A linguistic trio ...

In the last few weeks I've been lucky to attend the lectures of three specialists in the field of language, bilingualism and mother tongue.  Before I forget the salient points of their presentations I thought I'd write it up and do a little compare and contrast and provide some links for further investigation and thought.

Does this have much / anything to do with the library? Well yes in the sense that language and literacy is at the core of what we provide. Particularly if we're operating in a multi-lingual environment I believe it is our responsibility to have a background understanding of the current thinking on language and learning and education.  However I had to invite myself to two of the talks and was invited by a teacher to attend the third which was held at another international school ... perhaps we are more marginal to the bigger picture than we'd like to imagine.

The three lectures were by: Virginia Rojas, Eowyn Crisfield,  and Bruno della Chiesa.

Since each posting will be fairly lengthy I've split them so that this post doesn't not get made as it's too long in the making!

Here are the links:

Rojas

Crisfield

Della Chiesa

A linguistic Trio - part 3 - della Chiesa

Bruno della Chiesa

If I may for a moment make a librarian analogy, the talk of della Chiesa compared to the other two was a bit like when I looked at information literacy from a more philosophical view rather than a model and implementation view.  Neither is more important than the other. Language doesn't happen without the daily practicalities of getting enough speaking, reading and writing in, but it's also necessary at times to look back at the cosmos and say "why do we bother anyway?". Because let's face it, at times it feels like a lot of work, a lot of time and a lot of money...

So this was a nice little reminder of why.

Della Chiesa warmed us up with some quotes and background to the idea that each additional language you speak adds to one's ability to understanding and seeing patterns and enlarges our SCC (shared cultural charges). He introduced the concept of Doxa "the 'box' of 'thinking outside the box'" and how language allows us to recognise the existence of Doxa.  He then contrasted the old 'army' method of learning language which relied on stimulus / response and contrasted that with a 'motivational vortex hypothesis' whereby learning language via immediate family, media exposure, formal and informal learning all contribute to a self-reinforcing intrinsic motivation to learn and improve.  His statement that the worst enemy of learning was fear, struck a deep and personal chord with me, reflecting on one of my children's experiences of Chinese bilingual immersion.

However, the fear he was referring to also encompassed the fear of the "other" of "them", a type of xenophobia which included the Doxa of superiority and contempt.  Although one of the ways in which national and cultural identity is formed and reinforced is through that very process of convincing one's citizens of their commonality and superiority.

He then said that one had to "choose between being a good citizen and being a good human being".  I found that very interesting given the 'global nomad' existence of our student population (and my family). Is it possible that in this group of people wandering around the world, where with each successive generation (and it does seem that third culture kids are somewhat more likely to keep roaming the world) there is less connection to the original idea of state, and therefore there is more possibility of being a good human being?  Or are we just a bunch of people seeking better economic possibility unfettered by the demands of identity and nationality and the potential of being called to the next location before making an impact on the last?

He then came up with some very magnificent spirals along 4 areas, space (as the 'mathematical' / real dimension), learning, language and culture and exposited how in each realm one moved from a "universal" potential to a "meta" or "supra" ability and then finally (this is very buddhist) got to the point where there was a superceding of individual excellence or ability to an awareness of the commonality in each realm.  This is rather poorly illustrated in the table below - with the promise that when we get access to the presentation I'll make a better attempt.

Space	Learning	Language	Culture
0 / pre Dimension	Universal potential to learn	Universal grammar / potential to learn language	Universal habitus
Line	Information	Phoneme / grapheme / morpheme	Facts / patterns
Plane	Knowledge	Sentences	Behaviours
3rd Dimension	Skills & know how (creative)	Utterances	Habitus (integrated rules)
4th Dimension	Meta-cognition	Supra linguistic grammar (commonalities)	Supra cultural habitus
Tesseract	Self awareness	Meta-linguistic awareness	Global awareness

We then had an interesting but brief Q&A session where the role of language at the college and in our community was discussed. (An aside - a month or so ago, the head of our Dover campus wrote in his newsletter, a school can express its desire to make a impact in different ways. At UWCSEA it has been through service.  At his previous school it was through language.)

What do I think?  I think it's great. I think that yet again it was a presentation to the wrong audience - our language teachers SO understand and get and know all this stuff.  But their hands are tied to 4 or 5 lesson periods a week and a place where language is just not a priority.

I also wonder if one could reach the "4th dimension" in any one of the realms (learning, language or culture) without reaching it in all.  This harps back to the whole Maurice Carder discussion of CALP - for if one doesn't have a CALP level in language could you have it in thinking and learning, let alone culture?  So I think that every school would like to think that they are leading their students to the 4th dimension and beyond in what they do, I suspect for some this whole exercise results in remaining in the first circle of hell, the limbo of no sophisticated language or culture and where learning is stunted at factual knowledge or information stage.

