Language Planning in Primary Schools in Asia

Richard Baldauf, Robert Kaplan, Knonko Kamwangamalu, Pauline Bryant, Richard B. Baldauf, Robert B. Kaplan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781135708870
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Bildung Allgemein

In foreign language education, decisions must be taken on what languages to teach, who will teach them, in which schools (i.e. all, only urban, only rural), in which grades, the number of hours a week, and the cost involved. This book explores the answers to these questions across a number of Asian polities. It illustrates why some of the efforts undertaken are successful and why some are not, why – despite significant investments of time and resources – some students do not seem to acquire the languages being taught, and why some teachers responsible for instruction in the designated foreign languages have problems achieving fluency in the designated language or have other language teaching difficulties. It suggests some strategies various polities might attempt to achieve their stated language learning objectives.

This book was originally published as a special issue of Current Issues in Language Planning.

Why educational language plans sometimes fail

Robert B. Kaplan^a, Richard B. Baldauf Jr.^b and Nkonko Kamwangamalu^c

^aSchool of Education, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD, Australia; ^bDepartment of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; ^cDepartment of English, Graduate Program in English Studies, Howard University, Washington DC, USA

Language-in-education policy (decision taking) and planning (decision implementation) are complex processes requiring a number of decisions to be taken and implemented if they are to be successful. While there is research that suggests the factors that lead to successful outcomes, these are often either ignored or too difficult for polities to implement, given their resources. This insufficiency can lead to a waste of resources and a failure to meet language planning and learning objectives. A number of myths have arisen about such planning, in general, and about the role of English as a second/foreign language, in particular, relating to English being a guarantee of access to economic opportunity and about starting language study early leading to better outcomes. In this paper, we examine 12 common fallacies related to educational language planning to provide some insights into why such plans sometimes fail. This paper provides an introduction to eight polity case study papers, which follow, that highlight particular aspects of these fallacies.

1. Introduction

In 1835, Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote a ‘minute’ or message to the government of British India, suggesting ways to deal with the complex mix of languages that the British rulers of India faced. Macaulay had been sent to Calcutta in an official capacity (as ‘advisor’ to the government). He knew nothing about any of the South Asian languages; indeed, he appeared actually to have despised them. His ‘minute’ concerned the intent of education and colonial language policy in India, dealing particularly with the use of English in the education of Indian people. His advice was widely accepted not only in India but, subsequently, in British colonial Africa and Asia. Macaulay urged the introduction to the future leaders of India (and eventually those of the Commonwealth) of English literature and history, thus providing a common language in multilingual India and laying the groundwork in the traditions of English law. More specifically, Macaulay’s advice was:

… to form a class Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect; a class who could serve as interpreters between the government and the masses, and who, by refining the vernaculars, would supply the means of widespread dissemination of western knowledge. (cited in Phillipson, 1992, p. 110)

More than a century later, Macaulay’s recommendations have proved so useful – when taken together with a range of subsequent events, including conflicts in the Asian region and elsewhere (e.g. Wright, 2002), the geopolitics of the cold war, globalization (e.g. Sheng, 2009), the emerging world economic system (e.g. Brutt-Griffler, 2002), and easier access to mass media and the Internet (e.g. Kress & van Leeuwen, 2002) – that English has become first foreign (second) language in many polities, the international language of science and technology (e.g. Kaplan, 2001), and the world’s lingua franca as perceived by many individuals and governments in polities in Asia and elsewhere (e.g. Alisjahbana, 1971; Choi & Spolsky, 2007; Crystal, 2003; Gonzalez, 1989; Graddol, 1997; Qi, 2009).

Like the cargo cult mentality that appeared after World War II in the Pacific islands, these developments, in turn, have given rise to a number of urban legends. People in many polities have come to believe that their children would be guaranteed better economic opportunities if they had English as part of their linguistic repertoire. This belief has supported the addition of English to the school curriculum – initially at the secondary school level and then at the intermediate school level. A decade or more of experimentation demonstrated that English at intermediate school was not sufficient to develop proficiency, so another legend – that early introduction to English would be the panacea – spurred an international belief that English language education should begin at the first grade, or even better, in kindergarten (see, e.g. Arab News, 2011).

The fallacies inherent in both legends have emerged:

• being English-knowing is not a guarantee of an improvement in economic opportunity; and

• early English learning is not a guarantee of near-native English proficiency.

In this paper, it is suggested that these fallacies have some fairly apparent underlying causes, and 12 prominent ones are discussed. (However, see Phillipson, in press, p. 371, for a argument that the learning of English in whatever way for whatever time is a tragedy; Gandhi is alleged to have said: ‘To give millions a knowledge of English is to enslave us’.)

