

French

44 33

40 16 20 0

12 0

0

1

2005

2006

2007

2008

14 2009

Figure 5.4 Number of undergraduate courses taught in English and French at the University of the Basque Country Source: Universidad del País Vasco (2010)

98

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

the social sciences or humanities. There are also some courses taught in English at graduate level, and in some graduate programs English is the only language of instruction. When compared to universities in northern Europe, the use of English is more limited in the Basque Country, but is increasing at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Of course some other European universities employ three languages of instruction as well. The University of Luxembourg is multilingual in French, German and English (see http://wwwen.uni.lu/). Luxembourgish, while an official language of the country, has very limited use at the university. Most degrees have at least two possible languages of instruction and many graduate programs are bilingual and trilingual. Some programs of study offer courses in both English and French, while others are offered in French and German, and still others are taught in only one of the three languages. The three official languages at the University of Luxembourg are strong European languages. This difference has implications for the challenges faced by multilingual programs, particularly regarding the availability of specialized lecturers who are both proficient in the languages and familiar with the terminology and materials available. Luxembourg also has a stronger tradition of mobility than the Basque Country; before the University of Luxembourg was founded in 2003, most students completed their studies in France, Belgium, Germany or other countries.

Teaching through English as a Third Language: Methodological Considerations So far we have seen that there are many challenges involved in teaching through Basque at university level and that these challenges are increased when an additional language of instruction is added to the mix, in this case, English. In this section we will consider some methodological approaches to teaching through English as a third language. These approaches are based on the specific characteristics of the multilingual situation as found at the University of the Basque Country, but they may prove useful in other contexts. One methodology has been developed for use when teaching the specific course entitled ‘Language Planning: Social and Educational Perspectives’, which is an optional course in the Social Education program. Social education majors in their second and third years at the university may take this course. The course introduces students to the fundamental concepts in language planning and language policy. It also compares the language policy practices in the Basque Country with those of other multilingual areas around the world. There is also a specific focus on the research methods used in the study of minority languages. This course is taught in English to students who take their other subjects either in Basque or Spanish.

From Bilingualism to Mult ilingualism

99

The approach used in the course is ‘focus on multilingualism’ (FoM), which will be discussed in this section. A related point that will be discussed below is whether this course can be considered an example of CLIL. FoM has been defined as ‘an approach that looks at the whole linguistic repertoire of multilingual speakers and language learners and at the relationships between the languages when conducting research, teaching, or assessing different languages’ (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011). The point of departure with this approach is to consider students as multilingual speakers. This idea is based on a holistic perspective in the study of bilingualism proposed by Grosjean (1985) and Cook (1991); they state that bilinguals (and multilinguals) have a unique form of language competence that is not necessarily comparable to that of monolinguals. Multilingual speakers are also different from monolingual speakers because they use their languages as resources and often mix them in daily communication with other multilinguals. Currently, there is a trend towards a more multilingual approach in multilingual education, so languages are used in a more flexible way because the focus is on speakers (Blackledge & Creese, 2009). García (2009) proposes a pedagogical strategy she calls ‘translanguaging’, which uses the alternation of two languages so that, for example, input can be in one language and output in another. This flexibility in the use of different languages is in contrast to the idea of using the target language as the exclusive language in the classroom. The specific undergraduate course ‘Language Planning: Social and Educational Perspectives’ has been designed to follow this type of holistic approach (i.e. FoM), and takes into account the language repertoire of the students. According to the background questionnaire the students complete every year at the outset of the course, with only a few exceptions, all students studied Basque, English and Spanish along their pre-university schooling. The instructor, who provides an explanation of the use of languages in the course syllabus, uses English exclusively in the classroom, even when answering questions asked in other languages; most of the teaching materials are also in English. Thus, nearly all of the input the learners receive is in English. Still, some classmates may provide input in other languages; students can take part in class by making comments, giving opinions and asking questions in English, Basque or Spanish. As far as students’ production is concerned, these languages are all treated with the same level of prestige, and the students are free to choose any of them for speaking or writing; students do not get extra credit for speaking or writing in English instead of the other languages. Although in this course the content focuses on language planning, any course in the area of social education could have been used to implement the FoM approach. Another important characteristic in the methodological approach used to teach this course is the use of new technologies, in particular the use of the Moodle platform (http://moodle.org). Moodle facilitates the use of

100

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

different materials such as videos, newspaper articles, pictures, maps, PowerPoint presentations and other resources that can be accessed by the students at any time. These materials are designed so as to develop multimodal communicative practice that combines the use of language with other semiotic elements, such as images, icons and pictures (Jewitt & Kress, 2003). The idea is that this multilingual and multimodal approach can develop competencies that are useful for learning the subject content while simultaneously helping to improve the learners’ proficiency in English. What are the advantages of FoM for teaching a course in English? According to FoM, a strict separation of languages is not desirable because there is natural interaction among the languages multilingual speakers use both at the psycholinguistic level and in everyday multilingual contexts. The pedagogical use of languages in a multilingual context needs to be linked to the aims of the course. Since this is not a language course, there is no need to require production in English. In a language class, the FoM approach might be applied differently. One of the main advantages of FoM is that many more students can use their own resources in more than one language and at the same time have access to English. A small-scale study was conducted in 2010 in order to learn about the students’ attitudes towards the use of English as the medium of instruction. The participants were 63 students studying social education who had various levels of proficiency in English; they participated in a forum and discussed the following topic: This is the first time that most of you have taken a content course taught in English at the university. I would like you to discuss how you feel about it and any advantages, disadvantages, or difficulties you have noticed. Is it a good idea to have content courses taught in English? How many? Why? The data collected were analyzed to identify the main ideas the students expressed regarding the use of English and any difficulties they may have faced. Over 90% of the students believed that taking a content course in English was a positive experience since it gave them the opportunity to activate and use their language skills. The following excerpts provide a sample interaction: Esta asignatura me parece una buena oportunidad para practicar un poco lo poco que podía saber de inglés y que tengo muy oxidado. [I think that this course is a good way to practice a bit the little English I know that is kind of rusty.] (Student 51) La verdad es que en eso tienes razón, por lo menos practicamos nuestro inglés; eso siempre es positivo. [You’re right about that, at least we practiced our English; that’s always good.] (Student 37)

From Bilingualism to Mult ilingualism

101

However, not all of the students’ comments were positive. Approximately 25% of the students stated that they found it difficult to follow along in class and would have welcomed more Spanish, as the following four exchanges indicate: A mí también creo que se me haría más fácil si el material fuera también en castellano . . . hay veces que creo que no llego al nivel de los demás en clase, porque no consigo entender todo lo que se dice en inglés. [I also think it would be easier for me if the material were in Spanish too . . . sometimes I think I’m not at the same level as the rest of the class, because I can’t figure out everything that is said in English.] (Student 28) A mí me pasa exactamente lo mismo que a ti, me resulta a veces muy frustrante tener que limitarme a comprender por encima las cosas, pillar solo las ideas generales. [That’s exactly what happens to me, sometimes I get really frustrated having to limit myself to just getting the gist of things, grasping only the main ideas.] (Student 43) ¡Echo de menos los materiales en castellano!  (sic) [I miss having the materials in Spanish! ] (Student 15) ¡Eso nos pasa a todos! Pero lo importante es que acabaremos mejor que cuando empezamos. [That happens to all of us! But the important thing is that we’ll be better off than when we started.] (Student 57) These extracts show that learning through English can be challenging and even frustrating since students have to work hard and they struggle to learn with partial comprehension. The forum posts also show that some students were not confident about their level of English proficiency, even those who had studied the language for many years. Still, an approach that allows the use of three languages in oral and written production is highly appreciated because it makes it easier for them to participate. The following examples illustrate this point: Valoro también que esta asignatura nos acerca también a la posibilidad de expresarnos libremente en la lengua en la que más cómodos nos sintamos . . .. Este hecho me parece una oportunidad para todos los alumnos, ya que todos podemos tomar parte en ella, independientemente del nivel de inglés que tengamos. [I also appreciate the fact that in this course we can express ourselves freely in the language we feel most comfortable in . . . This seems to be an opportunity for all the students because we can all participate regardless of our level of English]. (Student 48) Tenemos muchas posibilidades porque podemos hablar y hacer los ‘tasks’ en inglés, castellano o euskera. [We have many options because we can talk and complete the tasks in English, Spanish, or Basque.] (Student 34)

102

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

The idea of using other languages is seen as a way to avoid difficulties, considering the students’ limited proficiency in English. It is easier for them to complete tasks and to participate in class in Spanish and Basque. Spanish is used more often than Basque both orally and in writing. The data collected so far are still exploratory but indicate that the use of three languages in this course allows more students to participate in the activities than if the course were taught only through the medium of English. The flexible use of the languages and the support given by multimodal resources has given students better means to follow the course. In the context of the Basque Autonomous Community where English is a foreign language, not used in everyday life, many students stopped having contact with English when they entered the university as they stopped having English-language classes regularly. Although the aim of the course is not the development of the students’ communicative abilities in English, according to the information they provided, this has been a welcome, additional benefit. Apart from learning more about language planning, students have opportunities to activate their knowledge of English and even to make some progress, as can be seen in the comments made by these two students: La verdad es que es la primera vez que tengo un curso en inglés pero he disfrutado de él y ha sido muy útil para practicar más y no olvidar una lengua que es tan importante. [The truth is that this is the first time I have taken a course taught in English, but I enjoyed it and it was very useful for additional practice so that I don’t forget such an important language.] (Student 12) Apart from refreshing my knowledge of English after several years of not using it and learning many things about languages, I think that the most important [thing] is that by using English in this course we are taking an important step towards multilingualism. (Student 20) A FoM approach can be used in different ways depending on the aim of the course but its main characteristics are that strict boundaries are not established among the languages and that all languages in the multilingual’s linguistic repertoire are taken into account (see also Cenoz & Gorter, 2011). An additional issue that has already been mentioned in the second section is related to the scope of CLIL. Is the course discussed in this section an example of CLIL? The scope of CLIL is not always clear as can be seen in the following definitions: The acronym CLIL is used as a generic term to describe all types of provision in which a second language (a foreign, regional or minority language and/or another official state language) is used to teach certain subjects in the curriculum other than the language lessons themselves. (Eurydice, 2006: 8)

From Bilingualism to Mult ilingualism

103

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a generic term that refers to the teaching of subjects in a different language from the mainstream language of instruction. It is an educational approach in which diverse methodologies are used which lead to dual-focussed education where attention is given to both topic and language of instruction. (Marsh, 2008) The definition provided by Eurydice is very open and includes not only foreign languages but also regional and minority languages. The course discussed here could be defined as CLIL according to Eurydice’s definition because a foreign language is used to teach a subject in the curriculum. The definition given by Marsh, which is similar to the definition given by Coyle et al. (2010), refers to ‘dual-focused’ education with attention to topic and language. It is more difficult to consider the course described here as having a dual focus on language and content because three languages are used throughout the course. Obviously, language is central to the content of the course because the course is on language planning, but there is no specific focus on teaching and acquiring English language skills. The focus is on learning about languages in society, languages at school and languages in the workplace and the way language policies can be developed and implemented at different levels. English is used as the medium of instruction but there is no specific assessment of English language skills. However, as we have seen in the forum posts, students also activate their knowledge of English. Thus, it might be said that it is very likely that there is some implicit language learning taking place. The use of three languages in the course is not a typical characteristic of CLIL, yet teaching through the medium of a foreign language seems to be more similar to typical CLIL approaches.

Final Remarks This chapter focuses on the shift from bilingualism to multilingualism in higher education with particular attention to the Basque Country where Basque, Spanish and English serve as the languages of instruction. The spread of English as an international language and its central role in science and technology make it necessary for students and academic staff to acquire necessary language skills so as to be able to access information and to communicate in English. This need is made explicit in the European Higher Education Area where English is a requirement for international mobility. English is in many cases one of the languages in the students’ linguistic repertoire and, in some cases, one of the languages of instruction. In the case of the University of the Basque Country, English is the third language of instruction along with Basque and Spanish. Taking into account new approaches to multilingualism (e.g. Lüdi & Py, 2009) and the linguistic

104

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

repertoire of university students in the Basque Country, the previous section explains the basis of the methodological approach used to teach through English in an optional course in social education. The approach used in the course is FoM; it is characterized by the use of ‘translanguaging’ and multimodality (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011; García, 2009). Although the approach described is linked to one particular higher education context, using English as the medium of instruction, a multilingual perspective can have implications for many other contexts in which a second or third language is used as the medium of instruction. It opens up the possibility of using a second or foreign language as the language of instruction even with students who do not have a high level of competence in the language. At the same time, it looks at students as multilinguals who can communicate using their linguistic resources in three languages rather than in their strongest language only.

Acknowledgements This chapter was written with the assistance of research grant EDU201232191 from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology and Basque government funding for the research group Donostia Research on Education and Multilingualism (DREAM), UFI 11/54.

References Blackledge, A. and Creese, A. (2009) Multilingualism: A Critical Perspective. London: Continuum. Bologna Declaration (1999) Bologna Declaration on the European Space for Higher Education, accessed 15 April 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/ bologna.pdf. Cenoz, J. (2009) Towards Multilingual Education: Basque Educational Research from an International Perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2013) Third language acquisition. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.) The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley (online). DOI: 10.1002/ 9781405198431.wbeal1214. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (eds) (2008) Applied linguistics and the use of minority languages in education. AILA Review 21 (special issue), 1–110. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2011) Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. The Modern Language Journal 95 (3), 356–369, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011. 01206.x. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. and Gorter, D. (2013) Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amt011 Cook, V. (1991) The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research 7, 103–117. Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. (2010) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. EC (2005) A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism, accessed 8 April 2011. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2005:0596: FIN:EN:PDF. EC (2006) Eurobarometer 243. Europeans and Their Languages. Brussels: European Commission, accessed 8 April 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ ebs_243_sum_en.pdf.

From Bilingualism to Mult ilingualism

105

EC (2011) The ERASMUS Programme – Studying in Europe and More. Brussels: European Commission, accessed 8 April 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learningprogramme/doc80_en.htm. Edwards, J. (2007) Societal multilingualism: Reality, recognition and response. In P. Auer and L. Wei (eds) Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication (pp. 447– 467). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Etxeberria, F. and Elosegi, K. (2008) Basque, Spanish and immigrant minority languages in the Basque school. Language, Culture and Curriculum 21, 69–84. Eurydice (2006) Content and Language Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit. Fortanet-Gómez, I. and Räisänen, Ch. (eds) (2008) ESP in European Higher Education. Integrating Language and Content. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. García, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Gordon, R.G. (ed.) (2005) Ethnologue: Languages of the World (15th edn). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online at http://www.ethnologue.com. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. Why Global English May Mean the End of English as a Foreign Language. London: British Council. Grosjean, F. (1985) The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, 467–77. Hellekjaer, G. and Westergaard, M. (2003) An exploratory survey of content learning through English in Nordic universities. In C. Van Leeuwen and R. Wilkinson (eds) Multilingual Approaches in University Education (pp. 65–80). Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers. Internet World Stats (2011) Top 10 languages. Usage and Population Statistics. Online at http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm. Irazusta, J. (2010) Euskara sustatzeko politika UPV/EHUn: Plan gidaria. Bat soziolinguistika aldizkaria 75, 73–82. Jewitt, C. and Kress, G. (2003) Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang. Lerate, A. (2011) Seis de cada diez alumnos harán las pruebas de selectividad en euskera, accessed 7 June 2011. Online at http://www.diariovasco.com/v/20110607/al-diasociedad/seis-cada-diez-alumnos-20110607.html. Lüdi, G. and Pi, B. (2009) To be or not to be … a plurilingual speaker. International Journal of Multilingualism 6, 154–167. Marsh, D. (2008) Language awareness and CLIL. In J. Cenoz and N. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 6: Knowledge About Language (pp. 233–246). Berlin/New York: Springer. Menken, K. (2011) From policy to practice in the multilingual apple: Bilingual education in New York City. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 14, 121–131. Moseley, C. (ed.) (2009) UNESCO Interactive Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. Paris: UNESCO, accessed 3 April 2011. http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/ en/atlasmap.html. Roberts, S. (2010) Listening to (and saving) the world’s languages. New York Times April 28 2010, accessed 15 April 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/ nyregion/29lost.html?_r_1. UCL (2011) Linguistics – Database of London’s Languages. London: UCL Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, accessed 15 April 2011. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ psychlangsci/research/linguistics/dll. Universidad del País Vasco (2010) La Universidad del País Vasco en cifras 2009–2010. G¡puzkoa, University of the Basque Country, accessed 15 April 2011. http://www. ehu.es/p200-shstatct/es/contenidos/estadistica/universidad_cifras_2009_2010/es_ cif_2010/adjuntos/UPV_en_cifras.pdf.

106

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Universidad del País Vasco (2011) Multilingualism plan. G¡puzkoa, University of the Basque Country. Online at www.euskara-errektoreordetza.ehu.es/p267content/es/contenidos/informacion/banner_plan_plurilinguismo/es_indice/plan_ plurilinguismo.html. Wilkinson, R. and Zegers, V. (2006) Assessing incipient linguistic competences: An institutional perspective. In R. Wilkinson, V. Zegers and C. van Leuwen (eds) Bridging the Assessment Gap in English-medium Higher Education (pp. 61–76). Nijmegen: AKD-Verlag Bochum. Yu, L. (2008) English–Chinese bilingual education in China. In J. Cummins and N. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 5: Bilingual Education (pp. 175–189). New York: Springer.

6

100 Bilingual Lessons: Distributing Two Languages in Classrooms Gwyn Lewis, Bryn Jones and Colin Baker

Introduction The literature on bilingual education has been predominantly about models, systems and typologies. There is also a strong dimension of writing on the political and ideological aspects of bilingual education (Baker, 2011). Many theoretical and research publications are about national systems and innovations, and are at the level of policy and provision. With the exception of literacy, there is relatively sparse material on what happens in bilingual classrooms, grounded, and related to the multitude of pedagogical decisions that teachers have to make, minute by minute, lesson by lesson, day by day. The process and practice of dual language use in individual lessons in bilingual classrooms tends to be more of a mystery than measured. One area of bilingual classrooms where there exists dual language usage that we know little about is the actual use of two languages, their distribution, balance and explicit or implicit purpose in lessons. While there have been studies of classroom code-switching (e.g. Chitera, 2009; Jaffe, 2007; Kamwangamalu, 2010; Lin, 1996, 2006), the wider issues are when, why and where there is joint language use in a classroom. Are there variations across age groups, ability levels (language proficiency and general ability), across subjects and disciplines, instructional strategies (e.g. in whole class work compared with group work), across teachers within the same subjects, school or district even when there is an explicit policy? What influence, even control, do children exert on the use of two languages within the same lesson? Are teachers aware of how they use two languages and why? In bilingual classrooms when two languages are in use, there are overlapping 107

108

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

and interacting complex dimensions to be studied, as described in the following examples: •

• •

• • •

•

•

Use of two languages in different lessons or subjects (e.g. mathematics, science, music, physical education). The relative status of such allocation is important in the signals and messages about language status that children receive and internalize. For example, is the higher-status language used for mathematics and science and the lower-status language used for practical activities or classroom management? The observed use of two languages. For example, for scaffolding, translation, code-switching, translanguaging (see later). The perceptions of teachers and children may be different from observations. Attempts to separate two languages (i.e. compartmentalize) by constructing boundaries (e.g. by time, teachers, place, content, etc.) or by using two languages simultaneously (e.g. code-switching, translation, translanguaging). Variations in practice across age ranges (e.g. different language allocation strategies at preschool, early grades of primary education, later primary/ secondary education and higher education). Teacher language proficiency, confidence, attitudes and multilingual use. What are such teachers’ pre-service and in-service training, preferences and assumptions regarding bilingualism and multilingualism in a lesson? Language proficiency of different children on entry to school, and in their growth in such proficiency during each grade. For example, different uses of the two languages may occur with children who lack fluency in one language, or who are proficient in both languages, or when the class is mixed (fluent bilinguals and emerging bilinguals in the same class). Language balance of the children in the classroom. For instance, proportions of children with different first languages, heritage and immigrant languages, higher- and lower-status languages. A recent issue has been the balance of majority and minority language students in a school so that the majority language does not increasingly dominate (Lindholm-Leary, 2000, 2005). This is an issue both in dual language schools and in heritage language schools (Hickey, 2001, 2007; Lewis, 2004, 2008). Where the balance is weighted too much towards majority language speakers, informal classroom language may turn frequently to the majority language. Even at the preschool level, children appear to be aware of the different status, power and intergroup relationship between the two languages (Hickey, 2001). Their language preference can thus be affected by the saturation of majority language speakers in a mixed-language classroom (Hickey & Ó Cainín, 2001). Balance of use of two languages in a lesson (e.g. dominant and subordinate usage). Hickey (2001) found that in mixed-language classes, teachers’ language was often dominated by the presence of second language learners.

100 Bilingual Lessons

•

• •

109

Such teachers tended to simplify their language to accommodate second language learners, asking fewer questions, giving less feedback and offering more repetition for understanding by second language children. Changes across time, for example, at the start of the school year compared with later in the semester and year. Joint language use may evolve as children’s language competences develop and/or as the curriculum becomes more complex and abstract. The effects of class size and teacher–children ratio (e.g. small rural schools with mixed-age classes compared with large urban schools where there may be ability bands/streams in the later grades). The tradition, politics, mission and ethos of the school (including the local community and region) regarding majority language, minority language, bilingualism, bilingual/multilingual education, multiculturalism and interculturalism. Is the language lesson strategy additive or subtractive, fractional or holistic?

The Allocation of Two Languages in a Bilingual Classroom One recent interest in bilingualism in the classroom has been in the allocation of two languages, strategically or otherwise, consciously or unintentionally. This stems from Jacobson (1990) who discussed four concurrent uses of two languages in a bilingual classroom: • •

•

•

Switching languages. Bilinguals (teachers and students) may frequently and naturally switch languages in lessons. Translating/interpreting. In some bilingual classrooms, teachers will repeat what they have previously said in another language for the benefit of children who are dominant in different languages. The danger is that the student will opt out of listening when the teacher is transmitting in the weaker language and may therefore be less efficient in learning. Previewing, viewing and reviewing. Giving the introduction and instruction in one language, and then a full review in the other language. While an extension and reinforcement of ideas occurs by moving from one language to another, there is sometimes also unnecessary duplication and a slow momentum. Purposeful concurrent usage. Jacobson (1990) argued for similar amounts of time to be allocated to two languages, and for teachers to initiate movement from one language to another via discrete events and episodes. This strategy aims to strengthen and develop both languages, and to reinforce taught concepts by being considered and processed in both languages. A use of both languages, Jacobson (1990) suggested, contributes to a deeper understanding of the subject matter being studied.

110

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Jacobson’s concept of purposeful concurrent use developed into an interest in ‘translanguaging’ in Welsh classrooms (Baker, 2011) and in New York communities (García, 2009a, 2009b). The first detailed consideration of translanguaging was by Williams (1994, 1996), as a way of developing two languages to competency, but also resulting in effective content learning. The pedagogical use of the term refers to the planned and systematic use of two languages inside the same lesson by specifying and varying languages of input and output. For example, the input (reading and/or listening) could be in one language, and the output (speaking and/or writing) in the other, and this alternation would be systematic. García (2009a, 2009b) has valuably extended the term beyond pedagogy to mean more than variation of input and output in a school lesson. She regards translanguaging as a strategy that bilinguals use to make meaning, shape their experiences and gain understanding and knowledge through the use of two languages. Both languages are used in an integrated and coherent way to organize and mediate mental processes in learning, both inside and outside the classroom. García (2009a) introduces the term ‘co-languaging’ where the content is delivered to different language groups simultaneously. For example, a PowerPoint slide may present both languages on the screen, using the same content, but using a different font or colour for each language. The presentation is arranged systematically so that students can easily understand using one language or both (Welsh Language Board, 2001). When a child accesses both languages, then the reinforcement of learning or deeper learning may occur. In classrooms in Wales, the concept of translanguaging has gained ground since 1994, capturing the imagination of those who believe that teachers and, particularly, students naturally use both languages to maximize learning. Scholars and some teachers are seemingly changing from ideas about the strict separation of languages to concepts about bilingualism that are holistic rather than fractional (Grosjean, 1985, 2008), less compartmentalized than diglossia (Fishman, 1980) with its notion of separate functions for two languages, with code-switching in early childhood language acquisition more customary than strict ‘one parent-one language’ (OPOL) language separation strategies (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004). There also appears to be less emphasis on language separation in the classroom and more on strategic language integration (Baker, 2010). Separating languages in the classroom by subject or topic, teacher or time (half days, whole days) has hitherto been fashionable, but bilingual pedagogy is beginning to move towards the use of two or more languages in the same lesson (Baker, 2010). This reflects the idea that children pragmatically use both of their languages in order to maximize understanding and performance in any lesson. According to García (2009a, 2009b), bilinguals typically deal with their bilingual worlds through translanguaging. Translanguaging is not about codeswitching so much as about using hybrid language in systematic and strategic ways which make sense for both speaker and listener. She has claimed that

100 Bilingual Lessons

111

‘bilinguals translanguage to include and facilitate communication with others, but also to construct deeper understandings and make sense of their bilingual worlds’ (García, 2009a: 45). The idea here is that bilinguals often have no clear-cut boundaries in the way they use their two languages, but integrate them in a functional way. Both García (2009a, 2009b) and Creese and Blackledge (2010) regard this interconnected use of the two languages to negotiate meaning and gain understanding as dynamic bilingualism. The implication of this dynamic use of two languages is that teachers can encourage children to use both of their languages to maximize their learning through, for example, collaborative writing, task-based conversations with other children, common use of resources and, not least, when working electronically (e.g. the internet). According to García (2009a: 307), ‘Translanguaging is indeed a powerful mechanism to construct understandings, to include others, and to mediate understandings across language groups’. There are four potential advantages to translanguaging and transliteracy (Baker, 2004). The first advantage is that it may help students to gain a deeper and fuller understanding of any given subject matter. Translanguaging is a very effective way to achieve this, bearing in mind that pre-existing knowledge provides a good foundation for further learning and that the interdependence of two languages makes for easy cross-linguistic transfer (Cummins, 2008). Students in a monolingual teaching situation may be able to answer questions or write an essay about a subject without fully understanding it or needing to think about it. It is quite easy for them to copy or paraphrase entire sentences or paragraphs from a textbook or the internet without having much idea about the meaning. Translanguaging makes such a lack of real understanding much less likely. For instance, a student who is required to read and discuss a topic in one language, and then to write about it in another language, necessarily has to process and ‘digest’ the subject matter in order to grasp its meaning. Similarly, the sociocultural theory of learning (Drury, 2007; Swain & Lapkin, 2005; Swain et al., 2011) supports the view that no classroom should operate solely through a second language, even in an immersion situation. We all learn through speaking and writing. When a student is unable to process information in his second or third language (e.g. early on in an immersion classroom), then he naturally turns to his first language for thinking and understanding. Making children use a second language to work on a problem they cannot handle in that language is a recipe for failure. Children’s first language is often the best resource they have for dealing with a classroom task. Their thinking power is likely to be reduced if they are required to work only in a second or third language, particularly when curriculum content is cognitively very demanding (Fortune et al., 2008; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008; Met, 1998, 2008). Allowing them to use their first language (as well as a second language) is more likely to enhance both their learning and the development of their

112

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

second language. The potential benefits of this approach include developing strategies to manage a task, scaffolding, externalizing in speech and working through a task with others (Swain & Lapkin, 2005). The social situations and the cultural context in which language is used influence what people say. Bakhtin (1994) maintains that any word in any language is half someone else’s, because it originates in previous social exchanges and is then re-used in future exchanges. The relevance of sociocultural theory to the bilingual classroom is that, by allowing students to use both languages in a planned, developmental and strategic manner, teachers can maximize a student’s linguistic and cognitive capability. The second advantage of translanguaging is that it may help students to develop oral communication and literacy in their weaker language. It has the potential to prevent students from tackling the main part of the work in their stronger language while undertaking the less challenging aspects of the work in their weaker language. Translanguaging attempts to develop academic language skills in both languages, leading to a fuller bilingualism and biliteracy. Thirdly, the dual use of languages can make home–school cooperation a great deal easier. Minority language parents will be more able to help with their children’s schoolwork if they can communicate in their own language. Indeed, translanguaging can overcome the concerns of some parents – whose children are operating bilingually in school – that their children are being educated in a language that they do not understand. Such parents complain that they cannot, therefore, help their children with their homework or discuss their schoolwork with them. The key point about translanguaging is that switching from one language to another involves the reprocessing of content rather than the mere translation of words. This reprocessing may lead to deeper understanding and learning. In that case, children can expand, extend and intensify what they have learned in one language in school through discussion with their parent in the other language. Fourthly, translanguaging can facilitate the integration of fluent L1 speakers and L2 learners of various levels of attainment. For example, students learning English can develop their second language skills concurrently with content learning (Maillat & Serra, 2009) if they are integrated with first-language English speakers, and if both languages are used sensitively and strategically in class. Indeed, Williams’ (1994, 1996) original idea was that translanguaging is important because it strongly develops a student’s minority language. That is not to deny that the complexity of managing, allocating and organizing such a pedagogical use of two languages can present problems (Ferguson, 2003; Jacobson, 1990). Translanguaging in a classroom may not be beneficial to a child who is in the very early stages of learning a language. Effective input and output in two languages depends on both languages being reasonably well developed or approaching that stage. Also, this will depend to some extent on the subject being taught; some curricular areas or subjects

100 Bilingual Lessons

113

do not involve relatively much jargon, abstract notions or complex language; therefore, they are potentially more suitable for translanguaging at an earlier stage, particularly for those who are still beginning to develop their second language. It must also be noted that students, school principals and teachers may disagree among themselves about the merits of translanguaging. For example, students may prefer to work in one language rather than two. Some students may prefer to use their stronger language or the one which has the higher social status. For example, students in dual language programs may choose to move from Spanish to English even in Spanish-medium lessons (DePalma, 2010; McGroarty, 2010). Thus, translanguaging may be naturally used by children; it may be engineered by the teacher. Yet sometimes students may prefer to use one language rather than two. For example, students may attempt to remain speaking in their first language, especially if it is a majority language, when the classroom language is mostly a minority language. In such cases, the teacher may try to control the classroom language rather than allow student preference. This control may decrease the use of concurrent approaches such as translanguaging. An example of this is a minority language classroom where the teacher wishes to preserve and safeguard the use of that minority language. The discussion above has been conceptual and analytical. However, what actually happens in bilingual classrooms when both languages are used concurrently in a lesson? Williams’ (1994, 1996) research identified examples of translanguaging to demonstrate to teachers what is possible. He shows effective styles and situations for efficient joint language use in lessons providing innovative advocacy of translanguaging. What is not known is what occurs in typical classrooms when two languages are used concurrently. Do teachers use translanguaging? Is translation more common? Are teachers aware of their joint language strategies or is it more serendipitous? There is a dearth of research that examines typical teachers in ordinary classrooms and maps their use of two languages. The research reported in this chapter attempts to begin mapping answers to these questions. It reports an innovative study in Wales that examined – by structured observation and interviews – the actual and intended use of two languages in 100 lessons in elementary/primary and high/secondary schools, across subject areas and language backgrounds. The research is the first comprehensive survey of its kind on methods of bilingual teaching and learning in Welsh schools. The research methodology is introduced below.

Methodology of the Research Research aim and questions The aim of the research was to map existing practices in the use of two languages in 100 classroom lessons in a purposive sample of primary

114

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

(elementary) schools and secondary (high) schools across Wales. In a purposive sample ‘researchers hand-pick the cases to be included in the sample on the basis of their judgment of their typicality or possession of the particular characteristics being sought. In this way, they build up a sample that is satisfactory to their specific needs’ (Cohen et al., 2011: 156). The research was driven by two questions: (1) How are two languages used for teaching and learning in Welsh/English bilingual classrooms? (2) Are there associations of two language allocation that can be identified from classroom analyses?

Sample of schools A purposive sample of 29 schools was carefully selected from throughout Wales. A wide mix of schools was chosen in order to encompass the following factors: the different local authorities of Wales; varied and diverse rural and urban sociolinguistic contexts; small and large schools and classes; primary and secondary schools; and different classroom composition mixtures of heritage language/second language learners/recent immigrants. To include transition across primary schools and secondary schools, there was a deliberate pairing of one secondary school and two feeder primary schools, i.e. one large urban primary school and one small rural primary school (representative of different sociolinguistic backgrounds, size and number of teachers). Lewis (2008) provides details of the school system in Wales. Such schools were selected from a population of 518 schools in Wales that operate bilingually (Welsh Assembly Government, 2009). At the commencement of the survey (2007/2008), according to the Welsh Assembly Government’s statistical bulletin (Welsh Assembly Government, 2009), there were 464 Welsh-medium primary schools (54,895 students) and 54 Welsh-medium secondary schools (40,756 students). This formed the population of primary schools and secondary schools from which a sample was selected. The selection of schools was essentially defined by wide information gathering that pinpointed teachers who used both languages in lessons on a regular basis. From initial enquiries and investigations (e.g. telephone interviews with schools, visits and discussions with local authority officials), a purposive selection of schools was formed and contacted. Five schools declined to be involved in the research. Between December 2007 and February 2010, 100 lesson observations were completed in 29 schools. Each school was visited for between one and three days. This allowed time for interviews with the principal, teachers and students, in addition to observation in a more ethnographic style to ensure contextualization, insights and wider experience of the school than a lesson. Of these, 55 lesson observations were in 10 secondary schools, and 45 observations were completed in 19 primary schools. While this is not a random sample of the population with statistical generalizability,

100 Bilingual Lessons

115

the lessons were chosen with considerable preparation, care and understanding of the context of each school to attempt to make these schools representative of dual language lessons across Wales. The number of students in a lesson ranged from four to 50 with a mean of 19.9, and a standard deviation of 7.1. In 26 of the 100 lessons, more than one year group was present. The average percentage ratio of males to females in a class was 53:47 with a standard deviation of 21.2.

Sample of lessons Lessons were chosen by purposive sampling (Cohen et al., 2011) within each school to generate evidence for language allocation that was crossdisciplinary (across subject areas) as well as interdisciplinary. The lessons took into account varying ages and cognitive development; they also included the varying balances of children on the second language/first language continuum and varied language contexts (e.g. English newcomers to Welsh heartland areas, immersion classes where the majority of students are from Englishlanguage backgrounds and/or non-English backgrounds, classes where there is a mixture of first and second language Welsh-speaking children and classes where the majority of children are from Welsh language backgrounds). The mean length of a lesson observation (see below) was 56.0 minutes with a mode of 60 minutes and a standard deviation of 11.0 minutes. Table 6.1 below

Table 6.1 Total number of lessons in each age group Grade level

Number of lessons observed

Preschool (3–5 year olds)

10

1st grade (5–6 years olds)

3

2nd grade (6–7 years olds)

4

3rd grade (7–8 years olds)

10

4th grade (8–9 years olds)

5

5th grade (9–10 years olds)

10

6th grade (10–11 years olds)

3

7th grade (11–12 years olds)

4

8th grade (12–13 years olds)

14

9th grade (13–14 years olds)

6

10th grade (14–15 years olds)

17

11th grade (15–16 years olds)

6

12th grade (16–17 years olds)

8

Total

100

116

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Table 6.2 Content of lessons observed Content area of the lesson

Number of lessons observed

Grouping (see later)

Language, literacy and communication

1

Interdisciplinary (age 3–7)

Knowledge and understanding of the world

13

Interdisciplinary (age 3–7)

Physical development

1

Interdisciplinary (age 3–7)

Creative development

2

Interdisciplinary (age 3–7)

Mathematics

12

Math & science

Science

10

Math & science

Design and technology

10

Practical/vocational

Information and communication technology

4

Practical/vocational

Modern foreign language

4

Arts & humanities

11

Arts & humanities

Geography

8

Arts & humanities

Art and design

5

Arts & humanities

Music

2

Arts & humanities

Physical education

5

Practical/vocational

Religious education

5

Arts & humanities

Vocational

7

Practical/vocational

History

indicates the spread of lessons across different grade and age groups, while Table 6.2 shows the subject content of those 100 lessons.

Research tools The style of research was multi-method, collecting data and evidence by both quantitative and qualitative approaches. This included the following: •

Non-participant observation in classrooms focusing on the language profile of students in the classroom, the language(s) used by the teacher when addressing the whole class/groups/individuals, the languages used by the students when talking to the teacher/talking together in small groups/talking individually to one another, language teaching and instruction, content and language integrated learning (CLIL), reasons why teachers and/or students switch languages within lessons, strategies

100 Bilingual Lessons

• • •

117

in respect of the use of two languages in the classroom (e.g. attempt to separate languages, translation, scaffolding for non-fluent students, translanguaging). Semi-structured interviews with principals, teachers and students in primary schools and secondary schools. Whole-school observations focusing on the overall Welsh language ethos/ environment of the school and classrooms. Collection of information on sample schools (e.g. inspection reports, prospectus, curriculum material).

Prior to the commencement of the main research, a pilot study led to the construction of a detailed structured observation schedule for all lessons. This schedule gave the basis of the interviews with teachers and students, partly as a triangulation process. Such triangulation and reliability cross-checking was undertaken by within-school comparisons of lessons – across time (e.g. two or three days) in the same sites to ensure consistency – and by comparing interviews with observations, especially in reported strategies in two-language use. To establish inter-observer reliability on the structured observation schedule, independent observations (involving two project research officers and one of the principal directors of the research) were conducted in 39 of the 100 lessons. After much training, discussions and negotiation of meanings in the previous pilot phase, common understandings between observers were gained. This enabled an unexpected overall inter-observer agreement of 100% in the 39 lessons.

Limitations of the Research Before proceeding to share some of the initial quantitative and qualitative evidence from the hundred lessons that were observed, the limitations of the research should be noted. First, this is contextually bound in Wales where bilingual education has over a 70-year history, is particularly bound to a strong movement to revitalize the Welsh language, and is part of language planning at government level, with Welsh as a compulsory part of the curriculum for all children from age 5–16. Thus, the typology may not fit bilingual education in other contexts, countries or continents. While the methodology to obtain such a typology is regarded as original and potentially impactful in Wales, the generalizability of the typology outside Wales is likely to be limited. Second, the research methodology involved the relatively intensive observation of 100 lessons in a small number of schools. Given that the sampling was purposive and not random or structured random, and it did not use cluster sampling, quota sampling or other probability methods, generalization

118

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

to other schools, classrooms or contexts in Wales, and across time, will be limited. While it is claimed that this typology is a considerable improvement over previous conceptualizations involving mostly guesswork and advocacy, nevertheless it needs to be tested for replication across place, person and time. Third, there is a sense in which every lesson is unique and highly individual, containing a dynamic of that moment and an interaction of actors with an audience of one or two researchers who may have affected the performance. Reduction to a typology is valuable for brevity and efficient discussion, yet its simplicity necessarily reduces the individual complexity of lessons. The typology to be presented is essentially based on the expected twolanguage usage in lessons. This typology is informed by detailed bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses, but also by all the qualitative evidence accrued, and is felt by the research group to provide an overarchingly best fit from all the data and evidence available. What are the characteristics of each type? Does a particular type tend to relate empirically to a particular age group, subject topic under instruction and the language proficiency levels of children within that classroom? Thus, a profile of these lessons was created in order to further understand how different two-language approaches relate to different pedagogical and personal profiles. This is considered after presentation of the typology.

Results As pointed out in the section on methodology, above, the first research question was: How are two languages used for teaching and learning in Welsh/English bilingual classrooms? A key part of the observation was to classify each of the hundred lessons in terms of its dual language use. Pilot testing suggested that, while some lessons were mixed in dual language use, most lessons predominantly used a particular strategy. That is, while categorization of two-language use is sometimes not simple, and the categories not exclusive, nevertheless lessons tended to use a particular style that could be defined and counted. The categories of style used are provided in Table 6.3, along with the frequency across these categories. The profile of a ninecategory typology of two-language use in the classrooms studied is presented below.

Typology of two-language arrangements in bilingual schools in Wales The first three types below do not use both languages for content learning. Although bilingual language development is a partial aim, especially in

100 Bilingual Lessons

119

the second and third types, the language of the classroom in terms of input, process and output is mainly monolingual. In contrast, types 4 through 9 concern the dual usage of two languages.

Type 1. Monolingual use of one language (L1 Welsh) Mostly Welsh language instruction for Welsh L1 students fitting a heritage language education model (Baker, 2011). For example, one indoor lesson followed an outdoor visit to study trees for 6–7 year-old children whose first language was Welsh. The language aim of the lesson was to reinforce vocabulary ensuring they learned the Welsh words for the bark, roots and trunk of a tree (rhisgl = bark, gwreiddiau = roots, boncyff = trunk) and to reinforce sentence structure by constant use of the present perfect tense in the affirmative and negative. The children were asked to use story prompt cards to complete the written task ‘Stori y ddeilen grin’ [Story of the withered leaf]: Mae gen i liw brown ac ochrau garw (‘I have . . .’). Does gen i ddim lliw gwyrdd a chwyr sgleiniog (‘I don’t have . . .’). This needs understanding in terms of the students being surrounded by the majority language outside the classroom, such that the minority language needs much emphasis so as to achieve some form of relatively balanced bilingualism in L1 minority language children.

Type 2. Monolingual use of one language (L2 Welsh) Mostly Welsh language instruction for second language Welsh students fitting an immersion education approach (Baker, 2011) and what García terms ‘teaching monolingually for bilingualism’ (García, 2009a: 309). A simple example from a lesson for kindergarten-age children was singing so as to develop Welsh vocabulary, including counting: Adeiladu tyˆ bach Un, dau, tri To ar ei ben o A dyna ni

[Let’s build a house] [One, two, three] [A roof on the top of it] [And there it is / finished].

There was no translation or use of English, the approach being total immersion. However, actions with hands and fingers help understanding, such that there was non-verbal scaffolding.

Type 3. Monolingual use of one language in mixed L1/L2 classrooms In classes containing a varying mixture of L1 and L2 Welsh speakers, predominantly Welsh instruction for all students in the same classroom, or predominantly English instruction for both English L1 and English L2 students in the same classroom. The following example is from an art lesson for 13–14 year-olds where two-thirds were L1 Welsh. The formal instruction and management by the teacher was in Welsh only and all teacher–student interaction was also in Welsh. However, student–student interaction was variably

120

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

in Welsh or English according to their language dominance, and they occasionally used both languages. Such student–student interaction tended to be private rather than purposeful, incidental and not necessarily linguistically desired by the teacher.

Type 4. Translanguaging As discussed earlier in the chapter, this is a pedagogical strategy where the input (receptive language) and output (productive language) are systematically varied. For example, 10–11-year-old students watched an Englishmedium DVD, discussed the content in Welsh and completed written work in Welsh. The teacher was deliberately using translanguaging to enable language development in both Welsh and English, and to optimize cognitive development and content learning. While teachers were mostly enabling and controlling this, there were examples of students themselves deliberately using both languages to increase understanding. For example, in completing a task in Welsh, they used the internet in English (and then discussed in Welsh) to search for information. Such an example also illustrates that a ‘type’ is outwardly simple although inwardly it may contain variety and complexity. No two lessons are ever the same.

Type 5. Translation (for the whole class) This is particularly found in classes containing a mixture of first- and second-language speakers of Welsh. According to Baker (2010), in general, ‘teachers will repeat what they have previously said in another language. . . . This is a practice in the mixed-language classrooms in Wales that contain first-language [speakers], almost fluent second-language learners and early learners of Welsh’ (Baker, 2010: 73). The aim is particularly to ensure understanding of content among all students. Translation practices found in the 100 lessons included presenting bilingual worksheets (e.g. bilingual worksheets presented to different language groups and students completing work in one chosen language), bilingual textbooks (including separate books for Welsh and English and also dual-language books), teacher explanations to the whole class, but not necessarily with a balance of translation from one language to another, with translating from Welsh to English more dominant. This type also includes classroom co-languaging. In the bilingual classroom, ‘co-languaging’ occurs when the teacher gives instructions to different groups in either Welsh or English, but some pupils can follow the teacher in both languages.

Type 6. Translation of subject-related terminology This scaffolding approach was especially observed in Welsh language secondary schools. Welsh is the dominant language in the classroom, and many of the children were L2 Welsh speakers. Bilingual terminology was regularly rather than spasmodically introduced by the teacher to help students

100 Bilingual Lessons

121

complete work in Welsh (e.g. in science and mathematics). This also includes examples of the teacher responding to L1 and L2 Welsh students requesting terminological help (e.g. Beth ydy ‘sandpaper’ yn Gymraeg?) [What is ‘sandpaper’ in Welsh?]. Thus, the conversational discourse is in Welsh, but the teacher provides curriculum scaffolding for L2 Welsh speakers to enable understanding.

Type 7. Translation for L2 learners (L2 Welsh or L2 English) This includes responsible code-switching to ‘clarify or reinforce lesson material’ and also to provide definitions of meanings (García, 2009a: 299). The teacher explains aspects of the lesson to some pupils in their first language which is different from the intended language of the lesson. Such translation is more than a few words or phrases and lasts for a distinct short episode. For example, Welsh L2 students in a dominantly Welsh-medium lesson will receive input in English. Similarly, Welsh L1 students in an English-medium lesson will receive input in Welsh. This goes beyond terminology, and tends to be located in smaller groups rather than the whole class as in type 5. However, it is not translanguaging as type 7 is less planned, brief, and only for L2 learners.

Type 8. Combinations of concurrent two-language use As was expected when the research commenced, some classes contained mixtures of approach. Not all lessons tended to fit easily into the categories above, showing variety, apparent inconsistency in style, and sometimes serendipity. However, this category was found to be predominantly when the teacher presented a combination of concurrent language strategies (e.g. translanguaging and translation) in the same lesson.

Type 9. Teacher responds to student’s language This category also contains a mixture of approaches, but with students predominantly defining the language of the lesson, and the language of response by the teacher. This is somewhat underrepresented in the literature, and the influence of students was not just on learner–learner interaction, but on teacher response, and their need for translation. In some cases, an immersion approach was planned, but the communication preference of a majority of students changed the ideal into a different reality. In more individualized or small group classrooms, students tended to initiate and, hence, define the language used by the teacher in interactions with them and in their choice of language for output. This category includes frequent codeswitching by the teacher in responding to the student’s language, irrespective of the intended language of instruction. Other examples were found in dual language stream primary schools that contain learners who are instructed in Welsh and others who are instructed in English within the same classroom. It is an area for more intensive research.

122

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Analyses of the six-fold typology In a multivariate, multi-method and holistic consideration of the hundred lessons, the research team determined that the above nine categories could be legitimately aggregated into six main groups for further statistical analyses. This is to avoid too small a number of lessons in a category for statistical analysis (e.g. Group 2 only contained two lessons). As with the initial ninefold typology, this was achieved through careful and detailed inspection of the data, but also by intensive discussion among the research team, including using qualitative evidence, and the inner understandings from the research experience. Groups 1, 2 and 3 were combined and termed ‘monolingual’ as the language of the lesson was predominantly in one language. Groups 4, 5, 6 and 7 preserved the original categorization without aggregation, (as shown in Table 6.3). Group 8 combined the teacher responding to the studentpreferred language with ‘combinations’, as the former tended to also have concurrent uses of two languages alongside student preferences, and observations were that it best fitted into a ‘combinations’ category (renamed Group 6 for analyses). The second research question was: Are there contextual associations of two-language allocation that can be identified from classroom analyses? Having specified a six-fold typology that best fits the quantitative and qualitative evidence from the hundred lessons that were observed, what are the characteristics of each type? Does a particular type tend to relate empirically to a particular age group, subject topic under instruction, and the language proficiency levels of children within that classroom? Thus, a profile of these lessons was created in order to understand further how different dual language

Table 6.3 Typology based on observation of the use of two languages in classroom Initial grouping

Type of lesson

Frequency

Grouping for analyses

Group 1

Use of one language: L1 Welsh

Group 2

Use of one language: L2 Welsh

Group 3

Use of one language in mixed classrooms

Group 4

Translanguaging

18

Group 2

Group 5

Translation: whole class

17

Group 3

Group 6

Translation: subject-related terminology

14

Group 4

Group 7

Translation for L2 learners

11

Group 5

Group 8

Combinations of concurrent two-language use

14

Group 6

Group 9

Teacher responds to student’s language

5

Group 6

5

Group 1

2

Group 1

14

Group 1

Total: 100

100 Bilingual Lessons

123

approaches relate to different teacher and student constellations, classroom contexts and sociolinguistic and educational variations across Wales. Tables 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 below summarize statistically significant interactions between the above typology (using the six ‘analysis’ groupings) and other important variables derived from the research methodology. There were no a priori hypotheses, but the underlying question was to begin to understand the ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘why’ of different approaches to twolanguage use in classrooms. In this sense, the research was exploratory. The above analyses of variance indicate where there was (or there was not) a statistically significant difference between the six types of language allocation in the lesson on particular language variables associated with both students and teachers (see Appendix for the structured observation schedule that details these variables). Following a statistically significant analysis of variance, the Student–Newman–Keuls (SNK) procedure located the specific significant differences among the six types. The results may be summarized as follows: where children have learned Welsh only at preschool, are not yet fluent enough to be able to work in the curriculum through Welsh, or are insufficiently fluent in Welsh, and in language groups, monolingual approaches and translation for second language speakers are particularly adopted by the teacher. When children’s language proficiency in one language is insufficiently developed through the home, preschool or school, concurrent language approaches such as translanguaging tend not be used with younger children; total immersion and strong heritage language approaches – with or without translation – are more dominant. In one sense, these results are predictable (e.g. the percentage of children fluent in Welsh via the home and family was related to the monolingual use of the L1 Welsh in the classroom) and validate the typology rather than help elucidate it. However, the results do make the important point that concurrent approaches to bilingual teaching are not used when children are still developing a language. That is, for example, translanguaging is not used until both languages are relatively well developed, and this tends to preclude its use in the early years and in total immersion. A concurrent approach may also not fit a dominant heritage-language approach that stresses the minority language and where the community’s sociolinguistic context is predominantly majority language. Another finding in Table 6.4 is that where children had become fluent in Welsh via the school rather than through the family, translation was much less used compared with translanguaging and combinations. However, for such children, translation for the whole class was more dominant, while monolingual use of Welsh was less apparent. There is a tendency for children who had learned Welsh at school and were fluent in English to be experiencing more concurrent bilingual approaches in the classroom. The above discussion suggests that there may be differences within the typology across

124

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Table 6.4 Six-fold typology compared with language background of the students and the language of the teacher in the classroom Variable

Degrees of freedom

F-ratio

Statistical significance

0.284

ns

3.071

0.014

0.199

ns

1.901

ns

3.155

0.013

2.441

0.043

0.972

ns

0.306

ns

0.511

ns

1.130

ns

5.501

0.0001

Percentage of students fluent Welsh-speaking via home and family

Between groups

5

Within groups

80

Total

85

Percentage of students fluent Welsh-speaking via preschool and not family

Between groups

5

Within groups

80

Total

85

Percentage of students fluent Welsh-speaking via school

Between groups

5

Within groups

80

Total

85

Between groups

5

Within groups

80

Total

85

Percentage of students able to work in all the curriculum through Welsh

Between groups

5

Within groups

66

Total

71

Percentage of students able to work partly in the curriculum through Welsh

Between groups

5

Within groups

66

Total

71

Percentage of students not able to work in the curriculum through Welsh

Between groups

5

Within groups

66

Total

71

Percentage of students able to work in all the curriculum through English

Between groups

5

Within groups

40

Total

45

Percentage of students able to work partly in the curriculum through English

Between groups

5

Within groups

40

Total

45

Percentage of student not able to work in the curriculum through English

Between groups

5

Within groups

40

Total

45

Language(s) used by the teacher when addressing the whole class

Between groups

5

Within groups

94

Total

99

Percentage of students not yet fluent in Welsh

100 Bilingual Lessons

125

Table 6.4 (continued ) Language(s) used by the teacher with fluent Welsh groups Language used by the teacher with non-fluent Welsh individuals Language used by the teacher with fluent Welsh individuals Language(s) used by the teacher with non-fluent Welsh groups Language used by the teacher with mixed-language groups Language(s) used by fluent Welsh students when talking to the teacher Language(s) used by nonfluent Welsh students when talking to the teacher Languages(s) used by fluent Welsh students when talking together in small groups Languages(s) used by nonfluent Welsh students when talking together in small groups Languages(s) used by fluent Welsh students when talking individually to each other Languages(s) used by nonfluent Welsh students when talking individually to each other Language(s) used by students in mixed-language groups

Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total

5 94 99 5 94 99 5 94 99 5 94 99 5 94 99 5 94 99 5 94 99 5 94 99 5 94 99

5.109

0.0001

1.546

ns

3.715

0.004

3.623

0.005

2.665

0.027

3.753

0.004

2.083

ns

1.825

ns

2.173

ns

Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total

5 94 99 5 94 99

1.605

ns

2.460

0.039

Between groups Within groups Total

5 94 99

7.513

0.0001

Notes: Some variables had ‘missing data’, and these can be observed from the degrees of freedom.

