EDUCATING FOR BILINGUALISM - KEY THEMES … · Web viewEDUCATING FOR BILINGUALISM - KEY THEMES AND...
Transcript of EDUCATING FOR BILINGUALISM - KEY THEMES … · Web viewEDUCATING FOR BILINGUALISM - KEY THEMES AND...
EDUCATING FOR BILINGUALISM - KEY THEMES AND ISSUES
Professor Colin Baker
University of Wales, Bangor
This paper was originally prepared for presentation at "Bilingualism and the Education of Deaf Children : Advances in Practice", a Conference held at the University of Leeds June 29th 1996. The full Conference Proceedings (ISBN 0900960868) are available from Pam Knight or Ruth Swanwick, School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT.
Introduction
The topics discussed in this paper provide some essential background for understanding
bilingual education for deaf children. The perspective taken is to use theory, research
and practice from hearing bilingualism and show its direct relevance to bilingualism and
bilingual education for deaf children.
The first section examines bilinguals as individuals and particularly the different ways
in which they use their two languages. The second section looks at bilinguals in groups,
communities and societies. Since bilinguals are usually located in language groups and
language communities it is important to understand them within the context of the
communities to which they belong. The third section looks at the potential advantages
of bilingualism since historically, only the problems of bilingualism have been
highlighted. One of the question posed by this paper is: ‘What are the advantages of
being a bilingual deaf person?’
The final section of this paper concentrates on bilingual education. This provides a
comparison between the deficit model and the enrichment model of bilingual education
for deaf children. Other important features of bilingual education for deaf children are
discussed including the notion of transfer between languages, the importance of deaf
people’s self-esteem and self-identity and routes to maximising their achievement in
bilingual education. The paper concludes by discussing various attributes of effective
and successful bilingual education.
1
BILINGUALS AS INDIVIDUALS
It is estimated that approximately two thirds of the world are bilingual. There are many
arguments around ‘what is a language’ and ‘what is a dialect’ and whether or not the
Creoles and Pidgins should be included or not in this calculation but nevertheless it
seems agreed that the majority of the world are bilingual or multilingual, and the
minority are monolinguals. Thus, while deaf people may consider themselves a
language minority, as bilinguals they are in the majority in the world.
One immediate problem is that this numerical majority tend to be the ones with the
minority of power. Wherever there are monolinguals (e.g. United Kingdom and the
United States) there tends to be an ascendancy of power, status and advantage. Where
language minorities exist, there tends to be disadvantage and less access to power and
prestige. Bilingual deaf people may thus readily identify with language minorities who
often have to struggle for equal access to rights, status, and opportunities. While there
are some elite bilinguals (e.g. those who speak English and French), most minority
language communities are relatively disadvantaged (e.g. Britain’s community languages,
guest workers in Germany, refugees throughout the world). It is therefore likely that a
sense of solidarity will exist between between deaf and hearing bilingual people as they
share a common purpose and mission in their struggle to raise the value and status of
their languages within a nation.
Some hearing children become bilingual from birth and this is known as simultaneous
bilingualism. These children are raised in two languages from the beginning in that one
parent may speak one language to the child and the other parent a different language.
We could say that for some hearing children bilingualism is their first language. While
for many deaf children, simultaneous bilingualism has been encouraged, sequential
bilingualism is in many cases more appropriate where the child learns Sign Language
first followed by literacy (and sometimes oracy) in another language.
The commonly held theory regarding children from language minorities is that they
should securely master one language before being introduced to a second language.
2
One example of this is where children learning Welsh are introduced to English at the
age of seven. The argument follows that if the minority language is not securely rooted,
it is always under pressure of replacement from the higher status, more media-oriented,
employment-led majority language. For children learning a minority and a majority
language simultaneously there is therefore a risk that the majority language might
displace the minority language due to its higher status, greater earning power and
identification with teenage status symbols such as pop stars and film stars. The
argument for Sign Language, the natural language of deaf people, to be introduced first
to deaf children differs slightly because competence in literacy in the second or majority
language is stressed.
It is very rare for bilinguals to have equal competence in both their languages. Full or
balanced bilingualism is an idealised concept that bears little resemblance to the reality
of bilingual people’s language use. Generally bilinguals use their two languages for
different purposes and functions, in different contexts and domains. For example, a
person may use their minority language at home, in the Mosque, Temple or Church or
with friends in the community but use English in shops, public meetings, when
watching television and enjoying other aspects of the mass media.
