Multilingual Approaches for Teaching and Learning

From Acknowledging to Capitalising on Multilingualism in European Mainstream Education

Claudine Kirsch, Joana Duarte, Claudine Kirsch, Joana Duarte

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780367181352
• eBook ISBN: 9780429594953
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Multilingual Approaches for Teaching and Learning outlines the opportunities and challenges of multilingual approaches in mainstream education in Europe. The book, which draws on research findings from several officially monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual countries in Europe, discusses approaches to multilingual education which capitalise on students' multilingual resources from early childhood to higher education. This book synthesises research on multilingual education, relates theory to practice, and discusses different pedagogical approaches from diverse perspectives.

The first section of the book outlines multilingual approaches in early childhood education and primary school, the second looks at multilingual approaches in secondary school and higher education, and the third examines the influence of parents, policy-makers, and professional development on the implementation and sustainability of multilingual approaches. The book demonstrates that educators can leverage students' multilingualism to promote learning and help students achieve their full potential.

This book will be of great interest to academics, researchers, and postgraduate students in the fields of language education, psychology, sociolinguistics, and applied linguistics.

1
Introduction

Multilingual approaches for teaching and learning

Joana Duarte and Claudine Kirsch

1 From monolingual to multilingual approaches in Europe

People have never been more internationally mobile. Nor has information spread so widely, as communication technologies have brought groups from various language and cultural backgrounds in contact. This has changed the ethnolinguistic characteristics of many regions. These phenomena have resulted in multilingualism both at the societal level (that is, the use of multiple languages in society), and at the personal level as individuals increasingly communicate in more than one language (Cenoz, 2013). The demographic changes have led to ‘superdiversity’ (Vertovec, 2007), a term that refers to the interplay of a variety of factors related to social, cultural, and linguistic diversity, which triggers transformation in societies (Meissner & Vertovec, 2015). In the field of education, the impact of superdiversity is visible in classrooms where each day teachers encounter a variety of home languages, and where they may teach several institutional languages. In Europe (the focus of the authors’ work in this volume) the national languages of the nation-states have often become the dominant institutional languages, and thus figure predominantly in language policies. Other languages, such as some minority or migrant languages, are given little space in schools, and are generally valued mainly for their functional benefits (Lo Bianco, 2014). This language hierarchy illustrates the status of different languages within education systems. Ellis, Gogolin, and Clyne (2011) claim that languages occupy different positions within the (implicit) language hierarchy of a given nation-state, and that its analysis offers a useful lens through which to examine the different statuses of languages. In their analysis, national languages tend to be at the top of the language hierarchy pyramid, followed by foreign languages taught at schools. The role of English as a foreign language needs to be highlighted, as English is by far the most commonly taught language in Europe from primary school onwards. It is also increasingly used to teach academic content, as seen by the growing numbers of CLIL programmes (Content and Language Integrated Learning) in compulsory education (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015). At the bottom of the pyramid are community languages such as autochthonous minority languages, immigrant languages, and immigrant ethnolects. Ellis et al. (2011) conclude that such hierarchies, visible in language ideologies, policies, and national curricula, reflect a ‘monolingual mindset’ of nation-states. The language ideologies are an inheritance of the creation of nation-states in the nineteenth century in Europe (Gogolin, 2002; Spotti & Kroon, 2017) and led to monolingual education systems to foster ‘unity through homogeneity’, an ideology that is still strong in most European countries (Horner, 2009; Cooke & Simpson, 2012). It has severe consequences for multilingual students less fluent in the institutional languages, as it influences their learning processes, academic achievements, and the ways students with minority background are perceived.

Research studies demonstrate cognitive and linguistic effects of bilingualism (e.g. Bialystok, 2017). Yet international assessment studies show that children with a migrant background and low socioeconomic status underachieve, compared to children who grow up speaking the national language(s) or high-status languages (OECD, 2015). According to Tajmel (2010), the lack of attention paid in schools to the language competences of these children, and the possible mismatch between school languages and home languages, is related to the monoglossic ideologies underpinning curricula. Thus, multilingual students risk a more limited access to the curriculum due to the combination of language dominance and monolingual standards. Furthermore, monolingual assessment practices mean that students’ understanding (developed through institutional languages) and skills are measured in the institutional language(s) in which students may be less proficient (Shohamy, 2011; De Backer, De Cooman, Slembrouck and Van Avermaet, in this volume). According to Scarino (2014) and Spence-Brown (2014), there is now an urgent need to ‘unlearn monolingualism’ and align teaching and learning practices at schools, and the language practices of the changing populations they serve.