126

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Table 6.5 Six-fold typology compared with age group Typology

Age group 3–7 years

Monolingual

N lessons

Translation for L2

Combinations

Total

7

11–14 years 3

42.9%

33.3%

14.3%

% within age

52.9%

25.0%

12.5%

% within type

Translationterminology

7–11 years

% within type Translanguaging N lessons

Translation whole class

9

Total

1

9

4

14–16 years

16–18 years

1

1

4.8%

4.8%

4.3%

12.5%

2

2

50.0%

22.2%

% within age

5.9%

32.1%

16.7%

N lessons

1

% within type

5.9%

11.8%

35.3%

35.3%

11.8%

100.0%

% within age

5.9%

7.1%

25.0%

26.1%

25.0%

17.0%

N lessons

0

% within type

0.0%

2

6

6

11.1%

8.7%

25.0%

21.0% 18

5.6%

2

11.1%

21 100.0%

6

5

2

1

14.3%

42.9%

35.7%

7.1%

25.0%

21.7%

12.5%

% within age

0.0%

7.1%

N lessons

5

3

% within type

45.5%

27.3%

% within age

29.4%

10.7% 5

0

3

0.0%

27.3%

0.0%

13.0%

5

6

0 0.0% 0.0% 2

100.0% 18.0% 17

14 100.0% 14.0% 11 0.0% 1.0%

N lessons

1

19

% within type

5.3%

26.3%

26.3%

31.6%

10.5%

100.0%

% within age

5.9%

17.9%

20.8%

26.1%

25.0%

19.0%

N lessons

17

28

24

23

8

100

% within type

17.0%

28.0%

24.0%

23.0%

8.0%

100.0%

% within age 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

Notes: Chi-square = 41.22; d.f.= 20; p = 0.003.

different age groups. Are some styles of joint language use in a lesson located in different age ranges? This is examined below. The type 1 approach is predominately monolingual and is mostly found among the youngest age groups reflecting a heritage language approach for L1 children and a total immersion approach for L2 students. Translanguaging

100 Bilingual Lessons

127

was found across all the age groups including the oldest children. However, it was predominantly found in the latter years of primary schooling. Half of the translanguaging lessons were found among the 7–11 age group. This is possibly due to the more project-based, progressive tradition within primary education, where less formal and traditional approaches may allow a higher probability of experimentation. In terms of translation, whole-class translation tends to occur predominantly in secondary schools (for those aged 11–16). Similarly, with the translation of terminology, this is found mostly within that age group. However, in comparison, translation for second-language Welsh students tends to occur particularly, yet not exclusively, in the very early grades of primary schooling. The category of combinations tends to be fairly evenly spread throughout all age groups except the youngest. A greater understanding of how different types of language strategy were used in 100 lessons derives from an analysis of the typology compared with the subject content of a lesson. A four-fold categorization of subject content was achieved by a group discussion rather than quantitatively; the results are portrayed in Table 6.6 below. Table 6.6 shows that translanguaging is predominantly found in arts and humanities lessons rather than in the teaching of mathematics, science and the more practical areas of the curriculum. In humanities and arts areas such as history and geography, translanguaging appears favored by such teachers. This was expected, but there appears little reason why mathematics and science cannot engage in translanguaging approaches as well. Within mathematics and science, there is a considerable scattering across the different types of language usage. The expectation was that translation of terminology would be particularly found in mathematics and science lessons, whereas the predominant use is within vocational and practical areas, such as design and technology, physical education and childcare.

Discussion These initial results from the research suggest three particular avenues for further exploration rather than exact conclusions. First, the hundred lessons were chosen with the expectation that many teachers were using bilingual approaches in the classroom. The reality was that concurrent two-language approaches were harder to locate than had been expected. More specifically, lessons that used two languages were doing so as much to achieve language development as for content and conceptual development. As Table 6.3 revealed, concurrent approaches accenting content as well as language development related to 32 lessons (i.e. initial groupings 4 and 8). That is, the remaining two-thirds of ‘bilingual’ lessons concentrated on language development or on content through using or accenting just one

N lessons % within type % within subject N lessons % within type % within subject N lessons % within type % within subject N lessons % within type % within subject N lessons % within type % within subject N lessons % within type % within subject N lessons % within type % within subject

Notes: Chi-square = 46.35; d.f. = 15; p = 0.0001.

Total

Combinations

Translation for L2

Translation-terminology

Translation whole class

Translanguaging

Monolingual

Typology

9 42.9% 52.9% 1 5.6% 5.9% 1 5.9% 5.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% 5 45.5% 29.4% 1 5.3% 5.9% 17 17.0% 100.0%

Interdisciplinary (3–7 years) 5 23.8% 22.7% 3 16.7% 13.6% 4 23.5% 18.2% 1 7.1% 4.5% 3 27.3% 13.6% 6 31.6% 27.3% 22 22.0% 100.0%

Math & science (7–18 years)

Subject content of lesson

Table 6.6 Six-fold typology compared with subject content of lesson

3 14.3% 8.6% 13 72.2% 37.1% 7 41.2% 20.0% 4 28.6% 11.4% 2 18.2% 5.7% 6 31.6% 17.1% 35 35.0% 100.0%

Arts & humanities (7–18 years) 4 19.0% 15.4% 1 5.6% 3.8% 5 29.4% 19.2% 9 64.3% 34.6% 1 9.1% 3.8% 6 31.6% 23.1% 26 26.0% 100.0%

Vocational/ practical (7–18 years) 21 100.0% 21.0% 18 100.0% 18.0% 17 100.0% 17.0% 14 100.0% 14.0% 11 100.0% 11.0% 19 100.0% 19.0% 100 100.0% 100.0%

Total

128 Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

100 Bilingual Lessons

129

language. In observations and interviews, the concurrent use of two languages in a lesson tends to be in a context of the development of the minority language when it is surrounded by a majority language (heritage language education), and also the development of the second language (Welsh) mainly through an immersion approach. Where there is use of two languages, this is predominantly related to translation and scaffolding (see Table 6.3). Translation can be seen as a device that increases meaning and understanding and thus aids conceptual development and achievement. However, like scaffolding, translation is more of a temporary device or, with older children, a route to understanding, but as a pathway to working as fully as possible in one language rather than two. The emphasis of translation appears to be more a way of increasing the language capacity of children working in their L2, and of developing the first language of those who are surrounded by majority second-language speakers of English (Table 6.4). For example, once a learner has internalized the translation equivalents, translation is no longer needed, and the teacher can work in his or her preferred language. ‘Combinations of styles’ also suggest that, on occasions, the teacher is highly adaptive. The evidence collected on ‘combinations’ suggested that such teachers were both adaptive yet somewhat variable in style. Second, the research was particularly interested in the take-up and use of translanguaging as identified by Williams (1994, 1996). Two decades of teacher education in Wales have spread this strategy by initial teacher training (at Universities in Bangor, Aberystwyth and Carmarthen), and through in-service education for those who teach in bilingual schools. Table 6.3 and our fieldwork suggest that translanguaging tends not to be widespread or pervasive. Translanguaging is predominantly found in the latter years of primary education (Table 6.5) and, particularly, in the arts and humanities (Table 6.6). Nevertheless, the research found pedagogically effective examples of concurrent approaches including translanguaging and these are discussed in Jones and Lewis (in press). Thus, despite Wales having a progressive tradition in bilingual education and a success story in the development of its bilingual education, it is the case that, at the classroom level, there tends to be some degree of language separation rather than a considered approach to co-languaging and translanguaging. This partly relates to varying sociolinguistic communities and contexts where safeguarding the Welsh language is often dominant in ideology, policy and practice. The idea of language separation as expressed in Canadian French immersion education, dual language education in the United States, in the OPOL method of raising bilingual children in the family, and in the theory of diglossia seems to be also predominant in Welsh classroom pedagogy and language development. Third, if concurrent methods are to become more utilized in bilingual education lessons, then we may need to learn from children who themselves

130

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

tend to use both languages in the classroom. In our observations of the hundred lessons (see Jones & Lewis, in press), there were notable occasions when students wished to operate bilingually, moving effortlessly between two languages, even with non-target-like grammar and a restricted vocabulary. That is, there appears to be a demand for the use of two languages among children themselves, wanting language freedom so as to achieve maximally. School learners seemed to find two-language use both natural and pragmatic since their ultimate aim tends to be scholastic success across the curriculum as well as language development (Jones & Lewis, in press). Thus, some teachers might learn from students in comprehending the conceptual and cognitive benefits of joint language use in lessons. The utilization of concurrent methods may also depend on increased initial and in-service teacher education. The training of teachers to work in bilingual classrooms may valuably include consideration and use of concurrent approaches in the classroom. A valuable piece of international research awaits us to survey teacher training for bilingual education contexts, and to promote strategies that utilize the simultaneous use of two languages for content learning. At the moment, the training of teachers for bilingual classrooms is rarely considered in the literature, with international comparative research much needed. Is the accent in teacher training on ‘two solitudes’ and language separation? Is the training mostly about developing two languages rather than also about using two languages to increase learning and understanding? Do teacher training ideologies concentrate on language development rather than intellectual development at the cost of the multidisciplinary achievement of children? Any increase in the use of concurrent methods will also depend on evidence, quantitative and qualitative, regional and international, to demonstrate whether or not concurrent approaches in the classroom relate to the attainment and achievement of children throughout the curriculum, including in high-stakes tests. How do we know that such approaches as translanguaging are successful? We could valuably move from advocacy to action, from ideas to their evaluation, from compartmentalization to concurrency in language strategies in the classroom.

References Baker, C. (2004) Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: Language planning and the Welsh national curriculum. In N.H. Hornberger (ed.) Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research and Practice in Multilingual Settings (pp. 71–90). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2010) Increasing bilingualism in bilingual education. In D. Morris (ed.) Welsh in the Twenty-first Century (pp. 61–79). Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Baker, C. (2011) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (5th edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bakhtin, M.M. (1994) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. University of Texas Press Slavic series 1. Austin: University of Texas Press.

100 Bilingual Lessons

131

Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004) Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parentone-language approach. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Chitera, N. (2009) Code-switching in a college mathematics classroom. International Journal of Multilingualism 6, 426–442. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal 94, 103–115. Cummins, J. (2008) Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In J. Cummins and N.H. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. 5: Bilingual Education (2nd edn) (pp. 67–75). New York: Springer. DePalma, R. (2010) Language use in the two-way classroom: Lessons from a SpanishEnglish bilingual kindergarten. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Drury, R. (2007) Young bilingual learners at home and school: Researching multilingual voices. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham. Ferguson, G. (2003) Classroom code-switching in post-colonial contexts. In S. Makoni and U.H. Meinhof (eds) Africa and Applied Linguistics. AILA Review 16, 38–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fishman, J.A. (1980) Bilingualism and biculturalism as individual and as societal phenomena. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 1, 3–15. Fortune, T.W. and Tedick, D.J. (2008) Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving Perspectives on Immersion Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fortune, T.W., Tedick, D.J. and Walker, C.L. (2008) Integrated language and content teaching: Insights from the immersion classroom. In T.W. Fortune and D.J. Tedick (eds) Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving Perspectives on Immersion Education (pp. 71–96). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. García, O. (2009a) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. García, O. (2009b) Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A.K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Philipson and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local (pp. 140–158). New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan. Grosjean, F. (1985) The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, 467–477. Grosjean, F. (2008) Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hickey, T.M. (2001) Mixing beginners and native speakers in minority language immersion: Who is immersing whom? Canadian Modern Language Review 57, 443–474. Hickey, T.M. (2007) Children’s language networks in minority language immersion: What goes in may not come out. Language and Education 21, 46–65. Hickey, T.M. and Ó Cainín, P. (2001) First language maintenance and second language acquisition of a minority language in kindergarten. In M. Almgren, A. Barrena, M.J. Ezeiz Abarrena, I. Idiazabal and B. Macwhinney (eds) Research on Child Language Acquisition: Proceedings of 8th Conference for the Study of Child Language (pp. 137–150). Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Jacobson, R. (1990) Allocating two languages as a key feature of a bilingual methodology. In R. Jacobson and C. Faltis (eds) Language Distribution Issues in Bilingual Schooling (pp. 3–31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jaffe, A. (2007) Codeswitching and stance: Issues in interpretation. Journal of Language, Identity, & Education 6, 53–77. Jones, B. and Lewis W.G. (in press) Language arrangements within bilingual education in Wales. In I. Mennen and E.M. Thomas (eds) Unravelling Bilingualism: A Crossdisciplinary Perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

132

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Kamwangamalu, N.M. (2010) Multilingualism and codeswitching in education. In N.H. Hornberger and S. McKay (eds) Sociolinguistics and Language Education (pp. 116–142). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lewis, W.G. (2004) Addysg gynradd Gymraeg: Trochi a chyfoethogi disgyblion. Welsh Journal of Education 12, 49–64. Lewis, W.G. (2008) Current challenges in bilingual education in Wales. AILA Review 21, 69–86. Lin, A.M. (1996) Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination, resistance and code switching in Hong Kong schools. Linguistics & Education 8, 49–84. Lin, A.M. (2006) Beyond linguistic purism in language-in-education policy and practice: Exploring bilingual pedagogies in a Hong Kong science classroom. Language and Education 20, 287–305. Lindholm-Leary, K.J. (2000) Biliteracy for a Global Society: An Idea Book on Dual Language Education. Washington, DC: NCBE, accessed 19 August 2011. http://www.ncela.gwu. edu/files/uploads/9/BiliteracyForAGlobalSociety.pdf. Lindholm-Leary, K.J. (2001) Dual Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lindholm-Leary, K.J. (2005) Review of Research and Best Practices on Effective Features of Dual Language Education Programs, San José, CA: San José State University, accessed 19 August 2011. http://www.lindholm-leary.com/resources/review_research.pdf. Lindholm-Leary, K. and Howard, E.R. (2008) Language development and academic achievement in two-way immersion programs. In T.W. Fortune and D.J. Tedick (eds) Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving Perspectives on Immersion Education (pp. 177–200). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Maillat, D. and Serra, C. (2009) Immersion education and cognitive strategies: Can the obstacle be the advantage in a multilingual society? International Journal of Multilingualism 6, 186–206. McGroarty, M.E. (2010) Language and ideologies. In N.H. Hornberger and S. Mckay (eds) Sociolinguistics and Language Education (pp. 3–39). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Met, M. (1998) Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds) Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education (pp. 35–63). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Met, M. (2008) Paying attention to language: Literacy, language and academic achievement. In T.W. Fortune and D.J. Tedick (eds) Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving Perspectives on Immersion Education (pp. 49–70). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (2005) The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15, 169–186. Swain, M., Kinnear, P. and Steinman, L. (2011) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Welsh Assembly Government (2009) Schools in Wales: General Statistics 2009. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government, accessed 3 February 2011. http://wales.gov.uk/docs/ statistics/2009/091029schoolsgen09ency.pdf. Welsh Language Board (2001) A Guide to Bilingual Design. Cardiff: Welsh Language Board, accessed 19 August 2011. http://www.byig-wlb.org.uk/English/publications/ Publications/20090624%20Dylunio%20Dwyieithog%20-%20Bilingual%20 Design%20Guide.pdf. Williams, C. (1994) Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg uwchradd ddwyieithog. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wales, Bangor. Williams, C. (1996) Secondary education: Teaching in the bilingual situation. In C. Williams, G. Lewis and C. Baker (eds) The Language Policy: Taking Stock (pp. 63–78). Llangefni: CAI.

100 Bilingual Lessons

133

Appendix: Classroom Structured Observation Schedule (1) Background School: Location: Date: Time period (a.m./p.m.): Length (of session in minutes): Total number of pupils in the class: Total number of non-Welsh speaking ‘newcomers’ in the class: Age range of pupils (record youngest age in mixed-age class): Number of year groups in each class: Gender balance: (2) Subject area of the time period (3) Language profile of pupils in the classroom (teacher information) 1a Percentage of pupils fluent Welsh speaking via home/family: 1b Percentage of pupils fluent Welsh speaking via preschool and not family: 1c Percentage of pupils fluent Welsh speaking via school: 1d Percentage of pupils not yet fluent in Welsh: 2a Percentage of pupils able to work in the entire curriculum through Welsh: 2b Percentage of pupils able to work partly in the curriculum through Welsh: (Note which areas ) 2c Percentage of pupils not able to work in the curriculum through Welsh: 3a Percentage of pupils able to work in the entire curriculum through English: 3b Percentage of pupils able to work partly in the curriculum through English: (Note which areas ) 3c Percentage of pupils not able to work in the curriculum through English: (4) Language(s) used by the teacher when addressing the whole class (% in Welsh) 1 = All/almost all in Welsh (90–100%) 2 = Predominantly in Welsh (67–89%) 3 = Mixed but more Welsh (51–66%)

134

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

4 = Mixed but more English (34–50%) 5 = Predominantly in English (11–33%) 6 = All/almost all in English (0–10%) 7 = Not known/unsure 4a Language(s) used by the teacher with fluent Welsh groups: 4b Language(s) used by the teacher with non-fluent Welsh groups: 4c Language used by the teacher with fluent Welsh individuals: 4d Language used by the teacher with non-fluent Welsh individuals: 4e Language used by the teacher with mixed-language groups: (5) Language(s) used by the pupils (% in Welsh) 1 = All/almost all in Welsh (90–100%) 2 = Predominantly in Welsh (67–89%) 3 = Mixed but more Welsh (51–66%) 4 = Mixed but more English (34–50%) 5 = Predominantly in English (11–33%) 6 = All/almost all in English (0–10%) 7 = Not known/unsure 5a Language(s) used by fluent Welsh pupils when talking to teacher: 5b Language(s) used by non-fluent Welsh pupils when talking to teacher: 5c Languages(s) used by fluent Welsh pupils when talking together in small group: 5d Languages(s) used by non-fluent Welsh pupils when talking together in small group: 5e Languages(s) used by fluent Welsh pupils when talking individually to each other: 5f Languages(s) used by non-fluent Welsh pupils when talking individually to each other: 5g Language(s) used by pupils in mixed-language groups: (6) Language teaching (e.g. explicit or implicit grammar/structural support) Amount: . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example(s): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) From observation in the classroom, what appeared to be the teacher’s strategy and usage regarding the use of two languages in the classroom? (8) From observation in the classroom, what appears to be the reasons why teachers/pupils switch languages?

100 Bilingual Lessons

135

(9) From interviewing the teacher, what appeared to be the strategy regarding the use of two languages in the classroom? (10) From observation in the classroom/interviewing pupils and teachers, when and why do the pupils think they use Welsh and English in the classroom? Note: Apart from this structured observation, other observations were recorded in a more ethnographic approach, in addition to open-ended interviews with key staff and students.

7

Native Language Influence in Teaching Subject Matter Content through English in Spanish Tertiary Education Elena Domínguez Romero and Jorge Braga Riera

Introduction Much has been written about the pervasive influence of English on other languages in the last decade (Görlach, 2005), and Spanish has not been an exception to this trend, with numerous studies on the topic being carried out. These range from dictionaries (Prado, 2003; Rodríguez & Lillo, 1997, among others) to manuals, dissertations, journal articles and books (Lorenzo, 1996). Obviously, the global dominance of English in the academic areas of business, science and technology accounts for much of this: it is a fact that many professionals in non-English-speaking countries – including an increasing number in academia – have been constrained to use English both as a means for spoken communication at international forums and as a channel for publication. One outstanding example in this respect is the educational approach known as content and language integrated learning (henceforth CLIL). Although traditionally absent from tertiary-level education (Coleman, 2006), CLIL has been gradually gaining ground in Spanish university contexts.1 Given this growing demand, some professors have been compelled to use English as a means of classroom instruction; that is, they have been requested to teach in English the academic contents they usually introduce and teach in Spanish within their conventional classroom settings. One of the most striking consequences of this new context is the level of L1 influence on the resulting lectures in the 136

Nat ive L anguage Inf luence in Teaching Subjec t Mat ter

137

L2, which is revealed mainly through the presence of lexical, morphological and syntactic through translations, or calques.2 According to Odlin (1993: 37), these are ‘errors that reflect very closely a native language structure’ which, in Lee’s (1990: 56) words, ‘arise because the correct form or use of a target item is not part of a speaker or writer’s competence’. Through translations are to be distinguished from mistakes, which ‘arise for reasons of fatigue, stress, inattention, etc.’ (Lee, 1990: 56). Human learning is fundamentally a process that involves making errors. These form an important aspect of learning almost any skill or acquiring information, language learning included. The process of L2 learning is clearly not unlike L1 learning in its trial-and-error nature. Inevitably, learners will make errors in the language acquisition process, and that process may well be impeded if they do not make such errors and then benefit from various forms of explicit and implicit feedback on them (Brown, 2000). As Corder (1967: 167) noted: ‘A learner’s errors [. . .] they are significant in that [. . .] they provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language.’ Target-like or ‘correct’ production yields little information about the actual linguistic system of learners (Lee, 1990: 56). Interlingual (L1 and L2) transfer is a significant source of errors for all learners and, as such, cross-linguistic influence has been extensively dealt with by applied linguists. However, this has not quite been the case in CLIL contexts in Spain (especially concerning professors’ spoken production), probably due to the fact that the implementation of university-level CLIL programs is a very recent development in Spain. Consequently, one of the aims of this analysis is to add to the bulk of studies that are being conducted regarding this particular area (Bellés & Fortanet, 2005; Dafouz & Guerrini 2009; Dafouz et al., 2007a, 2007b; Fortanet, 2008; Jiménez, 2002; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010).

Cross-linguistic Influence: Error Versus Mistake The present study stems from one basic assumption: CLIL professors, in their teaching activity, tend to choose L2 lexical items and grammatical structures which show a striking resemblance to others existing in their L1. For Odlin (1993) cross-linguistic influence, or transfer (Kellerman, 1995), is ‘the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired’ (Odlin, 1993: 27). According to Odlin (1993), although transfer is not simply interference (due to the negative connotations of the latter; hence the term ‘negative transfer’), the term ‘interference’ is still used in the literature (Odlin, 1993: 26). Nonetheless, ‘cross-linguistic influence’ seems to be the common term employed in the current literature to refer to

138

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

this linguistic phenomenon (Cenoz et al., 2001: 1). In our particular case, this cross-linguistic influence makes itself present as a result of two different, yet complementary, circumstances: (i)

The first of these factors is the insufficient proficiency level in the foreign language on the part of the participating professors (who are also, or have recently been, learners of that language; as self-reported, their current level of competence and performance in English is intermediate or high-intermediate, and their L1 tends to act as a direct cause of erroneous performance). As pointed out by Kellerman (1995: 129), L2 speakers use ‘compensatory strategies’ on which the effect of the L1 is frequently noted3; that is, L2 users resort to their L1 to solve linguistic problems in an attempt to ‘compensate’ for their lack of language proficiency. (ii) Cross-linguistic influence is also the result of a common practice carried out by lecturers who have Spanish as their mother tongue. Specifically, this practice relates to the ‘self-translation’ of their own L1 materials (sometimes with the visual support of PowerPoint slides and handouts).4 During the process of rendering these materials into a different language, Chesterman’s ‘principle of perceived similarity’ may apply: ‘When looking for solutions, translators tend first to consider those resources in the TL [target language/L2] that are perceived as being similar to the SL [source language/L1]’ (Chesterman, 1998: 69).5 The potential effect of self-/non-professional translation on the resulting lectures is extensively dealt with in Braga-Riera and Maíz (in press).

Thus, cross-linguistic influence is to be taken as a significant source of errors for all learners (Odlin, 1993). An error usually denotes a lack of relevant language knowledge or confusion regarding the language system, and perhaps even fossilization of the learner’s second language in some instances. It is thus a mark of a learner’s transitional competence and distinct from a mistake or performance error (Corder, 1967). In other words, while errors reflect gaps in the learner’s knowledge and occur because the learner does not yet know what is target-like or correct, mistakes reflect occasional lapses in performance; they occur because, in particular situations, learners are unable to perform what they already know (Ellis, 1997). Lee’s (1990: 57) diagram (see Figure 7.1) is rather clarifying in this respect. In the early 1970s, research into non-target-like feature production in the fields of foreign/second language teaching and second language acquisition with reference to English (Corder, 1967; Dulay & Burt, 1974; Nemser, 1971; Richards, 1973; Selinker, 1972) already revealed that learner errors are indicative of both the state of the learner’s knowledge and of the ways in which the second language is being learned. Corder (1973) characterizes the progression

Nat ive L anguage Inf luence in Teaching Subjec t Mat ter

139

Figure 7.1 Mistake versus error

language learners make according to four stages based on observations of what learners do in terms of errors alone: Stage 1. Random errors or pre-systematic errors. These errors show that the learner is only vaguely aware that there is some systematic order to a particular class of items. Stage 2. This (emergent) stage finds the learner growing in consistency in linguistic production. The learner has begun to discern a system and to internalize certain rules. It is characterized by ‘backsliding’; that is, the learner seems to grasp certain rules or principles, but then regresses to previous stages. Stage 3. This is a systematic stage in which the learner is now able to manifest more consistency in producing the second language. The

140

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

most salient difference between the second and the third stages is the ability of learners to correct their errors (mistakes according to the above definition provided by Ellis, 1997) when they are pointed out. Final or stabilization stage. Here the learner produces relatively few errors and has mastered the system to the point that fluency and intended meanings are not problematic. This fourth stage is characterized by the learner’s ability to self-correct. This may be claimed to be the ideal stage for professors involved in CLIL programs. In this sense, Tarone (1983) predicted that, during the acquisition process, target-language structures would push to replace the vernacular. Therefore, the learner’s interlanguage can only improve if the learners themselves are ‘permeable’ to language input in terms of both language forms and functions. This means that, apart from having sufficient suitable input, their interlanguage competence may be pedagogically shifted towards more target-like competence by having access to the most appropriate forms of corrective treatment or by the learners being made aware of specific language forms and functions which would enable them to monitor their production (Lee, 1990).

Method of Analysis: Aim and Corpus The objective of this study is two-fold: (a) To look into the types of through translations and their recurrent frequency in the lecturers’ performance as a result of L1 influence. To this aim, a corpus of L2 English-language lectures has been selected as the object of analysis, a typology has been designed, and calques which are erroneous in the L2 have been quantified. It should also be pointed out that even though the corpus chosen is oral, phonological aspects are not considered as an object of analysis. (b) For comparative purposes, the distribution of non-target-like forms in the L1 and the L2 has also been analyzed and a second corpus of lectures delivered by professors in their L1 Spanish-language classes has been used. For analytical purposes, we have also resorted to a linguistic study carried out by Lynne Young (1994), in which the macro-structure of university lectures and the most prominent features that contribute to this structure are described. According to Young, university lectures are configured into phases, or ‘strands of discourse that recur discontinuously through a particular language event and, taken together, structure the event’ (Young, 1994: 165). The six phases which make up every university lecture are Discourse Structuring, Conclusion, Evaluation, Interaction, Theory/Content and Examples (Young, 1994: 166–168). Each of them plays a different role within

Nat ive L anguage Inf luence in Teaching Subjec t Mat ter

141

the lecture. With Discourse Structuring, the addressors ‘indicate the direction that they will take in the lecture’ (Young, 1994: 166), whereas the Conclusion summarizes the points made throughout the discourse. Evaluation serves to assess the information. The contact with the audience is maintained through Interaction, while Theory or Content reflects the lecturer ’s purpose, that is, ‘transmit theoretical information’ (Young, 1994: 167), which is in turn illustrated through the Examples provided. Young’s division will be applied to the corpus selected in order to identify which phases are more prone to present higher numbers of calques (both in absolute terms and per number of words). Any descriptive study must be based on reliable instruments for analysis. In this sense, and as specified above, the main data have been taken from a corpus of three engineering lectures (17,479 words approximately) delivered during a course on Formula 1 cars held at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Each lecture lasted approximately one hour and was attended by 26 students of nationalities other than Spanish who used English as their lingua franca. Of the three professors who voluntarily agreed to participate in the course, two had no previous experience in lecturing in a foreign language and all of them lacked any type of translation training. As self-reported, and as stated above, their levels of English proficiency ranged from intermediate to high-intermediate.6 As specified above, a second corpus was used for comparative purposes. This contained three lectures (19,000 words approximately) given in Spanish by the same three lecturers included in the main corpus. Each lecture lasted approximately one hour and was attended by native Spanish-speaking students majoring in aeronautics engineering at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

Analysis and Results Cross-linguistic influence: Error analysis As has been expressed earlier in this chapter, Odlin (1993: 37) considers that ‘errors reflect very closely a native language structure’. Errors due to overcorrection (see examples below) are not considered here (e.g. It takes into account that the chemistry it is not perfect; Ballasts are an extra weight that you can place everywhere in your car, when do you want). In order to carry out a systematic categorization of all the calques/errors present in our corpus, the three-part grouping proposed by López Guix and Minett Wilkinson (1999) and, partially, by Rodríguez (1999) has been adopted. It must be noticed, though, that this division was originally intended to classify the levels of English contact with Spanish, and not vice versa. Following this typology, Figure 7.2 summarizes the corpus findings with regards to calques and their distribution. As the figure shows, morphological calques are the most common (46.5%). Syntactic and lexical calques follow in frequency, representing 37.2% and 16.2%, respectively.

142

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

MORPHOLOGICAL SYNTACTIC LEXICAL 0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 7.2 Distribution of calques in the corpus

According to López Guix and Minett Wilkinson (1999), morphological calques cover categories such as articles , adjectives , adverbs , nouns (including plural variation), verbal tenses , pronouns and prepositions . The following is a selection of some examples that attempt to illustrate morphological calques found in the corpus: Articles (): The last year, the Renault have . . . We have a loss of a 2% only Adjectives (): In other situation we have . . . A best material Adverbs (): The car weights really 600 kilos? Not You can do the change easy Nouns (including the variation of plural) (): ... around 600 horse powers It will be have a paper supporting it Verbal tenses (): People who works in F1 usually refer to this . . . Since 83, I think, I am here as permanent professor . . . Pronouns (): ... but with a special characteristic, what is . . . It is better to use [inaudible] that carbon fiber composites . . . Prepositions (): . . . but is amorphous and they are just dropping by small holes in the vitreous stage The effect of the vaporization depends of . . .

Nat ive L anguage Inf luence in Teaching Subjec t Mat ter

143

TENSES ARTICLES ADJECTIVES PRONOUNS ADVERBS PREPOSITIONS NOUNS 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 7.3 Types of morphological calques

As shown in Figure 7.3, most of the morphological calques involve the erroneous use of verb tenses (35.5%), closely followed by that of articles (22.2%). Examples of the incorrect use of tenses mostly show a lack of coherence (e.g. Two important things is; ... there are another one; People who works), use of the bare infinitive after a preposition (e.g., By increase the mass of air; The same possibilities of win a race) or use of simple present where future tenses are expected (e.g. We stop here and we continue in five, ten minutes; Take the break you need, and I am waiting here). Quite remarkably, articles tend to be either omitted (e.g. I am here as Ø permanent professor; ... as Ø binder element; Ø differential is another piece of transmission) or overused, especially with the definite article ‘the’ (e.g. If we use fuel with a high value of the molecular weight; The last year, the Renault have . . .; Here we will be in the 2000). Though less numerous, adjective, pronoun and adverb calques are equally present in the corpus (17.7%). The incorrect use of ‘other’, ‘others’ and ‘another’ is particularly interesting in cases like: In other situation we have . . .; Ok, there are others elements that we can look at; There are another steels with high hardness, etc. Some problems concerning comparatives have also been detected in examples such as A best material; What is the better material for this use? It is not the more resistant steel, etc. Actually, one of the three lecturers recorded has caught our attention due to his apparent problems with adverbs in negative clauses (e.g. This area shouldn’t be covered by nothing; So there is not problem, but the real limit is . . .; If there is a small crash, you cannot never repair it; or And if there is no enough oxygen, the thing than burns easily is . . .). Curiously enough, calques concerning prepositions appear in the final position (13.3%) followed only by nouns (11.1%); this means that, contrary to our expectations, their correct use is not really problematic for these professors, who do not seem to resort to their L1 for language compensatory purposes.

144

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

CONCLUSION EVALUATION INTERACTION DIS. STRUCTURING EXEMPLIFICATION CONTENT 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 7.4 Morphological calques according to phases (absolute numbers)

Taking into account Young’s division of lectures (1994), attention will be paid to the number of morphological calques present in absolute terms and its distribution according to the different phases. As shown in Figure 7.4 (absolute numbers), this counting gathers an overall number of 60 calques, distributed as follows: Content, 31 cases (51.6%); Interaction, 11 cases (18.3%); Discourse Structuring, six cases (10%); Exemplification, six cases (10%); Evaluation, five cases (8.3%); Conclusion, one case (1.6%). Identical calques that recurred throughout the lectures are counted just as one. Morphological calques are mostly present in the Content phase, followed, by far, by their presence in Interaction, Evaluation, Discourse Structuring and Exemplification. However, different results are revealed in the analysis of this same calque category according to phases but classified per number of words (Figure 7.5). In this case, what is measured is not the global number of calques in the lectures but the presence of calques per phase in terms of percentages (total number of calques in one given phase per number of words that phase contains). Hence, percentages show now that morphological calques are more numerous in the phases of Evaluation (74%), Exemplification (49%), Discourse Structuring (44%) and Conclusion (32%).

CONCLUSION EVALUATION INTERACTION DIS. STRUCTURING EXEMPLIFICATION CONTENT 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 7.5 Morphological calques according to phases (per number of words)

80

Nat ive L anguage Inf luence in Teaching Subjec t Mat ter

145

Quite remarkably, Content appears in the final position (14%). Given the mostly content-based orientation of the lectures, it seems as if Content had received closer linguistic attention from the lecturers, with lower levels of attention being paid to the effects of L1 transfer in the rest of the phases being studied. As already seen in Figure 7.2, syntactic or structural calques are second on the list in terms of frequency (37.2% of the total amount of calques quantified). This sort of calque usually respects the semantic content, but introduces a new structure into the language. López Guix and Minett Wilkinson (1999) include paragraphing, sentence link and word order as potential cases to be considered under this heading. Given the oral nature of our corpus, paragraphing has been excluded, with the focus being on sentence link () and word order (). Word order refers not only to the targetlike position of the different elements in the sentence, but also to the transformations brought about by the construction of passives, inversions or interrogative sentences, among others. Sentence linking also includes the dropping of subjects in subordinate clauses: Sentence linking (): For example, Ø is impossible or almost impossible to do a bicycle It doesn’t means that Ø is good, and what’s even worse ... Word order (): One thing important to understand is . . . You never are perfect How many bars there are in each cylinder in a F1 car? Why is forbidden? Figure 7.6 reveals that word order (45.8%) and question formation (16.6%) are the categories that gather the most common types of syntactic calques together. Examples including word order are primarily conveyed by the incorrect position of adverbials within the English clause: I stayed for a year in Stanford, A patch just to reinforce locally this area, or by the Spanish-like postmodifying use of adjectives: Under that skin there are a lot of materials very, very complex, And another problem . . . important . . . is. Furthermore, inversion following Wh-words that introduce non-interrogative clauses is almost never carried out by the professors in the corpus (e.g. I don’t know where is the control stick, I don’t know what was the velocity in the last year. This is related to inversion in question formation: Do you know what is engine cam case? What it is? Then the situation is good or bad?). These calques are mostly present in the Content and Interaction phases, followed, at quite a distance, by Evaluation, Discourse Structuring and Exemplification. The global number of syntactic calques found in the three lectures amounted to 48. The distribution is as follows: Content, 15 cases

146

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Word order Question form

Other Duplicated Subj Drop subjects 2 Drop subjects 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 7.6 Types of syntactic calques

CONCLUSION EVALUATION INTERACTION DIS. STRUCTURING EXEMPLIFICATION CONTENT 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 7.7 Distribution of syntactic calques according to phases (absolute numbers)

(31.25%); Interaction, 15 cases (31.25%); Evaluation, seven cases (28%); Discourse Structuring, five cases (20%); Exemplification, five cases (20%); Conclusion, one case (4%), (see Figure 7.7). Figure 7.8 shows how this distribution dramatically changes as soon as the analysis concentrates on the presence of syntactic calques in the different phases in terms of number of words. Exemplification gathers most of the syntactic calques (59%), followed only by Evaluation (53%) and Discourse Structuring (53%). Content (30%), again, is the phase that is least open to improvisation, which is probably the reason why it ranks in final position in this category. Regarding lexis, it must be pointed out that the concept of lexical calque has been the object of study in recent decades. Haugen’s (1953/1969) work is

Nat ive L anguage Inf luence in Teaching Subjec t Mat ter

147

CONCLUSION EVALUATION INTERACTION DIS. STRUCTURING EXEMPLIFICATION CONTENT 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 7.8 Syntactic calques according to phases (per number of words)

one of the first attempts to define it. The author makes a distinction between lexical calques which are extensions (, also called semantic loans, whose meaning is an amplification of the original one), and those which are creations (, loan translations), that is, new acquisitions which may appear in the form of derivations, compounds or even phrases (see examples below). Extensions (): Then the engine is very hot [‘so’ expected] We look what . . . which are the plastic that were . . . [‘See’ expected] Creations (): It just transmit by pression the load to the others [‘pressure’ expected] Engines which contains more than 50 per cent of vidrium [‘glass’ expected] The total number of lexical calques found is 21 (the least frequent in our corpus), with a rate of 16.2% (see Figure 7.2) and distributed as follows (see Figure 7.9). As shown in Figure 7.9, extensions (61.9%) are more common than creations (38%). As for extensions, the use of the temporal linking word ‘then’

CREATIONS

EXTENSIONS 0

10

20

30

40

Figure 7.9 Distribution of lexical calques in the corpus

50

60

70

148

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

instead of ‘so’ is the most recurrent calque in the three lecturers under study, as Spanish luego may indicate both time and result. Curiously enough, ‘so’ is also employed to replace ‘therefore’ or ‘hence’ in other cases (e.g. So, this selection is what today we have to study). Other examples include the use of ‘do’ instead of ‘make’, or vice versa (in Spanish both verbs are usually translated as hacer), as in to do a bicycle or to make a job. Also worth mentioning are the use of ‘till’ to mark physical distance, as in the case of the Spanish hasta (To move up till here), and the use of ‘this is’ (instead of ‘that is’) for explanatory purposes, which shows the influence of the Spanish phrase esto es. Regarding creations, additional examples include incrementing (‘increasing’, Spanish incrementar), mercure (‘mercury’, Spanish mercurio), scientifics (‘scientists’, Spanish científicos), to selection (‘to select’, Spanish seleccionar), to somet (‘to subject’, Spanish someter), etc. In absolute terms, both extensions and creations tend to appear in phases such as Exemplification (six cases, 28.57%), Discourse Structuring (three instances, 14.28%), Interaction (three examples, 14.28%), and Content, with the latter showing the highest rates of calques (nine examples, 42.85%) (see Figure 7.10). Considering the recurrence of lexical calques per number of words (Figure 7.11), percentages show that Exemplification (59%) surpasses the rest of the phases, while no examples are present in either Conclusion or in Evaluation.

L1 and L2 mistake analysis As in the previous section, erroneous forms and items in the L1 and L2 corpora have been organized according to the model suggested by López Guix and Minett Wilkinson (1999). Thus, lexical, syntactic and morphological non-target-like forms have been found in the L2 (see examples below):

CONCLUSION EVALUATION INTERACTION DIS. STRUCTURING EXEMPLIFICATION CONTENT 0

2

4

6

Figure 7.10 Lexical calques according to phases (absolute numbers)

8

10

Nat ive L anguage Inf luence in Teaching Subjec t Mat ter

149

CONCLUSION EVALUATION INTERACTION DIS. STRUCTURING EXEMPLIFICATION CONTENT 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 7.11 Lexical calques according to phases (per number of words)

Lexical: This temperature hot the air (heats) Syntactic: Another one more Both of things Morphological: We have losed More higher Mistakes in the L1 lectures are generally concerned with word order (Se coloca y luego se deja otra vez cerrar [literally, ‘You place it and later you let it again close’] and the absence of prepositions (Ø Cualquier caso, cuando cojáis . . . [literally, ‘Ø Any case, when you take . . .’]). The incorrect use of pronouns also proves to be an important source of errors in the L1: Si os recordáis [literally, ‘If you remember yourselves’], Pues vamos a pasar a lo que nos teníamos que haber dado esta clase que son los segmentos . . . [literally, ‘Now let’s move to what we were supposed to talk ourselves about in this class, which is piston

MORPHOLOGICAL

SYNTACTIC

LEXICAL 0

2

4

6

8

10

Figure 7.12 Distribution of mistakes in the L2 (absolute numbers)

12

14

150

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

INTERACTION

D. STRUCTURE

CONTENT 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 7.13 Phase distribution of mistakes in the L2 (per number of words)

MORPHOLOGICAL

SYNTACTIC

LEXICAL 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 7.14 Distribution of mistakes in the L1

INTERACTION

DISCOURSE

EVALUATION

CONTENT 0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 7.15 Phase distribution of mistakes in the L1 (per number of words)

rings . . .’], Solo que le dejáis (el cilindro) [approximate translation: ‘You just leave him (the cylinder)’], . . . pero cuando el émbolo baja le tenéis justo al revés [approximate translation: ‘. . . but when the piston is lowered you just have him upside down’]. As for lectures in the L2, Figure 7.12 shows how syntactic mistakes are the most common (13 cases out of 29, 44.83%), followed by morphological

Nat ive L anguage Inf luence in Teaching Subjec t Mat ter

151

mistakes (10 instances, 34.48%) and, far behind, lexical mistakes (only six examples found, 20.69%). They mostly concentrate in the Interaction (50.61%) and Discourse Structure (36.14%) phases (see Figures 7.12 and 7.13). Quite similarly, and in the case of the L1, Figures 7.14 and 7.15 show that syntactic mistakes (74.07%) outnumber morphological ones (25.93%), with no real presence of lexical mistakes. Evaluation (43.86%), Discourse Structure (48%), and Interaction (17.54%) are the phases where these mistakes mostly occur.

Conclusions In the last 10 years or so, CLIL has gradually made itself present at Spanish universities, with an increasing number of undergraduate and, especially, graduate-level programs being implemented in English as a foreign language. As a result, the number of lectures delivered in English by nonnative speakers of the language has been on the rise. This situation has led to the presence of lectures that show considerable rates of cross-linguistic influence. This cross-linguistic influence appears in the form of syntactic, lexical and morphological calques. Such effects are evident in the three-lecture corpus selected for the first analysis presented in the section on ‘Crosslinguistic influence: Error analysis’. In absolute numbers, morphological calques clearly prevail in the corpus, followed by syntactic calques and, finally, lexical calques. Regarding morphological calques, the most recurrent cases have to do with the erroneous use of tenses, followed by the incorrect use of articles. Unexpectedly, calques involving prepositions show very low rates. Given the content-based nature of the lectures analyzed, it is only natural that the Content phase draws together most of these calques. Concerning phase distribution per number of words, the majority of the calques occur in Evaluation, Exemplification and Discourse Structuring, with Content containing the lowest rates, closely followed by Conclusion (although the reduced number of words in this phase makes it hardly representative). The data indicate that professors show lower levels of influence when dealing with the specific academic content of their subjects than during the typical mechanics of classroom management. As for syntactic calques, word order and the formation of questions are responsible for the presence of most of them. Less frequent is subject dropping, both in main and subordinate clauses. As stated above, Content gathers the lowest number of structural calques. In the case of lexical calques, extensions outnumber creations in the three lectures. Concerning their distribution per phase and per number of words, the great majority of them can be found in Exemplification, followed

152

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

by Discourse Structure, Interaction and Content. In this case, Content occurs in the fourth position. Being the most carefully planned phase of the lectures, it contains few calques, but does not have as strikingly low a rate as in the other two categories. Finally, the limited number of words present in the Conclusion and Evaluation phases does not make them representative enough for conclusive remarks to be made. Regarding the analysis of the distribution of mistakes in the L1 and the L2 in the section ‘L1 and L2 mistake analysis’, it can be stated that their frequency in the L2 varies with respect to calques, with syntactic mistakes prevailing over morphological mistakes. They mostly occur in Interaction and Discourse Structure, with Content in third place. A close look at the same lecturer’s performance in Spanish reveals that it is syntax by far which accounts for most of the mistakes, followed by morphological ones. Finally, L1 mistakes are mostly related to Evaluation, Discourse Structuring and Interaction, with Content in the final or fourth place once again. According to Dafouz and Núñez (2009: 109), one of the three major needs that lecturers in CLIL contexts at tertiary levels have is to prevent pragmatic inadequacies and simplified grammar.7 This chapter is intended as a starting point in assessing the presence of L1/cross-linguistic influence in content-based lectures delivered in a foreign language. Despite the fact that the size of the corpus used is not sufficiently large for conclusions to be extrapolated over the whole study area, future studies on wider corpora and different academic disciplines may well support the need to help CLIL lecturers upgrade their oral production of the L2 so that it contains lower doses of L1 influence. This assistance might involve the analysis of the lecturers’ actual L2 needs and specific methodological training (presentation techniques adapted to the traditional formal lecture structure that many Spanish universities still maintain in degree programs), making instructors aware and self-critical of their own language choices, both in form and lexis. A second step should consider the running of standard, long-term courses intended for L2 language improvement and classroom language, including teacher observation, feedback and further language support. In turn, this might help CLIL lecturers in the development of teaching materials and in providing language support to students.

Notes (1) In this respect, see the results produced by the CLUE Research Project at the Complutense University of Madrid which has been developed since 2006 (http:// www.clue-project.es/campanas/clue-project/). (2) Definitions of calques diverge depending on the authors/sources consulted. According to the Dictionary of Translation Studies by M. Shuttleworth and M. Cowie, a calque is ‘a term used to denote the process whereby the individual elements of an SL item [. . .] are translated literally to produce a TL equivalent’ (Shuttleworth & Cowie, 2007: 17–18). Peter Newmark’s (1988: 84) view of calques as ‘the literal translation of

Nat ive L anguage Inf luence in Teaching Subjec t Mat ter

(3) (4) (5)

(6) (7)

153

common collocations, names of organizations, the components of compounds [. . .] and perhaps phrases’, for instance, should be extended so that it can allow for syntactic structures more complex than a phrase. Other definitions are wider in scope, such as Vinay and Darbelnet’s ‘A special kind of borrowing whereby a language borrows an expression form of another, but then translates literally each of the elements’ (Vinay & Darbelnet, 1995: 32). Compensatory strategies have been the object of considerable study by several researchers over the years. See Kellerman (1995) for further information related to this aspect. The adaptation of teaching materials is one of the three main changes considered essential to methodological adjustments in a CLIL context, as pointed out by Dafouz and Núñez (2009: 103). This is especially true in the case of scientific English, above all in lexis. Kellerman also put forward the principle of ‘transfer to nowhere’, which states that ‘there can be transfer which is not licensed by similarity to the L2, and where the way the L2 works may very largely go unheeded’ (Kellerman, 1995: 137). For further information about this particular corpus, see Dafouz et al. (2007a: 651– 652). See also Braga-Riera and Maíz (2013, forthcoming) for details concerning the lecturers’ training in translation practice. The other two being ‘expand the range of stylistic choices available in the foreign language’ and ‘maximize content teachers’ access to the generic tools for more ‘explicit’ signalling of metadiscursive devices’ (Dafouz and Núñez, 2009: 109).

References Bellés, B. and Fortanet, I. (2005) Spoken academic discourse: An approach to research lectures. RESLA 1, 161–178. Braga-Riera, J. and Maíz, C. (in press) CLIL and translation in tertiary education. Revista de lenguas para fines específicos 19. Brown, D.H. (2000) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. and Jessner, U. (eds) (2001) Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Chesterman, A. (1998) Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Coleman, J. (2006) English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching 39, 1–14. Corder, S.P. (1967) The significance of learner’s ‘errors’. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161–169. Dafouz, E. and Guerrini, M.C. (eds) (2009) CLIL Across Educational Levels. Madrid: Richmond Publishing. Dafouz, E. and Núñez, B. (2009) CLIL in higher education: Devising a new learning landscape. In E. Dafouz and M.C. Guerrini (eds) CLIL Across Educational Levels (pp. 101–112). Madrid: Richmond Publishing. Dafouz, E., Núñez, B. and Sancho, C. (2007a) Integrating CLIL at the tertiary level: Teachers’ and students’ reactions. In D. Marsh and D. Wolff (eds) Diverse Contexts – Converging Goals: Content and Learning Integrated Learning in Europe (pp. 91–101). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Dafouz, E., Núñez, B. and Sancho, C. (2007b) Analysing stance in a CLIL university context: Non-native speaker use of personal pronouns and modal verbs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 647–662.

154

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Dulay, H.C. and Burt, M.K. (1974) Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 8, 129–134. Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fortanet, I. (2008) Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7, 27–37. Görlach, M. (ed.) (2005) A Dictionary of European Anglicisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haugen, E. (1953/1969) The Norwegian Language in America. A Study of Bilingual Behaviour. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Jiménez, M. (2002) Resources and Proposals for the Classroom. Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. Kellerman, E. (1995) Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15, 125–150. Lasagabaster, D. and Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lee, N. (1990) Notions of ‘error’ and appropriate corrective treatment. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching 13, 55–69. López Guix, J.B. and Minett Wilkinson, J. (1999) Manual de Traducción Inglés Castellano. Barcelona: Gedisa Editorial. Lorenzo, E. (1996) Anglicismos Hispánicos. Madrid: Gredos. Nemser, W.J. (1971) Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9, 115–123. Newmark, P. (1988) A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall. Odlin, T. (1993) Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prado, M. (2003) Diccionario de falsos amigos inglés-español. Madrid: Gredos. Richards, J.L. (1973) Error analysis and second language strategies. In J.C. Richards and J.W. Oller (eds) Focus on the Learner (pp. 12–22). Rowley: Newbury House. Rodríguez, F. (1999) Anglicisms in contemporary Spanish. An overview. Atlantis XXI, 103–139. Rodríguez, F. and Lillo, A. (1997) Nuevo Diccionario de Anglicismos. Madrid: Gredos. Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–231. Shuttleworth, M. and Cowie, M. (2007) Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing. Tarone, E. (1983) On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics 4, 142–164. Vinay J. and Darbelnet, J. (1995) Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Young, L. (1994) University lecturers – macro-structure and micro-features. In J. Flowerdew (ed.) Academic Listening: Research Perspectives (pp. 159–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8

From Diglossia to Transglossia: Bilingual and Multilingual Classrooms in the 21st Century Ofelia García

Introduction It is broadly accepted that a requirement for the stable maintenance of the two languages of a societal group is the functional allocation of each of the languages; that is, one language is used in certain domains, with specific people and for particular functions, whereas the other language is kept out of this territorial or functional space. But in the 21st century, as the movement of people, goods and information has become more complex, the separate functional distribution of two languages in bilingual and multilingual societies has been questioned. This chapter1 explores the tensions between the two positions – one which claims that the languages of bilingual groups must be kept separate and be functionally allocated if they are to be maintained, and the other which suggests that the language practices of bilingual groups are always fluid and interrelated. We explore the tensions of these two positions in a societal space that makes the tension evident – the bilingual or multilingual classroom. This chapter starts out by discussing the concept of diglossia in the sociolinguistic literature, that is, the functional allocation position. The chapter also describes how diglossia has impacted the development of models of bilingual education, as well as pedagogical approaches for bilingualism, throughout the world. But focusing on primary and secondary classrooms in New York City, the chapter then portrays how bilingual and multilingual classrooms are violating the separate functional distribution of languages. Looking at the languaging, that is, the language practices of both students and 155

156

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

teachers in bilingual and multilingual classrooms, the chapter suggests that effective multilingual classroom spaces might be better described as being transglossic. That is, despite the strict separation of languages, students and teachers in these classrooms enact fluid language practices that we call translanguaging, and which will be explored below. The chapter argues that translanguaging might be a fruitful way of developing the complex language practices that all students need in the 21st century, as well as the standard languages which are taught in school.

