Aspects of Bilingual Education for EAL Children Internationally - Literature review Example

1. Chapter One: Literature Review 1. Introduction This literature review aims to review and critically evaluate the consideration of the essence of bilingual education in the kindergarten. This will be followed by a review of research into challenges involved in teaching EAL in the kindergarten, as well as the use of bilingual instructions in these classrooms. In reviewing the relevant literature, attention will be paid to various policy issues in the UK related to kindergarten classrooms that teach English as a Second language, especially for children of immigrants. In addition, literature focused on the relationship between bilingual education and culture will be considered, as well as literature covering the advantages and disadvantages of bilingual education in UK kindergartens. This literature review will attempt to synthesize information about the necessity for kindergarten EAL teachers to be familiar with the language and culture of children who do not speak English as L1, while also gathering information about whether children should be allowed to communicate in their L1. Gaps in literature will be identified for further research. 1.2. Bilingual Education One of the foremost challenges lies in defining the bilingual-education concept. Adesope et al (2010) consider the term bilingual education to be a simplistic one for such as a complex phenomenon. Therefore, it is important to consider briefly, the different forms of education that consist of more than one language, allowing the research study to reflect on the challenges that the UK population’s sheer diversity poses. Starting from the definition challenge of bilingual education also aids in comprehending why bilingual education has not traditionally been practiced meaningfully in the UK. Instead, bilingual education has more often involved the teaching of bilingual children than the offering of a bilingual education (Adesope et al, 2010). Moreover, considering the differing forms of education with at least two languages involved will contextualize the debate about cognitive benefits that teachers confer to children by offering bilingual education. An array of classifications for different success markers, aims, and approaches have been proposed over the years regarding bilingual education. These take such factors as national political aims of education, minority language status, linguistic and social situation at home, and the type of school (Adesope et al, 2010). Some of the important features that characterize various programs of bilingual education for children include submersion that does not integrate L1, transitional that supports LI temporally until mastery of English, one-way immersion that does not threaten L1, and 2-way immersion that strongly supports L1 (Ortiz, 2011). Mainstream kindergartens in the UK normally use transitional and submersion models, which means that it tends towards lower-multilingual levels of the spectrum with Wales and, to some extent Scotland, really providing bilingual education. For instance, Zhu and Zeichner (2013) indicate that a pilot study undertaken in Bradford for bilingual education was not enthusiastically taken up with a majority of the teachers responding negatively concerning the use of L1 in the kindergarten classroom. Agirdag (2014) also shows that majority of bilingual staff in kindergartens are unqualified and untrained, even if the decision were to be made to offer bilingual support. However, some success stories do exist, although limited to strong-willed persons in small-scale projects striving to make a difference with Agirdag (2014) noting that, even though L1 is rarely utilized as the instruction medium, this is still essential for the linguistic and academic development of kindergarten children. 1.3. Aspects of Bilingual Education for EAL Children Internationally One of the most common countries cited on how to offer bilingual education is Canada, although Wren (2013) identifies the danger of taking the results of Canadian success generally in the international context. This is because majority of the research about the Canadian program m does not involve teachers dealing with children of immigrants, while the programs remain underdeveloped with regards to addressing the children’s language needs. French and English are the two best-known successful bilingual programs internationally, meaning that the status between languages is not deemed as relevant. A mutual respect exists for home culture and language, while bilingual education has been a matter of national ideology for majority of developed nations. In addition, bilingual education, it should be noted, is optional where children are relatively homogenous with similar levels of L2 linguistic ability and teachers and parents of middle-class background (Romaine, 2009). These factors are especially important in the UK and should be noted because of the country’s social and political differences, as well as language diversity. The bilingual education model in Australia has only developed significantly in the past 40 years after the CMEP program was instituted to cater for migrant children’s educational needs. Baker (2011) claims that, although the Australian model consisted of a deficit model, unlike in the UK, it led to shift away from assimilatory education practices for children. However, Weber (2009) is also quick to point out that the Australian model led to a focus on the exoticism of languages, resulting in bilingual teaching that was largely ineffective and more akin to the UK’s outcome of mainstreaming. Despite this, specific objectives of EAL teachers have in the past 20 years ensured that, instead of withdrawal classes, parallel classes offered a support program for every bilingual child (Weber, 2009). In addition, Australia has also instituted countrywide courses for skills-training and raising awareness about bilingual education for children and the role of the EAL teacher, equipping the teachers better to work as EAL teachers effectively. Use of Bilingual instructions in EAL