Languages lie at the heart of teaching and learning processes. They shape the ways in which students communicate with each other, express themselves, engage with concepts, make sense of their world, think, and learn (Halliday, 1993). Drawing on Hélot, we argue that it is essential to recognise the existing language diversity, have an open-minded stance regarding all languages being used, and capitalise on students’ resources in education.

Understanding linguistic diversity in education means more than referring to a plurality of linguistic systems or to the coexistence of different languages in society, it means analysing the role of language(s) in education with a shift of perspective from the singular to the plural, or from a monoglossic to a heteroglossic perspective stressing the plurality of uses within each language and across different languages.

(Hélot, 2012, p. 216)

The current volume presents research studies on the structural inclusion of multiple languages in mainstream educational settings. It sheds light on existing multilingual approaches—in several European education settings—that capitalise on multilingualism for teaching and learning. The chapters testify to the success of several multilingual approaches and provide insights into effective methods and strategies that teachers can use to draw on students’ diverse multilingual repertoires in classrooms.

2 Plurilingual or multilingual, competence or practice?

Throughout the volume, the existence, development, and use of multiple languages in individuals, families, schools, and societies is referred to in two different ways. Some authors choose to adhere to the terminology of the Council of Europe and call individual multilingualism ‘plurilingualism’ (e.g. Chapters 6 and 7), defined as one’s ability to use several languages to varying degrees, and for distinct purposes. Others (e.g. Chapters 2 and 5) use the term ‘multilingualism’ to refer to ‘the knowledge of a number of languages, or the co-existence of different languages in a given society’ (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 4).

The debate about the use of ‘plurilingualism’ vs. ‘multilingualism’ is ongoing. On the one side, researchers reinforce the encompassing nature of the term ‘plurilingualism’ as:

a unique, overarching notion, implying a subtle but profound shift in perspective, both horizontally, toward the use of multiple languages, and vertically, toward valuing even the most partial knowledge of a language (and other para-and extralinguistic resources) as tools for facilitating communication.

(Piccardo, 2016, p. 319)

On the other side, the term, which is rooted in European ideologies and policies, has been criticised for being a European ‘marketization of multilingualism as a skill’, having ‘done little to address the power imbalances’ and having neglected other types of multilingual practices (García, 2018, p. 883).

Several other terms can be found in the literature to refer to individuals’ ability to use several languages. These go hand in hand with a reconceptualisation of bilingualism. The concept of ‘additive bilingualism’, which aims at achieving native-like competence in two languages, has been replaced by the idea of an integrated bilingual or multilingual competence (Cook, 1992; Grosjean, 1985; Franceschini, 2011). Following the ‘multilingual turn’ (Conteh & Meier, 2014; May, 2014), the focus shifted from competences and languages to the actual practices of language users. Nowadays, there is an array of alternative terms to describe the language practices of multilinguals: code-meshing (Canagarajah, 2006), transidiomatic practices (Jaquemet, 2005), polylingualism (Jørgensen, 2008), and heteroglossia (Pavlenko, 2005). Translanguaging (García, 2009), the deployment of one’s entire linguistic repertoire for communication, enjoys a special status in this volume (e.g. Chapters 2, 5, and 6). These recent notions share an understanding that languages are not separate entities, and focus on the dynamic and hybrid aspect of languaging or language use.

3 Multilingual approaches in education

The hybrid language practices of bi-/multilingual students are increasingly being acknowledged, and new teaching approaches need to be developed both in bilingual and mainstream education. Different socio-educational contexts have resulted in several teaching approaches, which, according to García and Flores (2012), can be separated into four different types: foreign language instruction; second language pedagogy; bilingual/monoglossic instruction; and plurilingual/heteroglossic instruction. We will explain each of these but focus on the final two.

