CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
4) Adapt texts to simplify to make it more contextual. The actions involved here can be reducing texts like select most important information or using graphic organizers, simplify
2.5 BILINGUAL EDUCATION MODEL
2.4.4 Traditional versus Alternatives in Assessment
Traditional language testing starts with multiple-choice and fill-in-the-blanks, and then integrative tests (cloze, dictation, etc.) followed by performance tests (compositions, interviews, etc.) in the 1970s and 1980s. Alternatives in Assessment provide information on learner's weakness, but also on their strengths, as they are manifested in class over time. Alternatives in Assessment are performance assessments, portfolios, student-teacher conferences, diaries, self- assessments, peer assessments, checklists, journals, logs, videotapes, audiotapes, self-evaluation, and teacher observations (Norris et.al. 1998: 3). They are generally communicative tests like task-based and other new assessments and pre-dominantly used in the 1980s and 1990s.
Grosjean (2010: 4) proposes a definition of bilingualism that emphasizes on regular use of languages rather than fluency, that is, “bilinguals are those who use two or more languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives.” Bilingual Education (BE) is the “umbrella term that has been used for decades in the literature 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” (Abello-Contesse, 2013: 4). In summary, bilingual education is where school subjects are taught in two languages and students become fluent speakers and writers in both languages by the end of their schooling (May, Hill and Tiakiwai, www.researchspace.auckland.ac.nz, August 2014).
EP or bilingual program refers to two (or more) languages of instruction and the languages are used to teach subject matter content rather than just the language itself (Cummins, 2008b: xiii). It is a form of content-based instruction that integrates the subject matter and the English that is used to communicate it so that individuals can acquire the language simultaneously with learning the academic content (Crandall, www.files.eric.ed.gov, July 2014). There is plentiful of empirical evidence of positive L2 language learning outcomes from bilingual education programs worldwide that have developed students’ L2 language proficiency while their L1 continues to develop as if the students were in a regular L1 program (Lambert & Tucker 1972;
Johnson and Swain, 1997; Baker, 1988, 2001; Cummins, 1998; Freeman, 1998; Swain and Lapkin, 1982).
2.5.2 Benefits of Bilingualism
Learning a second language must be seen both as acquiring a culture and as embracing a new personal identity (Baker and Prys-Jones, 1998: vi). Positive relationship exists between bilingualism and cognitive, if one compares bilinguals who are approximately equal in abilities L1 and L2 with a monolingual group matched for age, socioeconomic level, and other relevant variables and administers a measure of cognitive flexibility to both groups, the bilinguals will do better. (Hakuta and Diaz, www.faculty.ucmerced.edu, June 2014). In turn, students with higher cognitive abilities perform better in SLA.
Baker and Prys-Jones, (1998: 43) said that where both L1 and L2 are relatively well developed, most adult bilinguals will have one dominant language, which can change according to circumstances (e.g. move to another country), unequal exposure cause one to develop faster than another. The bilinguals rarely achieve same level of proficiency in 2 languages as monolinguals,
which is a bilingual not 2 monolingual inside one person. Code switching is a subtle and purposeful way bilinguals switch between their 2 languages (Baker and Prys-Jones, 1998: 6), from a child's weaker language to a child's stronger or dominant language.
2.5.3 Myths and Realities of Bilingual Education
There are many literature research that indicate ‘bilingual education in the United States, as in other countries, is a controversial and frequently misunderstood field” (Freeman, 1998: 1).
Skutnabb-Kangas (1984: 140-141) classified the five tenets of ESL myths in the education of dominated communities:
(1) Monolingual fallacy. English is best taught monolingually. Learning of two languages will confuse the children.
Early research on the workings of the mind relating to language acquisition had suggested a ‘container’ view of the brain where learning one language will ‘push out’ the other.
This is termed negative bilingualism. This view has since been discredited and replaced by the Common Underlying Proficiency theory (CUP) or Iceberg theory (Cummins, 2000: 182). The common underlying proficiency (CUP) permits transfer of concepts, academic content, and learning strategies transfer across languages, thus explaining the interdependence between L1 and L2. The (Interdependency Theory, Cummins, 2000: 179). According to Baker (2001: 165), there is only ‘one integrated source of thought’ that feeds to the two or more language channels, and learning to speak, listen, read or write in either L1 or L2 will help the whole cognitive system to develop.