kindergarten classrooms in the US, on the other hand, has focused less on English language learners attached terminology, explaining the “Limited Proficiency in English” term that continues to be used to date (Baker, 2014). Bilingualism has been negatively treated in the US historically with the 1919 census considering all those born in the US as English speakers. Ever since the Education boards were mandated to start bilingual education in 1974, it has had a chequered history with Proposition 227 in California positing that English was the language of instruction and that all children had to be taught English as fast as was possible (Baker, 2014). This was supported by selected evidence showing that bilingual education only had limited success with regards to the improvement literacy rates for the children of immigrants, as well as the fact that majority of children were able to show fluency when taught in English. This decision, however, was taken in spite of studies showing that effective and strong bilingual teaching resulted in a decrease in Latino children dropping out of school in the USA (Todd et al, 2014). With regards to the rest of the countries in the EU, while teaching in the second language at times consists of teaching in and of English, it is mainly reflective of the teaching of the specific country’s official language to communities living there with minority languages and speakers of the immigrants’ heritage languages (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). Various innovative bilingual and multilingual teaching programs for children exist in the EU, of which significant successes and outcomes have been recorded. For instance, the Basque region of Spain saw children who spoke Basque doing better in child assessment results than children who were educated solely in Spanish (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). Such results lead one to conclude that using a minority language in instructing kindergarten children leads to bilingualism that is more balanced. A specific example of a multilingual nation is Luxembourg, although most of the languages introduced there are mainly German and French, which makes the comparisons with the UK’s bilingual education programs difficult (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). 1.4. Meeting EAL Children’s Needs in the Classroom Todd et al (2014) note that classroom practice and school policy is essential in enhancing the access of EAL children to the national curriculum alongside their peers who are monolingual, especially due to the fact that UK policy explicitly requires this and holds schools accountable for it. However, one of the important considerations of research has been how a school policy, which is inclusive, can be transferred to teaching practice that is equally inclusive. While taking into consideration the utilization of a second language, the monolingual child would be expected to have a significant chance to learn a new culture and language, while also raising a generation that is more accepting in an environment that is culturally rich. Thomas et al (2012) note that, national UK policy is aimed at enabling children to use L1 within the classroom in idea development, which also helps in English language acquisition. In fact, bilingual children are more likely to comprehend the fact that writing is a code that varies from verbal language, meaning they may have greater ability to write than others who are monolingual (Thomas et al, 2012). The skills that a teacher develops in children for L1 are transferrable to L2, which lends credence to the importance of teachers helping children develop L1 alongside English. Creese and Blackledge (2010) highlight the essential nature of first assessing the child’s L1 after they arrive at school for the first time so as encourage faster integration. This, though, must be considered alongside the need not to intimidate the child. The UK Education and Employment Department highlights how important it is identify and include the identity of the child via their religion, history, culture, and language (Cummins, 2009). If a child has just arrived in the UK, it is almost certain that they find the environment unfamiliar and may be insecure about it. Any attempts to do away with their L1 could act as a detriment to the child’s self-esteem because of the L1’s importance in the child’s identity and, subsequently their learning ability. UK government policy also stresses on the importance EAL children mainly spending their time in the main classroom, although Cummins (2009) notes that it is important for the teachers to handle this carefully as the child may feel intimidated by new culture and environment. A buddy system becomes a good idea in accommodating the needs of a child whose L1 is not English, involving the pairing children with other children who ideally speaks their language in order to aid in integrating the child to kindergarten. Meeting the needs of children who do not speak English as L1 requires that the teachers provide a welcoming environment that enables them to feel secure and safe. Indeed, Singh (2014) notes that new language immersion for children in a safe environment may prove to be better in teaching them a new language, instead of constant removal from the classroom. Thus, it is more effective to carry out interventions in the main classroom instead of withdrawing the child from their teachers. It is also vital for parents of the child who does not speak English as L1 to communicate efficiently with the teacher for the child’s benefit. De Lamo White & Jin (2011) find a strong correlation between success in school and the relationship between the child’s teachers, parents, and communities. In addition, children learn better, when they interact and socialize with other children. Thus, the effectiveness of a bilingual classroom is dependent on the policy of the school and the way teachers implement it to accommodate EAL children. 