Further reading:
Languages in a global world. 

A linguistic Trio - part 2 Crisfield

Crisfield (Blog)

Like Rojas, Crisfield began by dispelling some of the common "mummy myths" around language, particularly that it was easier to learn for children - she said something that every parent with older children will have personal experience of - "no it's still hard, but they're just too small to complain". Although they are more phonetically sensitive and therefore more likely to speak other languages without an accent. She emphasized that the role of parents was to ensure that we make our children's language journeys as easy as possible, and to do this we have 6 tasks:

1. Learn the theory
2. Set Goals
3. Plan to achieve the goals
4. Communicate with our children
5. Communicate with others
6. Know when to get help.

Learn the theory

We commenced with a little bit of jargon, what is mother tongue, L1, home language etc. (see my glossary here for a complete vocabulary).

One of the most important things she touched on is how we need to take care of the messages (verbal, non-verbal and behavioural) we give our children about the relative importance of our mother tongue and our attitudes towards it, particularly in the case of languages with a lower status.

Set Goals

This was a discussion on what level of mastery of language (communicative and literary) was aimed for and why.  It was important to think the whole language journey through (or at least while they were students). While it was possible to impose our language expectations on our children while they were younger, we would need to be able to communicate a valid good reason for continuing the regime as they matured and formed their own opinions. In the case of multiple languages we needed to order our priorities and give reasons for them.

In setting goals, we should ensure we have the necessary knowledge and support network to support those goals and that the goals are realistic (I've written more on this here in theory, and as it relates to my family situation).

Plan to achieve the goals

Here the concept of a COP (community of practise) was introduced - i.e. is there a linguistic community around you that you can get help from.  The smaller the COP, the more planning and logistics were required.

The most fundamental issue was planning for enough language input.  According to Crisfield, research showed that for bi/tri-lingualism children needed around 30-35% of their linguistic input to be in the target language. (You will note I've said bi/tri-lingualism rather than multi-lingualism, which is what I used to say ... I'd not heard the 30-35% statistic before and need to follow up on this). She stated that if language input was only say 20%, the child would understand the language but would most likely become a passive bilingual.  The 30-35% targeted input suggests that three languages are the most realistic option initially - with the caveat that this could change as the child got older.

In the case of language, it appeared that "less is more" should be our motto to ensure our time and effort is focused and is not spread too thinly.

It was also paramount to plan for multiple literacy, so that the language would not be lost over time and children could continue to resource their language maintenance on their own through reading and writing.  Once again, the reminder that BICS (conversational) language takes 1-2 years while CALP was a 3-9 year process (I've heard 5-7 years more commonly used).  She also cautioned that problems in other subjects may be masking a problem in language or a learning difficulty.

And in our globally mobile environment - we needed to think about a future in different countries or environments and how this would impact our plan and resourcing.  Language acquisition and sustainability was a long term process that couldn't rely on one school or community if this was not likely to be permanent.

Communicate with our children

As mentioned earlier, at a certain point we will need to justify our choices to our children and to ensure that they are part of the discussion / conversation around language, and who speaks what and why in the family.  Choices are valid, but they should be properly communicated.

Communicate with others

One should communicate language goals, expectations and intentions with people around you. Like grandparents and other family, babysitters and others in the community to ensure their actions and language they speak are aligned. School teachers and administrators need to be kept in the loop about what is happening linguistically at home.

Know when to get help

If children are exhibiting delays in speech and language, or learning issues it's important to look at all languages globally and not just at the dominant language. Any therapist, professional or doctor needs to understand the developmental and educational issues around bilingualism so that a proper assessment can be made. It is not good practise for a professional to suggest that one language should be stopped (e.g. to stop the home language to encourage the school language).

5 further issues were also discussed, literacy, content, cognitive development, confidence and social development.

Literacy

Children were learning to read and write in two or more languages.  In doing so, they could use translanguaging, which is where one language is used to help or scaffold the other, languages are used together and used strategically. This did not imply mixing languages or inserting words or sentences of one language into conversations randomly, but rather a strategic use in order to bridge gaps.

In order to become literate, children needed to go beyond merely being able to read in both languages to comprehending and understanding the content. Parents needed to check for understanding after reading to children or when children read to them.  This may require the reading of a story in both languages to ensure that meaning is conveyed, or reading the story more than once.  Reading to children in all languages was fundamental.  And, ironically children could often write before they could read, if they know letter formation and are left to creative phonetic spelling without correction.  Experience rather than accuracy should be emphasized.

Literacy in both languages could be simultaneous (at the same time) or sequential (where reading and writing of one language is started with and then the next added). In the case of a third language it is usually advisable to give children a mental break before adding the literacy of a third language.