(2) Native speaker fallacy says that English must be taught by only a native English teacher.
It is important to move beyond the native and non-native English speaker (NNES) paradigm, and to pay attention to expert speakers rather than native speakers, and do not assume that native speakers are the same as language ability and language allegiance (Rampton, 1990: 98). NNES should be recognized as L2 speakers in their own right and be viewed as multi- competent language users in L1 and L2, not to be judged as approximations to monolingual native speakers (Cook 1999: 185). NNES teachers who share the same linguistic and cultural experiences with their students can provide a good model for them, anticipating problems and
sharing strategies they have used in their own language learning (Medgyes, www.teachesl.pbworks.com,July 2014).
In Medgyes 1994 study, the differences in the teaching practices of NS and NNS teachers, as stated by the subjects of Medgyes study, could be attributed to contrasting sociocultural factors embedded in Western and Asian societies. The “difference does not imply better or worse”, and teachers should be hired solely on the basis of their professional virtue, regardless of their language background (Medgyes, www.teachesl.pbworks.com,July 2014). NS teachers were perceived as competent in the English language, use authentic English, are informal, using different techniques, methods, and approaches, and having communication (not exam) as the goals of their teaching. On the other hand, NNS teachers were perceived as relying on textbooks, applying differences between the first and second languages, using the first language as a medium of instruction, being sensitive to the needs of students, being more efficient, knowing the students' background, and having exam preparation as the goal of their teaching (Arva & Medgyes, www.finchpark.com, June 2014).
(3) Early start fallacy has the belief that the earlier English language is taught to the young, the better will the student results be.
Research literature states that if a new language is learnt in addition to the mother tongue, which continues to be developed, the learner’s total linguistic repertoire is extended (Cummings 2008a: xiv), that is, even if a child starts late in L2. This is termed additive bilingualism.
For students who have been learning English fine but still failing academically, the answer lies in the fact that there are different levels to language proficiency. Language proficiency in the second language is distinguished between BICS (Basic interpersonal communicative skills) and CALP (Cognitive academic language proficiency). BICS is conversational fluency often acquired within about two years of initial exposure to the second language whereby children acquire context-embedded proficiency and able interact socially and affectively with peer and adults whereas CALP will require at least five to seven years of academic learning to reach level comparable to that of their English speaking peers (Cummins, 2004: 76-79).
(4) Maximum exposure (or ‘time on task theory’ from Jim Cummins) fallacy lies in the fallacious belief that the more the child uses L2, the better she learns it.
As mentioned, the ‘container’ theory that learning L2 will push out L1. This is termed subtractive bilingualism, as given by Lambert Wallace in relation to French-Canadian and Canadian immigrant children whose acquisition of English in school resulted not in bilingualism but in the loss of their primary languages. (Lambert, 1975).
On the contrary, Cummings & Hornberger (www.daphne.palomar.edu, June 2014) points out that the most successful bilingual programs are those that aim to develop literacy in two languages, as these will entail linguistic and cognitive development in the student.
However, additive bilingualism is achieved when children’s L1 is dominant and prestigious and is in no danger of replacement by L2, and is added at no cost to proficiency in L1
(5) Subtraction fallacy lies in the belief that if other languages are used much, the students’ standard of English will drop.
As explained above, the common underlying proficiency in a bilingual individual contains the academic knowledge and concepts that can be used for L1 or L2. In effect, Cummings (2000: 182) argues that knowledge acquired in native language provides a basis for knowledge acquisition in the second-language. Academic concepts and literacies learned through the native language do not need to be learned again in second-language, because these underlying proficiencies (Common Underlying Proficiencies) transfer to the second-language.
2.5.4 Models of Bilingual Education
Bilingual education is generally understood to mean education in 2 languages, specifically teaching and learning through mediums of 2 languages. Different models of bilingual program have variety of outcomes for learners. It is important to start with the differing aims of the programs to trace the aims, outcomes and models of any bilingual education program.
Essentially, the aim of bilingual programs is to provide learners with the second language and culture, and they vary in the way they are structured, according to the time allocated for the language and the particular subjects studied (Truckenbrodt and de Courcy, 2002: 6).
