Multilingualism in education.Problem or asset?

Piet Van Avermaet

BruxellesParlement Européen

Label Européen des langues édition 201316 mai 2013

Overview

• Theoretical framework and sociolinguistic context

• The Ghent Home Language Education research project and its results

• Conclusions

Theoretical framework and sociolinguistic context

Current trends

“Glocalisation” – Globalisation– Localisation

MobilityCommunicationsuper diversity

“Glocalised” super diverse societies and schools

Innovative answers to urgent language education issues

Social inequality and unequal outcomes in education are a tenacious problem;Language spoken at home is often invoked as an explanatory variable (e.g. PISA);Causal reading of correlations;Language (i.e. the standard variety of the dominant language) is seen as pivot, condition and key to school success;Danger of “outsourcing” L2 learning processes from education

Monolingual ideological frame of reference

• Official national language: powerful index of group belonging and its mastery as pivotal for maintaining national order (Agha)

• Monolingual education paradigm is engrained so deeply that it even provokes resistance to multilingual practices within school settings among parents and pupils from targeted linguistic minorities (Bourdieu)

• Immune to cognitive/academic dissonance and palmed off as common sense thinking, as doxa

Search for the best language education model

• How language ideologies impact on school policies and classroom practices is well documented;

• Learning in the dominant language is seen as the legitimate norm: an L2 submersion model;

• Widespread advocacy in favour of bi/multilingual education model;

• Which language education model is more effective for L2 acquisition, children’s well-being, as well as for closing the ‘achievement gap’ between non-native and native students?

Multilingual education vs. L2 submersion

‘Clash of the Titans’?Search for ‘one-size-fits-all’ model -> polarization – L2 submersion (L2-only):

• Competition between languages / negative transfer -> deficits, confusion, delays, … -> exclusion of L1’s from classroom / school

• ‘Sponge’: young children are ‘automatic’ L2-learners • Time on task / frequency of input: the more L2 the better -> maximum L2

exposure & exclusion of L1’s

– (Bi)-Multilingual education (compensatory): • Linguistic interdependence: positive relationships between higher-order

language skills (Cummins) • Positive transfer L1-L2 • Facilitation / scaffolding (constructivist learning)

Within a context where ‘super diversity’ is becoming the norm it is important to reflect on the boundaries of the current recipes that are being used in systems of (language) education.

As concepts like language, citizenship, learning, ... are social constructs we have to consider reconstructing them, in the light of new and emerging social contexts.

Multilingual education: towards a new approach?

Customary bilingual education – Separation arrangement:

• Spatial: separate, homogeneous classes/schools • Temporal: separate lessons/moments• Segregated groups of learners • Compartmentalized languages: two solitudes assumption

(Cummins, 2008) • Multilingualism = parallel monolingualisms (Creese &

Blackledge, 2010) – Educational challenges and consequences:

• Need instruction by bilingual teachers (not all are)• Low involvement of mainstream teachers overall

Multilingual education: towards a new approach?

Day to day realities of Belgian schools:– Multitude of languages and linguistic repertoires– School as a social space:

• in which not only language (L2) is learned (explicit/implicit);

• In which children want to interact, communicate and construct knowledge

– Safe environment– Motivation– Involvement– Active actors

Functional plurilingual learning

Exploiting plurilingual repertoires as didactical capital for learning: functional use of home languages in multilingual, L2-dominant learning environments (Translanguaging , García, 2009)

A ‘multilingual social interaction model for learning’ as alternative for a ‘language learning model’

Motivations

Social context: super diverse localities (including schools and classrooms)Practical: is it feasible to organize bilingual/multilingual education in urban heterogeneous schools?Theoretical: new sociolinguistic conceptions of multilingual communication in today’s complex world.

Functional plurilingual learning

Two important conditions: – From empirical research it is clear that ‘functional

plurilingual learning’ can only be effective when it is structurally embedded in a school policy that opts for a multilingual perspective.

– From empirical research we also learn that the creation of ‘powerful learning environments’ is a fundamental condition.

The Ghent Home Language Education research project and its results

Research project

• 'Home Language in Education' (HLE)• Background:

• Funding: city of Ghent• Contesting and reconstructing Flemish monolingual policy• Aims:

• alternative for traditional bilingual education programmes: exploiting plurilingual repertoires of children as an asset for learning• L1-L2 interdependency (focus on literacy L1 skills first)

HLE distinguishing features

Increasing linguistic diversity of urban school populations Persistent socio-ethnic segregation and inequality in urban school systemDominant language ideology: – Official policy line: Dutch exclusively the medium of

instruction Educational position of low-status minorities: – Restrictive school policies: L1’s are not welcomed in

school (e.g. banning, punitive practices, tattler policy) – Prevailing didactic paradigm: ‘Dutch-only’ & L2

submersion – Denial of linguistic capital: L1’s are not seen as useful

resources, multilingualism is a problem, deficit – “multilingualism leads to zerolingualism”

HLE-project: objectives

Objective A: Creating powerful plurilingual learning environments • Aim: positive language attitudes, well-being, functional use of home

languages (diverse linguistic capital) • 4 primary schools in Ghent (linguistically diverse populations, lower SES) • Target group: all classes (K1 – G6) (age: 2.5 – 12)• Participants: teachers, school staff, parents, pedagogical advisers

Objective B: Academic literacy development in L1• Aim: learning to read & write in L1 (Turkish) and L2 (Dutch) • 2 of the 4 schools• Transitional bilingual education (‘early exit’) • Target group: K3; grades 1-2 (age: 5-8) • Bilingual teachers (Turkish/Dutch)

What changes did we observe in classroom practices?

