What Makes a Bilingual Education Program Successful - Research Paper Example

Running Head: WHAT MAKES A BILINGUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM SUCCESSFUL What Makes a Bilingual Education Program Successful Introduction According to the Columbia Encyclopedia (2006), bilingual education is the use of more than one language as the medium of instruction in the United States, as provided by the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 and a 1974 Supreme Court decision mandating help for students with limited English proficiency by requiring instruction in the native languages of students. The main professional organization advocating for bilingual education in the United States is the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE), founded in 1975. The mission of NABE is to cultivate a multilingual multicultural society by supporting and promoting policy, programs, pedagogy, research, and professional development that yield academic success, value native language, lead to English proficiency, and respect cultural and linguistic diversity. NABE believes that by using native and second languages in day to day life, intercultural understanding is developed and cross cultural and linguistic borders are respected (NABE, 2008). On the other hand, critics of bilingual education maintain that students will never be able to join mainstream classes if bilingual education is implemented. These critics have attempted to make English the official language in several states and cities or work for the elimination of bilingual programs altogether. This paper takes a look at the bilingual education program and several theories underlying bilingual education in an attempt to determine what makes bilingual education programs successful. Skutnabb-Kangas Dr. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas is a linguist who has extensively researched linguistic human rights; bilingualism and multilingual education; linguistic imperialism and subtractive spread of English; support for endangered languages; the relationship between linguistic and cultural diversity and biodiversity and has authored numerous publications on her subject of interest (WISC, 2006). Among her highly acclaimed works is “Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights?.” According to Tacelosky’s (2000) review of this book, Skutnabb-Kangas presents the state of languages of the world in terms of extinction and endangerment. The linguist also avers that although the threat to biodiversity is great, the threat to language diversity is far greater. Skutnabb-Kangas goes on to define the term mother tongue with criteria such as origin, identification, competence, function and the degree of human rights awareness. The author defines linguistic genocide as the policies that a state takes from attempting to kill a language to the adoption of an official language. She positions minority education in terms of society and politics, distribution of power in terms of dominant and dominated languages, race, sex, class and other factors. The author argues against claims that a language is necessary to form a nation and discusses the place of language in the power structure. Skutnabb-Kangas propounds that linguistic human rights are necessary rights which incorporate basic human rights, such as identity with the mother tongue and the ability to exist and reproduce a language and culture. In education, linguistic human rights should guarantee identity with and learning through the medium of the mother tongue, and the right to become bilingual, the right to make choices regarding changes in language. Since in the United States, bilingual education is already mandated by law, Skutnabb-Kangas’ objective with her book as a call to action for bi- or multilingualism in education is already partly achieved. The necessary next step is to implement bilingual programs which will achieve objectives, “to educate limited English proficient children and youth to meet the same rigorous standards for academic performance expected of all children and youth, including meeting challenging State content standards and challenging State student performance standards in academic areas” as provided in the Title VII – Bilingual Education, Language Enhancement and Language Acquisition Programs or The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, in other words, successful bilingual education programs. L1-L2 Interdependency According to Cummins (1980), the cognitive or academic aspects of a first language (L1) and a second language (L2) are interdependent and that the development of proficiency in L2 is a function of the level of L1 proficiency at the time when intensive exposure to L2 is begun. Since academic language proficiency for L1 and L2 are manifestations of the same underlying dimension, previous learning of literacy-related functions of language in L1 will predict future learning of these functions in L2. If the interdependence hypothesis is valid then academic proficiency in L1 and L2 should relate strongly to each other and show a similar pattern of correlations with other variables such as verbal and nonverbal ability. BICS and CALP The acronyms BICS and CALP were coined by Cummins (1984). BICS stands for basic interpersonal communicative skills and CALP stands for cognitive academic language proficiency. BICS represents language necessary for day to day living, including conversations with friends and