Kitabı oku: «The Multicultural Classroom: Learning from Australian First Nations Perspectives», sayfa 2
3. Structure of the Book
The book consists of six chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
An overview of the background and relevance as well as the objectives of the research study are given.
Chapter 2: Foundations of Multicultural Classrooms
The fundamental concepts of language, multilingualism, culture, and multiculturalism are defined. Subsequently, the focus shifts to multicultural classrooms starting with a discussion on perspectives on diversity in education. Then, approaches to teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms are presented and relevant education policies are outlined.
Chapter 3: Languages and Cultures in Australia
The concepts of multilingualism and multiculturalism are discussed in the context of Australia. Focusing on its First Nations, the significance of languages in Indigenous Australia is highlighted, examining both traditional Indigenous languages and varieties of English. Finally, Indigenous Australians’ ways of knowing, being, and doing are introduced and the multicultural realities of First Nations Australians are highlighted.
Chapter 4: First Nations Education in Australia
A brief historical account of First Nations education including relevant policy documents is provided and cultural foundations of Indigenous approaches to teaching and learning are explored. Moreover, proposed frameworks for Indigenous education as well as adopted approaches at specific schools in Australia are presented. Lastly, selected challenges in the field are discussed.
Chapter 5: Research Study
After a discussion of current research dimensions in First Nations education, the design and objectives of the empirical study are outlined by illustrating its underlying research questions and design. Subsequently, the findings of the qualitative research study are presented, analyzed, and interpreted. Finally, the results are discussed and implications for teaching practice in multicultural classrooms are derived.
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Outlook
The last chapter contains a concise review of the study conducted and suggests potential directions for further research in the field.
Chapter II
Foundations of Multicultural Classrooms
Since “we all see the world differently, our context and experiences are divergent, and the way we explore language is again distinctive” (Power et al. 2015, 4), this chapter defines the key concepts of language and multilingualism as well as culture and multiculturalism. Having established this fundamental terminology, perspectives on diversity in education are discussed and select approaches to teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms are explored. In conclusion, education policies affecting multicultural classrooms are addressed.
1. Language and Multilingualism
Fundamentally, languages constitute systems of interrelated signs used for the purpose of communication (Edmondson and House 2011, 7-8) and can thus be described as “fluid codes framed within social practices” (García 2009, 49). Concurrently, Eades (2013, 57) states that “language is much more than the reflection or expression of society and culture; it is a dynamic and creative instrument of social action”. Investigating its symbolic nature, Kramsch (2009, 7) highlights that language use “mediates our existence through symbolic forms that are conventional and represent objective realities” and that “construct subjective realities such as perceptions, emotions, attitudes, and values.”
In relation to the concept of language, a distinction between dialect and accent also needs to be provided at this stage. Endorsing the existence of a continuum between language varieties and dialects depending on regional, societal, political, and cultural leverages, sociolinguist Trudgill (2000, 5) provides the following definitions:
The term dialect refers, strictly speaking, to differences between kinds of language which are differences of vocabulary and grammar as well as pronunciation. The term accent, on the other hand, refers solely to differences of pronunciation, and it is often important to distinguish clearly between the two.
As the concept includes both standard and non-standard varieties of a language, Standard English should itself be regarded as a dialect of English due to its distinct grammatical and lexical features. In this context, authors have complained that standard varieties are often considered the only proper way to speak and they have accentuated the fact that a society’s values and structures are displayed in the attitudes towards non-standard varieties (e.g. Trudgill 2000, 5–9). This aspect alludes to the slow recognition of Aboriginal English as a distinct dialect of Standard Australian English (SAE), which is explored in Chapter III.3.1.
In the context of language teaching and learning, a differentiation between home, second, and foreign languages is essential. The following figure should assist readers in understanding this fundamental terminology.
Figure 1: Differentiation of the Language Concept1
In order to differentiate between the two non-native languages in Figure 1, the function and purpose of the language are decisive factors. Putting the focus on English language teaching, the acronyms ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) exemplify the two concepts. In ESL contexts, learners might still practice their L1 at home but need English as the means of communication in everyday life, as is for instance the case in Australia, Canada or the UK. The term EFL, on the contrary, pertains to contexts in which English does not play an essential role within society, as it is not necessarily required for communicative purposes or in educational settings due to other dominant languages. It is necessary to differentiate between ESL and EFL contexts, since syllabuses, classroom pedagogies and education policies usually display considerable differences (Carter & Nunan 2001, 2).
