Instructional Conditions for Trilingual Learning

7/30/2019 Instructional Conditions for Trilingual Learning

1/17

This article was downloaded by: [Sheffield Hallam University]On: 23 August 2012, At: 21:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of

Bilingual Education and

BilingualismPublication details, including instructions for

authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Instructional Conditions for

Trilingual DevelopmentJim Cummins

Version of record first published: 26 Mar 2010

To cite this article: Jim Cummins (2001): Instructional Conditions for Trilingual

Development, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4:1,

61-75

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050108667719

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050108667719http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20


2/17

damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloadedb

y[SheffieldHallamUniversity]at21:3123August

2012


3/17

InstructionalConditionsforTrilingualDevelopment

JimCummins

University of Toronto, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, 252 Bloor Street

West, Toronto, Canada M5S 1V6

This paper outlines a framework for academic language learning that highlights theimportance of focusing instructionally on meaning, language, and use. Academiclanguage learning refers to the learning of the language registers in L1, L2 or L3required to function successfully in school contexts where these languages are beingused for instruction of academic content. As such, knowledge of academic language isintertwined with both the concepts taught in school and the cognitive processesrequired to carryout academic tasks. The research reviewed in the paper suggests thatin order to develop students academic language proficiency in bilingual or trilingualcontexts, instructionmust focusextensivelyon the processingofcomprehensibleinput(meaning). This will entail encouraging students to read extensively in the targetlanguage inan increasingrangeof genres.Additionally, however, thereisan importantplace for focusing on language itself in order to demystify how language works,explore cross-linguisticrelationships, anddevelop studentsawarenessof the intersec-tions of language and power in human discourse. Finally, actual use of the targetlanguage in oral and written modes consolidates the internalisation of the code andenables students to express their identitiesand intelligence in powerful ways through

the language.

Introduction

There is a striking contrastbetween the typically laboriousprocess of teachingand learning second and third languages at school and the relative ease withwhich multilingualism is acquired in naturalistic settings when thesociolinguistic conditions are right (see Baker & Prys Jones, 1998 for many exam-ples). In these multilingual contexts, it is usually assumedby the population thatchildren will acquire the local or regional languages spoken in their environmentand a language of wider communication in the school. All of these languagesplay significant roles in the community and thus motivation to acquire them isusually notproblematic forchildren. By contrast, in traditionalsecond or foreignlanguage instruction in school, the rewards are deferred (e.g. better job pros-pects) and motivation is often lacking because the target language has no imme-diate or intrinsic relevance to students lives. 1

In thispaper I examine how wecan changethe conditions for second and thirdlanguage instruction in school so that the process becomes less laborious and

more successful for both students and teachers. There is general agreementamong applied linguists that sufficient comprehensible input is a necessary condi-tion for acquisition of a second or third language. The notion of comprehensibleinput, popularised by Krashen (1982), refers to the processing of meaning in thetarget language. Exposureby itself isnot enough it mustbe exposure that learn-ers can understand. Krashen argued that comprehensible input was not only anecessary condition but also a sufficient condition for target language acquisi-

1367-0050/01/01 0061-15 $10.00/0 2001 J. CumminsInternational Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Vol. 4, No. 1, 2001

61

Downloadedb


2012


4/17

tion. In other words, comprehensible input is the causal variable that determinesthe extent to which the second language acquisition process is more or lesssuccessful.

Apparently persuasive evidence for this strong version of what Krashentermed the input hypothesiscamefrom the fact that in naturalistic acquisition-richcontexts children are capable of acquiring native-like fluency in additionallanguages without formal instruction or any explicit focus on teaching thelanguage itself. Similarly, there is strong evidence (e.g. Krashen, 1993) thatcomprehensible input through extensivereading in thesecond language (L2) canbe highly effective in promoting L2 proficiency.

These considerations have led Krashen to downplay the role of formal teach-ing of the target language (e.g. teaching of grammaticalrules or vocabulary). Hehas also argued that use of the target language is not an essential aspect of the

acquisition process. Speaking and writing are relevant primarily as a means ofgenerating more comprehensible input within communicativecontexts. Writingalso has the important additional function of promoting cognitive growth butdoes not contribute directly to acquisition of the target language.