other informal interactions. In BICS, context is embedded, meaning that conversation is often face-to-face which offers many cues to the listener such as facial expressions, gestures and objects of reference. Cognitively, BICS is not demanding, language is easy to understand because language deals with everyday occurrences and simple language structures are used. CALP represents language necessary to understand and discuss content in the classroom. In CALP, context is reduced as in the classroom where there are fewer non-verbal cues and language is more abstract. CALP is a cognitively demanding language because it relates to abstract concepts and would have specialized vocabulary and more complex language structure (UNCO, n.d.). Cummins distinguished between the two to draw attention to the different time periods typically required by immigrant children to acquire conversational fluency in their second language as compared to grade-appropriate academic proficiency in that language. According to Cummins, conversational fluency is often acquired to a functional level within about two years of initial exposure to the second language while at least five years is usually required to catch up to native speakers in academic aspects of the second language. Failure to take BICS and CALP into consideration results in discriminatory psychological assessment of bilingual students and premature exit from language support programs into mainstream classes. Threshold Theory In a paper by Takakuwa (2005), Cummin’s threshold hypothesis is defined as the threshold level of bilingual proficiency that children must attain in order to gain advantages and avoid disadvantages in their cognitive development. Two thresholds are identified, the higher and lower threshold levels of bilingual proficiency. The attainment of the lower threshold would be sufficient to avoid cognitive retardation and the attainment of the higher threshold would be necessary to lead to accelerated cognitive growth. Bilingual children must attain the lower threshold level in either language to avoid negative effects on their cognitive development but this does not guarantee cognitive advantages. The higher threshold level in both languages must be attained to obtain positive effects on cognitive development. Lee’s study (1996) supports Cummins threshold hypothesis. Children who do not achieve high levels of proficiency in both L1 and L2 are at a cognitive disadvantage when compared to monolinguals. Critical Period Hypothesis Theory The Critical Period Hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield. It states that the first few years of life is the crucial time for an individual to acquire a first language. The hypothesis has been a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition circles as to whether or not the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age because it claims that there is an ideal window of time for language acquisition and that beyond that time language acquisition is no longer possible. In L2 acquisition, the strongest argument for the critical period hypothesis is in the area of accent, wherein older learners do not reach a native-like level of accent fluency. However, it has also been observed that native-like accent is affected by multiple factors, like identity and motivation, rather than a critical biological period (Wiki, 2008). Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition According to Marinova-Todd et al (2000), age has often been considered a major factor in the success of learning a second or foreign language. Generally, children are considered more capable of acquiring a new language with less effort than adults. Their study grants that older learners are less likely than young children to master an L2, but their studies relating age to language acquisition shows that age differences reflect differences in the situation of learning rather than in the capacity to learn. Their findings show that there are no constraints on the possibility that adults can become highly proficient, even native-like speakers of L2s. Marinova-Todd et al aver that it is generally accepted among psycholinguists that a critical period for L1 acquisition exists, but their study debunks the same claim of a critical period for L2 learning. They conclude that the inability of adult learners to master a second language is a misconception brought about by misinterpretation of observations, misattribution of conclusions which relate to brain processes in adults and fallacious reasoning which does not take into account the motivation of an adult learner versus a child-learner of a second language. Theories of Additive and Subtractive Bilingualism According to Roberts (1995), Wallace Lambert, in 1975, identified the outcomes which results from bilingual education programs as either additive bilingualism or subtractive bilingualism. Additive bilingualism results from a program wherein students maintain their first language and acquire their second language. Subtractive bilingualism is characterized by the situation wherein students lose their first language in the process of acquiring their second language. Students who experience additive bilingualism will show cognitive benefits such as meta-cognitive ability and greater mental flexibility. Subtractive bilingualism, on the other hand, has a negative effect on students educational experience. Cognitive Effects of Bilingualism In a study by Hakuta & Diaz (n.d.), their findings show that balanced bilinguals have shown advantages in several cognitive abilities, such as concept formation and meta-linguistic awareness. Their studies also suggest that balanced bilinguals demonstrate a greater flexibility than monolinguals in their performance on different cognitive tasks. Moreover, recent research has given empirical support for linguists’ statements regarding the cognitive and linguistic advantages of raising a child bilingually. Early bilingualism is advantageous to the cognitive and linguistic development of children. Bilingualism promoted a separation of the word sound from the word meaning, leading to awareness of the conventionality of words and the arbitrariness of language, promoting in turn, more abstract levels of thinking. Language Maintenance and Shift In a study by Kuncha & Bathula (2004), language shift according to Hoffman as popularized in 1991 is when a community does not maintain its language, but gradually adopts another one, while language maintenance refers to a situation where members of a community try to keep the language or languages they have always used. Under certain cultural, social and political conditions, especially migrant communities opt to change one set of linguistic tools for another and one of the important factors that impact shift or maintenance is attitude of the individual or community, which primarily consist of necessity and pride. Communities or individuals who have to make a choice between language shift or maintenance face a dilemma regarding two conflicting goals – whether to preserve linguistic identity or improve second language skills for future personal or community advancement. Kuncha & Bathula believe that the goals are not mutually exclusive goals and that both the goals are achievable concurrently and would contribute richly to the composite culture of the environment wherein the community or individual is situated. Strong and Weak Forms of Bilingual Education Programs Today, there are several forms and types of bilingual education programs. The Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs of the State of Washington names some of these programs (CAPAA, 2008). Dual Language Programs develop students’ language proficiency both in their native language and in English in a classroom where there both minority and majority language speakers. Developmental or Late-exit Bilingual Education promotes full bilingualism where instruction is conducted both in English and the native language through a typical period of six years before they transfer to mainstream classes. Transitional or Early-exit Bilingual Education emphasizes English language development with academic learning, where instruction for a typical period of 1 to 3 years is conducted in the student’s native language to teach both English and academic subjects. Dual Immersion Bilingual Education teaches LEP and English proficient students each other’s languages in order to develop full bilingualism for both sets of students. English-as-a-Second-Language teaches the English language with little or no use of the student’s native language and is usually taught during specific school periods. Structured Immersion teaches students simple English with little support from or use of the student’s native language. According to CAPAA, the Developmental type yields among the highest and progressive student academic performance over time and that the Structured Immersion type slows down academic learning and achievement in the long run. A study by the San Diego County Office of Education (2006) reveals evidence in support of the effectiveness of both Transitional and Developmental types during the investigation of Bilingual Education programs implemented in elementary schools in the state of California. Six schools using the Transitional and/or Developmental forms exhibited successful programs where students surpassed the overwhelming majority of academic achievement and English language proficiency targets required in California as criteria to determine the success of all students. Ofelia Garcia, Professor of Bilingual Education, Professor Coordinator of Program in Bilingual/Bicultural Education, and Co-director of Center for Multiple Languages and Literacies at Columbia University summarizes the different types of Bilingual Education Programs into weak and strong forms (1997, p. 410). According to her, weak forms of education for bilingualism are Structured Immersion, Submersion with Withdrawal Classes, Segregationist, Transitional, Mainstream with Foreign Language Teaching, and Separatist. These forms only develop monolingualism, relative monolingualism or relative bilingualism. Strong forms of education for bilingualism and biliteracy are Immersion, Maintenance of Heritage Language, Two-Way Dual Language and Mainstream Bilingual. These forms support language maintenance, pluralism and enrichment, thus developing bilingualism and biliteracy. Social and Cultural Benefits of Bilingual Programs According to the NABE (2008), as earlier stated, bilingual education programs develop intercultural understanding. Bilingual or multi-lingual programs enrich all affected cultures in that each culture benefits from the riches of one. Conclusion What makes a for a successful bilingual education program? Before we attempt to answer that question, it is necessary to take a look if indeed a bilingual or multi-lingual education program is necessary. In today’s