The focus is now transferred to the coexistence of two or more language varieties within one speech community or country, which is generally denoted bi- or multilingualism, respectively. In simple terms, bilinguals “use two or more languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives” (Grosjean 2010, 4). Conversely, other authors have adopted the concept of multilingualism to “describe the use of three or more languages by an individual or within a society” (Baker & Wright 2017, 431). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) defines multilingualism rather broadly as “the knowledge of a number of languages, or the co-existence of different languages in a given society” (Council of Europe 2001, 4). In addition, bidialectalism has been used to describe the “phenomenon whereby someone can communicate in more than two dialects of the same language” (Carter & Nunan 2001, 94) and can be regarded as one form of bilingualism. Finally, the concept of plurilingualism refers to an individual’s totality of linguistic resources in the CEFR (Fäcke & Meißner 2019, 2).2
Generally, different manifestations of bilingualism have been identified in the field. For instance, along with other linguists, Brown (2007) makes use of the expressions subtractive and additive bilingualism to imply the respective status and effect of the home language in and on the processes of learning a new language. In this sense, an L1 “is referred to as subtractive if it is considered to be detrimental to the learning of a second language” whereas “[a]dditive bilingualism is found where the home language is held in prestige by the community or society” (Brown 2007, 139). In this regard, García (2009, 73) addresses the deliberate encouragement that students abandon their home language in favor of the majority language in monolingual schools, thereby ensuring a subsequent monolingual generation. She identifies the treatment of Indigenous children in schools all over the world as possibly the strongest driver for subtractive bilingualism leading to the vast reduction in the number of Indigenous languages. In addition to subtractive and additive bilingualism, García (2009, 73–74) also differentiates between recursive and dynamic bilingualism in her work. As such, efforts made to revitalize traditional Indigenous languages frequently re-introduce them by assigning them new functions or contexts of use. As speakers move back and forth between different varieties depending on the setting, this form is termed recursive bilingualism. Furthermore, due to globalization and the resulting linguistic complexity in the 21st century, bilingualism and language practices constantly need to adjust to an ever-changing world of multilingual communication, hence reveal highly dynamic features. García illustrates these four types of bilingualism in the following manner (Figure 2):
Figure 2: Forms of Bilingualism3
García’s conceptualization of dynamic bilingualism is also apparent in the CEFR, which outlines the following:
[A]s an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands […], he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. (Council of Europe 2001, 4)
Investigating bilingual speakers’ usage of different language varieties, a concept of particular relevance is code-switching. This involves “the alternate use of two languages, that is, the speaker makes a complete shift to another language […] and then reverts back to the base language” (Grosjean 2010, 51–52). The term can be used to refer to changes at word, phrase or sentence level in a conversation (Baker 2011, 107). There are different reasons for bilinguals to activate their distinct language systems in this way. First and foremost, there might be a more suitable expression for a certain idea in one language that “adds a little something that is more precise than trying to find an equivalent element in the base language” (Grosjean 2010, 53). Other motives for code-switching include filling a linguistic requirement, identifying with a group or demonstrating one’s expertise (Grosjean 2010, 54–55).
According to the CEFR, “[l]anguage is not only a major aspect of culture, but also a means of access to cultural manifestations” (Council of Europe 2001, 6). Hence, the next section defines and discusses the concepts of culture and multiculturalism.
2. Culture and Multiculturalism4
Since it is “a far-reaching dynamic concept and an elaborate, ever-changing phenomenon” (Wintergerst & McVeigh 2011, 3) an abundance of understandings and definitions of the concept of culture exists. Despite it being one of the most frequently used expressions in the social sciences and humanities, culture is also one of the most underdetermined concepts in everyday language use, connoting different phenomena in different contexts and fields of research (Surkamp 2017, 179). Accordingly, Baker (2015, 46) elucidates that “our definitions of culture will always be partial and open to revision and change.” Despite the complexity of the field, this chapter includes and discusses select efforts at a definition of both culture and multiculturalism and illustrates the understanding of culture underpinning the study.