According to this theoretical perspective, in order to create conditions formore successful second or third language acquisition, educators must expandopportunities for students to receive comprehensible input in written or oralmodalities in these languages. If development of literacy in the target languagesis a goal, then extensive reading in these languages is crucial.

I believe that Krashen (1982, 1993) has appropriately highlighted the centralimportance of comprehensible input in the process of second andthird languageacquisition. However, an instructional focus only on the processing of meaning(comprehensible input) does not adequately capture other important contribu-tors to the teaching of language. One consideration is that in typical instructionalsettings involving the teaching of two or three languages (L1 + L2 + L3), there isinsufficient time to provide sufficient comprehensible input in the variouslanguages in either oral or written modalities. A focus only on comprehensible

input may be less efficient than a focus that combines provision of comprehensi-ble input with an explicit focus on demystifying how the target language works,togetherwitha focus onencouragingactive use of the target language inoral andwritten modalities.

Evidence that comprehensible input by itself maynotbe a sufficient conditionfor L2 acquisition comes from French immersion programmes in Canada whereextensive comprehensible input in the target language results neither in thedevelopment of native-like lexical range nor in the internalisationof an adequatesyntactical model of the language (Swain, 1997). Swain (1997) emphasises the

importance ofcomprehensible output as an adjunct to comprehensible input inhelping students become aware of the structure of the target language andcompetence in itsuse. It is interesting tonote thatEnglish L1 students who attendFrench-language schools in Montreal do develop fully native-like fluency inFrench (Macnamara et al., 1976) because of the much wider range of targetlanguage registers they areexposed to (e.g. from peer interaction) in comparisonto the restricted classroom registers in the French immersion context whereexposure to French outside the classroom is usually minimal or non-existent.This suggests that in sociolinguistic and educational contexts where it is not

62 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Downloadedb


2012


5/17

possible to provide access to sufficient comprehensible input in the targetlanguage students may benefit from other instructional strategies that augmentthe impact of comprehensible input.

In the frameworkdescribed below, I argue for an instructionalfocus on devel-oping a critical awareness of language among students. I also suggest that instruc-tion should include an explicit focus on use of the target language. The claim thatthese instructional foci will contribute in a causal way to second and thirdlanguageacquisition isbased asmuch on socioculturalandsociopoliticalconsid-erations as on narrowly defined applied linguistics considerations. I argue that itis importantto demystifyhow variousregisters of the target languagework,andto provide a framework within which students can harvest the language, in orderto enable students to use the language powerfully to expand their cognitive,personal, and linguistic resources. Use of the target language for significant

purposes is capable of amplifying students sense of self their image of whothey are and who theycanbecome and this in turn constitutesa powerful moti-vator for language acquisition. This isparticularly thecasefor linguisticminoritystudents whoseL1often occupiesa lower rung in thesocial status hierarchy thanthe socially dominant language of the country and/or the language of widercommunication.

Thus, historicaland current societalpower relationsare inevitably implicatedin bilingual and trilingual instruction that involves students from linguisticminority backgrounds. These power relations exert a dramatic impact on class-

room instruction and the academic success of minority students (Cummins,1996). I have argued that students from historically subordinated groups willsucceed academically when teacher-student classroom interactions challengethe historical pattern of subordination and affirm students identities by meansof a transformative pedagogy.

Transformative pedagogy uses collaborative critical inquiry to enablestudents to analyse and understand the social realities of their own lives and oftheir communities. Students discuss, and frequently act on ways in which these

realities mightbe transformedthrough variousforms of socialaction.Instructionaims to go beyond the sanitised curriculum that is still the norm in most schoolsin teaching both firstandsecond languages. It strives to develop a critical literacywhich Ira Shor (1992: 129) has defined as follows:

Habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneathsurface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronounce-ments, traditional clichs, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to under-stand the deep meaning, rootcauses, social context, ideology, and personalconsequences of any action, event, object, process, organisation, experi-ence, text, subject matter, policy, mass media, or discourse.

In short, critical literacy reflects the analytic abilities involved in cuttingthrough the surface veneer of persuasive arguments to the realities underneathand analysing the methods and purposes of particular forms of persuasion. Iargue that transformative pedagogy aimed at developing critical literacy isparticularly important in promoting academic development among minoritystudents from historically subordinated communities.

