Case Studies of Community Language Contexts and ... Studies of Community Language Contexts and Multilingual Education (MLE) Practices in Myanmar . 5th International Conference on Language

Case Studies of Community Language Contexts and Multilingual Education

(MLE) Practices in Myanmar

5th International Conference on Language and Education: Sustainable Development through Multilingual Education

19-21 October 2016 Bangkok, Thailand

Order of Presentations

1. Introduction. Htay Ei Ei, MEC. 5 mins

2. Case Study from a Mon National Education Committee (MNEC) School. Min Rot Ong Mon, MNEC. 15 mins

3. Case Study from a School in Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO) - Controlled Area. L. Aung Tsen, Nyein (Shalom) Foundation. 15 mins.

4. Case Study from a Dai Literature and Culture Programme in Chin State. Aung Ling, Dai Literature and Cultural Central Committee. 15 mins.

5. Summary/ Emerging Recommendations. Htay Ei Ei, MEC. 10 mins.

6. Questions and Discussion. 30 mins.

Moderator: Amanda Seel, MEC.

Introduction to the Research : Background

Introduction to the Research : Background

❖Such approaches are already practiced - in different forms and to different degrees - within schools and educational programs of ethnic education departments, communities, CSOs and Literature and Culture groups.

❖Better understanding of these existing MLE approaches, and the local contexts in which they operate better, is vital to ensure that national language policy responds to diversity, learns from successes, and leads to feasible implementation strategies, including capacity development.

❖This study was therefore designed to help develop this understanding: it is aimed that the study will make a significant contribution to policy making, providing illustration of the range and diversity of community language contexts across Myanmar and of schools’ responses to this diversity

Introduction to the Research

Study Objectives A set of case studies of community language contexts and MLE practices in a sample of locations across Myanmar, and a synthesis report that will inform and support development of MLE policy and planning through:

҉Illustrating the diversity of linguistic contexts of communities, to support nuanced policy for these different situations

҉Bringing alive for policy makers the real situationsand challenges for education in ethnic areas

҉Highlighting existing effective MLE approaches in order to learn from them

҉Identifying what are common constraints and challenges (e.g. understanding, capacity, resources) in order to planfeasible and sequencedimplementation strategy for MLE

Process of our research study

Study Process

Design and Inception Case study

development Synthesis

report

Sr. Region Ethnic Group/Where Organization Name Learning Setting1. Kachin Kachin, Jinghpaw, Rawang, Lisu,Maru, Zaiwa,

Lachik, Shan, Chinese Group,Eastern Division, Mai Ja Yang,Central Division KIO-Ed

Shalom Foundation Basic Education

2. Kayah Kaya, Kakan, Kayin, Burma Ethnic Group,Naungpalae village,Saungdular District

Metta ECCD

3. Kayin Kayin, Keh Bah ethnic group,Ahlah Chaung Village, Thadaung Township

Kaw Lah Foundation Basic Education

4. Kayin Sagaw Kayin ethnic group,Hpa-an Township

Save the Children Myanmar ECCD or KG

5. Chin Dai Chin,Htwe Li village, Mindat township,

Dai Literature and Culture group Basic Education

6. Sagaing NagaMa Khor Le village, La He Township

Makury Naga Youth Federation

(Chin)

Basic Education

7. Sagaing Tan Khon Naga,Eastern Nagaland, Layshi Township, Somra region

Eastern Naga Development Basic Education

8. Mon Mon,Ye Township

MNEC-Mon National Education Committee Mon National primary schools

9. Rakhine Litu Chin Ahaung village, Minbya Township

LSDO ECCD centre

10. Rakhine RakhineSittwe Township

Rakhine Literature & culture group Basic Education

11. Shan Kayin, Burma, Pa’ O , ShanHpe Khone, Southern Shan State

KNGY Basic Education

12. Shan Kachin, Chinese, Daand, Burmese, JinghpawNampaka/ Northern Shan State

CBE-SjN Basic Education

13. Ayeyawaddy Kayin,Lar Yaung village,Ayeyawaddy region

KBC Basic Education

Case Study from a Mon National Education Committee (MNEC) School

Mon National Post-Primary School (Krain Konnya, Ye South, Mon State)

• IntroductionMon Community helped since

early 1992

Enrollment

100%Dropped Out

6.9%

Students = 145

=72 =73


Community Language Context - Mon community native speakers of the land (221 HH,

PP = 1460) - Mon (L1) with its own writing script, written by some

and spoken by all, some speak some Burmese as well- Right to access education through MT

- Learner able to understand, love and value MT - Respect and recognize local identity to live in harmony as a

multicultural nation - Local value to national standard (to have good habit of

loving people, working for people, loving own culture and nation

- MT to be used for education and supported by formal institution

- Promoting MT as local Identity - Preserve, and maintain the Mon literature and culture

heritage as privilege right through MT education - Official language for local administration (health, justice,

and etc..,)

I want my child to know both Mon and Burmese. So, I send

my to this school.