borderless world of internationalization and globalization, indeed there is a need for at least bilingual, if not multi-lingual education. It allows peoples to understand each other and interact with each other in productive ways. From numerous studies and researches conducted since the mid 1900s, it would lead one to think that bilingual education has to be successful in order for young people to be prepared to function in a borderless world. Skutnabb-Kangas warned against linguistic genocide while saying that it is in the natural order that some languages will become extinct, yet argues against deliberate dominance of one language over another through political means. L1 and L2 interdependency dictate that proficiency in L1 spells proficiency in L2. BICS and CALP define distinct levels in language proficiency for specific purposes. The threshold theory support BICS and CALP as different levels of language proficiency, as does the critical period hypothesis theory, although with some reservations. The age factor in L2 acquisition is debunked. Additive and subtractive bilingualism is a matter of choice for individuals or communities depending on objectives as does language maintenance and shift. Studies show the advantageous cognitive effects of bilingualism as well as the socio-cultural benefits it brings. So what makes for a successful bilingual education program? The success of such a program will primarily depend on the objectives set for such. Today’s cultural pluralism necessitates intercultural understanding. Culturally, racially, linguistically, and religiously diverse peoples have to function amongst each other, whether in native or non-native locations as globalization efforts continue to take over the world. It is therefore incumbent upon the world’s educators and lawmakers to seriously consider the impact of the interrelationships between language, culture and identity in the formulation of education policies related to language teaching as well as national, minority and intercultural language policies for the country. Reference List Bilingual Education. 2006. Columbia Encyclopedia. Retrieved 5 October 2008, from http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=5627 Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs. 2008. Bilingual Education Policy Brief. Retrieved 31 October 2008, from http://www.capaa.wa.gov/education/bilingual_education.shtml Critical Period Hypothesis. 2008. Wikipedia. Retrieved 5 October 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesis Cummins, J. 1984. BICS and CALP. Iteachilearn.com. Retrieved 5 October 2008, from http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/bicscalp.html Cummins, J. 1980. The Cross-Lingual Dimensions of Language Proficiency: Implications for Bilingual Education and the Optimal Age Issue. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 14, No. 2 June 1980. Garcia, O. & Fishman, J. 1997. The Multilingual Apple. Languages in New York City. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hakuta, K. & Diaz, R. n.d. The Relationship Between Degree of Bilingualism and Cognitive Ability: A Critical Discussion and Some New Longitudinal Data. Retrieved 5 October 2008, from http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:6v1S3b7QMW4J:faculty.ucmerced.edu/khakuta/research/publications/(1985)%2520-%2520THE%2520RELATIONSHIP%2520BETWEEN%2520DEGREE%2520OF%2520BILINGUALISM%2520AND.pdf+bilingualism+and+cognitive+chapter+10+hakuta Kuncha, R.M. & Bathula, H. 2004. The Role of Attitudes in Language Shift and Language Maintenance in a New Immigrant Community: A Case Study. Retrieved 5 October 2008, from http://www.crie.org.nz/research_paper/H.Bathula_WP1.pdf Lee, P. 1996. Cognitive Development in Bilingual Children: A Case for Bilingual Instruction in Early Childhood Education. The Bilingual Research Journal Summer/Fall 1996, Vol. 20, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 499 - 522 Marinova-Todd, S.H., Marshall, D.B. & Snow, C.E. 200. Three Misconceptions About Age and L2 Learning. TESOL Quarterly Volume 34, Number 1 Spring 2000. National Association for Bilingual Education. 2008. Mission. Retrieved 5 October 2008, from http://www.nabe.org/ Roberts, C.A. 1995. Bilingual Education Program Models: A Framework for Understanding. The Bilingual Research Journal Summer/Fall 1995, Vol. 19, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 369-378 San Diego County Office of Education. 2006. Successful Bilingual Schools. Six Effective Programs in California. Retrieved 31 October 2008, from http://www.bilingualeducation.org/pdfs/SDCOE06.pdf Tacelosky, K. 2000. Review: Skutnabb-Kangas: Linguistic Genocide. Linguist List 11.1415. Retrieved 5 October 2008, from http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/11/11-1415.html Takakuwa, M. 2005. Lessons from a Paradoxical Hypothesis: A Methodological Critique of the Threshold Hypothesis. Cascadilla Press. Retrieved 5 October 2008, from http://www.cascadilla.com/isb4.html Title VII – Bilingual Education, Language Enhancement and Language Acquisition Programs., 1994. Retrieved 5 October 2008, from http://www.nabe.org/documents/policy_legislation/TitleVII1994.pdf UNCO. N.d. Introduction to BICS/CALP. Retrieved 5 October 2008, from http://www.unco.edu/DOIT/Model Courses/EDI 112_Introduction to BICS.pdf WISC. 2006. Skutnabb-Kangas. Retrieved 5 October 2008, from http://education.wisc.edu/about/.../projects/documents/Skutnabb-Kangas.doc Read More