Thus, the framework outlined below acknowledges and incorporates

Instructional Conditions for Trilingual Development 63

Downloadedb


2012


6/17

Krashens emphasis on comprehensible input, which I term a focus on meaning,but adopts a broader perspective on the conditions for successful languageacquisition that does not make a rigid distinction between linguistic, cognitive,and sociocultural/sociopolitical factors. Accordingly, a focus on use is consid-ered important for target language acquisition (or a causal factor) not onlybecause it may contribute directly to students knowledge of various aspects ofthe language, as Swain (1997) has suggested, but also because it promotes cogni-tive abilities intimately associated with language (what I have termed cognitiveacademic language proficiency or CALP). In addition, successful written and oraluse of the target language in authentic contexts affirms students identities asvalued members of both the classroom and wider communities.

InstructionalFocusonMeaning,LanguageandUse

Pedagogical fashion in both secondlanguage teachingandliteracy instruction(in L1 and L2) has vacillated between the relative emphasis on explicit teachingof the formal features of the language or written code and the emphasis on theprocessing of meaning. The grammar/translation method and audiolingualapproach exemplified a linguistic code emphasis in L2 pedagogy while variantsof communicative or natural approaches reflect an emphasis on the primacy ofmeaningful communication in the L2. The degree to which explicit correctivefeedback should be provided to learners is one of several disputed issues thatreflect these differing emphases. Within the field of literacy teaching, phonicsand whole-language advocates continue to battle it out across North Americaand in other contexts with the battlelines drawn around the same issue of therelative emphasis on code or meaning.

The framework outlined in Figure 1 attempts to bypass these debates byaffirming the importance of an instructional focus on meaning, language, anduse in both language and literacy instruction. If the development of both orallanguage and literacy skills in L1, L2 and L3 is an objective of the programme,


A. FOCUS ON MEANING

Making Input ComprehensibleDeveloping Critical Literacy

B. FOCUS ON LANGUAGE

Awareness of Language Forms and UsesCritical Analysis of Language Forms and Uses

C. FOCUS ON USE

Using Language to:Generate New KnowledgeCreate Literature and Art

Act on Social Realities

Figure 1 Instruction for language learning and academic achievement

Downloadedb


2012


7/17

then reading and writing in the target languages should be integrated into theinstruction from an early stage. Thus, in bilingual (or trilingual) programmes forlinguistic minority students academic achievement (literacy) in the sociallydominant language is alwaysa centralgoalwhereas insomecases oral fluency instudents L1, rather than full literacy in that language, may be considered suffi-cient. For example, many indigenous languages do not have a well-developedwritten tradition or extensive literature that would make the development ofliteracy in the indigenous language a meaningful goal (e.g. Harris, 1990). Thus,depending on the sociolinguistic context and objectives of the bilingual or trilin-gual programme, the instructional activities relating to meaning, language, anduse may vary in the extent to which they involve and attempt topromote literacyin addition to oral fluency in each of the target languages.

The framework is intended to provide a general guide to the implementation

of pedagogy that will effectively promote second language learners linguisticand cognitive development as well as encourage the growth of critical literacyskills (in at least one of the target languages). It assumes that for optimal progressto occur, cognitive challenge and intrinsic motivation must be infused into theinteractions between teachers and students. Also, it assumes that atransformative pedagogical orientation is a necessary condition for optimalacademic development among historically subordinated minority groupstudents.

FocusonMeaningThe starting point of the framework is to acknowledge that effective instruc-

tion in a second language must focus initially on meaning or messages. Virtuallyall applied linguists agree that access to sufficient comprehensible input in thetarget language is a necessary condition for language acquisition; most appliedlinguists,however, alsoassigna role to (1) a focus on formal featuresof the targetlanguage, (2) development of effective learning strategies, and (3) actual use ofthe target language. These components are incorporated in the Focus on

Language and Focus on Use components of the framework.The Focus on Meaning component argues that the interpretation of the

construct ofcomprehensible input must go beyond just literal comprehension.Depth of understandingof conceptsandvocabularyaswell ascritical literacy areintrinsic to the notion of comprehensible input when we are talking about thedevelopment of academic language proficiency. This implies a process wherebystudents relate textual and instructional meanings to their own experience andprior knowledge (i.e. activate their cognitive schemata), critically analyse theinformation in the text (e.g. evaluate the validity of various arguments or propo-

sitions), and use the results of their discussions and analyses in some concrete,intrinsicallymotivatingactivityorproject (e.g. makinga video orwritinga poemor essay on a particular topic). In short, for learning of academic content, thenotion ofcomprehensible input must move beyond literal, surface-level compre-hension to a deeper level of cognitive and linguistic processing.

The following scheme (Figure 2) incorporates aspects of the experi-ence-text-relationship (ETR) approach (Au, 1979) as well as Adas (1988a, 1988b)creative reading approach as a way of elaborating on what a focus on meaning


Downloadedb


2012


8/17

entails. The scheme attempts to show how interpersonal spaces can be createdbetween teachers and students that encourage students to share and amplifytheir experience within a collaborativeprocessof critical inquiry. Each of the fivephases below progressively opens up possibilities for the articulationandampli-fication ofstudent voice. Thetexts thatare the focus of the interactioncanderivefrom any curricular area or from newspapers, popular songs, or current events.The process is equally applicable to students at any grade level and the phasescan be intertwined rather than follow a strict sequence. The process is alsoappli-cable to instruction in any of the target languages within a bilingual or trilingualprogramme. A basic assumption is that collective action to transform aspects ofour social realities results in a deeper understanding of those realities.

Much conventional reading instructionhas focused only on the literal phaseoron comprehensible input ina verynarrowsense.The experiential,personal,critical,and creative phases are essential if we are to speak of knowledge generation ortransformative pedagogy rather than just transmission of information.

Experientialphase

There is extensive research showing the relationship of prior knowledge toreading comprehension (e.g. Carrell, 1988; Dochy et al., 1999). Activatingstudents prior knowledge serves several important functions in promotingreading comprehension. First, it makes the learning process more efficient sincewe learn by integrating new input into our existing cognitive structures or sche-mata. Our prior experience provides the foundation for interpreting new infor-mation. Finding out what students know about a particular topic (e.g. through


1. Experiential Phase. Activate prior knowledge and build backgroundknowledge; For example, in a science unit on photosynthesis, teachersand students brainstorm on What makes plants grow?

2. Literal Phase. Focus is on information containedin the text; Typicalques-tions might be: When, where, how, did it happen? Who did it? Why?

3. Personal Phase. Students relate textual information to their own experi-ences and feelings; Teachers mightask: Have you ever seen (felt, experi-enced) something like this? Have you ever wanted something similar?

4. Critical Phase. Critical analysis of issues or problems arising from thetext; involves drawing inferences and exploring generalisations.Teachers mightask: Is what this person saidvalid?Always? Under whatconditions? etc. Are there any alternatives to this situation?

5. Creative Phase. Translating the results of previous phases into concreteaction; How can the problem or issues be resolved? What role can weplay in helping resolve the problem. This phase might involve drama,role play, letters to editor, school principal, etc., web site or newsletter

publication of research/analysis/art, etc.

Figure 2 From comprehensible input to critical literacy

Downloadedb


2012


9/17

brainstorming) allows the teacher to supply relevant concepts or vocabulary thatsome orall students maybe lacking but which will be importantfor understand-ing the upcoming text or lesson.

In addition to making the learning process moreefficient, activatingstudentsprior knowledge also:

permits teachers to get to know their students better as individuals withunique personal histories and cultural experiences;

creates a context in the classroom where students cultural knowledge isexpressed, shared and validated, thereby motivating students to partici-pate more actively in the learning process.

In short, activating students prior knowledge affirms students identities whilesimultaneously increasing the effectiveness of the teaching/learning relation-ship.

LiteralPhase

In this phasethe focus of interactionisonthe informationcontainedin the text.Teachers ask questions such as: where, when, how, did it happen? who did it?why? in order to ensure that students have understood the basic meaning of thetext. Ada points out that adiscussionthat staysat this level suggests that readingis a passive, receptive, and in a sense, domesticating process (1988a:104). Whenthe process is arrested at this level, the focus remains on internalisation of inert

information and/or the practiceof reading skills in an experiential andmotiva-tional vacuum. Instruction remains at a safe distance from any challenge to thesocietal power structure. It promotes comprehensible input only in a verysuperficial way.

Personalphase

After thebasic informationin thetext has been discussed,students are encour-aged to relate it to their own experiences and feelings. Teachers might ask ques-tions such as: Has anything like this ever happened to you or to someone you

know? How did what you read make you feel? Did you like it? Did it make youhappy? Frighten you? What about your family? Ada (1988a: 104) points out thatthis process helps develop childrens self-esteem by showing that their experi-ences and feelings arevalued bythe teacherandclassmates. It alsohelps childrenunderstand that true learning occurs only when the information received isanalysedin thelight ofonesown experiences andemotions.Thisphase deepensstudents comprehension of the text or issues by groundingtheknowledge in thepersonal and collective narratives that make up students histories.

Criticalphase

After children have compared and contrasted what is presented in the textwith their personal experiences, they are ready to engage in a more abstractprocess of critically analysing the issues or problems that are raised in the text.This process involves drawing inferences and exploring what generalisationscan bemade.Appropriatequestions might be: Is itvalid? Always?When? Does itbenefit everyone alike? Are there any alternatives to this situation? Wouldpeople of different cultures (classes, genders) have acted differently? How?


Downloadedb


2012


10/17

Why? When students pursue guided research and critical reflection, they areclearly engaged in a processof knowledge generation; however, they are equallyengaged in a process of self-definition; as they gain the power to think throughissuesthat affect their lives, they simultaneously gain thepower to resist externaldefinitions of who they areandto deconstruct thesociopoliticalpurposes ofsuchexternal definitions. This process is related in obvious ways to the affirmation ofidentity among linguistic minority students.

Creativephase

At this point, the classroom dialogue is oriented towards discovering whatchanges individuals can make to improve their lives or resolve the problem thathas been presented. Let us suppose that students have been researching issuesrelated to environmental pollution. After relating the issues to their own experi-

ence, critically analysing causes and possible solutions, they might decide towrite letters to elected officials, highlight the issue in their class/school newslet-ter in order to sensitiseother students, write and circulatea petition in the neigh-bourhood, write and perform a play that analyses the issue, etc. Once again, thisphase can be seen as extending the pursuit of meaning insofar as when we act totransform aspects of our social realities we gain a deeper understanding of thoserealities.

FocusonLanguage

The Focus on Language component in Figure 1 attempts to put controversialissues such as the appropriate time and ways to teach L2 grammar under theumbrella of Language Awareness. The development of language awarenesswould include not just a focus on formal aspects of the language but also thedevelopment ofcritical language awareness which encompasses exploring therelationships between language and power. Students, for example, might carryout research on the status of different varieties of language (e.g. colloquiallanguage versus formal standard language) and explore critically why one

form is considered by many educators and the general public to be better thanthe other. They might also research issues such as code-switching and the func-tions it plays within their own lives and their bilingual communities. Or theymightanalyseletters to theeditor onbilingual education andinquire why certainkinds of letters tend to get published while others do not.

In short, a focus on formal featuresof the target languageshould be integratedwith critical inquiry into issues of language and power. Also, to be effective, afocus on language must be linked to extensive input in the target language (e.g.through reading) and extensive opportunities for written and oral use of the

language.A number ofscholars and educators have focused on the importance of devel-

oping language awareness not only as a means of demystifying language andhow it works but also as a way of reinforcing students sense of identity. LisaDelpit (1998), for example, talks about encouraging African American speakersof Ebonics to become language detectives investigating similarities and differ-ences between their own vernacular and other forms of English such as thatfound in school texts. For example, groups of students can work together to


Downloadedb


2012


11/17

create bilingual dictionaries of their own language forms and Standard English.A significant goal is to reinforce students understanding that their language islegitimate and powerful in its context of use but that other forms of English arenecessary in different contexts of use. She also illustrates how an affirmation ofidentity can be associatedwith a focus on language by referring to thepractice ofa teacher who has her middle school students (Grades 78) listen to rap songs inorder to develop a rule base for their creation:

The students would teach her their newly constructed rules for writingrap, and she would in turn use this knowledge as a base to begin a discus-sion of the rules Shakespeare used to construct his plays, or the rules poetsused to develop their sonnets. (Delpit, 1995: 67)

Figure 3 outlines some of the activities that would constitute a Focus on

Language within a bilingual or trilingual programme. These activities clearly gobeyond just the teaching of forms and functions of the language. The goal is todevelop among students a culture of inquiry into language and how it works indifferent social situations.

A systematic focus on developing critical language awareness requires thatteachers organise instruction to enable students to harvest the language so that itbecomes available for their use. Computer technology can be useful in helpingstudents (either individually or in groups) to collect, internalise, and consolidate


The structure of language systems (e.g. relationships between soundsand spelling, regional and class-based accents, grammar, vocabulary,etc.).

Ways of accomplishing different functions and purposes of language. Conventions of different musical and literary forms (e.g. rap, rock, folk

music, poetry, haiku, fiction, etc.). Appropriateness of expression in different contexts (cultural conven-

tionsofpoliteness, street language versus school language, the languageof everyday speech versus the language of books, language variety as abadge of identity in groups as diverse as gangs, political parties, fraterni-ties, etc.).

Ways of organising oral or written discourse to create powerful orpersuasive messages (e.g. oratorical speeches, influential written docu-ments, political rhetoric, advertisements, etc.).

Cross-lingual comparisonof languages (e.g. cognates,proverbs, orthog-raphy, etc.).

Diversity of language use in both monolingual and multilingualcontexts (code-switching in bilingual communities, language mainte-nance and loss in families, political controversies surrounding language[e.g. bilingual education,statusandacceptability ofdifferent varietiesof

language, the spread of English as a global lingua franca, etc.]).

Figure 3 Collaborative inquiry to develop critical language awareness

Downloadedb


2012


12/17

their knowledge of language and then use it powerfully to extend their intellec-tual horizons and personal identities. For example, along the lines suggested byNorahMcWilliams (1998) word-weaving project, students could set up templatesin computer files to enter words that they have come across in their reading oreveryday experiences that they want to explore. A variety of categories could beentered along the left-hand side of the page and students could use variousresources and strategies to complete the database as illustrated in Figure 4 (e.g.brainstorming, use of conventional or electronic dictionaries or thesauri, world-wide web pages devoted to language issues, discussionwith parentsor teachers,etc.). Obviously, computers are notnecessary to carry out this type of activity (asillustrated in McWilliams work) but the technology, if available, wouldcertainly increase the scope and impact of this kind of work and permit easyupdating of the file as new aspects or dimensions of the words are discovered.

The kind of information that might be gathered is illustrated in Figure 4 for theword Big. Wordexploration files could be printed out for each group member attheend of theweek andshared withparentsand otherfamilymembers. Studentscould be encouraged to use words they have discovered in their own writing(e.g. rather than using big, use one of the more vivid synonyms).


Word: Big

Grammatical Category: adjective

Synonyms: huge, gigantic, enormous, vast, mammoth, immense, gargan-tuan, large, massive, great, grand (e.g. on a grand scale), extensive, bulky

Antonyms: small, little, tiny, miniscule, petite, insignificant, etc.

L1 Equivalents: grande (in Spanish)

Idioms: His eyes were bigger than his stomach

Metaphoric Usage: She has a big heart (= shes generous)Big Brother is watching you!

Hes gotten too big for his boots;Hes got a big mouth;Thats big of you! (sarcastic)

Categories: big, bigger, biggest

Usage: The big issue of the presidential campaign is

*****Other categories might include:

Jokes/Puns/Advertisments

HomonymsProverbsCognates/Related Words in L1Related Root WordsGraphic (drawn by child or from clip art)

Figure 4 Big words for big minds: collecting language specimens

Downloadedb


2012


13/17

This type of languageexplorationstrategyis likely to be particularlyfruitful inexploring more complexwordswhere theroot is joined with a varietyof prefixesand suffixes that behave in predictable ways across languages. For example,European languages that derive from Latin and Greek have many cognates incommon and charts such as the following for the word predict could becompared across languages (Figure 5). For example, most of the words in thechart have very similar cognates in Spanish, French, and other Romancelanguages and the prefixes carry similar semantic weights in the differentlanguages.

In addition to exploring cognate connections across languages in examplessuch as the one depicted above, students can compare the similarity acrosslanguages in the way abstract nouns are formed from verbs (e.g. contradict,contradiction, etc.).

The point of harvesting the language in the manner suggested above is tomake it available for students to use in their own production of language. This isconsidered in the next section.

FocusonUse

The Focus on Use component is based on the notion that L2 acquisition willremain abstract and classroom-bound unless students have the opportunity toexpress themselves their identities and their intelligence through thatlanguage. There is convincing evidence that target language use contributes to

acquisition of that language (Swain, 1997) but the primary focus here is on theimportance of language use for overall literacy development and identity affir-mation.

In order to motivate language use there should ideally be an authentic audi-ence that encourages two-way communication in both oral and written modes.The three examples of language use presented in Figure 1 (generate new knowl-edge, create literature and art, act on social realities) are intended to illustrate impor-tant components of critical literacy. Language must be used to amplify studentsintellectual,aesthetic,and social identities if it is to contribute to student empow-


jurisdiction contradict contradiction diction

dictate edict

dictator dictumdictionary PREDICT dictatorial

dictation prediction

indict predictable

verdict

unpredictable

benediction valediction valedictorian vindictive

Figure 5 Exploring cross-lingual aspects of the Graeco-Latin lexicon

Downloadedb


2012


14/17

erment, understood as the collaborative creation of power (Cummins, 1996,2000). Unless active and authentic language use for these purposes is promotedin the classroom, students grasp of academic and conversational aspects of thetarget language is likely to remain shallow and passive.

Clearly, a major aspect of the Focus on Use in bilingual and trilingualprogrammes involves writing across curricular areas. Observations by the staffof the highly successful Oyster Bilingual School in Washington DC highlight theimportanceof writing foracademic achievement in general but alsomorespecifi-cally for performance on the SAT-9 standardised test:

Further analysis of test scores on a class-by-class basis indicated that theteachers who were most successful in raising test scores provided a verystrong writing program for their students. Schoolwide priorities this yearinclude reading 25 books a year and writing two books, one in English, onein Spanish. We will hold, for the first time, a Young Authors Night wherestudents will have the opportunity to read their books to parents and toother students a schoolwide Writing Process is being implementedacross all classes and grades. Teachers are required to implement the Writ-ingProcess to enable students to write two books. (OysterBilingual School,1999: 4 [see also Freeman, 1998])

Here again, we see the positive effects of integrating students sense of selfwith active language use and engagement with literacy. A student who sees

herself as a Young Author, capable of writing creatively in two or threelanguages, will read more extensively and write more enthusiastically than onewho is confined to a passive role within the classroom.

Another example of a language use activity that clearly promotes identityexploration together with literacy skills development is the writing of criticalautobiographies in which culturally- and linguistically-diverse students writeabout experiences and events in their lives (e.g. Brisk, 1998). Brisk points out thatin writing the autobiographies students should examine and discuss their lives

from a variety of perspectives: linguistic, cultural, political, economic, sociologi-cal and psychological, and try to understand why things are the way they are. Inthe course of class discussion exploring various themes, teachers can ask ques-tions to students to probe deeper into issues. Parents can also be interviewed forrelevant information and resources (e.g. photographs).

A variation of the critical autobiography is to have pairs of students collabo-rate to write each others biography. In some cases, a more fluent speaker of thetarget language will collaboratewith a less fluent student to construct and writethe biography of the less fluent student. Publication of the biographies in paper

or electronic (e.g. class web page) format can also be pursued for sharing with awider audience (e.g. parents, other students, etc.).

Students can be encouraged towrite in their stronger language andthen workwith other students or the teacher or a volunteer to produce a bilingual or trilin-gual text. Edwards documents how this process simultaneously develops writ-ing expertise and affirms bilingual students identities:

While it is clearly very difficult for language learners to write in English inthe early stages, there is no reason why they cannot draft, revise and edit in


Downloadedb


2012


15/17

their first language. This approach allowsthem to develop their skills whilejoining in the same activity as their peers. It can also enhance their status inthe class. Instead of emphasising what they cannot do, the focus shifts totheir achievements. This is precisely what happened with Julia, a ten yearold girl who had recently arrived from Russia. Classmates and teacher were fascinated by the appearance of the Cyrillic script on the page andvery impressedbyherbeautiful handwriting.A Russian-speakingmemberof staff provided a translation so that she was able to share her story withthe class. (Edwards, 1998: 67)

Another set of examples of language use in the context of transformativepedagogy comes from the computer-mediated sister class projects documentedby Brown (1999), Cummins and Sayers (1995) and Brown et al. (1998). Brown, forexample, describes a project dubbed New Places by the participating classes inwhich students who had moved described their experiences. Students whohadnt moved interviewed peers at their schoolabout how they were received intheir new schools and communities. Students from a dozen countries wereinvolved in this project, including those who had moved from rural China toBeijing, African Americans who had moved from the south to the north withinthe United States,and immigrant students who had moved from many countriesto the United States. Students investigated what motivates migration and howpeople from different cultural, racial, and linguistic backgrounds were received

by their new communities. Brown (1999: 312) concludes:One of the outcomes of this project was that together the students analysedthe linguistic, cultural, and institutional barriers at their schools and drewup guidelines for teachers and students about how to make their schoolsbetter places for newcomers. The idea that collaborative problem solvingmight make the world a better place motivates much online learning.

Onceagain, it isclear how the powerof a project such asthisderives from its dualand complementary focus on knowledge generation and identity negotiation.

Conclusion

A frameworksuch as thatoutlinedinFigure 1 canbeused byeducatorsalmostas a simple checklist to think about their own instruction and the extent to whichstudents in bilingual and trilingual programmes are being given opportunitiesfor both knowledge generation and identity affirmation. Each of the Focus areascan beviewed throughthese two lens and,as they lookbackona week with theirstudents, educators should be able to identify the activities that fell into each

category (Meaning, Language, and Use) and the ways in which these activitiescontributed to students identity formation and learning of academic content. Atransformativeorientation is built into each of the three Focus areas by means ofthe specification ofcritical literacy, critical language awareness, and acting on socialrealities as core components of a focus on meaning, language, and use respec-tively.

The approach advocated here implies that, where it is sociolinguisticallyappropriate, a strong emphasis on reading and writing in the teaching of bilin-gual and trilingual skills will promote language proficiency. However, there is


Downloadedb


2012


16/17

also an important role for focusing directly on language and having studentscarry out projects aimed at enabling them to harvest the language and use itpowerfully to extend their personal and intellectual horizons. Students fromhistorically subordinated groups will benefit particularly from a transformativepedagogical orientation that is willing to identify and challenge manifestationsof coercive relationsof power (e.g. the stigmatised statusof certainnon-standardvarieties of language).

In short, in designing contexts of acquisition for the development of bilingualand trilingual skills, the provision of comprehensible input in the targetlanguages is only a starting point. In order to engage students to their cognitivemaximum and deepen their understanding of language and content, compre-hensible input must be transformedinto critical literacy. Language must becomean object of fascination and excitement, and students must be given ample

opportunities to use their languages for authentic communication, collectiveknowledge generation, and affirmation of personal identities.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Professor Jim Cummins, Univer-sity of Toronto, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, 252 Bloor Street West,Toronto, Canada M5S 1V6 ([email protected]).

Note

1. The significance of a facilitating sociolinguistic context is illustrated by the multilingualaccomplishments of developmentally disabled adolescents in Kenya. JamieCandelaria-Greene (1996), a special educator and student teacher supervisor fromCalifornia who taught at Jacaranda School in Nairobi documented the fact that thesementally handicapped students were speaking an average of three languages at simi-lar fluency rates Thus, students spoke English as a second or third language as wellas they might speak Kiswahili, Gujerati, or Kikuyu. As an instructor in both countries[USA and Kenya], I found that the Kenyan students, with Down Syndrome for exam-ple, demonstrated receptive and expressive language proficiency in their thirdlanguage (English) equivalent to that of the US monolingual English students with

Down Syndrome (Candelaria-Greene, 1996: 550).In rural areas, the childrens L1 (tribal language) would be used in the home and forthe development of literacy skills in lower elementary classes. Kiswahili (the nationallanguage) would be used for initial instruction in lower elementary classes in mixedlanguage areas where it serves as the lingua franca. English (the official language) isused for academic instruction from upper elementary on and there is also exposurethrough television and other media outlets.Candelaria-Greene concludes that where multilingualism and the various culturesthey represent are valued by the society, and where there is a continued expectationand need for multilingualism to continue, students can and do manage secondlanguages as well as they handle their first language, regardless of handicappingcondition (p. 560).

References

Ada, A.F. (1988a) The Pajaro Valley experience: Working with Spanish-speaking parentsto develop childrens reading and writing skills in the home through the use ofchildrens literature. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and J. Cummins (eds) Minority Education:From Shame to Struggle (pp. 223-238). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Ada, A.F. (1988b) Creative reading: A relevant methodology for language minority


Downloadedb


2012


17/17

children. In L.M. