Transcript www.coe.int The right of learners to quality and equity in education The role of linguistic and intercultural competences Intergouvernemental Policy Forum, Geneva, November 2010 Languages of.

www.coe.int
The right of learners to quality and equity in
education
The role of linguistic and intercultural competences
Intergouvernemental Policy Forum,
Geneva, November 2010
Languages of Schooling:
Exploring the Connexions
between Research, Theory and
Policy in an Ideologically
Complex Environment
Jim Cummins
Some Themes:
Research and Policy Dimensions


Council of Europe’s insistence on the fundamental right of all
students to a high quality education which includes support for
the development of plurilingual and intercultural competencies.
Prominence of “identity discourse” in CoE documents – the right
of all students to express their identities through language.

Research dimension: These are social values but they are also

Reality check: To what extent do students of migrant backgrounds
strongly supported by research on (a) the benefits of bilingualism,
and (b) the centrality of identity negotiation in school to vulnerable
students’ success or failure.
get the opportunity to showcase their linguistic talents and develop
a sense of pride in their linguistic accomplishments and cultural
identities?
Some Themes:
Research and Policy Dimensions


Clarification of the nature of academic language and the need to teach
students how language operates in subject areas across the curriculum.
This focus on developing language awareness and extending language
expertise applies to all students but is particularly important for
students from migrant backgrounds and/or vulnerable learners who are
learning the language of instruction and whose prior exposure to
literate forms of language may have been limited.



Research dimension: The complexities of academic language are reflected in
the fact that it typically takes immigrant L2 learners at least 5+ years to
catch up academically (compared to 1-2 years in everyday conversational
aspects of language proficiency);
The nature of academic language is also reflected in the fact that literacy
engagement is the strongest predictor of literacy attainment;
Reality check: “Language across the Curriculum” has been around since the
Bullock Report (1974) in the UK and yet we are still very far from
implementing these instructional strategies in any coherent way.
Some Themes:
Research and Policy Dimensions

The OECD PISA research and other international studies have
highlighted the variability in achievement among students of migrant
background. In some cases, 2nd generation students perform worse than
newcomer 1st generation students.

Research dimension: This variability highlights the fact (shown in many
other studies) that language spoken at home does not exert any independent

negative effect on achievement in L2 (the school language); where a
correlational relationship is observed (as in the OECD studies), it disappears
when other background variables such as SES and length of residence are
considered.
The variability in academic outcomes and the lower performance of 2nd
generation students in some contexts also highlight the fact that power
relations in the wider society influence what happens in school; specifically,
exclusionary structures and discourse are frequently manifested in
educational structures (e.g., curriculum, assessment, teacher education etc.)
and teacher-student interactions that devalue student identities.

Reality check: When it comes to migrant students and vulnerable learners
we are still a long way from implementing pedagogies that challenge coercive
relations of power in the wider society.
Adding to the Council of Europe’s Toolkit?



The knowledge base relating to the achievement of migrant
students and vulnerable learners is sufficiently robust that we
are in a position to articulate theoretical frameworks that
express this research in pedagogically useful ways;
On the basis of the existing research and theory, we are in a
position to articulate procedures whereby school communities
can develop a Pedagogical Portfolio. This would involve
undertaking a collective pedagogical inquiry of their own
policies and instructional practices in order to advance the
academic achievement of migrant students and vulnerable
learners;
The Council of Europe is in an excellent position to take the lead
in developing concrete tools to support schools in developing a
Pedagogical Portfolio.
So What Is the Knowledge Base?


Academic language is fundamentally different from everyday conversational
language. Academic language is found in 2 places: classrooms and text.
Consequently, access to print and engagement with reading are fundamental to
developing academic language proficiency.
Extensive research demonstrates very strong relationships between literacy
attainment and both access to print and literacy engagement.

Linguistic mismatch is not a cause of underachievement.

All of the research on bilingual education and L2 learning supports the principle

