Community-Based Language Learning

A Framework for Educators

Joan Clifford, Deborah S. Reisinger

• Publisher: Georgetown University Press
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781626166370
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Theory & Practice

Community-based Language Learning offers a new framework for world language educators interested in integrating community-based language learning (CBLL) into their teaching and curricula. CBLL connects academic learning objectives with experiential learning, ranging from reciprocal partnerships with the community (e.g., community engagement, service learning) to one-directional learning situations such as community service and site visits.

This resource prepares teachers to implement CBLL by offering solid theoretical frameworks alongside real-world case studies and engaging exercises, all designed to help students build both language skills and authentic relationships as they engage with world language communities in the US. Making the case that language learning can be a tool for social change as well, Community-based Language Learning serves as a valuable resource for language educators at all levels, as well as students of language teaching methodology and community organizations working with immigrant populations.

CHAPTER 1

A Theoretical Framework for CBLL

By the end of this chapter, readers will be able to:

• Define a variety of community-based learning (CBL) models, including service learning, international service learning, and global service learning
• Distinguish CBL within language learning contexts (CBLL) from other models
• Elaborate distinguishing features of CBLL that lead to successful programming
• Explain how Bloom’s, Kolb’s, Dewey’s, and Freire’s theories and models inform CBLL
• Identify the role of critical pedagogy in CBLL

DEFINING COMMUNITY-BASED LEARNING

There is a vast literature that explores definitions and practices of community engagement (Carnegie Classifications 2018; Kellogg Commission 1999). According to Mooney and Edwards (2001, 182), “Community-based learning refers to any pedagogical tool in which the community becomes a partner in the learning process.” Broadly speaking, community-based learning (CBL) serves as an umbrella term for activities that engage students within their communities and is often equated with service learning. With increased interest in civic engagement on college campuses (Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2000), however, a number of new terms are emerging, whereas others have been redefined to turn the focus from working with rather than for communities. As a result, even the words “community,” “civic,” and “service” have become mobile signifiers that take on different meanings in different contexts. How do we define “community-based learning”? Is sending a student to observe a flea market CBL? Is CBL only equated with service? Who are the members of the “community”? Who is doing the learning? The selection of a word or the choice of a term by each institution, as well as this publication, are part of an ongoing and important conversation in the field of community engagement.

Generally speaking, colleges and universities define and adapt CBL to their own institutional cultures. Some universities have undergraduate programs in service learning (Duke, Missouri, Oregon), whereas others use the terms community-engaged learning (Stanford), community-based learning (Georgetown), and civic engagement (Northwestern, Richmond). The lacks of clear definitions and a shared language are significant, for several reasons. CBL researchers and practitioners must use precise language in order to develop a clear understanding of what kind of engagement we wish to reference (O’Connor et al. 2011, 5). In order to support, research, and evaluate community engagement, a common and shared definition is crucial. Rather than seeing this as reductive, however, we believe that a naming system can help all parties share understanding and learning. For the purposes of this book, then, we use “CBL” as an umbrella term that provides models of how to engage in curricular and co-curricular experiences with local communities. As pedagogy, CBL encompasses service-oriented interactions with the community, such as service learning, as well as other solidarity-building practices that transform worldviews, highlight social issues, co-create knowledge, and foster authentic relationships based on connection. Generally speaking, CBL can interest and motivate students by providing a foundation for exploring intellectual and social issues through rigorous engagement, discussion, and reflection.

To distinguish our discussions from the broader model of CBL, and to accurately home in on the specificity of engaging in community interactions in an L2, we use the term community-based language learning, or CBLL, throughout this book. CBLL refers specifically to interactions that take place between L2 students and heritage/native speakers of the target language residing in the United States. This dyad includes students who speak English and who reside in the US (including international students who are not native English speakers) who are learning an additional language, and community members who are native or heritage speakers of those languages and who also reside in the US (e.g., Chinese immigrants, Congolese refugees, heritage Spanish speakers). By naming CBLL, we intentionally foreground important elements of language, communication, and culture that differentiate CBL with heritage and native speakers in the L2 from CBL that takes place entirely in English.

We wish to be clear that we do not assume that students on US college campuses are all native speakers of English born in the United States, because we know that international and heritage students make up an increasingly significant percentage of US college students. Although these students must have proficiency in the English language to attend a university, they are not necessarily fluent in the dominant culture; as such, their backgrounds can upset binary structures that posit the student as a knower of culture and the community member as an uninformed recipient of culture. Furthermore, when we examine these binary models and their related assumptions, we notice that they sometimes fail precisely because US students, usually young adults, are not always fluent in all aspects of their own “culture”—for example, they cannot reliably help heads of household decode electricity bills, fill out applications for permanent residency, or prepare for parent–teacher conferences. These cultural “deficits” reflect not only a limited knowledge of the “real world” but also, of particular importance, socioeconomic and class differences among students and between some students and the L2 speakers with whom they interact. So, though students reside in the United States, and may speak fluent English, their expertise is often limited to their knowledge of the English language and to a finite set of personal experiences of the culture determined by their age, their socioeconomic status, and, sometimes, their citizenship. Good examples of CBLL, then, include and prioritize interactions in which the community partner and community members serve as coeducators, because neither the students nor the educators are the ultimate authority or knower of culture. Students and educators must be open to expertise from beyond traditional classroom sources.