In school, my child able to learn in Mon and I also can

help my child lesson at home as well.

I send my children to this school because the teacher

speaks and teaches in my children’s own language

which is Mon.

My child should know Mon so I send my child to this school


School Approach to Language - Operate under MNEC administration - Curriculum by MNEC (Mon-L1 as LoI) plus gov’t model after primary

- Tri languages formula (Mon-L1, Burmese-L2, and English-L3) - to recognize and respect the local value toward national and global standard.


School Approach to Language - Primary (access to education in

learner’s MT (L1). - Secondary (using government

curriculum except Mon and Mon History subject

- Environment (Alphabet and numeric charts of Mon, Burmese, English are displayed, Textbooks are available in three languages,

- Limitation in learning materials - Depend on donor and community

contribution


Speak and read both Mon (L1) and Burmese (L2)

The Teachers

I use child centred approach that

encourages my students to be critical in learning

I work as a teacher not depending on salary, but to help

children’s education

I use a bilingual approach, both

Mon and Burmese,to

teach Burmese as a subject

Available resources for teaching in Mon (L1) are

limited. Classroom structures are crowded and noisy between one class to

another

It is easy for me to teach students in their own

language. Learners can understand easily when I

explain it well the way they comprehend best

without anxiety


- Instructor uses learner centered approaches but with insufficient available resources for teaching

- Lessons conducted with Mon (L1) as LoI in class

- Teacher and learners interact with Mon (L1) as LoI during teaching

- Active participation (Teachers and learners interact with 4 approaches of teaching)

Well trained Teacher

Encourage

Active and Questioning

But Crowded & Noisy!

Practices in the classroom


Learner Perspectives

- When teacher explains in Mon language (learner’s MT)

- easy to understand the lesson

- Interested, happy, - Peer-to-peer learning

(able to discuss among friends)

- Feel warm and dare to ask questions

- Crowded and noising

“I’m happy studying here because I can learn my lessons in Mon which I speak at home. I feel comfortable when teacher explains in Mon what I did not understand. I also can

discuss with friends about the lesson”


Summary and Recommendations

- Provides opportunity to the vulnerable children to benefit from mother tongue based multilingual education (Mon is L1)

- Capacity building is needed for teaching methodology for MTB-MLE

- Recognize and respect the local value to promote local language to be used in education by formal institution

- Technical support and financial support to fulfill teacher competencies

- Better facilities especially to reduce crowding and noise would support learner-centred multilingual approach

Case Study from a School in Kachin (KIO- Controlled Area)

Introduction: Kachin Case Study

• Prang Ngawn Middle School

• Beneficiary school of Education in Emergency Project

• Total of 203 primary and middle students(Male – 104Female – 99)

Background

Background• Located at Eastern Division of KIO

Controlled Area near Myanmar-China Border, North Eastern Part of Myanmar

• Located in the war affected area


Community Language Context

• Total of approximately 1000 population and 200 Household in the village

• Ethnicity – Kachin ethnic sub-groups of Jinghpaw, Laovo, Lisu, Zaiwa, Lachid and Rawng, minority Shan and Chinese

• Languages Used• Communal Area (Market place, Church) –

Kachin (Jinghpaw) 80 % and Chinese 20%• Home – Kachin (Jinghpaw)

and respective language of Kachin sub-groups• School – Kachin (Jinghpaw) and Myanmar


School Approach to Language

• KIO Education Department takes overall management of the school (Teacher salary and capacity development, furniture, school infrastructure etc.) Free Education System for primary students.

• Myanmar MoE Textbook and Curriculum are used but some lessons not relevant with local context were reduced and add Kachin Language Text

• Kachin (Jinghpaw) (L1) language is used as medium of instruction at Primary Level

• Both Myanmar(L2) and Kachin languages(L1) are used as medium of instruction at middle Level

• School got External Project assistance from NGOs such as Health Education, WASH and Teaching Learning Materials.