2. Time dedicated to language learning is inadequate

The school curriculum is crowded, so as a general rule, language instruction is introduced into rather inflexible academic schedules at something like 3 to 5 class hours (i.e. 50 minute-hours) per week during the 20 or so weeks of an academic term or twice that amount for an academic year of about 40 weeks: that is, 5 classes × 50 min × 40 weeks = 10,000 min (or about 167 h of total instruction per academic year). Instructional time in primary school may be as little as one or two class hours a week.

Typically, a school student may continue this activity for 4–6 academic years or perhaps for as much as 1000 h total instructional time. While it is true that there has not been a great deal of research to determine the real investment of time necessary to achieve anything like fluency, the actual investment of time would need to be calculated for various groups of learners, based on many variables, including aptitude, attitude, and motivation of learners; the relative age/maturity of learners; and the methods and supporting materials used as well as a number of other variables. To indicate the difference between this typical allocation of instructional time and the somewhat greater duration that might actually be required, consider the implication of intensive instruction of the sort employed in Canada (see, e.g. Swain & Johnson, 1987). Carroll (1963, 1964) has suggested that something like 1000 hours of effective instruction administered over a span not so long that the rate of learning is exceeded by the rate of forgetting (i.e. one academic year) might be reasonable. While Carroll (1974, 1993) does not specify a number of hours normally required, he does specify the appropriate conditions:

Success in learning is a function of whether the student takes the amount of time [she]/he needs to spend on learning a task. The amount of time [she]/he needs to spend is determined by his/[her] aptitude and the quality of instruction [she]/he is offered. Poor quality instruction requires him/[her] to spend more time, particularly if [she]/he had difficulty in understanding instruction. But the amount of time [she]/he actually spends on learning is a function of the amount of time [she]/he is allowed (i.e., his/[her] ‘opportunity to learn’) and his/[her] willingness to spend that time (i.e., his/[her] ‘perseverance’).

It is a reasonably well-documented reality that it may take as long as 10 years to acquire fluency in a language, depending on the degree of difference between the structure of the first language and that of the second. In short, the amount of time allocated in the school curriculum is often grossly inadequate to achieve any sort of fluency.

Many polities in Asia and around the world are attempting to deal with the issue of proficiency by increasing the exposure that students have to language learning (i.e. English) by extending language teaching to primary school (or by even creating language [English] villages where students interact with native speakers of the language, e.g. Song, 2011, for Korea). However, even when time is theoretically adequate – for instance, in Bangladesh where English is taught from Grade 1 to Grade 10 and occupies about 20% of the curriculum – the results may be far from satisfactory (Hamid & Baldauf, 2008, 2011). So while adequate exposure to language teaching is a necessary condition for learning, it is not sufficient in and of itself. Thus, a policy focus which predominantly increases class time (i.e. access policy) without simultaneously addressing related policy issues may not lead to increased levels of proficiency, but rather may lead to a waste of resources. The cost of implementing mother tongue-based multilingual education may significantly lower per-pupil expenditure, but early start may not improve the economic benefits (see, e.g. Vaillancourt & Grin, 2000).

3. Indigenous teacher training is not appropriate or sufficient

Indigenous teacher training does not necessarily prepare teachers to deliver successful instructional programs, nor are in-service programs readily available or accessible to trained teachers. In general, teacher training rarely exceeds four years of instruction; during that time, the trainee is expected to learn the language she/he will teach, the full curriculum required to be certified as a teacher, as well as to gain the practical classroom skills required to teach (Nguyen & Baldauf, 2010). In many countries, teacher training is likely to be considerably shorter; indeed, a year-long program would in many cases be exceptional (see, e.g. Snow, Kamhi-Stein, & Brinton, 2006; Walker, Ranney, & Fortune, 2005).

The problem is bifurcated; partly it reflects the reality that in a poor developing country, English is not a common commodity in the populace and that teacher-training facilities are not sufficient to train teachers simultaneously in a foreign language (FL) and in the basic skills of pedagogy. Furthermore, when foreign aid agencies undertake to supplement teacher-training facilities, they frequently fail to recognize the problems inherent in the polity being helped – in the sense that the perception of the role of education in the polity may be quite different from that presumed by the aid agency. The problem may be additionally multiplied by several other realities. First, most second-language teachers are trained for secondary schools and there may be little or no specific training available for teaching languages at the primary school level, where specifically trained teachers are required, since second-language teaching now implicates basic literacy teaching. Second, many programs have large numbers of language teachers working in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts who require in-service upgrading of methodology and language skills, but such support may not be available. Finally, any teacher or principal opposed to the intent of instruction can delay the teacher-training process indefinitely by simply failing to act (see Hamid, 2010; Li, 2008, for further discussion; for an actual example in Mexico, see, e.g. Patthey-Chavez, 1994).