Theorists take this one step further and argue that for a minority language to survive it
needs to retain its separate functions and uses. If both languages are used in all the
different contexts and there is frequent code-switching, the majority language tends to
gain in strength at a cost to the minority language. When a minority language has little
or no separate use and function this results in what is known as a transition or shift to the
majority language. It is for this reason that it is usually argued that the minority
language must retain its very discreet functions (e.g. for religious purposes, community
meetings) in order to survive. For deaf people, it is also valuable that Sign Language is
used regularly with particular groups of people, for particular activities and in particular
discrete and rule-bound contexts. Where Sign Language has a genuine purpose it is
more likely to retain its status and value.
3
In the general literature on bilingualism a much debated distinction is often made
between the language required for everyday conversation and the language of the
classroom. The language of everyday conversation can be described as relatively simple
and concrete which is often supported by non-verbal communication. The language of
the classroom on the other hand tends to require more complex grammar structures,
more technical vocabulary, more abstract use of language often with far less
paralinguistic support.
The importance of this distinction is that there is a danger that a teacher who finds a
child has conversational competence in a language may then assume that the child is
ready to receive their full education through that language. For example, a deaf person
who uses Sign Language as a preferred language and is learning English as a second
language may be able to understand a conversational level of spoken English but may
not have the competence in English to cope with the more advanced language of the
classroom. This is one reason why children from language minorities tend to under-
achieve. These children, for example in both the United Kingdom and the United States,
are likely to be trying to learn through the medium of English without being equipped
with the English language skills they need to cope with the demands of the curriculum.
This can result in school failure from an early age, with failure breeding failure, rather
than success breeding success. It is often argued that while it takes about two years to
acquire conversational skills, it takes five to seven years or more to acquire a second
language to a level sufficient to cope with the full curriculum. This has recently been
validated by much-publicised research in the United States (Collier, 1995; Thomas and
Collier, 1995).
Having competence in a language (e.g. in Sign Language) does not mean that the
language will thrive or even survive within an individual. People need to have positive
attitudes to maintaining their languages and positive attitudes regarding the value and
purpose of their language. It is insufficient to teach Sign Language to deaf children, and
for them to acquire competency in using Sign Language, unless such children are
rewarded and reinforced for their ability to use Sign Language. The value of using Sign
Language within the deaf community and in education will help a deaf child maintain a
4
positive attitude to Sign Language as their natural language. The nature and importance
of language attitudes is further explored in Baker (1992).
BILINGUALS IN COMMUNITIES AND SOCIETY
Bilinguals tend not to exist independently or separately but in groups and language
communities. Thus it is insufficient to analyse bilinguals solely from an individual or
psychological viewpoint. The features of bilinguals when they belong to groups and
communities is an essential background to bilingual education.
Language communities are often strong where they claim a territorial principle. The
Welsh, for example, claim a right to use their heritage language because for many
centuries it has been the language of the land. The Welsh, as do the Catalans, Basques,
Bretons and Gaelic speakers in Scotland, all claim a human right to use their language in
education, law courts, mass media and elsewhere as the language ‘belongs’ to the
territory. Unfortunately although this argument works in the favour of such Celtic
groups it works against in-migrants, guest workers, refugees and deaf people. The Celtic
claim to use their minority languages because they have done so in a bounded territory
over many centuries. For the Punjabis of the United Kingdom the basis of their claims to
use their language has to rest on what is known as the ‘personality principle’.
The personality principle emphasises the fact that each language and attendant culture
has particular historic and modern features that require protection, preservation and
conservation. Each language and culture has its own personality and if any language
dies, the world becomes poorer. Thus, Sign Language should be promoted, not only as
the natural language of deaf people, but also because of its history, heritage and culture
and its exotic attraction that contibutes to a more colourful language garden of the
world. Sign Language encompasses and creates the culture, personality, vitality and
shared understandings of the deaf community and therefore needs preservation and
conservation, production and reproduction.
5
Where bilinguals exist in communities and society, varying degrees of a subtractive or
an additive ethos are likely to exist. In a subtractive situation, particularly where there is
political, social and economic assimilation in society, the majority language community
expect the minority language to wither. This is reflected in some approaches to the
education of bilingual children where the aim is to replace the home or first language of
the child with the majority language of the wider society.
Socialization forces in society (e.g. mass media) may also place pressure on language
minority communities to engage in a transition towards majority language and culture.
The alternative to this is an additive situation where having two languages and two
cultures is seen as advantageous for everyone, in that one language does not displace or
replace another; instead both languages add to the variety, vitality and colour of society
in general.
Unfortunately, minority languages have often been seen as a problem particularly by
majority language users. Such problems range from supposed cognitive deficits
resulting from owning two languages, to concerns of the language majority that minority
language users will not integrate or assimilate and form a well-integrated whole. A
separate language community may be regarded as a problem because they are seen to
have alternative power structures, providing a challenge to those with power and status,
and a threat to those who have control over economic resources.
