Kitabı oku: «The Multicultural Classroom: Learning from Australian First Nations Perspectives», sayfa 3

3.2 Implementing Bilingual and Bicultural Approaches

Generally, a variety of definitions and models of bilingual education and a seemingly equally extensive number of ways for classifying and grouping them exist in the field. Fundamentally, Baker (2011) and Grosjean (2010) emphasize the need for a distinction to be made between approaches in which bilingualism is encouraged and those in which a monolingual classroom is targeted (Baker 2011, 207; Grosjean 2010, 230–235). Thus, a distinction can be made between strong and weak forms of bilingual education, which can be differentiated from monolingual forms of education (Baker & Wright 2017, 198ff.); similarly, García (2009, 146–153) makes use of the terms monoglossic and heteroglossic for purposes of differentiation. A further distinction relates to the goals of bilingual education. The three most common types of bilingual education and their respective objectives are listed in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Aims of Bilingual Education Models5

Adding to this concise overview of types of bilingual education models, Table 1 depicts an extract from Baker’s comprehensive typology of bilingual education to exemplify one way of classifying the various existing approaches to, and sub-branches of, bilingual education.

Monolingual Forms of Education
Type of Program	Typical Type of Child	Language of the Classroom	Societal and Educational Aim	Aim in Language Outcome
Mainstreaming / Submersion	Language Minority	Majority Language	Assimilation	Monolingualism
Weak Forms of Bilingual Education
Type of Program	Typical Type of Child	Language of the Classroom	Societal and Educational Aim	Aim in Language Outcome
Transitional	Language Minority	Moves from minority to majority language	Assimilation/ Subtractive	Relative Monolingualism
Mainstream (with [Foreign] Language Teaching)	Language Majority	Majority language with second/foreign language lessons	Limited Enrichment	Limited Bilingualism
Strong Forms of Bilingual Education
Type of Program	Typical Type of Child	Language of the Classroom	Societal and Educational Aim	Aim in Language Outcome
Immersion	Language Majority	Bilingual with initial emphasis on L2	Pluralism and Enrichment	Bilingualism & Biliteracy
Maintenance/ Heritage Language	Language Minority	Bilingual with emphasis on L1	Maintenance, Pluralism and Enrichment	Bilingualism & Biliteracy
Two Way/Dual Language	Mixed Language Minority & Majority	Minority & Majority	Maintenance, Pluralism and Enrichment.	Bilingualism & Biliteracy
Mainstream Bilingual	Language Majority	Two Majority Languages	Maintenance, Pluralism and Enrichment.	Bilingualism

Table 1: A Typology of Bilingual Education6

While weak forms of bilingual education include the risk of fostering a subtractive form of bilingualism (see Figure 2), strong forms, on the contrary, encourage additive bilingualism. Connecting the concepts of language and culture, Baker (2011, 249) states that “bilingual education ideally develops a broader enculturation, a more sensitive view of different creeds and cultures” and it “will usually deepen an engagement with the cultures associated with the languages, fostering a sympathetic understanding of differences”.

Two approaches that are classified as strong forms of bilingual education in the typology presented in Table 1, immersion education and two-way education, will now be investigated more deeply. In addition, the two-way concept is explored further in connection with contemporary Australian educational discourse in Chapter IV.4.1.

3.2.1 Two-Way Education

Linguist François Grosjean (2010, 239) describes a two-way program as a form of bilingual education “that promotes bilingualism and biliteracy, as well as a very real understanding of the people and cultures involved.” Both languages are actively implemented in class and used throughout schooling with students who usually come from one of two main language groups (Grosjean 2010, 239).

In the context of the United States, Baker (2011) outlines that this strong form of bilingual education is typically applied when an almost equal number of minority and majority language speakers exists in one classroom. Baker exemplifies this with a group of learners in which one half speaks Spanish as their home language while the other half speaks English as their L1. Generally, ensuring a language balance in both status and number of speakers in order to prevent one language variety from becoming dominant is paramount in two-way schools (Baker 2011, 222–223).

The major goal of such types of schooling is to foster bilingualism, biliteracy, and biculturalism for all students. In order to achieve this aim, several practices are employed such as assigning both languages equal status, implementing a bilingual school ethos, and making use of bilingual staff members and language minority parents as teacher aides (Baker 2011, 225–226).

