Bilingual and Multilingual Education in the 21st Century

Building on Experience

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

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781783090723
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Bilingual education is one of the fastest growing disciplines within applied linguistics. This book includes the work of 20 specialists working in various educational contexts across Europe, Latin America and North America to create a volume which is both comprehensive in scope and multidimensional in its coverage of current bilingual initiatives. The central themes of this volume, which draws on past experiences of bilingual education, include issues in language use in classrooms at elementary, secondary and tertiary levels; participant perspectives on bilingual education experiences; and the language needs of bi- and multilingual students in monolingual schools. This collection will be of interest to teachers and administrators in bi- and multilingual education programs, as well as scholars working in the field of language education.

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; 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 usu-ally 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 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 low-income 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. 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 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: non-forms, 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 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 subject-oriented 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 asp...

Table of contents

• Coverpage
• Titlepage
• Copyright
• Contents
• Figures
• Tables
• Contributors
• Introduction and Overview
• Part 1: Lessons from Accumulated Experience in Bilingual and Multilingual Education
• Part 2: Issues in Language Use in Classrooms at the Elementary, Secondary and Tertiary Levels
• Part 3: Participant Perspectives on Bilingual Education Experiences: Students, Language Assistants, Student-teachers and Teacher-educators
• Part 4: The Language Needs of Bilingual and Multilingual Students in Monolingual Schools
• Index