SEE-6-PRINCIPLES-AND-PRACTICE-66-slides.pptx

yjrsxkmutd

1. Bilingual Education in Different Contexts: Principles and Practice Theoretical and empirical literature of bilingual education which is relevant to an understanding of how a second or foreign language (L2) can be used as a medium of instruction in schools for the dual goal of achieving bilingualism/biliteracy and cognitive/academic learning are discussed in this part of the unit.

2. Further, major theories, principles, concepts and program options/models in bilingual education are delineated. Also, various factors and conditions promoting or inhibiting success in bilingual education are critically reviewed. Lastly, their implications to Southeast Asian contexts are discussed.

3. Diversity of Aims and Contexts Baker (2001:193, cited Ferguson, Houghton and Wells, 1977) gave examples of the diverse aims of bilingual education as follows: 1. To assimilate individuals or groups into the mainstream society: to socialize people for full participation in the community; 2. To unify a multilingual society; to bring unity to a multi-ethnic, multi-tribal, or multinational linguistically diverse state;

4. 3. To enable people to communicate with the outside world; 4. To provide language skills which are marketable, aiding employment and status; 5. To preserve ethnic and religious identity; 6. To reconcile and mediate between different linguistic and political communities;

5. 7. To spread the use of a colonizing language, socializing an entire population to a colonial existence 8. To strengthen elite groups and preserve their position in society; 9. To give equal status in law to languages of unequal status in daily life; and 10. To deepen understanding of language and culture.

6. The aforementioned diverse roster of aims also shows that bilingual education can be used by language education planners as a means to a range of ends, which often goes beyond merely linguistic and educational considerations. As Baker (2001, p. 193) pointed out: .. bilingual education does not necessarily concern the balanced use and

7. Development of two languages in the classroom. Behind bilingual education are varying and conflicting philosophies of what education is for. Sociocultural, political and economic issues are ever present in the debate over the provision of bilingual education.

8. It seems that, in designing language education policies in one of the countries in Asia, Hong Kong, the important first step is to explicate and prioritize the range of goals that are widely considered to be important in and for Hong Kong.

9. Policymakers, however, can anticipate animated public debates and discussions on what constitute the most important goals and what appear to be the optimal programs.in language education. It seems that,

10. to achieve greater success in implementing language education policies, these policies need to be first legitimized or supported by some public consensus.

11. In the process of policy legitimation or public consensus-building, it is important to make accessible to the public research and scientific information regarding different aspects of bilingual education. For instance, it is important:

12. 1. To inform the public of the different, often conflicting goals and priorities in language education; 2. To inform the public of the necessary conditions for success (often requiring certain school, family and community resources), as well as the costs and benefits or different program options that are available and realize to achieve the goals, current government resource constraints and

13. 3. To generate and promote informed public discussion on how to prioritize the different goals and select from different feasible program options to achieve the goals with a view to resource implications.

14. Three Main Types of Program: Maintenance, Transitional and Enrichment Another way of classifying bilingual education program would be to consider the following set of variables proposed by Baker (1996):

15. 1. Typical language(s) used by the child in dally life 2. Typical language(s) used in the classroom 3. The educational/societal aim(s) of the program 4. The probable outcomes of the program.

16. Based on the above variables, ten types of bilingual education program can be distinguished (summarized from Baker, 2001:193-201): 1. Submersion education/the "sink or swim" method, e.g , in the US

17. 2. Submersion with withdrawal/pull-out/sheltered English classes, e.g , in the US 3. Segregationist education, e.g. in South Africa before Nelson Mandela was elected president.

18. 4. Transitional bilingual education (early exit or late exit) employing bilingual teachers (as a result of advocacy by minorities), e.g. in the US 5. Mainstream education (with a foreign language taught as a subject), c.g , "core French" and "drip-feed" French program in Canada.

19. 6 . Separatist education, e.g. small isolationist religious schools. 7. Immersion bilingual education, e.g , early total, early partial, delayed immersion, late immersion program in Canada. 8. Maintenance and heritage language bilingual education, e.g. Navajo and Spanish in the US, Ukrainian in Canada, Maori in New Zealand.

20. 9. Two Way/Dual Language Immersion, e.g., in certain elementary schools in the US 10. Bilingual education in majority languages, e.g., certain schools in Luxembourg. the European Schools Movement.

21. To facilitate discussion, these diverse types of bilingual education program can be classified into the following three broad categories based on their educational/societal aims:

22. Table 1. A Summary of Different Types of Bilingual Education Program (from Baker, 2001:194) Maintenance program Transitional program Enrichment program

23. These three types of program were first differentiated by Fishman (1976). For Fishman, Maintenance bilingual education program aims at maintaining linguistic minority/ immigrant students' first language while providing them with access to the dominant language (L2) of the society through using the students' first language (L1) as a medium of instruction in the early years of schooling or,

24. , in Two Way/Dual Language program, through using both the students' L1 and L2 as mediums of instruction for different subjects or on alternate days 2Transitional program, in contrast, aim at helping linguistic minority /immigrant students to go through a more or less gradual transition from using Th some of their L1 to using only the mainstream language as the medium of instruction.