3.2.2 Immersion Education

Another possibility for actively acknowledging various linguistic and cultural backgrounds in educational settings is immersion education, which qualifies as a strong form of bilingual education (Baker 2011, 222) (see Table 1). Various scholars have demanded that educational approaches only qualify as immersion education if at least 50% of class time is spent on subject-specific education using a language other than students’ L1 for instruction (Surkamp 2017, 134; Tedick, Christian & Fortune 2011, 2).

Generally, Brown (2007) outlines that immersion education is predominantly adopted in additive bilingual contexts in which learners normally share the same home language and show close levels of proficiency in the target language. Frequently, the teachers in immersion education know or even share the students’ linguistic or cultural background (Brown 2007, 141). In this regard, García (2009, 149) emphasizes that “[d]espite the immersion of the child in the other language for education, the child’s home language is honoured, respected, used throughout the school, and taught right after the immersion period.”

Differentiating between programs, Tedick, Christian, and Fortune (2011) name foreign language immersion, bilingual immersion, and Indigenous language immersion as the three major types of immersion education. These as well as their respective characteristics are consolidated in Table 2:

Foreign language immersion programs (one-way)	Bilingual immersion programs (two-way)	Indigenous language immersion programs
linguistically homogenous students; speaking majority language additive bilingualism and biliteracy academic achievement fostering development of intercultural understanding	language minority and language majority students learning each other’s languages additive bilingualism and biliteracy academic achievement cross-cultural understanding	indigenous and increasingly more non-indigenous leaners revitalize endangered indigenous languages and cultures can be one- or two-way additive bilingualism and biliteracy home identity academic achievement

Table 2: Types of Immersion Education7

Building on this three-fold typology, Baker (2011) suggests a further differentiation be made according to the learners’ commencing age and the total amount of immersion time. Table 3 illustrates Baker’s approach:

AGE	Early immersion (infant stage)	Middle immersion (approx. ten years)		Late immersion (secondary level)
TIME	Total immersion commences with 100% immersion, reducing to 80% after several years and finishing junior schooling with 50% immersion in the second language per week		Partial immersion comprises 50% immersion in the second language throughout schooling

Table 3: Decisive Factors in Immersion Education8

In reference to both Table 2 and Table 3, Surkamp (2017, 134) notes that education systems in multicultural contexts favor two-way immersion programs in which teachers and learners from two language groups work together.

3.3 Education Policies

Building on several of the previously addressed challenges and realities concerning teaching and learning in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms, different education policies will now be investigated regarding their respective effects on minority language speakers, specifically looking at their situation in schools.9

In regards to teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms in a global age, Hornberger (2009, 197) observes that “[e]thnolinguistic diversity and inequality, intercultural communication and contact, and global political and economic interdependence are more than ever acknowledged realities of today’s world, and all of them put pressures on our educational systems.” Fundamentally, Serra et al. (2018, 33) establish that “the culture of an education system reproduces the culture of a society’s dominant classes—in other words, schools are microcosms of societal power structures.” Contrasting policy statements and legal documents from designated multilingual and multicultural countries across the globe, it is possible to detect greatly differing levels of importance attributed to them and varying degrees of readiness to implement educational approaches in multicultural classrooms. Hence, Churchill’s observation from the 1980s is undoubtedly still valid today:

[P]olicy making about the education of minorities must cope with an overriding fact: almost every jurisdiction in the industrialized world is failing adequately to meet the educational needs of a significant number of members of linguistic and cultural minorities. (Churchill 1986, 8)

Adding to this and to Yiakoumetti’s observation in section 3.1., Trudgill (2000, 126) states that the “teaching of minority languages […] is obviously of benefit to minority-group children, not only in the learning of reading and writing but in other subjects as well.” According to Trudgill, doing so would have “an effect of recognizing the child’s social and cultural identity and integrity and encourages the development and growth of minority cultures” (ibid., 126). In this sense, Pike (2015, 159–160) identifies the following necessity:

As majorities can so easily pay scant regard to the wishes of minorities in a democracy, it is vital to educate members of the majority about the perspectives of minorities. […] A focus on understanding and appreciating the differences between the cultural background of minority ethnic groups and the majority should not be eschewed.

Moreover, in connection with modern language education policies and globalization, García, Flores, and Woodley (2012, 72) argue the following:

As language diversity becomes more complex as a result of globalisation, […] language education policies throughout the world have often become more intolerant of language differences. Thus, more students are increasingly taught in the dominant language of the state without harnessing the linguistic resources they bring.