The Teachers • Teachers are Kachin and have limited Myanmar language skills• Teachers are trained through KIO Education Department run

Institute of Education and short course trainings• Teachers translate Myanmar text to Kachin Language which

consumes time in the teaching-learning situation• Teacher-centered rather than

student-centered• A Teacher teaches more than one

subjects - makes for less time forlesson preparation and decreasedteaching quality

• Very low incentives for theteachers in terms of supports(Salary and materials)


Practices in the Classroom

• Mother tongue language translation is used during theteaching

• Parrot learning for Myanmar Language

• Teaching learningmaterials are verylimited and not usedmuch in teaching


Learner Perspectives• Students pay extra attention for the teacher’s

explanation in Myanmar language, which makes themstressful and discouraged for learning

• Students have very limited understanding on Myanmarlanguage and very little confidence to speak it

• Very limited environmentfor quality Myanmarlanguage in the school


Summary and Recommendations

• Students cannot understand the subjects well since the curriculum and texts are in Myanmar language, and need to be locally contextualized to make mother tongue curriculum and texts

• Need capacity building for teachers in MLE and teaching methodology to become more effective and systematic

• Myanmar Language (L2) needed for higher education and economic opportunity

• Need Myanmar Government recognition to the KIO Education system that is also important for peace building in the country

Case Study from a Dai-Chin Literature and Culture Programme

Dai Chin Study: Introduction

• The location of the study• The Purpose of Choosing School• Trip Experience in Case study • Type of School• Type of Community


Community Language Context

Community and their languages• Local Language (Dai) • National Language (Myanmar)• Neighboring languages Community and their livelihood • Slash Farming• Cattle RaisingCommunity and their views on school• Views on Education• Views on teachers• Views on Curriculum • Views of StudentCommunity and their view on MLE• Reducing national language based curriculum• Introducing Dai as a school subject• Teaching mathematics in Dai in primary school


School Approach to Language

National Language Policy • One language and one nation policy • English as a foreign languageMedium of Instruction • Myanmar• English• Dai (Community Language)Curriculum• Myanmar• EnglishSchool Environment• Bar Charts• Signboards Observation • Language barrier• Lack of local material MTB-MLE


The Teachers

Total Number of Teachers: 5 personsTeachers with Fluent Local Language: 3 personsTeachers Without any Local Language Fluency: 2 persons

Teachers views on the language of instruction (with local language) • Difficulties• Recommendations

Teachers views on the language of instruction (without local language) • Difficulties• Recommendations

Teachers view on MLE• Challenges • Recommendations


Practices in the classroom Methods of teaching• Rote learning• Translating • Dai language learningHow their teaching methods affect• Students’ knowledge • Students’ skill • Students’ social life• Students psychology


Learner Perspectives

Learning Difficulties • Lack of Understanding • Lack of Local Language Fluency • Lack of Audio Visual Aids• Lack of Sufficient Play GroundsDemands• Use of Local Language (MTB) • Appointment of Local Teachers• Introducing Dai as a Subject• Resources for Dai Literacy


Summary Overall Observation on the study • Community• Teachers• Government Recommendation to the teachers• Management• Teaching• Relationship to the communityRecommendation to the community • PTA approach• Parental Support to the students Recommendation to the government• Language policy • Education policy• Curriculum

Emerging Issues and Recommendations

Language in the Curriculum• Focus on the main learning outcomes not a detailed

subject syllabus• Flexible for local context & cultural adaptation• Technical support to local language communities to

resolve issues about what script to be used in Mother Tongue and how to develop

Emerging Recommendations

Clarifying MLE Policy and Developing Implementation Strategy• Clarify the respective use and sequence of mother tongues of ethnic nationalities

groups and Bamar in teaching lower primary levels students and as the MoI• It should be clarified that ‘Mother Tongue’ is the actual language of the children• First step for MTB-MLE- it should start the major/ larger language group and

develop on capacity and resources and then step by step implementation to more languages

• Where MTB-MLE cannot be practiced yet then there should be the policy of one hour ethnic language teaching during the language teaching period at school per day as minimum


Clarifying MLE Policy and Developing Implementation Strategy (continued)• With Ministry of Education support, there should be research

regarding different areas of language in education, including children with language difficulty in learning and upgrading the curriculum

• In the government budget allocation, it should include for the specific budget for language matter by reflecting NESP (National Education Sector Plan) & implementation stages

• Compilation of social and cultural do's and don'ts for each ethnic nationalities groups and ensuring pay special attention to them by the teachers, students and other MoE Staff

• The government should recognize and support the contribution to MTB-MLE of ethnic education and Literature and Culture Associations


Teacher Development for MLE • Teacher need more technical support and proper MTB-MLE

training and understanding of language development and effective language sequencing

• To provide necessary trainings to would-be and present teachers to enhance their bilingual skills, coordination and innovations


Management of MLE Interventions • Recognition and accreditation of current volunteer

ethnic teacher role • Know ‘the language that children know best’ and design

programmes for the better learning outcomes (instead of competing over status issues etc.)

• Priority should be given to select topics or subjects that are familiar with ethnic nationalities groups when teaching them

• Updated compilation and publication of ethnic–Bamar dictionaries, and using them as references in schools

My lesson learnt

Thank You!

Documents

Case Studies of Community Language Contexts and ... Studies of Community Language Contexts and Multilingual Education (MLE) Practices in Myanmar . 5th International Conference on Language