To start with, Brown (2007, 132) outlines that “[c]ulture is a way of life. It is the context within which we exist, think, feel, and relate to others.” In contrast, Hollins (2015, 20) regards culture as emerging from people’s experience and acquired understanding “about how to live together as a community, how to interact with the physical environment, and knowledge or beliefs about their relationships or positions within the universe.” Adopting a comparative intercultural perspective, Hofstede and McCrae frame their operating definition of culture as
[t]he collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group or category of people from another. This stresses that culture is (a) a collective, not individual, attribute; (b) not directly visible but manifested in behaviors; and (c) common to some but not all people. (Hofstede & McCrae 2004, 58)
This approach exhibits similarities to the two central meanings of culture identified by Throsby (2001). On the one hand, culture is used to “describe attitudes, beliefs, mores, customs, values and practices which are common to or shared by any group.” This group “may be defined in terms of politics, geography, religion, ethnicity or some other characteristic” (Throsby 2001, 4) ensuring a sense of identity. On the other hand, culture also “has a more functional orientation, denoting certain activities that are undertaken by people, and the products of those activities, which have to do with the intellectual, moral and artistic aspects of human life” (ibid., 4). In relation to these perspectives, Baker and Wright (2017, 426) define culture as “the set of shared meanings, beliefs, attitudes, customs, everyday behavior and social understandings of a particular group, community or society.”
What can be perceived based on these preliminary elaborations is the great diversity of definitions of the concept of culture, which virtually unanimously appear to involve processes of grouping people together according to seemingly shared features and identifying dimensions that distinguish them from others (Dockery 2010, 318). While such approaches may provide comprehensible outlines of the concept, they have been criticized for adopting a simplified, static, and homogeneous understanding of culture, which, in light of the globally increasing scope of diversity in societies and classrooms, has been deemed inappropriate.
On the contrary, as “culture is constantly changing and adapting” (Yunkaporta 2020, 61), authors have advocated for the adoption of an understanding of culture as a complex and dynamic entity including a “multiple, fragmented and hybrid nature of identity” (Baker 2015, 111). In this context, Kramsch (2009, 225–226) pleads for a movement towards a late modernist approach, which abandons a focus on nations and borders, and regards culture as a “dynamic process, constructed and reconstructed in various ways by individuals engaged in struggles for symbolic meaning and for the control of identities, subjectivities and interpretations of history.” Based on this understanding, Ladson-Billings (2017, 143) also outlines that
it is important to emphasize the dynamic and fluid nature of culture that is much more than lists of “central tendencies” or worse, “cultural stereotypes.” From an anthropological perspective, culture encompasses worldview, thought patterns, epistemological stances, ethics, and ways of being along with the tangible and readily identifiable components.
Thus, Aboriginal scholar Yunkaporta (2020, 242) concludes that it is “the cultural lens that we carry everywhere with us. […] Your culture is not what your hands touch or make—it’s what moves your hands.”
As with the criticism raised in connection with the concept of culture, the definitions of bi- or multiculturalism reveal similar predicaments due to the simplifying undertone that afflicts many of them. In the Encyclopaedia of Bilingual Education, for instance, the concept of biculturalism is defined as
the ability to effectively navigate day-to-day life in two different social groups and to do so with the anticipated result of being accepted by the cultural group that is not one’s own. […] [The term] refers to the necessary knowledge, skills, and beliefs that individuals can access to participate within their own and another cultural group. (Smith 2008, 65)
Similarly, Baker and Wright (2017, 431) have recently defined multiculturalism as “[a]dopting the cultural practices associated with more than one cultural or ethnic group.” In this context, Australian linguist Eades (2013) relates the term biculturalism to the previously discussed concept of multilingualism claiming that “[m]any people are bicultural, having the ability to participate in two or more sociocultural groups—just as bilingual people can speak two or more languages, and bidialectal people can speak two or more dialects” (Eades 2013, 13).
In summary, while various definitions of the concept of culture have been suggested, this book regards culture as an open, complex, dynamic, and highly individual construct. Based on this late modernist understanding (Kramsch 2009), the term multicultural is used to describe classroom settings which are characterized by increasingly diverse ways of knowing, being, and doing. In addition, the terms bicultural as well as the plural derivative cultures are occasionally used with the same inclusive reference in order to accentuate the pluralistic, heterogeneous, and dynamic nature of culture and to emphasize the cultural diversity existing within Indigenous Australia.