The aims of each country will have a different influence on the forms bilingual education or level of language proficiency adopted by each country The U.S. bilingual program aims at assimilation of the migrants into the country, and the Canada French immersion program is treated as a foreign language program, whereas in New Zealand its heritage bilingual program is to preserve a culture. In the Thai bilingual program, the aims are toward providing “English skills which are marketable, aiding employment and status”. (Truckenbrodt and de Courcy, 2002: 15).
Hornberger (1991: 223) classified the bilingual education models as transitional model, maintenance model and enrichment model. The Transitional model is a subtractive bilingualism model that aims to facilitates the language transition of minority groups to be assimilated as quickly as possible into the dominant majority language group (which is the official language of the country). Ruiz (1984: 15) characterize this model as the ‘language-as-problem’ orientation to imply that the key problem is phasing out the minority native tongue to replace with the majority language. For example, the bilingual education found in United States in the last 40 years to provide assimilation for the children of Spanish immigrants so that all children will eventually use one language American English.
Whereas for the Maintenance model, it is additive bilingualism, it encompasses programs to language minority students to maintain their native language, strengthen their cultural identity, and affirm their civil right in the national society. The ‘language-as-right’ orientation underlies this model (Ruiz, 1984: 15) to emphasize that respect for the minority language is important. L1 is maintained so that it can become the basis for L2 learning. The student’s culture and identity is affirmed.
The Enrichment model promotes cultural pluralism in society by encouraging the development of minority languages and culture for the majority and minority students. A multilingual society is being valued here. It is increasingly found in Canada, U.S. and rest of the world including Thailand. Ruiz (1984: 15) characterize this as ‘language-as-resource’, in which a society values the bilingualism or multiculturalism. The minority language is elevated in status with both majority and minority parties learning it.
2.5.5 Immersion Programs
Immersion program referred by linguists are language programs involving content-based teaching. Full immersion programs occur where the entire curriculum is taught in the second
language except for a first language subject. Different immersion programs that offer dual language exposure of L2/L1 with minimum of 50/50 or even at 90/10 through the elementary grade levels up to grade five or six, students perform better academically than those in all-English programs or monolingual classes. (Freeman, 1998: 9).
Immersion programs can be categorized in terms of:
(A) Levels of entry based on age. According to Baker (2006: 216), language immersion programs can be divided into levels of entry according to age.
(i) Early immersion: at age 5 or 6.
(ii) Middle immersion: at age 9 or 10.
(iii) Late immersion: at age 11 and 14.
According to the renounced linguist Noam Chomsky (1928) in his theory of language acquisition, that early immersion in L2 is preferable to late immersion, that ‘between the ages 3 to 10 a child is most likely to learn a language in its entirety and grasp fluency’.
(B) Instructional hours spent in the immersion language at early age. The types of immersion found in the literature are:
(i) Total Immersion: almost 100% of the school day is spent on L2, with only L1 taught in the language class. An early total immersion program would start at kindergarten age; middle immersion at grade 4 or 5; and late total immersion at grade 7. All are characterized by at least 50% instruction through the target language in the early stages.
At early total immersion, 100% of L2 is used in kindergarten and grade 1, with one period of English language arts introduced in grades 2, 3, or up to 4. By grade 5 or 6, the total immersion will drop to partial immersion at 50/50 of L2/L1, and will even go to 40/60 of L2/L1 or further reduction L2 at high school.
The findings have consistently concluded that in the early total immersion programs, students gain L2 language proficiency at no cost to their native L1. By the end of grade 6, students are close to the level of native speakers in understanding and reading French, but there are significant gaps between them and native speakers in spoken and written French (Cummins, 1998: 2).
Late total immersion experience however does not develop students to the native speaker levels (Krashen, www.sdkrashen.com, June 2014).
(ii) Partial Immersion programs vary in their L2 emphasis with a minimum of 50/50 up to 90/10 of the time spent on L2/L1 in the elementary grades all the way up to grade 5 or 6.
(iii) Two-way immersion. In the U.S., two-way immersion program or dual- language program have been successful and increasing in number (also termed bilingual immersion, developmental bilingual program) (Freeman, 1998: 5). According to Christian (1996:
66-76), the program is most effective when there are balanced numbers of majority and minority students from each language background.