Diglossia and Bilingualism in Education Conceptualizations of bilingualism in education have rested in traditional understandings of diglossia. The term ‘diglossie’ was used by Psichari (1928), a French philologist studying Greek in the late 19th century, to distinguish the classical standard of Greek, Katharevusa, from the popular modern Greek, Dimotiki. This is the way in which Ferguson (1959) used diglossia in his now-famous article to refer to societal arrangements in which one variety of a language is used for prestigious or high functions, whereas the other variety is used for informal or low functions. Fishman extended Ferguson’s definition to encompass not only language varieties, but also different languages. Fishman et al. (1971: 560) warn that ‘socially patterned bilingualism can exist as a stabilized phenomenon only if there is functional differentiation between two languages’. In Fishman’s macro-sociolinguistic framework, diglossia is necessary because ‘no society needs two languages for one and the same set of functions’ (Fishman, 1972: 140). Fishman’s model of diglossia relies on strict compartmentalization for the two or more languages in question. This language separation could be accomplished either by territory (what Fishman calls the territorial principle) or by functions (what he calls the personality principle). Diglossia has been a foundational principle in macro-sociolinguistics (also known as the sociology of language and Fishmanian sociolinguistics; see García et al., 2006). The language planning field emerged in the mid-20th century, mainly as a result of the language diversity that struggles for civil rights and the independence of African and Asian countries brought to the forefront. Language planning efforts focused greatly on how to functionally allocate societal languages to ensure that indigenous languages in the case of Asia and Africa, and the languages of regional or immigrant minorities in the case of North America and Europe, had a role in society (see Spolsky, 2004; Wright, 2004). Whereas in the case of new African and Asian nation-states decisions had to be made about whether a former colonial language or an indigenous language was made official or used in governmental functions, the most important language planning choice occurred in the context of education. The struggle over which languages were to be used in education

From Diglossia to Transglossia

157

highlighted the conflicting desires about the language practices of different groups of speakers. When education was reserved for the elite, the standard language taught in school had great similarities to the language practices of the powerful groups whose children attended these schools. An important purpose of school was then to ensure that children developed a standard academic language which was the measure of an educated man or woman. However, once mass public education was introduced in one country after another in the 19th century, schooling became a place where the language practices of school often had absolutely no similarities to the language practices of the home. Monolingual education became simply a way of developing complex academic abilities in the language of the powerful elite who controlled the schools. Little attention was paid to the language practices of everyone else, and language minority students were expected to either conform to the language practices of the formal school context or drop out of school, guaranteeing that only the elite and the few became educated. It is not then surprising that one of the most important demands of the struggles for civil rights and freedom of the oppressed that took place in the mid-20th century was precisely to make room for the language practices of minorities in their education. The bilingual education programs that emerged were modeled after monolingual education programs, arguing that language minority children would become better users of the standard language of the majority if they also became literate users of their own standard academic language. Additive bilingualism, with each language clearly separate and fully developed, became the mark of excellence in all bilingual education programs. Thus, bilingual education programs often separate languages through one of four strategies (García, 2009: 292–295): • • • •

Time-determined separation: that is, one language is taught for one part of the day, one day or one week; the other language is taught for another part of the day, another day or another week. Teacher-determined separation: that is, one teacher teaches in one language and the other teacher uses the other language. Place-determined separation: that is, one language is spoken in one physical space or classroom and the other language is taught in another classroom or space. Subject-determined separation: that is, one language is used to teach certain subjects while the other language is used to teach the other subjects.

However, although bilingual education programs that separate language in this way might work well for language majorities that are adding additional languages of prestige with power similar to their own, the same cannot be said of language minorities. By definition, the language practices of language minorities are stigmatized and often have not been included in

158

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

schools. Therefore, the home language practices of language minorities frequently have very little to do with what bilingual schools, teaching two standard languages, claim to be the home language of the children. That is, the distance between the language practices of schools, whether in the majority or the minority language, continue to have absolutely no similarities to the language practices of the home of the language minority children. Whereas it was obvious that the language practices of schools in what was considered a standard majority language were different from those of homes of students who spoke non-dominant languages, it was less recognized that the language practices of schools in what was considered a standard minority language were also different. The strict insistence on separating languages in teaching language minorities as a way to ‘protect’ or isolate the weaker, nondominant language from that of the majority, meant that bilingual students who were being educated ‘bilingually’ were often left out. On the one hand, indigenous minorities whose language practices had never been used in education before did not always recognize those of the standard academic indigenous language taught in school as their own. On the other hand, regional and immigrant minorities who were bilingual became linguistically insecure in their home language practices. How this happened is the subject of the next section.

Diglossic Arrangements in Bilingual Education and Linguistic Insecurity Bilingual education programs, supposedly developed to support language minority students, often increased their linguistic insecurity. The most obvious example is that of Indigenous peoples in the Americas, as intercultural, bilingual education programs in Latin America and bilingual/bicultural education programs in North America came into being. In Latin America, where Indigenous languages were widely spoken, the Indigenous minorities had seldom been seriously educated. In Mexico, for example, the numerous Indigenous population (approximately 12 million, constituting about 13% of the population of the country) had not received a meaningful education prior to the 1994 revolt of the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN), which rose up against neo-liberal policies that ignored the social needs of the Indigenous people. As a result of the agreements signed with the Zapatistas, the General Coordination of Bilingual and Intercultural Education and the General Directive of Indigenous Education finally came into being (García & Velasco, 2012). Intercultural bilingual education programs were developed; however, the educational structures that were set up imitated those of the monolingual education programs of the past. Enormous energy has been spent writing alphabets and developing ways of writing in Indigenous languages, but as the Indigenous languages became standardized so that they

From Diglossia to Transglossia

159

could be taught in school, the distance from the home language practices of many Indigenous communities became obvious. This tension has perhaps become more noticeable in the struggles over the standardization of Quechua so that it could be used in schools in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador. Under the label of ‘Quechua’ fall many language practices that have little to do with each other. Beyond this dialectal difference is the fact that Quechua has now co-existed with Spanish for centuries, and so it differs greatly from what linguists call ‘traditional’ Quechua, and from what educators now call Quechua ‘unificado’, able to be used in schools throughout the region. The insistence that Indigenous Quechua children be taught bilingually in Spanish and Quechua is an improvement over their exclusion from formal education in the past, or even the insistence that they be educated in Spanish only. However, now Quechua itself has become the battleground, as language minority speakers find it difficult to identify their home language practices in those of the standard Quechua taught in school and reflected in textbooks. Bilingual education has put Quechua and other Latin American Indigenous languages on the map, and this is important in itself. But the insistence that only certain standardized practices be accepted in school, and that Quechua be kept separate from Spanish, is responsible for much of the linguistic insecurity spreading throughout Quechua-speaking lands today (Coronel-Molina, 2011; Luyx, 2011). The insistence on separating the two languages in bilingual education goes against the understanding that bilinguals are not two monolinguals in one person (Grosjean, 1982). Bilingual students or emergent bilingual students (those who are developing the additional language) use their two languages in interdependent ways (Canagarajah, 2005; Cummins, 2000, 2007; García, 2009). Thus, keeping one language out of the reach of the other works against developing bilingualism and appropriating an identity as a bilingual person. In the search to neutralize the power dimensions of the two languages, that is, to work against the linguistic hierarchy of a majority and a minority language, the sociolinguistic arrangement of putting two languages on an equal and separate footing sometimes obviates the complex language practices of bilingual students. The bilingual education programs that have been implemented for the Deaf community are also involved in this tension between separating the written and the signed language, whereas Deaf students often use both languages jointly. The struggle to incorporate Sign Language in the education of the Deaf has been arduous. But the frequent insistence that the many language practices of the Deaf be performed in isolation has worked against the bilingualism of the Deaf community, who would benefit from using all their language practices jointly in order to make sense of both language and content (Grosjean, 2010). It is then instructive to think critically about the diglossic arrangements that have been the hallmark of bilingual education programs. Although the

160

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

functional allocation of two languages in education might have worked when the languages involved shared similar power, they have to be questioned today when more language minorities are being educated bilingually.

Transglossia, Translanguaging and Bilingualism in Education The traditional concept of diglossia has recently been called into question, as more situations of stable multilingualism without functional allocation are described. Many have used the case of the complex multilingualism of India and many African countries to question diglossic arrangements as the only way to achieve stable bilingualism and multilingualism (see Khubchandani, 1997; Makoni & Pennycook, 2007; Pennycook, 2010). In India, multilingual contact is the norm and yet language practices have been maintained for generations (Mohanty, 2006). The Indian sociolinguist Annamalai (2005) explains: When multilingualism is taken as the norm, the functional (or ecological) relationship between languages in a multilingual network (or linguistic ecology) defines the nature of each language in the network. (Annamalai, 2005: 111) In the European Union, the promotion of plurilingualism has posited that it is possible to acquire and use different language practices to varying degrees and in interaction with each other to form one overall communicative competence (Council of Europe, 2000). The spread of English throughout a globalized world has also meant that more groups of people are bilingual and use English alongside other language practices in interrelationship, as the multimodalities made possible through advanced technology confront us with different language practices simultaneously. Mühlhäusler’s ecological approach (2000, 2002) posits that languages automatically readjust themselves to fit into the environment and that they are maintained precisely through language contact, rather than in isolation. I have argued elsewhere (García, 2009) that this stable, and yet dynamic communicative network, with many languages in functional interrelationship, might be better called ‘transglossia’. Indeed, bilingual education programs that succeed in making children bilingual and biliterate fill with potential the gap between the diglossic language arrangements that are often the hallmark of bilingual education programs, and the transglossic language practices of groups of students in classrooms. Transglossia rests on, but goes beyond, the important concept of heteroglossia posited by Bakhtin (1981). Bakhtin speaks of the differences of language practices and the different social forces that move them. Transglossia

From Diglossia to Transglossia

161

builds on these heteroglossic practices, but adds a dimension that has much to do with the concept of transculturación/transculturation coined by the Cuban ethnologist Ortiz (1940) in explaining the complex processes of cultural transformation in Cuban society. As Mignolo (2000) has pointed out, Ortiz’ concept of transculturation questions the directionality of cultural transformations, and offers an alternative description to the myth that it was the European ‘discovery’ that constructed the Americas, by pointing out that it was the other way around. That is, the Americas created Europe, as riches from the Americas made it back. With reference to the history of tobacco and sugar, Ortiz posits that tobacco, chocolate, coffee and tea came into Europe when the Middle Ages were crumbling and the rationalism of the Renaissance and the Reformation was beginning. These stimulants would not intoxicate Europeans, as alcohol did, but would revive Europe. As Ortiz says: The tobacco of the Antilles, the chocolate of Mexico, the coffee of Africa, and the tea of China. Nicotine, theobromine, caffeine, and theine – these four alkoids were put at the service of humanity to make reason more alert. (Ortiz, [1940]1995: 206, cited in Mignolo, 2000: 169) Transculturation, according to Ortiz, questions the epistemological purity of traditional descriptions and disciplines, as it affects the knowing subject because, as Mignolo (2000: 220) has expressed, it ‘infects the locus of enunciation’. Transculturation changes the principles of similar previous descriptions and transforms the views of how people interact. Transculturation involves what Mignolo (2000) calls ‘border thinking’ (Mignolo, 2000: 6) that produces ‘knowledge conceived from the exterior borders of the modern/ colonial world system’ (Mignolo, 2000: 11). In a similar way, transglossia releases ways of speaking of subaltern groups that had been previously fixed within static language identities and are constrained by the modern/colonial world system. Thus, transglossia has little to do with the static maintenance of two or more languages of nation-states and other societal groups, maintaining the asymmetry of language practices. The focus of transglossia is, as Mignolo (2000: 231) claims, to question and transgress ‘the coloniality of power and knowledge’. The objective of transglossia is to have subaltern groups develop what Mignolo calls ‘an other tongue’; that is, ‘the necessary condition for “an other thinking” and for the possibility of moving beyond the defense of national languages and national ideologies – both of which have been operating in complicity with imperial powers and imperial conflicts’ (Mignolo, 2000: 249). Whereas diglossia was said to rely on static language patterns in different domains to achieve stability and the preservation of group bilingual practices, transglossia refers to the fluid language practices that question traditional descriptions built on national myths, as well as challenging the locus of enunciation.

162

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Transglossia in bilingual and multilingual classrooms is enacted through practices that I and others, extending Williams (cited in Baker, 2006), have called translanguaging (Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Creese & Blackledge, 2010; García, 2009). Translanguaging for me is the process by which bilinguals engage in complex discursive practices that release ‘an other tongue’ and that change the principles which have been established by those in power. These principles, often, although not always, upheld by monolinguals, are the product of monoglossic ideologies, that is, beliefs that languages are autonomous systems. In blending transculturation and languaging, the term translanguaging responds to the complex and multidirectional processes in the language practices of peoples that, as in Ortiz’s transculturación, ‘has something of both parents (languages) but is always different from each of them’ (Ortiz [1940]1995: 103). As such, translanguaging challenges the view of languages, as used by all speakers, especially those who are bilingual and multilingual, as autonomous and pure. Translanguaging then is a product of border thinking, of subaltern knowledge conceived from a bilingual/multilingual and not monolingual position. Translanguaging transgresses reified categories of language, exposing meanings and histories buried within fixed language systems and identities. Translanguaging subsumes code-switching – which is usually defined as the shift between two languages in context – and it also incorporates translation, but it differs from both of these practices in that translanguaging refers to the process by which bilingual people make sense and perform bilingually in myriad other tongues, as fixed identities and meanings are questioned, and new signification is made. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom is precisely a way of working in the gap between, on the one hand, the global designs of nation-states and their education systems that set up bilingual programs with strict compartmentalization between languages and, on the other hand, the local histories of peoples who ‘language’ differently, especially in bilingual situations. The languaging in the classrooms to be portrayed below shows the tensions between the global design of the United States in educating immigrants and language minorities, and the local histories of those students. As we will see, in their design, these classrooms separate languages, and sometimes are supposed to exclude the minority language. In reality, students and teachers violate these compartmentalizations, acting on their border thinking, as they make new meanings of what it is to be bilingual in the United States.

Classrooms and Bilingual Students in the United States In the United States, the possibilities of using languages other than English in educating language minorities and language majorities are shrinking.

From Diglossia to Transglossia

163

English-speaking monolinguals have rarely been interested in acquiring an additional language, and the teaching of ‘foreign’ languages usually begins in high school at the age of 15. However, since the Bilingual Education Act was passed in 1968,2 Spanish in particular, but also other languages of immigrants, as well as of Native Americans, have been used, alongside English, to educate minorities. Most of these programs have been of the transitional bilingualeducation type, which use languages other than English only until students have developed English proficiency. Very few developmental maintenance bilingual-education programs have offered language minorities the possibility of being educated in English and other languages. With the growing interest in the learning of Spanish and Chinese in recent years, some immersion bilingualeducation programs have been developed for speakers of English. The ubiquity of Spanish speakers and other language minorities, however, has also made it possible to develop some two-way immersion bilingual-education programs (also known as dual language), in which immigrant children with limited proficiency in English (usually Spanish speakers, but also mainly speakers of Chinese, Korean and Russian) are taught together with Anglophone children who are learning these languages. However, in the insistence on naming these programs ‘dual’ rather than bilingual lies a tale, for the US has moved in recent years towards silencing bilingualism in education (see García, 2009; García & Kleifgen, 2010; Hornberger, 2006; Wiley, 2005). The insistence has been on either teaching in English only or, when teaching bilingually, on doing so strictly compartmentalizing the languages, insisting on the students’ ‘dual’ and separate language systems. Nevertheless, teachers and children, as will be shown below, constantly transgress these diglossic arrangements, constructing their meaning on the flexible multiplicity of translanguaging (García, 2009) and the dynamic bilingualism of 21st century citizens. The goal of bilingual education programs in the 21st century must be to develop the students’ dynamic bilingualism; that is, the ability to use complex discourse practices in functional interrelationship, the ability to translanguage, rather than the ability to develop the linear additive bilingualism of the past (García, 2009). These complex multilingual discourse practices have been readily observed in bilingual and multilingual classrooms throughout the world (e.g. Cummins, 2007; García et al., 2011; Lewis, 2008; Manyak, 2004; Saxena, 2009). However, these language practices need different support, and despite strict diglossic arrangements that separate languages according to the strategies delineated above, there are flexible multiple arrangements of language practices (García, 2009), all of which are evident in the classrooms that I describe below: • •

Responsible code-switching both ways, that is, to offer meaningful instructional support, and as a systematic sense-making process. Preview/view/review, with one set of language practices used to preview the lesson, another set to view the lesson, and either language to review it.

164

• • •

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Translanguaging in the way defined by Williams (1997), as a pedagogy that alternates the language of input with the language of output. Co-languaging, with two or more languages used simultaneously, often enabled through technology. Cross-linguistic work and awareness, with contrastive analysis and crosslinguistic work being part of the instruction for different effects and reflection.

Despite diglossic arrangements and the functional allocation of languages, most students and teachers in bilingual education classrooms work in the gap between the global designs and the local practices. The classrooms to be discussed below, mostly for Latino immigrant children, show how in the United States – despite little interest in advancing bilingualism, and bilingual education programs that speak to the primacy of English – the local histories of its Latino participants enable complex translanguaging. These multiple discursive practices result not only in making visible histories of oppression and differential power tensions but also, over time, in developing standard academic English as well as standard academic Spanish. To make this process visible, we look at structures and practices in different kinds of classrooms and programs for English–Spanish bilinguals in the US, and specifically in New York City. New York City has been called the Multilingual Apple (García & Fishman, 1997). Fifty-two percent of the population over five years of age (3,712,467 people) speak a language other than English at home (US Census Bureau, 2009). Although Spanish is indeed the largest language in the city, spoken by 24% of the population over five years of age, the language diversity in New York is greater than in most US cities, indicating its global reach. Below, I describe the use of translanguaging in four ethnographic case studies of New York classrooms with emergent bilinguals that I have conducted over the years. The classrooms range from a kindergarten to high school classrooms. Two of the classrooms are two-way, ‘dual language’ programs. One is officially an English as a second language (ESL) classroom. The high school classrooms are different – there are transitional bilingual education classrooms, English as a second language classrooms and what I have called ‘dynamic bilingual’ classrooms (García & Kleifgen, 2010), where adolescents themselves are in control of the language they use in order to make sense of instruction. Some of these classrooms have been described extensively in other publications and I will refer to these below. My objective in describing them again here collectively is to allow us to look at translanguaging for different purposes and contexts and with various age groups.

A two-way bilingual kindergarten3 This is a class of five-year-olds in a two-way bilingual kindergarten, the first schooling experience for most children. The teachers, Maia Starcevic

From Diglossia to Transglossia

165

and Alexandra Terry, have developed a side-by-side model, meaning that they share 27 children with Starcevic teaching in English only in one room, and Alexandra teaching in Spanish only in another room, and children going back and forth between the two rooms and the two languages of instruction. Half of the children, all Spanish-speaking Latinos, have been assessed before school started with a New York State test, the Language Assessment Battery Revised, and have been found to have ‘limited proficiency in English’. Thus they have been classified as ‘English language learners’. The other half have been classified as fluent English speakers, and most are not Latinos. But the fact that half the children are Spanish speakers and the other half are English speakers is only an illusion. Among those who are English speakers, eight of 13 are bilingual. Some are speakers of Spanish at home; others speak languages other than English at home – Arabic, Italian, Portuguese or Urdu. Among the English speakers, there are some who are immigrant children, having arrived in the US after birth. Among the Spanish speakers, four out of 14 were born in the US. Often there are children who have lived in English-speaking and Spanish-speaking countries and contexts, sometimes because they have traveled back and forth, or at other times because their mothers have married, divorced and remarried, and their families have been reconstituted several times. Despite the apparent homogeneity of one group and the other, there are huge differences among individuals in the groups that have been constituted as simply English-speaking and Spanish-speaking. The less structured classroom context of a kindergarten class, coupled with the fact that young children often speak to themselves, makes this a most appropriate context to listen to the languaging of emergent bilingual children. The observations that follow were documented during the first three months of schooling in 2007 (for more on this study, see García, 2011). On one occasion, the English teacher has taken the children who are new to English outside for a lesson on comparisons. The children are sitting in a circle and I am sitting next to a girl, Angélica, who is mumbling under her breath. The teacher is asking the students to repeat: ‘This tree is bigger. That tree is smaller.’ Angélica is trying out under her breath what she knows. ‘This tree is . . .’, and then she stops and grins to herself as she says: ‘grander’. For Angélica, this is part of her languaging, drawing from her ‘grande’ home language practices to make sense of the new language practices that she is confronting in school. Another day, Alfredo, another Spanish-speaking child who is new to English, is having a snack at his table in the English-language room. I am sitting at the same table. The children around him have different language practices. As he looks up, he sees it is raining, and in Spanish he says, ‘Mira, está lloviendo’ [‘Look, it’s raining’]. But as he looks around at the children at his table, he realizes that some of his classmates will not understand him, so he quickly says, ‘There’s washing afuera’. It is the bilingual girl sitting next

166

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

to him who responds to him, immediately insisting that he follow the language protocol of the classroom. After explaining to me that Alfredo speaks Spanish, ‘only Spanish’, she tells him, ‘Alfredo, raining’. Alfredo quickly picks up on what she is saying, and repeats, ‘Raining’. Alfredo translanguages to make himself understood by all; the bilingual girl mediates to ensure that he follows the ‘right’ language of the classroom. And Alfredo quickly acquiesces by repeating ‘raining’. In this classroom, children quickly learn that their language practices need to be pinned to one language or the other, and develop attitudes about what is one language or the other. In the Spanish-language classroom, children constantly label what they are learning to say as Spanish. For example, on one occasion, María, a bilingual Latina, is playing with letters alongside Oscar, an English-speaking boy, and speaking in Spanish to me, sitting beside them. She is conscious of the fact that in two minutes play time will be over, and tells me: ‘En dos minutos cuando dicen, a limpiar . . .’ [‘In two minutes when they say, clean . . .’]. Immediately Oscar, who is listening, recognizing the words ‘a limpiar’, tells me: ‘A limpiar means clean up, and pare means time out. That’s Spanish’ (17 October 2007). More than learning Spanish, these students are learning to label some of their language practices as English, and others as Spanish. Despite the territorial and curricular structures to separate languages in this kindergarten class, the children can only make sense of what they are learning precisely by transgressing those structures. Thus, translanguaging allows the new significations that are the product of learning, but also of language development which includes standard English and standard Spanish.

An English-only third/fourth grade Christina Celic teaches an elementary school classroom for 26 third and fourth graders (eight- and nine-year-olds) who are all emergent bilinguals; some are recent immigrants and others were born in the United States. The school has only an ESL program and thus classroom instruction is supposed to be in English only. Although most children are from Latin America, there are also four Chinese speakers and a Nepalese-speaking child. Christina speaks English natively, but she has lived in Spain and is married to a Spaniard; thus, she is bilingual in English and Spanish. Christina uses a balanced-literacy workshop approach to the teaching of English reading and writing (see her own description of her practices in Celic, 2009). For her mini-lessons, she calls students to the rug in the front of the room. Sometimes during the mini-lesson Christina reads a book out loud; at other times, she teaches an explicit language function or form. The children sit in twos and threes on the floor, grouped heterogeneously by English language ability. That is, children who have more English proficiency are paired

From Diglossia to Transglossia

167

with those who have less. Christina scaffolds the mini-lesson by modeling intensely and then providing the children with an opportunity to discuss what she has explicitly taught or read. To do that, she asks the children to ‘turn and talk’ to their partner(s) and to discuss (or repeat) what she has modeled. But not all the children can make sense of what Christina has taught. Some have understood it fully and can produce it; others, not so much. Thus, the groups of children work in and out of English, offering explanations in Spanish in some groups, in Chinese in others. The Nepalese child often pairs up with Christina, who offers pictures, drawings and acting out to contextualize the task. When the children go back to their desks to read and write, they continue to work in collaborative groups, but this time in larger groups of about six students who are more homogeneous in English literacy. That is, children reading at a similar level of English work together, reading the same text, interrogating each other, discussing ideas. Although the children read in English, they translanguage as they discuss the texts. Every day, Christina works with a different reading group in guided reading, providing an introduction and orientation to the text, and presenting key vocabulary. When working with Spanish-speaking groups of very low English proficiency, Christina does this in Spanish. She then listens to them read in English. She often makes students repeat in English, and sometimes asks students for translations or does so herself. Finally, the discussion that ensues about the reading material often takes place in Spanish with children encouraged to translanguage as they try out their ideas with new language practices. Although Christina cannot provide bilingual guided reading to the Chinese-speaking group, she does allow discussion to take place in Chinese among the children. Often, the children write translations to key vocabulary in word walls in Chinese, and the Chinese children, as well as all the children including the Nepalese child, have dictionaries that they often use. It is during independent reading that the children have the most opportunities to work through their own language practices. Christina provides zip-lock bags with authentic children’s books in English, as well as books in Spanish, Chinese and Nepalese at their own grade level. Even though the Spanish children’s books have been leveled by New York City’s Department of Education, the same cannot be said of Chinese and Nepalese books. For that, Christina has involved the Chinese and Nepalese parents, as well as the community. In writing, Christina allows students to write essays in Spanish, Chinese or Nepalese. Although she can read the Spanish students’ writing, she often asks students to provide her with an oral summary of what the essays are about in English or has one of the other students do so. She encourages students to use the English they know in order to write essays, and points out to them how expert literary texts are often bilingual. They also explore the effect of writing bilingually. By allowing the children to develop a languaging

168

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

voice as authors regardless of the official classroom language, and to translanguage, the children become authors very quickly, able eventually to write an essay in standard academic English when prompted to do so. Christina’s classroom is, in principle, in English only. However, the multilingual realities of the classroom are performed in translanguaging ways every day, as the children make sense of what is being communicated and taught through home language practices that are far from those sanctioned by the school.

A Fifth Grade two-way bilingual classroom Maritza Ríos’ and Nancy Soto’s fifth grade classrooms are part of a two-way bilingual education program where children who started out as English speakers and those starting out as Spanish speakers have been educated together in English and Spanish since kindergarten. After five years of instruction, these 22 10- and 11-year-old children, both Latinos and non-Latinos, are mostly bilingual. Last year, two children arrived from Latin America, and this year one new child has arrived. Except for these three recently arrived children, the others prefer English for academic and social tasks. Maritza and Nancy divide English and Spanish strictly. For example, Maritza teaches in Spanish in the morning and English in the afternoon. In the morning, she teaches US history in Spanish. And yet, one often finds children making sense of the history lesson by reading passages in English and discussing the Spanish-language texts in English. For example, since students are taught to write essays for the English Language Arts Assessment following English literacy discourse conventions, on a particular day I found a student who was following the written instructions that had been given to her in English for the English Language Arts class, in order to develop a Spanish language essay on the topic of colonial life in the US. It is perhaps the review lesson for the Social Studies New York State exam that gives us the best glimpse of the translanguagings in these classrooms. The New York State Education Department translates content tests into five languages – Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Russian and Haitian Creole – in order to ensure that immigrant students with low levels of English proficiency are not unfairly penalized in assessing content knowledge. Although the students have been studying social studies in Spanish, Nancy’s class has decided that they would prefer to take the state exam in English, proof of their greater comfort with English at this stage. As bilingually instructed students, they will be allowed to have both forms of the test (the English and the Spanish) on their desks and to go from one to the other. All answers, however, will have to be written in English. The review lesson takes place in English, following an old test paper. However, the newly arrived child has been given the same old review test in

From Diglossia to Transglossia

169

Spanish, and he is following along in Spanish as the teacher and the rest of the students discuss in English. Their English discourse is often interrupted to translate for the Spanish-speaking child. At other times, they stop to read from their Spanish text or from notes that they have written in Spanish. When this happens, English ‘seeps’ in. They go back to writing answers in the review test in English, however, understanding that despite their ability to translanguage, the New York State Education Department will only allow answers in standard academic English. Although their translanguaging validates their complex language practices and enables them to make sense of their learning, it is also precisely what scaffolds their production of standard academic English. As in Christina Celic’s classroom, Maritza Ríos and Nancy Soto also use a workshop-type balanced literacy approach. The classrooms have many sets of authentic children’s literature, chapter books that children read in ‘book clubs’. In the morning the book clubs are in Spanish, whereas in the afternoon they are in English. Children are taught to put post-it notes in the pages and paragraphs where they might have a question or an idea that connects the text to others or to themselves as they read independently. This will enable them to have a focused discussion later in their book clubs. The post-it notes are not collected by the teachers, making it possible for students to display all their languaging prowess. Translanguaging is then the most prevalent language practice for the post-it notes, facilitating the meaningmaking of students whose language practices are fluid, despite the compartmentalizations to which their language practices are subjected in school. As students get older, the understandings and messages imparted in school lessons get more complicated. As we will see in the next section, translanguaging is then the only way to ensure that emergent bilingual adolescents make meaning from lessons imparted in English, and develop the standard language practices of high schools.

High schools for emergent bilinguals Is it possible to effectively teach immigrant newcomer adolescents who are emergent bilinguals in English only or even bilingually if there is strict language separation? The answer, according to our study of Latinos in New York City High Schools (LAT-NYHS)4 is a resounding ‘no’. During the 2009–2010 academic year, our research team conducted seven case studies of highly effective New York City high schools that had very high percentages of Latino students who were emergent bilinguals, but also had very high graduation rates. Three of the high schools claimed to have English-only instruction, while four of the high schools claimed to have transitional bilingual education programs. What we found, however, was that whether the programs were structurally English-only or bilingual, the practices that were observed in classrooms and which teachers and students described to the researchers were those of translanguaging.

170

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

In the bilingual high schools for Latino newcomers, students generally have three 45-minute periods of ESL a day, while the rest of the content classes (science, math and social studies) are supposed to be taught in Spanish. Yet the insistence on higher standards in English and on passing high-stakes graduation exams in English fueled by No Child Left Behind legislation5 has made translanguaging the only way to give emergent bilingual adolescents practice with English while teaching content in Spanish, and meaning in Spanish while teaching content in English. Whether in English-only or bilingual programs, teachers in content classes constantly translanguage so that students take up vocabulary and structures in English. The graphic organizers that teachers provide students in order to scaffold the English reading are often bilingual; at other times, they are in Spanish. In some classes, the same school text is available in both English and Spanish, and teachers, even in English-only classrooms, allow these adolescents to make use of the Spanish texts. In a bilingual high school, a teacher teaching science in Spanish uses a book written in English, as well as English-language material on earthquakes available online. An example of the classroom discourse follows. The teacher says, ‘Hit the bar. Vamos con el foco. ¿Quién me puede leer lo que dice el foco en inglés?’ [Let’s go to the focus. Who can read to me what the focus says in English?]. A student then reads in English. The teacher follows up by saying: ‘What does it say?’ A student answers, ‘Focus is foco . . . y abajo, underground, cuando hay un break, allí es que ocurre el earthquake. . . .’ The teacher repeats English phrases that students understand. The students are required to read in English, but then to translate. Their translation, however, is never a traditional one. They are not translating from English into Spanish, as the teacher thinks they are. The students are simply translanguaging, using discourse strategies that they are beginning to integrate as they acquire these other language practices from school that some call ‘English’. The use of the word ‘break’ with what some might call Spanish phonology points in this direction. Bilingual students use languages fluidly, but are also schooled into understanding when they can and cannot use these fluid language practices. In this bilingual classroom, intent on teaching science, students know that they can translanguage. Their fluid language practices emerge as they make quick sense of what they are learning (for more on this case, see Bartlett & García, 2011). With the higher stakes tests that students are required to take, ESL high school classes have given up on the communicative approaches of the past and are using cognitive approaches, focusing on writing and critical skills. To get there, translanguaging is key. Thus, for example, students read novels that they have already read in their Spanish-language class, and often use both texts alongside each other. They write essays in English, as practice for their English graduation exam, although they use dictionaries and glossaries. They have practiced the written discourse strategies needed for the English

From Diglossia to Transglossia

171

graduation exam in their Spanish-language classrooms, and often look up those notes as they write the English essays. The math teacher portrayed below teaches in another school for emergent bilinguals. She uses a preview-view-review mode for her teaching where she previews the content in English and follows it with a lesson supposedly in Spanish. However, her discourse reveals how she uses translanguaging effectively to make the math content comprehensible and, at the same time, to develop the school language practices in English needed for the English graduation exam: ‘¿Cuál es la diferencia entre perímetro y área?’ [What is the difference between perimeter and area?] ‘Repitan. What is the difference between perimeter and area?’ ‘¿Cuál palabra es nueva para ustedes aquí?’ [Which word is new for you here?] ‘Ustedes saben que pueden usar inglés, spanglish o español, ¿verdad que sí?’ [You know that you may use English, Spanglish or Spanish, right?] ‘Quiero que usen el amigo mío, el diccionario, porque si no traducen no aprendemos. Por eso les doy la clase primero en inglés ...’ [I want you to use my friend, the dictionary, because if we don’t translate we don’t learn. That’s why I give you the class in English first . . .] The teacher is not only using translanguaging effectively, but gives students metacognitive strategies to use translanguaging to learn on their own. She points to cognates and words they can recognize in the discourse. She encourages them to use all their language practices, to translanguage, to translate, to use the dictionary, to go from one language practice to another. The students in this class are not only learning math, they are learning how to survive linguistically in a context that values certain language practices and not others, precisely by using their own home language practices to integrate new ones. Despite school structures that keep out Spanish by stating that they are English only, or school structures that separate the two languages in ways that alienate speakers of Spanish who do not see themselves represented in the monolingual academic Spanish of the classroom, teachers and students are negotiating these monolingual and diglossic arrangements (for more on teachers as policy makers, see Menken & García, 2010). Teachers seem to understand that the language practices of US Latino students can only function in integrative and interdependent ways, and that this fluidity is needed in order to develop both content knowledge and language. And yet, in doing so, teachers are also preparing students to use translanguaging metacognitively, to ensure that they learn on their own, and to understand when to suppress their fluid language practices in order to perform the monolingual and monocultural identities that schools, even bilingual ones, demand.

172

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

Conclusions It is in classrooms where the tension between global and national designs, on the one hand, and local practices and desires, on the other, are made more evident. Schools will continue to be mostly monolingual, and on occasion, bilingual, even though students around the world are mostly bilingual. Bilingual education programs in the 21st century must not only extend to all, minorities and majorities, but must engage in the tension created by the desire to teach academic language according to monolingual standards, and the dynamic language practices of bilinguals. I end with the monologue of a bilingual Latino boy, Pablo, in the kindergarten classroom described earlier. Pablo is sitting next to me and playing with an ‘Etch a Sketch’ board, where, as he turns the knobs, the image that he has drawn disappears: ‘Esto es magic. Yo puedo hacer magic. Mira, se borró todo, y aquí está.’ [This is magic. I can do magic. Look, it was all erased, and here it is.] ‘Es magic . . . Mira que es magic. Y aquí está.’ [It’s magic . . . Look, it’s magic. And here it is!] ‘Mira, son papeles. Y los encerraron aquí, pa’ que los hagamos.’ [Look, they’re papers. And they put them in here, so we can do them.] ‘I just erased it with my hand.’ At this point, the English-speaking assistant teacher gives him a worksheet. Pablo turns toward her and asks, ‘Can I do this with pencil?’ ‘I need some. I need this one. I could write . . .’ But as he starts writing on the worksheet, the magic is gone, for he cannot erase, he cannot do, he can only do it badly. ‘Mira, ¿quieres ver?’ [Look, do you want to see?] ‘Éste no se borra con la mano.’ [You can’t erase this with your hand.] ‘Y esto lo vamos a llevar a mi casa.’ [And we are taking this to my house.] He speaks to himself, as he writes his name, ‘¡Ay, qué mal! Es que siempre lo hago mal.’ [Oh, so bad! You know, I always do it wrong.]

From Diglossia to Transglossia

173

Speaking to himself again because he did not write his name on the paper. (9 October 2007) I use this as a metaphor for what happens to bilingual students in classrooms that do not recognize their translanguagings, their many movable and changing signs, leading bilingual students to think that their languaging is always wrong – like Pablo’s, ‘siempre lo hago mal’. Restricting language to one form or the other, and identities to one or the other, does not take into consideration the fluid language practices and identities of most students today. Only when all teachers allow students to erase and weave their different and fluid language practices and linguistic identities will bilingual education programs hold promise. The promise of bilingualism in education lies in its potential for liberating ‘other tongues’ that would let loose the imagination of all students. For language minority students, the promise of bilingual education programs also lies in the possibility that translanguaging might release the histories and meanings of oppression that are often hidden in the fixed meanings, identities and languages assigned to them. In being allowed to name their realities with dynamic translanguaging, language minority bilingual students will also have more possibilities of incorporating into their linguistic repertoire standard academic language practices that do not compete, but that work in unison with their more fluid language practices.

Notes (1) I would like to thank Claire Fontaine for her careful reading of an earlier draft of this chapter. I also want to thank the teachers and students in the classrooms and schools that I portray here. They have welcomed me into their classrooms and enabled me to see their practices. Without their generosity, none of this could have been seen and described here. (2) The Bilingual Education Act was Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Act was first authorized in 1968 and was up for reauthorization every four years. As a result of this Act, the US Congress provided funds for school districts which started bilingual education programs for language minority students. The 1974 reauthorization defined bilingual education as transitional. (3) This case was more thoroughly described in García (2011). (4) LAT-NYHS was a collaborative study of RISLUS and the PhD Program in Urban Education at the Graduate Center, City University of New York, funded by the New York City Department of Education, and conducted from September 2009 to January 2011. The Research Team was made up of Ofelia García (Principal Investigator), Haiwen Chu, Nelson Flores, Heather Woodley, Laura Kaplan and Suzanne Dikker. See García, Woodley, Flores and Chu (2012). (5) The No Child Left Behind Legislation (2001) required that all states test students in certain grades in exchange for federal funding. The legislation also stipulated that all sub-groups of students, including those classified as ‘Limited English Proficient’, become proficient in Math and Reading by the year 2014. In November 2011, the Obama administration offered flexibility from meeting this requirement in exchange for serious state-led efforts to close achievement gaps, promote rigorous accountability and ensure that all students were on track to graduate.

174

Par t 2: Issues in L anguage Use in Cl assrooms

References Annamalai, E. (2005) New approaches to language policy. In F. Martí, P. Orega, I. Idiazabal, A. Barreña, P. Juaristi, C. Junyent, B. Uranga and E. Amorrortu (eds) Words and Words. World Languages Review (pp. 111–117). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2006) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (4th edn). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bakhtin, M. (1981) Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bartlett, L. and García, O. (2011) Additive Schooling in Subtractive Times. Bilingual Education for Dominican Youth in the Heights. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Blackledge, A. and Creese, A. (2010) Multilingualism. London: Continuum. Canagarajah, A. (2001) Constructing hybrid postcolonial subjects: Codeswitching in Jaffna classrooms. In M. Heller and M. Martin-Jones (eds) Voices of Authority: Education and Linguistic Diversity (pp. 193–212). Westport, CT: Ablex. Canagarajah, S. (2005) Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Celic, C. (2009) English Language Learners. Day by Day K-6. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Coronel-Molina, S. (2011) Quechua language policy and planning in Peru. In J.A. Fishman and O. García (eds) Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: The Success–Failure Continuum (pp. 126–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (2000) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal 94, 103–115. Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2007) Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10, 221–240. Ferguson, C. (1959) Diglossia. Word 15, 325–340. Fishman, J.A. (1972) Language and Nationalism. Two Integrative Essays. Rowley: Newbury House. Fishman, J.A., Cooper, R.L. and Ma, R. (1971) Bilingualism in the Barrio. Language Science Monographs 7. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. García, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden/ Oxford: Blackwell/Wiley. García, O. (with Makar, C., Starcevic, M. and Terry, A.) (2011) Translanguaging of Latino kindergartners. In K. Potowski and J. Rothman (eds) Bilingual Youth: Spanish in English Speaking Societies (pp. 33–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. García, O. and Fishman, J.A. (1997) The Multilingual Apple: Languages in New York City. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. García, O. and Kleifgen, J.A. (2010) Educating Emergent Bilinguals. Policies, Programs and Practices for English Language. New York: Teachers College Press. García, O. and Velasco, P. (2012) Insufficient language education policy: Intercultural bilingual education in Chiapas. Diaspora, Indigenous and Minority Education Journal 2. García, O., Peltz, R. and Schiffman, H. (eds) (2006) Language Loyalty, Continuity and Change: Joshua A. Fishman’s Contributions to International Sociolinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. García, O., Flores, N. and Chu, H. (2011) Extending bilingualism in U.S. secondary education: New variations. International Multilingual Research Journal 5, 1–18. García, O., Woodley, H.H., Flores, N. and Chu, H. (2012) Latino emergent bilingual youth in high schools: transcaring strategies for academic success. Urban Education doi:10.1177/0042085912462708

From Diglossia to Transglossia

175

Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with Two Languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grosjean, F. (2010) Bilingualism, biculturalism, and deafness. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13, 133–145. Hornberger, N. (2006) Nichols to NCLB: Local and global perspectives on US language education policy. In O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas and M. Torres-Guzmán (eds) Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Glocalization (pp. 223–237). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Khubchandani, L.M. (1997) Revisualizing Boundaries. A Plurilingual Ethos. New Delhi: Thousand Oaks & London: Sage Publications. Lewis, W.G. (2008) Current challenges in bilingual education in Wales. AILA Review 21, 69–86. Luyx, A. (2011) Paradoxes of Quechua language revitalization in Bolivia. In J.A. Fishman and O. García (eds) Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: The Success–Failure Continuum (pp. 137–152). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. (2007) Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Manyack, P. (2004) What did she say? Translation in a primary-grade English immersion class. Multicultural Perspectives 6, 12–18. Menken, K. and García, O. (eds) (2010) Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers. New York: Routledge. Mignolo, W. (2000) Local Histories/Global Designs. Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mohanty, A.K. (2006) Multilingualism of the unequals and predicaments of education in India: Mother tongue or other tongue? In O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas and M. Torres-Guzmán (eds) Imagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Glocalization (pp. 262–283). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mühlhäusler, P. (2000) Language planning and language ecology. Current Issues in Language Planning 1, 306–367. Mühlhäusler, P. (2002) Ecology of languages. In R.B. Kaplan (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 374–387). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ortiz, F. [1940](1995) Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Pennycook, A. (2010) Language as a Local Practice. London and New York: Routledge. Psichari, J. (1928) Un pays qui ne veut pas de sa langue. Mercure de France 207, 63–121. Saxena, M. (2009) Construction and deconstruction of linguistic otherness. Conflict and cooperative code-switching in English/bilingual classrooms. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 8, 167–187. Spolsky, B. (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. US Census Bureau (2009) 2009 American Community Survey. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, accessed 23 November 2011. http://www.census.gov. Wiley, T. (2005) Literacy and Language Diversity in the United States (2nd edn). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Williams, C. (1997) Bilingual Teaching in Further Education: Taking Stock. Bangor: Welsh Language Board. Wright, S. (2004) Language Policy and Language Planning: From Nationalism to Globalization. New York: Palgrave.

Part 3 Participant Perspectives on Bilingual Education Experiences: Students, Language Assistants, Student-teachers and Teacher-educators

9

The Students’ Views on Their Experience in a SpanishEnglish Bilingual Education Program in Spain María D. Pérez Murillo

Introduction Spain has recently become a multilingual and multicultural society, following the arrival of workers from various countries who do not share the language of the majority as well as workers who speak Latin American varieties of Spanish. In addition, Spanish regions are themselves linguistically diverse. According to Lasagabaster and Huguet (2007: 2), ‘40% of the population [in Spain] live in bilingual areas’. Since Spain’s 1978 Constitution, the country has been organized as a central government and 17 self-governing regions, each known as a comunidad autónoma, with their own elected governments. In some of these regions, the regional languages have achieved coofficial status with (Peninsular) Spanish, the national language. Within this bilingual context, schools have changed from a monolingual to a multilingual system where English has usually become a third language (i.e. a first foreign language). Parallel to this, several ‘officially’ monolingual regions have implemented bilingual education programs where English, in most cases, is taught alongside Spanish.1 In both officially monolingual and bilingual regions, the L2 classroom becomes ‘a setting where the target language is taught as a subject only (or across the curriculum in various subjects) and is not commonly used as a medium of communication outside the classroom’ (Ellis, 2007: 13). This chapter deals with bilingual educational provision for Spanish elementary and high school students in 10 of the 17 self-governing regions (including two bilingual regions) that Spain is divided into, as well as the self-governing towns of Ceuta and Melilla. 179

180

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

In 1996, the British Council and the Spanish Ministry of Education (MEC) launched a bilingual program – officially known as the Bilingual Education Project (hereafter BEP) – which was the result of a pioneering agreement to implement an integrated curriculum in a number of Spanish public schools. The main aim was to promote language development so as to achieve bilingualism in Spanish and English in these schools. Originally, there were only 43 schools involved in the project, but there are 122 at present (80 elementary schools and 42 high schools). I will focus on a study which took place in eight of these BEP schools; all of the participating schools were located in four officially monolingual (Spanish-speaking) regions. At the end of the 2008–2009 school year, and as part of a three-year evaluation project, an attitudinal questionnaire was administered to a total of 382 students (217 6th graders and 165 8th graders) attending bilingual schools. The percentage of male and female students was similar (male 52% and female 48%); minority students accounted for over 16% of the total respondents. The purpose of the study was to investigate the learners’ views and attitudes towards this particular bilingual education program. By focusing on the learners’ voices, this chapter foregrounds the children’s role as part of the BEP. Thus, the study complements and extends the findings in the official report (see Dobson et al., 2010), and offers an additional unofficial personal perspective on a particular aspect of the evaluation study by providing further insights into the learners’ views. Most of the research into bilingual education involving Spanish and English has focused on Spanish-speaking children in the United States. However, to my knowledge, relatively little attention has been paid to the students’ views on bilingual education programs. One exception to this is an interesting research project carried out by Lee (2006) in bilingual classes (grades 6–8) in California. As he puts it, the learners are ‘the group that is most affected by policies on bilingual education’ (Lee, 2006: 110). He was interested in examining Latino students’ views and attitudes to the different bilingual classes in which they were involved, and he found that they believed that bilingual education was positive and helpful for their educational experience, since it supported their cognitive and emotional development. The current study attempts to address this issue in the Spanish context.

Perspectives on Bilingual Education There has always been a strong interest in categorizing bilingual education. This is especially true of the United States where reviews of these classifications have been frequent in the literature (Fishman, 1977; Hornberger, 1991; Trueba, 1979, to name a few). In her review of the extensive and varied bilingual education typologies in the USA, Hornberger (1991) noted that

Student s’ Views on their E xper ience in a Bilingual Educat ion Program

181

they ranged from a category pair (Crawford, 1989; Gaarder, 1976; Grosjean, 1982; Kjolseth, 1972; Spolsky, 1974) to Mackey’s (1970) 90 categories. Hornberger (1991) also found discrepancies in the different typologies, such as the use of different terms to categorize similar types of bilingual education which, as she argues, foregrounded ‘the failure to distinguish, both within and across typologies, between program, goals/objectives/intentions, program structure, and contextual factors’ (Hornberger, 1991: 221). Furthermore, some of the typologies include programs that do not fall into the category of bilingual education, such as ‘submersion’, ‘structured immersion’, ‘sheltered English’ or ‘segregation’. Skutnabb-Kangas (1981) argues that ‘bilingual education requires that at least two languages should be used as means of instruction in subjects other than the languages themselves’ (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981: 121). In ‘submersion’ – as opposed to immersion – programs, students who are language learners are placed in regular classes together with peers who are native speakers of the language of instruction, and are given no extra support while they are learning the target language. In some cases, such as in the ‘structured immersion’ programs in the United States, the teacher will use a simplified form of the language of instruction. Some monolingual programs involve students’ support in the target language, such as ‘Sheltered English’ (withdrawal English lessons with special content and curriculum materials). Finally, segregationist language education focuses on the minority language, since learners are not allowed to enroll in schools which are attended by majority language learners. In a more recent American typology, Brisk (1998) classifies bilingual education programs into two categories: ‘additive and subtractive’, borrowing the terms from Lambert (1977). She argues that in an additive bilingual education program, the development of both languages is fostered, while the main aim in a subtractive program is the development of the second language at the expense of the students’ native language (L1). Examples of subtractive programs are transitional bilingual education programs. Conversely, Canadian ‘immersion’ education, American ‘two-way’ bilingual education, and ‘maintenance’ bilingual education are additive programs, in her view. García (2009: 388) expands Brisk’s classification by adding the categories of ‘recursive’ and ‘dynamic’ to her classification of bilingual education programs, which aim at ‘educating the individual child with multiple possibilities and deep respect’. In the European context, Baker (1993) distinguishes between weak and strong forms of bilingual education. Yet most of Brisk’s category pairs coincide with Baker’s ‘weak’ versus ‘strong’ forms of bilingual education. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) identifies three broad categories of bilingual education: non-forms, weak forms and strong forms. Drawing on her earlier definition of bilingual education, she argues that the first category does not involve teaching in two languages, and in the second, bilingualism is very limited. The third category involves two languages of instruction, and therefore it could be considered true bilingual education.

182

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Table 9.1 Hornberger’s bilingual education model types Transitional model

Maintenance model

Enrichment model

Language shift Cultural assimilation Social incorporation

Language maintenance Strengthened cultural identity Civil rights affirmation

Language development Cultural pluralism Social autonomy

Source: Hornberger (1991: 223)

In the light of all this, Hornberger (1991), following Trueba (1979), provides a very useful framework to build typologies. She distinguishes between bilingual education models and program types. She argues that there are three main bilingual education models: transitional, maintenance and enrichment models. These models vary greatly in the goals they pursue with respect to language, culture and society, and their outcomes. Therefore, a transitional model often results in language shift, assimilation to the culture of the dominant society, and social incorporation into it. In contrast, a maintenance program aims to protect the minority language, while strengthening cultural identity as well as the ethnic groups’ social rights in the dominant society. Finally, an enrichment model goes a step further and seeks language development, cultural pluralism and autonomous social groups that are integrated in the dominant society as illustrated in Table 9.1. According to Hornberger (1991), the implementation of these models is carried out through different program types. Then, models are ‘broader categories and at a higher level of abstraction than program types’ (Hornberger, 1991: 223). Unlike the models, program types are not defined by goals but by contextual and structural characteristics.

Contextual characteristics of bilingual programs For educators, the contextual characteristics included in her typology are only those features that can be directly observed in the school, such as the number of students, their socioeconomic status and first language background, as well as the ethnic background of the teachers, their roles (classroom teacher, language assistant, etc.), degree of bilingualism and training in bilingual education.

Structural characteristics of bilingual programs: The distribution of languages across the curriculum Hornberger (1991) identifies three main types of structural characteristics of a bilingual program: the treatment of the languages in the curriculum, how the languages of instruction are sequenced and how the subjects are allocated in the curriculum.

Student s’ Views on their E xper ience in a Bilingual Educat ion Program

183

It is often argued that successful bilingual programs should consider the issue of what subject is taught in what language. Fishman (1989), Zondag (1993), and others have argued that there are ‘soft’ or ‘lower status’ subjects like humanities and social studies and ‘higher status’ ones such as the sciences and technological subjects. Fishman (1977: 473) argues that the latter are likely to be dominated by the advantaged language and culture because, according to him, ‘these are the true avenues of power in modern society’. Furthermore, Zondag (1993) provides a practical example in which this situation occurs by referring to the situation of the Frisian language, the language spoken in the northern part of the Netherlands, used along with Dutch as a medium of instruction in some local elementary schools. Due to the freedom of education in Friesland, elementary schools have the legal right to teach any subject in Frisian, but in practice most schools have chosen the ‘lower status’ subjects to implement Frisian as a medium of instruction. Consequently, the Frisian language is negatively affected. However, this is not the case at the Spanish School in London/Colegio español de Londres (Pérez Murillo, 2001), a maintenance school where math is taught in Spanish, the minority language in this context, for the same reasons as in BEP schools; that is, the approach to teaching mathematics is different in the two educational traditions.2 Indeed, as Baker (1993: 154) points out, ‘one of the limitations of typologies is that not all real-life examples will fit easily into the classification’.