1.5. Cultural Compatibility in EAL Kindergartens According to Schwartz and Shaul (2013), teachers who have a culture that is similar to the children can reduce the differences the children find between school and home and, usually, such teachers can serve as role models to validate the cultural identities of diverse groups of children. Unfortunately, Dixon (2012) also notes that, while the need for kindergarten EAL teachers who are reflective of the children’s cultural diversity is growing, the number of teachers who are culturally diverse is declining. In his research, (Sage, 2010), however, indicate that even those teachers who do not share the culture of the children can offer instruction that is culturally compatible if they comprehend the ways of doing, communicating, and knowing that exist in different homes. Kindergarten teachers who appreciate and understand strengths, which are culturally different, can offer learning environments that are responsive, as well as enriching, to capitalize on and celebrate the cultural differences of the children (Sage, 2010). Still, understanding and appreciating the validity of culturally diverse beliefs and behaviors can also come with challenges for some EAL teachers. Gauthier and Genesee (2011) note that most teachers in the UK socialized and interacted in schools that were mainstreamed for twelve years, while they also took part in teacher programs that were based on the culture of mainstreaming. Most teachers in kindergartens and schools are then placed in situations where they work with similarly schooled colleagues who also have similar professional and educational experiences. It is maybe for this reason that Safford and Drury (2013) contends that the path to understanding diverse perspectives, as well as appropriate interaction with those of a different culture in diverse situations, needs the teacher to reconsider prior assumptions and consider issues from the perspective of culturally-dissimilar people. García and Baetens (2009) also describe activities that are most likely to overcome cultural barriers in bilingual education and to increase cultural competence as those that allow the teachers to be immersed in productive interactions with diverse cultures, while also promoting the cultural disequilibrium. 1.6. Advantages and Disadvantages of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education Romaine (1995: p266) contends that when children learn more than one language, these children are able to develop linguistic ability faster than multi-lingual children. Indeed, bilingual education has practical and tangible benefits that aid the bilingual individual to process information within their environment better. This may also explain why it is easier for children given a bilingual education to learn a third language compared to monolingual adults attempting to learn a second language. This advantage, according to Romaine (1995: p267), could be the result of increased ability to concentrate on their new language and reduction of interference from their native languages. As a result, bilingual education allows children to access the words they have learnt recently more easily, increasing their vocabulary more than monolingual children who show lower skills in inhibiting competing information (Romaine, 1995: p268). Cognitive benefits attributed to bilingual education extend to old age from childhood, as the child’s brain is able to process information more efficiently. Bilingualism is also associated with better meta-linguistic awareness, creativity, visual-spatial skills, and better memory (Romaine, 1995: p268). These children are also able to explore the English culture using their native tongue. Therefore, these social, developmental, and social advantages in children given a bilingual education highlights the importance of researching how bilingualism influences the child’s brain architecture and activity. However, Romaine (1995: p271) also posits that bilingual education results in serious challenges, especially where some consider it to threaten the English culture as children are allowed to speak their own language in the classroom. This is especially challenging in a country that is as multi-cultural as the UK. The current system of bilingualism requires separate classrooms and teachers, believing in gradual societal integration of children. However, this could also end up increasing the gap that exists between immigrants and children. Encouraging children to interact first and foremost with their community in their native language could also delay their adjustment to the new culture that they live in. Perceptive and mental flexibility may also suffer when children are offered bilingual education. Encouraging bilingualism in schools, especially for children, may allow non-English speakers to avoid learning English and resist assimilation into the mainstream culture (Romaine, 1995: p272). Indeed, promotion of teaching in other languages could result in inhibition of the children’s social mobility and national disunity. Golash-Boza (2005) contend that the costs of bilingual education in the UK are very high, especially given the fact that it costs less to run programs that use only the dominant language, rather than using bilingual classes to educate minority-language children. In addition, bilingual education has also been implicated in allowing minority groups in the UK avoid learning English and resist assimilation, making them part of the mainstream society but unwilling to forego their culture or language. In addition, the indexation of immigration with bilingualism in the UK has implied that bilingual children are uneducated and poor, while bilingual education implemented by the government tends to keep the children isolated linguistically, limiting potential earnings in the future. However, Romanie (2009) disagrees with the alleged costs of bilingual education, contending that it is the most effective form of teaching EAL students, especially since inability to understand the language of instruction results in loss of content already learnt. Additionally, there is also evidence of EAL children speakers learning English and maintaining first culture and language, which means that bilingual learning does not affect the ability to be proficient in English