Did the HLE project support teachers in creating powerful plurilingual educational environments?How did teachers exploit the L1 of the students?

Data based on classroom observations in 2008, 2009-2010, 2011-2012– 2 (to 3) observations of classroom practice each period– Teachers K3 to G3– 30 teachers → 20 teachers (6 Kindergarten + 14 primary

school) observed twice: 2009-2010 + 2011-2012

20

Teacher introduces classroom activities in the home language:•With the help of parents (as experts): e.g. telling stories•With the help of pupils (as experts): e.g. making an own classroom dictionary•With the help of internet: e.g. text on topic of the lesson

Teacher stimulates pupils to use home language during peer work:• In group work• To support one another

Teacher responds to what pupils express in their home language: • Teacher builds on experience and knowledge expressed in pupils’ home languages• E.g. Teacher asks pupils about the strategies they use in problem-solving in their home language

Teacher encourages pupils to use home language on isolated moments: •E.g. ‘Let’s count in Turkish’ ‘Let’s sing in another language’, ‘How do you say X in your language?’

Teacher tolerates use of home language: •Home language is allowed for well-being: children should express themselves in their own language •Home language is allowed if needed: e.g. to explain something to a weaker classmate

Teacher ignores home language: • Explicit remarks to forbid home languages are absent • Home languages are tolerated, especially on informal moments

Teacher opposes use of home language: • Teacher intervenes when hearing home languages: ‘Only Dutch in the classroom!’, ‘Do I hear Slovak again?’ • Teacher composes linguistically heterogeneous groups to prevent interaction in home language

L1 suppression

L1 functional use

Observed use of L1: Change in kindergarten & primary school from 2008 till 2012

M IN

MAX

MAX

M IN

Effect on Dutch language proficiency

Teacher questionnaire (overall): Primary school teachers report no positive/negative

effect on overall Dutch language proficiency, kindergarten teachers are more positive about impact on

Dutch language proficiencyTeacher interviews: Mixed beliefs

"I think that because of the project the children are much more involved with language " (K3)

"They're now talking in their own language but I do not think that they speak less Dutch. No, certainly not.“ (G1)

"I think that they feel more confident, more at ease. But whether their Dutch improves, I don't know. Actually, I have my doubts." (G2)

Effects on Turkish language proficiency

Turkish Teacher interviews:Positive effects: richer vocabulary, standard Turkish

improves in vocabulary and pronunciation

"In the beginning, it took a long time, you know, before they understood the system [distinguishing sounds and

letters]. That's why I cannot invest a lot in reading comprehension. I only have seven hours and a half and you

have to spend much time in teaching the system. But for the pupils, ... they really learn to read and write Turkish

well. It's a pity that I have to stop after the end of January, because then it will be in Dutch. "(G1)

Socio-affective effects

Teacher questionnaire (overall): overall positive effect on well-being of pupils

Teacher interviews: improvement in Eagerness to speak Well-being Involvement in classroom activities Personal relationship teacher-pupils Motivation to read in Turkish

"I feel that some children have fully blossomed. The fear of public speaking has completely disappeared" (K2/K3)

"I think that our relationship has become a bit closer, maybe I should say: more bonding." (G2)

"Now they are all interested in reading. The motivation is much higher. I think it's wonderful to see how the kids have opened up by learning to read in Turkish first."

(G1)

Impact on teachers (1)

Classroom practice: learning environment became more plurilingual (and more powerful) Acceptance of home language use in informal situations:

all teachers Spontaneous interactions in home language: kindergarten

teachers more responsive than primary school teachers Language awareness: occasionally Functional use of home language: peer-tutoring

"More languages open up a range of activities, you can do more. I use home languages more knowingly and constantly look out for

materials in other languages ." (K2/K3)

Impact on teachers (2)

Attitudes towards home language of pupils and multilingualism in general – Positive attitude and appreciation in kindergarten– Growing awareness of linguistic diversity in primary

school

"I've grown in the use of different languages in the classroom. I have a greater appreciation now for the

language of the children." (teacher newcomers, primary school)

Conclusions

Conclusions

Shift from monolingual school policy and classroom practice to functional plurilingual teaching/learning go hand in hand with an observed shift from instructivist pedagogy to more social constructivist paradigm of learning.– When allowing to use L1, indications of a more powerful learning

environment– Positive shift towards power of co-teaching

Conclusions

FPT/L seems to be more powerful and seems to have more potential than traditional compartimentalised bilingual learning. In super diverse classrooms the translanguaging reality of children is taken as an asset, a resource for learningMore involvement of teacher; of children; more interaction taking place in the classroom

Conclusions

Positive impact on teachers’ beliefs and perceptionsTeacher as an active agent in processes of the reconstruction of old ‘recipes’:– Training, coaching, feedback, co-reflection, co-construction– Empowerment and increased positive awareness of parents– co-construction with parents; parents as active stakeholders– Increase parental involvement and of change in parents beliefs in

role of L1 and translanguaging as good practice in classrooms (schools as local agents; change from below)

MERCI

piet.vanavermaet@ugent.be

BruxellesParlement Européen

Label Européen des langues édition 201316 mai 2013