Just as we do not assume that all students are native speakers of English, we must not assume the homogeneity of language communities. For the purposes of this book, we sometimes refer to clusters of heritage speakers or native speakers of languages other than English as “language communities.” These clusters could be based on shared spaces (e.g., apartment complexes, schools, businesses, and neighborhoods) or ideologies (e.g., religious affiliation, politics). We acknowledge that this naming is problematic. Such a classification may inadvertently make “others” of individuals and groups that are already experiencing social and economic marginalization. It may also erase the experiences of L2 speakers who are dispersed or who do not belong to a particular community. There are differences in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, race, language, nationality, religion, cultural norms, and so on both within and between local immigrant populations that are not explicitly included in the designation “language communities.” In chapter 4 we explore this issue in some depth and offer activities that can help students explore how language shapes identity and relationships of power.

CBLL AND GLOBAL LEARNING MODELS

Other CBL frameworks that promote intercultural synergies among individuals who speak different languages include international service learning (ISL) and global service learning (GSL). We want to take a moment to draw important distinctions that inform our understanding of these models, before turning to define service learning later in the chapter. According to Bringle and Hatcher (2011, 19), ISL is “a structured academic experience in another country in which students (a) participate in an organized service activity that addresses identified community needs; (b) learn from direct interaction and cross-cultural dialogue with others; [and] (c) reflect on the experiences in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a deep understanding of global and intercultural issues, a broader appreciation of the host country and the discipline, and an enhanced sense of their own responsibilities as citizens locally and globally.” CBLL shares all these components with ISL, except that ISL is limited to a service activity that takes place abroad; CBLL, conversely, occurs in the local community where the student’s university is located—in this case, the United States. In an effort to expand the ISL model, some practitioners have suggested that “service learning with global frameworks can take place at home or abroad” (Whitehead 2015). As Whitehead (2015, “Global Learning” section, para. 2) writes, “global service learning is an emerging, holistic practice that encompasses service experiences both in the local community and abroad.” She explains: “In fact, global learning can occur in a wide range of activities, including international interactive video conferences; engagement with international students and scholars; projects that are inclusive of global perspectives and approaches; and globally focused integrative courses, capstones, and internships.” Her broader definition thus opens the focus of ISL to include the multitude of global experiences that students now access via their home academic institutions. This reframing to include both the global and local dimensions may be compelled in part by the movements for internationalization and community engagement at US colleges and universities.

Another noteworthy change is that study abroad offices at many universities now include programs based in the United States, giving way to terms such as “global education,” “study away,” and “domestic programs.” By advocating for a change in nomenclature, Whitehead (2015, “From International to Global Service Learning” section, para. 3) explains that “such a reframing involves shifting the focus from the location of the service to the content of the service.” Although we agree that a renewed focus on content is an important shift that introduces more rigor to community-based work, we do not wish to neglect the important role of place in CBLL; nor do we wish to speak of service only. In fact, we see the distinction between local and global programming as significant and even crucial for further developing our students’ critical thinking. And though learning about the world can occur in both local and international environments, some learning objectives, outcomes, and challenges inherent in place specificity are distinct. The place of the student in the community and the role of language in community interactions are the distinguishing characteristics of CBLL pedagogy. Together, these factors determine how students question identity based on power and privilege, providing unique opportunities for developing intercultural communicative competence, awareness of social and political issues, authentic relationships, and ultimately transformative learning.

Students who participate in service learning abroad (a form of ISL) often wrestle with culture shock, reverse culture shock, and identity construction—to a degree that training in the five stages of culture shock is an integral part of most ISL programs. CBLL students may experience some degree of place-based culture shock, but it is seldom at the level that occurs in an immersive environment abroad, where students are rarely part of the dominant culture. Once CBLL students leave their community encounter, for instance, they return to “normal/native” surroundings; most are likely to resume eating the foods they enjoy, finding comfort in familiar sights and sounds, and speaking the languages of their campus communities. In contrast, students living abroad often remain outsiders vis-à-vis the dominant culture, encountering cultural and linguistic barriers throughout their day. A US student working on a service project in Ecuador, for instance, returns to her host family, where she continues to be surrounded by an unfamiliar, stimulating environment. CBLL students, conversely, may spend only 1 hour per week in their service environment. Each experience offers a different orientation of the “window into another world”; study abroad orients the window to view the new host country, though CBLL presents students with a window onto their own culture, which functions as a mirror. The culture “shock” experienced by CBLL students is not insignificant and can even be more acute, because the student rarely anticipates encountering culture shock in his or her own country. In contrast to the GSL student’s glib judgments on the host culture abroad (“That is so weird”) or cultural relativism (“It’s just different here”), CBLL students can be shocked by their own culture’s practices (“Do we really do this?”). Students placed with a local resettlement office, for instance, are often surprised by the public policy restrictions that shape the organization’s mission, whereas those working in school settings are usually upset to discover the lack of resources and poor funding mechanisms; this may be a CBLL student’s first encounter with structura...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 A Theoretical Framework for CBLL
• 2 Student Learning Outcomes
• 3 Assessment Design
• 4 Identity, Language, and Power
• 5 Dissonance, Resistance, and Transformative Learning
• 6 Authentic and Ethical Partnerships
• Appendixes
• References
• Index