Language majorities usually expect language minorities to assimilate in terms of culture
and structure, but not economically. In the United States, for example, the many
millions of in-migrants over many decades have been expected to become good
Americans, loyal to the President and the flag, becoming culturally integrated,
linguistically monolingual in English with the aim of making an easily manageable,
obedient and unified society. However, such language minorities in the United States
have rarely been allowed equal access to economic rewards and advantages. Language
minorities are often expected to assimilate, integrate and to be easily governable, but
without equal access to economic rewards. A similar pattern can be found among deaf
communities, where pressure to learn English, to learn through English and to integrate
6
into the mainstream schooling can superficially have well-meaning intentions. Those in
power may, in reality, be afraid of minority groups with power, their own culture and
mission. Such minority groups may be seen as splinter sections of society, rivaling
central power structures, and expressing a volatile diversity that is perceived as not easy
to contain. However, language minority groups do have some advantages over
monolinguals. These will now be considered.
THE POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES OF BILINGUALISM
One potential advantage of bilingualism is that children can access two or more worlds
of experience. While most of us have different sub-cultures, bilingual deaf people have
the opportunity to access both the sub-cultures of the deaf community and a selection of
the sub-cultures of the hearing community. This wider perspective and breadth of
understanding can result in greater tolerance and a less ethnocentric outlook because of
the opportunity for multiple understandings that is provided. For example, consider a
child who has the term ‘folk dancing’ in one language and the equivalent or near
equivalent in another language. The meanings of folk dancing in each language will not
be the same. Folk dancing can have different connotations, emotions, pictures and
associations in different languages. This simple example illustrates the advantage in
terms breadth of experience that bilingual and bicultural individuals potentially have
over monolinguals.
Bilingual people are also advantaged because ability to use two languages enables them
to comminicate with a wider number and variety of people whether that be within the
community, across the United Kingdom or internationally.
When two languages are relatively well-developed within an individual he or she is
likely to experience thinking or cognitive advantages. For example, a child who can
cope with the demands of the curriculum in either language is likely to be able to able to
separate meanings from the words themselves, to think more creatively and divergently
7
and to be more sensitive to communication between people. Further explanation and
discussion of these points can be found in Baker (1996).
Bilingual individuals are further advantaged if their minority language is valued in terms
of their self-esteem and sense of social identity. A child whose home language is a
minority language but who finds in school that the language is disparaged by teachers by
its non-use in the curriculum, may suffer in terms of self-esteem. If children’s first
language is rejected by the school, by implication so are their parents, their extended
family, their community and their very sense of Self. For those whose first language is
celebrated in school, their self-esteem may be raised and strengthened. Where there is
denial of Sign Language as the natural language of deaf people, then there can be a
diminution of self-esteem and self-identity. When there is acceptance and celebration of
Sign Language as the first language of deaf people, then self-esteem and self-identity
may be supported, secured and strengthened leading to positive outcomes in terms of
achievement in the school and beyond. This overview of the individual and the societal
provides the background for a more in-depth discussion of bilingual education.
BILINGUAL EDUCATION
1. The Deficit Model
Approaches to bilingual education can be broadly grouped into two main models (for a
more detailed overview see Baker, 1996) One significant model is known as the ‘deficit
model’. In this type of model children are not allowed to use their home language in
school at all or they allowed to use it only for the first one or two years. Common to
many of the approaches within this defict model is the goal of ‘submersing’ the children
in the majority language of the school. Alternatively a transitional approach may be
8
adopted where children are allowed to splash around in their home language for two or
three years, but with the long-term aim of that language being replaced by the majority
language. In such mainstream education, children are expected to learn (sooner or later)
solely through the majority language.
The argument for the deficit model is that majority language competence is essential for
equal access to employment, and to the economic and social advantages of the majority
language society. This is more often than not underpinned by the drive for the
assimilation and integration of minorities into mainstream society. This deficit model
tends to result in a lowering of achievement, not just initially, but throughout school. In
this deficit model of education, the child’s preferred language is rejected, and therefore,
the child may also feel rejected. The child is not allowed to use his or her linguistic and
intellectual resources when moving from home to school. Therefore, the school either
starts at too high a level so that the child cannot understand, or the child is taught
competence in the majority language. Hence, the school may not increase children’s
competence and confidence by building upon their intellectual foundation at the point of
transition from home to school.