Factors Affecting Language Learning: Perspectives on the Learners’ Attitudes and Motivation The focus of this chapter is on ‘learned bilingualism,’ that is, on ‘speakers who have become bilingual as a result of schooling’ (Wiesemes, 2002: 110). However, there are a number of factors that affect language learning at school. While some of these factors refer to the wider society in which the language is learned (macro level), others refer to the school where learning takes place and the individual learners (micro level). Ellis (2007) identifies a set of principles for successful language learning in educational settings. For the purpose of this study, I will focus on two of them. They both relate to the attitude towards learning English in Spanish society. In the first place, as he puts it, ‘learning is enhanced when the setting confers status on both their L1 and the L2′ (Ellis, 2007: 23). Both Spanish and English are languages of prestige in the context under study. As Graddol states: Spanish has grown to be roughly the same size as English in terms of its native-speaker base [. . .] the language is growing in economic importance in both Latin America and the USA. Spain is active in promoting itself as the global centre of authority for the language. (Graddol, 2006: 61)

184

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Secondly, Ellis emphasizes the importance attached to the social need for using the L2. He indicates a number of reasons for that, such as the desire for power and status. Similarly, Baker and Prys Jones (1998: 652) note that if the status of the target language is high in the students’ country, they will be more willing to learn, as they state that ‘if competence in the language opens up possibilities for educational and economic progress, then students’ motivation will be higher’. I would argue that English is a language of power and prestige in Spain and parents’ motivation to send their children to bilingual schools seems to be of an instrumental nature, in line with other studies in the European context. Thus, Buchberger (2002), in discussing foreign language education policies in Finland, argues that for Finnish parents, ‘English is needed in the increasing international job market. It is the main language in the European Union, and a global language’ (Buchberger, 2002: 195–196). In the same vein, Admiraal et al.’s (2006) study on bilingual high schools in the Netherlands argues that the success of this bilingual program lies in the fact that ‘English has a prominent place in Dutch society, educational system, and scientific world’ (Admiraal et al., 2006: 91). However, there was an important difference with the Spanish students enrolled in the BEP. Unlike the Dutch bilingual students mentioned above, whose exposure to the English language is already quite high outside school, the Spanish learners live in a country where most films and TV programs are dubbed. Thus, BEP students may not have exposure to English or opportunities to use their English outside the educational setting. However, as Lindsay and Knight (2006: 8) argue, ‘if learners get lots of practice using English in the classroom, they can make significant progress’. As for some micro-level factors which affect language learning, Baker (1992) considers the school itself an influencing factor to develop and change language attitudes. He argues that perhaps the students’ positive attitude to a language could be due to a combination of factors like the school ethos, dedicated teachers, and parents who are actively involved in school life. As Brisk (1998: 27) argues, ‘specific characteristics of a school, rather the model they employed, made a program more or less effective’. Furthermore, in analyzing the attitudes of male and female students in foreign language learning, Clark and Trafford (1995, cited in Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007) carried out research to find out the reasons why girls outperformed boys in a British secondary school examination. After interviewing teachers and students, they found that the disparity of performance between boys and girls was mainly due to their relationship with their teachers. Therefore, the teacher–student relationship is another important variable to be taken into account when dealing with the students’ attitudes towards the target language. In addition, Baker (1992) refers to a number of studies on the Welsh language to conclude that girls seemed to have more favorable attitudes to this language than boys did. Although from different traditions (i.e. foreign

Student s’ Views on their E xper ience in a Bilingual Educat ion Program

185

language learning and minority language maintenance), these two studies seem to agree on the girls’ favorable attitudes to the target language. The linguistic background of the students is another determining factor which affects their degree of motivation, according to Baker and Prys Jones (1998). As they argue, it would seem that ‘students from a monolingual background have a less positive attitude to the learning of a second language’ (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998: 653). Some studies explore the motivation to learn an additional language among monolingual and bilingual groups and the ideologies behind them.3 Thus, Heller (1994) focuses on the middle-class, English-speaking parents in Canada who send their children to French language schools in Toronto for instrumental reasons; that is, bilingualism is used ‘to create and wield political and economic power’ (Heller, 1994: 162). Dorian’s (1981) study on monolinguals’ and bilinguals’ attitudes towards Scottish Gaelic showed that integrative motivations outweighed instrumental reasons, particularly for monolinguals. However, this was mainly due to the fact that the two groups have different attitudes towards how they value their knowledge of Gaelic. Some studies have recently explored students’ attitudes and motivation towards English in bilingual communities in Spain where English is learned as a third language at school, such as the research study carried out by Ibarraran et al. (2007). They focused on a group of 125 informants enrolled in the 7th grade in public schools in the Basque Country. They compared Spanish students (a total of 60%) with students from different ethnic backgrounds (a total of 40%). Interestingly, they found that the latter seemed to have more favorable attitudes toward English than the Spanish students. Studies carried out in Catalonia (Muñoz & Tragant, 2001; Tragant, 2006) found that the students’ age had an effect on the type of motivational orientation that students had. As they put it, ‘instrumental orientation was particularly important from the age of 12 onwards and increased with age’ (Muñoz & Tragant, 2001: 221). As opposed to elementary school learners, the researchers argue that high school students seem to be more aware of the importance of English as an international language (Tragant, 2006). For this reason, learners seem to be interested in communicating with people from other countries through English, mainly due to the status of English as a lingua franca that ‘has played a role in shaping this type of interest in foreign language learners of English’ (Muñoz & Tragant, 2001: 222). In light of all this, the different attitudes and motivation of Spanish students enrolled in the BEP schools in officially monolingual regions became a relevant research study.

The Research Context: BEP As indicated in the introduction, the British Council and the Spanish MEC have been running the BEP since 1996. This joint project implements

186

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

a bilingual education program in 10 self-governing regions and two selfgoverning towns in Spain. Originally, 43 public schools took part in the BEP. These bilingual schools were pioneered in Spain, particularly among the nonbilingual regions. These ‘pre-CLIL’ schools emerged following in the footsteps of the British Council School, but they have progressively developed their own identity by producing their bilingual/bicultural curriculum guidelines for both preschools and elementary schools (Aguado et al., 2004a, 2004b). This curriculum is common to all BEP schools, following the initial evaluation that took place in 2001 by a joint study review team. The schools provide bilingual education to children from preschool to high school education (i.e. from the age of three to 16). In informal conversations with members of the parents’ associations about the choice of BEP for their children’s education, they stated that the traditional approaches to foreign language teaching in Spain would not help their children meet the language needs that the current European context demands. As Mehisto et al. (2008: 10) put it, ‘in Europe today, there is a desire to improve language learning opportunities for all young people in order to increase European cohesion and competitiveness’. In addition, research has shown that, despite their positive attitudes to modern languages, elementary school learners did not seem to have developed ‘a fluent, flexible, and accurate command of their foreign language by the end of their elementary school education’ (Blondin et al., 1998). The stated aims of the BEP are as follows: (1) To promote the acquisition and learning of both languages through an integrated content-based curriculum. (2) To encourage awareness of the diversity of both cultures. (3) To facilitate the exchange of teachers and learners. (4) To promote equal opportunities in English teaching/learning in public schools in Spain. (5) To encourage the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in foreign language learning. (6) To offer students the chance to continue their high school education in either of the two educational systems. In order to define the nature of the BEP, Hornberger’s (1991) distinction between contextual and structural characteristics will be used. Since the Spanish regions manage the educational system within their own territory, some adaptations have been made. As Martin-Jones (2000) claims, bilingual programs are unique and require adaptations according to the relevant historical-social contexts. However, some common contextual characteristics can be observed, particularly the degree of parental involvement in BEP schools, as parents seem to be very involved in their children’s bilingual education.

Student s’ Views on their E xper ience in a Bilingual Educat ion Program

187

Most of the students in this study, 66% among the 6th graders (aged 11–12) and 64% among the 8th graders (aged 13–14), had started their bilingual instruction at preschool. Other students had begun it at different points in their schooling. Sixth graders had joined in the BEP at the beginning of each of the three cycles into which elementary education is divided in Spain (i.e. grades 1, 3 and 5). Conversely, high school newcomers had joined the BEP the year before (7th grade). English instruction at BEP schools is provided by regular teachers in collaboration with special project teachers.4 The former are mostly Spanish educators who are fluent in English (Dobson et al., 2010), with a few native English speakers who reside in Spain. These teachers hold permanent positions at these schools, after passing a competitive examination. There are also temporary appointed teachers who are waiting to take the exam. The latter, as stated in the evaluation report, are teachers who were initially appointed because, at the beginning of the BEP, ‘staffing resources needed to be supplemented by native (or near-native) speakers of English’ (Dobson et al., 2010: 3). At the time of this study, a total of 231 contracted special project teachers (with renewable annual contracts) were working in elementary schools and 14 in high schools, since some self-governing regions preferred foreign-language assistants to provide language support. As a result, in most BEP schools, special project teachers are recruited by the British Council–Spanish MEC authorities and employed by the self-governing regions to teach in BEP elementary schools, and foreign-language assistants who support regular teachers in high school classes are appointed by the Spanish MEC. Drawing on the data from previous visits to the BEP schools, there were different ways in which regular and special project teachers collaborated. In some schools, they were working with the same students within the same class. There were occasions when they worked together (e.g. planning the lessons, but not necessarily at the same time). Training courses are organized jointly by the British Council and the MEC. This involves induction courses for newly appointed project teachers and teacher development courses for all the other BEP teachers. Interestingly, the BEP has its own website where teachers can exchange ideas and experiences, together with a bilingual magazine, Hand in Hand, which is published annually. As far as the language distribution across the curriculum is concerned, there are core subjects taught through the medium of English (see Table 9.2). The amount of tuition in English is approximately 40% of the students’ time at school. The BEP schools are responsible for the distribution of languages across the curriculum. This is especially true of Conocimiento del Medio (a combination of history, geography and science) which is a major subject throughout elementary education, and is partly taught in both languages of instruction. The science content is usually taught in English. But depending on the school, it can be fully taught in the target

188

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Table 9.2 English-medium elementary and high school subjects Core subjects in elementary education English (EFL) language and literacya History, geography, and science (Conocimiento del Medio) Art and design Core subjects in high school education English (EFL) literacy Science History and geography (excluding Spanish history) Note: aIn this subject, students learn to read and write, which are introduced at an early stage in the BEP, although speaking and reading skills are also central, as stated in the curriculum guidelines (Aguado et al., 2004a, 2004b). In addition, the lessons observed suggest an approach to teaching English that is different from traditional EFL instruction and has resonance with L1 teaching.

language. The classes last from 45 to 60 minutes also depending on the individual schools. At the time of this study, there were 74 elementary schools and 40 high schools involved in the BEP. Two of these, in Baleares (Balearic Islands) and Navarra (Navarre), have statutes that acknowledge them as having languages of their own, namely, Catalan and Basque respectively.5 The others were located in ‘officially’ monolingual regions. However, some other unofficial regional languages were taught and/or spoken at school, such as asturiano in Asturias and dariya in Ceuta, to name but a few.6 Table 9.3 illustrates the distribution of BEP schools in Spain at the time of this study. Elementary and high schools differ in a number of ways. For example, BEP elementary schools follow a ‘whole-school’ approach (Dobson et al. 2010: 13), Table 9.3 BEP regions Region name

Elementary school no.

High school no.

Total

Castilla y León Aragón Madrid Castilla-La Mancha Navarra Asturias Baleares Murcia Cantabria Extremadura Ceuta Melilla

19 21 10 7 6 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

10 4 10 7 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 1

29 25 20 14 7 4 4 3 2 2 2 2

Student s’ Views on their E xper ience in a Bilingual Educat ion Program

189

where all of the students are involved in the BEP from 1st grade. For those who find it difficult to continue, there is flexibility to leave the project at any stage. The reasons vary, including gaps in attendance, special needs students or late starters. BEP high schools, on the other hand, are bilingual sections within a school. BEP students follow an integrated Spanish/English curriculum, whereas non-BEP students at the same school receive the standard curriculum, which includes English as a foreign language (EFL) instruction. The students come from either a BEP elementary school or they start their bilingual experience after passing an English entrance exam. There is a clear imbalance between the number of BEP elementary schools and high schools. Elementary school students generally continue their required education at an associated high school, but there are a number of schools which do not have this provision. In informal conversations with parents at one of these schools, they expressed their concern that there was no BEP high school in the area where their children could continue their bilingual education.

Research Methodology Over a three-year period (2006–2009), a British–Spanish research team was in charge of evaluating the BEP schools in Spain. Sixteen studies were carried out to identify the main features of these bilingual schools in terms of three broad areas: ‘good practices’, students’ attainment in English and Spanish, and perceptions (including attitudinal questionnaires for the students, their parents and the teaching staff). The students’ questionnaire will be described in detail in this section. The evidence reported in this chapter is part of a body of data which was collected in the 2008–2009 school year.

Participants Eight BEP schools, four elementary schools and their corresponding high schools, were selected at random. The sample for this study was based on 382 questionnaires (217 from students enrolled in 6th grade and 165 from students in 8th grade). The percentage of male and female students was similar (male 52%; female 48%). Minority students accounted for 12.66% of the total respondents, with slightly more minority students enrolled in 6th grade (13.82%) than in 8th grade (11.51%). See Tables 9.4 and 9.5 for details. Latin American students, mainly from Ecuador, were the majority, and they spoke varieties of Latin American Spanish. There were also a small number of students, 2.76% (6th graders) and 4.79% (8th graders) who claimed that they spoke another language at home. The range of languages included some European languages such as Romanian, Bulgarian and Russian. There were also children who had some exposure to non-European languages, such

190

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Table 9.4 6th graders’ ethnic backgrounds Elementary education

Female

Male

Total

Percentage

Spanish Non-Spanish

87 11

100 19

187 30

86.17% 13.82%

Table 9.5 8th graders’ ethnic backgrounds High school education

Female

Male

Total

Percentage

Spanish Non-Spanish

70 13

76 6

146 19

88.48% 11.51%

as Senegalese. As for the students’ socio-economic backgrounds, these differ among the participating schools, as is often the case in Spanish public schools.

The questionnaire A questionnaire was administered to the students in the BEP in order to investigate factors regarding their background information, attitudes and motivations. The aims were two-fold: (1) To gain insights into the students’ attitudes towards their bilingual education in Spanish and English. (2) To investigate whether there were gender and age differences regarding students’ attitudes to their bilingual education. The questionnaire consisted of a number of closed questions, with an open-ended question at the end, to give the students the chance to express their views. It was written in English and Spanish for the 8th graders, but only in Spanish for 6th graders. As regards their responses to the open-ended question, they were asked to choose either language. Two of the research team members reviewed the translation into Spanish. As Codó (2008: 173) puts it, ‘[translation] will enhance closeness with informants and encourage participation’. The questionnaire was pre-tested (in November and December 2008) for language accuracy and appropriateness in two BEP schools in the Madrid region with both elementary and high school students. As a result, some questions were rephrased and some lexical items were substituted to ensure a richer response and to avoid ambiguity.

Procedure The questionnaire was administered in May 2009 at the end of the threeyear evaluation project. A member of the research team distributed the questionnaire with the help of the class teacher and responded to the students’

Student s’ Views on their E xper ience in a Bilingual Educat ion Program

191

questions in the language of the class. The instructions and procedure had been explained before they started the questionnaire. It took less than 30 minutes for the students to complete it.

Data analysis The closed questions of the questionnaire were first analyzed to obtain an overall understanding of the students’ perceptions of the BEP. The data were categorized in relation to the respondents’ age, gender and origin. Then the students’ responses to the open-ended questions were read carefully and the most salient features were selected from the data. After that, codes were ascribed to the different themes that emerged from the responses.

Findings All the participants, regardless of their gender, were well aware that they were learning in a monolingual society. They pointed out that they had little opportunity to practice English. Sixty-three percent of the elementary school learners, together with over half of the high school students, answered that they hardly ever or never had the chance to talk in English outside the school with students whose first language is English. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority, 76% (6th graders) and over 67.9% (8th graders) responded that they had never visited an English-speaking country (see Figure 9.1). Spanish was clearly the dominant language at school. It was not only the language of instruction in most subjects, but also the predominant language that students used during recess to socialize and interact with their peers on

Figure 9.1 Graph showing elementary and high school students’ opportunities to travel abroad

192

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

the playground. In addition, most students came from Spanish-speaking homes in a monolingual community. Three-quarters of the high school students preferred to complete the questionnaire in Spanish. This could be due to many reasons, including the fact that the person who administered the questionnaire was Spanish. They may have preferred to use the language of the researcher as they do with their teachers, or use their dominant language. In fact, their Spanish-language skills were never questioned by the informants, regardless of their age or gender. Over 90% among 6th and 8th graders responded that they were quite confident with their proficiency in Spanish. Overall, the students seem to be developing a positive attitude towards their bilingual education. When they were asked if they were happy with the BEP, 87.5% (6th graders) and 91.42% (8th graders) expressed their satisfaction with it, choosing either of the first two descriptors (very happy or happy). As far as gender differences were concerned, female students seemed to provide slightly more positive answers than males. Unlike the male respondents, females preferred to answer ‘very happy’ rather than ‘happy’, as illustrated in Figures 9.2 and 9.3. This overwhelming support for the program was reflected both in the closed and in the open-ended question of the survey. As far as the open-ended question was concerned, the respondents brought up the following instrumental and integrative reasons for being enrolled in the BEP: (1) the important role of English for the students’ future after school in increasing their future employment opportunities; (2) awareness that they were learning an international language; (3) students’ perception of their proficiency in the target language; (4) interest in the English language and (British) culture; and (5) other

Figure 9.2 Graph showing 6th graders’ gender differences: Degree of satisfaction with bilingual education

Student s’ Views on their E xper ience in a Bilingual Educat ion Program

193

Figure 9.3 Graph showing 8th graders’ gender differences: Degree of satisfaction with bilingual education

Figure 9.4 Graph showing 6th and 8th graders’ perceptions of BEP: Positive responses

positive answers on the bilingual program concerning the teaching staff or the usefulness of the BEP experience. Figure 9.4 illustrates the 6th and 8th graders’ perceptions of their BEP at the time of administering the questionnaire. It must be mentioned that students often provided multiple answers. Therefore, the numbers of responses (on the left) do not correspond with the total number of students. Overall, the results in the open-ended part of the questionnaire were very positive and encouraging for both age groups (12 versus 14). The high number of favorable remarks (1–5) about the BEP accounts for that.

The important role of English for the students’ future In the quantitative part of the questionnaire, that is, the closed-ended questions, the great majority of the students, 93.55% (6th graders) and over

194

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Figure 9.5 Graph showing 6th graders’ gender differences: Study abroad

99% (8th graders) believed that the BEP was important for their future (after completing their required education). As for gender differences, elementary school females seemed to provide more positive answers than males on this topic, as illustrated in Figure 9.5, whereas gender differences were not significant among the 8th graders. In the open-ended question, the students were given the chance to expand on their answers to the quantitative part of the questionnaire with additional details. There were 96 responses (6th graders) and 105 (8th graders). In more than three-quarters of the responses, the students believed that bilingual education could help them pursue studies abroad at the university/ tertiary level. In addition, they felt that being bilingual would help them get a better job, and over half of the respondents felt that it could help them work in other countries.

Awareness that they are learning an important language In line with research carried out in Catalonia, the students seemed to consider English a lingua franca that enabled them to communicate with people from other countries, not necessarily the English-speaking world. As in the previous section, there were a large number of responses to the open-ended question – 77 responses (6th graders) and 64 responses (8th graders). Both English and Spanish were perceived as majority languages with equal status.

Students’ perceptions of their target-language proficiency Regarding the students’ perceptions of their proficiency level in English, the majority of the students’ responses (60 among 6th graders and 51 among

Student s’ Views on their E xper ience in a Bilingual Educat ion Program

195

Table 9.6 Elementary and high school students’ perception of the four basic language skills

6th graders 8th graders

Reading

Listening

Writing

Speaking

65.43% 83.32%

65.90% 73.33%

67.13% 69.70%

55.10% 52.73%

the 8th graders) indicated that they were improving their ability to communicate in the target language across all four language skills (particularly the 8th graders). The receptive skills (reading and listening) were rated higher than the productive ones (writing and speaking), and in this order (see Table 9.6). This shows that all students felt more confident understanding both spoken and written English than producing the language. In the classrooms observed, there were occasions where both 6th and 8th graders assisted their peers when they encountered difficulties in oral communication (Dobson et al., 2010).

Interest in the English language and culture In addition, a total of 97 responses, 57 (6th graders) and 40 (8th graders) indicated that they liked the English language, and showed a positive attitude toward the culture and the speakers of the language. Integrative motivations outweighed instrumental or pragmatic reasons for learning the target language among female students in both age groups (see item 4 in Figures 9.7 and 9.8). A common practice in BEP schools is to have exchange programs and partnerships with British schools and that was also mentioned by the students as a motivating factor.

Other positive responses concerning their bilingual program Finally, 37 responses (6th graders) and 22 responses (8th graders), making a total of 59 responses, indicated other favorable views toward the BEP. Some students reported that on certain occasions they had been language mediators for their parents, translating from English into Spanish, and that had helped them build their confidence in the language. Some other students referred to the role played by the foreign-language assistants from Englishspeaking countries, since they had benefited from being exposed to the different varieties of English the language assistants used. However, the students were also well aware that learning in an essentially monolingual environment involves more effort on their part. This could also be observed in their responses to the open-ended question where they detailed some of the challenges that they had to face concerning the BEP: difficulties related to learning content subjects through English (#6), students’ perceived low levels of proficiency in English (#7), students’ lack

196

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Figure 9.6 Graph showing 6th and 8th graders’ perceptions of the BEP: Challenges

of interest or motivation to learn the target language and culture (#8), other difficulties related to specific language skills or the amount of time they devoted to the BEP (#9) (see Figure 9.6). Unlike items 1–5, items 6 and 7 show a distinctive difference between the two age groups. Item 6 refers to the difficulties that 8th graders encounter in particular when studying content subjects in the target language. Item 7 refers to the perception of 6th graders of their low proficiency in the target language.

The challenge of studying through English Regardless of their gender, a number of informants acknowledged difficulties with their bilingual experience at school, 19 responses (6th graders) and 50 responses (8th graders) (see Figures 9.7 & 9.8, item 6). They affirmed

Figure 9.7 Graph showing 6th graders’ gender differences: Open-ended question

Student s’ Views on their E xper ience in a Bilingual Educat ion Program

197

Figure 9.8 Graph showing 8th grade students’ gender differences: Open-ended question

that learning through English was more demanding on their part. Some high school students’ responses described the experience of learning content subjects through English and indicated that they had to study harder than for subjects taught through the medium of Spanish since they encountered unfamiliar vocabulary. Interestingly, most comments on the challenge of studying through English were followed by a positive remark starting with ‘but’.

Students’ perceived low proficiency levels in the target language Some 6th graders (34 responses), both male and female (see Figures 9.7 & 9.8, item 7) mentioned their low proficiency level relating to some skills in the L2. In the lessons observed, elementary school students were actively engaged in interaction with the teacher (Dobson et al., 2010). However, more opportunities for the students to interact with each other in English should be provided. Among the elementary students, those who had joined the BEP after preschool seemed to feel less confident in English. These were mainly ethnic minority newcomers. On the other hand, high school late starters were those who had not followed the bilingual program through the elementary grades, and had joined the BEP in 7th grade. Both age groups acknowledged the challenge of learning an additional language. Educators were well aware of that situation and English support had been implemented in some schools to help late starters. However, with the present cutbacks in educational resources, this assistance seems unlikely to continue in the future.

198

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Lack of interest in the language and culture A few students, seven 6th graders and one high school male student, pointed out additional problems. They claimed that they disliked foreign languages and resorted to their language aptitude as the reason. The schools need to tackle the issue of ‘how the lowest-performing students may be helped in deriving a richer benefit from their BEP than at present’ (Dobson et al., 2010: 142).

Other difficulties they had faced concerning the BEP A total of 18 responses, five 6th graders and 13 8th graders, were related to the difficulties the students had with their bilingual experience. Some 8th grade students mentioned the extra time they had to spend at school for the BEP, as they had more teaching hours than students at the same school who were not enrolled in the BEP. Finally, a male 6th grader pointed out the differences between Spanish and English as one of the factors that affected his language learning and made English a difficult language for him. Maher (2008) states that, although language proximity can help when learning a language, motivation seems to be a more important element in successful language learning than language similarities. Figures 9.7 and 9.8 summarize the main findings in relation to gender differences in the open-ended responses of the questionnaire. With regard to gender differences, both 6th and 8th grade female students seemed to be more integratively motivated towards the English language than their male counterparts (see item 4 in Figures 9.7 & 9.8).

Concluding Remarks In this chapter, I have focused on a particular bilingual education provision for elementary school students at Spanish public schools. In this context, learners strived to become bilingual in Spanish and English in a majority Spanish-speaking community, unlike bilingual communities in Spain where there is a long tradition of language immersion in Spanish and the respective regional language. Among the key factors in all the students’ motivation to undertake the bilingual program, success ranked highest. In line with previous questionnaire questions, most of the 6th and 8th graders’ responses indicated that the students strongly believed that English would improve their life in the future by helping them get a better job or by making it easier for them to find an interesting job. The students enrolled in the bilingual schools under study were well aware of the status attached to two languages of prestige: Spanish, a widely spoken language, and English as a language of power and prestige.

Student s’ Views on their E xper ience in a Bilingual Educat ion Program

199

In addition, they felt that they were learning one of the most widely used languages in the world, a lingua franca that would enable them to communicate not only with native speakers of English, but also with speakers of other languages. They also identified a sense of achievement in learning the language as another motivating factor, together with a positive attitude towards the target language, culture and the speakers of that language. Some students expressed their intention to live or study in some English-speaking country in the future. With regard to gender differences, 6th grade female students seemed to provide more positive answers than males about studying abroad. Besides, female students at both educational levels seemed to show more integrative motivation to learn English, compared to males. Finally, they identified the important roles played by the bilingual teachers and the language assistants as two of the strengths in the BEP. However, the students also felt that they were accomplishing a difficult task. They strived to become bilingual in a monolingual, Spanish-speaking community, a situation that involves more effort on their part. The 8th graders seemed to be concerned with issues related to studying content subjects through the medium of English, specifically the complexities of technical vocabulary or the nature of the syllabus they were learning as opposed to students in monolingual schools. Similarly, 6th grade school learners expressed concern for their low proficiency in the target language, with respect to specific language skills. In either case, newcomers to the BEP, usually minority students who had little or no English proficiency, seemed to have more difficulties with the language. However, their negative comments were often followed by positive remarks. Furthermore, students who did not like the BEP were a small minority. Finally, they also raised other issues, such as the extra time they had to spend at school to learn English or the additional effort that was required to become bilingual.

Acknowledgments The author is indebted to the Spanish MEC, to the British Council and to Professor Johnstone (Director of the Independent Evaluation Study) for giving their agreement for the writing of this chapter.

Notes (1) I use the term ‘officially monolingual’ in contrast to those regions where two languages are officially spoken, although other languages and/or varieties of Peninsular Spanish may also be spoken in monolingual areas. Tucker (1999) states that many more people in the world are bi/multilingual than monolingual, but only about onethird of the countries in the world recognize two or more official languages. (2) In their comparative study of the teaching of mathematics in five European countries, including Spain and Great Britain, Andrews et al. (2005) found out that both pedagogical traditions are behaviorally rather than cognitively oriented. Spanish

200

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

teachers preferred problem-solving activities (‘the solution of non-trivial or non-routine tasks’). However, their British counterparts were more concept dominated with a focus on ‘the conceptual development of their students’ (Andrews et al., 2005: 11). Gardner and Lambert (1972: 14) define instrumental motivation as ‘a desire to gain social recognition and economic advantage through knowledge of a foreign language’. Conversely, integrative motivation involves ‘a desire to be like representative members of the other language community’. In order to be appointed, these teachers have to be either EU nationals and/or have a Spanish residence permit and they need to have a native or near-native command of both written and spoken English. Preschool/elementary school teachers are expected to hold a European preschool or elementary teaching qualification, as well as teaching experience with children aged 3–12. High school teachers need to have a first university degree in the relevant subject, a European high school teaching qualification and some teaching experience with students aged 12–16. Basque is only partially spoken in Navarre, which is officially divided by law (Ley foral 18/1986) into three different language areas: a Basque-speaking area (the northwestern part of the region), a mixed Basque and Spanish area and a Spanishspeaking area. Asturiano/Bable is a Romance language spoken mainly in the Spanish region of Asturias in northern Spain. It is not an official language there, but is taught at schools as an elective subject. It is protected under the regional statute legislation. Dariya is an Arabic variety that is widely spoken in the autonomous city of Ceuta on the coast of North Africa. Specifically, 86.2% of the elementary school students who attend the BEP school in Ceuta speak the language (López Ruiz, 2006).

References Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G. and de Bot, K. (2006) Evaluation of bilingual high school education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Education 12, 75–93. Aguado, T., González, R., Hill, E., Justo, M.A., Kelly, R., Locke, M., Medrano, P. and Reilly, T. (2004a) Orientaciones para el desarrollo del currículo integrado hispano-británico en educación infantil. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Aguado, T., González, R., Hill, E., Justo, M.A., Kelly, R., Locke, M., Medrano, P. and Reilly, T. (2004b) Orientaciones para el desarrollo del currículo integrado hispano-británico en educación primaria. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Andrews, P., Hatch, G. and Sayers, J. (2005) What do teachers of mathematics teach? An initial episodic analysis of four European traditions. In D. Hewitt and A. Noyes (eds) Proceedings of the Sixth British Congress of Mathematics Education (pp. 9–16). Coventry: University of Warwick. Baker, C. (1992) Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (1993) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. and Prys Jones, S. (1998) Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., Kubanek-German, A. and Taeschner, T. (1998) Foreign Languages in Primary and Pre-school Education. A Review of Recent Research Within the European Union. London: CILT. Brisk, M.E. (1998) Bilingual Education: From Compensatory to Quality Schooling. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Buchberger. I. (2002) A multilingual ideology in a monolingual country: Language education in Finland. Cauce 25, 185–202.

Student s’ Views on their E xper ience in a Bilingual Educat ion Program

201

Clark, A. and Trafford, J. (1995) Boys into modern languages: An investigation of the discrepancy in attitudes and performance between boys and girls in modern languages. Gender and Education 7, 315–325. Codó, E. (2008) Interviews and questionnaires. In L. Wei and M. Moyer (eds) The Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism (pp. 158–176). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing. Crawford, J. (1989) Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory and Practice. Trenton, NJ: Crane Publishing. Dobson, A., Pérez Murillo, M.D. and Johnstone, R.M. (2010) Bilingual education project Spain: Evaluation report: Findings of the independent evaluation of the Bilingual Education Project of the Ministry of Education (Spain) and the British Council (Spain). Madrid: Ministry of Education (Spain) and British Council. Dorian, N.C. (1981) Language Death: The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ellis, R. (2007) Educational settings and second language learning. Asian EFL Journal 9, 11–22. Fishman, J.A. (1977) The social science perspective. In J.A. Fishman (ed.) Bilingual Education: Current perspectives, Vol. 1, Social Science (1–49). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Fishman, J.A. (1989) Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gaarder, A.B. (1976) Linkages between foreign language teaching and bilingual education. In J.E. Alatis and K. Twaddell (eds) English as a Second Language in Bilingual Education (pp. 199–203). Washington, DC: TESOL. García, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. London: British Council. Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Heller, M. (1994) Crosswords: Language, Education and Ethnicity in French Ontario. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hornberger, N. (1991) Extending enrichment bilingual education: Revisiting typologies and redirecting policy. In O. García (ed.) Bilingual Education 1 (pp. 215–234). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Ibarraran, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2007) Inmigración y aprendizaje de lenguas en un contexto bilingüe. Bilbao: LETE. Kjolseth, R. (1972) Bilingual education programs in the United States: For assimilation or pluralism? In B. Spolsky (ed.) The Language Education of Minority Children (pp. 94–121). Rowley: Newbury House. Lambert, W.E. (1977) The effects of bilingualism on the individual: Cognitive and sociocultural consequences. In P.A. Hornby (ed.) Bilingualism: Psychological, Social and Educational Implications (pp. 15–27). New York: Academic Press. Lasagabaster, D. and Huguet, A. (eds) (2007) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts: Language Use and Attitudes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lee, S.K. (2006) The Latino students’ attitudes, perceptions and views on bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal 30, 107–119. Lindsay, C. and Knight, P. (2006) Learning and Teaching English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. López Ruiz, M.J. (2006) El Perfil del alumnado de compensación educativa del C.P. Federico García Lorca, como base para el diseño y desarrollo de un programa de compensación educativa más adecuado a la realidad. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Granada, Granada.

202

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Mackey, W.F. (1970/1972) A typology of bilingual education. In J. Fishman (ed.) Advances in the Sociology of Language (pp. 413–432). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Maher, J. (2008) Language difficulty and difficult languages. In A. Lerner (ed.) Contemporary Issues in Language Education: The Influence of Globalization on Policy, Pedagogy and Curriculum (pp. 155–169). Akita: Akita International Press. Martin-Jones, M. (2000) Bilingual classroom interaction: A review of recent research. Language Teaching 33, 1–9. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. and Frigols, M.J. (2008) Uncovering CLIL. Oxford: Macmillan Education. Muñoz, C. and Tragant, E. (2001) Motivation and attitudes towards L2. Some effects of age and instruction. In EUROSLA Yearbook 1 (pp. 211–224). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pérez Murillo, M.D. (2001) Talk and texts in bilingual classrooms: A case study of the Spanish School in London. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, Bailrigg. Spolsky, B. (1974) Speech communities and schools. TESOL Quarterly 8, 17–26. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981) Bilingualism or Not? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000) Linguistic genocide in education – or worldwide diversity in human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum. Tragant, E. (2006) Language learning motivation and age. In C. Muñoz (ed.) Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning (pp. 237–266). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Trueba, H.T. (1979) Bilingual education models: Types and designs. In H.T. Trueba and C. Barnett-Mizrahi (eds) Bilingual Multicultural Education and the Professional: From Theory to Practice (pp. 54–73). Rowley: Newbury House. Tucker, G.R. (1999) A Global Perspective on Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Wiesemes, R. (2002) Developing my theory of practice as a teacher-researcher through a case study of CLIL classroom interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham, Nottingham. Zondag, K. (1993) Bilingual Education in Friesland: Facts and Prospects. Friesland: Gemeenschappelijk Centrum voor Onderwijsbegeleiding.

10 The Use of Native Assistants as Language and Cultural Resources in Andalusia’s Bilingual Schools Nicole A. Tobin and Christian Abello-Contesse

Introduction For decades now, non-traditional approaches to foreign language teaching have attempted to move beyond the conventional dual focus on expanding language knowledge and developing (mostly written) skills. It is undeniable that human verbal communication does not take place in a vacuum but rather in social and cultural arenas, and this has sensitized the field of foreign language teaching to a renewed goal of addressing aspects of the target culture(s) together with the target language (L2). However, this renewed goal takes a very different perspective on the notion of ‘culture’. Some scholars in the field of foreign language education have recently urged L2 teachers to develop ‘intercultural communicative competence’ or, more broadly, ‘intercultural communication’, by promoting instruction that emphasizes the development of students’ awareness of other cultures as well as their willingness to interact with people from other cultures. Intercultural communicative competence (ICC) is achieved by acquiring not only the awareness, but also the attitudes and skills necessary to effectively communicate between cultures. In today’s global world, the relevance of learning a second language increasingly goes unquestioned, but the ability to accept and adapt to cultural differences is also quickly becoming crucial for interpersonal success. While these new objectives are clearly more demanding than previous language teaching goals, the more complex sociocultural and 203

204

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

attitudinal objectives, along with the more established and accessible practice of teaching information about the target culture, will serve to broaden and deepen the benefits of language education.

Intercultural Communicative Competence in L2 Classrooms The notion of ICC as proposed by M. Byram and colleagues (e.g. 1997, 2000; Byram & Fleming, 1998, etc.), is the one addressed in this chapter – together with the more conventional notion of ‘cultural/sociocultural aspects’ – as it is firmly rooted in the field of foreign language teaching and attempts to both relate to and expand on the previous notion of communicative competence, another major concept in the field. According to M. Byram (1997), ICC differs from ‘intercultural competence’ in that it relates to the ability to interact with people from another culture in a foreign language (L2); ICC also includes the skills to deal with a wider range of situations of contact than intercultural competence. ICC pertains to communicating with social effectiveness and cultural appropriateness in situations involving people of different cultural backgrounds. ICC necessitates awareness of different values, attitudes and behaviors of people from cultures other than one’s own and the development of skills to manage these cross-cultural differences in non-judgmental ways. Meyer (1991: 137) defines it in the realm of language learning as ‘the ability of a person to behave adequately in a flexible manner when confronted with actions, attitudes and expectations of representatives of foreign cultures’. M. Byram (2000) defines intercultural competence as the ability to interact effectively with people of cultures other than one’s own. Instructors who promote ICC in L2 classrooms seek to help learners understand how people from different countries and cultures behave, communicate and understand the world around them and to accept that this may be different from their own culture’s norms. M. Byram (1997) suggests that facilitating ICC involves developing the following components: • • • •

Knowledge of social groups, their products, and their practices. Skills to interpret products of another culture and relate them to one’s own culture as well as the skills to acquire information about and interact successfully with someone from another culture. Attitudes of curiosity and openness and a readiness to suspend disbelief. Critical cultural awareness and the ability to critically evaluate the practices and products in one’s own and other cultures.

It is generally accepted that there are stages that learners go through during the path toward intercultural competence. Bennett’s (1993) Developmental

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

205

Model of Intercultural Sensitivity suggests that these stages are: denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation and integration, with the first three being ‘ethnocentric’ stages and the final three being ‘ethnorelative’. It has been shown that learners progress through these stages as they encounter and interact with cultural difference, moving through the ethnocentric stages and into the ethnorelative stages. Primary and high school learners would generally be in the initial ethnocentric stages and learners could be expected to move higher on the sensitivity scale as they are educated about or have the chance to interact with cultural difference. Many researchers and educators believe that the L2 teacher can play a central role in guiding students through the stages of intercultural competence (e.g. Bennett et al., 2003; Fantini, 1997).

Challenges in Teaching Culture in EFL Classrooms ‘Culture’ content is often regarded as a relevant yet inessential part of L2 instruction. Because L2 knowledge and skills are extensively tested, the focus in teaching EFL has typically been on gaining knowledge of the L2 and developing receptive skills rather than on successful communication in English, both orally and in writing. In classrooms with these foci, culture becomes a diversion rather than an integral part of the teaching process. Yet research points out that it is not just a break from the grind of language learning, but an essential part of it. As Tsou (2005), discussing Carpenter and Torney (1974: 39), forcefully states, ‘in the absence of culture experience, a dearth of motivation, achievement and enjoyment is probable in the arduous task of language learning’. As discussed in Duff and Uchida (1997), explicit culture teaching in classrooms has been shown to increase motivation and promote positive attitude changes (e.g. Halvorson, 1985; Kitao, 1991; Morgan, 1993; Webber, 1987). Higher motivation and a desire to be a part of the L2 community have been shown to influence L2 acquisition positively; thus, a shift towards language-and-culture teaching has recently been encouraged. Although research suggests culture teaching is profitable for learners, it also shows that culture is not being consistently or successfully taught (M. Byram & Morgan, 1994). Many L2 classrooms still view culture learning as an ‘add-on’ activity. As stated by a German teacher (in K. Byram & Kramsch, 2008), lessons focus less on the real, lived culture of the target society or societies and more on superficial aspects. In fact, four superficial approaches to culture have been identified (Omaggio-Hadley, 1993): the ‘4 Fs’ approach (folk dances, festivals, fairs and food); the ‘Frankenstein’ approach (introducing a taco here and a flamenco dancer there); the ‘by-the-way’ approach (travel anecdotes, bits of information or mini-lectures to illustrate sharp contrasts); and the ‘tour guide’ approach (historical sites, main monuments, major urban centers, etc.). These approaches offer little or no connection to other learning or no internal coherence about how such information relates to the

206

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

L2 culture(s) or to the student. Additionally, too many teachers tend to rely primarily on their textbooks, which may exclude culture or focus on selected, fact-based, ‘big C’ topics (i.e. aspects of civilization rather than culture), such as well-known, carefully chosen achievements in history, art, literature, architecture, music, official national institutions and the like. K. Byram and Kramsch (2008) suggest that, while many teachers find the idea of teaching critical language awareness, interpretive skills, and historical consciousness inspiring or exciting, they find it difficult or impossible to implement because of communicative imperatives in language teaching, fear of promoting stereotypes or their own lack of understanding of the target culture.

Andalusia’s ‘Multilingualism Promotion Program’ Integrating Languages, Curricular Content and Culture Creating a curriculum that promotes language-and-culture teaching and learning is a proposition that is not easily designed or implemented, yet some educational programs are working to do so. To this end, Andalusia, Spain’s most densely populated and second largest region, developed its Multilingualism Promotion Program (Plan de Fomento del Plurilingüismo). The Multilingualism Promotion Program (henceforth MPP) was formally introduced in 2005 by the Consejería de Educación, Junta de Andalucía (Department of Education, Andalusia’s Regional Government) as an official languageplanning initiative intended to modernize foreign-language teaching, mainly in response to new language-learning policies and language teaching guidelines recommended by the Council of Europe (2001) as well as the European Commission (the EU’s executive body). These changes in policy and practice aim to prepare European students to compete in the global economic, political and cultural world in which multilingual and multicultural interactions are becoming increasingly frequent. One of the major tenets of the MPP is the creation of an extensive bilingual program in Andalusian public schools; the program offers a bilingual course of study that, once fully implemented, will span participating students’ full required education (i.e. required education in Spain spans from ages 6 to 11 in elementary school, and ages 12 to 15 in high school). Experimental bilingual schools began in 1998 with Spanish/French and Spanish/German bilingual sections in some selected schools, and Spanish/ English bilingual sections began in the 2005–2006 school year, when the official bilingual initiative launched. During the 2008–2009 academic year, there were some 400 bilingual public schools in Andalusia, and the numbers increased to 804 for the 2011–2012 academic year (of these 804 schools, 733 are Spanish–English, 59 are Spanish–French and 12 are Spanish–German).

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

207

The bilingual public schools (or, more specifically, the public schools which have incorporated a bilingual section) follow a curriculum in which participating students take an expanded number of hours taught through the L2. This approach to L2 teaching, where academic subject matter is taught and learned in an L2, has been known as content-based instruction (CBI) in North America since the late 1980s. However, in leading European language-planning agencies this instructional approach has recently been renamed Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Although CLIL is to a large extent based on CBI, it places emphasis on the teaching and learning of curricular content through a foreign rather than a second language, and offers greater flexibility in terms of overall implementation (e.g. once a decision has been made about including a specific content area or subject in a school’s CLIL/bilingual section, the subject is usually taught only partially in the L2). This curriculum design works under the premise that, with dual language instruction, the students’ L1 continues to be maintained and developed while adding an L2. This form of bilingualism is known as additive, in that a socially relevant language is being added to learners’ repertoires at no cost to their L1 proficiency (Cummins & Swain, 1986). Also, the program aims to develop functional bilingualism through schooling; functional bilingualism disregards the idealized notion of ‘equal’ fluency in two languages, and focuses on the development of skills that allow learners to be able to complete relevant activities – mainly schoolrelated tasks in this case – in both languages. In the present European context of growing internationalization, particularly in higher education, providing an opportunity to develop functional proficiency in an L2 at the high school level is a very effective way to enable students to participate in a number of study-abroad programs at the university level, such as the ERASMUS scholarship program (European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students), in which Spanish universities are playing a leading role. In addition to these changes, each public school with a bilingual section incorporates at least one language assistant (auxiliar de conversación); these are educated native speakers – or proficient users of the target language – who come to Spain for an academic year to work with the regular teachers in bilingual-track classes (i.e. mainly in CLIL classes taught through English and also in English as a foreign language (EFL) classes). Their participation in non-bilingual-track EFL classes is limited to time availability. As few assistants come with significant teaching experience, their role is to co-teach or assist the regular teacher with classes. Language assistants (henceforth LAs) in Andalusian schools are officially expected to fulfill the following four duties (Junta de Andalucía, 2006): (1) Work with regular classroom teachers (both CLIL and EFL teachers) to implement conversation activities.

208

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

(2) Provide a model for accurate pronunciation and grammatical usage of the L2. (3) Help write and/or adapt teaching materials in the L2 (mainly in bilingual/CLIL classes). (4) Make their culture and society accessible to students and teachers through culturally and/or interculturally based topics and activities. A typical LA schedule would be 12 hours of contact time that involves co-teaching, tutoring and lesson-planning, as well as materials preparation with teachers who are (or are destined to be) in the program. The opportunity to interact with a person from another culture and to learn skills on how to deal with difference based on interaction styles seems especially important for a program that aims to create functional bilinguals through schooling, and especially useful for Spanish students. In a large study based on L2 learners in seven different countries, Spanish students were found by their teachers ‘to be least motivated, least positively disposed towards the foreign people and amongst the pupils who are least knowledgeable about foreign culture’ (Méndez-García & Sercu, 2005: 74) when compared to L2 learners in other countries. Méndez-García and Sercu (2005) suggest that teachers take an active role to prevent these negative feelings from worsening to the point of no return. The implementation of the MPP in Andalusia – with the incorporation of LAs in over 900 schools during the 2012–13 school year – could significantly encourage a more positive outlook on learning other languages and dealing with other cultures among Spanish learners.

Team Teaching in L2 Classrooms Team teaching offers students two different voices and double the possible interaction with proficient speakers, which provides essential input for the emerging bilingual student. In native speaker/non-native speaker pairings, students also benefit from authentic language and culture lessons combined with the interpretive benefit of a teacher who knows the students’ native language and native culture. This approach has become more frequent in recent years. The JET program in Japan and the EPIK program in South Korea, both of which recruit college-educated natives to assist in classes, and the Native-Speaking English Teacher Scheme in Hong Kong, which uses qualified teachers to team teach in secondary schools, all implement team teaching into language classes. Successful team teaching assumes that each teacher can bring something different to the table when both are actively involved with the lesson. It has been suggested that native team teachers bring many advantages: knowledge of idioms, breadth of vocabulary, an insider’s knowledge of culture and the ‘necessity’ for interacting in the target language (Barratt & Kontra, 2000), less

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

209

reliance on textbook use in the classroom, different perspectives on materials, and at least at first, some novelty value (Carless & Walker, 2006). Local teachers bring other assets to the classroom: they can serve as positive role models for language learners, can anticipate language difficulties for students more effectively and more quickly, can explain content in the mother tongue, and may be richer resources during some grammar discussions (Medgyes, 1994). In addition, they have a greater understanding of local syllabi and examinations (Tang, 1997), and operate with full knowledge of both student expectations and educational requirements or assumptions in the local culture. Research suggests that LA implementation can be difficult. Little true collaboration between the LAs and the local teachers was reported in the Hong Kong program (Storey et al., 2001, cited in Carless & Walker, 2006), the Korean program (Choi, 2001), and a program in Slovenia (Alderson et al., 2001). Storey et al. (2001) and Choi (2001) also reported that LAs and local teachers had significantly different ideas about teaching and there was a difficulty with integrating team-taught lessons into the overall exam-driven curricula. In a study of co-teaching in Japan, Tajino and Tajino (2000) found that there is often confusion and anxiety about as well as some resistance to collaboration with a young LA. These studies highlight some of the known challenges that team teaching presents. Yet despite these difficulties, team teaching provides real opportunities for both linguistic and cultural returns since adept co-teachers engage in intercultural dialogue in regular classwork.

Methodology Research design This study aimed to explore how LAs were used in the Spanish/English bilingual sections in public schools in Andalusia, as well as how the ‘cultural ambassador’ component of their job was implemented. To investigate their roles, a multiple case study research project was conducted during the 2008– 2009 school year. By doing a longitudinal study, the changes, issues and emotions that LAs faced while fulfilling their roles could be investigated. While case studies are often not able to be generalized, it was hoped that by looking at various experiences some of the main benefits and challenges of the usage of LAs would be elucidated. The data-gathering interviews were designed around three research questions: (1) How were the LA’s 12 assigned hours used? (2) Was teaching culture an integral part of the LA’s duties? (3) If culture was included in the curriculum and classes, what types of cultural topics, materials and activities were presented and how were they integrated into the learning experience?

210

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Participants In total, seven volunteer informants participated in the interviews. The informant group’s demographic profile was very similar to the overall population of LAs, as determined by the results from a previous quantitative survey distributed to all participants in this program. The informants came from five different states in the USA, most (five of seven) were female, and the reported mean age was 22.4. Six informants had completed degrees unrelated to teaching and one had an education degree. All informants were native speakers of English, and reported intermediate to advanced levels of Spanish. Of the seven informants, six had no experience or less than six months’ experience teaching ESL/EFL. The informants represented the wide range of locations, socioeconomic areas and heterogeneous backgrounds of the teaching staff that characterized the MPP initiative over the 2008–2009 school year. For example, three of the informants were placed in a large city in Andalusia, two in small towns near a large city and two in small, isolated towns. All informants were participating in the program for the first time, although the schools where they worked were in different stages in terms of implementing the bilingual initiative, ranging from the planning stage (‘year 0’) which had no bilingual classes in place yet, to the third year of implementation (‘year 3’), meaning that there were three classes as part of the school’s bilingual section at that time. Six of the informants were assigned to high schools, and one informant was assigned to a primary school.

Case study method Guided, semi-structured interviews of approximately one hour were conducted three times during the eight-month program for all informants. Because the aim was to detail each participant’s experience in his or her own words, interviews were conversational and each participant was encouraged to focus on the discussions that he or she found most relevant. Each interview was recorded and transcribed with the participant’s previous written consent.

Findings Overall findings An approximate schedule of assigned work was compiled using interview data from each informant’s reports. The typical usage patterns were difficult to quantify since work often varied from week to week and schedules changed in some cases during the year. Figure 10.1 illustrates how the 12 work hours were allotted for each informant during the final stage of the program.

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

211

Figure 10.1 Allocation of each informant’s 12 assigned work hours

All informants were assigned to work in classrooms and had tutoring or planning hours with teachers in the bilingual section, but the hours assigned for each task varied considerably, and did not necessarily correspond with the implementation phase the program was in (i.e. being assigned to a school that was at a later phase of implementation did not automatically mean more contact time with students than being assigned to a ‘year 0’ school which did not have bilingual classes yet. In addition to the classroom and tutoring duties, four of the seven informants participated in departmental or bilingual program meetings as part of their assigned work hours. Use, and satisfaction with use, varied considerably within the informant group, and all informants discussed complaints and successes they had while working at their school. It is not possible to generalize these experiences into perfect, black-and-white patterns due to the fact that various participating teachers – with different personalities and teaching styles – used LAs in various ways, and because each individual school implemented its LA(s) in different ways. Yet, despite the fact that weekly and even daily work varied immensely between the informants (and even sometimes within an informant’s experience), some overall patterns of usage did develop over the course of the interviews. Using data collected in interviews, the informants were divided into three categories on the basis of what the researchers perceived to be the overarching theme of their experience: ‘effective usage’, ‘consistent lack of

212

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

use and/or lack of guidance’ and ‘consistent use with little freedom.’ Due to space limitations, only one informant from each category will be discussed at length, but all seven experiences are contemplated in the discussion section.