25. The aim of transitional program is the assimilation of linguistic minorities/immigrants into the monolingual mainstream society. While both maintenance and transitional program have arisen from the needs of the linguistic minority/immigrant students, enrichment program (also called "additive bilingual" program), in contrast, have been designed for the majority language students.

26. Typically, the parents of these majority language students want their children to master a high level of proficiency in a socio-economically important L2 in addition to, not in replacement of, the dominant societal daily life language.

27. This is done through using the L2 as a medium of instruction in all or some of the subjects ( e .g , total or partial French immersion program for English-speaking students in Canada). Different variants of the enrichment program model are likely to be relevant to the situation of Hong Kong, where bilingual education aims at enabling the majority Cantonese-speaking group to acquire English as an additional language without weakening their first language.

28. As the enrichment model is realized as different variants of immersion education, the rest of this chapter is devoted to a critical review of the following three successful program models in immersion education: Canadian French Immersion, b. European Schools, and c. Two Way/Dual Language Immersion

29. The following review draws on major references in bilingual and multilingual education which include: Cummins, 1995, 2000; Baker and Jones, 1998; J ohnson and Swain, 1997;

30. Tung, 1992, 1996; Cummins and Corson, 1997; Baker, 2001; Day and Shapson , 1996; Beardsmore , 1993, 1995; Bernhardt, 1992;

31. Harley, Allen, Cummins and Swain, 1990; Genesee, 1987; Swain and Lapkin , 1982; Freeman, 1998; Baker and Hornberger, 2001; Lindholm-Leary, 2001.

32. Canadian French Immersion The Canadian French immersion programs have always been cited as successful examples of using a L2 or FL as a medium of instruction to achieve high levels of proficiency in the 12 without sacrificing the L1 a nd academic learning.

33. It is Therefore, indispensable to take into consideration the original, design features, program? outcomes and necessary conditions for the success of the Canadian French Immersion Model.

34. Origin The first French immersion program was started in the mid-1960s as an innovative educational experiment, when a group of vocal, middle-class English-speaking Canadian parents in St. Lambert, Quebec, lobbied their school board for improvements to the teaching of French as a second language.

35. These parents had read accounts of different forms of bilingual education that might serve as superior alternatives to the traditional French- asa -subject program ("Core French") which focused on grammar, memorization, and drill and had not provided their children with sufficient skills to work in French, or to socialize with French speakers.

36. Collaborating with scholars in bilingualism at McGill University, the St. Lambert parents proposed to their school board a radical departure from any existing FSL (French as a second language) program in Canada:

37. a program in which their unilingual English-speaking children were taught entirely in French from Kindergarten or Primary 1, with English language arts formally introduced in Primary 2 or 3 and about half the time devoted to each language from Primary 4 through 6. By the late 1960s, the rest of Canada was becoming aware of the socio-economic and political value of achieving a high level of proficiency in French,

38. and various French immersion program modelled on or adapted from the original St. Lambert program have spread to other provinces. By the 1990s, French immersion program were offered optionally by some school boards. In several school boards, enrollment may be as high as 50%,

39. the rest of the students going to first language medium schools. Across the country, however, "only approximately 7% of the entire student population attends an immersion program" (Johnson & Swain, 1997:2).

40. Design Features The following sections aim at presenting an overview of the design and structure of Canadian French immersion Program.

41. Goals of Canadian French Immersion Program The goals of Canadian French Immersion are typical of those of the enrichment model of bilingual education.

42. As summarized in Baker (2001, p. 204), the stated aims of Canadian French Immersion are for students who are English-speaking Canadians: 1. to become competent to speak, read and write in French;

43. 2. to reach normal achievement levels throughout the curriculum including the English language; and 3. to appreciate the traditions and culture of French-speaking Canadians as well as English-speaking Canadians.

44. It can be seen from these goals that additive bilingualism is the ultimate goal of Canadian French Immersion program. It is expected that students in these program will become bilingual and bicultural without any loss of academic achievement and first language competence.