and to mainstream. With regards to language learning, anecdotal evidence indicates that children who go abroad for some time are fluent in the foreign language after coming home, which Romaine (1984) reasons is due to the fact that no one spoke in the child’s language abroad, and they had to immerse themselves in the foreign culture and language. As a result, they are forced to learn the second language to communicate efficiently. Thus, majority of teachers and schools across the English speaking World, including the UK, the US, and Canada, choose to enforce and adopt policies to only, recognize English in order to recreate a full immersion experience for the children (Han, 2012). Nevertheless, recent research has begun to study whether this makes any real difference and what the repercussions and benefits are. Reyes (2012) champions the advantages of utilizing L1 in the EAL classroom, beginning by arguing that translation occurs naturally as a phenomenon when children are being taught another language. Even children who go abroad and get to learn a second language have to spend some time getting help in translating the language to their mother tongue, especially in order to acquire a base of knowledge regarding vocabulary. Hoff et al (2015) show that the switching to and from translation and language occurs instinctively for every language and for, all language learners, while the first language is an essential resource in learning L2, from which he concludes that teachers of EAL must work with this tendency instead of against it. In addition, in instances where the first language for children is disallowed even in private spaces and children are punished for the use of mother tongue, students will simply refuse to speak and quietly use their first language. Moreover, they tend to feel shame when the teacher punishes them for using their first language. Rather than devaluing their culture and language, teachers should consider teaching children a second language as enriching their lives since, by using their first language, children can get the a positive sense and experience from learning a second language (Hoff et al, 2015). Moreover, the teacher would also be allowing the children to access supportive and valuable resources, while ensuring they do not have to feel guilty speaking naturally, in turn raising their self-esteem and learning ability. From the perspective of the teacher, speaking and communicating with the children using their first language should also help in improving the rapport between them and the children (Kandler, 2009). For instance, greeting children in their language can lead to laughter and happiness, usually drawing the child to find out what else the teacher can say in their first language. Additionally, teacher ability to use the children’s first language can also be more efficient, while also making extra time for activities that are more useful (Kandler, 2009). For instance, where there are complications in giving instructions for a specific activity, and children seem not to understand the instruction given in English, asking a child who has understood to make a translation for the class will create additional time for the classroom activity, while also preventing teacher and children frustration. Nonetheless, Piller and Takahashi (2011) contend that it is just this tendency discussed above that could result in the child, and the teacher becoming overly dependent on their first language and negating the teacher’s attempts to also teach the child English. As a result, the child could begin to lose confidence in communication ability, especially in English, making them tend to feel that, only when the teacher translates, can they understand what is being taught to them. The children could also be tempted to use their first language even at times when they are capable of explaining or expressing themselves in the English language. Subsequently, the children’s opportunities and ability to practice their English skills are substantially reduced as they fail to come to the realization that English use when in the classroom is critical to improving their skills in language (Piller & Takahashi, 2011). Furthermore, translation in a bilingual classroom where L1 is used for instructions could lead to a problem in relation to oversimplification, according to Moin et al (2011), who state that it is not possible to directly translate numerous linguistic and cultural nuances. For instance, when a person says that something is “so cool” in English, this would mean that the thing is incredible or amazing. This phrase is as a result of the English language continuously evolving with the influence of a particular culture at particular time periods. Directly translating this phrase to Indian would make little sense at all. Research on the issue shows that both sides make what is a compelling argument for and against the use of bilingual instruction in kindergarten. What remains to be seen is whether the repercussions can be minimized or whether the benefits can be maximized. 1.7. English as an Additional Language There are a number of crucial differences between the manner in which adults and children learn that kindergarten teachers teaching students with English as a second language must be aware of. First, adults and children have different ways of learning language and no matter the age of the child, it helps to comprehend the various language-learning phases that occur over the course of an individual’s life. Peña et al (2011) show that children have an innate ability for learning and acquiring new languages compared to adults, especially as pronunciation is easier to make, and vocabulary remains intact during this period. While the teacher may find a kindergarten classroom as quite a handful, most of the children will be on a similar page when it comes to teaching English. Nonetheless, when compared to adults, the latter show more varying difficulties and levels of learning. As the child moves to primary school, they tend to decline in their ability to learn a second language including English. Unlike adults, therefore, children can gain