Talk about the second language in the MT, compare and contrast and mediate in order to clarify similarities and differences.

Content

If the school language is different to the home language, one should support content at home using the home language with the help of websites or textbooks (in the home language). Conversations at home should include what is being learnt at school so that children gain vocabulary in the home language and make links between the school language and home language. This will enhance the quality of conversation in the home language as well.

Cognitive Development

Research has show that achievement in the school language is dependant on keeping up literacy in the mother tongue, and that if children are incapable of doing things in the mother tongue, they may struggle to do it in any language. It is the mother tongue that pulls all other languages up and if MT is not maintained there will be gaps in cognitive development and difficulties in conceptual thought and conversation.

Confidence

The use of MT encourages confidence in self and in one's cultural identity.  It encourages cognitive growth and learning and allows children to experience competence at home and at school.  Children are not as resilient as we'd like to think they are, and we need to help them in their language journeys so it is not a case of sink or swim. 

Social development

Encourage using the MT socially, during holidays and with family.

In conclusion this was a talk with a lot of very practical advice and tips for families around bringing up children in a bilingual environment, whether the result of two parents speaking different languages, or a child going to school with a non-home language, or even where three languages (mother, father and school) were involved.

Mother Tongue - How to assess your likelihood of success

One of the things I did as part of my research was to summarise the factors that contributed to a family being able to teach and maintain their mother tongue in their children while living / being educated in an English dominant environment.

First I present the table of factors, and then I present myself filling in this table as an exercise in my own home.

Analysis: The theories of MT acquisition and maintenance versus the reality of our situation

	Theory	Reality - Chinese	Reality - Dutch
Child	Age (start as early as possible with formal MT education)	Both started Chinese immersion in Grade 1 (age 6)	Son started formal Dutch in Grade 5 (age 10)
	Prior & current formal exposure to MT	1 hour per day class in International School	None
	Prior & current informal exposure to MT	Not much – Hong Kong is Cantonese not Mandarin speaking. Daughter did learn characters through observation on the street.	Dutch spoken at home, exposure through paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.
	Interest / Motivation	Daughter – High; Son - Low	Daughter not particularly interested, speaks on holiday and to family Son - High
	Aptitude	Daughter – excellent memory which is necessary for amount of memorization necessary Son – difficulties with working memory due to ADHD doesn’t rely on memory for learning	Son – very good ear and pronunciation, has taken well to spelling and grammar as it’s taught in a formal structured way (unlike English)
	Available time	In HK had ample time (27/28 hours a week in class plus a lot of homework) Daughter: in SG 5x 40 minutes a week class time, 90 minutes a week tutoring, 100 minutes a week required homework plus whatever time she has for self-motivated study and reading	5 x 40 minutes a week class time (1x of which is self-study) 1 x 120 minutes after school tutoring. Homework around 60 minutes Daily reading expected 15-20 minutes (doesn’t always happen)
	Access to language role models	Limited to school and tutor and one family friend who we see irregularly	Parents speak Dutch at home to each other, Father speaks Dutch to him, Mother speaks English unless in Dutch context
	Personality / resilience	Very determined, sees events as challenges rather than setbacks, competitive, responds well to reward systems, perfectionist, introverted and shy	Very sociable, extroverted, not scared of making mistakes. Quite emotional, inclined to give up when things get difficult, or need help to keep going
Family	Anticipated period of time abroad	Indefinite	Indefinite
	Plans for tertiary education	Undecided, probably English medium	Considering studying film or photography in Netherlands (early thoughts)
	Availability of language role models / support at home	Mother studied Chinese but level is not sufficient to support high level language and literacy needs practically, only in abstract	Both Mother and father speak Dutch in the home
	Language level of parent(s)	Mother - Low level Father - none	Mother – Fluent speaking reading, listening, written poor Father – Fluent speaking, reading, listening, writing
	Willingness / ability to finance choice	Yes	Yes
	Culture of reading at home	Yes - but needs prompting and encouragement as slow difficult process and access to the right leveled material is difficult.	Yes – when father is home do co-reading as well
	Help from extended family	None, only moral support	Yes – regular phone calls / FaceTime, visits during vacation and go to school with cousins for a few days
School	Language offered at MT level	Yes in theory.  However in practice the amount of time and level is not adequate, plus not enough leveled reading resources and mentoring	None in curriculum until G9. In G7 & G8 offered after school.  His Dutch classes are an exception and privately arranged and funded
	Language community in the school	Yes, however she is not particularly a part of it.	Yes
	MT support after school or other proviso	Yes, 90 minutes private tutoring after school, school provides walk in clinics 2x a week	Only from G7, however he’s not at the level required yet
	Accommodations for MT (reading or writing in MT, creating identity texts)	Yes, in school (since middle school only) and tutor supplements	Yes, but still limited due to level
	Sufficient BML teachers and administrators as role models	Administration & non-language teachers traditionally English / mono-lingual with some exceptions. This is changing a bit.	Administration & non-language teachers traditionally English / mono-lingual with some exceptions. This is changing a bit.
	Access to parents and older children as role models	In principal – but need to tap into this more. No formal structures.	Yes, cultural events organized by Dutch Teacher.
Community	Existence of language community in country	Yes, large Chinese speaking population, however local families are not part of school	Yes, Dutch club and fair sized community with events
	Accessible MT community on-line or through home visits	Possibly – not investigated yet	Yes
	Community based formal language classes	Many tutoring schools that cater to the Chinese curriculum of local schools	Yes
	Community based fun and cultural activities	Not as many as in Hong Kong	Yes through Dutch club and school
	Community pride in the MT	Many classmates in MT group are not very motivated to learn Chinese, within SG community Mandarin is the formal standard Chinese while most families speak a dialect at home	Generally yes, however many Dutch people speak English well and will switch in mixed groups