3. Teaching and Learning in Multicultural Classrooms
Having defined the fundamental terminology related to the field of study, this section discusses perspectives on including learners’ various backgrounds in educational settings and subsequently presents a concise sample of existing approaches to teaching and learning. Lastly, education policies relevant for multicultural settings are outlined.
3.1 Perspectives on Diversity in Education
Fundamentally, Australian educationalist Joseph Lo Bianco (2009, 113) accentuates that “[p]erhaps the strongest indicator of the transformed realities of contemporary education in a globalised world is the depth of cultural, racial and linguistic diversity in schools.” Adding to this, the American pedagogical theorist Ladson-Billings (2017, 145) establishes that “all students have culture” and emphasizes that “their culture is a valuable, indeed necessary, starting point for learning.” On the basis of these clarifications and their significance for educational settings, all classrooms in this global day and age can be regarded as characterized by an increasing diversity, which takes a likewise increasing number of shapes and forms. In connection with diversity in school, dialectologist Yiakoumetti (2012, 1) states the following:
Research clearly demonstrates that incorporating linguistic diversity into education can lead to social, cultural, pedagogical, cognitive and linguistic advancement. In spite of this evidence, many educational contexts around the world are characterized by an unwillingness to commit to change and a stance that argues for exclusive use of a prescribed standard variety in the classroom.
Referring to this criticism, Dooley (2009, 75) insists on the need for educators to consider that, for learners, “[u]nderstanding what the teacher says or what is written in texts used in class is a key to academic engagement. Yet, for students who are learning the medium of instruction as an additional language, understanding is often elusive.” The transition from the spoken to the written word has been identified as an encumbrance for many bilingual students (Windle 2009, 97–98). Apart from linguistic impediments, culture-related obstacles in diverse classroom settings have been identified, lying in the fact that students reveal “a range of abilities and varying degrees of familiarity with the school context in which they find themselves” (Gearon 2009, 210). In other words, students in one classroom might show drastically divergent views on education and might connect different values, expectations, and functions with schooling in general. In summary, Windle (2009, 96) observes that students frequently “tend to devalue their linguistic and cultural resources, rather than seeing them as resources for learning. For many […] students, bilingualism appears to be a burden rather than an advantage in their engagement with school.”
As a consequence, Gearon emphasizes the necessity for teachers, especially in the context of foreign language education, to understand the mechanisms and ramifications of certain factors in connection with teaching and learning, and to adapt their strategies accordingly to support both language learning and intercultural learning (2009, 210). Subsequently, Windle (2009, 106–107) illustrates the following modes of behavior required from instructors in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. First, teachers need to disregard the common misconception that bilingualism is the primary cause of low academic achievement. Additionally, they need to design effective approaches to teaching and learning while striving to comprehend the individual student’s identity and cultural framework. Doing so can help build a solid foundation of mutual understanding and a connection between students and teachers.
Building on Windle’s (2009) plea, however, Ladson-Billings (2017, 145) has underscored the predominantly defective understanding of teachers’ own backgrounds and identities as an obstacle. Linking this identified shortcoming with the fundamental objectives of education, Watkins et al. (2016, 62) argue the following:
With schools as important sites in which values and understandings around cultural diversity are formed, it is imperative that teachers possess the necessary professional capacities to assist students in making sense of the multicultural society in which they live ensuring a sense of civic belonging and social inclusion that provide the basis for an equitable and fair polity.
Specifically, Ladson-Billings (2017, 145) argues that learners need to develop a multicultural perspective through schooling which entails that students “broaden their cultural repertoires so that they can operate more easily in a world that is globally interconnected.” Therefore, Boon and Lewthwaite (2016, 468) affirm that teaching staff at educational institutions is required to be culturally competent and needs to possess “the knowledge and skills to effectively teach diverse groups of students.”
Specifically investigating contexts in which Standard English is the dominant linguistic variety, Ball and Bernhardt (2012, 209) suggest that “[a] first step that schools […] can take is to acknowledge the validity of children’s particular English dialect. This acknowledgement can promote children’s sense of being capable learners and of belonging in the mainstream school setting.” In conclusion, Partington (2003, 42) states,
School should be a sanctuary from difficulties experienced outside the school and it should be a place where they [students] can be encouraged to succeed and take advantage of opportunities for education and training. For this to happen, however, schools need to change. This change can only occur through more effective education of teachers.
