Although I have never been in ESL class myself, as an immigrant I find this topic dear to me. I decided to put this up regarding how the current school system is and perhaps provide for a different approach. It is my final paper for my class and it probably has many flaws, but as long as you understand the main message it would be great =). It is approx 10pgs double spaced on microsoft Word. Please take time to read it. Thank you.
FYI:lingos
L1= Child's first language other than English
L2= Child's second/other language aka English
THis is taken in context of the North American school system. Many thanks:
Implications on the Current
Approach and Where to go from Here
Having
a limited ability or access to the English language impacts the English
Language Learners’ (ELLs) identities in various ways. In today’s North American
schools, many follow the ‘Monolingual principle’ whereby Cummins explains it as
“instructional use of the target language [TL] to the exclusion of students’
L1, with the goal of enabling learners to think in the TL with minimal
interference from L1”(Cummins, 2007). The Monolingual Teaching Strategy which
dominates today’s schools lack the inclusion of L1 students. This creates implications
on their identity and thus I inquire for an alternative approach to addressing
ELLs.
In
response to the current Monolingual teaching method, I refer to Cummins’ alternative
approach of Bilingual Instructional Strategies. Contrary to the Monolingual
method, the Bilingual Instructional Strategy uses both of the child’s languages
in order to maximize their learning potential (Cummins, 2007). The ‘Bilingual
principle’ also incorporates prior knowledge, using it as a resource to help
strengthen the students L1 and L2 and in effect empowering their identities (Cummins,
2007).
The ELLs identities are constantly negotiated
and (re)constructed through the influence of their peers, how they view themselves
and also by the environment around them. In this paper I will address the power
relations of the ability and inability of the English language in the
mainstream classroom, and the implications it holds for the ELLs identities due
to their lack of access to mainstream English. Upon addressing some of the
current implications that exist, I will then use the Bilingual principle to
address these issues that may alternatively help to empower and present a more
positive identity on the students.
The
ELLs’ identities (or students in general) are major components that shape their
social and academic opportunities (Lee & Anderson, 2009). Lee & Anderson (2009) explains identity
as, “The various ideologies, power structures and historical legacies
associated with different forms of language use, cultures and situations that frame
individuals’ linguistic and cultural practices as those of specific types of
people”. It is how these individuals take these ideologies, power structures
and historical legacies and then understand and interpret them according to
their predisposition and how they see themselves in relation to the world
across time and space that ultimately make up their identity (Chen 2010; Lee
& Anderson 2009; Norton 2000).
There
are several concepts I will define in order to clarify its meaning. Within
North America’s school system, the ‘mainstream classroom’ is presented. It is
the typical English school in which English is taught using the English
language, to all students regardless of where they are from. In examining the
existing power relations, I use Chen’s definition of power whereby it positions
individuals to different access in identity roles, opportunities for
negotiation and what kind of learning takes place (Chen, 2010; Hruska, 2004). These
boundaries are created in the categories of the English language (the
mainstream language) vs. the ‘other’ languages. When one has power, they have
voice that is heard within the classroom and have opportunity with greater
choice. They are the norm. They represent and determine what is appropriate,
heard and listened to.
Proficient
English speakers in a mainstream classroom hold more power since they have a
greater voice and a more positive image of identity (Van Lier, 2007). These
ideas and beliefs about the English language are actively performed and
negotiated within the society representing ideas of power and identity as
construed by a society (Chen, 2010; Cummins, 2000; Razfar & Rumenapp,
2011).
Influences by Peers, Families
and Communities
ELLs’ identities are most influenced by those who are
closest to them: including their families, communities and peers. Most ELLs
have a network of communities in their language that they consistently associate
with (e.g- religious place, ethnic grocery stores etc.). The families are
constantly helping to construct and reconstruct what it means to be a specific
identity (e.g- of a sister, religion, culture). At the same time, they are
learning the ‘English’ way of life (mostly with North American Western
ideologies in place) within schools. With the ELLs constantly being immersed in
these surroundings, they are exposed to the different ideologies, power and
historical legacies that they interpret and respond to in the process of
forming their identity (Chen, 2010). It
is these three that influence a bulk of their identity, where they must then be
examined to see how they are influencing the ELLs identities.