This work by Nadine Bailey is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Research summary on Language

The post below is based on the background research I did for INF538 Value Added-information Services in June 2014.  Please cite me as the author should you wish to quote / use any of this.

Bailey, N. (2014, November 12). Research summary on Language. Retrieved November 23, 2013, from http://informativeflights.blogspot.sg/2014/11/research-summary-on-language.html

_________________________________________________________________________________

Background Research

This study has presented the typical knowledge management dilemma – there is a considerable amount of information and research, both academic and practical but it is widely dispersed and personal experience is often not documented.

History

Most research into BML (bi- and multi-lingualism) concerns itself with assimilation of immigrants (Fillmore, 2000; Slavin, Madden, Calderon, Chamberlain, & Hennessy, 2011; Slavin et al., 2011; Winter, 1999); maintaining minority (or majority) languages in a dominant language environment (Ball, 2011; Dixon, Zhao, Quiroz, & Shin, 2012) or language immersion or bilingual programmes; (Caldas & Caron-Caldas, 2002; Carder, 2008; Cummins, 1998; Genesee, 2014; Hadi-Tabassum, 2004; Soderman, 2010) aspects of which may or may not be relevant to this study or its population.

Until fairly recently the situation of high socio-economic status (SES) students in international schools is given at best a glancing mention and appears to have been a marginal area amongst researchers, as they are considered to be a privileged elite with more options and choices and greater economic means than immigrant or minority students (Ball, 2011; Carder, 2006; de Mejía, 2002). There are calls for “celebrating diversity” in the classroom, (Stauft, 2011) mentions of international food fairs, the involvement of the Parents’ Association and ensuring that the school conveys the message to parents on the importance of maintaining MT  (Hayim-Bambe, 2011), while most research looks into integration and scaffolding to English.  

Bilingualism

Researchers distinguish between three types of bilingualism. Simultaneous bilingualism - exposure to two languages from birth; early successive bilingualism - first exposure aged 1 - 3 years; and second language bilingualism - first exposure aged  4 - 10 years. There is considerable debate as to what exactly the “critical” ages are for successful language learning. As Kirsten Winter pointed out “Language learning is a continuum and bilingualism is not a perfect status to be achieved.” (Winter, 1999, p. 88).  Typical language learners cycle through alternating stages of passive (receptive) and productive (expressive) skills, usually in the order of listening, speaking, reading and then writing.

Figure 1: Continuum of language learning

Initially children learn phoneme production, syntactic competence and build vocabulary while phonological awareness then helps to develop literacy skills. The ability to understand both the ‘microstructure’ of sentences and a ‘macrostructure’ of the relationship between ideas results in language comprehension (Beech, 1994).

An important distinction is made between the surface skill of listening and speaking, which is usually acquired within two years (BICS - Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills), and the literacy skills of reading and writing at an abstract academic level (CALP - Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency), a targeted five to seven year process - as will be discussed later under “concerns” (Cummins, 1998). Due to transferability, concepts learnt and established in one language are more easily learnt in another language but only if a child has achieved CALP (Cummins, 1998; Dixon, Zhao, Shin, et al., 2012; Shoebottom, n.d.).

Figure 2: Elements of CALP

Factors Impacting Acquisition

Researchers agree on a number of factors which impact on the successful acquisition and retention of a second or subsequent language in the BML population. These relate to the student, family, school and the community or society.