Usage pattern one: Effective usage of LAs This category is based on reports that the LA was consistently used, had frequent interaction with students, and had freedom and time to approach some cultural or personal topics with students. Two out of the seven informants reported experiences that aligned with these basic characteristics during most of their time working as LAs. Amelia stated: I asked the students during class, What is a funnier show, the Simpsons or Family Guy? – using shows they know. That got them really animated. They were really getting into it when I related it more to their lives. Little by little I’ve picked it up, relate it to them! Make it more about them. They get more into it than normal. (Interview 2) Amelia had a positive experience and felt she was utilized well by the end of the school year. She worked nine of her 12 hours in the classroom in both bilingual-track and non-bilingual-track classes, assisting in English (EFL) as well as technology and social studies bilingual classes, in a town near a large city. She spent two hours per week tutoring/planning with teachers in the bilingual section and one hour in a departmental meeting. The bilingual public high school where she worked was implementing year 3, and thus had three bilingual groups, and had employed two previous LAs. At the beginning of the year, she reported some problems with being unused in class or asked not to come to class. In one EFL class, she attended class only three or four times during the first three months of her assignment and, on some days during the beginning of her experience, she was used for only one hour out of her four assigned hours per day; however, she complained to her bilingual coordinator at the school, who helped her to begin a small-group class in some of the problem classes in order to change the initial pattern of non-use. For this work, she took small groups of students to do brief interactive exercises, often in a question-and-answer format, during the normal classroom time, but separated from the larger group. This solution kept her working with students and she thought that the small-group format was an appropriate way to encourage students to speak without feeling intimidated by the larger group. This solution worked; Amelia reported that lack of use was not an issue anymore by mid-year. From that point forward, Amelia was kept informed of her role and duties. She said that normally she was given advance warning about what she was to do in class and was given ample time to create two larger projects.

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

213

Teachers often asked her to do presentations for each unit of the textbook, and she had a planning period with each teacher she worked with. Through trial and error, she learned to create presentations that she felt were useful and accessible to students by keeping the language appropriate to their proficiency level, using technology, and doing things to draw the students in. She pointed out that the students were especially interested in information about teenage daily life in the United States. She also developed and nourished common interests with the students, such as keeping up with a popular Spanish television show, noting several times that her interest in the show led to conversations within or outside the classroom. She reported that her EFL classes had a cultural component about 90% of the time. She did presentations on purely cultural topics, such as the US high school experience, home life, Halloween, American football, movies and the US elections. When she did not have a cultural presentation planned, she often made supplementary material for grammatical structures that the class was studying. Because she was up to date on what the class was working on and had planning sessions with the teachers she worked with, she was able to create relevant materials with cultural components. She did describe sometimes working with grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary, but she said, ‘Culture is me. The teacher jumps in to do the grammar stuff’ (Interview 1). In the technology CLIL class she assisted with, she struggled to discuss course content since she had little training in that area and because the students found it difficult to understand even in their L1. While students would work on projects in technology, she reported that she would circulate and talk to them, but not necessarily about technology. The class used materials in English on some days, but Amelia did not work with the teacher to create them. Amelia described the social studies CLIL class as an ideal class. She supported the teacher through class assistance and materials creation, and felt that they had a good ‘system’, although she did mention that her work in class was largely translation based. However, she relayed some instances of interaction that was both conversational and intercultural in CLIL classes. For example, in a social studies class where students were learning latitude and longitude, she gave coordinates of US cities which they had to find on a map. Amelia noted that students asked her to point out the location of ‘Cuahog’, the fictional American city in Family Guy. The quote at the beginning of this section illustrates important aspects of Amelia’s experience that helped her to be successful in creating meaningful interaction with her students and helped her to be used effectively on a regular basis. First, it shows her creative and proactive nature. She tried to relate her lessons both to the students’ interests and to class material. This allowed her to get the students to interact both with her and with the materials she created. Secondly, the direction of an enthusiastic and organized coordinator helped to keep Amelia informed about what was going on in the

214

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

classes and gave her ideas for her integration. This helped her tailor her lessons to what students were working on and gave her tangible projects to work on during any unused hours. Thus, the organized and directive teachers and bilingual coordinator ensured that Amelia generally had a concrete project to keep her creatively occupied during her assigned hours. The experiences in this category were different in many ways, yet some common characteristics that had a positive impact on their experience were present. The shared characteristics of this category were: • • • • • •

The school had a competent, interested, and active bilingual coordinator. The LA took the initiative to keep busy. Some teacher and LA collaboration was present during class activities and/ or materials creation. Teachers directed the LA to create materials or lessons that were included in class on a regular basis (or there was an imminent plan to use them). Teachers sometimes incorporated the LA into the regular classwork. The LA had freedom to bring up cultural topics and activities (or personal topics) either spontaneously or in planned lessons.

Usage pattern two: Consistent lack of use and/or guidance of LAs The second pattern, found in three informants’ experiences, was a pattern of either non-use or use in which the LA’s lessons were not supported, facilitated or contextualized by the regular classroom teachers. As Claire stated: I’ve lost some of my enthusiasm from when I first got here. I came with lots of ideas and excitement, and they sort of said: ‘I don’t need this.’ It wasn’t reciprocal. No one checks in to see what you’re doing, and no one cares what you’re doing or is excited about what you’re doing. (Interview 1) Claire struggled with motivation due to a lack of use and lack of collaborative participation from her co-teachers when she was in class and during tutoring or planning sessions. Claire was assigned to work in two classes, a non-bilingual EFL class and a bilingual/CLIL science class, to conduct eight hours of tutoring/planning with teachers, and to attend two hours of meetings. The high school where she worked was on the outskirts of a large city and it was in year 2 in terms of program implementation. Claire felt that no one took the initiative to make her eight hours of tutoring/planning with the teachers profitable for the school’s bilingual section or for the students. When teachers had something specific and relevant

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

215

to work on, she found the sessions to be useful. However, she mentioned that often seven of the eight tutoring hours, as well as the two meetings, were ‘pointless’ (Interview 1). By the end of the school year, she had given up on certain teachers’ tutoring hours and the meetings and left school early. In Claire’s classes there were also inconsistencies with program goals (i.e. the MPP). In her ninth grade, non-bilingual EFL class, she was generally left in charge of the class with little or no assistance from the regular classroom teacher, who usually left the room after a brief introduction, or graded papers at the back of the room. For these classes, she was provided with no information about what to do or what the class was working on in their textbook. Her comment regarding this situation was, ‘[The teacher] just sort of said, “Welcome to the classroom. Here are the students. Do whatever you want.” I don’t really care because if you want me to do something that has to do with what they’re learning, tell me. If not, I’m going to do what I want to do’ (Interview 1). She generally chose to do hour-long cultural presentations on topics such as the US elections, Christmas, the Super Bowl, Halloween, Easter and Mardi Gras, although she also did some interactive grammar work and games. She encouraged participation during these presentations, but the students’ low levels of English proficiency limited their participation, which affected their behavior and made the class difficult to engage (and to control) without the teacher’s presence and help. Initially, Claire enjoyed the first year (of required secondary education) bilingual class she assisted with, partly because it was a science class and her education had focused on the sciences. Her specialized knowledge had great potential for implementation, but a lack of use pattern developed early in the year. She was frequently not used in class, reporting only one class visit during the months of January through March, and the teacher frequently failed to attend planning sessions. She was also frustrated by the lack of English-language materials. She was asked to translate and edit the regular science text into English and record herself reading it in full under the assumption that students and teachers could listen to it. These were the only materials for the class, and she noted, ‘In science, mostly I read a lot’ (Interview 1). Claire also mentioned being put into the rather uncomfortable position of being expected to do exercises from the science textbook, which did not have an answer key. She found it difficult and embarrassing to ad lib technical activities, as she often did not know the answers to the questions. Claire’s year overall was enjoyable, and she felt somewhat productive, but was obviously frustrated at times. She faced considerable lack of direction and encountered teaching situations where she, as a part-time, temporary assistant, was ill prepared to be fully responsible for the class and/or working with materials that were unsuitable for an interactive class. Moreover, a large portion of her eight weekly tutoring/planning hours went unused and she eventually gave up on trying to fulfill this requirement. She

216

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

was disappointed that the position had not provided her with a more meaningful work experience. The shared characteristics from the three experiences in this category were: • • • • •

The LA encountered persistent, significant unused work time. There was little teacher and LA collaboration in or out of class. Time spent on cultural topics/activities was often not well integrated into class learning. Tutoring time was unstructured and not goal oriented. Teachers sometimes left the LA alone in the classroom (an option that is not allowed in the MPP).

In the case of the informants in this category, the striking aspect of their experience was a lack of usage; in two cases as much as eight hours a week were sometimes unused or poorly used, and all three assistants had persistent lack of use. In addition, these same LAs faced a lack of guidance either in the classroom or during tutoring sessions, leading them to feel that these sessions were not really profitable even if they were being used. This pattern meant that the students either were not getting interaction with the LA or were not getting quality, monitored interaction that was guided by a certified teacher and designed to be relevant to the students’ learning.

Usage pattern three: Consistent use with little freedom or flexibility Two informants reported that, for the majority of their time, they were consistently used, but reported that teachers heavily controlled their interactions, which resulted in few opportunities for flexible, oral interaction or cultural topics to emerge with their classes. As Mark pointed out: I’m the one-trick pony. Sometimes I am able to weasel into doing something more interactive with what they’re doing. I’ve been surprised by two things: First, how much the teachers follow the book word for word, and second, the kids don’t speak at all, and they just ram it in. (Interview 1) Mark, the only informant with noteworthy ESL teaching experience, was assigned to a year-0, public high school in a rural town. At the beginning of the year, he tutored four teachers for two hours each per week, but the teachers often shortened sessions or canceled them altogether. Also, at first, he alternated between numerous classrooms but rarely had the same class twice, resulting in minimal interaction with students. Never knowing which class he would be with made it difficult to prepare materials that were appropriate to the subject at hand. Mark complained, and in February his schedule changed to include only one hour of tutoring per teacher per

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

217

week as well as regular in-class work with fewer classes. He also requested more specific activities to be undertaken during tutoring and planning sessions; however, he said that 80% of what he did in these sessions continued to be translation, at the teachers’ request. Mark’s post-February schedule consisted of assisting five classes, conducting four hours of planning/tutoring with teachers and attending two hours of meetings. In class, Mark reported that he had two main roles: first, as a ‘human CD and dictionary’ and second, as a ‘one-trick pony’ (Interview 1), who did hourlong, PowerPoint presentations on specific cultural aspects. He pointed out that the teachers either let him do his ‘trick’, but not much more, or they had him simply stand in their place doing the regular classwork, discouraging input or interaction beyond the textbook. He developed his PowerPoint strategy as a way to have something specific to do with his classes. ‘Otherwise I would go to class and just stand there, and every once in a while I’d just read a list of vocabulary,’ he stated (Interview 2). He felt that his work with students was not interactive enough to be an important part of their L2 learning experience. He added, ‘I’m always the add-on, the extra. It’s really limiting’ (Interview 2). Mark indicated that the teachers began to use him more by the end of the year, but that he still mainly read the textbook or went over the workbook. He said it was often suggested that he read from the textbook, do dictations or read lists of vocabulary. Although he tried to extend his role, he was not successful. To a large extent, he attributed this situation to his lack of a defined role. He felt his school’s bilingual coordinator and the participating teachers did not really know how to use an LA well, and this was one of the main problems he faced in this year 0 school. He also cited several other issues that were affecting his implementation in the bilingual classes: a lack of understanding of what bilingual education is or is not expected to be, the fact that some of the bilingual/CLIL teachers were transferring to different schools, and a general lack of coordination from both the province’s bilingual supervisor and his school’s bilingual coordinator. He stated: I kind of just fell in my coordinator’s lap and she said, ‘What do I do with this?’ It’s like, What do I do here? There are days when I don’t actually know what is going on. Am I supposed to care? (Interview 1) He found that teachers did not feel he was a help in class, but instead a hindrance. He stated, ‘Sometimes it’s really frustrating. I can tell that it is a burden when I assist a class because they need to think of something for me to do; it’s like having another kid in the class’ (Interview 2). While he assisted with classes regularly, he reported that both he and the teachers found it difficult to find a way to integrate him into the class in any way that promoted communicative interaction.

218

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Despite some major concerns with the program and his usage, Mark believed that his role was fairly important and that his work would benefit the students. He mentioned that for small town students, simply having a foreigner around was a great opportunity and helped them to know that not all Americans are like what they see in the movies. For the students, Mark thought, having a young, ‘cool’ teacher improved their desire to speak English. He also believed his work to help the teachers become more comfortable with English had a positive effect on their confidence. The defining characteristic of the two experiences in this category was that usage was very structured, and did not fulfill the interactive imperatives of the MPP. The two LAs were used consistently, but would have preferred more opportunity to share their culture and themselves more freely with the students. Their experiences had the following shared characteristics: • • • • •

In class, teacher and LA collaboration was not apparent. LAs had little opportunity to interact with students beyond the bookwork. Teachers made little or no time for cultural topics/activities. LAs reported some unused time, generally because the teacher wanted to work on book material or prepare for an exam without the LA present. The teacher and LA did not collaborate to create interactive materials or LA-led activities that added to or complemented regular coursework.

In these cases, the LA served mainly a linguistic purpose. While simply having an educated native LA in the classroom gave students the benefit of some exposure to the target language, without significant interaction, there was little access to the ICC learning opportunities that having an LA in the classroom could engender.

Summary of LA experiences The seven informants each had multifarious experiences working as an LA in distinctly different schools and with a great variety of classes and teachers. Because of the diversity of experience and the numerous factors that shaped each experience, it is virtually impossible to classify each experience neatly into one category without emphasizing that each experience included additional patterns and occurrences that added to and occasionally contradicted the most prominent pattern. In general, all of the informants reported a favorable experience by the end of the program, regardless of the struggles they had faced during the school year. All the informants believed that they had made a positive impact in either linguistic and/or intercultural competence gains among their students, but reported varying degrees of this beneficial impact. To give a partial answer to the first research question of this study, the reader is referred to Figure 10.1, which quantifies each LA’s assigned tasks.

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

219

Yet a description of how their hours were allotted was only half the picture. Each informant’s duties were different and each school used the LA differently. Two reported experiences of co-teaching seemed effective in terms of what is possible for non-teachers to handle in the classroom, and assigned duties that seemed to correspond well with the program goals for effective implementation of LAs. Three informants reported consistent lack of usage and/or a lack of guidance in some classes, where they were either left alone with the class or were expected to lead the class without the teacher’s input or feedback. In these cases, the teachers seemed to consider them a diversion rather than an integral component of the coursework, and this generally led both teachers and students to undervalue the LAs’ work in class. Finally, two informants reported that they were frequently used, but had little flexibility to introduce interactive or cultural activities into the classes they were assigned to. In these classes, a conversational approach was eyed with suspicion while culture was, at best, tolerated and sometimes even considered irrelevant to the students’ classroom needs. These two LAs often felt restricted from adding anything beyond the regular classwork. With regard to the second and third research questions, which asked if and how culture was integrated into the classroom in terms of treating cultural topics and developing cultural activities, it was found that all of the informants did, to highly variable degrees, include culture or intercultural topics in their lessons with students and all made comments that indicated they believed that their students had made varying gains in ICC, even if those gains were very small. The major differences that emerged when informants described their implementation as ‘cultural ambassadors’ were how well the culture lessons were integrated into the curriculum, how much these types of lessons and materials were valued by the regular teachers (as evidenced by the class time allotted for the presentation and/or discussion) and how the material was introduced (i.e. formal culture presentations, spontaneous culture-based conversations during class or both).

Discussion Interaction with the LA Interaction is an undeniable component of language-and-culture learning. It is usually claimed that both input and output are necessary for L2 acquisition to occur; therefore, a two-way dialogue, or even three-way dialogue as often suggested for co-teachers, seems to be particularly advantageous for L2 learners (Carless & Walker, 2006; Tajino & Tajino, 2000) for increased L2 acquisition as well as gains in ICC. It is in dialogue with someone from another culture through which students can begin to understand their own culture and how it differs from another person’s culture.

220

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

All the informants expressed initial enthusiasm about classroom work and an understanding that they were to promote interaction in and use of English, yet most stated that this enthusiasm deflated as they found their role to be limited by teachers and lesson plans that did not significantly include them in an interactive manner. This finding mirrors Byram and Alfred’s (1996) research, which found that LAs often started their year with high motivation that later diminished because they felt inefficiently employed. The co-teaching role, while achieved by a portion of the informants at least some of the time, was not evident in the majority of classrooms using LAs. Two informants reported most classes had elements of co-teaching, while two informants reported some classes that included co-teaching and three informants reported almost no elements of co-teaching in the classrooms they worked in. Confusion over the relationship between the regular classroom teacher and the LA seemed to be a problem that caused lack of use, inefficient use and the LA’s demotivation. These findings indicate that teachers are not necessarily comfortable with co-teaching or do not yet know how to co-teach interactively. Informants who were assigned to work with teachers who had not developed co-teaching skills often had one of two problems. First, the informant was asked not to come, and the issue of ‘problematic’ co-teaching was avoided or, second, the informant was included in class but simply took over rather traditional teacher roles instead of a co-teacher or assistant role. Five of the seven informants reported little dialogue or interaction in the majority of their classes, which suggests that current practices may not be bringing forth the significant advantages that a co-taught class is often expected to offer. Finally, the affective benefits of their interactions with students were discussed frequently by the informants. All the LAs reported a congenial relationship with their students and said the students enjoyed interacting with them. Having a young L2 teacher-friend roaming the halls and classrooms will serve as a good attempt to increase the chance that students will seek interaction, but once again, without frequency and depth of interaction, these interactions may be minimally relevant to learning.

The integration of culture into EFL classes in public schools with bilingual sections All informants stated that they were able to include some cultural information in their lessons. However, the frequency of cultural lessons and the extent to which the teacher supported them varied greatly. Three informants reported that their lessons frequently centered on cultural aspects or had cultural topics incorporated into them. These informants all reported a mixture of planned and spontaneous cultural topics. Three of the informants reported that they had a limited opportunity to approach

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

221

culture in classes, reporting that teachers made some time for cultural presentations (five to eight during the school year) and sometimes allowed the LA to make cultural comments about exercises or information relating to the textbook used. One informant reported a minimal focus on culture. Most informants seemed enthusiastic about teaching aspects of American culture and found it an enjoyable part of their role to the extent that it was allowed in each setting. Cultural material tended to appear in one of three ways: in spontaneous comments related to regular class materials, formal cultural presentations, and EFL activities with a cultural component. The most frequent type is the hardest to quantify; it may be defined as a brief interjection related to course materials or responding to a student question or comment. These interjections were sometimes educationally relevant (e.g. describing lexical differences between British and American English) and sometimes just interesting for teenagers (e.g. discussions about the social acceptability of flip-flops for school attire). The informants who reported a considerable emphasis on cultural aspects stated that they were encouraged to bring up these topics as they did regular classwork. In the case of the informants that reported very little cultural content, cultural interjections were merely tolerated or discouraged in most of the classes. Presentations that focused on major US holidays or various ‘little c’ topics, such as life styles, food or family life, were also very common, and used by all informants at least occasionally. A third type of culture-based activity, which occurred least frequently, was the use of a cultural artifact to develop an EFL activity (e.g. an American game employed to teach the future tense). The informants found students’ reception of cultural components in class to be hit or miss. Difficulties pertaining to cultural content that were mentioned included the following: students did not have much inherent interest in the US, longer presentations did not engage students, and students’ generally low levels of proficiency in English made presentations difficult to complete successfully. Furthermore, two LAs suggested that because the information that they covered would not be in the coming tests, students had little incentive to pay attention to the content.

The integration of culture into bilingual/CLIL classes Establishing a useful role in bilingual, content-based classes was difficult for the informants assisting this particular class type. Informants in these classes had the lowest rate of usage overall. This may have been due to the fact that the LAs usually had little training in the subject matter as well as the fact that many of the classes had no textbooks or materials in English. Every informant assigned to bilingual/CLIL classes reported doing a significant amount of translation, while interaction typically revolved around reading the translated text in English. This procedure is not generally considered

222

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

good practice for bilingual education, nor is it conducive to significant interaction with the target language, the culture or the LA. Due to the limited role that most LAs had in the CLIL/bilingual classes, culture was not a large part of them. In these classes, the LA’s time was focused on language-related rather than sociocultural topics. Despite the fact that these CLIL classes were reported as being problematic for these informants, having an LA in bilingual/CLIL classes may have benefits for both students’ motivation and L2 acquisition. With the ‘teacherfriend’ in class, students may experience more integrative types of motivation as they develop a relationship with the LA and his/her language. Another linguistic benefit that LAs bring to the CLIL classroom was discussed by Dalton-Puffer and Nikula (2006). Native-speaker assistants tend to engage in more conversational exchanges in CLIL classes; it is this more colloquial use of the L2 and the anecdotal information provided that regular teachers find least comfortable to integrate into class (Wilkinson, 2005, cited in Lorenzo et al., 2009). Thus, LAs can step in and take on that role when incorporated into class. Although not apparent in these experiences, there seems to be potential for verbal interaction in CLIL classes if the LA and the teacher work to bring out each other’s strengths.

Promoting ICC through the use of LAs in Andalusia’s MPP From these informants’ experiences, it is apparent that students are being exposed to culture as LAs are implemented in classrooms. Yet, is this exposure enough and of the right kind so as to promote ICC among Spanish students enrolled in Andalusian public schools with bilingual sections? Some work that the LAs reported seems to be beneficial to students on the ethnocentric side of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (M.J. Bennett, 1993), as typical novice L2 learners tend to be. Students in the denial or defense stages have little or no concept of cultural difference and generally avoid engagement with it. By meeting an LA, these students are confronted with the idea that difference exists and are asked to interact with it in a controlled environment. Most of the informants actively tried to create awareness of American cultural aspects where there was none before or to get students to move beyond stereotypes as they were introduced to tidbits of how Americans live and interact. Cultural knowledge, an essential component of ICC, is developed through these interactions. The informants also reported that much of their work as ‘cultural ambassadors’ focused on discussing ‘little c’ topics, which they found the students to have the most interest in. Posthofen (1994) and Chastain (1988, cited in Tsou, 2005: 43) emphasize that this focus is appropriate for the earlier stages of learning. Because the introduction of ‘little c’ topics relating to everyday life often surprises students and causes them to see that there are different

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

223

options beyond their own reality, students may become more aware of their own Spanish identity and sociocultural norms. Finally, LAs can elaborate on the images and examples of Englishspeaking culture(s) that are included in some textbooks. Méndez García (2005: 67) found that some textbooks used in Spain mainly focus on UK cultural aspects. Davcheva and Sercu (2005: 102) found that teachers in Spain were not satisfied with the type of cultural information found in textbooks, stating that it was mainly information based, superficial, and did not facilitate reflection. LAs can bring the textbook material, which by all informant accounts was the main focus of most classes, to a more intercultural realm by clarifying it, exemplifying it and expanding upon it. Bennett et al. (2003) suggest stage-appropriate competencies for language learners who are developing intercultural competence. In general, when the LAs were allowed to interact with the students in a manner that allowed them some freedom to pursue topics that they felt were interesting or relevant to the learners, they were reasonably successful in developing many of the competencies for novice learners. Yet due to pervasive coordination problems between participants and class materials as regards the implementation of the LA, the benefits of having an LA in the classroom were probably not fully realized.

Improving opportunity for LA inclusion and ICC gains in the MPP Intercultural understanding is not automatic when intercultural encounters take place. Likewise, the simple presence of an LA in a school does not mean that remarkable gains in intercultural – or even linguistic – competence will be made. This means that the LA needs to have frequent interaction with the students, and the lessons they teach or co-teach need to be made both interpretable for students and integrated into the larger curriculum in order to promote improvement in both ICC and linguistic competence. Ensuring that the LA is supported and guided by an experienced teacher could largely improve their implementation. The frequency with which informants reported being asked to complete the class without the presence or guidance of the regular teacher is lamentable. Five of the seven informants had to deal with this problem, with three of them reporting it as a frequent problem. Typically, LAs are not teachers; they have little or no previous experience in front of a class and cannot be expected to manage a class or organize appropriate activities without guidance. Guidance, clear instructions and suggestions from the regular teachers could certainly help make class time more profitable for everyone involved. Communication between the LA and the teacher during the classplanning stage and the teaching phase could help the LA become more of a co-teacher than a mere accessory. In classes where planning and professional communication were evident, feelings of success were reported. Counsel on

224

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

appropriate L2 level, relevant vocabulary and topics help the LAs to create lesson plans that will be useful for the students and teachers. Without this direction, the LA tended to do ‘something interesting’, but which had little benefit to the overall class goals. On cultural topics, the classroom teacher can serve as the cultural interpreter for students. An LA is often not as skilled at cultural discussion since they may not understand what students need to know and may not know how to effectively bring up cultural discussions in a classroom setting. In a class where both the LA and the teacher are active, the teacher can help the LA realize a role beyond that of a cultural ‘tour guide’ and move their lessons more towards the facilitation of ICC by engaging students with it instead of simply providing cultural information. Another problem that most of the informants faced was being left out of class or being asked to assist the class with conventional textbook work. Five of the seven informants reported significant troubles in this area. It seems unfortunate that so many hours went underused or, simply, unused. It seems that some teachers had a hard time implementing the LA in a way that supported their own teaching. The result of this was either that the LA was given a free hour or was used in class as a ‘human CD’ or workbook leader; neither of these inclusions allowed for much chance to make headway towards ICC. Dunnett et al. (1986) suggest that intercultural activities must be included in the regular curriculum and given the same importance as language activities so as to encourage students to pay attention to cultural aspects. On a larger scale, they suggest that the inclusion of intercultural interaction in EFL classes will require a re-examination of teaching priorities and classroom practices. Following these suggestions may ameliorate the problems of lack of use or overguidance. It seems that some of the participating teachers may need to reflect on the new bilingual initiative, its relevant goals, and how to build more interactive, intercultural classes into their repertoire. It is true that the new priorities add complexity to teaching language and call for the development of new practices, but the gains students could make from them are well worth the effort.

Conclusions The MPP is a welcome innovation and a major step forward for Andalusia’s foreign-language learning outcomes within the context of a global society. The general goals it sets out to achieve are lofty, with aims far beyond traditional linguistic gains. The incorporation of LAs into classrooms, specifically in bilingual-track classrooms, will most likely produce significant cultural and linguistic benefits for Spanish students when fully implemented (as the MPP intends). Nevertheless, the issues with the usage of the seven informants suggest that there are some difficulties in implementing both a new style of teaching that includes both culture and

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

225

interaction as major components as well as a second teacher into the classroom. This may have to do with essential mismatches between the new curriculum and the teachers’ conceptualizations of what and how they should teach, a simple lack of awareness of how to implement the major program goals or a lack of practical experience regarding how co-teaching may be successfully performed. In any case, the regular teachers do play a major role in the implementation of LAs and may be the key to bringing forth the benefits that LAs can offer to language learners. Most classes with a specific teacher either went poorly or went well, and being assigned to work with either inexperienced teachers or teachers planning on transferring schools seemed to correlate with poor usage in class and underused tutoring/planning hours. Consequently, teachers mandated to work with an LA should be carefully selected to facilitate useful, mutually beneficial relationships between the LA, the teacher and the learners. A thorough understanding of the roles and relationships that are envisioned for the classroom teachers and LAs is necessary. Most informants struggled to create and maintain a positive role for themselves in the classroom and school. If their roles had been clarified, and if they had been asked to fulfill them from the beginning, their implementation might have gone more smoothly. It seems clear that a substantial part of the solution to the main problems would be for both teachers and LAs to receive specific training in the fundamental tenets of bilingual education programs and the goals and processes of co-teaching, as well as the concepts of stage development of ICC and how to promote this development. The new, supplementary focus on cultural learning, ICC and culturally appropriate interaction is crucial for learners who want to succeed in today’s global world. It is relevant to emphasize that ICC skills should be expected to be developed in the long run through work with various LAs from different countries over the course of a student’s school career. Yet these benefits are more or less accessible depending on both the quantity and the quality of interaction that the students have with the LA. To ensure that students are getting appropriate and sufficient interaction to achieve sociocultural gains, bilingual coordinators must ensure that the LAs are being consistently and appropriately used and supported by classroom teachers in their school. In conclusion, the difficulties in the implementation of LAs in the initial stages of the MPP may not be a cause for alarm. This research was conducted during the third year of the MPP, and the problems might just be growing pains in a new school program. However, as with any innovative initiative, hard work must be done to make certain that the goals are achieved. All of the professionals involved – regional policy planners, provincial supervisors, bilingual-section coordinators, regular teachers and LAs – have some good hard work ahead to strengthen their understanding of how to best build this program so that significant linguistic and cultural gains can be made by the students in Andalusian public schools.

226

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude to the informants, who took the time to share their experiences, and without whom there would have been no research. The first author is also grateful to the students and the teaching staff at I.E.S. Caura, who inspired her and made her enjoy her experience during the two school years she worked as a language assistant.

References Alderson, J.C., Pizorn, K., Zemva, N. and Beaver, L. (2001) The Language Assistant Scheme in Slovenia: A Baseline Study. Ljubljana: Ministry of Education, Science and Sport. Barratt, L. and Kontra, E. (2000) Native English-speaking teachers in cultures other than their own. TESOL Journal 9, 9–23. Bennett, J.M., Bennett, M.J. and Allen, W. (2003) Developing intercultural competence in the language classroom. In D. Lange and R.M. Paige (eds) Culture as the Core (pp. 237–270). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Bennett, M.J. (1993) Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige (ed.) Education for Intercultural Experience (2nd edn, pp. 21–71). Yarmouth: Intercultural Press. Byram, K. and Kramsch, C. (2008) Why is it so difficult to teach language as culture? German Quarterly 81, 20–34. Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (ed.) (2000) Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge. Byram, M. and Alfred, G. (1996) Language assistants’ experience of a ‘familiar’ culture. In Groupe de recherches et d’études anglophones du Mans (eds) Actes du colloque ‘Reciprocites’ (pp. 269–280). Le Mans: GREAM, Université du Maine. Byram, M. and Fleming, M. (eds) (1998) Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective. Approaches Through Drama and Ethnography. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. and Morgan, C. (1994) Teaching-and-learning Language-and-culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Carless, D. and Walker, E. (2006) Effective team teaching between local and nativespeaking English teachers. Language and Education 20, 463–477. Carpenter, J. and Torney, J. (1974) Beyond the melting pot to cultural pluralism. In P. Maloney Markun (ed.) Childhood and Intercultural Education: Overview and Research (pp. 14–24). Washington, DC: Association for Childhood Education International. Chastain, K. (1988) Developing Second-language Skills: Theory and Practice. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Choi, Y. (2001) Suggestions for the re-organization of English teaching program by native speakers in Korea. English Teaching 56, 101–122. Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. and Swain, M. (1986) Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of Theory, Research and Practice. New York: Longman. Dalton-Puffer, C. and Nikula, T. (2006) Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics 27, 241–267.

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

227

Davcheva, L. and Sercu, L. (2005) Culture and foreign language teaching materials. In L. Sercu, E. Bandura, P. Castro, L. Davcheva, C. Laskaridou, U. Lundgren, M. Méndez García and P. Ryan (eds) Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An International Investigation (pp. 90–109). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Duff, P. and Uchida, Y. (1997) The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 31, 451–486. Dunnett, S., Dubin, F. and Lezberg, A. (1986) English language teaching from an intercultural perspective. In J. Merrill Valdez (ed.) Culture Bound (pp. 148–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fantini, A. (1997) Language: Its cultural and intercultural dimensions. In A. Fantini (ed.) New Ways in Teaching Culture: TESOL Series II, Innovative Classroom Techniques (pp. 3–15). Alexandria: TESOL Publications. Halverson, P.R. (1985) The foreign language classroom: A forum for understanding cultural stereotypes. Foreign Language Annals 18, 327–332. Junta de Andalucía (2006) Orden de 20 de junio de 2006, por la que se regula la provisión y actividad de los auxiliares de conversación en los centros docentes públicos de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía. Seville: Junta de Andalucía. Kitao, K. (1991) Teaching culture in foreign language instruction in the United States (Report No. FL 019 115). ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 330 214. Kyoto: Department of English, Doshisha University. Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. and Moore, P. (2009) The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics 31, 418–442. Medgyes, P. (1994) The Non-native Teacher. London: MacMillan. Méndez García, M. (2005) International and intercultural issues in English teaching textbooks: The case of Spain. Intercultural Education 16, 57–68. Méndez García, M. and Sercu, L. (2005) Pupils’ culture-and-language learning profile. In L. Sercu (ed.) Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An International Investigation (pp. 50–74). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Meyer, M. (1991) Developing transcultural competence: Case studies of advanced language learners. In D. Buttjes and M. Byram (eds) Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards an Intercultural Theory of Foreign Language Education (pp. 196–158). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Morgan, C. (1993) Attitude change and foreign language culture learning. Language Teaching 26, 63–75. Omaggio-Hadley, A.C. (1993) Teaching Language in Context. Proficiency-oriented Instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Posthofen, R.S. (1994) Bridging the Gap: Teaching Culture in the Foreign Language Classroom (EDRS: ED 379 942). ERIC Clearinghouse. Storey, P., Luk, J., Gray, J., Wang-Kho, E., Lin, A. and Berry, R.S.Y. (2001) Monitoring and evaluation of the native-speaking English teacher scheme. Unpublished research report, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong. Tajino, A. and Tajino, Y. (2000) Native and non-native: What can they offer? Lessons from team-teaching in Japan. ELT Journal 54, 3–11. Tang, C. (1997) On the power and status of non-native ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly 31, 577–580. Tsou, W. (2005) The effects of cultural instruction on foreign language learning. Regional Language Centre Journal 36, 39–57. Webber, M.J. (1987) The role of culture in a competence-based syllabus. Theory Into Practice 26, 251–257. Wilkinson, R. (2005) The impact of language on teaching content: Views from the content teacher. Paper presented at the Bi- and Multilingual Universities: Challenges and Future Prospects Conference, Helsinki.

228

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Appendix 1: Selected Questions from Interview #1 A. Introductory information (1) What were your reasons for participation in this program? (2) Tell me about the program (MPP) and the school you are working in. B. Information about the LA’s usage (1) Describe a typical week: (i) What classes do you assist? (ii) How are your 12 hours assigned? (iii) How do teachers generally use you? (iv) Have you done any special projects? Who suggests project ideas? (2) How much interaction do you have with students: (i) as a group, (ii) in small groups, (iii) one on one? (3) Have you spent time teaching students specific aspects of your culture? (4) What did students know about American culture when you arrived? C. (1) (2) (3)

Information about teaching Do you teach English (EFL)? How often? Do you teach classes based on aspects of American culture? How often? Who comes up with suggestions or ideas about what you can do in class? (4) Are you given enough time to prepare your lessons? Do you plan your activities with the teachers? (5) Do you tutor/train teachers in English (conversational English, classroom language, etc.)? (6) How do teachers introduce you and your projects in class? D. General information (1) How much English can you use in class? (2) Do you feel relevant to the students’ learning? To the bilingual program? (3) How does the program (your current participation in it and the students’ participation/learning in it) compare to what you thought it would be? E. (1) (2) (3)

Personal thoughts What have your biggest challenges or frustrations been so far? What have your biggest successes been so far? What have you learned from participation in the LA program?

The Use of Nat ive A ssist ant s as L anguage and Cultural Resources

229

Appendix 2: Selected Questions from Interview #2 A. (1) (2) (3) (4)

Introductory questions Have there been any significant changes since our last interview? Have you had any successes or failures with your students recently? Do you have any specific concerns right now? Do you feel like your work with students is productive? Which parts of your work tend to be the most/least productive? (5) Are the students interested when you come to class? B. Follow up questions Questions varied: informant was asked questions relating to Interview #1. C. Information about the LA’s usage (1) How are the following job duties going? (i) interaction/conversation; (ii) culture (and civilization); (iii) pronunciation and/or grammar; (iv) materials design. (2) Do you feel like you have enough interaction with each class to make a difference? D. Information about the cultural role of the LA (1) Is culture integrated into the language curriculum (EFL) at your school? (2) Are students able to identify similarities and differences between their native culture and the target culture? (3) Do you feel that you help students acquire relevant information? If you do cultural presentations, do students listen? Do they interact with the material? (4) Do you think you play a role in the affective realm of language learning (i.e. anxiety, motivation, self-esteem) for the students you work with? E.

Information about the LA’s role in content-based/bilingual/CLIL classes (1) In the CLIL/content-based classes, how are you incorporated? (2) How does the content teacher integrate English (or you) into the class? (3) Are these classes different from English (EFL) classes for you as an LA?

Appendix 3: Selected Questions from Interview #3 A. The LA’s role at the school (1) What was your role in the school? Was it useful?

230

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

(2) Do you feel that you were able to integrate language and culture into your lessons? Was one part of your job favored by the teachers? B. Information about the LA’s impact on students (1) Do you feel that you helped develop your students’ intercultural competence as well as their linguistic competence? (2) Did students show any short-term benefits/immediate benefits from your presence in class? C. Information about the cultural role of the LA (1) Have you taught culture-based lessons since we last talked? (2) Do you think you contributed to the students’ understanding of other people and their cultures? To what extent? How? (3) Do you feel students identify with you in the same way as they identify with their regular classroom teachers? How? D. Follow-up questions Questions varied: informant was asked questions relating to his/her responses from Interview #1 or Interview #2. E. The LA’s summary of his/her experience during the program (1) What do you think you got out of participating in this program, from a personal, professional or educational perspective? (2) What would you say was your biggest struggle? Did you work to make it better? How? Did you overcome it? (3) How would you describe your LA experience as a whole?

11 Student-teachers and Teacher-educators Experience New Roles in Pre-service Bilingual Teacher Education in Brazil Fernanda Liberali

Introduction In Brazil, there is very little effective work in the area of bilingual teacher education, and most of it addresses indigenous, sign or prestigious languages. University and extramural courses in this area are rare although the number of schools which have turned bilingual in recent years has increased tremendously. This chapter discusses the outcomes and drawbacks of a Multicultural Education Project, a research project that works with pre-service bilingual teacher education (English–Portuguese and French–Portuguese). The project is organized as a network of actions involving planning, conducting and evaluating teaching-learning activities1 in a bilingual education-like2 context. All actions are conducted by a group of researchers from the Language in Activities in School Contexts group who play the roles of student-teachers and teacher-educators. Firstly, this chapter examines the theoretical background for bilingual education as supported by the study group on bilingual education and for pre-service teacher education in a socio-historical-cultural perspective. Secondly, it describes the teacher education research project and its activities. Finally, it evaluates the movement of participants from peripheral to central participation and vice versa (Lave & Wenger, 1991), and its importance for the reflections on pre-service teacher programs in bilingual education in Brazil. 231

232

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Bilingual Education in Brazil: Some Essential Issues As stated by Marcelino (2009), the development of bilingualism in Brazil shows a marked tendency due to the demand of parents and a change in the general view of education. According to Moura (2009) and Mello (2002), Brazil cannot be regarded as a monolingual country as is seemed to be believed. Since the arrival of the first Portuguese and through the immigration waves in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, contact with and among people of different backgrounds (including indigenous, Portuguese, Italians, Spaniards, Germans, Japanese, Lebanese and Koreans, among others) has been a trademark of the formation of the Brazilian people. Therefore, multilingualism is a feature of the Brazilian reality. Moreover, as Moura (2009) points out, in a country with 15 million deaf people using sign language to communicate, how can one talk about monolingualism? In a context of such a wide and diverse multilingualism, the presence of schools with proposals for bilingual education has received increased attention. Among the proposals for bilingual education in the country, the following may be pointed out (Megale & Liberali, 2011): (1) Bilingual education in sign language has been guaranteed by law since 1996. This type of bilingual education assumes that the deaf must master sign language and the official language of their country – Portuguese. (2) Indigenous bilingual education has been backed by law since 1993 and allows the development of indigenous educational proposals that value their language, culture and identity, while working simultaneously for their insertion into the Brazilian non-indigenous society. (3) Bilingual education in multilingual contexts has been developed in communities where, besides Portuguese, the language of ancestry is a feature and a part of generating a means of living (such as in border communities and German and Ukrainian communities in southern Brazil). (4) Prestige or elite bilingual education, so named because of the financial conditions of the students who can attend these schools, is developed in expensive schools where the content areas are taught both in Portuguese and in another language. A relevant recent phenomenon in this area, elite bilingual education, as characterized by Cavalcanti (1999), has had a rapid development. An increasing number of wealthy and middle-class families have looked for a kind of education that can play an important role in the upbringing of their children for the so-called ‘globalized world’. There are a wide range of reasons for parents to choose prestige/elite bilingual education. Above all, they want their kids to be fluent in more than one language. However, bilingual

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

233

education is more than simply learning a different language fluently. It involves multicultural projects that will open learners’ minds to a variety of ways of perceiving and understanding the world, developing a number of different strategies to live with others, and knowing, respecting and appreciating diverse cultural sceneries (Moura, 2009). As Cummins (1996) states, the schools which aim to prepare students for the new century must bear in mind that cultural diversity is a norm, so it is essential to develop cultural and linguistic resources to deal with this new reality. In consonance with this, Baker (2001) argues that there are several reasons and goals for the promotion of bilingual education, mainly enabling people to communicate with the world outside their community and to preserve their ethnic identity. In Brazil, the concept of ‘bilingual school’ without any specific qualifications has been used to define a wide variety of uses of two languages in education, which makes it even more controversial (Megale & Liberali, 2011). In order to deal with these issues that arise out of this controversy, the study group on bilingual education was established at the Pontifical Catholic University at São Paulo in 2008, aiming to discuss the concepts related to bilingual education and bilingualism. The group, which maintains relations with researchers on bilingualism and bilingual education in other countries, such as Mexico, Bolivia, England and Spain, is composed of professionals working in bilingual schools and scholars who study the subject. In light of the theoretical studies of Hamers and Blanc (2000), the study group on bilingual education understands bilingual education as any school system in which, at any given time, simultaneously or consecutively, instruction is planned and enacted in at least two languages. Bilingual education involves the ability not only to speak more than one language, but to be aware of the social, cultural, historical, political and ideological aspects of the language and the cultures involved. In a Vygotskian perspective (Vygotsky, 1934), language has a central role in establishing the relationship among the individuals and the individuals and their cultural objects of knowledge. In the context of interactions mediated by language, new objects of knowledge and of action are produced and new identities created. Therefore, language is understood as an instrument which helps the development of the object (content in the subject area) and becomes part of the object itself in production. As language is part of the object in production, while learning in their mother tongue or in the other language, the object is produced as a language-concept. In this sense, the work developed in all areas of knowledge stresses both the concept and the language. Therefore, bilingual education provides opportunities for individuals to construct and reconstruct their identities, attitudes and actions in more than one language. In bilingual schools, children develop their studies in various areas of knowledge such as arts, science, social studies and mathematics, not only in

234

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

their mother tongue but also in the international language. The study group on bilingual education understands the ‘international language’ as the one used in educational contexts that provide instruction in more than one language and differs from those considered official in the country. This language has a cognitive, social and cultural value. In these bilingual contexts of teaching-learning, individuals use the international language as they learn content and language in an integrated manner. Bilingual education is understood, as opposed to intensification, as the teaching of different content areas in more than one language. Intensification is understood as contexts where the foreign language is taught as a subject in the curriculum, but with a greater number of hours (de Mejía, 2002). It is not a means by which other subjects are taught, but the object of learning solely. Conversely, in bilingual education the language is also used for the teaching of different subjects. Much more important than developing a bilingual individual as someone able to speak two languages perfectly (Megale, 2005), it is essential to work to develop individuals who are competent in learning a wide range of content in more than one language. Based on the aforementioned issues, students get hold of the language to transform themselves and their reality through interaction in different content areas. Considering these issues related to bilingual education in Brazil, how do teachers get educated to work in this context? Very few contexts are created for this matter, as expressed by David (2007), Meaney (2008), Miascovsky (2008) and Moura (2009). New extramural programs, extension courses, workshops and lectures have been developed in recent years, as spread by http://educacaobilingue.com/. However, there is no official undergraduate course or particular subject in undergraduate courses that focuses specifically on elite bilingual education. The project here described and discussed focuses on this specific area.

Teacher Education in Pre-service Contexts The project is conducted within a socio-historical-cultural perspective and aims to organize teacher education as a network of revolutionary activities in which transformation will be defined in and by the process of production of new realities for all participants. The shift of roles within a network of activities creates a possibility for novice members to move from a legitimate peripheral participation, that is, acting in supporting roles, to a more central participation, in other words, performing leading roles. In teacher training there is typically a type of repetitive or reproductive activity that could be associated with mechanized ways of perpetuating teaching practices that are considered appropriate, good or effective. Thus, training for the classroom maintains the unconditional certainty of success in such operating techniques. This mechanical view in all areas of production,

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

235

although sometimes praised for its high productivity and guaranteed results, is also responsible for the increasing fragmentation and exaggeration in the division of labor, which disengages the individuals from their production and creates alienation. In this direction, Sánchez Vázquez (2007) explains that in a repetitive activity, ‘the realm of the unpredictable is narrowed down’ and ‘there is no adventure’ (Sánchez Vázquez, 2007: 275). In the context of typical pre-service teacher education, student-teachers’ previous knowledge as students and their opinions on issues in discussion are disregarded. On the contrary, their training focuses on applying good and efficient teaching strategies without any real consideration for their underlying reasoning and views of learning and/or teaching. The perspective of bilingual teacher education developed in the project here discussed follows a critical-creative inspiration. It understands that participants are active in the construction of their professional skills in the sense that they do not simply talk about teaching and teaching practices but they engage in activities that are present in school contexts. So they play with the reality they are learning, while performing as teachers (Holzman, 2009; Vygotsky, 1930/1978). Critical-creative activities for teacher education refer to creativity as human plasticity (Vygotsky, 1930/2009), i.e. the human ability to transform and to retain the marks of this transformation. The critical-creative activity allows individuals to cope with new situations and new needs in inventive ways, generating new products that produce new needs for which the subjects need to craft new solutions. Following the ideas of Marx and Hegel, Sánchez Vázquez (2007) explains that creating is an essential part of human life because it is through creating and transforming the world that one creates oneself and the human world. In this sense, a critical-creative teacher development activity is seen as a revolutionary activity, which requires an awareness of one’s action as a means to enable its overthrow. This implies that activities for criticalcreative education involve an evaluation and reorganization of pedagogical actions that allow participants to discuss, analyze and review the social and historical forces that permeate their actions and which often prevent them from transforming the situations they experience (Grimmett, 1988). In other words, it requires the individual’s reflective consciousness of his/her actions in order to develop informed choice. Newman and Holzman (1993) argue that revolutionary activity allows the collective transformation, i.e. the transformation of each one, along with others, considered to be significant in the process of building new communities. In this respect, the proposed education of pre-service teachers presented here focuses on the study of networks of activities in which individuals are interacting with others in certain culturally and historically dependent contexts (Liberali, 2008). As suggested by Stetsenko (2004), these activities could be understood as units of life, processes that combine emotional,

236

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

practical, social and intellectual engines. Thus, the study of pre-service teacher educational activities involves taking into account a deep connection with the daily practices of the participants. Therefore, the activities are developed in accordance with the concepts of collaboration and sharing among the individuals. Collaboration is understood in a Vygotskian perspective (Vygotsky, 1930/1978) as a process of participation in the collective construction of meaning. In this sense, collaboration as the basis for development presupposes that people construct zones, namely the space between who they are and who they are becoming, that allow them to become (Holzman, 2002). This Zone of Proximal Development (henceforth ZPD) is understood as the ever-emergent and continuously changing distance between being and becoming. In constructing ZPDs, people do things they do not know how to do yet; they go beyond themselves (Holzman, 2002). Over the whole lifetime, the ZPD is a place within the social situation of development at which learning and development become mediated (Vygotsky, 1934: 27). It means a region of conflict where the new and the old clash in order to build new collective meanings. Therefore, the importance of collaboration is highlighted once it involves the presence of the other as essential to the idea of creating socially situated contradictions (Magalhães, 2006). Collaboration in pre-service teacher education could also be connected to the idea of communities of practice as stated by Lave and Wenger (1991). When discussing different apprenticeships (Yucatec midwives, Vai and Gola tailors, US Navy quartermasters, meat-cutters, and non-drinking alcoholics in Alcoholics Anonymous), the authors pointed out that novice members normally join the communities and learn at the periphery. As they become more familiar with the activities of that community, they move more to the ‘center’ of the particular community. Collaboration and participation in this perspective are interchangeable concepts. Full participation occurs as a result of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991: 29) so that in more integrated collaborations, an emphasis on process, dialogue and empowerment results in more flexible roles and division of labor (Mahn & John-Steiner, 2002). In pre-service teacher education activities, the idea of collaboration as a means of moving from the periphery to the center is interwoven with (Holzman & Newman, 2012) consideration of the interplay of speaking as narration and speaking as performance. According to (Holzman & Newman, 2012), human development consists of both the appropriation and the creation of culture. The dialectic interplay of appropriating and creating is related to transforming narrative into performance and vice versa. In pre-service teacher education, it could be connected not only to discussing about teaching but also to teaching itself as part of learning to become a teacher. In this sense, speaking as performance (performed conversation) could be seen as preceding and making possible speaking as narrative. However, speaking as narrative takes over

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

237

and adults end up speaking almost solely narratively. In teacher education in general, speaking about new practices for the classroom is said to be much easier than really implementing them with students. Many teachers can talk about ways of acting in a very developmental way; however, they cannot act accordingly when in real situations. As stated by Holzman and Newman (2012), it seems that, in order to grow, adults need to learn how to do speaking as performance, that is, they need to create a performatory ZPD. In other words, they must produce ways to support the accomplishment of things they do not know how to do yet (Holzman, 2009). Put another way, they should develop the ‘potential to move from what he is able to do to what he is not’ (Vygotsky, 1934/1987: 212), as Vygotsky puts it for children at play. They should learn how to act as if they were ‘a head taller’ (Vygotsky, 1930/1978: 102) so they can play with possibilities yet to be developed and, in doing so, actually develop them. In teacher education, with the necessary support, student-teachers can do what is beyond and unknown to them: they can teach. Student-teachers use narratives and previous performances as students to create their new teaching performances. This process of transformation (constructing the teaching performance, in Vygotskian terms) creates in the group new ways to understand and relate to teaching because they can simultaneously develop speaking as narration and speaking as performance.

The Multicultural Education Project The Multicultural Education Project, the focus of this chapter, was developed by the research group Language in Activities in School Contexts as part of the Acting as Citizens Program. Language in Activities in School Contexts integrates the graduate program in Applied Linguistics and Language Studies at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo. It comprises empirical studies that work with educators’ and students’ development in a critical-collaborative-creative way and includes investigations about individuals’ constitution, forms of participation and production of meaning, all of which are permeated by language. In a critical collaborative perspective, the group aims to understand and transform the unacceptable conditions of deprived Brazilian communities through education. In accordance with this aim, the group has organized an extramural program, that is, the so-called Acting as Citizens Program, conducted by PhDs, doctoral students, MA students, undergraduates, participants and fellow researchers. As pointed out by Liberali (2006a, 2006b), this program is mainly supported by an attempt to turn school into a place where different possibilities are produced for children and adults who have, as their life experience, contexts of violence, abuse and crime (Athayde & Bill, 2006). In other words, the Acting as Citizens Program aims at the development of citizenship, here understood as desirable citizenship (Gentili & Alencar,

238

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

2001; Kymlicka, 1995), which is context bound. This view of citizenship is embedded in Brazilian contexts of extremely different realities. This program has developed different social projects, one of which is the Multicultural Education Project. This project is organized as a network of activities involving planning, conducting and evaluating teaching-learning activities organized by researchers (as student-teachers and teacher-educators) in a bilingual education-like context. The project is developed through a partnership between a private university, the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, and non-profit organizations that work with children and teenagers from very deprived communities in São Paulo. All those involved are volunteers in the program. The Multicultural Education Project responds to the fact that bilingual education only meets the interests of elites who can afford to pay for the very expensive schools which offer this type of education. In this direction, it allows the inclusion of children from underprivileged groups to work with different forms of knowledge in a language other than their own, which the project organizers believe allows greater cognitive, affective and multicultural development. It also responds to a demand for the development of contexts for pre-service bilingual teacher education, since the job market in this area has increased tremendously (as is proved by the job offerings in the discussion list of the study group on bilingual education, for example) and there is a lack of professionals with any experience to work in this area. The project involves children and teenagers from underprivileged contexts, student-teachers (who are majoring in languages, that is, Portuguese–English or Portuguese–French), teacher-educators (who are MA or PhD students with some experience in language teaching and/or bilingual education) and the project coordinator (this researcher). As stated in its proposal, the project determines that all participants (children, teenagers, student-teachers, teacher-educators and project coordinator): • • • • • • •

Become socially integrated in the international language. Deal with scientific concepts in order to find ways for the transformation of their environment. Work cross-disciplinarily in school-like contexts. Use the international language as a tool for understanding and searching for ways to deal with the different problems of reality. Work creatively with specific contents of different subjects relating everyday and scientific knowledge in the international language. Produce citizenship for the whole community through the development, management, dissemination and discussion of knowledge with other members of the community. Develop teaching-learning contexts as places for identity construction.