of interdependence (transfer) across languages. Therefore, promotion of
migrant students’ L1 will not impede L2 and may increase students’ opportunity to
benefit linguistically and cognitively from an additive form of bilingualism.
Reinforcement of coercive power relations in the school is a cause of
underachievement. Identity affirmation challenges the devaluation of
migrant/vulnerable students’ language and culture in the wider society.
Understanding Literacy Development in Multilingual
School Contexts: An Empirically Grounded Framework
Literacy Attainment
↑
Literacy Engagement
↑
Scaffold
Meaning
(input and output)
↔
Activate prior
knowledge/Build
background knowledge
↔
Affirm
identity
↔ Extend
language
Proposition 1. Bilingual Education is a Legitimate Policy Option
in Contexts where it is Feasible
Research Evidence on Bilingual Education (1)
“In summary, there is no indication that
bilingual instruction impedes academic
achievement in either the native language or
English, whether for language-minority
students, students receiving heritage
language instruction, or those enrolled in
French immersion programs.
Where differences were observed, on
average they favored the students in a
bilingual program. The meta-analytic results
clearly suggest a positive effect for bilingual
instruction that is moderate in size.”
(Francis, Lesaux, and August 2006, p. 397)
Research Evidence on Bilingual Education (2)
F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian
(Eds). Educating English Language Learners. (pp. 176-222). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
“[T]here is strong convergent evidence that the educational
success of ELLs [English language learners] is positively related
to sustained instruction through the student’s first language. ...
most long-term studies report that the longer the students
stayed in the program, the more positive were the outcomes”.
(Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006, p. 201)
The Interdependence Hypothesis
“To the extent that instruction in Lx is effective in promoting
proficiency in Lx, transfer of this proficiency to Ly will occur
provided there is adequate exposure to Ly (either in school or
environment) and adequate motivation to learn Ly.” (Cummins, 1981, p.
29)


In concrete terms, what this principle means is that in, for example, a
Turkish-German bilingual program in Germany, Turkish instruction that
develops Turkish reading and writing skills is not just developing
Turkish skills, it is also developing a deeper conceptual and linguistic
proficiency that is strongly related to the development of literacy in
the majority language (German).
The interdependence hypothesis explains why L1-medium instruction for
minority students does not result in adverse effects on L2 academic
development.
National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth
(2006)
Findings on Transfer and Linguistic Interdependence (Dressler & Kamil)
In summary, all these studies provide evidence for the crosslanguage transfer of reading comprehension ability in bilinguals.
This relationship holds
(a) across typologically different languages ...;
(b) for children in elementary, middle, and high school;
(c) for learners of English as a foreign language and English as a
second language;
(d) over time;
(e) from both first to second language and second to first
language; (p. 222)
Proposition 2. Home Language Use of a Minority Language Is Not
a Cause of Underachievement
Petra Stanat and Gayle Christensen
PISA Data on First and Second Generation Migrant Student Achievement
From Research to Problematic Interpretation


PISA (Stanat & Christensen, 2006): In both mathematics and reading,
first and second generation immigrant students who spoke their L1 at home
were significantly behind their peers who spoke the school language at
home. This suggested to the authors that insufficient opportunities to
learn the school language may be a causal factor in students’
underachievement. “These large differences in performance suggest that
students have insufficient opportunities to learn the language of
instruction” (Christensen & Stanat, 2007, p. 3).
Esser (2006) went further and argued on the basis of PISA data that “the
use of the native language in the family context has a (clearly) negative
effect” (p. 64). He also argued that retention of the home language by
immigrant children will reduce both motivation and success in learning the
host country language (2006, p. 34).
Critique:
Home Use of a Language Other than the School Language is Not
a Cause of Underachievement
No relationship was found between home language use and
achievement in the two countries where immigrant students
were most successful (Australia and Canada);
Furthermore, the relationship disappeared for a large majority
(10 out of 14) of OECD-member countries when socioeconomic
status and other background variables were controlled (Stanat &
Christensen, 2006, Table 3.5, pp. 200-202).
The disappearance of the relationship in a large majority of
countries suggests that language spoken at home does not exert
any independent effect on achievement but is rather a proxy for
variables such as socioeconomic status, length of residence in
the host country, and parental push for educational success.
Proposition 3: Literacy engagement plays a key role in promoting
reading comprehension
OECD’s PISA Study


Data on the reading attainment of 15-year olds in 27 countries showed
that “the level of a student’s reading engagement is a better predictor
of literacy performance than his or her socioeconomic background,
indicating that cultivating a student’s interest in reading can help
overcome home disadvantages” (OECD, 2004, p. 8).
The authors point out that “engagement in reading can be a
consequence, as well as a cause, of higher reading skill, but the evidence
suggests that these two factors are mutually reinforcing” (p. 8).
Literacy Engagement
What Is It?



Amount and range of reading and writing;
Use of effective strategies for deep understanding of text;
Positive affect and identity investment in reading and writing;
Drawing on both the 1998 NAEP data from the United States and the
results of the PISA study of reading achievement among 15-year olds in
international contexts, Guthrie (2004, p. 5) notes that students
“…whose family background was characterized by low income and low
education, but who were highly engaged readers, substantially
outscored students who came from backgrounds with higher education
and higher income, but who themselves were less engaged readers.
Based on a massive sample, this finding suggests the stunning conclusion
that engaged reading can overcome traditional barriers to reading
achievement, including gender, parental education, and income.”
Access to Print
results in
Higher Reading
Achievement
“Reports of studies that do use
rigorous research designs do show
that increasing children’s access to
print material generally does improve
children’s outcomes. … Increasing
children’s access to print
material appears to produce more
positive attitudes toward reading,
increases the amount of reading that
children do, increases children’s
emergent literacy skills, and improves
children’s reading achievement”
(Lindsay, 2010).
Proposition 4:
Devaluation of Identity Is a Cause of Underachievement
Extensive evidence from both the sociological/anthropological and
psychological research literature demonstrates the impact of societal
power relations on minority group achievement
Students who come from social groups whose identities (culture,
language, religion, etc.) have been devalued in the wider society tend to
experience disproportionate academic failure (Ogbu).
Gloria Ladson-Billings:
“The problem that African-American students face is the
constant devaluation of their culture both in school and in the
larger society” (1995, p. 485).
The Deeper Roots of Underachievement
Isidro Lucas (1981): Study of Puerto Rican drop-out students in
Chicago:
“All my dropout respondents spoke good understandable English.They
hadn’t learned math, or social sciences, or natural sciences,
unfortunately. But they had learned English…No dropout mentioned lack
of English as the reason for quitting. As it evolved through
questionnaires and interviews, theirs was a more subtle story—of
alienation, of not belonging, of being ‘push-outs’…
To my surprise, dropouts expressed more confidence in their ability to
speak English than did the stay-ins (seniors in high school). For their
part, stay-ins showed more confidence in their Spanish than did
dropouts…I had to conclude that identity, expressed in one’s confidence
and acceptance of the native culture was more a determinant of school
stay-in power than the mere acquisition of the coding-decoding skills
involved in a different language, English”. (p. 19)
Framing a Pedagogical Portfolio
Literacy Attainment
↑
Literacy Engagement
↑
Scaffold
Meaning
(input and output)
↔
Activate prior
knowledge/Build
background knowledge
↔
Affirm
identity
↔ Extend
language
Collaborative Pedagogical Inquiry
A. What Image of the Child Are We Sketching in Our Instruction?

Capable of becoming bilingual and biliterate?

Capable of higher-order thinking and intellectual
accomplishments?

Capable of creative and imaginative thinking?

Capable of creating literature and art?

Capable of generating new knowledge?

Capable of thinking about and finding solutions to social
issues?
Collaborative Pedagogical Inquiry
B. Literacy Engagement

To what extent are students immersed in a literacy-rich
environment throughout primary school?







Are they listening to and dramatising stories from the earliest days of
schooling?
Do they have access to a well-stocked classroom library and the opportunity
to borrow books to take home to read with their parents?
Does the school library have books in the multiple languages of the school
and/or dual language books?
Does the school library encourage parents to come in and check out books
with their children (e.g., by staying open after school hours to accommodate
parents’ schedules)?
Are students discussing books they are reading on a regular basis within the
classroom?
Is technology being used in creative ways? For example, are students
uploading book reviews to appropriate web sites? Are they videotaping scenes
or adaptations from books they have read?
Has the school forged connections with the local public library to explore
ways of promoting literacy engagement? Etc. etc.
Collaborative Pedagogical Inquiry
C. Identity Affirmation

To what extent is the school enabling students to connect academic
work to their own developing identities with the result that students
develop a sense of pride in their linguistic talents and intellectual and
literary accomplishments?





To what extent do students and parents see signs and student work in
multiple languages displayed at the school entrance and other public spaces
(e.g., corridors) throughout the school?
To what extent are newcomer students encouraged to use their L1s for
completion of academic work and creative writing?
To what extent are students’ dual language books or projects displayed
publicly (e.g., on a school web site) and showcased in a positive manner (e.g.,
on parents’ nights etc.)?
To what extent are students enabled to engage in sister class projects with
multilingual speakers from other countries or regions using multiple languages
to carry out collaborative projects?
To what extent are students encouraged to compare their L1 with the school
language in order to develop greater language awareness?
Tomer’s Perspective

I think using your first language is so
helpful because when you don’t
understand something after you’ve
just come here it is like beginning as
a baby. You don’t know English and
you need to learn it all from the
beginning; but if you already have it
in another language then it is easier,
you can translate it, and you can do
it in your language too, then it is
easier to understand the second
language.

The first time I couldn’t understand
what she [Lisa] was saying except
the word Hebrew, but I think it’s very
smart that she said for us to do it in
our language because we can’t just
sit on our hands doing nothing.
Kanta’s Perspective

And how it helped me was when I
came here in grade 4 the teachers
didn’t know what I was capable of.

I was given a pack of crayons and a
coloring book and told to get on
coloring with it. And after I felt so bad
about that--I’m capable of doing much
more than just that. I have my own
inner skills to show the world than
just coloring and I felt that those skills
of mine are important also. So when
we started writing the book [The New
Country], I could actually show the
world that I am something instead of
just coloring.

And that's how it helped me and it
made me so proud of myself that I am
actually capable of doing something,
and here today [at the Ontario TESL
conference] I am actually doing
something. I’m not just a coloring
person—I can show you that I am
something.
Identity Texts: a tool for cognitive
engagement and identity investment



Identity texts refer to artifacts that students produce.
Students take ownership of these artifacts as a result of
having invested their identities in them.
Once produced, these texts (written, spoken, visual, musical,
or combinations in multimodal form) hold a mirror up to the
student in which his or her identity is reflected back in a
positive light.
Students invest their identities in these texts which then
become ambassadors of students’ identities. When students
share identity texts with multiple audiences (peers, teachers,
parents, grandparents, sister classes, the media, etc.) they
are likely to receive positive feedback and affirmation of self
in interaction with these audiences.
Creating an Identity-Affirming School Environment
(a) Validating Home Language and Culture
Creating an Identity-Affirming School Environment
(a) Validating Home Language and Culture
Creating an Identity-Affirming School Environment
(a) Validating Home Language and Culture
Creating an Identity-Affirming School Environment
(a) Validating Home Language and Culture
Creating an Identity-Affirming School Environment
(a) Validating Home Language and Culture
Creating an Identity-Affirming School Environment
(b) Capable of thinking about and finding solutions to social issues?
(c) Capable of higher-order thinking?
Creating an Identity-Affirming School Environment
(d) Linking Literacy Engagement with Identity Affirmation
Creating an Identity-Affirming School Environment
(d) Linking Literacy Engagement with Identity Affirmation
Creating an Identity-Affirming School Environment
(d) Linking Literacy Engagement with Identity Affirmation
Reading makes me powerful because…
When I grow up I can find a better job than people who can’t
read. Somebody can also trick you to do something that will get
you in trouble.
Reading gives you new words to learn. It gives my brain new
ideas. It helps your vocabulary so when you need to write
something you can use longer and harder words. In school you
can get a better mark using more words.
By Tasneem
An Instructional Framework for Literacy Promotion in
Multilingual School Contexts
Literacy Attainment
↑
Literacy Engagement
↑
Scaffold
Meaning
(input and output)
↔
Activate prior
knowledge/Build
background knowledge
↔
Affirm
identity
↔ Extend
language
Creating a Pedagogical Portfolio:
Articulating Choices and Taking Collective Action
Instructional Options
Content
How do we adapt curriculum materials to link with students’ prior
knowledge and cultural background (e.g. purchase dual language
books) and also to promote critical thinking about texts and
issues (e.g. whose perspectives are represented in a text)?
Cognition
How can we modify instruction to evoke higher levels of literacy
engagement and critical thinking?
Tools
How can we use tools such as computers, digital cameras,
camcorders, web pages, etc?
Assessment
How can we complement mandated standardized assessments in
order to present to students, parents, and administrators a more
valid account of student progress? (e.g. a role for portfolio
assessment?)
Language/Culture
What messages are we giving students and parents about home
language and culture? How can we enable students to use their L1
as a powerful tool for learning? Can we increase students’
identity investment by means of bilingual instructional strategies
(teaching for transfer)?
Parental Involvement
How can we engage parents as co-educators in such a way that
their linguistic and cultural expertise is harnessed as fuel for
their children’s academic progress?
Current
Realities
Where Are
We?
Vision for the
Future
Where Do We
Want To Be?
Getting it Done
How Do We Get
There?
Resources

www.multiliteracies.ca (Multiliteracies project)

www.curriculum.org/secretariat/archive.html (webcast on Teaching and Learning
in Multilingual Ontario)

www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/whatWorks.html
(short pdf files on “what works” including Literacy Development in Multilingual
Schools by Jim Cummins)

www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/manyroots/
(Many Roots, Many Voices)

www.settlement.org (lots of useful video and print resources for use with
immigrant parents)

www.eslinfusion.oise.utoronto.ca (resources for teacher education and for use
with newcomer families)

www.wordsift.com (fun site to create “word clouds” and explore vocabulary)