When
ELLs come into the ‘English’ way of life, they are exposed to many new and
different practices of life (especially those who are ethnic minorities). Because
being able to speak and communicate the mainstream language allows voice within
the school and hence power, they may want to learn the mainstream language as
soon as possible.
At
the same time, they may not necessarily be accepted by all their mainstream
English speaking peers. Hruska states that many of these ESL students attempt
to socialize with the mainstream English students, but “native” speakers (proficient
speakers of English) do not always respond because they do not consider being
bilingual as a high-status identity (Hruska, 2004). “The Spanish-bilingual
children were not particularly sought after” (Hruska, 2004). Children’s social
interactions have significant impacts on the ELLs access to language and their
identity (Hruska, 2004). Being rejected
by their peers shows ELLs that the status of being bilingual is not as powerful
of a status as being able to speak English like a native. They do not regard the
ELLs at the same level as all other mainstream peers because they are
constantly being pulled out of class for their ‘lack of’ English skills. As a result,
their identities were not viewed positively by everyone and this limited their
ability to befriend students and have access to practice their English.
Even
within the family, the ELL students’ identities are contested as they attempt
to balance the practice of their traditional home language and the mainstream
language at school. Because the ELLs’ parents often have very limited English
skills, the students do not speak English in the home (Conteh & Kawashima,
2008). Many teachers see this as a hindrance to the student’s learning of
English. As a result, many teachers focus on the ‘English only’ rule at school
(the Monolingual approach) in order to maximize the practice. Eliminating the
use of their L1 may present the message to the student that their language is
not as useful, disempowering the student’s L1. This is problematic as their
language is a big part of their identity. If the students were to lose their
L1, this may present new problems such as language barriers within their
families (whom are major influences of one’s identity).
Through
peers and families, the ELLs had difficulty accessing the English language in
order to empower themselves for the classroom. Many times, they were
discouraged to use and access the English language. These affect their identity
as they are not given option to freely choose how much English to pick up to suit
their identity.
Understanding of the
Self
Secondly,
what peers, communities and families do or say affect the identity of the
individual in different ways depending on how they interpret and respond to the
environment.
The
Monolingual teaching style requires the students to focus on the English
language which may indirectly demonstrate its position of power in comparison
to other languages. With less attention given to other languages, English is given
importance as Razfar & Rumenapp’s (2012) study demonstrates, “Ms.A ‘What’s
your favourite class?’ Zhimme ‘My favourite class is Mandarin…cus it’s the
easiest. I like it. Because it’s my language.’ Ms. A ‘Which classes are
important for the future?’ Zhimme ‘English and Math’” (Razfar & Rumenapp
2012).
Zhimme
stated that her favourite class was Mandarin, but notably another language
(English) preceded in importance over her favourite class. This suggests that English
which is heavily emphasized is categorized higher on the scale of importance
than other languages such as Mandarin. Since many ELLs such as Zhimme relate and
identify with languages other than English, this may negatively impact their
identities.
Additionally,
without the ability to verbally communicate with other mainstream students the
ELLs have limited voice. Since their L1 language is considered not of
importance the students may resort to other acts to reflect a more positive
identity. For example, some ELL students may resort to physical violence to
defend their positioning for a higher and more desirable identity among their
peers (Chen, 2010). This demonstrates that ELLs acknowledge and understand
their position of identity in comparison to their peers. Since their language
is not seen as powerful or of importance by others they try to compensate for
their lack of English skills by resorting to other methods of power such as
physical power.
However,
schools do not approve of these acts and may resort to identifying ELLs negatively.
The school may send these students to
counselors or to the principal’s office for behavioural issues, when really the
underlying issue is their lack of access to mainstream English (Chen, 2010). The
ELLs lack of access to communicate effectively with others can result in
expressing in ineffective methods. As a result the students do not see their
language as an asset but rather see it as an ineffective method of
communication within the school grounds.
Since
the classroom follows the Monolingual approach, many times teachers use the ‘English
Only’ rule (Razfar & Rumenapp 2011). Within the classroom, many teachers
disapprove the use of L1, either with the intent of practicing their L2, or
because they do not understand the conversation. When L1 is used, many are reminded
that ‘You’re in an English class’ and then silence the students’ L1 even when
they are on topic (Razfar & Rumenapp 2011). With strict limitation on using
their L1 language, they have limited usage of communication. In schools, they
are told to speak only English (which is ineffective as they have yet still to
master it) and are forbidden to use the only other language to have voice.