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

239

The project is organized into four essential activities: • • • •

Monthly meetings with the project coordination, teacher-educators and student-teachers, for the theoretical-practical discussion of the central themes and of the steps to be taken in the project. Weekly meetings with the teacher-educators and student-teachers, as coresponsible partners for a specific group of students, to plan the weekly activities in the institution of education. Weekly one- to two-hour lessons for specific groups, taught by the teachereducator and/or student-teachers. Participation in virtual space with email messages for the planning and discussion of essential issues under development.

The lessons developed in the NGOs are held once a week for one to two hours and gather up to 15 students who go to these institutions in the extended period. In other words, they go to school in the morning and spend the afternoon in these institutions doing different activities, including multicultural studies which are provided by the Multicultural Education Project. The classes are organized in a bilingual education-like context and structured through cross-curricular projects. Thus, some of the topics included in this project since 2008 have been respecting others, enjoying life, discovering who we are and developing otherness. Each topic departed both from discussions with the institutions and with the kids and teenagers. They were chosen as a result of the analysis of the needs and interests of the community for the development of citizenship. Departing from this array of topics, each group of teacher-educators and student-teachers selects a social activity to work with during the semester. Some of these social activities were going to a music show, watching football matches, making friends with people from different parts of the world, eating out, having a picnic, visiting an elderly person, getting a job, going to the zoo, following the news and celebrating birthdays. Although they may seem very common activities of everyday reality, often they are quite distant from the students’ immediate possibilities. This is intended as a way to engage students in contexts that they may not even dream about so that they can be thought of as part of who they can be. Bearing in mind the relation between each social activity and the specific topic chosen, the student-teachers and teacher-educators decide the language genre and the subject area contents that should be dealt with, so students are able to participate more effectively, critically and creatively in these social activities. This work with the social activities focuses on the following features: •

Teaching different content areas either in English or in French.

240

• •

• •

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Working with cross-disciplinary projects that contain scientific concepts from different subjects as tools for understanding and transforming reality. Constructing knowledge, emotions and possibilities of living in the world through a different culture-language, concepts that cannot be understood separately due to their intertwined relation enabled by experience. Learning to participate in social activities that may not be part of their immediate reality in order to learn how to dream of new possibilities. Developing interdependent citizenship values through performing and discussing different roles in the social activities.

The Specific Context of this Study This chapter works with data from the 2010 Multicultural Education Project groups and focuses on two main activities, namely, a meeting with the project coordinator, teacher-educators and student-teachers, and a lesson taught to one of the young teen groups at Rogacionista Institute. In 2010 the topic chosen for citizenship education was ‘enjoying life’. This choice was a result of discussions with young children, teenagers and the NGO organizers about how individuals from these age groups spend their free time or the weekends. These individuals have no time or opportunity to participate in either free or paid artistic or fun activities that take place in the city. Most of the time, they lack money and/or company to go to these places or do not even learn about them. The idea was to get them involved with thinking about how to spend their time, how to enjoy life and how to find ways to participate in the artistic or cultural events of the city. For the teenagers (13–21 year-olds), two groups of teacher-educators and student-teachers chose to work with going to a music show and watching football matches in the first semester, and with eating out in the second semester. For the younger children, the general choice of the other two groups was celebrating birthdays for the first semester and having a picnic for the second semester. For the discussion presented here the data used was: • •

An initial lesson (9 April) in the first semester with a teacher-educator, a student-teacher and 12 students. This lesson would become one of the topics discussed by the group members in their following meeting in May. The 5 May meeting with the project coordination, four teacher-educators and seven student-teachers.

These events were chosen because they illustrate one of the essential issues in the development of the project, that is, creating a context of

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

241

teaching-learning in which the international language is seen as the means of interaction and constitution of all those involved. Therefore, the use of the mother tongue in this context is discouraged, although not forbidden. Different from contexts where the students’ mother tongue is seen as underprivileged, in Brazilian contexts, both elite bilingual education and regular schools, the mother language is supported and there is no ideological constraint in relation to it. Students feel very comfortable with it and use it most of the time in their interactions. In bilingual education schools, the national curriculum receives the main emphasis and all students know that their mother tongue and the subjects conducted in Portuguese are to be guaranteed. In the international language classes, however, students are supposed to learn to feel comfortable with the use of this language, since opportunities to act in it outside the classroom are scarce and cannot be guaranteed. As a result, the moments of class are essential events for dealing with the difficult, with the different, with the challenge of acting in a language which is not their own. Therefore, one of the rules in the Multicultural Education Project is that the lessons are conducted in the international language so students have to go beyond themselves and their immediate possibilities in order to cope with a new reality (Holzman, 2009; Vygotsky, 1934). Since these lessons are seen as performances where teacher-educators and student-teachers learn to teach in a new context in partnership, the rules for playing the teacher roles are an object of discussion and reflection all through the semester. The lessons and the meeting chosen focus on this issue. In order to analyze the data, episodes were selected to illustrate both speaking as performance and speaking as narrative. Also, in the contexts illustrated, the movement of participants from peripheral to central participation and vice versa was a topic under scrutiny.

Speaking as Performance and as Narrative in the Movement from Periphery to Center The interplay between speaking as performance and speaking as narrative is a constant in the Multicultural Education Project. Most pre-service teacher education projects in Brazil focus on students’ observations of and discussions about classes in which an idea of speaking as narrative is deeply emphasized. This expresses an understanding that the verbal narration of good or appropriate practices will guarantee their reproduction by the new apprentices. Contrary to the above, in the Multicultural Education Project, studentteachers are not expected to carry out a perfect reproduction of preestablished good practices that they were supposed to learn in pre-service discussions. Instead, they take charge of the teaching-learning processes,

242

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

together with the teacher-educator, the students and the project coordinator. From the beginning, they are involved in the selection of topics for citizenship development and for the social activity to be worked with. They also help organize the content of the teaching-learning project both in terms of the genres and other area subjects. They search for materials and resources for teaching and studying these contents. After that, they discuss and prepare classes as a group both through the internet and in weekly meetings. Moreover, they become responsible for conducting the classes together with fellow student-teachers and teacher-educators. Afterwards, they reflect upon their practices in their small groups and bring part of these reflections to the monthly discussions with the whole group of teacher-educators, studentteachers and the project coordinator. The events that follow show an initial lesson in which an experienced teacher of English as a foreign language, Participant 1, performing as a teachereducator, conducts the class together with a student-teacher, Participant 2. In the episode, Participant 1 asks questions and presents instructions in English and Participant 2 translates them right away so students may do what is being asked.

The lesson: Speaking as performance In this first class, Participants 1 and 2 explain the objective of the project and want to know more about the students’ expectations. In order to do that, Participant 2 presents the objective of the course, the social activity they will work with, and she also asks questions; all these actions are carried out in Portuguese. Participant 1 also gives some information about the course and the focus of our bilingual education perspective in English, while Participant 2 translates it into Portuguese for the students. After a while, both participants start a task in which they are questioning the students about the types of songs they like. Participant 1 asks the question in English and Participant 2 translates it. She congratulates the students and keeps using both English and Portuguese, while Participant 1 speaks solely in English. (1)

Participant 1: Participant 2: Students speak at the same time. Participant 1: Participant 2: Students: Participant 2: Students (all at the same time): Participant 2:

‘Which bands do you like?’ ‘Que bandas?’ [Which bands?] ‘Jonas Brothers?’ ‘Do you like them?’ ‘Ah? Ah?’ ‘Vocês gostam? Do Jonas Brothers?’ [Do you like Jonas Brothers?] ‘Yes.’ ‘What else? Que mais?’ [What else?]

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

243

Many other issues could be discussed about the class but, for the purpose of this chapter, the focus is on the way Participants 1 and 2 chose to divide the labor in the class. From the start, the experienced teacher is the one who only speaks in English and the student-teacher, as a co-worker, is responsible for making it possible for students to understand it by translating what was said into Portuguese. In the interplay of their roles, they both seem secure in acting out their roles and they feel comfortable with one another acting as planned. The organization of the discussion is well divided, since Participants 1 and 2 have a chance to talk to the students and to contribute to the progress of the class. Both present the objective, the task to be done, and enact the discussions with the class. In a way, they become partners in what they see as the appropriate way to work with teenagers who have never had a class thoroughly carried out in English before. This is so because, although these students have English as a foreign language class at their schools, their classes are normally conducted entirely in Portuguese, focusing mostly on grammar and translation aspects which students show no interest in. Most of the English teachers at the public schools that these students attend have a rather elementary proficiency in the language, and they hardly speak English in their everyday context, not even with their students or colleagues. Therefore, the situation enacted is a complete challenge for students who probably had never had a class in which teachers only spoke a language different from their own. When organizing the lesson, both participants were interested in creating contact with the students and they took it for granted that it would not be possible to do so in a language they had not known previously. Therefore, they introduced the course using both Portuguese and English in order to make the necessary conditions to initiate their work. However, neither considered the fact that, in this project, language is viewed as a constitutive instrument which helps the development of the object and becomes part of this object in production. They not only established the grounds for the work they were going to portray, which would certainly be done necessarily in Portuguese, but they also conducted all the other parts of the lesson by translating all English utterances to Portuguese. By doing so, they showed students that they did not even need to try to understand the international language because teachers would provide instructions in their mother tongue. Considering their social context of exclusion and lack of self-trust, this sounded rather patronizing towards teenagers’ ability to go beyond their limitations. There was no challenge for the students and they could comfortably wait for the Portuguese translation. At a certain point neither did Participant 1 look at the students when he spoke (he talked to Participant 2 directly), nor did the students look at him. They simply talked to Participant 2 in Portuguese. Hence, there was no innovative way in which the students needed to perform and go beyond who they already were (Holzman, 2009). They did not experience the conflict essential to trigger a

244

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

challenge that could transform their old ways of acting into new creative possibilities (Vygotsky, 1934). In the lesson, Participant 1 and Participant 2 also performed new roles as teacher and as teacher-educator. They had never taught a class together before, nor had they dealt with teenagers from a deprived reality such as these. Moreover, both were relatively new to the project. Participant 2’s previous contact with it had been through a report written by her colleague, who was already a member of the research team, and her participation in some initial meetings with the project coordinator and the student-teachers. In addition, she was delivering her first class ever. Therefore, both went through an experience of speaking as performance and they had to move from center to periphery in an interchangeable pattern of collaboration. In order to perform in this tandem routine, they had to develop a deep involvement with the real practices of teaching, which not only was to them a new project, built within a completely different reality from their own, but was also carried out in a bilingual perspective, which they were still getting hold of. Their partnership in the lesson, as stated by Magalhães (2006), created grounds for the development of a socially situated contradiction which would later serve as an object for the reflection of the whole group. While teaching they created a performatory ZPD, full of experienced conflicts which they felt uncertain about but which they enacted courageously.

The meeting: Speaking as both performance and narrative Lessons continued for three more weeks in the same pattern as reported by Participants 1 and 2. In the following month, during the meeting with the project coordinator, the focus was to observe extracts of each group’s videotaped lessons. Very shyly, yet bravely, they suggested that theirs could be the first for discussion. Having suggested that their lesson be analyzed, the participants made a great move from periphery to the center. Normally, more experienced groups are called to start this task. Nevertheless, Participants 1 and 2 wanted to go through the difficult process of evaluating and reorganizing their lessons that others had so much talked about. Nonetheless, they feared their exposition to the rest of the group, some of them newcomers like themselves, and others who were more experienced. In order to conduct the discussion, the project coordinator asked the group of 12 student-teachers and teacher-educators to observe the lessons. In order to do so, they had to perform as if they were their educators. They also had to think about the possible questions they could ask to conduct a reflective session with teachers, bearing in mind the main issues of the Multicultural Education Project stated above. Thus, each participant was given a piece of paper to take notes on the lesson and to write down issues to be discussed. After observing parts of

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

245

the lesson, the entire group was invited to keep performing as teachereducators and as teachers in charge. Firstly, they should pair up to discuss which questions they would ask the teachers in order to conduct a reflective process. Secondly, they were asked to try to keep to their roles in the performance and not answer or discuss the class right away. Thirdly, the participants were asked to present their questions by writing them on the board so everyone could see what issues triggered the group’s reflection. Only after analyzing the questions were they going to take the roles of teachers in an attempt to try to answer the questions. The task was meant to provide all participants with opportunities of thinking about and experimenting with what was happening in the episodes chosen before discussing them or even questioning Participants 1 and 2 about their motives. The idea was that anyone could have acted similarly and it was very important to know their reasoning. They were supposed to think and feel as if they had been in charge of that class and they needed to find their own explanations for those actions. The difference between simply questioning Participants 1 and 2 about it and trying to perform as if they were these participants is the difference between speaking as narrative and speaking as performance. As mentioned before, in speaking as narrative, one simply listens to what the reasons were for the ones in charge and discusses them. In speaking as performance, one has the chance not only to understand, but also to feel and react as the teachers did. In this way, they create a broader realm of possibilities to act in their own practices. After that, the participants chose some aspects to discuss. One of them was the question: Why was there a consecutive translation? The excerpts below were taken from this discussion.3 (2)

Project coordinator:

Participant 3 (a studentteacher for a year already):

Project coordinator:

‘There are two questions here regarding the use of Portuguese and English in the class: Why was there a consecutive translation? And Why was the class conducted both in Portuguese and English?’ ‘I think it’s because if the goal depends on the questions and instructions in English and they are not translated, they will not understand and will not achieve the goal.’ ‘So you think it is the objective of the instructions that defines the reason for consecutive translation?’

246

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Participant 3:

‘Not that way! I think, departing from the goals of the class, that to ask the question in English would only compromise the first objective of the class.’

In the extract above, Participant 3’s first utterance presents her perception of the actions towards the group, explaining why she thinks the consecutive translation was necessary. She tries to support her opinion by stating that the goal could only be achieved by translation. Even when the project coordinator mirrors her answer and requests clarification, she presents her version of what could have happened had the teachers adopted a different course of action. Participant 3 not only states what the other did, but also she creates her own reasoning for doing it. She does not criticize or point out what should have been done but assumes it as if it were her own actions. By doing so, she can experience a sense of doing without actually doing, which is part of the idea of ‘play’ expressed by Vygotsky (1930/1978). She goes beyond herself to find possibilities of being that were not her own but which she can learn by acting out through the experience of Participants 1 and 2. Therefore, the first two participants’ experience promoted a means for Participant 3 to appropriate and create a culture of teaching which she did not actually live. Following the discussion, Participant 4 (an experienced teacher acting as teacher-educator for more than a year in the project) presents his opinion in a similar fashion to Participant 3’s. He points out that using one language or the other depends on the objective the teachers have. His expertise is expressed not only in the way he answers the question but also in the way he exemplifies it: ‘the teacher prepares questions in English . . . because he has these goals [mentions some] or he prepares it in Portuguese because he has these other goals.’ Using language as narrative and his previous experience, Participant 4 shares with the group his understanding of what was going on in the scenes observed. Although later on, both Participants 3 and 4 will suggest other possibilities for these actions, at this point they are trying to make sense of them in order to get to the reasons that may have led the teacher-educator and student-teacher to act in the way they did. They try to reflect on them as if they had been their own actions. It would have been definitely easier for all the participants to simply say what they thought had happened in the class, and then state their criticism and suggestions regarding how to act in a different way to Participants 1 and 2. This way of acting would be faster for the discussion and for the development of the meeting. However, participants would stand in their own positions and would not view reality from a different perspective; they would not feel as the others did when acting and would not find creative paths for their own ways of coping with that. On the other hand, Participants 1 and 2 would simply receive

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

247

ready-made suggestions on good practices to be repeated, in a mechanical teacher-training format. Following the description of the lesson, Participant 3 explains that she thinks that, during the lesson, Participant 1’s questions were asked in English to Participant 2 and she was supposed to translate them to the students. Then the project coordinator asks about the objective of asking the questions in English and in Portuguese. Participant 4 states that it was a first contact with the social activity and the first contact with the theme. At this point, the project coordinator turns the question to Participant 2 who had not stated her thoughts on the matter yet. (3)

Project coordinator: Participant 2:

Project coordinator:

Participant 5:

‘Was that what you thought [Participant 2]?’ ‘Yes, that was it. I thought that if I just spoke in English I would not get close to them. I did not know if I asked them in English whether they like to dance or not and their opinion about such a band, they would understand. I had never worked in this context so I did not know what to do. So I thought that I should translate what [Participant 1] said, and that would be the best procedure I could use.’ ‘Ok, [Participant 2], what was the objective of the way they organized their instruction, [Participant 5, a more experienced studentteacher]?’ ‘I think they wanted to establish a bond with students, or better be understood. Be understood.’

Participant 4 shakes his head in agreement and so does Participant 2. The project coordinator questions Participant 3 who makes faces and fidgets as if she wants to speak. She says she prefers not to comment as the project coordinator does not want them to evaluate the procedure yet but to understand it from different perspectives. Then the project coordinator directs the question to Participant 1. (4)

Participant 1: Project coordinator: Participant 1: Project coordinator:

‘There is the issue of establishing the bond with the teacher and the group. The rules were being established.’ ‘At that moment do you think you were establishing a rule with them?’ ‘We were starting to do it, weren’t we?’ ‘Ha . . .’

248

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Participant 3: Project coordinator:

‘But if there was no instruction, how can we say there were rules?’ ‘You really feel like answering all the questions [said jokingly as everyone makes noise and jokes]. Wait a bit. You have already been there. Let the others think a bit more.’

At this point the group starts to make jokes with Participant 3 because she cannot control her desire to present her opinion. In this excerpt, it is explicit that the project coordinator also wants newcomers to have a chance to reflect upon and participate in the discussion. If more experienced peers who had had that practice before were the only ones to present their opinions, the newcomers would feel like they simply belonged to the receiving end, without exercising their potentials for participation, reflection and the reconstruction of their own practices. Contrarily, in the case stated here, newcomers exercise legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991: 29) as they also take turns and give their contribution to the development of the performance and discussion. Questions were addressed to Participants 2, 5 and 1, even though Participant 3 wanted to hold the floor for longer. In response to that, the project coordinator interrupted her in a humorous way and she was followed by the other participants. It is important to mention that the atmosphere in the group is very relaxing and everyone feels comfortable taking part in the discussions. As for Participant 3’s participation, it should be brought to light that a year before, she was a freshman at the university and a newcomer to the project. During that meeting her actions seemed to show her full participation as the result of the same process Participant 2 was now going through. Participant 3’s previous experience both in teaching and meeting the group on different occasions worked as performatory ZPD, enabling her to contribute to this meeting in a more critical and creative way. Also, Participant 1’s involvement mirrors Participant 3’s in previous years and Participant 4 even makes jokes about it, saying things like, ‘I am you tomorrow’ and ‘This is exactly what I said when I first came here’. In the drama performed in the meeting, transformations are enacted by and for all participants and they can see and feel them through the different moments of the meetings. So the meeting was simultaneously enacted as speaking as performance and as speaking as narrative. It worked as narrative because they were all discussing a class that had been observed, and as performance because they were doing it within certain roles which posed restraints to their ways of participating. In this way the movement from center to periphery and from periphery to center, between newcomers and more experienced peers and between teacher-educators and student-teachers was more flexible. The only role that was kept mostly unchanged throughout the meeting as performance was the leading conduction which was completely in the

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

249

hands of the project coordinator who determined the roles and the rules for participating in the performance. During the meeting, the project coordinator posed questions and mirrored the answers. She also controlled turn taking so as to give everyone a chance to participate. In spite of having the same role throughout the meeting, she was also challenged not to give ready-made answers and not to lecture about what to do with regard to the principles of the project. As common conducting procedures, presenting the principles and suggesting how to act are reproductive ways of enacting the role of group coordinator in pre-service teacher education. Considering that discussions on elite bilingual education are in the very introductory stages in Brazil and that very few scholars or practitioners read or discuss about the issues considered in these monthly meetings, conducting reflection on these issues is a rather difficult performance. Therefore, the project coordinator was also enacting a role in how to carry out the discussion which was a challenging topic for her. In this sense, meaning construction in this context is a matter of really listening and responding to different voices and senses in order to have a chance to find creative ways of approaching these questions. Later in the discussion, restating the main issue, the project coordinator questioned again, now with a controversial example: ‘But the essential question here is: Why do you think speaking in Portuguese creates a bond? There are so many teachers who teach the Portuguese language in Portuguese, math in Portuguese and they create no bonds at all. So is the language you use responsible for creating the bond?’ Participant 6, another new studentteacher, for the first time in the group, said ‘No’ in a very shy way; the project coordinator asked her to clarify her reasoning, explaining in a humorous manner that, in that group, everyone had to provide arguments to support what they say. So Participant 6 declared: ‘I think there are many things that create bonds: the way of looking, a well-planned class for that specific group. So if they are teens you will have to be attentive to what bands they are listening to, what is going on, which music band they like at that present moment. So you can create bonds because you speak about the same “issues”, not because you speak the same “language”, Portuguese or English.’ To this, Participants 3 and 4 shake their heads in agreement. In this conversation, the newcomer used her experience as an assistant in a bilingual school to present possible ways of acting and to enrich the discussion. At this time, she moves from the periphery to a central role, using her expertise as the main support for her opinion. Her narrative serves as the trigger for the project coordinator to question Participant 3, also remembering past experiences in the project. (5)

Project coordinator:

‘So how did you act in order to create bonds with the very small kids that you worked with last year?’

250

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Participant 3:

‘We would do anything to win through. We would dress in a different way, bring materials, draw pictures, dance.’

While Participant 3 speaks, Participant 4 shakes his head in agreement. Participants 1 and 2 followed the conversation in a very attentive way. (6)

Participant 7:

‘Grandma. You were the grandma, weren’t you?’ Participant 6: ‘Affection.’ Project coordinator: ‘Get close to the kids.’ Participant 6: ‘Yes, touch them. Make them feel accepted. Play!’ Participant 4: ‘And making them feel accepted is so very often not in the language, and so much in the physical posture.’ Participant 5: ‘It is a word you say too, or the tone of voice.’ Participant 4: ‘You can even talk about hard things to them but they may feel accepted.’ Participant 3: ‘And without many resources we managed to . . .’ Participant 5 (who worked ‘Sometimes we used so few resources with Participant 3 previously): but we managed to connect . . .’

In this exchange, participants use their voices to express their suggestions about how to create bonds. Different participants use their previous experiences both as teachers and as students in order to present opinions and suggestions. After some more discussion on the issue, Participant 1 takes his turn to check his perception, clearly trying to recreate his understanding of the situation he and Participant 2 presented. (7)

Participant 1:

Project coordinator: Participant 1:

‘So what you are remarking now is that what [Participant 8] did is creating bonds?’ (Participant 8 was a French teacher-educator who only spoke in Portuguese to her group in the first five minutes of her first class and never again. She had just presented her dissertation and everyone had attended her presentation or read her work). ‘It is creating rules, yes.’ ‘Not bonds?’

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

Project coordinator:

Participant 4 (simultaneously): Project coordinator:

251

‘It is also creating bonds, yes. Because as they said (pointing to some members of the group) it is the clear rules and the procedures that students can understand that help creating bonds. You do not even need to like the teacher. The bonds are not to you specifically but to what you are doing. The bonds have to be related to what they are doing.’ ‘To what they are doing.’ ‘And if we are speaking in Portuguese like in the episode we saw, the students are not creating bonds with the culture and language of the other, with the object of teaching and learning in the international language, with the different, which is one of the focuses of our project.’

In this excerpt, the project coordinator finally presents her position too. She restates the principle of the project that advocates that students should feel involved with the reconstruction of their selves, with the appropriation of new cultures, with learning to cope with the different and with difficulties. Her voice helps synthetize what the whole group had been discussing previously. In the movement from periphery to center, Participants 1 and 2 took part in the discussion with the whole group. The whole group was both appropriating and creating the Multicultural Education Project through generating performatory ZPD.

Concluding Remarks: Lessons and Meetings as Revolutionary Activities The two examples of the activities (lesson and meeting) from the Multicultural Education Project network show a clear intentional interrelationship. In the network involving planning, conducting and evaluating teachinglearning activities, participants were learning new roles as teachers and teacher-educators. Participants had to develop courageous attitudes, that is, assuming the roles of teachers in a new context and discussing their practices in order for all of them to develop a cognitive-affective awareness of their actions. This awareness turns into a means in the transformation not

252

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

only of the ways in which specific participants act, but also in the whole group’s way of living ‘a head taller’ than they are (Vygotsky, 1930/1978). However, it does not happen without difficulties. The project coordinator does not always manage to control her tendency to present suggestions and ideas immediately after the first questions. Furthermore, many experienced teachers have difficulties in trying out new possibilities when they have previously always been very successful. This makes it hard for them to understand the necessity to adapt and to transform in the face of the completely new situation proposed by the project and by the choice of bilingual education as opposed to EFL. Student-teachers also find it overwhelming to cope with the enormous responsibility of conducting a class, having to plan and evaluate it weekly. Everyone is constantly on the spot, facing their difficulties and questions, and they often feel frustrated. Conflicts are present every day, since all involved are looking for ways to learn from what is being done. At all times, the idea that one can always go beyond oneself is part of the game. And it is not easy. However, the results of the three years of the project have proved that all the affective-cognitive-paradigmatic confrontation, crisis and reinvention are in many senses very well worth it for all the participants. The students reported on their success in school as a result of having engaged in the project, about how they learned how to do new things and how they could understand or speak the international languages. In addition, they expressed their surprise at learning that they could do so much in the international language. They alleged that they never really believed they were going to be able to do those things. A teen from the French group who worked with the social activity participating in a music talent show in Paris emphasized that they ‘really went to Paris’, in the sense that the experience of the lessons was so intense that he felt as if they had really been there. The student-teachers, teacher-educators and project coordinator have had opportunities to present the result of their work at international conferences and to reformulate their practices. For example, the participants presented their work and research in the project at the last two meetings of the International Symposium on Bilingualism and Bilingual Education in Latin America (BILINGLATAM) in Brazil (2009) and in Mexico (2011) as well as at CLAFPL (Congresso Latino Americano de Formação de Professores de Línguas). As for the student-teachers, one of them – who has already graduated – took up a job in a bilingual school and has been praised by her employers for her expertise in working in challenging situations. Also, the student-teachers involved in the project have reported on their success in university subjects related to pedagogical topics once they displayed their practical and theoretical contributions to the class, and have been well evaluated for their collaborative and creative actions in different contexts. Teacher-educators have reported on the changes they implemented in their EFL lessons as a result of the experience they had in the project. Four

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

253

teacher-educators in the project since 2008 have taken up positions as school coordinators, principals and teacher-educators. They all have discussed how transformative the process has been to their lives. All four of them concluded their MA degrees, but are still voluntarily involved in the project for its allencompassing impact on everyone involved. The project coordinator has learned a great deal about directing people to reflect on their actions and rethinking her own teacher-education process. She has designed new projects and given support to different bilingual schools, based on the results of the project. Furthermore, her need to learn more about bilingual education has become part of the issues raised during the study group on bilingual education, which has provided the group with new ideas and the project with possible new ways to be developed. The outcomes and drawbacks of this research project for pre-service bilingual teacher education represent an attempt to get the academy involved with a demand from society. The questions, reflections and methodological procedures of the project may indicate important issues to be considered for an effective program for bilingual teacher education. The discussion of the movement of participants from peripheral to central participation and the interplay of speaking as performance and speaking as narrative are some of the topics that could be looked at. It is high time universities went beyond what they are already doing, just as the participants in this project have done.

Acknowledgements This chapter was written with the assistance of CNPq, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. The author thanks the group of participants of the Multicultural Education Project and the Language in Activities at School Contexts researchers for their continuous challenge and perseverance in the quest for better conditions of teaching–learning in varied contexts. They are always the inspiration for this and all the other pieces she writes about. The author is especially thankful to Maria Cristina Meaney, Daniele Gazzotti, Antonieta Megale, Airton Pretini Jr, Sarah Weiler, Maria Cristina Damianovic and Larissa Martins for their contributions.

Notes (1) In accordance with Lev Vygotsky’s use of the Russian term obuchenie, the compound form ‘teaching-learning’ is used in this chapter. (2) Because the context where the lessons take place is not a school and the researchers work there for no more than three hours a week, it cannot be considered equivalent to a bilingual school. Therefore, researchers chose to name it a ‘bilingual educationlike context’, since the perspective developed in the classrooms is similar to the one enacted in bilingual schools.

254

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

(3) These discussions were conducted in Portuguese. The sentences were translated into English by the author.

References Athayde, C. and Bill, M.V. (2006) Falcão – Meninos do tráfico. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Objetiva. Baker, C. (2001) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cavalcanti, M.C. (1999) Estudos sobre educação bilíngue e escolarização em contexto de minorias linguísticas no Brasil. DELTA 15, 15385–15417. Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education. David, A.M.F. (2007) As concepções de ensino-aprendizagem do projeto político-pedagógico de uma escola de educação bilíngüe. Master’s thesis, LAEL, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo. de Mejía, A.M. (2002) Power, Prestige, and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gentili, P. and Alencar, C. (2001) Educar na esperança em tempos de desencanto (4th edn). Petrópolis: Vozes. Grimmett, P. (1988) Introduction. In P.P. Grimmett and G.L. Erickson (eds) Reflection in Teacher Education (pp. 5–15). New York: Teachers College Press. Hamers, V. and Blanc, M. (2000) Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holzman, L. (2002) Vygostsky’s zone of proximal development: The human activity zone. Presentation to the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Holzman, L. (2009) Vygotsky at Work and Play. London/New York: Routledge. Holzman, L. and Newman, F. (2012) Activity and performance (and their discourses) in social therapeutic practice. In A. Lock and T. Strong (eds) Discursive Perspectives in Therapeutic Practice (pp. 184–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liberali, F.C. (2006a) Creative chain in the process of becoming a whole. Paper presented at the 7th International Vygotsky Memorial Conference, Moscow. Liberali, F.C. (2006b) A formação crítica do educador na perspectiva da lingüística aplicada. In L. Rottava and S.S. Santos (eds) Ensino/aprendizagem de línguas: Língua estrangeira (pp. 15–34). Ijui: Editora da UNIJUI. Liberali, F.C. (2008) Formação crítica de educadores: Questões fundamentais. São Paulo: Cabral Editora e Livraria Universitária. Magalhães, M.C.C. (2006) A pesquisa colaborativa e a formação do professor alfabetizador. In S.S. Fidalgo and A.S. Shimoura (eds) Pesquisa crítica de colaboração: um percurso na formação docente (pp. 48–55). São Paulo: Ductor. Mahn, H. and John-Steiner, V. (2002) The gift of confidence: A Vygotskian view of emotions. In G. Wells and G. Claxton (eds) Learning for Life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural Perspectives on the Future of Education (pp. 45–58). Oxford: Blackwell. Marcelino, M. (2009) Bilinguismo no Brasil: Significado e expectativas. Intercâmbio 19, 1–22. Meaney, M.C. (2008) Argumentação na formação do professor na escola bilíngue. Unpublished master’s thesis, LAEL, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo. Megale, A.H. (2005) Bilingüismo e educação bilíngüe – discutindo conceitos. Revista virtual de estudos da linguagem 3, 1–13.

Student-teachers and Teacher-educators E xper ience New Roles

255

Megale, A.H. and Liberali, F.C. (2011) Olhares sobre a educação bilíngue brasielira. Revista carta educação 6, 58–60. Mello, H.A.B. (2002) O português é uma alavanca para que eles possam desenvolver o inglês: Eventos de ensino aprendizagem em uma sala de aula de ESL de uma escola bilíngue. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, São Paulo. Miascovsky, H.W. (2008) A produção criativa na atividade sessão reflexiva em contextos de educação bilíngue. Unpublished master’s thesis, LAEL, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo. Moura, S.A. (2009) Com quantas línguas se faz um país? Concepções e práticas de ensino em uma sala de aula na educação bilíngue. Unpublished master’s thesis, Faculdade de Educação, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. Newman, F. and Holzman, L. (1993) Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary Scientist. London: Routledge. Sánchez Vázquez, A. (2007) Filosofia da práxis. São Paulo: Expressão Popular. Stetsenko, A. (2004) Introduction to Vygotsky’s ‘The tool and sign in child development’. In R. Rieber and D. Robbinson (eds) Essential Vygotsky (pp. 499–510). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Vygotsky, L.S. (1930/1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1930/2009) Imaginação e criação na infância. São Paulo: Ática. Vygotsky, L.S. (1934) A construção do pensamento e da linguagem. Tradução de Paulo Bezerra. São Paulo: Martins Fontes. Vygotsky, L.S. (1934/1987) The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky. New York: Plenum.

12 Potential Drawbacks and Actual Benefits of CLIL Initiatives in Public Secondary Schools Miguel García López and Anthony Bruton

Preamble This chapter begins by considering some of the potential drawbacks of the approach known as content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in public secondary schools, mainly within the current Spanish context, from an academic and research perspective. This is then contrasted with an experiential perspective concerning the benefits that a specific CLIL initiative may have brought to a particular Spanish high school. The outcome will hopefully be a balanced view for the future. The initial assumption about CLIL was that ‘there is the teaching and learning of both language and subject areas (e.g. science, mathematics, etc.) in the same classroom, at the same time’ (Barwell, 2005: 143). Supposedly, we are dealing with any language of the EU (European Union), taught and learned as a foreign language, although in fact it is usually English. However, more recently CLIL also seems to include instruction in other languages (Coyle et al., 2010; Dalton-Puffer, 2007), so that there might be combinations of teaching certain content in the first language (L1) and then in the foreign language (hereafter FL), or teaching the relevant FL and then the content, since the just-mentioned original formula may typically not be practiced (Mehisto, 2008). Of course, these latter options do not presume that time is necessarily saved, as would be expected with the simultaneous learning of language and content in the same classroom (Leung, 2005), but rather that 256

Potent ial Drawback s and Ac tual Benef it s of CL IL Init iat ives

257

additional FL exposure takes place, which is not the same thing. In such cases, the assumption is that the teaching of academic content in the FL gives the FL more immediate and authentic purpose (Coyle et al., 2010; Lorenzo et al., 2010) than it would receive in traditional grammar-based teaching or even communicative language teaching (CLT), though Dalton-Puffer (2007) views CLIL as a natural extension of CLT. A fundamental premise of CLIL practices is that there will be gains in FL learning over previous practices with no detriment to the learning of academic content and that there might also be gains in the latter (Gajo, 2007).

Communicative Language Teaching Currently, most FL programs recognize that the goal is language-ascommunication (Widdowson, 1978), so that communication is not only the end, but also the means (Savignon, 2005; Widdowson, 1990). In this sense, learners communicate to learn while they learn to communicate (Das, 1985), partly through negotiating meaning in context: Once meaning is taken into account, matters of negotiation and interpretation are seen to be at the very heart of a communicative curriculum. Language in use, that is, language in context or setting, can no longer be ignored. (Savignon, 1987: 17) The assumption is that there must be some form of meaningful exchange, including some sense of doubt (Johnson, 1979), and a non-linguistic outcome (Skehan, 1996), not just in the spoken medium (Thompson, 1996). When it comes to the negotiation of meaning, one typical way of creating meaningful exchanges in the classroom is through peer work where there is an information gap (Johnson, 1982). The gap creates the need to communicate in order to combine the information in the resolution of the problem, although Savignon (2005, 2007) does not consider peer work to be essential to CLT, in contrast to Orafi and Borg (2009), for example. Furthermore, these latter authors consider it to be fundamental that there be meaningful exchanges in the target language, if a course is to be considered communicative. These tenets tend to be true of task-based teaching as well, where the pre-task, task, post-task framework prevails (Skehan, 1996, 1998). In many countries around the world, however, CLT does not reach the majority of the FL classrooms in public high schools, not even in Australia (Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999) or the UK (Klapper, 2003). It is not unusual for what is called traditional teaching to prevail. Traditional teaching is characterized as a combination of grammar-translation and audiolingual procedures (Hu, 2005; Simpson, 2008), with more focus on the written medium than the oral message, usually in a teacher-fronted scenario where the written medium – often

258

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

in the form of exercises – and the use of the L1 are prevalent. In a survey conducted by the present writers across more than 15 studies, these practices seem to be generalized in public schools around the world, so there is greater convergence than divergence in public EFL classes (see Mitchell & Lee, 2003, as an example). Sometimes traditional methods are supplemented with features of CLT, such as group work (Hu, 2005), but it is more likely that CLT practices will be adopted by private high schools, as Razmjoo and Riazi (2006) document in Iran, which Gupta (2005) attributes to social demand driven by economic development. Developmental factors are probably responsible for the urban– rural and coastal–non-coastal contrasts in the adoption of some CLT practices noted by Hu (2003) in China, as well. However, in general, predominantly CLT practices are not very typical in most public high school EFL classes around the world, which is a major concern for many public school systems, though some changes might be afoot in very diverse contexts, such as Armenia (Feryok, 2008), South Korea (Han, 2008), Thailand (Hayes, 2009) and Vietnam (Lewis & McCook, 2002).

Initial Concerns About CLIL in Andalusia In 2005 the region of Andalusia in southern Spain adopted a version of CLIL known as a ‘Plurilingual Program’; it was introduced by the regional educational authorities in collaboration with some university professors. In the PISA assessment (PISA Report, 2006), Andalusia fell well below the European average on all counts. Furthermore, on the Eurobarometer, Andalusia is below the average for achievement in foreign languages; Spain, in general, figures somewhat negatively (Casal & Moore, 2009). In adopting a version of CLIL, the regional educational authorities presumably believe that combining the below-average teaching of content by teachers of limited FL proficiency with the below-average teaching of languages is somehow going to improve both and, maybe indirectly, raise the below-average performance in L1 literacy skills as well. In most cases, students in public schools can choose to be in the CLIL stream, which has resulted in a form of covert selection; in general, the students who choose the CLIL program are: • • • • •

more motivated; earn higher initial grades; demonstrate higher levels of FL proficiency; often take private FL lessons beyond their regular school schedule; have parental support for the program.

Similar profiles are attested to in several recently published sources (Alonso et al., 2008; Lasagabaster, 2008; Villarreal Olaizola & García Mayo, 2009).

Potent ial Drawback s and Ac tual Benef it s of CL IL Init iat ives

259

Inevitably, these students will perform better than the rest. However, there remain two basic questions from an objective point of view. First, would students with these characteristics have done as well – or perhaps even better – without CLIL in the learning of content and/or the FL? Secondly, what happens to the rest of the students?

Some Other Debatable Issues A significant argument in favor of CLIL is the assumption that the focus on content gives more purpose to the learning of the FL than it would receive in general FL learning situations (Lorenzo et al., 2010) and that ‘there are signs that older learners are increasingly unwilling to learn now for use later, but prefer to learn-as-you-use and use-as-you-learn, which suits immediacy of purpose common to the times’ (Marsh, 2003: 2). In fact, the opposite could be argued about an academic content focus: Netten and Germain refer to the fact that ‘immersion does not respond well to the needs of all students; approximately 20% of students drop the program before Grade 5, and very few students with learning challenges or learning problems participate’ (Government of New Brunswick, 2005, as cited in Netten & Germain, 2009: 779). Will students necessarily see more point in studying math in English as a foreign language (EFL) than in their native language (Spanish)? Furthermore, in many Spanish regions not only is the FL chosen somewhat arbitrarily – though English usually prevails – but also the range of subjects chosen to be studied in the FL may be equally arbitrary. History, science, religion, computer science, classical culture and modern English literature are listed by Ruiz de Zarobe and Lasagabaster (2010). It seems more likely that there is a selection of high-achieving students who will want to earn high grades regardless of the medium of instruction (Muñoz, 2007). Furthermore, the issue of FL cultural content is included by Coyle (2007) and Coyle et al. (2010) as one of the pillars of CLIL, but it tends to be marginalized in practice. If CLIL is adopted, there is the additional question of if, and where, more conversational FL learning might take place. When it comes to the implementation of CLIL, teaching and learning content in another language is obviously harder than doing so in the L1, and it seems questionable whether it can actually contribute to FL development, precisely because of knowledge gaps, especially when teachers and learners must deal with conceptual novelty. Dalton-Puffer (2007) found very little interaction in some Austrian schools with teachers highly proficient in both language and content, and there was a similar lack of interaction in Estonia, where most group work resulted in students resorting to their first language (Mehisto, 2008); incidence of the same was reported in Italy (Coonan, 2007). In a FL learning context, it is assumed that most of the students share the same L1, and typically when the going gets tough the L1 prevails. If the

260

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

content is problematic, it will probably be equally complicated to focus on the FL. In other words, it will be necessary to gauge the level of language and content very precisely, which is certainly no easy matter, especially if some of the content teachers’ FL proficiency is limited. Nevertheless, it is possible that these negative factors can be turned on their head. It is precisely the challenge and the voluntary nature of some CLIL initiatives – both for teaching staff and learners – which might be the real impetus for improved learning. If the teachers and students are willing to make extra effort while maintaining a positive disposition, this might overcome some of the potential pitfalls to CLIL which will be addressed later in this chapter. There may be additional support factors as well, such as additional teachers, training and classroom materials, for instance. In order to examine the effects of a CLIL initiative, it would have to be observed in practice, which will be the focus of the latter part of this chapter, preceded by coverage of some empirical research results.

Further Empirical Research Results One of the central issues in both content teaching in an FL and in CLIL is the effect on the learning of academic content. In an extensive study in Hong Kong – one of the few of its kind – Marsh et al. (2000) concluded that the students who received content in the FL (English) scored lower than their counterparts receiving content in their L1 in geography, history, science and, to a lesser extent, in math. The students who were particularly disadvantaged were the brighter students with limited English. The learners who most benefited were the ones who started with the highest levels of English. Furthermore, the most important instructional variable was the amount of English actually used in the English classes, since it competed with L1 use. This study raises a number of questions. First, the students being taught in the FL are affected differently from those receiving instruction in their native language. Also, the type of instruction in the FL is quite important. Furthermore, the fact that the English-medium schools had academically better than average students initially gave a falsely positive impression of their achievement in the content courses, until initial scores and proficiencies were taken into account. The final point is that, despite the fact that some bright students suffered from receiving instruction in the FL, they persevered because they believed that being more proficient in English would help them later. In the Spanish context, a number of studies have explored the effects of CLIL on FL development over time and on students’ language-learning attitudes. Without going into these studies one by one, a few generalizations can be made. On the whole, CLIL students score higher than non-CLIL students on comparative language tests over comparable periods of time. However,

Potent ial Drawback s and Ac tual Benef it s of CL IL Init iat ives

261

there have to be a number of provisos. Typically, CLIL and non-CLIL groups co-exist in the same schools and the former are generally self-selective. In this case, if the non-CLIL students express less positive attitudes and tend to be of lower FL proficiency from the outset, comparative effects of CLIL would be rather relative. However, in many cases there are no pre-test results (Lasagabaster, 2008; Lorenzo et al., 2010), making it impossible to calculate average, comparative or relative gains. In one study (Ruiz de Zarobe, 2007), the CLIL group with 110 hours per year more English over the two years of the study did not outperform the non-CLIL group significantly. In Ruiz de Zarobe (2008) it seems that the non-CLIL students started with much lower average scores, but more or less maintained or even closed the gap, with many fewer hours of FL instruction. In fact, it seems CLIL groups at best maintain their differences with nonCLIL groups, after starting off with somewhat higher average FL proficiency scores, as has been found in several studies (Alonso et al., 2008; Navés & Victori, 2010; San Isidro, 2010). The CLIL students in the 2009 study by Lasagabaster and Sierra both started, and ended, with more positive attitudes than the non-CLIL students, but their attitudes declined while the attitudes of the non-CLIL students rose, thus closing the gap. In many of these cases, the majority of the CLIL students also receive additional FL instruction outside the classroom either after school, during the evenings or at the weekend. Furthermore, in the Lorenzo et al. (2010) study in Andalusia, there were native-speaker language assistants, who would serve not only as additional faculty, but also as extra teachers who would actually use the FL more in class (some other characteristics of these assistants will be described later). It is fundamental to ensure that pre-tests and post-tests are used in research studies of CLIL programs. In the cases where no pre-test scores are available, the results, of course, mean very little, since the differences may have existed from the outset and the researchers can show neither gains nor losses. However, it is misleading to compare the CLIL and non-CLIL groups on the pre-test scores and then the post-test scores and, for example, claim that there are significant differences. What is crucial is the evolution of both groups and the relationship between them, taking into account such factors as extra hours or the amount of English used in the classroom. There may be other factors at work, such as extra teachers, that have nothing necessarily to do with CLIL.

Positive Effects of the Implementation of a CLIL Program in Andalusia: An Experiential View Although it is necessary to be cautious with the final results of the research on the benefits of CLIL for the reasons mentioned above, it is also true that the implementation of CLIL classes has had some positive educational

262

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

effects, perhaps because it has encouraged some good practices that should be part of everyday FL teaching. If we look at the 30 core features of CLIL methodology (Mehisto et al., 2008: 29), many of them can be considered good practice in CLT in general, as can be seen from the following examples: • • • • • • • • • •

organizing learning though cross-curricular themes and projects; supporting reflection on the learning process; using routine activities and discourse; displaying language and content throughout the classroom; building student confidence to experiment with language; guiding access to authentic learning materials and environments; increasing student language awareness; making regular connections between learning and students’ lives; favoring peer-cooperative work; teachers acting as facilitators.

We can go through the list and check that most of the central characteristics which are considered CLIL practices follow the same guidelines that SLA specialists and English language teacher-researchers have recommended for the last 30 years (Harmer, 2001). To begin with, the functional aspects of language learning have been promoted by the CLIL program in Andalusia. CLT proposes that language has to be used to accomplish things so that learners perceive its practical and functional uses. This is the basis of the current curriculum for languages in Andalusia (Junta de Andalucía, 2007). This functionality has been placed at the center of the syllabus, thanks to the implementation of a CLIL program where language is the instrument used to learn other subjects. The use of the FL as the vehicle of communication in the classroom should be part of everyday lessons in non-CLIL and CLIL groups alike, although this is something that has been especially promoted in the latter as a result of its obvious instrumentality. One of the central tenets of the communicative approach is the focus on meaning. Unfortunately, the common practice of FL teaching in many schools is still based on structuralism and grammar teaching. Research into second language acquisition has demonstrated that language acquisition takes place when attention focuses on meaning (Long, 1996). This central pillar of the communicative approach has also been emphasized thanks to the implementation of the CLIL program in Andalusia. The use of the FL to learn regular subjects encourages a syllabus where meaning and content are prioritized. The structural syllabus plays a secondary role, because in CLIL classrooms the contents determine the structures to be taught and practiced rather than the other way around. The current curricular policy implemented in Andalusia states that all languages should be integrated, and the official ‘Integrated Language

Potent ial Drawback s and Ac tual Benef it s of CL IL Init iat ives

263

Curriculum’ (Junta de Andalucía, 2008) should be the ultimate goal of language teachers, regardless of the language they teach (i.e. L1 or L2). According to this official proposal, the curriculum for the Spanish language is the same as the curriculum for foreign languages: a pragmatic syllabus based on the functional use of the four skills. This is a characteristic of the extended curriculum rather than of the CLIL program. However, the implementation of the Integrated Language Curriculum has become a central characteristic of CLIL classes, where the language teachers are typically those who are working towards this integration. Cross-curricular connections have been considered part of good teaching practice for a long time, at least theoretically. The recommended way of designing teaching units in the curriculum is through centers of interest and topic work, choosing centers of interest connected with students’ lives. The use of cross-curricular themes connected with values (such as health education, consumer education or road safety) has been promoted in official decrees and orders since the 1990s (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, 1993). From this perspective, syllabus designers and practitioners have to make an effort to break down the barriers between subjects, because learning takes place when connections between different disciplines are established. Implementation of this recommendation in the general curriculum has not really taken place because of the strict division of knowledge in specific departments in the Spanish educational system. CLIL has broken down these barriers and finally teachers who belong to different departments at their schools are working together. Is the establishment of these connections something particular to CLIL? Of course not, but the introduction of CLIL classes has promoted this interconnection between departments which should have been part of mainstream education for a long time. The use of authentic materials, and their adaptation and contextualization, is another principle of good teaching practice. Unfortunately, this principle is often forgotten in mainstream practice due to the use – and abuse – of textbooks and related materials produced by publishers, which may be poorly contextualized, if at all. The curriculum is on many occasions dictated by these publishers rather than by the educational authorities or the teachers themselves. From this perspective, one problem with the implementation of a CLIL program is the shortage of ready-made resources and the need to find and create learning materials (Coyle et al., 2010: 87). But what can be considered a pitfall has become an advantage because this need has pushed teachers to use authentic materials and also to create their own, which they adapt to the context where they are working (Moore & Lorenzo, 2007). This involvement of teachers in the quest for and creation of materials should be a characteristic of normal teaching practice and not a specific feature of CLIL. But the fact is that CLIL has promoted this function of the teacher that unfortunately is so frequently forgotten. This community of teacher-researchers and materials designers has established an online

264

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

platform where they can meet and exchange materials. The site is called Ferias del plurilingüismo (multilingualism fairs) and it is organized by the local teachers’ centers offering in-service education programs and teacher development initiatives (see, for example, http://www.cepalcala.org/cep1/01_accion. php?id=159). The need to find materials has coincided in time with the increasing use of new technologies in the classroom. The implementation of ICT (information and communication technologies) schools in Andalusia has gone hand in hand with the CLIL program and the use of new technologies has become one of its main characteristics. Again, the use of authentic webpages, moodle, blogs and Web 2.0 is not particular to CLIL, but in CLIL classes the use of these technologies appears widespread, perhaps because of the need to find, share and experiment with new materials. Functional teaching and learning, focus on meaning, cross-curricular connections, teacher coordination, the use of authentic materials, the development of new teaching materials and the use of new technologies are some of the characteristics of good teaching practice that are not specific to CLIL at all, but which have been fostered with the implementation of CLIL classes. A good number of the benefits that can be attributed to CLIL are not intrinsic to CLIL, but rather are the result of the implementation of best practices that should really be part of a mainstream curriculum. Let us now take a look at other collateral benefits, obtained by the ways in which this implementation has been carried out in Andalusia.