Student

A child’s language learning aptitude is a mixture of cognitive and personality factors (Ehrman & Leaver, 2003; Stauft, 2011).  Cognitive factors include learning style and strategy while personality factors include “motivation, self-efficacy and affective self-management” (Hayim-Bambe, 2011, p. 59). Low motivation, low self-esteem, and high anxiety result in a 'mental block' and impede language acquisition (Krashen, 1982). Extroverts tend to monitor their language use less than introverts, perfectionists and children who lack self-confidence.  Moving beyond individual differences, considerable research has been done on the strategies that so-called “Good Language Learners” (GLL) employ, particularly in the field of second-language acquisition (Abhakorn, 2008; Griffiths, 2008; E. Le Pichon, de Swart, Vorstman, & van den Bergh, 2010; Emmanuelle Le Pichon, De Swart, Vorstman, & Van Den Bergh, 2013; Wang, 2013).  These competencies, which improve with age, include directed attention, control of emotions, anticipation, mime, cooperation, imitation, clarification and asking for assistance, can arguably be taught or encouraged in a learning environment by teachers or parents.

Research often attempts to identify critical periods or ages of language acquisition, with inconclusive results, as motivation and meta-cognitive skills can be confounding variables since older students have better developed meta-cognitive skills (Barac & Bialystok, 2011; Beech, 1994; Bowden, Steinhauer, Sanz, & Ullman, 2013; Cummins, 1998, 2003; Genesee, 2014; Granena & Long, 2013; Emmanuelle Le Pichon et al., 2013; MacSwan & Pray, 2005; Saito, 2013).  Less has been written about the socio-psychological aspects, including the impact of the teenage years where adolescents disengage from the family and identify with their peer group in an attempt to construct an identity outside of the family, which may or may not include their cultural/linguistic identity as a bilingual. Ensuring ample venue or context based immersion in the MT with access to meaningful peer relationships (particularly during vacation time) can help with the maintenance of the MT in this period (Caldas & Caron-Caldas, 2002).

Family

A large vocabulary in any language contributes to overall “oral proficiency, word reading ability, reading comprehension, and school achievement”(Dixon, Zhao, Quiroz, et al., 2012, p. 542). Vocabulary is influenced by the parent’s level of education, access to and availability of resources, and the quality and quantity of parent-child interactions, including shared reading, frequency of story telling and conversations.

Parent’s level of education influences language aspirations and is often correlated with a positive view of bilingualism, ensuring the quantity and quality of resources and amount of support provided to children (Lopez, 2005, cited in Dixon et al., 2012). Whether the child was born in the home country, and the length of time they lived there, impacts on the level of language maintenance.  Many children in the international school environment were born in a third country (neither the home nor resident country).

In looking at the role of parental involvement it is important to acknowledge and cater for the diversity of families within an International school (Sears, 2011). Table 1 below is based on Sears’ analysis of the types of families, their views on the role of English versus MT and what types of maintenance effort can be expected, with advice to the school.  Caution should be exercised in interpreting these generalisations, since within a family siblings may be different depending on their linguistic and birth country history, and the existence of a strong national curriculum may influence choices.

Table 1: Families and Languages

School

The International school context results in a number of issues that complicate MT provision, including the multicultural and multilingual nature of the student population, resulting in ‘fictive monolingualism’ and the transience of both the student and teacher population, with the resultant socio-psychological implications on learning (Caldas & Caron-Caldas, 2002; Hacohen, 2012; Hornberger, 2003). However, where the “cultural capital” of the school included valuing language diversity in its environment and teaching practise, students had an increased sense of belonging, higher levels of reading literacy and they scored significantly higher academically. Continued development of ability in two or more languages on a daily basis resulted in a deeper understanding of language across contexts. Best practice includes a well structured MT program with at least some inclusion in the school timetable and fee structure, inclusion of other subject matter in MT lessons, support for English acquisition through a daily ESL/EAL program, a socio-culturally supportive environment, better awareness and training for subject teachers, affirmation of students’ identity as bi- or multi-lingual and collaboration with parents, while block scheduling was not optimal for language learning (Carder, 2014; IBO, 2011; Tramonte & Willms, 2010; Vienna International School, 2006; Wallinger, 2000).  Research in heritage language (HL) teaching and learning indicates that macro-approaches and other specific strategies that build on learners’ existing language skills could be leveraged to improve reading and writing abilities, increase motivation and participation and validate students’ identity although specific teacher training for HL is recommended (Lee-Smith, 2011; Wu & Chang, 2010).

Figure 3: Success of MT based education policies

Source: (Ball, 2011, p. 46)

In her work for UNESCO, Ball suggested a number of policy dimensions that enhance the success of an educational policy. These are depicted in Figure 3above. 