4. Native speakers can fill the proficiency and availability gap

The myth of the superiority of the native speaker as a language teacher is still widely held (Medgyes, 1994; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). This myth combined with the lack of adequate numbers of indigenous teachers has led some polities to attempt to ameliorate the shortage of language-proficient teachers by importing native speakers of the target language to teach indigenous children. There are several difficulties implicit in implementing such a solution. First, a large number of teachers are likely to be necessary; such a large number of imported teachers may destabilize the population, since imported teachers are not likely to be trained to fit neatly into the local culture. In addition, many of the teachers employed may only be native speakers and may not have undergone teacher training. This is an issue that a number of education authorities in polities have recognized implicitly, as English-speaking teachers are hired primarily as teaching assistants or to teach communication classes, while the core grammar-dominated work is taught by local teachers.

Then, there is the question of remuneration – should the imported teachers be paid less (because they are aliens) or more (because they are native speakers)? In either case, a subclass is created within the teacher population, leading to questions such as:

• Should imported teachers be eligible for promotion within the teacher population?

• Will the presence of a large number of aliens (some of whom may not speak the national language of the host polity) be seen by the domestic teacher population as an irritant?

• What will happen to the imported teachers as they age?

Japan, for example, has experimented with such a solution. Since 1987, the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program has aimed to promote a more communicative teaching approach by providing native-speaker assistant language teachers (ALTs) to assist Japanese teachers with more communicatively oriented activities in middle- and high-school classrooms (see, e.g. JET Programme, 2006). The initial purpose of the JET program was to promote international relationships, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs continues to believe that the main purpose of the JET program remains international exchange, while the Ministry of Education and the local governments view the program primarily as a provider of ALTs. This discrepancy has created a gap between the provider and the receiver in terms of the selection of participants and has muddied up the roles that the ALTs should perform. This program was largely developed because of what is perceived as an important educational problem by both the government and Japanese parents. With the progress of globalization in the Japanese economy and in Japan’s society, it is thought to be essential that Japanese children acquire communication skills in English, which has become a common international language, in order to live in the twenty-first century. This issue has become extremely important both in terms of the future of Japanese children and in terms of the further development of Japan as a nation. At present, the English-speaking abilities of a large percentage of the Japanese population are perceived to be inadequate. This situation is thought to impose restrictions on exchanges with foreigners and creates occasions when the ideas and opinions of Japanese people are not appropriately evaluated (see, e.g. Kaplan, 2000).

Thus, when programs are implemented, they must address issues of personnel policy, both in terms of their training and re-training (i.e. in-service) and in terms of the numbers available, and where they might come from. As such, personnel policy issues implicate funding, availability, and training, and these are issues that need to be adequately addressed in many polities.

5. Educational materials may not be sufficient or appropriate

Samuel Daniel voiced the following thoughts in his poem, Musophitis, in 1599:

And who in time knows wither we may vent

The treasure of our tongue, to what strange shores

This gain of our best glory shall be sent.

To enrich unknowing nations without store?

Which worlds in the yet unformed Occident

May come refined with the accents that are ours

Not much has changed in the thinking of English speakers over the past 400 years. On the contrary, the idea that English should be an international language has been extended by the desires of parents in developing countries. The teaching of English to speakers of other languages has become an enormous industry. Because of the global distribution of English and because it is being taught in so many places, English is no longer the exclusive property of English speakers. Many new varieties of English have developed/are developing – for example, Indian English, Nigerian English, Philippine English (English as a second language (ESL) varieties), Japanese English, Hong Kong English (EFL varieties), or Singaporean English (ESL/EFL varieties). These Englishes are not exactly like metropolitan English (i.e. that spoken, with relatively minor differences, in Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Notes on Contributors
• 1. Why educational language plans sometimes fail
• 2. Singapore’s E(Si)nglish-knowing bilingualism
• 3. English in primary education in Malaysia: policies, outcomes and stakeholders’ lived experiences
• 4. Compulsory ‘foreign language activities’ in Japanese primary schools
• 5. Shaping socialist ideology through language education policy for primary schools in the PRC
• 6. Parents’ perspectives on the effects of the primary EFL education policy in Taiwan
• 7. Primary English language education policy in Vietnam: insights from implementation
• 8. Linguistic capital: continuity and change in educational language polices for South Asians in Hong Kong primary schools
• 9. Beyond the façade of language planning for Nepalese primary education: monolingual hangover, elitism and displacement of local languages?
• 10. Timor-Leste: sustaining and maintaining the national languages in education
• 11. Success or failure of primary second/foreign language programmes in Asia: what do the data tell us?
• Index