Their lack of ability to use language to communicate their thoughts can resort
to lower self-esteem in comparison to their peers who are can freely
communicate. Without being able to voice themselves, their power is situated
lower as well as their identity status.
The Environment within
the Institution
Finally,
the educational institution has set up its curriculum that is disempowering the
students due to their lack of English skills. Because they lack the mainstream language,
the current program that is in place is the ‘pull out’ method. In this method,
ELLs are pulled out for a period of time, with the sole focus on improving
their English skills. However, there is evidence that this may not necessarily
reside with a positive identity for the ELLs.
The
‘pull out’ method is highly visible to peers within the classroom and everyone
within the classroom understands that the students lack certain skills (in this
case English) that the rest of the class does not. As a result, ELLs risk
stigmatization by the class, increasing the gap between ELLs and mainstream
students’ opportunities to learn (Lee & Anderson 2009). Stigmatization can
greatly damage the identity of the student, which presents a less than optimal
place for learning English skills.
Additionally,
after the ELLs were pulled out of class to practice their English (ELL
classes), they had to renegotiate their relationships with the mainstream
English peers when they were immersed back into the mainstream classroom
(Hruska, 2004). Without the full-day relationship that other mainstream English
students received amongst themselves, the ELLs found it a lot more difficult to
bond with all their peers. This resulted in the ELLs not being able to
effectively practice their ‘English’ with the mainstream students in comparison
to others. Ironically, even when the ‘pull-out’ method was originally created
to benefit the child, this may actually have the opposite effect.
Since
the ELLs are pulled out of class they are also labeled (both by people and on
paper) that they are ‘English Language Learners’. These labels are often
attached with negative connotations and even years after, students have
difficulty shedding this label. Lee & Anderson demonstrate that, “Everyday
uses of labels suggest their false neutrality…they (ELLs) are commonly
associated with being socioeconomically challenged, low-achieving, culturally
deprived and at risk” (Lee & Anderson 2009). By labeling students as ELLs,
they are already at a disadvantage even before they have a chance to present
their identities (Lee & Anderson 2009).
As
a result of the label, many teachers and administrators already have an
expectation of the student before they can perform to their standards. Hence, “the
label often overshadows the complex and rich sociocultural histories of
students’ identities and instead only makes salient their learning practices
and abilities in relation to speaking or not speaking English” (Lee &
Anderson, 2009). Here the students are perceived
by others (peers, administrators, teachers etc.) as an English Language Learner
who lacks the skill to communicate proficiently with others.
Their
lack of English skills overshadows all other skills that the student may
possess. As a result, their main identity is the label of an ‘English Language
Learner’ which places them lower than English speakers. In comparison, English
speakers’ identities are not enforced upon them as ‘English Speakers’ for this
is the ‘norm’. Instead, they are free to
present all the other identities that they possess. The ELLs who are not part
of this norm are ‘othered’, separating them from the rest of the class. The ‘ELL
label’ results in disempowering the students even before they have a chance to
present their identity.
Teacher Pedagogy &
Conclusion
These are a few of the current problems that ELL students
face with the Monolingual Instructional Strategy. Cummins presents the
Bilingual Instructional Strategy that can help relieve some of the negative
impact on the ELLs identities. Using this strategy by no means solves all the
challenges that the ELLs face, but it can help empower them even if they lack the
English skills.
One of the main components of Bilingual Instructional
strategy is its strong voice for advocating the use of the students L1
(Cummins, 2007). It changes the lens of how the ELLs dominant language is
viewed. Rather than exempting the students L1 (any language other than English)
from the institution, it is rather recognized as a resource to learn and teach
along with the English language (Cummins, 2007; Chen, 2010).
To begin, changing the atmosphere of the class to welcome
languages other than English may help balance the power relations. A main
contributing factor to unequitable status of the languages are the tendency to
dismiss or penalize any language other than English. In Monolingual
Instructional Strategy, the focus is on teaching English, using only English. By
embracing all the languages the teacher shows other students that the ELLs
languages can be resources. For example, one can get the students to use their
language to teach the class certain words pertaining to their curriculum (Chen
2010). The class will not only learn the content in a creative way, but also
the ELL is empowered as they have a chance to teach the skill that only they
possess. This helps the students see the ELLs through a different lens, from
one who lacks to one who holds certain knowledge, resources and skills to teach
the class.