Literacy is seen as crucial for development of CALP. External and internal factors affect literacy motivation in language learning.  Factors in schools include classroom environment, appropriate text availability and teachers. Collaboration among teachers and in the school-home nexus can enhance the perception of reading and writing as a pleasurable activity outside of the learning context. Although research generally favours intrinsic motivation, in the case of language learners, extrinsic motivation including recognition, grades, social acceptance, competition, rewards related to reading and compliance can play a role in creating a positive association with and nurturing literacy while not negatively impacting on intrinsic motivation (Fong, 2007). A well equipped library, organisation of international book fairs, other tongue events, culture clubs, reading hours with older to younger / parents to students a language buddy system and national days at school are other ways literacy can be focused on (Brewster, 2011; Krashen, 2004).

Community and Society

The support of a locally based language community, including faith and cultural communities had a positive impact which could mitigate socio-economic status (SES) factors and enhance learning through beliefs and practises, classes and cultural and religious activities (Dixon, Zhao, Quiroz, et al., 2012). Finally the availability of and access to learning resources, complementary schooling, books and other materials impacted on acquiring and maintaining language(Scheele, Leseman, & Mayo, 2010)

While languages associated with upward mobility and high SES thrive, languages considered to have a lower SES risk being neglected or suppressed by dominant or higher SES language (Gulf News, 2013; Srivastava, 2012). The profile of parents’ language use at home as well as peer pressure in the adolescent years impacts on children’s language use, in this context parents may speak just the MT, the MT plus English, just English or a third “common” language – irrespective of what their MT may be or a combination of these depending on the context, while at school, English dominates (Caldas, 2006; Dixon, Zhao, Quiroz, et al., 2012; Scheele et al., 2010). In this respect, the languages Hindi and Mandarin form a special case.  They are considered to be higher status languages than other Chinese “dialects” and Indian languages, and also serve as a “common” language in those populations. If parents are not proficient in these languages, or have a lower vocabulary, they are less likely to use them at home, which in turn impacts on the child’s language proficiency (Dixon, Zhao, Quiroz, et al., 2012; Saravanan, 2001; Srivastava, 2012; Wei & Hua, 2010). Amongst Chinese diaspora the dominant view was “to qualify as Chinese, one must know the language, and to know the language means to be able to read and write the written characters” (Wei & Hua, 2010, p. 159). While: “Young Indians with high SES and high educational achievement generally changed their primary language to English” (Saravanan, 2007 cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p. 558).

The final factor is the function attributed to that language by society.  In Singapore, the government “has assigned different functions to English and the ethnic languages. While ethnic languages constitute cultural identity, intra-ethnic communication, and ethnic solidarity, English is promoted for interethnic communication, national unity, and to facilitate science learning, higher education, and economic advancement” (Bokhorst-Heng, 1999, cited in Dixon et al., 2012, p. 547).  The question is whether international schools similarly assign these functions to language.

Concerns

Although the value of BML has become more widely accepted and most parents and educators appreciate and encourage the process, a number of concerns have rightly been voiced on the process and efficacy of reaching the goal of a BML child. In the first instance, the quality of the productive language - oral and or written skills - of one or all of the child’s languages may not develop to a sufficiently high level for academic or employment purposes  (Cummins, 1998). 

Figure 4: Context / cognition matrix

Source: (Carder, 2014, p. 72)

As Figure 4 shows, there is a significant difference between cognitively demanding and undemanding tasks, and the ability to use language in a context reduced environment (Carder, 2014). Secondly, studies have shown that speech and language problems that underlie both or all languages may be misinterpreted as natural delays in learning English and children from a BML background compared to monolingual children with the same problem, are often referred much later, or not at all, for help (Winter, 1999). Related to this, other research has found that behavioural or emotional problems may result from language problems including speech disorder, isolated expressive disorder, mixed receptive-expressive high level language disorder, specific language impairment and other language disorders and delays. They emphasize the importance of fully assessing language skills in these BML populations (Grizzle & Simms, 2009; Toppelberg, Medrano, Morgens, & Nieto-Castañon, 2002).

Figure 5: The "thin ice" of BICS vs. dual-iceberg of CALP

Source: (Carder, 2014 p.72)

Then there is the “drop-out” risk.  Literature distinguishes between early-exit bilingual education which is seen as “subtractive” and late exit or “additive” bilingual education (Ball, 2011; Cummins, 1998).  Subtractive bilingualism is where children do not develop language beyond the BICS stage due to suppression by the dominant school or societal language and their MT cannot be used to leverage learning in the school or societal language.  These children run the risk of not having high, abstract and academic level in any language which impacts negatively on their academic proficiency.