The Deficit Model of Education for Deaf Children
The approach to the education of deaf children which could be described as a ‘deficit
model’ of education is that which focuses solely on developing any residual hearing
(with the assistance of hearing aids) to accentuate the development of speech reading
skills and speech production. Up until the 1970’s, this approach dominated the
education of deaf people in North America and Europe. Such an approach is based on
the following beliefs:
· that deaf children should integrate into mainstream society;
· that the curriculum should not be taught through Sign Language but through the
majority spoken language;
9
· that Sign Language is insufficient as a language to enable full intellectual
development;
· that Sign Language is only useful as a temporary crutch to support the acquisition of
the majority spoken language;
· that achievement in the curriculum requires oracy and literacy in the majority
language (e.g. English);
· that achievement and success can only be seen in terms of proficiency in the majority
and measured against the hearing norm.
2. The Enrichment Model
In an enrichment model of bilingual education, children are allowed to use their
minority language for as long as practically possible. While the majority language may
be introduced around the age of seven or eight (and therefore bilingualism is
encouraged), the child retains their minority language, works through that minority
language and generally tends to achieve success. The reasons for the child achieving
success may be due to the fact that the school accepts and builds upon the linguistic and
intellectual resources the child owns when moving from home to school. Also and
importantly, ideas, concepts, knowledge developed in the first language transfer easily to
the second language. For example, if a child is taught to use a computer in one
language, as long as a second language is sufficiently developed, such understanding is
‘available’ in the second language. Decoding skills and other strategies involved in
learning to read are also transferable from one language to another.
Using the child’s first or preferred language can be the most efficient means of initially
acquiring curriculum concepts, understanding and knowledge. For example, recent
research from the United States (Collier, 1995) has shown that children who learn
through their first (minority) language for as long as possible tend to have not only
improved final achievement, but also their English language skills tend to develop to a
10
higher level than those who were taught in submersion or transitional bilingual
education.
Minority language education gives a child pride and confidence in their first or natural
language (e.g. Sign Language) and in who they are (e.g. identity as a deaf person).
Language minority schools tend to boost children’s self-esteem and self-identity by
celebrating rather than disparaging their minority language and culture. The children’s
performance is usually raised as a result of their improved self-esteem and experience of
learning through their first or natural language.
International research and scholarly writings suggest that bilingual education is more
effective and more successful when the following occurs:
· There is an early emphasis on the minority language with a child becoming bilingual
later.
· There are language boundaries between the two languages in school particularly so
that the majority language never replaces or displaces the minority language.
· There is a partnership with parents both inside and outside the school, where parents
are included in the classroom bringing in their ‘funds of knowledge’, and supporting
their children outside school.
· Successful initiatives, often at grass roots level, raise the profile of bilingual
education, thus capturing the enthusiasm and commitment of teachers and parents
alike.
· There is an active participative culture to accompany the minority language. It is
insufficient to teach a child a language if environments outside school for the use of
that language do not exist. For example, minority languages often argue for the
representation of their language in the mass media. Research has shown that this does
not provide the active participatory culture required for a language to live within an
11
individual. Within a community, there needs to be plenty of opportunities for
minority language speakers to use their language.
•1 The minority language is not only connected with out-of-school culture, and after-
work culture, but also has an economic or employment dimension attached. If a
minority language is only seen as valuable for leisure and pleasure, there is a danger
of it being marginalised and not fully integrated into work institutions, economic life
and the labour market. Language production and reproduction needs to occur in
education, the family and the community, but gathers more momentum and strength
when it is part of that unavoidable dimension of life concerned with personal and
family economics and increased affluence.
The Enrichment Model of Bilingual Education for Deaf Children
An enrichment bilingual education model for deaf children centres on ten basic
principles.
1. Natural Sign Language should be regarded as the preferred or primary language
of all deaf children
2. Sign Language should be used to teach curriculum subjects such as Science,
Humanities, Social Studies and Mathematics.
3. Sign Language can be used to teach English (or another majority language) as a
second language where there is an emphasis on literacy as well as on oral/aural
skills.
4. The culture and language of the deaf community are recognised and validated
enabling deaf children to realize their natural identity. This approach tends to be
favored by most but not all the deaf community although not all the politicians
and educational professionals who formulate policy and provision.
12
This model of bilingual education for deaf children is based on the research and
arguments for an enrichment form of bilingual education for hearing children the
central tenets of which include:
· building on a child’s existing linguistic and intellectual resources
· concepts and knowledge developed in the first language transfer easily to
the second language
· the use of children’s heritage language which fosters their sense of pride
and confidence in their culture and community
· the boosting of children’s self-esteem and self-identity without threat
when the use of their first language is positively encouraged
· the raising of school performance and curriculum attainment when the
first language is celebrated rather than devalued.