45. Principal Program Types in Canadian French Immersion Based on different combinations of values for the two design variables of (1) extent (immersion and (2) beginning level of immersion, four types of Canadian French Immersion Program which are commonly found can be outlined as follows: 1. Early total immersion L2 is used in all lessons right from Kindergarten or Grade 1. L2 use gradually decreases to approximately 80% in Grades 2 to 5 and approximately 50% in Grades 6 to 8. Ultimately in Grades 9 to 12, approximately 40% of lessons are taught in L2 2. Early partial immersion Early partiai immersion is characterized by approximately 50% of L2 use

46. Principal Program Types in Canadian French Immersion Based on different combinations of values for the two design variables of (1) extent (immersion and (2) beginning level of immersion, four types of Canadian French Immersion Program which are commonly found can be outlined as follows:

47. 1. Early total immersion L2 is used in all lessons right from Kindergarten or Grade 1. L2 use gradually decreases to approximately 80% in Grades 2 to 5 and approximately 50% in Grades 6 to 8. Ultimately in Grades 9 to 12, approximately 40% of lessons are taught in L2 2. Early partial immersion Early partial immersion is characterized by approximately 50% of L2 use

48. from Kindergarten through Grade 8. L2 use decreases to approximately 35% in Grades 9 and 10, and ultimately to approximately 30% in Grades 11 and 12. 3. Middle (delayed) partial immersion L2 is learnt only as a subject from Kindergarten through Grade 3. However, starting in Grade 4, approximately 80% of lessons are taught in L2. L2 use decreases to approximately 50% in Grades 7 and 8, and to approximately 40% in Grades 9 through 12.

49. 4. Late partial immersion L2 is learnt only as a subject from kindergarten through Grade 6. However, starting in Grade 7, approximately 80% of lessons are taught in L2. L2 use decreases to approximately 50% in Grades 9 through 12.

50. Program Outcomes of Canadian French immersion Cummins (1999) has provided a succinct summary of major program outcomes of Canadian French immersion. The following account is taken from Cummins (199:4-5; emphasis added):

51. Consistent findings have been obtained from French immersion program evaluations across Canada. In early immersion programs, students gain fluency and literacy in French at no long-term cost to their English academic skills. Within a year of the introduction of formal English language arts students catch up in most aspects of English test performance.

52. Usually students require additional time to catch up in English spelling but by grade 5 there are normally no differences in English test performance between immersion students and comparison groups whose instruction has been totally through English.

53. One potential limitation of these findings is that standardized tests do not assess all aspects of English academic skills; in particular, writing development is usually excluded from such tests. However; the few studies that have examined English writing development specifically show no evidence of problems among immersion students in this regard (Swain, 1997). There is also no evidence of any long-term lag in mastery of subject matter taught through French in early, middle or late immersion programs. 51

54. With respect to French skills, students' receptive skills in French are better developed (in relation to native speaker norms) than are their expressive skills. By the end of elementary school (grade 6) students are close to the level of native speakers in understanding and reading of French but there are significant gaps between them and native speakers in spoken and written French (Harley, Allen, Cummins & Swain, 1990).

55. Similar findings are obtained for late immersion programs. French skills develop well in the first two years of the program and differences between students in intensive forms of late immersion (100% French in grades 7 and 😎 and those who have come through an early immersion program are relatively minor.

56. The early immersion program students are generally more fluent and comfortable in French but the late immersion students show somewhat greater accuracy in their mastery of grammatical constructions. As Swain (1997) notes her review:

57. The evidence emerging from the variety of immersion programs with different starting ages suggests that older students may possess cognitive characteristics which give them an advantage in learning certain aspects of a second language" (p. 266).

58. As seen from Cummin's account, the learning outcomes of different versions of Canadian French Immersion seem to be largely positive. However, since thecontext of Canadian French Immersion is likely to be very different from other societal contexts, it is important to analyze the conditions for the success of Canadian French immersion before any generalization of its effectiveness can be made.

59. Conditions for Success in Canadian French Immersion The research literature strongly indicates that the success of Canadian immersion programs depends on a number of important conditions (Swain & Lapkin , 1982; Baker, 2001; Johnson & Swain, 1997; Cummins, 1999a). These conditions, further elaborated in Part Il of this volume can he summarized as follows (Tung, 1996):

60. 1. Parental involvement is important, for attention and material support, as well as providing a home environment which is rich in support for L1 and L2 linguistic and literacy development, e.g. rich print environment at home.

61. 2. Both students and parents are members of the majority group in the society; le, the students' L1 is not at risk but secure and prestigious in the society. The larger sociolinguistic context also supports the use and development of the students' L1 speech and literacy.

62. 3. The immersion program is optional. Students can choose to leave the program. Students remaining in the immersion program are therefore likely to be those motivated to study in the L2.

63. 4. Both students and parents hold positive attitudes towards French and French-Canadians. 5. High quality of teachers is necessary, which means high standards of professional training and high proficiency levels in both languages.

64. 6. An interactive style of teaching (rather than a teacher-fronted, didactic style of teaching) provides a variety of high-quality input (e.g. in a range of language functions) as well as rich opportunities for students' productive language use.

65. Of the above-listed conditions/factors, teacher professional preparation and instructional approach/teaching methodology seem to be areas which are, relatively speaking most amenable to the teacher training/curriculum planning efforts of government and language education planners.