Additional Benefits of the Incorporation of CLIL Classes in Schools The very first condition for a new program to work is to have motivated professionals to initiate, create and experiment with new ideas. The Andalusian CLIL program started out voluntarily with the creation of projects designed by the teachers themselves. Those projects evolved out of coordinated efforts and the teachers who decided to participate were the enthusiastic ones who knew that the time they had to invest would go well beyond the limits of their regular schedules. As stated above, these teachers knew that the materials had to be created and they knew that they had to update their computer skills and, for content teachers, their FL skills as well. This implicit self-selection of teachers has undoubtedly been one of the reasons for the success of the CLIL program. The teachers of content subjects have received the beneficial influence of FL teachers who are more familiar with the communicative approach to language teaching. This has moved some of them away from a more traditional way of teaching (where the primary role of the teacher is a transmitter of knowledge) to a more open and flexible role, where the teacher becomes more

Potent ial Drawback s and Ac tual Benef it s of CL IL Init iat ives

265

of a facilitator, organizer and communicator. On the other hand, the language teachers have also found a whole new horizon for updating their language skills in areas that they had rarely if ever experienced, such as art, music, science, technology or history. This has been a motivating challenge for language teachers who have had to open their minds towards less familiar, or perhaps even unknown, academic fields. These mutual benefits created by the coordination between language and content teachers have brought a foreign-language-friendly atmosphere to the schools providing CLIL classes; content teachers have their questions about the FL answered by the language experts, and language teachers learn specialized vocabulary and related information from the content specialists who teach the non-language subjects. This atmosphere has also been encouraged by the inclusion of language assistants, another collateral benefit of the schools with the CLIL program. All schools (CLIL and non-CLIL) should have language assistants, as this new position may actually contribute more than anything else to the language-friendly atmosphere. Students and teachers feel the need to interact with them, thus becoming the most authentic ‘material’ teachers can use in their classes. Language assistants tend to be younger than most regular teachers, and although they do not normally have previous teaching experience, they are usually closer in age to the students than the rest of the teaching staff. They are not an intrinsic feature of the CLIL program, but all CLIL schools have them in Andalusia (Junta de Andalucía, 2006), and their mere presence contributes to opening minds towards the teaching and learning of foreign languages. CLIL schools also have coordinators with part of their schedule devoted to the promotion of, and participation in, international programs that also contribute to the creation of this atmosphere. Programs such as Etwinning (http://www.etwinning.net) and Comenius (http://www.oapee.es/oapee/ inicio/pap/comenius.html) are not particular to CLIL schools, but the new position of bilingual coordinator at CLIL schools can encourage the involvement of the school in such programs. These programs undoubtedly enrich the school with the exchange of authentic communication between native speakers and speakers of other languages who use the FL as the common language of interaction. The students in CLIL schools have also been given extra advantage when asking for grants to take language courses abroad. Every year, these students have the possibility of applying for such study grants and they have a high probability of being awarded them if they attend a school with a CLIL section (Junta de Andalucía, 2009). These schools send a considerable number of students abroad every summer, where they can practice the FL in its social context for a month, with the undeniably positive consequences this brings to the general atmosphere at their schools. We have mentioned the selection of teachers, the contribution of language assistants, the involvement in international programs and courses

266

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

and the position of bilingual coordinator as some of the extra-CLIL reasons for the success of the CLIL classes, but there is one remaining element important to this success: the implicit selection of students. Teachers in public high schools know that the most important challenge to cope with at this educational level is paying attention to diversity. Students with a good command of the FL are in the same groups as students who have demonstrated weak literacy skills in their mother tongue and the FL. In addition, motivated students often share desks with disruptive students who are not engaged in the educational process and may prefer to leave the school system altogether as soon as possible. The school public system has employed extensive material and human resources to assist, motivate and integrate weak and disruptive students into the system. These include significant curricular modifications, programs for curricular diversification, programs for initial professional training, support classrooms, special needs teachers and classrooms for disruptive students. Logically, these students are the first ones who need help and many of the educational resources available are devoted to them. But what about the bright students? Offering special opportunities to these students had always been seen as politically incorrect because it could be considered elitist in the public education system. With the arrival of the CLIL program, an opportunity to excel has finally developed. Students who ask to participate in CLIL groups may already be motivated towards the learning of foreign languages and be ready to accept the extra challenge it means to carry out part of the curriculum in the FL. Furthermore, their families tend to be motivated and ready to support them. This does not mean that all students in CLIL groups are bright students, but at least their parents support them and parental support is fundamental in education. This voluntary ascription may have produced an implicit selection that has created groups of students with higher initial levels than the rest. Having a group of students with a higher level of motivation who are ready to participate in a new challenge motivates teachers to spend more time on lesson planning, coordination and the search for materials, aspects which, in turn, also increase the students’ motivation, generating a positive cycle of work and communication. This is what makes the comparison between CLIL and nonCLIL groups so difficult: we could better investigate the extent to which CLIL works if we had groups created randomly without the initial selfselection of students and teachers. The fact is that the implementation of the CLIL program in Andalusian schools has been a positive experience thus far because it has encouraged best practices in FL teaching on the one hand, and on the other hand because of the additional advantages it has brought to schools through the use of language assistants and students’ involvement in international programs. But all these positive changes are not intrinsic to CLIL methodology. They are additional benefits or ‘collateral effects’ of the ways in which the CLIL

Potent ial Drawback s and Ac tual Benef it s of CL IL Init iat ives

267

program is being implemented in Andalusia. Still, several important questions remain unanswered: • • • • • • • •

Will teacher development opportunities be maintained for CLIL teachers, such as teacher-development courses abroad? Will content teachers become more sensitive to some of the main factors that influence FL learning in their classes? Will language teachers become more aware of the problem of conceptual content development in the FL? What would happen if the program were made available to all types of students without implicit selection? Is CLIL something that only works with specific types of students? What would happen if language assistants were no longer hired (or if they had to share their schedules with non-CLIL groups)? What would happen if bilingual coordinators had fewer hours in their schedules to coordinate? What will happen when CLIL projects are not implemented by committed teachers who voluntarily initiate and get involved with the project, but by teachers who come and go from a reserve list? What will happen if publishers begin to offer decontextualized materials to work with in bilingual classes and teachers do not need to research, find and share their own materials?

In fact, some of these things have already begun to happen (for example, the use and consolidation of the bilingual teachers’ reserve list, the appearance of bilingual textbooks and the reduction of bilingual coordinators’ hours to coordinate), so we may really have the opportunity to evaluate the state and evolution of bilingual classes in Andalusian schools.

Conclusions Two different perspectives have been adopted in this chapter to analyze the implementation of CLIL classes in Andalusia. The first one, more academic and from the point of view of the validity of research, has shown flaws in the research done so far and has raised theoretical questions about what really has been investigated. The second, more practical and from a practitioner’s experiential perspective, has emphasized the advantages that CLIL classes have brought to schools, showing that many of them are not limited to CLIL and warning about some risks of this implementation in the future. Let us take a look at some possible solutions and recommendations for researchers and practitioners in both directions. From the research point of view, we still wonder what is really happening in CLIL classes. The ways in which the CLIL program has been put into

268

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

practice differ from one school to another, so we cannot have conclusive answers, casting doubt on the possible effectiveness of CLIL. Researchers have to agree on the minimum requirements for a class to be classified as CLIL – for example, the percentage of the non-language areas that are taught in the FL, the number of areas that are included or the ways in which the first language and the FL are combined. We also need more data about what really happens in the classroom. This is why more qualitative research is needed, preferably employing observation as the main tool. As we have seen in some of the studies mentioned earlier, there is a lack of specific empirical data at the moment. Research has been more quantitative so far, trying to compare CLIL and non-CLIL groups, a comparison that is problematic due to the reasons mentioned above. We need more data from classroom observation: How do nonlanguage teachers cope with classroom language? How do they change from the first to the foreign language? Do they use a communicative approach or simply discipline-specific glossaries? How do the language teachers and nonlanguage teachers support each other? How do the language teachers contribute to the development of non-language areas in their lessons? How does the learning of new words and concepts take place in the FL? Once we have a more accurate portrait of what really happens in CLIL classrooms through qualitative research, quantitative studies could then be carried out comparing CLIL and non-CLIL groups, but always taking into account the starting point of the students through pre-tests that establish the initial level regarding language skills, attitudes and general academic level. When designing the research for comparison, some variables should also be considered not only inside, but also outside the CLIL class: • • • • •

Do non-CLIL groups also have language assistants? Is the integrated curriculum of languages also implemented in non-CLIL groups? Is a communicative/task-based approach really put into practice in the regular groups (rather than a structuralist/grammar-translation methodology)? What are the tangible outcomes? How many students are taking additional language classes outside school?

A healthy mixture of qualitative and quantitative research will better help determine the real advantages of CLIL programs in comparison with mainstream practice. But we should also take into account that these research objectives may not be the real concern of curriculum designers or teacherpractitioners, who are legitimately more interested in successful program implementation, independent of theoretical issues or research comparisons. From this perspective, classroom research based on observation may be crucial

Potent ial Drawback s and Ac tual Benef it s of CL IL Init iat ives

269

as it would clarify many aspects of CLIL implementation that remain unclear and facilitate the sharing of good practices. For example, many teaching materials are available as a result of web resources and the Ferias del plurilingüismo mentioned above; however, content teachers are still in need of methodological guidelines on how to use the FL in the classroom in a communicative way. The advantages that CLIL classes have brought to public schools from a practical point of view were analyzed in the section on Positive Effects of the Implementation of a CLIL Program in Andalusia: An Experiential View and the section on Additional Benefits of the Incorporation of CLIL Classes in Schools. Maintaining these initial positive aspects is an important aim: ensuring relevant criteria for teacher selection and appropriate development, making contextualized materials available, increasing the total number of language assistants and promoting effective coordination. Furthermore, other practical aspects of CLIL implementation (perhaps not so positive) should also be investigated: • • •

•

How is the implicit selection of students dealt with and how does it affect the students in non-CLIL groups (because of the possible reduction of motivated students in these groups)? How is diversity attended to inside CLIL groups (this diversity will be more difficult to cope with the more advanced the level is)? How will post-compulsory levels in high school (i.e. Bachillerato) deal with the problem of complicated and dense conceptual learning (now that bilingual classes are reaching post-compulsory education in Andalusia)? Which teachers are selected for the CLIL and non-CLIL groups and what type of teacher development is provided for both?

Another important aspect of CLIL to be researched in the near future is whether the good practices fostered by the CLIL classes actually transcend and pervade the general practice of FL teaching at the participating schools, leading to the implementation of a functional, communicative and integrated syllabus in the mainstream curriculum – or whether, on the contrary, the good practices are confined to the limits of bilingual classrooms. The final conclusion is that there is still much research to be undertaken to offer a representative picture of the benefits and drawbacks of the implementation of CLIL classes in public schools in Andalusia.

References Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J. and Campo, A. (2008) Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Journal 1, 36–49. Barwell, R. (2005) Critical issues for language and content in mainstream classrooms: Introduction. Linguistics and Education 16, 143–150.

270

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Casal, S. and Moore, P. (2009) The Andalusian bilingual sections scheme: Evaluation and consultancy. International CLIL Research Journal 1, 36–46. Coonan, C. M. (2007) Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher self-observationintrospection. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 625–646. Coyle, D. (2007) Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 543–562. Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. (2010) CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007) Discourse in Content and Language Integrated (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Das, B.K. (ed.) (1985) Communicative Language Teaching. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Feryok, A. (2008) An Armenian English language teacher’s practical theory of communicative language teaching. System 36, 227–240. Gajo, L. (2007) Linguistic knowledge and subject knowledge: How does bilingualism contribute to subject development? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 563–581. Gupta, D. (2005) ELT in India: A brief historical and current overview. Asian EFL Journal 7. http://asian-efl-journal.com. Han, Y. (2008) Interactive grammar activities. Paper presented at the 42nd IATEFL Conference, Exeter. Harmer, J. (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman. Hayes, D. (2009) Non-native English-speaking teachers, context, and English language teaching. System 37, 1–11. Hu, G. (2003) English language teaching in China: Regional differences and contributing factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 24, 290–318. Hu, G. (2005) Contextual factors on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly 39, 635–660. Johnson, K. (1979) Communicative approaches and communicative processes. In C.J. Brumfit and K. Johnson (eds) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, K. (1982) Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology. Oxford: Pergamon. Junta de Andalucía (2006) Orden de 20 de junio de 2006, por la que se regula la provisión y actividad de los auxiliares de conversación en los centros docentes públicos de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía. Seville: Junta de Andalucía. Junta de Andalucía (2007) Orden de 10 de agosto de 2007, por la que se regula el currículum correspondiente a la Educación Secundaria. Seville: Junta de Andalucía. Junta de Andalucía (2008) Currículum integrado de las lenguas. Propuestas de secuencias didácticas. Seville: Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Andalucía. Junta de Andalucía (2009) Orden de 23 de noviembre de 2009, conjunta de la Consejería de Educación y de la Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social, por la que se convocan estancias de inmersión lingüística e intercambios escolares en el extranjero para el alumnado de centros docentes de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía, al amparo del Programa Idiomas y Juventud para el año 2010. Seville: Junta de Andalucía. Klapper, J. (2003) Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent trends in language teaching. Language Learning Journal 27, 33–42. Lasagabaster, D. (2008) Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. Open Applied Linguistics Journal 1, 30–41. Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2009) Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research 1, 4–17.

Potent ial Drawback s and Ac tual Benef it s of CL IL Init iat ives

271

Leung, C. (2005) Language and content in bilingual education. Linguistics and Education 16, 238–252. Lewis, M. and McCook, F. (2002) Cultures of teaching: Voices from Vietnam. ELT Journal 56, 146–153. Long, M. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413– 468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. and Moore, P. (2010) The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics 31, 418–442. Marsh, D. (2003) The relevance and potential of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) for achieving MT + 2 in Europe. European Language Council Bulletin 9. http:// userpage.fu-berlin.de/~elc/bulletin/9/en/marsh.html. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T. and Kong, C.K. (2000) Late immersion and language of instruction in Hong Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and non-language subjects. Harvard Educational Review 70, 302–346. Mehisto, P. (2008) CLIL counterweights: Recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal 1, 93–119. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. and Frijols, M. (2008) Uncovering CLIL. Oxford: MacMillan. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (1993) Temas transversales y desarrollo curricular. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Cultura. Mitchell, R. and Lee, J.H.W. (2003) Sameness and difference in classroom learning cultures: Interpretations of communicative pedagogy in the UK and Korea. Language Teaching Research 7, 35–63. Moore, P. and Lorenzo, F. (2007) Adapting authentic materials for CLIL classrooms: An empirical study. VIEWS 16, 28–36. Muñoz, C. (2007) CLIL: Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles. Revista española de lingüística aplicada 20, 17–26. Navés, T. and Victori, M. (2010) CLIL in Catalonia: An overview of research studies. In D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp. 30–54). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Netten, J. and Germain, C. (2009) The future of intensive French. Canadian Modern Language Review 65, 757–786. Orafi, S.M.S. and Borg, S. (2009) Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum reform. System 37, 243–253. PISA Report (2006) The Program for International Student Assessment. Paris: OECD. http:// www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf. Razmjoo, S.A. and Riazi, A.M. (2006) Do high schools or private institutes practice communicative language teaching? A case study of Shiraz teachers in high schools and institutes. Reading Matrix 6, 340–363. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2007) CLIL in a bilingual community: Similarities and differences with learning English as a foreign language. VIEWS 16, 47–52. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008) CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal 1, 60–73. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and Lasagabaster, D. (2010) CLIL in a bilingual community: The Basque Autonomous Community. In D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp. 12–29). Newcastleupon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. San Isidro, X. (2010) An insight into Galician CLIL: Provision and results. In D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp. 55–78). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Sato, K. and Kleinsasser, R.C. (1999) Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical understandings. Modern Language Journal 83, 494–517.

272

Par t 3: Par t ic ipant Perspec t ives on Bilingual Educat ion E xper iences

Savignon, S. (1987) What’s what in communicative language teaching. English Teaching Forum 25, 16–21 & 64. Savignon, S. (2005) Communicative language teaching: Strategies and goals. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 635–651). Oxford: Routledge. Savignon, S. (2007) Beyond communicative language teaching: What’s ahead? Journal of Pragmatics 39, 207–220. Simpson, S.T. (2008) Western EFL teachers and East–West classroom-culture conflicts. RELC Journal 39, 381–394. Skehan, P. (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17, 38–62. Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, G. (1996) Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal 50, 9–15. Villarreal Olaizola, I. and García Mayo, M.P. (2009) Tense and agreement morphology in the interlanguage of Basque/Spanish bilinguals: CLIL versus non-CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R.M. Jiménez Catalán (eds) Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe (pp. 157–175). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Widdowson, H.G. (1978) Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H.G. (1990) Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Part 4 The Language Needs of Bilingual and Multilingual Students in Monolingual Schools

13 International School Students: Developing Their Bilingual Potential Maurice Carder

Introduction Huge amounts of research on language acquisition have been undertaken in recent decades and it has become clear that a key factor in enabling second-language learners to succeed in learning English is maintaining literacy in their mother tongue while enrolled in a second-language program of carefully structured development in content area language, within a supportive sociocultural environment. Collier and Thomas (2007: 344) summarized much of their research in diagrammatic form, showing that second-language students made best progress in a two-way bilingual program with content and language integrated learning (CLIL; Wolff, 2003). An important finding of their research is that many second-language programs demonstrate rapid gains in the acquisition of English in the early years, but the poorest performance in the long term; that is, students have to maintain their mother tongue and improve their English at an academic level, and within a supportive sociocultural context, over their whole school career. Collier (2003) wrote a Foreword to The International Schools Journal Compendium (Murphy, 2003) in which she states: When the demographics of a school population include a multilingual student group with small numbers of each language represented, then mother-tongue literacy development for each language group, combined with ESL taught through academic content, may be the best choice for support of non-English-speakers’ needs. (Collier, 2003: 8, emphasis added) As the former head of the ESL and Mother Tongue department at the Vienna International School (VIS), my focus from 1981, when my involvement 275

276

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

with international schools began, as did my wider involvement with the agencies providing the framework for the curriculum, was to introduce bilingualism as a mainstream concept. Adorno (1967: 10) wrote that ‘education must transform itself into sociology, that is, it must teach about the societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political forms’. The majority of students in European Council of International Schools institutions worldwide are second-language learners (ESL Gazette, 2005). Thus, the common term used for such students, ‘minority students’, is not appropriate in our context, and although it appears in this chapter in quotes from researchers, my preferred term is second-language learners (SLLs). International school students are living in an ‘international space’. Much of their life will be lived in an ‘international’ arena: their parent(s) probably work in an international organization where English is likely to be the medium. Their friends will be international school students, and they may be viewed by those not in this milieu as being an elite; elite children, however, may well require as much understanding and attention to their linguistic, emotional and related profiles as any other children. In fact, the model most applicable for such students is that of pluralism and multiculturalism; in international schools an assimilationist model is not appropriate as there are no political pressures for assimilation; there is no nation-state to assimilate to, nor political measures to treat immigrants circumspectly. Therefore, a model can be provided that promotes enrichment in each student’s mother tongue while encouraging students to gain biliteracy with English; international schools provide a unique opportunity for a truly multicultural and multilingual teaching program. In international education many students are ‘translanguage learners’, a term proposed by Jonietz (1994), and the level of their mother tongue may be anything from oral competence to full literacy as they have moved around the world and improved or diminished in their knowledge of various languages, including their mother tongue. As the person responsible for the students in the secondary school who are not fluent in English, I developed the understanding that maintaining literacy in their mother tongue and developing literacy in English led to allround advantages in academic success, much in demand by parents. This tied in to the ‘multilingual space’ at the VIS which students inhabit. In the halls, groups of students can be heard conversing in many languages; even where English is dominant there may be rapid interjections in German, the hostcountry language, or other languages, depending on the repertoires of the students involved. In such an environment, terms such as mother tongue, first language, second language, foreign language or dominant language take on a delimitative function that may be relevant in a national school but is only useful in the international school context for the purpose of deciding which proficiency level a student is taking for International Baccalaureate (IB) examinations. The language repertoires of the students are complex and

Inter nat ional School Student s

277

Skutnabb-Kangas (1988, in Skutnabb-Kangas & Cummins, 1988) has discussed the varieties which the term ‘bilingualism’ (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988: 21) encapsulates and the variety of different functions a mother tongue (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988: 16) can have; these are particularly relevant to the mobile translanguaging of international students.

International Schools Identity in international schools Issues of identity are finely nuanced and are an important factor in international schools. With their continual movement around the world, children may lose a sense of belonging. Durkheim (1897/1997) proposed the term ‘anomie’ to describe problems of marginalization and emotional difficulties, and Fishman (2009: 442) touches on the ‘terrifying state of liminality’, which is when one’s sense of identity dissolves to some extent, bringing about disorientation. Speaking a particular language may mean belonging to a specific speech community, or community of practice, although this will depend to what extent the speaker wishes to belong to a community. For international school students their mother tongue certainly represents their former community of practice, with a modified and smaller community in the new setting, and their newly acquired English places them in the international school ‘bubble’; thus, this part of the social context that a student’s individual personality is shaped by, and that supplies the raw materials for their personality, will be linguistic. If more than two languages are involved, the ‘colors’ of the student’s personality will be quite different from those of the English monolingual. Grosjean (1982) has reported that bilinguals sometimes feel that language choice draws out different personalities. It follows that the deeper people are immersed in the language and culture of another community, the greater the impact will be on their identity. For bilinguals, there may be a tension, varying depending upon the age at which they ‘joined’ the second-language group, the distance between the native culture and the English-speaking one, and the way in which their native language is treated in the school. Since students’ mother tongues are ignored in the majority of international schools it could be argued that a whole part of these students’ identities is also being ignored. Cummins (2000: 51) reports how a Finnish student in a Swedish school felt that ‘it was despicable to be a Finn, I began to feel ashamed of my origins. So down with the Finnish language! I spat on myself, gradually committed internal suicide.’ One can only wonder how many international school students have similar feelings, faced with the huge peer pressure from students speaking the world’s ‘cool’ language, and parents’ expectations that they perform at an advanced level in English. Conversely, when there is a mother-tongue program to provide literacy to

278

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

graduating level, students, at least, have the opportunity to feel acknowledged and valued (Carder, 2007). Once anyone leaves their home country, they have ‘taken a jump’ and, as the Czech writer Milan Kundera (1984) wrote: Being in a foreign country means walking a tightrope high above the ground without the net afforded a person by the country where he has his family, colleagues, and friends, and where he can easily say what he has to say in a language he has known from childhood. (Kundera, 1984: 71) Such a situation will be familiar to those who have lived in a country where the language is unknown. For young children, perhaps with no knowledge of English at all, the impact can be painful and they may take a long time to feel any sense of belonging in the new community; having a class in their own language where they can at last express themselves and be understood, with a teacher who shares their background, can alleviate the all-pervading strangeness and provide some familiarity.

Sociolinguistics and communities of practice The field of sociolinguistics can be introduced at this point in order to show how it helps to place students as language learners in a social context. With ‘a history of some 50 years’, it is defined as ‘the study of language in its social contexts’ (Coupland & Jaworski, 2009: 1). Building on Sharp’s (1973) ‘each bilingual community is unique’, Wenger’s (1998) concept of ‘communities of practice’ serves to give a sociolinguistic framework within which the students at the VIS can be placed. Such communities are defined (Romaine, 2004) as: [I]nformal groups who interact and communicate regularly. Each community of practice has a shared repertoire of communal resources that binds its members together in mutual engagement. Among those communal practices will be shared ways of communicating, including possibly the use of two or more languages. The linguistic choices made by members play an important role in constructing meaning and social identity. (Romaine, 2004: 387) Blommaert (2009: 560) argues for developing a ‘sociolinguistics of globalization’. He acknowledges that the complexity we are facing is a challenge Blommaert, 2009: 561), and suggests that Pennycook’s (2003) term of a particular niche is applicable to particular groups, networks and communities of practice. International school students can therefore be niched within the globalized world in a sociolinguistic context of international schools.

Inter nat ional School Student s

279

The status of ESL and mother tongues in international schools The way second-language students’ programs are perceived is an important factor as this may impact on students’ motivation. Staffing and curriculum for another language area and foreign languages (mostly French or Spanish) are seen in most international schools as routine and necessary. V. Edwards (2004: 143), writing about the UK, comments that ‘the foreign languages taught in school enjoy high status with the dominant Englishspeaking group; the heritage languages associated with minority groups are regularly marginalized’. Fishman (2004: 417) notes, as ‘he has been arguing in print for 35 years’, that it is just as scandalous and injurious to waste ‘native’ language resources as to waste air, water, mineral, animal and various nonlinguistic human resources. How long must languages and cultures be trivialized if they are learned at home, in infancy and childhood, and only respected if they are acquired later, during adulthood, when they are usually learned less well and at much greater cost in competence, time and money? In foreign language classes students generally learn a language progressively in a carefully structured way over five years. Mother-tongue students would be equally well served by a structured program, with a clearly outlined curriculum and pedagogical model.

Carder’s three-program model of language instruction for second-language learners This model was devised in order to ensure that all the knowledge we now have about the social, academic, cognitive and linguistic needs of SLLs can be addressed and implemented. Each component of the model is equally important. Carder’s (2007) model for second-language students consists of the following: • • •

A strong ESL program for non-English speakers, taught through content subject material (CLIL; Wolff, 2003). Instruction in the mother tongue, given individually or in small groups for non-English speakers, which continues ideally right through to graduation. A continuing professional development program of linguistic and cultural awareness training for staff as an integral part of the school’s inservice training for all staff and management. (Carder, 2007: 7)

The ESL program is the basis, and the primary prerequisite, for SLLs (Crawford & Krashen, 2007). Mother-tongue classes are essential for SLLs to transfer their L1 knowledge to L2 (Collier & Thomas, 2007; Crawford

280

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

& Krashen, 2007). Continuing professional development for all staff about the language and academic needs of SLLs is equally important, and is essential if SLLs are to gain equity of recognition in a school. This is an ideal model and putting it into practice is challenging. In order to understand why, it is timely to turn to the writings of Sennett (2006), who in The Culture of the New Capitalism explains how: The more one understands how to do something well, the more one cares about it. Institutions based on short-term transactions and constantly shifting tasks, however, do not breed that depth. Indeed the organization can fear it; the management code here is ingrown. Someone who digs deep into an activity just to get it right can seem to others ingrown in the sense of fixated on that one thing, and obsession is indeed necessary for the craftsman. (Sennett, 2006: 105–106)

The impact of outside agencies on international school language structures The European Council of International Schools (ECIS) and the Council of International Schools (CIS) began as one (i.e. ECIS) and remained as such until June 2003, when CIS split off from ECIS and became a separate organization. CIS is now the body responsible for accreditation, teacher and executive recruitment, and higher education recruitment, all offered worldwide, whereas ECIS continues to devote itself to services such as professional development in Europe, awards, fellowships, advice on student and program assessment, and curriculum development. The two organizations share facilities, some staff, publications and some financial schemes, and work together in many other ways (see the websites http://www.cois.org and http://www.ecis.org). The CIS has 700 affiliated schools, 320 of them accredited. The mission statement of the ECIS is as follows: ‘ECIS is the leading collaborative global network promoting and supporting the ideals and best practices of international education’ (ECIS Strategic Plan draft, 2010–2015, http:// www.ecis.org). The CIS has apparently taken its terminology and recommended practice for second-language students from England (which has separate educational provision from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), using terms such as ‘support’ and ‘EAL’ (English as an additional language). However, the English model works in quite different circumstances from those which obtain in international schools. In national systems, immigrants often become assimilated and, after three generations, the mother tongue has largely disappeared. In any case, England has a record of poor support for language policies for non-English speakers: in a book about multilingualism in the English-speaking world (V. Edwards, 2004), government policies

Inter nat ional School Student s

281

aimed at minorities in England regularly appear grudging compared to those in Australia and Canada: Levels of official support for community-based language teaching are more impressive in Canada and Australia than in the UK and USA. (V. Edwards, 2004: 123) National language policies ensure a high level of support in Canada and Australia; traditional antipathy and indifference in the UK and USA have resulted in a much lower level of support. (V. Edwards, 2004: 125) The situation in many countries where issues of language acquisition and language maintenance have become political issues is similar, according to Shohamy (2006): Immigrants, for example, are constantly being told that keeping their home languages will damage and harm their success in acquiring new languages and their eventual success in the new societies. Immigrants realize very fast, given such propaganda and myths, that the languages they used in their home countries have no relevance in the new place, are of no value in the new societies and may communicate disloyalty, resulting in negative language stigmas and stereotypes about belonging and exclusion. (Shohamy, 2006: 68) In international schools, students are in a different language landscape and a different sociological context. In summary, second-language students have great potential for becoming fluent in the second language of the school to a literate level, overwhelmingly English in international schools, and also for maintaining and developing literacy in their mother tongue(s). This can provide innumerable benefits: linguistic, sociological, cognitive and affective, which in turn could come to fruition by an appropriately designed model for the instruction of these languages in international schools, with associated curriculum and examinations provided by the IB or other agencies, and accreditation instruments that measure these programs provided by the CIS or other agencies. The VIS is, in fact, an international, multilingual space where students from around the world, speaking a multitude of languages, mingle and interact. Thus, these students can develop their language skills more fully, bringing rewards to the whole community.

Literature on language issues in international schools There is a limited amount of published research on bilingualism and mother-tongue programs in international schools, perhaps for reasons already given, the mobility of the students and, thus, the difficulties involved in carrying out long-term studies. Murphy (2003) edited a compendium that

282

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

contains all the articles relevant to SLLs for the 21 years during which she edited the journal (1981–2002), in which she writes: Articles that have appeared regularly in the ISJ (International Schools Journal) through the years, however, show that in many international schools whose client base includes large numbers (in many, the majority) of students whose native language is other than English, such research has been slow to gain currency, and even slower to produce genuine change. Even today, many schools organize themselves and create their curricula as if all their students shared not only the same language, but the same culture as well. (Murphy, 2003: 9) Jonietz (1994) proposes the term ‘translanguage learners’ to describe how international school students gain or lose proficiency in languages as they travel around the world. MacKenzie (2001) includes a small research project which substantiates that parents overwhelmingly want their children to learn English at any cost, apparently including the loss of their mother tongue. The other journal which focuses on issues in international education is the Journal of Research in International Education. Allan (2002), writing about a research project in an international school in the Netherlands on ‘cultural dissonance’, concludes that: Schools must adopt a culturally democratic pedagogy where different learning styles are recognized in the classroom, and a non-culturespecific curriculum is delivered in a more pluralist style which makes it accessible to all pupils. (Allan, 2002: 82) He adds that ‘a quality assurance approach that looks for multiculturalism in the process of international education, rather than in its inputs and outcomes, would be a more productive, as well as a more valid, way forward’ (Allan, 2002: 84). These insights both point towards developing appropriate teaching styles from subject teachers. Carder (2007) presents the ‘three-program-model’ of ESL taught through content, beside a mother-tongue program and also a training program for staff as being the most viable way of providing an enriching linguistic framework for multilingual students. Gallagher (2008: 1–34) devotes a chapter to hidden and overt power structures in international schools, distinguishing between the often encountered ‘authoritarian’ mode of management and the more desirable ‘authoritative’ approach, where school leaders provide equitable models of language programs. De Mejía (2002), in a chapter headed ‘World-wide elite bilingualism’, traces the history and development of international schools, noting that, while many of the students are in fact bilingual, the emphasis in curricula and school language provision is monolingual and often monocultural.

Inter nat ional School Student s

283

It is worth noting that some researchers have labeled linguistic discrimination (i.e. discriminating against students on the basis of their language by not providing programs of instruction for them in their language) as a form of racism, terming it ‘linguicism’ (Fishman, cited in Coupland & Jaworski, 2009: 426; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000), certainly not a concept that most international schools would wish to be accused of. Fishman (2009), after reflecting on the ‘joys of one’s own language and ethnicity’, further states: [. . .] democracy guarantees the right to retain one’s own ethnicity . . . to develop creatively, and to [enable one’s children] to reach their full potential without becoming ethnically inauthentic, colourless, lifeless, worse than lifeless: nothingness. (Fishman, 2009: 441)

Bilingualism Bilingualism: Introductory comments In 1945, bilingualism was viewed largely negatively. Since then, it has become an autonomous discipline, and has come to be seen as a positive asset, although complex as it requires attention to detail, and sensitivity for each child’s individual needs and language trajectories. I believe knowledge of this discipline, with an awareness of the latest developments, will be essential for those working in international schools, especially for those working in leadership and management positions. As will be outlined below, English no longer has specific cultural bases to which students can become integrated, but has an ‘international posture’ (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009: 145). As Coetzee-Van Rooy (2006) records about English: English is an international auxiliary language. It is yours (no matter who you are) as much as it is mine (no matter who I am) . . . No one needs to become more like Americans . . . or any other English speaker to lay claim on the language. . . . It isn’t even necessary to appreciate the culture of a country whose principal language is English in order for one to use it effectively. This argument assumes a much more complex view of the identities of second-language learners in world English contexts. (Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2006: 442) She writes about the mother tongue that: The fascinating challenge for these groups [L2 speakers] however is to keep their own cultural and linguistic identity while mastering the second-language. What has been most encouraging to us throughout these investigations is the fact that with the proper attitudinal orientation and

284

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

motivation one can become bilingual without losing one’s identity. (Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2006: 441) This sets out in crystal-clear terms the position of international school students (although written in the context of South Africa); they learn English as a tool which will belong to them, and they will keep their own cultural and linguistic identity, their mother tongue. Wright (2004: 14) observes that ‘currently globalization is producing worldwide social diglossia and ever extending personal bilingualism’. This is the world we live in today.

Research evidence for the benefits of mother-tongue maintenance The research by Thomas and Collier (1997) in public schools in the USA indicates that only students who have received strong cognitive and academic development through their first language for many years as well as through the second language (English) continue to do well in their final years in school. Thomas and Collier (1997: 49) also state ‘we have concluded that L1 cognitive and academic development is a key predictor of academic success in L2’. There is a wealth of research showing the advantages of keeping up the mother tongue in tandem with acquiring a literate knowledge of English, given in the next section, which leads to bilingualism. Perhaps of more concern are the potential negative effects of not keeping up fluency in the mother tongue. This leads into further discussion of bilingualism: what it means; what it represents for students; its status in the world today.

The advantages of bilingualism Various authors have written on the earlier metalinguistic awareness of bilinguals compared to monolinguals (e.g. Ben-Zeev, 1977), their increased metacognitive abilities and metalinguistic awareness (e.g. De Avila & Duncan, 1979), and their greater separation of form and content (Leopold, 1939–1949). Cognitive advantages attributed to plurilinguals by psychologists, for example, advantages in conceptual development (e.g. Cummins & Gulustan, 1974; Peal & Lambert, 1962/1972), higher verbal intelligence and greater psycholinguistic skills (e.g. Lambert & Tucker, 1972), and more divergent thinking (e.g. Landry, 1974) are all related to metalinguistic awareness as to the practice of switching between languages (Dewaele et al., 2003). Some authors such as Bialystok (1991), Cummins (1984, 1993, 2000), Hakuta (1986) and Lambert (1974), also show that maintaining the mother tongue and adding English (i.e. bilingualism) confers advantages. This academic base is vital for practitioners in international schools so that they can argue their case for appropriate programs.

Inter nat ional School Student s

285

Baker (2006: 255) records about eight potential advantages of bilingual education which include: • • • • • • • •

enabling children to engage in wider communication across generations and cultural groups; fostering a sympathetic understanding of differences in creeds and cultures; achieving biliteracy; increasing classroom achievement; gaining from cognitive benefits; raising self-esteem; establishing a more secure identity; having economic advantages.

Baker (2006) summarizes the situation in international schools, stating they are: [. . .] mostly for the affluent, that one language of these schools is frequently English, and that when they have English as the sole medium of transmitting the curriculum they cannot be included under the heading of ‘bilingual education in majority languages’. (Baker, 2006: 252) Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) also comments on international schools, noting that those who want to be included in the new globalized elites need to be multilingual: For them multilingualism means enhanced symbolic capital and, through a conversion process, economic and political capital. ‘International Schools’ have a similar goal even if they do not use several languages as media of instruction. (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000: 624–625) This suggests that international schools are perceived by elites as providing symbolic capital, while not using several languages as media of instruction. The situation is not clear cut as many discussions with parents have revealed that they are grateful for any school which can accommodate their children with English as the language of instruction since it is the global lingua franca. My perception is that such elites focus principally on their children becoming fluent in English, while not considering what might happen to their children’s own language and identity.

Each bilingual community is unique Another important tenet to bear in mind when discussing bilingualism is that ‘any meaningful discussion must be attempted within a specific

286

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

context, and for specific purposes’ (J. Edwards, 2004: 9), a point elaborated on by Baker and Prys Jones (1998), who conclude that: [. . .] there is no preferred term that is capable of summing up all the complexity, dynamism and colour of bilinguals existing in groups. Simple labels hide complex realities. The way forward is to recognize the limitations of our terminology and to acknowledge the many dimensions underlying them. (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998: 99) Or to put it another way, as Sharp (1973: 11, cited in Romaine, 2004: 387) has stated, ‘each bilingual community is unique’. From this it can be seen that bilingualism has come to be seen in a positive instead of a negative light and that definitions of bilingualism will depend on each separate community. This has clear implications for international schools as they have unique bilingual communities. Parents come from all around the world, their children are at the schools for differing lengths of time and families have varying linguistic needs and repertoires. Many of them have developed some understanding of the situation they now find themselves in, but some are entranced by the promises of English where it is seen as the language of success and they do not realize the potential hurdles their children may face. A further comment on this important point is made by Auer (2009) who concludes that the impasse of defining bilingualism can only be overcome if it is: No longer regarded as ‘something inside speakers’ heads’, that is, a mental ability, but as a displayed feature of participants’ everyday linguistic behaviour. Bilingualism must be looked upon primarily as a set of complex linguistic activities, and only in a ‘derived’ sense as a cognitive ability. Consequently there is no one definition of bilingualism: bilingualism becomes an interactionally constructed predicate. (Auer, 2009: 491) The issue of a ‘multilingual ethos’, of considerable relevance in our setting, is discussed by various researchers (e.g. Crawford, 2000; Ferguson, 2006; Graddol, 2006; Shohamy, 2006; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). V. Edwards (2004) addresses broader issues of bilingualism and frequently places it in the context of how it benefits the wider community. Edwards writes about how magistrate judge Paul D. Stickney, finding in favor of Hispanic employees fighting language discrimination in the workplace, rejected the idea that English-only policies promote harmony, and suggested that English-only policies ‘create disruption’ and ‘feelings of alienation and inadequacy’ (V. Edwards, 2004: 163).

Inter nat ional School Student s

287

Factors involved in academic success: Additive and subtractive bilingualism Maintaining literacy in the mother tongue or first language (L1) has been established as conferring considerable benefits relating to the academic and social aspects of each student’s life, including better performance in the second language (L2, usually English), and is known as additive bilingualism. It is a situation where the second language and culture is unlikely to replace the first language and culture. Cummins (1986) stated that: Educators who see their role as adding a second language and cultural affiliation to their students’ repertoire are likely to empower students more than those who see their role as replacing or subtracting students’ primary language and culture. (Cummins, 1986: 25) There will also be other recognized benefits on a variety of cognitive and metacognitive tasks, such as (V. Edwards, 2009): Counting the number of words in sentences and judging the grammaticality of anomalous sentences, suggesting that they have higher levels of metalinguistic awareness, allowing them to focus on the form rather than the meaning of language. There is also evidence of greater sensitivity to the social nature and communicative functions of language. Finally, psychologists point to the greater mental flexibility of bilinguals. (V. Edwards, 2009: 19–20) Conversely, not maintaining literacy in the mother tongue has been shown to have negative effects, leading often to poor performance in the second language and known as subtractive bilingualism. Schools which ignore children’s mother tongue and only provide education in the second language, usually English, are providing a model of subtractive bilingualism, with the likelihood that children may become academically ‘disabled’ (Baker, 2006: 415). When literacy is only attempted through the second language, a child’s oracy skills in English may be insufficiently developed for such literacy acquisition to occur (Baker, 2006: 332). These terms were proposed in the model devised by Lambert (1974). The model is valuable as it combines both the individual and societal elements of bilingualism, which provides the theoretical base for the model developed at the VIS.

Empowered versus disabled students Cummins (1986) looked at the situation within schools, and how the relationships between teachers and students affected the development of students; he believes there is a difference in how students develop depending on

288

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

the extent to which educators redefine their roles with respect to secondlanguage students. Cummins (1986: 175) states that ‘implementation of change is dependent upon the extent to which educators, both collectively and individually, redefine their roles with respect to minority students and communities’. He lays out three sets of power relations, which include the daily interactions between teachers and students, the overall relationship between the school and the local community and, finally, the power relations between groups within society as a whole. There is no reason for these power relations to be any different in the international school context as the same groups exist, although there is the added complication of having an ‘extra’ community, that is, the international community. Cummins (1986) reports that sociological and anthropological research suggests that status and power relations between groups make up an important part of the account of minority students’ failure in school, based on research by Fishman (1976) and Paulston (1980). The main tenet of his theory is that minority students are either ‘empowered’ or ‘disabled’ as a direct result of how the interactions are resolved with teachers in school, and is based on four characteristics of the institution of the school: • • • •

how much the minority language and student is integrated into the school; how much each minority community is encouraged to join in the affairs of the school; how much the pedagogy encourages intrinsic motivation in students to use language to generate their own knowledge; how much educators involved in assessment use it to encourage students rather than put them in a ‘failing box’.

As already noted, in international schools second-language students are not a minority, and the international community occupies a different type of space from local communities, being transient. Cummins (1984) goes on to posit that, although theorists have shown that academic failure can be attributed to a lack of cultural identification (Cummins, 1984) or the disruption of intergenerational transmission processes (Feuerstein, 1979), nevertheless, school failure does not generally occur when minority groups are positively oriented towards both their own and the dominant culture. This is particularly relevant to international schools where there are so many nations and languages. Clearly, it will be necessary for each individual language community to recognize that it is a part of the ‘international community’ and as such is an equal to, not above or below, any other one. An example of how much the attitude to a language and culture can affect a student is given by Troike (1978) discussing the academic failure of Finnish students in Sweden where such students are ‘low status’. This is compared to their academic success in Australia where they are seen

Inter nat ional School Student s

289

as a ‘high status’ group. It could be argued that in international schools there would be a level playing field, where all cultures are equal. However, this is not my perception, as those with mother tongues other than English have to pay extra for mother-tongue classes, if a mother-tongue program even exists. The cultural values of the predominant school nationalities, as well as the culture of the school rules of discipline and expected behavior, the cultural style and content of the lessons, and the teaching styles and attitude of the staff, all form a framework within which less dominant nationalities interact. Matthews (1989a, 1989b) carried out a study which showed that international school teachers are predominantly American or British, have little or no training in cross-cultural learning differences and largely retain their national teaching style. All of these factors can impact negatively on the motivation of other national groups. Cummins (2000) devised a framework where there is a cultural and linguistic-pedagogical model in which second-language students will be nurtured in an additive rather than subtractive approach: • • •

community participation will be collaborative rather than exclusionary; pedagogy will be ‘reciprocal/interaction oriented’ rather than transmission oriented; assessment will be advocacy oriented rather than legitimization oriented.

Cummins (2000) stresses the ‘enhanced metalinguistic development’ found in association with additive bilingualism, also reported by Hakuta and Diaz (1985) and McLaughlin (1984). The more second-language students’ parents are involved in their children’s education, the more the parents will feel that they understand and can contribute, for example, by encouraging reading in the mother tongue at home and providing a ‘book rich’ environment, with positive academic results. The pedagogical model is vital, and this is where appropriate training for all staff plays a key role. Informing and involving parents are important factors in the process of ensuring that children can benefit appropriately from their two or more languages. The crucial time of arrival at an international school can be seized on by those responsible for the mother-tongue program in order to establish a firm foundation for each child in their mother tongue which can be maintained and built on.

The Vienna International School Mother Tongue Program Overview The program was built up and developed over 28 years. It is the product of attention to detail and finding good teachers for each language; this

290

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

requires much time and care, and also demands that, given the extra costs necessitated, parents are appropriately informed of the benefits of such a program for their children. This is done by an introductory session at the beginning of each year and the issuing of booklets about the advantages of well-nurtured bilingualism. Much of this information can be seen at: http://school.vis.ac.at/esl. The program of mother-tongue instruction for students is paid for privately on top of the school fees. Most international schools do not have such a program, students being educated solely through English. At the VIS, all students are advised to maintain and improve fluency and literacy in their mother tongue by taking mostly after-school lessons, often one to one or in small groups, in their language; there are some 45 teachers available for this task and new ones are sought if a student arrives with a language not yet taught in the VIS program; recently, for example, Icelandic, Lithuanian and Amharic were introduced (see Carder, 2007, Chapter 4, for a full description of the program). While the large number of nationalities, languages and cultures is broadcast to the community as a representation of the school’s ‘internationalness’ and students freely talk in groups in their own languages, the school offers an essentially English-language education, the mother-tongue program being the only academic/pedagogical offering for the international linguistic needs of the students. Despite this, the statistical breakdown of grades in all subjects in grades 6–11 (in June 2007) showed that students gained either the highest or near highest grades in their mother tongue compared with other subjects, averaging 6.4 (out of a possible 7); one-third of graduation students only gained the IB Diploma because they took their mother tongue (other than English or German) as language A1.

Some students’ perceptions Below are the perceptions of four students interviewed in 2008 for the purpose of collecting data for the author’s doctoral research (Carder, 2010). The students were interviewed and the discussion is summarized. •

Student A did not start Arabic mother-tongue lessons until grade 11 as she did not think she needed Arabic at that time. But in grade 11 she dropped German and took Arabic. As the reason for doing this she said that the advice given by others was that Arabic was her top language with English coming second, so she felt that if she took German, she would not get such good grades; she also wanted to work in an Arabic-speaking country. At first, when she came to the school, her parents thought that she had enough Arabic, but then they realized how important it was to continue classes, especially because her younger brother was losing his knowledge of Arabic.

Inter nat ional School Student s

•

•

•

291

Student B was finding it hard to develop his English skills after seven years at the VIS. However, his grades had improved in all VIS subjects since starting Korean lessons. This is possibly evidence of the research that shows maintaining literacy in the mother tongue leads to increased literacy in the second language (Cummins, 2003: 62). He would prefer the mother-tongue classes to be included in the regular school timetable. Student C, an Arabic speaker, found that learning the mother tongue as an IB language A1 implied a lot of benefits; therefore it should be introduced as an available option in every international school. From his point of view, all international schools should have as many different mothertongue teachers as possible and classes should be provided as a part of the school curriculum. Student C, a Chinese Mandarin speaker, suggested that without a mother-tongue program, a student who came in Grade 10 with only one year of English learning could not be expected to succeed in the IB, and if he did it would mean he/she would have to do English A1, which would most likely result in a relatively low grade of 3–4. He/she would then lose self-confidence and obtain lower self-esteem.

It is questionable, were it not for the requirements of the IB Diploma whereby a language A1 is necessary, whether parents would pay extra for keeping up lessons in their mother tongue; in this respect, the focus on achievement can be seen as a motivating factor. It is most probable that by keeping up their mother tongue at a literate level, the students in this exercise are gaining the advantages already discussed. By implication, if they were not taking their mother tongue in the IB, it is most likely that they would be susceptible to the effects of subtractive bilingualism, and their performance, grades and self-esteem would suffer accordingly.

Parents’ perceptions As part of the same research project, 11 volunteer parents discussed their family language profiles. A sample of comments is given below which shows the variety of student language profiles that can be represented in an international school, followed by an analysis of their views. • • •

Mrs H. (Spanish): I have three children in school; they’re going to Spanish mother tongue classes, grades 7 and 9. Mrs B. (Icelandic): I have two Icelandic boys and they’re taking mothertongue lessons in Icelandic. My son is bilingual as he was at a school in Belgium, so he has Icelandic and French. Mrs F. (Swedish): I have two children, in grade 10 and grade 7. And I have a Spanish husband.

292

•

• • • •

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

Mrs L. (Swedish): I have two sons, mother tongue Swedish, one in grade 1 and one in grade 6, and I think the experience with the mother tongue is very different between the two boys. With one of them, who is now in grade 6, he learned Swedish already in Sweden, and I think it helped him to be strong in his mother tongue. Then he started learning English here, in elementary school. But with the other one, he has grown up here; we’ve been a bit reluctant to stress the Swedish because he has German, English and Swedish. Mr L. (Polish): I have two children in grade 11. One of them is taking Polish as a mother tongue for the IB. Mr V. (Serbian): I have a boy and a girl. The boy is now taking IB and the girl is grade 9. We are having these mother-tongue lessons. Mrs P. (Slovak): I have a son in grade 11. We have mother tongue Slovak. Mr G. (Spanish): I am from Venezuela. I have two kids; one, a daughter, who is 18 years old; she is in grade 11, and my son who is in grade 9. But I think it’s a great thing that this school encourages to keep the mother tongue.

The brief introductions from the parents give an interesting insight into the multi-language backgrounds of VIS students; there are complex factors at work here, showing at times different languages in different families, and children who have followed varied language trajectories through their lives. This reflects the ‘translanguaging’ scenario painted by Jonietz (1994). The complexities of an international life are revealed by the Icelandic parent informing us that one son is bilingual in Icelandic and French as he was at school in Belgium. Since he is now in grade 11 at the VIS, he has added English to his repertoire. A Swedish parent relates that she has a Spanish husband. Another Swedish parent outlines how the experience for her two children has been quite different as one grew up in Sweden and is strong in Swedish, while the other grew up in Vienna so the family has focused more on English and German. This confirms the idea that the experience of international parents, even in a ‘one-language’ family, presents complex decisions for the parents at every stage. The grade 6 boy established a literate base in Sweden and the parents can see that he will build on this. However, with the other boy they can see that he has been exposed to English, German and Swedish, and they are not sure how far they should emphasize his Swedish. This extract epitomizes the complexity of the language issue in international schools. Of the parents who talk about their children, none of them has a similar pattern. In national systems there are often many languages in large cities, but these are frequently in large groups of minority cultures which supply a base for potential support programs. In international schools there is no such structure, exemplified by the following parent’s comments: •

Mrs B. (Hungarian): I have a son in grade 6 and we do double schooling, meaning that he’s a private student at his home school, so that means he

Inter nat ional School Student s

• •

293

has to take all the exams every term. My husband teaches him mathematics, and all the other subjects are from me; I am teaching him five subjects this year. I’m more concerned that there’s no other way, because we’ll return home one day. Researcher: This is where international schools are different from national systems, completely. Mrs B. (Hungarian): He has to go back, back to his national system.

Families relatively new to international transfer may be more interested in their children being able to maintain literacy in their mother tongue, depending on their own educational traditions. This is revealed most strongly with the Hungarian mother who tells of how she and her husband teach the whole Hungarian curriculum to their son as they consider it essential. However, it is not every parent who has such foresight, such influence over their children, or the involvement, energy and marital support to carry out such a task. The family has the advantage that they are close to their country, a 30-minute drive to the Hungarian border.

A mother tongue teacher’s perceptions A mother-tongue teacher of Finnish gave her view of the status of the mother-tongue program: The most important thing would be to have the mother tongue classes during the school day and not as an after school activity when the mother tongue must compete with sports and other leisure activities. I know this would require quite an organization but this way those parents who do not understand the importance of the child’s mother tongue would not have the possibility to choose e.g. sports instead of mother tongue classes. It is unfortunately a widely spread belief that a few years’ break won’t affect the mother tongue. A lot of parents believe that English is more important than the own mother tongue. What the parents often do not understand is that the literary side of the language does not develop only by speaking the language at home. If the classes cannot be organized during the school day in the school building, maybe the mother tongue classes could be made at least an obligatory subject according to the curriculum. These comments show the value that teachers place on the mother-tongue program, the perceived need for it to be incorporated into the school curriculum, and the knowledge of this teacher at least that speaking a language for daily use does not make up for the deeper application required for academic discourse.

294

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

Issues in management In private schools, any procedures involving change or reconsideration have to go through channels leading to approval by the principal, who has to take many matters to the board of governors. Matters involving finances particularly would have to be systematically presented and argued. The monolingual ethos of management, and the drive for English by ambitious parents, combined with the complex issues associated with bilingualism, do not simplify the task, which would be made immeasurably simpler if the agencies responsible for recruiting, accreditation and curriculum recognized and supported the changing linguistic character in the global student population of international schools. In many countries at present there is vacillation between centralism, with educational policies favoring the dominant language, and democratic pluralism. Most international schools tend toward the former model, where English dominates all aspects of a school’s life. For a brief interlude at the VIS, there was a period of pluralism where all students’ languages were given high profiles, and mother tongues were moving toward equity in representation and reward. However, events occurred which led to new management and a significant setback to hopes of more inclusion for the mother-tongue program.