Foreign language instruction teaches students an additional language, often English, which they can use in different national and other societal contexts. In contrast, second language pedagogy focuses on the development of a second or additional language. This is used within the same space as the national language (e.g. a minority or migrant language) in certain community or family contexts. Third, in bilingual/monoglossic instruction, two languages are used as a medium of instruction. Early conceptualisations of bilingual education argued for strict language separation to keep the languages of bilinguals separate as this was thought to avoid confusion (for a historical overview see Baker, 2011; García, 2013). This is still the case in many bilingual education programmes in Europe and elsewhere. Two-way immersion with minority languages (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015) and dual-language models in the US (García, 2009) are a case in point. The programmes are therefore monoglossic in nature. Many schools were (and still are) mainly monolingual in their ideological approach to languages. Their main language-related policy was/is to develop students’ academic abilities in the school language(s) and phase out home languages. Hence, it is not unusual for language practices in schools to bear few similarities to family language practices, which can lead students to underperform at school (García, 2013). It was not until the mid-twentieth century that the human rights movement started to make the case for the acceptance and use of home languages in all schools, rather than only in bilingual institutions (Wright, 2007). This movement was accompanied by greater understanding that all languages are part of a single language repertoire. This led to plurilingual/heteroglossic instruction in which the use of several languages is a central part of the curriculum, language policies, and practices. It aims to develop national and foreign languages as well as minority language(s). The framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures (Candelier et al., 2012) presents four main types of multilingual instruction: intercultural approaches, awakening to languages (éveil aux langues), intercomprehension, and integrated didactic approaches. These approaches incorporate several languages into the instruction processes, based on the idea that students and teachers have various linguistic resources that can be acknowledged and used for learning. For instance, in integrated didactic approaches, students draw on their home languages to learn a first foreign language and, subsequently, use knowledge of both of these to learn a second foreign language. In intercomprehension approaches, learners study several languages of the same language family in parallel, thereby focusing on receptive skills. Awakening to languages targets mainly primary school children and offers them opportunities to encounter a wide range of institutional and home languages.

The chapters in this volume discuss several multilingual approaches, as well as some factors required for their successful implementation, such as educational partnerships from an intercultural perspective (Chapters 3 and 4), assessment (Chapter 8), and language policies and teachers’ professional development (Chapter 11). Chapters 2, 5, 6, and 11 present an approach not mentioned in Candelier et al. (2012): the translanguaging pedagogy (García, Johnson, & Seltzer, 2017; Kirsch, Aleksic, Mortini, & Andersen, forthcoming; Duarte, 2016). On the one hand, translanguaging is a theoretical lens that offers an alternative view of the language practices of bi-/multilingual speakers. They draw naturally and flexibly on their linguistic repertoires to make meaning and negotiate communicative contexts. On the other hand, translanguaging has been developed into a pedagogy that builds on students’ linguistic resources and attempts to leverage these for meaning-making and learning (García et al., 2017). Although the ‘transformative potential’ of translanguaging has been questioned (Jaspers, 2017), there is no doubt that the concept offers an enormous contribution to redefining language pedagogy that ‘draws attention to the speakers’ agentive behaviour and creative practices’ (Kirsch, in this volume). Kirsch (Chapter 2) presents the translanguaging pedagogy that early childhood professionals developed as a result of a professional development course in Luxembourg. Duarte and Günther-van der Meij (Chapter 5) discuss translanguaging as part of a model to support teachers in implementing multilingual education in secondary schools. Kirsch, Duarte, and Palviainen (Chapter 11) provide insights into the ways in which teachers learned to implement flexible language approaches in Finland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Chapter 4 moves beyond the multilingual approaches presented in Candelier et al. (2012) and explores promising pedagogies of linguistically and culturally sensitive...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: multilingual approaches for teaching and learning
• PART 1 Multilingual approaches in early childhood education and primary school
• PART 2 Multilingual approaches in secondary school
• PART 3 Actors and factors influencing the implementation of multilingual approaches
• Index