Another problem can be misguided parental interference and effort. Research has found that parents mainly rely on their own experiences in language learning in making choices for their children, referring to a combination of popular literature and expert advice to justify these decisions. BML families tend to form “family language policies” on home communication.  Parents’ efforts could be better supported, their uncertainties addressed and misconceptions clarified as few parents were properly aware of the challenges, issues, consistency and effort of raising BML children, nor of the fact that children raised in bilingual homes often become active users of only one language depending on the context (Caldas & Caron-Caldas, 2002; King & Fogle, 2006).

References:

Abhakorn, J. (2008). The Implications of Learner Strategies for Second or Foreign Language Teaching. ARECLS, 5, 186–204.

Ball, J. (2011). Enhancing learning of children from diverse language backgrounds: mother tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years. UNESCO Education Sector.

Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Cognitive development of bilingual children. Language Teaching, 44(01), 36–54. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000339

Beech, J. R. (1994, May). The Language Continuum: From Infancy to Literacy. British Journal of Psychology, 85(2), 303+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA16108054&v=2.1&u=csu_au&it=r&p=EAIM&sw=w&asid=51afee8e669e5df051f4e2bc9c7c54d6

Bowden, H. W., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman, M. T. (2013). Native-like brain processing of syntax can be attained by university foreign language learners.Neuropsychologia, 51(13), 2492–2511. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.09.004

Brewster, J. (2011). The Role of the Library in Supporting Young Language Learners and their Families. In E. Murphy (Ed.), Welcoming linguistic diversity in early childhood classrooms: learning from international schools (pp. 157–167). New York: Multilingual Matters.

Caldas, S. J. (2006). Raising bilingual-biliterate children in monolingual cultures. Clevedon ; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

Caldas, S. J., & Caron-Caldas, S. (2002). A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Language Preferences of Adolescent Bilinguals: Shifting Allegiances and Developing Identities. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 490–514. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.csu.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=44400977&site=ehost-live

Carder, M. (2006). Bilingualism in International Baccalaureate programmes, with particular reference to international schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(1), 105–122. doi:10.1177/1475240906061867

Carder, M. (2008). The development of ESL provision in Australia, Canada, the USA and England, with conclusions for second language models in international schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 7(2), 205–231. doi:10.1177/1475240908091305

Carder, M. (2014). The language repertoires of five IB Diploma students in an international school. Retrieved from http://mclanguage.tripod.com/webonmediacontents/55a%20The%20language%20repertoires%20of%20five.pdf

Cummins, J. (1998). Immersion education for the millennium: What have we learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion? In M. R. Childs & R. M. Bostwick (Eds.), Learning through two languages: Research and practice (pp. 34–47). Katoh Gakuen, Japan.

Cummins, J. (2003). Putting Language Proficiency in Its Place: Responding to Critiques of the Conversational - Academic Language Distinction. Retrieved May 27, 2014, from http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/converacademlangdisti.html

De Mejía, A.-M. (2002). Power, prestige, and bilingualism international perspectives on elite bilingual education. Buffalo, N.Y.: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=79495

Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Quiroz, B. G., & Shin, J.-Y. (2012). Home and community factors influencing bilingual children’s ethnic language vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(4), 541–565. doi:10.1177/1367006911429527

Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J.-Y., Wu, S., Su, J.-H., Burgess-Brigham, R., … Snow, C. (2012). What We Know About Second Language Acquisition: A Synthesis From Four Perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5–60. doi:10.3102/0034654311433587

Ehrman, M., & Leaver, B. L. (2003). Cognitive styles in the service of language learning. System, 31(3), 393–415. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00050-2

Fillmore, L. W. (2000). Loss of Family Languages: Should Educators Be Concerned? Theory Into Practice, 39(4), 203–210. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3904_3

Fong, E. (2007). The L2 Reading Motivation of EAL Students: Experiences in an International School in Singapore (Master Dissertation). The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Genesee, F. (2014). Myths and misunderstandings about dual language acquisition in young learners. Presented at the ECIS-ESLMT, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343. doi:10.1177/0267658312461497

Griffiths, C. (Ed.). (2008). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grizzle, K. L., & Simms, M. D. (2009). Language and Learning: A Discussion of Typical and Disordered Development. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 39(7), 168–189. doi:10.1016/j.cppeds.2009.04.002

Gulf News. (2013, May 9). Use of Arabic language needs conscious nurturing. Retrieved April 6, 2014, from http://gulfnews.com/opinions/editorials/use-of-arabic-language-needs-conscious-nurturing-1.1181394

Hacohen, C. (2012). “The norm is a flux of change”: teachers’ experiences in international schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 28(2), 113–126. doi:10.1080/02667363.2011.646092

Hadi-Tabassum, S. (2004). The Balancing Act of Bilingual Immersion. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 50. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.csu.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=15274676&site=ehost-live

Hayim-Bambe, A. (2011). The Importance of Maintaining Mother Tongue and Culture in the Classroom. In E. Murphy (Ed.), Welcoming linguistic diversity in early childhood classrooms: learning from international schools (pp. 72–79). New York: Multilingual Matters.

Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Continua of biliteracy an ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, UK; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=204118

IBO. (2011). Language and learning in IB programmes. International Baccalaureate Organization.

King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006). Bilingual Parenting as Good Parenting: Parents’ Perspectives on Family Language Policy for Additive Bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(6), 695–712. doi:10.2167/beb362.0

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition (1st ed.). Oxford ; New York: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: insights from the research. Westport, Conn.; Portsmouth, N.H.: Libraries Unlimited ; Heinemann.

Lee-Smith, A. (2011). Issues in Teacher Training for Korean Heritage Learners. Retrieved May 31, 2014, from http://archive.cls.yale.edu/info/?p=789

Le Pichon, E., De Swart, H., Vorstman, J. A. S., & Van Den Bergh, H. (2013). Emergence of patterns of strategic competence in young plurilingual children involved in French international schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(1), 42–63. doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.679251

Le Pichon, E., de Swart, H., Vorstman, J., & van den Bergh, H. (2010). Influence of the context of learning a language on the strategic competence of children.International Journal of Bilingualism, 14(4), 447–465. doi:10.1177/1367006910370921

MacSwan, J., & Pray, L. (2005). Learning English Bilingually: Age of Onset of Exposure and Rate of Acquisition Among English Language Learners in a Bilingual Education Program. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), 653–678. doi:10.1080/15235882.2005.10162857

Saito, K. (2013). Age effects on late bilingualism: The production development of /ɹ/ by high-proficiency Japanese learners of English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 546–562. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.07.003

Saravanan, V. (2001). The Significance of Bilingual Chinese, Malay and Tamil Children’s English Network Patterns on Community Language Use Patterns.Early Child Development and Care, 166(1), 81–91. doi:10.1080/0300443011660107

Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P. P. M., & Mayo, A. Y. (2010). The home language environment of monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency.Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(01), 117. doi:10.1017/S0142716409990191

Sears, C. (2011). Listening to Parents: Acknowledging the Range of Linguistic and Cultural Experiences in an Early Childhood Classroom. In E. Murphy (Ed.),Welcoming linguistic diversity in early childhood classrooms: learning from international schools (pp. 185–195). New York: Multilingual Matters.

Shoebottom, P. (n.d.). The language learning theories of Professor J. Cummins. Retrieved April 6, 2014, from http://esl.fis.edu/teachers/support/cummin.htm

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N., Calderon, M., Chamberlain, A., & Hennessy, M. (2011). Reading and Language Outcomes of a Multiyear Randomized Evaluation of Transitional Bilingual Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 47–58. doi:10.3102/0162373711398127

Soderman, A. K. (2010). Language Immersion Programs for Young Children? Yes...But Proceed with Caution. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 54–61. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.csu.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=50262555&site=ehost-live

Srivastava, K. (2012, September 19). Hindi a hit among Marathi students. Retrieved April 6, 2014, from http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-hindi-a-hit-among-marathi-students-1742590

Stauft, N. (2011). An International School Celebrates its Diversity. In E. Murphy (Ed.), Welcoming linguistic diversity in early childhood classrooms: learning from international schools (pp. 53–61). New York: Multilingual Matters.

Toppelberg, C. O., Medrano, L., Morgens, L. P., & Nieto-Castañon, A. (2002). Bilingual Children Referred for Psychiatric Services: Associations of Language Disorders, Language Skills, and Psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(6), 712–722. doi:10.1097/00004583-200206000-00011

Tramonte, L., & Willms, J. D. (2010). Cultural capital and its effects on education outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 200–213. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.06.003

Vienna International School. (2006). VIS ESL & MT Department: mission statement. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://school.vis.ac.at/esl/main.html

Wallinger, L. M. (2000). The Effect of Block Scheduling on Foreign Language Learning. Foreign Language Annals, 33(1), 36–50. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb00888.x

Wang, B. (2013). Using GRA and GSM Methods to Identify the Learning Strategies of Good Language Learners. International Journal of E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning. doi:10.7763/IJEEEE.2013.V3.266

Wei, L., & Hua, Z. (2010). Voices from the diaspora: changing hierarchies and dynamics of Chinese multilingualism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2010(205). doi:10.1515/ijsl.2010.043

Winter, K. (1999). Speech and language therapy provision for bilingual children: aspects of the current service. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 34(1), 85–98. doi:10.1080/136828299247658

Wu, M.-H., & Chang, T.-M. (2010). Heritage Language Teaching and Learning through a Macro-Approach. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 25(2), 23–33.

This work by Nadine Bailey is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.