Closing Comments My aim has been to substantiate that international school students have great potential to develop literacy in their mother tongue(s) and English, and that this would benefit them in several ways. It is crucial that an appropriate program of study is developed for them, for which parents would be largely supportive if presented with the relevant information about the profound role that language and languages will play in their children’s lives. However, there are obstacles in the shape of management which often seems focused on exam results in English rather than on processes for wider improvement (Carder, 2013). There are also the agencies which management is dependent on: an examination body, the IB Diploma, which is growing into a corporate organization with a focus on expanding in national systems, in which international schools represent but a small part of the clientele (Carder, 2011), and the accrediting agency, the CIS, which derives from a monolingual English ethos and an Anglo-American management model. The fundamental recognition that international students are in a different situation from national students is completely lacking, as is an acceptance of bilingualism as a body of knowledge and skill which could be fruitfully investigated and applied to this group of students. There is still a focus on ‘borrowing’ monolingual national methods for ‘dealing with the problem’ of SLLs. The IB has compounded this approach in its Middle Years Program (MYP) by failing to distinguish between foreign language learners

Inter nat ional School Student s

295

and those students learning English or another language in the curriculum as a second language. There is no recommendation to provide a specialist program of learning English through CLIL; teachers are blandly advised to use the same assessment model for foreign and second-language learners. Indeed, the terms ‘foreign’ and ‘second’ are used interchangeably, as if learning the entire curriculum through a new language at breakneck speed were the same as learning French or Spanish in a structured course over the fiveyear span of the MYP, even though Cummins, for example, wrote over a decade ago that ‘There is considerable consensus in Australia about the need for separate benchmarks for ELL students’ (Cummins, 2000: 152). The ‘problem’ of what types of program to provide for L2 students has, in fact, been solved (see, for example, Crawford & Krashen, 2007; Echevarria & Graves, 2008; Schecter & Cummins, 2003), but the decision to implement them has not been made by curriculum providers. IB learners are encouraged (IB, 2006) to ‘exercise initiative in applying thinking skills critically’. It would be advantageous for IB personnel to apply similar skills to devising more appropriate programs for L2 learners. Within schools, teachers are also constrained not to follow their consciences in a system where only compliant teachers have their contracts renewed and receive good references. As Hedges (2009) points out, ‘The neglect of the humanities has allowed elites to organize education and society around predetermined answers to predetermined questions [. . .]. They do not have the capacity for critical reflection’ (Hedges, 2009: 102–103). The international community would be well served by having a comprehensive, diverse program of instruction that would take into account and develop the children’s multilingual language repertoires. For this to happen, the principal education agencies responsible for curriculum and assessment, the IB and, for accreditation, the CIS, have to be clear about their stance. The IB cannot expect individual teachers in schools to attempt to provide best practice, based on research, for second-language acquisition and native-language development if there are not clear guidelines and parameters of program provision. Equally, if the CIS (or equivalent international accreditation agencies) does not have specific recommendations for the evaluation of second-language and mother-tongue programs, many school directors and boards of governors will not see the need to provide such programs, and this is currently the situation faced by international schools.

References Adorno, T. (1967) Education after Auschwitz. http://www.deschoolingclassroom.tkh-generator.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/adorno-education_after_auschwitz.pdf. Allan, M. (2002) Cultural borderlands: A case study of cultural dissonance in an international school. Journal of Research in International Education 2, 63–90. Auer, P. (2009) Bilingual conversation. In N. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds) The New Sociolinguistics Reader (pp. 490–511). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

296

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

Baker, C. (2006) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (4th edn). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. and Prys Jones, S. (eds) (1998) Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ben-Zeev, S. (1977) The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development XLVIII (3), 1009–1018. Bialystok, E. (1991) Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. (2009) A sociolinguistics of globalization. In N. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds) The New Sociolinguistics Reader (pp. 560–573). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Carder, M. (2007) Bilingualism in International Schools: A Model for Enriching Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Carder, M. (2010) Challenging the English-only orthodoxy: Linguistic pluralism, recognition and diversity rather than assimilation. Unpublished EdD (International) thesis, Institute of Education, University of London, London. Carder, M. (2011) ESL in international schools in the IBMYP: The elephant under the table. International Schools Journal XXXI (1), 50–58. Carder, M. (2013) English language teaching in International Schools: The change in students’ language from ‘English only’ to ‘linguistically diverse’. In R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2006) Integrativeness: Untenable for world Englishes learners? World Englishes 25, 437–450. Collier, V.P. (2003) Foreword. In E. Murphy (ed.) The International Schools Journal Compendium – ESL: Educating Non-native Speakers of English in an English-medium International School (pp. 7–8). Saxmundham: Peridot Press. Collier, V.P. and Thomas, W.P. (2007) Predicting second language academic success in English using the prism model. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds) International Handbook of English Language Education (pp. 333–348). Norwell: Springer. Coupland, N. and Jaworski, A. (2009) Social worlds through language. In N. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds) The New Sociolinguistics Reader (pp. 1–21). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Crawford, J. (2000) At War with Diversity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Crawford, J. and Krashen, S. (2007) English Learners in American Classrooms. New York: Scholastic. Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1986) Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review 56, 18–36. Reproduced in C. Baker and N.H. Hornberger (eds) (2001) An Introductory Reader to the Writings of Jim Cummins. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1993) Bilingualism and second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 51–70. Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2003) Bilingual education: Basic principles. In J.M. Dewaele, A. Housen and L. Wei (eds) Bilingualism: Beyond Basic Principles (pp. 56–66). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J.P. and Gulustan, M. (1974) Some effects of bilingualism on cognitive functioning. In S.T. Carey (ed.) Bilingualism and Education (pp. 129–136). Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. De Avila, E. and Duncan, S. (1979) Bilingualism and the metaset. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education 3, 1–20.

Inter nat ional School Student s

297

de Mejía, A.M. (2002) Power, Prestige and Bilingualism: International Perspectives on Elite Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dewaele, J.M., Housen, A. and Wei, L. (eds) (2003) Bilingualism: Beyond Basic Principles. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (eds) (2009) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Durkheim, E. (1897/1997) Suicide. New York: Free Press. Echevarria, J. and Graves, A. (2008) Sheltered Content Instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. ECIS (European Council of International Schools) (2010) Strategic Plan. London: ECIS. http://www.ecis.org Edwards, J. (2004) Foundations of bilingualism. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 7–31). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Edwards, V. (2004) Multilingualism in the English-speaking World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Edwards, V. (2009) Learning to be Literate. Multilingual Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. ESL Gazette (2005) August. Publication details cannot be traced. Ferguson, G. (2006) Language Planning and Education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Feuerstein, R. (1979) The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device, Theory, Instruments, and Techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Fishman, J.A. (1976) Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction. Rowley: Newbury House. Fishman, J.A. (2004) Language maintenance, language shift, and reversing language shift. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 406–436). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Fishman, J.A. (2009) Language, ethnicity and racism. In N. Coupland and A. Jaworski (eds) The New Sociolinguistics Reader (pp. 435–446). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gallagher, E. (2008) Equal Rights to the Curriculum: Many Languages, One Message. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. London: British Council. Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with Two Languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hakuta, K. (1986) Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Hakuta, K. and Diaz, R.M. (1985) The relationship between degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability: A critical discussion and some new longitudinal data. In K.E. Nelson (ed.) Children’s Language (pp. 319–445). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hedges, C. (2009) Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle. New York: Nation Books. IB (International Baccalaureate) (2006) IB Learner Profile. Geneva: International Baccalaureate. http://www.ibo.org. Jonietz, P.L. (1994) Trans-language learners: A new terminology for international schools. Reproduced in E. Murphy (ed.) (2003) The International Schools Journal Compendium – ESL: Educating Non-native Speakers of English in an English-medium International School (pp. 52–56). Saxmundham: Peridot Press. Kundera, M. (1984) The Unbearable Lightness of Being. London: Faber & Faber. Lambert, W.E. (1974) Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F.E. Aboud and R.D. Meade (eds) Cultural Factors in Learning and Education (pp. 91–122). Bellingham, WA: 5th Western Washington Symposium on Learning. Lambert, W. and Tucker, G.R. (1972) Bilingual Education of Children: The St. Lambert Experiment. Rowley: Newbury House.

298

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

Landry, R.G. (1974) A comparison of second language learners and monolinguals on divergent thinking tasks at the elementary school level. Modern Language Journal 58, 10–15. Leopold, W.F. (1939–1949) Speech Development of a Bilingual Child (4 vols). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. MacKenzie, P. (2001) Bilingual education: Who wants it? Who needs it? Reproduced in E. Murphy (ed.) (2003) The International Schools Journal Compendium – ESL: Educating Non-native Speakers of English in an English-medium International School. Saxmundham: Peridot Press. Matthews, M. (1989a) The scale of international education. Part I. International Schools Journal 17, 7–17. Matthews, M. (1989b) The uniqueness of international education. Part II. International Schools Journal 18, 22–33. McLaughlin, B. (1984) Early bilingualism: Methodological and theoretical issues. In M. Paradis and Y. Lebrun (eds) Early Bilingualism and Child Development (pp. 19–46). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger. Murphy, E. (ed.) (2003) The International Schools Journal Compendium – ESL: Educating Nonnative Speakers of English in an English-medium International School. Saxmundham: Peridot Press. Paulston, C.B. (1980) Bilingual Education: Theories and Issues. Rowley: Newbury House. Peal, E. and Lambert, W. (1962/1972) The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, General and Applied 76, 1–23. (Reprinted in R. Gardner and W. Lambert (1959) Attitudes and Motivation in Second-language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House.) Pennycook, A. (2003) Global Englishes, rip slyme, and performativity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 513–533. Romaine, S. (2004) The bilingual and multilingual community. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 385–405). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Schecter, R.S. and Cummins, J. (eds) (2003) Multilingual Education in Practice. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Sennett, R. (2006) The Culture of the New Capitalism. New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press. Sharp, D. (1973) Language in Bilingual Communities. London: Edward Arnold. Shohamy, E. (2006) Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London/New York: Routledge. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988) Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and J. Cummins (eds) Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle (pp. 9–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000) Linguistic Genocide in Education – or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Cummins, J. (eds) (1988) Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Thomas, W.P. and Collier, V.P. (1997) School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. http:// www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/resource/effectiveness/index.html. Troike, R.C. (1978) Research evidence for the effectiveness of bilingual education. NABE Journal 3, 13–24. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wolff, D. (2003) Content and language integrated learning: A framework for the development of learner autonomy. In D. Little, J. Ridley and E. Ushioda (eds) Learner Autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom (pp. 211–222). Dublin: Authentik. Wright, S. (2004) Language Policy and Language Planning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

14 Heritage Spanish Speakers in School Settings: Are Their Needs Being Met? Jaime E. Espinoza Moore and Emilia Alonso Marks

Introduction The term heritage Spanish speaker has appeared more frequently in linguistic journals and publications in the last decade due to a societal focus on globalization and, subsequently, on bilingualism and the teaching of foreign languages in academic institutions in the United States. However, with a new emphasis on the term heritage Spanish speaker, a term that has not received sufficient recognition in the applied linguistics field, there is confusion over (i) an appropriate and fixed definition, (ii) the difficulties entailed by the identification of the individual speakers in the classroom, and (iii) appropriate ways to address their academic needs. The present study concentrates on the continuum that represents the term heritage Spanish speaker (henceforth HSS), both in a general context as well as in the specific context of the Worthington, Ohio Public School District. The majority of studies on HSS take place in those states that have historically experienced larger Hispanic populations; those that comprise 70% of the Hispanic population in total in the United States – California, Texas, Illinois, Florida and New York. Latinos in Ohio, according to the 2000 Census Bureau, represent only 1.9% of the Hispanic population in the US and, in Franklin County, where this study takes place, represent 2.5% of the Latinos in Ohio. Despite the low population representation in Ohio, the investigation of Worthington secondary schools provides valuable information with respect to the academic situation of HSS in contexts where there is a lower concentration of Hispanics, as in suburban areas. In this sense, the present study 299

300

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

hopes to contribute to the explanation of the scholarly situation of HSS, since studies that address the situation for HSS attending Spanish-as-aforeign-language classes meant for monolingual English speakers are limited. These mixed-ability classrooms raise distinct challenges and solutions for monolingual English students and HSS, respectively. The present study engages in the ongoing dialogue about the presence of HSS in public schools and the effects of this presence in Spanish-as-a-foreignlanguage classrooms in the United States. It will present a comprehensive analysis of this growing phenomenon, encompassing linguistic and cultural attributes. The study will address the pedagogical needs of this student population as well as teacher and peer perceptions of classroom dynamics and learning likes and needs. In addition, it will bring a new awareness of the HSS’ experiences in the classroom to those involved in the study.

Review of the Literature Although the majority of publications that focus on HSS reflect an effort to support and address this growing phenomenon, this figure still represents a minority of publications that recognize the situation (Valdés, 2005). The reality of Spanish in the United States is that it is composed of a plethora of variations represented by the people that bring them from their respective countries and regions of origin. The contact of this diversity, along with the contact with countless dialects of English, results in the development of a new form of Spanish unique to this country, but unique in each region of the country as well. This situation seems to be the catalyst for the creation of the Spanish spoken by HSS. Without an understanding of what it means to have multiple linguistic competences, it is inconceivable to be able to relate to or help those HSS students at school. Often, teachers strongly encourage students with inferior English abilities not to speak Spanish at home in order to improve their English (Paneque, 2006). While the intention may be benevolent – to accelerate the rate of learning the language – it is not the most effective strategy. Actually, recent investigations demonstrate that the development of one language does not impede the acquisition of another (Cummins, 2005; Zehr, 2003). Additionally, this type of suggestion punishes those parents that do not speak English in the sense that they have no other form of communication with their children (Paneque, 2006). The effects of disregarding Spanish, however, are numerous and include the suppression of certain aspects of an individual’s identity, and the loss of a linguistic resource, one that would be potentially beneficial for the students’ academic and professional endeavors (Montrul & Potowski, 2007). The diversity of HSS’ linguistic abilities creates a continuum of bilingualism that produces a variety of strategies to accommodate these students in

Her it age Spanish Speakers in School Set t ings

301

appropriate courses (González-Pino, 2000). Unfortunately, few institutions possess placement techniques that can precisely situate HSS in appropriate level classes, given that most Spanish classes are intended for monolingual English speakers and decisions are principally based on students’ reading and writing abilities, while HSS usually exhibit superior verbal skills (GonzálezPino, 2000). Moreover, on many occasions, there is no follow-up procedure, and the placement of students in specific classes is more a suggestion than a requirement (González-Pino, 2000). Without appropriate placement of students, the resulting situation may not be pleasant and can cause students to experience frustration and boredom within the classroom setting (Gutiérrez, 1997). More disconcerting, however, than the student placement process is the lack of Spanish courses for HSS. Despite the 30 million or more Spanish speakers in the US and the fact that there are 3 million Puerto Rican American citizens making up the Commonwealth administered by the US, the majority of Spanish classes are designed for monolingual English speakers (Wiley, 2005). Within some studies, only between 18% and 32% of institutions in the country provide Spanish programs for HSS (Fairclough, 2006; GonzálezPino, 2000; Ingold et al., 2002). When HSS enter those Spanish classes meant for monolinguals learning a ‘foreign’ language, they can feel obligated to speak using a more basic vocabulary than the one they may use at home, and may feel embarrassed when their dialects are corrected in class (Gutiérrez, 1997; Potowski & Carreira, 2004; Valdés, 2005). The explanations of grammatical rules that these students already know can cause unnecessary confusion (Valdés, 2005). Additionally, their peers and teachers may feel intimidated by the advanced level typically exhibited by HSS. Relatively frequently, instructors misinterpret the HSS’ specific dialects as incorrect speech and support a more standard form (Hancock, 2002; Hislope, 2003). Correcting these dialectal variations tends to be a sensitive subject due to the connection of language with identity and an individual’s community (Wiley, 2005). As some studies suggest, it would be better, in any case, to model the target language rather than to make direct corrections that can create a sense of insecurity for the students (Potowski, 2005). Unfortunately, the number of teacher training programs that include a module on HSS is severely limited (Merino et al., 1993; Potowski, 2003). The risk of ignoring the potential influence of each participant’s attitudes in the Spanish class, including those of the teachers, whether or not the intention is to stigmatize the dialects of the students enrolled, would mean the loss of motivation by these HSS students and, in the long run, the loss of a valuable national resource (Wiley, 2005).

Linguistic profile In the 1980s, the teaching of Spanish to Hispanic bilinguals was restricted to students that had recently arrived from countries in which

302

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

Spanish was spoken both at home and in the community (Valdés, 1989). This is to say that the bilinguals that entered the Spanish classes were native speakers of the language and they did not need to learn grammar or vocabulary; instead, attending the class was contemplated as a strategy to maintain the home language. Today, with the Hispanic population growth in American society, Spanish classes are facing a novelty – the HSS. While the educated native Spanish speaker succeeds in speaking, reading, listening and writing, the HSS is habitually located on a continuum with Spanish dominance on one side and English on the other. A HSS, in general terms and in the context of the United States in particular, is an individual who speaks Spanish with a certain level of fluency, in addition to being typically bilingual in English as well. This continuum of fluency is due to the language acquisition contexts that are generally characterized by informal, non-academic environments such as at home with family. However, HSS receive little to no formal education in the Spanish language; rather, educational instruction is received in English (Potowski, 2005). While in most cases the indication is that HSS are of Hispanic/Latino heritage, the diversity of contexts in which language is acquired allows for the presence of non-Hispanic/Latino individuals. Because of the nature in which HSS learn Spanish, basic abilities in reading and writing as well as other common grammatical features that natives generally learn in primary education are less predominant (Valdés, 2005). In this sense, HSS tend to write Spanish as it is spoken, for example, ta bien instead of está bien (Edstrom, 2006), generally displaying an unawareness of Spanish accentuation rules (Mikulski, 2006). The subtle pronunciation differences between some letters in Spanish, in contradiction to their English pronunciation, (|b| versus |v|, |d| versus |t|, and |x| versus |h|) provide further spelling complications among HSS. Additionally, the use of double consonants and English capitalization rules infiltrate the orthography of HSS’ Spanish (Martínez, 2007). English patterns in HSS’ Spanish are also observed in the usage of null and overt subjects to the level of the discursive frankness employed (Martínez, 2007; Montrul, 2004; Pinto & Raschio, 2007). The HSS’ understanding of English tends to cause them to produce redundant subject pronouns (Yo quiero ir al cine), common in L2 acquisition of Spanish. Intermediate HSS produce significantly more overt than null subjects, thus diverging from monolinguals and advanced speakers in this respect (Montrul, 2004). Discursive style also tends to deviate from Spanish conventions, in which direct strategies are preferred, since HSS resort to the indirect and insinuated requests generally employed in English production (Pinto & Raschio, 2007). The constant contact of the languages in the HSS’ experience also promotes the use of code-switching. Code-switching refers to the substitution of words or phrases from one language for words or phrases from another. Thus, speakers use more than one language in a manner consistent with the

Her it age Spanish Speakers in School Set t ings

303

structure (syntax, phonology, etc.) of each language, for example, I am tired; me voy a la cama. Code-switching generally carries negative connotations in that it is associated with a deficit in the individual’s production of the language(s). However, this linguistic strategy is more complex than it appears. It requires, on the part of the user, a profound understanding of the structures of both languages in order to combine them and create sensibly grammatical statements (Goldstein & Kohnert, 2005). It also demonstrates both discursive and pragmatic functions (Potowski, 2005). For example, code-switching can be used to emphasize the importance of an idea (Potowski, 2005), to create a sense of complicity among group members (Callahan, 2004), to cite exactly what someone said, to make parenthetic commentary or even to change the subject of conversation. That said, depending on the linguistic approach adopted, prescriptive or descriptive, positive connotations may also exist. Another general trend observed in HSS’ language production is mood simplification in which the subjunctive is often replaced by the indicative. Curiously, the communicative contexts in which speakers learn the subjunctive for the first time are those of volition (querer que …), intention (para que …), and those that reflect the use of the standard variety. However, the difficulties with the subjunctive appear in all levels of competence, and those regarding tense and morphology observed in HSS are diverse. Sometimes both tense and morphology are absent (Montrul, 2008). Additionally, and from a more extended perspective, it seems that the mood distinction is not only disappearing in Spanish dialects but in other romance languages as well (Hislope, 2003). Various applied linguists question whether the distinct production levels of HSS’ Spanish may be attributed to attrition or incomplete acquisition (Montrul, 2004). Attrition refers to the situation in which the individual develops and maintains a grammatical system before losing it. For example, this could reflect the situation of a HHS who was born and educated in Peru, and then began schooling in English after his/her family migrated to the US. This student had fully acquired Spanish, and developed and maintained its grammatical system before losing certain aspects of it due to the influence of a new linguistic environment; notably, this affects lexical retrieval, the phonetic inventory and some discursive aspects (Montrul, 2008). On the other hand, incomplete acquisition occurs by receiving limited input and, therefore, compromises central aspects, like knowledge of verbal tense and aspect, and secondary aspects, like register, of one’s linguistic competence (Montrul, 2004, 2008). The only way to distinguish the two is to access an individual’s initial linguistic knowledge, which is not easily identified without observation from the onset of language production (Montrul, 2004). Unfortunately, some aspects of HSS’ speech, more specifically with regard to children, due to either attrition or incomplete acquisition, are shared with monolingual individuals who possess linguistic impediments and, therefore, run the risk of being

304

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

misclassified as linguistically damaged, significantly impacting those individuals’ academic experiences (Goldstein & Kohnert, 2005). As there is no formula to cover all of the components of HSS’ Spanish, these linguistic generalizations, as they reflect a variety of real situations in the US, serve to help in the recognition and appreciation of those aspects of speech that form the distinct Spanish of HSS.

Objectives The principal objective of this study is to represent, as precisely as possible, the scholastic situation of HSS in Worthington, Ohio public secondary schools. First, we hypothesize that HSS enter Spanish foreign language classes at least in each institution within the district, if not in every Spanish class offered. Second, since Worthington schools do not offer classes specifically designed for HSS, we contend that the classes in which the HSS enroll are not always academically challenging for them. These students come to class with prior knowledge of Spanish and study with individuals who have little to no experience with the language before entering the classroom. Since the language acquisition process tends to be rather informal for HSS, it is possible that some materials address the linguistic aspects that confuse or are lacking in these students; however, this is not to say that they are necessarily appropriate for this student population. To pursue these goals, the present study concentrates on four research questions specifically addressing the Spanish teachers in the district: (1) Do the Spanish teachers in Worthington know the term heritage Spanish speaker? (2) Are there HSS in Worthington Spanish classes? (3) Are the HSS in classes that respond to their linguistic levels of competence? (4) Do the teachers believe that a Spanish course specifically developed for HSS would be beneficial for the institution and the students enrolled?

Methodology The Spanish classes in the Worthington schools participating in the study reflect the standard and norm of foreign language classes in the US as they are developed for monolingual English students wanting to learn a foreign language. In Worthington, no programs exist in the public secondary institutions specifically targeted to attend to the teaching of Spanish to HSS. It is then possible to infer that not all secondary school teachers recognize the HSS that may attend their classes, nor are they prepared to respond to their academic needs. This could be due to the fact that, being a relatively

Her it age Spanish Speakers in School Set t ings

305

new linguistic challenge, teachers may not possess training or education on the pedagogical implications that accompany this sector of the student population in the majority of magisterial certification. Of the 27 Spanish teachers in the Worthington school district, 20 participated in the study. Half teach at middle school level and half at high school level. We asked teachers to complete a survey, which included the definition of HSS in the introduction, and concentrated on the presence, or absence, of HSS in their classes. The survey also requested the teachers’ opinions about the influence of HSS in their Spanish classes, with respect to the atmosphere and impact of their presence among their peers, in addition to asking if/how teachers tended to the unique needs of those students.

Results Regarding the first research question, three of the Spanish teachers had not heard the term before participating in the study. This means that 85% of the Spanish teachers recognize the term. According to their responses, the term has emerged in various contexts including university, conferences, professional publications, textbooks, and within their respective institutions from colleagues. In the end, it can be stated that, after having completed the survey, 100% of participating teachers, that is 74% of all Spanish teachers in the Worthington school district, have now been exposed to the term. The second research question revealed that of the 20 teachers surveyed, 12 expressed a presence of HSS in their Spanish classes. Another two teachers surveyed mentioned that, although there are no HSS in their Spanish classes, these students seem to have enrolled in their French classes. The total number of HSS enrolled in the classes taught by the participants reached 33 students, with 70% present in only two institutions: Thomas Worthington High School and Worthingway Middle School (see Figure 14.1). With regards to the third research question, Figure 14.2 reveals the teachers’ opinions on the level of the course for the HSS students. The majority of the teachers consider their Spanish classes appropriate or perhaps somewhat easy for 77% of their HSS students. In the case shown in which the level of the course was considered somewhat advanced or difficult, the student to whom this refers seemed to have difficulties in general with his/her studies according to the Spanish teacher and does not necessarily reflect the student’s level of competence in the course. No teacher marked the option that suggested the class was too difficult for their HSS students. Related to the appropriateness of the course level for the HSS students is their performance in comparison to that of their peers (see Figure 14.3). Not surprisingly, 50% of the teachers observed that the performance level of their HSS students was superior to that of their peers. Sixty-five percent

306

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

Figure 14.1 HSS in secondary school Spanish classes in Worthington and district

Figure 14.2 Level of the course in comparison to the enrolled HSS’ competences

(n = 13) located the level of their HSS students between superior and standard, while 25% (n = 5) indicated an average level of performance. Curiously, 20% (n = 4) of the teachers expressed an opinion that the HSS students’ level of performance was inferior in comparison. Two comments offered by the participants with regard to the perception of an inferior level of performance on the part of their HSS students focused on the perceived attitudes of those students. It appears that those teachers observed in their HSS students a lack of motivation to make an effort in the classroom. Another

Her it age Spanish Speakers in School Set t ings

307

Figure 14.3 Teachers’ perceptions of HSS’ level of performance

participant commented that the performance level of HSS is as variable as that of any other type of student. Additionally, 60% (n = 12) of teachers with students placed in classes that are potentially lower than their level of linguistic competence felt intimidated at one time or another by the advanced level displayed by these students (see Figure 14.4). One teacher commented: ‘More than feeling intimidated, I felt irritated because most of the students I had thought I couldn’t teach them everything. Several times they argued when I corrected them and tried to convince the rest of the class that I was wrong.’ Another teacher admitted feeling less intimidated after gaining more confidence as a teacher. Concerning the fourth research question on the creation of a Spanish course specifically designed to address the academic needs of HSS, teachers’

Figure 14.4 Teachers intimidated by advanced HSS students

308

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

Figure 14.5 Teachers who believe a Spanish course for HSS would be beneficial

opinions gravitate clearly in favor (see Figure 14.5). The vast majority of teachers, 70% (n = 14), answered that both the institution and the students would benefit from this type of course. Only 25% (n = 4) of teachers did not agree with this idea and one participant responded that ‘maybe’ there would be some benefit.

Discussion The results of the present study confirm the presence of HSS in each of the public secondary schools in the Worthington school district. However, the number of HSS enrolled in Spanish classes, as indicated by the teachers, is not necessarily representative of the total number of HSS in the schools. Many HSS go unnoticed, especially if they decide not to take Spanish. Some HSS do not have Spanish last names, while some decide to register in French classes (the second most popular foreign language), or simply steer away from foreign language classes altogether. The reasons may be due to a lack of confidence in their own level of language proficiency, to the class level when perceived to be too low, to scheduling conflicts or to peer pressure. Those HSS who take Spanish enroll in classes meant for monolingual English students learning Spanish as a foreign language and generally do not have their specific academic needs covered. Although the teachers who participated in our study are aware of their HSS’ specific academic needs in Spanish, given the great variety of proficiency levels within courses – especially between oral and written skills – it is not always easy to match course level with actual level of language proficiency. An added complexity comes with the sociocultural dimension of language learning. Students bring to class their own unique sociocultural backgrounds. In order to benefit from and appreciate this wealth of diversity, it

Her it age Spanish Speakers in School Set t ings

309

seems important to incorporate the sociocultural aspects of the represented backgrounds in class, such as any dialectal differences, country-appropriate festivities, references to the gastronomy, the music, etc. In addition to levels of competence and cultural diversity, there is the question of time. Only 40–45% of the teachers have time to devote to their HSS students in class activities or outside class. Another factor to take into account is intimidation. The results of our study indicate that the presence of HSS in Spanish classes intimidates 60% of the 20 teachers who participated in the study. Teacher intimidation could be easily attributable to the fact that many of the teachers were not native Spanish speakers. Since teachers do not like to be corrected by students or judged to have a foreign accent, it seems obvious why teachers would feel intimidated or uncomfortable. The fact that one of the teachers who participated in the study explained that, with more experience and confidence in the profession, this difficulty would be eliminated, and that another teacher expressed how her speech was undermined when HSS tried to persuade the rest of the class that she was wrong, reinforce this argument. However, the situation seems to be much more complex than that. Although it is unknown to us whether the teachers were native or nonnative Spanish speakers, we do know their teaching experience. Assuming that the vast majority are non-native Spanish speakers, and considering that 70% felt intimidated by the seemingly advanced level of the HSS in their classes, we wondered why we obtained these results. Is teacher intimidation attributed to lack of experience or confidence in the profession? The case of the Worthington School District complicates this hypothesis. The results of our study indicate that years of teaching experience do not correlate with comfort level. Half of the participants who felt intimidated by the presence of HSS in their classes had taught less than 10 years, whereas the other half had taught for 10 years or more. If we were to assume that, with more experience, teachers would feel less intimidated by their students’ level, it would be difficult to account for the reasons why six of the participating teachers who had 10 years or more of classroom experience still felt intimidated. We fear this is a difficult situation, one that conforms to reasons – self-confidence, maturity and personal style – that are beyond the scope of our study. Not surprisingly, the majority of the teachers in our study (70%) are in favor of designing a special class for HSS. This fact must be indicative of the need for change. By their own observations, the teachers realize that HSS constitute their own demographic unit, distinct from that of their monolingual English peers. Thus there must be different learning options for these students. The idea of offering alternative learning options to the HSS does not end, necessarily, with the design and implementation of a new course that meets their academic needs. There are other ways in which teachers could assess and meet the demands of their mixed-ability

310

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

Spanish classes. These alternatives will be discussed in the section on pedagogical implications.

Pedagogical Implications Research on heritage language teaching centers more and more around mixed-ability foreign language contexts in which both monolingual English students and bilingual Spanish–English students enroll in foreign language classes, since this is the prevalent academic context in most of the United States (Edstrom, 2006; González-Pino, 2000). The Worthington School District is no exception, as there are mixed-ability foreign language classes in each secondary public school. Since there are different ways of implementing these types of classes and there are different types of students registered in them, it would be important for each district to contextualize its own strategies so that each one can assess and attend to its own needs adequately (González-Pino, 2000). However, the literature offers examples and suggestions to improve language teaching and learning, especially in terms of the language and the language varieties that should be used in class. Teaching HSS requires an understanding of the linguistic and social implications of bilingualism. It is not enough for Spanish teachers to know the standard variety and that class materials focus solely on the use of this variety (Potowski, 2001). A great part of the complexity of bilingualism is based on having multiple competences and on the ability to transfer those competences among the languages and varieties that speakers know. The suppression of certain linguistic aspects could potentially hinder the acquisition of other aspects (Dúcar, 2008). That is why the teacher’s role is to increase the linguistic knowledge of their students, promoting the development of several registers in class – including the academic register – and allowing for the exploration and advancement of the respective students’ dialects in class, instead of replacing those with the standard variety (Edstrom, 2006; Peyton et al., 2001; Potowski, 2001; Schwarzer & Petrón, 2005). It would be key for the teachers to learn about their students’ linguistic profiles at the beginning of the school year. This could be accomplished by conducting a survey or a brief interview about the languages that students use at home or among family and friends. Even if the students speak a language other than Spanish, this information would be useful for the teacher, since it may have implications for language transference or other cognitive abilities. The information obtained from the surveys could also help to raise an awareness of the diversity of students within mixed-ability classes, an awareness that could be advantageous for both the students and teachers involved (Lacorte & Canabal, 2005). In order to expand the linguistic production of HSS, the teacher would need to provide students with explanations on how context affects language

Her it age Spanish Speakers in School Set t ings

311

(Leeman, 2005; Potowski, 2001). Potowski (2001) uses the example that we dress differently to go to the beach than to go to a wedding, but we do not dispose of the clothes we use to go to the beach before we go to the wedding; rather, we save it for another day. In other words, the variety of Spanish spoken by HSS at home or with their friends and family is valid and appropriate for these contexts, and they could and should be encouraged to use it. However, there are other varieties and registers that would be more appropriate to use in other contexts, such as in school or in the workplace. It would be the teachers’ responsibility to explain the meaning of contextualization so that they afford their students the opportunity to apply this concept to Spanish by analyzing and producing the language appropriately, depending on the topic or the communicative situation (Potowski, 2005). The challenging part about teaching different varieties of Spanish and allowing the use of students’ dialects in class is deciding when and how to correct language production. Sometimes it is not easy to determine if students’ productions are erroneous or simply informal varieties. The incorporation of code-switching and calques, among other phenomena commonly found in language contact situations, is not a dialectal feature of any particular language. These phenomena may be indicative of gaps or confusion in the knowledge of a language. The recommendation in these types of situations is for the teacher to model a particular pattern or linguistic form, instead of implementing explicit correction, because this type of correction has been proven to be less effective (Potowski, 2005; Schwarzer & Petrón, 2005). Moreover, it is advisable to treat only those aspects of the language (verb tense, agreement, spelling) that have been studied in class already (Potowski, 2005). Undoubtedly, mixed-ability classes require more time, energy and creativity on the teachers’ part in order to understand and tend to students’ varying levels in their classes. These classes require a balancing act. Teachers need to avoid spending a lot of time going over those aspects of the language HSS already know, even though they might not be familiar with the terminology (Potowski, 2005), while making sure that monolingual students have enough time to process what might be new territory for them. This could be achieved by having the monolingual students work on additional homework activities that could be reviewed with the teacher after class, or by creating pair activities where the HSS could assist their monolingual peers with those aspects of language with which they are unfamiliar. Since teachers’ beliefs and values impact all aspects of the classroom, including the class atmosphere, they need to work on their students’ attitudes and beliefs about the language they are learning and its implications. The idea is to challenge those beliefs that carry a negative connotation in order to create a positive and respectful classroom environment, conducive to learning. The lack of preparation to teach HSS in general education programs (Merino et al., 1993; Potowski, 2003) forces either the entire school district

312

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

or each of the individual Spanish teachers to research their current situation. The representation of HSS in Spanish classes, although low, seems to require immediate attention so that the different institutions continue to fulfill their responsibilities of addressing and attending to the academic needs of this student population along with those of the rest of the students in the class.

Conclusions Although the Spanish teachers were aware of the presence of HSS in their classrooms, less than half tried to meet their students’ needs by either supplementing level-appropriate learning materials, assigning level-appropriate projects and/or arranging one-on-one meetings with them after class. In addition, the majority of the teachers felt unprepared to meet their HSS students’ needs and were willing to design and implement a class specifically for HSS. The present study brings awareness with respect to the current situation of mixed-ability foreign language school contexts, specifically in areas adjacent to a great metropolis – such as Worthington to Columbus, Ohio – where the Latino/Hispanic population is typically underrepresented. Nevertheless, our study is an accurate depiction of the reality of our country in terms of the increasing numbers of foreign language speakers, especially from Spanish-speaking backgrounds, and the implication of their presence in our public school system. How do we respond effectively to heritage speakers in our foreign language classes? How do we, as a society, help foreign language teachers handle their mixed-ability foreign language classes and enhance the learning experiences of all their students, so that they are both linguistically and culturally prepared for the demands of our globalized 21st century?

References Callahan, L. (2004) Native speakers’ attitudes toward the use of Spanish by non-native speakers: From George W. to J. Lo. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 23, 7–34. Cummins, J. (2005) A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal 89, 585–592. Dúcar, C.M. (2008) Student voices: The missing link in the Spanish heritage language debate. Foreign Language Annals 41, 415–429. Edstrom, A. (2006) Oral narratives in the language classroom: A bridge between nonnative, heritage, and native-speaking learners. Hispania 89, 336–346. Fairclough, M. (2006) Language placement exams for heritage speakers of Spanish: Learning from students’ mistakes. Foreign Language Annals 39, 595–604. Goldstein, B. and Kohnert, K. (2005) Speech, language, and hearing in developing bilingual children: Current findings and future directions. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 36, 264–267.

Her it age Spanish Speakers in School Set t ings

313

González-Pino, B. (2000) An infusion curriculum for the heritage speaker of Spanish. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education 5, 93–109. Gutiérrez, J. (1997) Teaching Spanish as a heritage language: A case for language awareness. ADFL Bulletin 29, 33–36. Hancock, Z. (2002) Heritage Spanish speakers’ language learning strategies. CAL Online Resources. http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/0206hancock.html. Hislope, K. (2003) A reading study of Spanish heritage speakers. Reading Matrix 3, 1–21. Ingold, C.W., Rivers, W., Tesser, C.C. and Ashby, E. (2002) Report on the NFLC/AATSP survey of Spanish language programs for native speakers. Hispania 85, 324–329. Lacorte, M. and Canabal, E. (2005) Teacher beliefs and practices in advanced Spanish classrooms. Heritage Language Journal 3, 83–107. Leeman, J. (2005) Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals 38, 35–45. Martínez, G. (2007) Writing back and forth: The interplay of form and situation in heritage language composition. Language Teaching Research 11, 31–41. Merino, B.J., Samaniego, F., Trueba, H., Castañeda, E.V. and Chaudry, L. (1993) Language minority native Spanish speakers at the secondary level and the role of the foreign language teacher. Peabody Journal of Education 69, 152–171. Mikulski, A.M. (2006) Accentuating rules and relationships: Motivations, attitudes, and goals in a Spanish for native speakers class. Foreign Language Annals 39, 660–682. Montrul, S. (2004) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 125–142. Montrul, S. (2008) Incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers: Chronological age or interfaces vulnerability? Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 32, 299–310. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Montrul, S. and Potowski, K. (2007) Command of gender agreement in school-age Spanish–English bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism 11, 301–328. Paneque, O. (2006) Good intentions, bad advice for bilingual families. Childhood Education 82, 171–174. Peyton, J.K., Lewelling, V.W. and Winke, P. (2001) Spanish for Spanish speakers: Developing dual language proficiency. ERIC Digest (ED469209 2001-12-00). http:// www.eric.ed.gov. Pinto, D. and Raschio, R. (2007) A comparative study of requests in heritage Spanish, L1 Spanish, and L1 English. International Journal of Bilingualism 11, 135–155. Potowski, K. (2001) Educating university foreign language teachers to work with heritage Spanish speakers. In B. Johnston and S. Irujo (eds) Research and practice in language teacher education: Voices from the field. Selected papers from the First international conference on language teacher education. CARLA Working Paper 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. http://www.carla.umn.edu/resources/workingpapers/samples/potowskipaper.pdf. Potowski, K. (2003) Chicago’s heritage language teacher corps: A model for improving Spanish teacher development. Hispania 86, 302–311. Potowski, K. (2005) Fundamentos de la enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes en los Estados Unidos. Madrid: Arco Libros. Potowski, K. and Carreira, M. (2004) Teacher development and national standards for Spanish as a heritage language. Foreign Language Annals 37, 427–437. Schwarzer, D. and Petrón, M. (2005) Heritage language instruction at the college level: Reality and possibilities. Foreign Language Annals 38, 568–578. Valdés, G. (1989) Teaching Spanish to Hispanic bilinguals: A look at oral proficiency testing and the proficiency movement. Hispania 72, 392–401. Valdés, G. (2005) Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized? Modern Language Journal 89, 410–426.

314

Par t 4: The L anguage Needs of Bilingual and Mult ilingual Student s

Wiley, T. (2005) The reemergence of heritage and community language policy in the U.S. national spotlight. Modern Language Journal 89, 594–601. Zehr, M.A. (2003) Schools tap talent for home languages. Education Week 22 (29), 1. http://www.azbilingualed.org/AABE%20Site/AABE%20NEWS%202003/schools_ tap_talent_for_home_lang.htm.

Conceptual Index

academic achievement 4, 24, 28, 31, 35, 38 instruction 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38 subject 8, 9, 25, 26, 31, 32, 35–37, 207 additive bilingual education 24, 181 bilingualism 4, 157, 163, 287, 289 age xi, xx, xxvi, 8, 10, 11, 13, 24, 26–28, 32–34, 39, 62, 63, 69, 107–109, 115–119, 122, 126, 127, 133, 163, 164, 185, 186, 190–193, 195–197, 210, 240, 265, 277 age differences xxv, 190 Andalusia vi, xxvi, xxvii, 20, 64, 77, 203, 206, 208–210, 222, 224, 258, 261, 262, 264, 265, 267, 269 Andalusian (public) schools 206, 207, 222, 225, 266, 267 applied linguistics xix, xxi, xxii, 3, 55, 57, 59, 64, 237, 299 Arabic 5, 86, 87, 165, 200, 290, 291 attitude xxvi, 65, 69, 72, 75, 76, 100, 108, 166, 180, 183–186, 190, 192, 195, 199, 203–205, 233, 251, 260, 261, 268, 288, 289, 301, 306, 311 authentic language skills 32

3, 6, 7, 24, 37, 42–45, 47, 49, 54–56, 59, 60, 86, 87, 107, 117, 129, 130, 155, 157–160, 163, 164, 168, 169, 172, 173, 179–182, 186, 189, 190, 192–194, 196, 217, 222, 225, 231–234, 238, 239, 241, 242, 249, 252, 253, 285 proficiency xxiii, 11, 47, 55 school vi, vii, xx, xxiii–xxvi, 5, 7, 20, 42–49, 51, 52, 54, 58, 64, 118, 129, 158, 180, 184, 186, 189, 198, 203, 206, 233, 249, 252, 253 teacher education vi, xxvii, 231, 235, 238, 253 textbook 120, 267 Bilingual Education Act 163, 173 bilingualism functional - 4, 7, 10, 14, 207 subtractive - 5, 287, 291 biliteracy xxii, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 112, 276, 285 Bologna declaration 64, 89 British Council xxvii, 43, 64, 180, 185–187, 199 calque vii, viii, 137, 140–149, 151, 152, 311 Canadian immersion program xxiv, 12, 15, 50, 69, 72 immersion-type programs xxi Catalan 6, 60, 65, 66, 69, 73, 77, 87, 93, 188 Catalonia xxiii, 52, 55, 62–65, 71, 87, 94, 185, 194 chemistry 28, 31, 87, 141 classroom language 49, 50, 54, 55, 108, 113, 152, 168, 228, 268 classroom methodology xxi

balanced bilingualism 48, 119 Basque v, vii, xx, xxiv, 6, 69, 85, 87, 90–99, 101–103, 188, 200 Basque Region/Country/Autonomous Community vii, xi, xx, xxiv, 35, 62–66, 68, 86, 87, 90–98, 102, 103, 185 Berber 87 bicultural orientation 45 bilingual competence 42 education v, vi, viii-xxiv, xxvi, xxvii,

315

316

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

CLIL classes 207, 208, 213, 221, 222, 229, 261, 263, 264, 265–267, 269 framework 63 materials 55 methodology 55, 71, 262, 266 co-languaging 110, 120, 129, 164 co-teaching 208, 209, 219, 220, 225 code-switching 49, 50, 67, 69, 107, 108, 110, 121, 162, 163, 302, 303, 311 Common European Framework of Reference 19, 71 communication patterns 25 communicative language teaching 8, 13, 64, 257 comprehension skills 29–31 content teacher 19, 229 content-based approach xxiii, 26, 35 courses 26, 27 instruction xxii, 4, 7, 25, 52, 55, 207 L2 instruction 32 language instruction xxiii, 32 Creole languages 43, 44 cross-contextual transferability xxi cross-linguistic influence xxv, 137, 138, 151, 152 cultural ambassador 209 pluralism xxviii, 182 deaf (the) 6, 7, 56, 159, 232 diglossia vi, xxv, xxvi, 110, 129, 155–157, 159–163, 165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 284 double immersion xx, 27 dual language school xxv, 108 usage 107 dynamic bilingualism 111, 163 ecological approach 160 educational approach xxii, xxiii, 4, 60, 87, 103, 136 context xx, xxii, 4–7, 15, 44, 52, 234 elementary level 94 school xxi, xxiii, xxvi, 3, 10, 16, 33, 59, 88, 91, 92, 114, 166, 180, 183, 185–189, 191, 194, 197, 198, 200, 206, 292 emergent bilingual 159, 164–166, 169–171

English language competence 24 lexicon 30, 87, 91 English-speaking xx, 24, 27, 34, 49, 136, 163, 165, 166, 172, 185, 191, 194, 199, 277, 280 enhanced metalinguistic development 289 error vii, 12, 25, 70, 137–141, 149, 151, 213 error analysis 141, 151 European Higher Education Area 89, 103 evaluation xiv, xvi, xxiii, xxvi, xxvii, 13, 24, 28, 29, 31, 34, 53, 65, 130, 140, 141, 144–152, 180, 186, 187, 190, 199, 235, 295 extracurricular language learning 34 first language 5, 16, 24, 25, 37, 42, 48, 50, 59, 61, 62, 86, 91, 108, 111–113, 115, 119–121, 129, 182, 191, 256, 259, 268, 276, 284, 287 French vii, xviii, xx, xxvii, 7, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 24–32, 34–39, 44, 64, 86, 87, 90, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, 129, 156, 185, 206, 231, 238, 239, 250, 252, 279, 291,292, 295, 305, 308 French immersion programs 24, 28, 34, 38 proficiency 30 Frisian 87, 183 functional language teaching 25 Gaelic 87, 185 Galicia 63, 64, 69 gender viii, xxvi, 133, 190–194, 196–199 grammatical accuracy 30, 73 competence 71 Hebrew xx, 27, 35 heritage language schools 108 Spanish speaker/HSS vi, viii, ix, xvi, xxix, 299, 300–312 heteroglossia 160 high school viii, xi, 6, 8, 12, 15, 17, 18, 35, 61, 63, 71, 91, 92, 94, 96, 163, 164, 170, 179, 185, 190–198, 200, 205–207, 212–214, 216, 256, 258, 269, 305 higher education v, xvi, xxi, xxiv, 4, 44, 46, 59, 60, 63, 65, 85–90, 93, 96, 103, 104, 108, 207, 280 higher-status language 108

Conceptual Inde x

history 8, 26–28, 31, 42, 44, 49, 116, 117, 127, 161, 168, 187, 188, 206, 259, 260, 265, 278, 282 identity 47, 51, 159, 182, 186, 223, 232, 233, 238, 277, 278, 283–285, 300, 301 immersion delayed – 27 early double – 27 early partial – 26, 45, 46 early total – 10, 26, 29, 35 program v, xii, xiii, xxiv, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 24, 25–38, 45, 46, 48, 50, 60, 62, 68–70, 72, 181 teacher 25 incidental language instruction 25 indigenous bilingual education 232 education 43, 158, 232 instructor input xx intensified foreign language program xxiii, 10, 11, 48 intercultural communicative competence/ICC xxvii, 203, 204, 218, 219, 222, 224, 225 competence xviii, xxvii, 204, 205, 223, 230 international language 42, 43, 103, 185, 192, 234, 238, 241, 243, 251 school vi, xxviii, xxix, 5, 275–294 interviews 52, 113, 114, 117, 129, 135, 209–211 intrinsic motivation 288 IQ 29 Italian 64, 165 language acquistion xxiv, 9, 25, 33, 72, 87, 110, 137, 138, 262, 275, 281, 295, 302, 304 across the curriculum 34 assistant/LAs vi, xxvi, xxvii, 20, 182, 187, 195, 199, 207, 226, 261, 265–269 planning 3, 98, 99, 102, 103, 117, 156, 207 policy xxi, 87, 91, 94, 98 separation xx, xxv, 15, 50, 110, 129, 130, 156, 169 late immersion 26, 28, 29, 31, 34–36 learning disabilities 39 level post-secondary - 26 lexico-grammatical skills 74

317

lingua franca 7, 63, 141, 185, 194, 199, 285 linguistic insecurity 158, 159 literacy skills 29–31, 34, 258, 266 lower-status language 108 maintenance bilingual education 163, 181 mathematics 8, 16, 24, 26–28, 30, 35, 108, 116, 121, 127, 183, 199, 233, 257, 293 medium of instruction xiv, xv, 5, 26, 27, 35, 59, 96, 100, 103, 104, 183, 259 minority ethnic group 37 language xxiv, 5–7, 36, 37, 86–88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 99, 102, 103, 108, 109, 112, 113, 119, 123, 129, 158, 159, 162, 181–183, 185, 288 mixed-ability classes 310, 311 mixed-age classes 109 mixed-language classrooms 120 mobility 61, 62, 64, 76, 88–90, 96, 98, 103, 207, 281 monolingual community xxvi, 192 ethos 42, 48, 294 school vi, xxviii, 5, 199 Moroccan 87 mother tongue xxviii, xxix, 5, 60, 86, 138, 209, 233, 234, 241, 243, 266, 275–277, 279–284, 287, 289–295 mother tongue maintenance 284 multilingual classroom xviii, xix, 155, 156 education v, xix–xxii, 3, 7, 60, 76, 86, 99, 109 ethos 61, 76, 286 program 97 multilingualism v, xix, xx, xxiii, xxiv, xxvii, 5, 7, 42, 43, 61, 65, 68, 72, 85–87, 90, 96, 97, 99, 102, 103, 108, 160, 206, 232, 264, 280, 285 multilingualism promotion program xxvii, 206 multiliteracy xix multimodality xxiv, 104 national bilingual schools vii, 45–47, 51, 58 native assistant vi, xxvi, xxvii, 203 language vi, xxi, xxv, xxviii, 5–8, 12, 15, 20, 29, 38, 44, 50, 51, 136, 137, 141, 181, 208, 259, 260, 279, 282, 295 speaker 14, 16, 17, 51, 183, 208, 222, 261

318

Bilingual and Mult ilingual Educat ion in the 21st Centur y

New Englishes 51 non-native xx, xxi, xxv, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 51, 86, 208, 210 non-standard variety 37 non-verbal communication 37 official language 8, 24, 62, 98, 199, 200 outcomes of immersion 24, 32 Palenquero 43 phonetic competence 73 Portuguese xvii, 6, 7, 165, 231, 232, 243, 245, 247–251, 254 pragmatic skills 10, 21, 74 pre-service bilingual teachers xvii prestige/elite bilingual education 232, 234, 241, 249 primary school 43, 50 ,51, 52, 61, 114, 117, 121, 127, 210 private bilingual school xxii, 7, 20, 42, 44, 52 productive abilities 70 professional qualifications xxi proficiency xxiii–xxv, xxviii, 8–12, 14, 16–19, 24, 25, 30–35, 37, 38, 45–48, 51, 53, 55, 62, 68, 70–72, 75, 90, 94, 100–102, 107, 108, 118, 122, 123, 138, 141, 163, 165–168, 192, 194–197, 199, 207, 213, 215, 221, 243, 258, 260, 261, 276, 282, 308 public education xxi, 44, 157, 266 Quechua 6, 159 scaffolding 108, 112, 117, 119, 120, 121, 129 science 8, 26, 27, 30, 35, 49, 53–55, 70, 88, 94, 95–98, 103, 108, 116, 121, 127, 128, 136, 170, 183, 187, 188, 214, 215, 233, 256, 259, 260, 265, 295 second language learning xxiii, 60 secondary classroom xxvi, 155 secondary level xxi, xxiv, xxvii, 44 semi-structured interviews 52, 117, 210 social interaction 14, 17, 25, 32 sociolinguistic competence 70, 74 forms 33 sociolinguistics xix, 156, 278 sociolinguistics of globalization 278 sociopolitical ideologies xxi

Spain vi, xix, xx–xxiii, xxvi, 4–7, 11, 19, 20, 27, 34, 37, 53, 59–66, 72, 76, 89, 96, 137, 166, 179, 183–189, 198–200, 206, 207, 223, 233, 258 Spanglish 49, 171 study abroad/SA viii, xxiv, 44, 65, 72, 194, 207 subject-related terminology 120, 122 syntactic competence 30 target language xxiv, 8–11, 16–20, 25, 32–34, 66–68, 73–76, 94, 99, 137, 138, 140, 152, 179, 181, 184, 185, 192, 194–197, 199, 203, 207, 208, 218, 222, 257, 301 teacher-centered approach 36 teaching materials xxiv, 16, 94, 99, 152, 153, 208, 264, 269 team teaching 208, 209 tertiary education vi, xxv, 64, 136 level 4, 14, 65, 136, 194 testing 17, 29, 31, 73, 118 textbooks xiii, 8, 45, 46, 49, 94, 120, 159, 206, 221, 223, 263, 267, 305 third language xx, xxii, 8, 87, 90, 93, 96, 98, 103, 104, 111, 179, 185 transculturation 161, 162 transfer 30, 72, 111, 137, 145, 153, 279, 293, 310 transglossia vi, 25, 155, 157, 159–162 translanguaging xxv, xxvi, 99, 104, 108, 110–113, 117, 120, 121, 123, 126–130, 156, 160, 162–164, 166, 168–171, 173, 277, 292 transliteracy 111 trilingual xx, xxi, 35, 98 trilingual programs xx, 35 two-way bilingual education 168, 181 immersion 163 Urdu 165 vernacular languages 43, 51 visual demonstrations 25 Welsh 6, 87, 93, 110, 113–115, 117–125, 127, 129, 133–135, 184 Zone of Proximal Development/ZPD 236, 237, 244, 248, 251