Another way to empower the students’ identity is to
engage in tasks and assignments using their native language. For example, one
can get the ELLs to read familiar books /picture books to students in another
language (Chen, 2010). Students can also create dual-language books in the
classroom as assignments (Chen, 2010). Giving voice to all languages within the
classroom demonstrates to the class that power is given to all languages. This
is important for the students’ identities because they are confident in using
their L1.
In addition, the ‘English Only’ rule may not necessarily
aid in the students’ learning. One theory that contradicts this, is building on
students’ prior knowledge in order to promote optimal learning (Cummins, 2007).
Cummins states that “If this prior knowledge is encoded in their L1, then their
L1 is clearly relevant to their learning even when instruction is through the
medium of L2” (Cummins, 2007). Once a concept or skill is learned in the first
language, then the student will transfer this to the second language (Cummins,
2007; Chen, 2010). It is then critical
for the students to have the freedom to use their L1 language within the
classroom in order for optimal learning.
Lastly, because the students’ identities are also
influenced by the home, it is important to include family and use them as a
resource. Many teachers have difficulty reaching the families and getting them
involved because of the language barrier. However, it is important to bring the
ELLs’ communities and families into the classroom. One way to do this is to
bring the parents in and get them to read a familiar text to the students in
their L1 (Conteh & Kawashima, 2008). Exposing the class to other adults show
that there are others, adults who are perceived as more powerful who speak
other languages.
With all approaches there are however, limitations and
challenges when practicing them within the classroom. On a practical level, all
classrooms are not the same. Factors such as the make-up of the class and the
resources given must be considered. Sometimes theory does not translate well to
practice. One of the biggest challenges of the Bilingual approach is time. It
can be difficult for teachers who are already pressed for time to find
resources catering specifically to the ELLS (especially when multiple ELLs of
all different languages are in one classroom) (Chen, 2010). Also, although
teachers play a big role in influencing students, they do not have total
control all the time (Hruska, 2004). Some conversations and discussions can
gear for dominant cultures which can exclude the voice of the marginalized. Even
when teachers try their best to be inclusive, sometimes the voice of students
can hold a larger influence on conversations (Hruska, 2004). In addition, I
wonder how this would impact a student who has multiple languages as their
first language. Would this also impact students who speak English as their
first language but are from different countries (e.g- England or Grenada)
because of cultural change and dialects?
It
is however, the teachers’ role to continue and try to give voice to all
students. In almost every classroom in North America today, teachers will have
at least one ELL student. Teachers still continue to influence and impact
students greatly and it is their responsibility to try to provide the most
optimal learning for all students. Given the rising population of ELLs, perhaps
it is time to take a look and revise our current instructional strategy. For
what we have, may not necessarily be the best approach in
empowering the students and their identities.
Bibliography
Chen,
X. (2010). Identity Construction and Negotiation Within and Across School
Communities. Journal of Language,
Identity, and Education, 9, 163-179. doi:10.1080/153 48458.2010.486274.
Conteh
, J. & Kawashima, Y. (2008). Diversity in Family Involvement in Children’s
Learning in English Primary Schools: Culture, Language and Identity. English Teaching: Practice and Critique,
7(2), 113-125.
Cummins,
J (2000). Forward. Language Ideologies: Critical
Perspectives on the Official English Movement. 1, ix-xx.
Cummins,
J. (2007). Rethinking Monolingual Instructional Strategies in Multilingual
Classrooms. Modern Language Centre OISE.
Hruska,
B. (2004). Constructing Gender in an English Dominant Kindergarten:
Implications for Second Language Learners. TESOL
QUARTERLY, 38(3).
Lee,
J. & Anderson, K. (2009). Negotiating Linguistic and Cultural Identities:
Theorizing and Constructing Opportunities and Risks in Education. Review of Research in Education, 33,
181-211, doi:10.3102/0091732x0327090
Norton,
B. (2000). Identity and Language
Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Change. Harlow, UK:
Longman/Pearson Education.
Razfar, A &
Rumenapp, J. (2011). Language Ideologies in English Learner Classrooms:
Critical Reflections and the Role of Explicit Awareness. Language Awareness, 21(4), 347-368.
Van
Lier, L. (2007). Action-Based Teaching, Autonomy and Identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1).
No comments:
Post a Comment