Also connecting the dimensions of globalization, minority language groups, and education policies, Grosjean (2010, 231) clarifies that

in areas of the world with minority groups that come from immigration, rare is the country that has a deliberate education policy of allowing minority children to acquire and retain both their home, immigrant language and the majority language, and hence a policy of fostering bilingualism.

In order to receive a better idea of what education policies might or might not undertake in regards to the educational needs of their linguistic and cultural minorities, Churchill’s (1986) framework provides an overview of the “six principal policy responses to the educational and language needs of minority groups within the OECD” (May 2012, 18).10 These are presented in ascending order according to their degree of incorporation and recognition of minority languages in Table 4.

Education Policy	Minority Aspiration
Learning deficit Socially-linked learning deficit Learning deficit from social/cultural differences	Recognition phase
Learning deficit from mother tongue deprivation	Start-up and extension phase
Private use language maintenance	Consolidation and adaption phase
Language Equality	Multilingual co-existence phase

Table 4: Stages of Education Policies for Language Minority Groups11

Stage one policies strongly advocate a fast transition to the target language and claim that the use of minority languages is the reason for the educational disadvantage and failure of minority groups. Initial minority aspirations include efforts for the recognition of the existence and specific needs of linguistically and culturally diverse people. At stage two, family and social backgrounds are identified as the main cause for educational detriments for minorities. Thus, programs and projects are enforced to help minority groups adjust to the majority language and culture. Stage three policies recognize that disadvantages for minority groups in education grow from the lack of recognition, acceptance, and a positive attitude towards their languages and cultures. Level four acknowledges that the minority language needs to be supported at least temporarily to facilitate learning and thus incorporates it in the first years of schooling. From this type of transitional bilingualism, minority aspirations might aim at extending minority language programs. At stage five, termed the private use language maintenance, minority groups obtain the right to practice their home language and culture in their private lives. A common policy response at this level includes maintenance bilingualism programs in schools, i.e. ongoing schooling in the minority language. Minority aspirations at this stage focus on the improvement of quality and the incorporation of the minority culture in education. Finally, the minority language is granted official status and autonomy at the language equality stage. The latter encompasses an allocation of language programs in several public institutions over which minority groups obtain full control and which they organize and is thus termed the multilingual co-existence phase (May 2012, 19–31).

Linking education policies with multilingual education and First Nations perspectives, Hornberger (2009, 197) expresses a “deep conviction that multilingual education constitutes a wide and welcoming educational doorway toward peaceful coexistence of peoples and especially restoration and empowerment of those who have been historically oppressed.” Thus, proceeding from an Indigenous perspective, Hornberger proposes ten certainties about multilingual education policy and practice which are relevant for any classroom at a global age (Hornberger 2009, 197):

 National multilingual language education policy opens up ideological and implementational spaces for multilingual education.

 Local actors may open up—or close down—agentive spaces for multilingual education as they implement, interpret and perhaps resist policy initiatives.

 Ecological language policies take into account the power relations among languages and promote multilingual uses in all societal domains.

 Models of multilingual education instantiate linguistic and sociocultural histories and goals in each context.

 Language status planning and language corpus planning go hand in hand.

 Communicative modalities encompass more than written and spoken language.

 Classroom practices can foster transfer of language and literacy development alongside receptive-productive, oral-written and L1-L2 dimensions, and across modalities.

 Multilingual education activates voices for reclaiming the local.

 Multilingual education affords choices for reaffirming our own.

 Multilingual education opens spaces for revitalizing the Indigenous.

With these certainties and the revealed potential of multilingual education for Indigenous voices and perspectives in mind, the next chapter focuses on languages and cultures in Australia.

1 Modified from Edmondson & House 2011, 8.

2 This book makes use of the terms multilingualism and multilingual to refer to the totality of an individual’s or society’s linguistic resources. Bilingualism and bilingual is used with the same inclusive reference.

3 Data and Images retrieved from García 2009, 72–74.

4 Within the scope of this book, an exhaustive presentation of the concept of culture cannot be given. Therefore, an overview of select discussions in the field, and the definition of culture underpinning this research study, is provided.

5 Data retrieved from Baker 2011, 207.

6 Modified from Baker & Wright 2017, 199.

7 Data retrieved from Tedick, Christian & Fortune 2011, 2.

8 Data retrieved from Baker 2011, 239.

9 A specific analysis of education policies relevant for Indigenous Australian learners can be found in IV.5.

10 OECD is an acronym for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, an international organization which was founded in 1961.

11 Modified from Churchill 1986, 157.