fluency and proficiency in English while still being taught their second language. Finally, Moon (2011) considers the teaching of English as a second language to children and adults in terms of motivation, contending that teachers should be quick to analyze why their students seek to learn English to make the lessons more productive. For children, their main reason for wanting to learn English as a second language is imagination and curiosity, rather than a driving motivation to do so (Pavlenko, 2012). Teachers should keep this in mind when making their lesson plans in order to appeal to the children’s senses. References Adesope, O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (January 01, 2010) A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Cognitive Correlates of Bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80, 2, 207-245. Agirdag, O. (January 01, 2014) The long-term effects of bilingualism on children of immigration: Student bilingualism and future earnings. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17, 4, 449-464. Baker, C. (2011) Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon England: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2014) Parents and Teachers Guide to Bilingualism (4th ed). England: Multilingual Matters. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (January 01, 2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal (estados Unidos), 94, 1, 421-439 Cummins, J. I. M. (June 01, 2009) Multilingualism in the English-language Classroom: Pedagogical Considerations. Tesol Quarterly, 43, 2, 317-321. De Lamo White, C, & Jin, L. (2011) Evaluation of speech and language assessment approaches with bilingual children. Evaluation of Speech and Language Assessment Approaches with Bilingual Children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 46 (6), Pp. 613-627. Dixon, L. Q., Shin, J.-Y., Zhao, J., & Quiroz, B. G. (2012) Home and community factors influencing bilingual childrens ethnic language vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16, 4, 541-565. Gauthier, K., & Genesee, F. (2011) Language Development in Internationally Adopted Children: A Special Case of Early Second Language Learning. Child Development, 82, 3, 887-901. García, O., & Baetens, B. H. (2009) Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Pub. Golash-Boza, T. (2005) Assessing the advantages of bilingualism for the children of immigrants. International Migration Review, 393, 721-753. Han, W. J. (2012) Bilingualism and academic achievement. Child Development, 83, 1, 300-321 Hoff, E., Rumiche, R., Burridge, A., Ribot, K. M., & Welsh, S. N. (2015) Expressive vocabulary development in children from bilingual and monolingual homes: A longitudinal study from two to four years. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 4, 433-444. Kandler, A. (2009) Demography and Language Competition. Human Biology, 81, 3, 181-210. Moin, V., Breitkopf, A., & Schwartz, M. (2011) Teachers’ views on organizational and pedagogical approaches to early bilingual education: A case study of bilingual kindergartens in Germany and Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 6, 1008-1018. Moon, S. (2011) Expectation and Reality: Korean Sojourner Families in the UK. Language and Education, 25, 2, 163-176. Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., Wilkinson, C. Y., Liu, Y.-J., McGhee, B. D., & Kushner, M. I. (2011) The Role of Bilingual Education Teachers in Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of ELLs to Special Education: Implications for Response to Intervention. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 3, 316-333. Pavlenko, A. (2012) Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition? International Journal of Psychology, 47, 6, 405-428. Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Bedore, L. M., & Bohman, T. M. (2011) Risk for poor performance on a language screening measure for bilingual preschoolers and kindergarteners. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology / American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 20, 4, 302-314. Piller, I. & Takahashi, K. (2011) Linguistic diversity and social inclusion. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14, 4, 321-343 Reyes, I. (2012) Biliteracy among Children and Youths. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 3, 307-327. Romaine, S. (1984) The language of children and adolescents: The acquisition of communicative competence. Oxford [Oxfordshire: B. Blackwell. Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Romaine, S. (2009) Bilingualism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Safford, K., & Drury, R. (2013) The problem of bilingual children in educational settings: policy and research in England. Language and Education, 27, 1, 70-81. Sage, R. (2010) Meeting the needs of students with diverse backgrounds. London: Continuum. Schwartz, M., & Shaul, Y. (2013) Narrative development among language-minority children: the role of bilingual versus monolingual preschool education. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26, 1, 36-51. Singh, L. (2014) One World, Two Languages: Cross-Language Semantic Priming in Bilingual Toddlers. Child Development, 85, 2, 755-766. Thomas, E. M., Lewis, W. G., & Apolloni, D. (2012) Variation in Language Choice in Extended Speech in Primary Schools in Wales: Implications for Teacher Education. Language and Education, 26, 3, 245-261. Todd, A. G., Elizabeth, D. P. A., & Lisa, M. B. (2014) The relation between language experience and receptive-expressive semantic gaps in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17, 1, 90-110. Weber, J.J. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective.  Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13, 4, 569-573. Wren, Y., Hambly, H., & Roulstone, S. (2013) A review of the impact of bilingualism on the development of phonemic awareness skills in children with typical speech development. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 29, 1, 11-25. Zhu, X., & Zeichner, K. M. (2013) Preparing teachers for the 21st century. Heidelberg: Springer Read More