· the low achievement of minority language pupils and deaf pupils which
needs to be addressed by the promotion of enrichment forms (or ‘strong
forms’) of bilingual education.
5. Deaf children may not always acquire a spoken language easily or quickly
because they have limited hearing abilities. If the curriculum is transmitted in
the spoken language, they are being expected to learn the content of the
curriculum using a level of language not yet acquired. This is analogous to
minority language children being expected to operate in submersion education in
the language of the majority.
6. The learning of a Sign Language should begin as early as possible, ideally soon
after birth. Current thinking suggests that early exposure to Sign Language is
appropriate for all deaf children. This gives the deaf child the opportunity to
13
develop age-appropriate competence in a first language (i.e. Sign Language).
Without the development of language, a child cannot form concepts or develop
cognitive skills, nor can a child learn social and communicative skills through
interaction with others.
If a deaf child has had the opportunity to develop Sign Language competence
during the preschool years, that child is likely to arrive in school ready to cope
with the curriculum and better able to socialise with others. Children who have
had early access to Sign Language appear to progress better in school. It is
important to avoid language delay in deaf children, as has been found to occur
with approaches that focus solely on the acquisition of oral and aural skills.
Curriculum achievement will suffer if there is language delay.
Where deaf children arrive in school with very little grasp of either Sign
Language or spoken language, the priority must be on the development of Sign
Language skills. Children must be able to think and conceptualize before they
can learn.
8. Nine out of ten deaf children are born to hearing parents, but with many parents
being increasingly willing to learn and use Sign Language, the first language of
such deaf children can be Sign Language. It is important that hearing parents
receive adequate support from Sign Language teachers and that there is good
preschool provision for deaf children. Parents of deaf children need be informed
about bilingual education and to have a knowledge and understanding of deaf
communities. To enhance their child’s curriculum achievement, parents should
expect Sign Language to be the medium of curriculum delivery with a emphasis
on the development of the child’s literacy skills in the majority language.
Parents of deaf children need considerable emotional support, information and
guidance to help their children become bilingual. A partnership between school
and parents, and between school and community must exist in order that the
cognitive, linguistic, social and emotional development of deaf children can be
14
facilitated. While there is a considerable debate about the integration of deaf
children into a hearing society, (and their first loyalty being to the deaf
community), hearing parents of deaf children need appropriate support.
9. Current challenges faced by teachers of deaf children include the limited supply
of appropriately trained staff, Sign Language teaching resources (e.g. signed
stories on video) and in-service education and certification and funding. These
are practical problems to be overcome rather than insurmountable problems of
principles.
10. In a bilingual programme for deaf pupils team teaching may be an essential part
of the approach. The deaf teacher may be a natural model for the acquisition of
Sign Language with a hearing teacher acting as a model for the acquisition of
proficiency in a majority language such as English or French. Ideally, both
teachers should be bilingual models, being able to communicate in both Sign
Language and spoken or written English. Also, both teachers in the team should
have a knowledge of the shared culture of deaf people as well as an
understanding of the diversity that exists among deaf children and adults.
Conclusion
This paper has suggested that there are many similarities between deaf and hearing
bilingual people. Many of the arguments for retaining a minority language as a child’s
first language and for a ‘strong’ form of bilingual education for such children, also hold
for deaf children. The argument that children from language minorities should become
bicultural and culturally pluralistic also applies to bilingual deaf people.
Language minorities are often the poor, low status, low power relations of majority
language speakers and so it follows that bilingual deaf people are often the poor relations
of spoken language minority bilinguals. This is particularly emphasised when deaf
people come from language minority communities themselves. A Latino deaf person in
the U.S., a deaf Turkish person in Germany and a deaf Bengali person in the U.K. are
15
all examples of individuals who are a minority within a minority. They are often the
doubly underprivileged and the doubly despised. Where being a member of a language
minority is joined by being deaf, disempowerment, low status, discrimination and low
self esteem may be compounded. Given that many groups of bilinguals are under
privileged and even more so deaf bilingual people we should make social and
educational action our highest priority.
References:
BAKER, C., (1992), Attitudes and Language, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
BAKER, C., (1995), Parents’ and Teachers’ Guide to Bilingualism. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
BAKER, C., (1996), Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. (Second
Edition). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
COLLIER, V.P., (1995), Acquiring a Second Language for School. Directions in
Language and Education (National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education), Volume 1,
No. 4, Fall 1995, pages 1 - 8.
MAHSHIE, S. N., (1995), Educating Deaf Children Bilingually. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University.
16
THOMAS, W.P., & COLLIER, V.P., (1995), Language Minority Student Achievement
and Program Effectiveness. Research Summary. Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason
University.
17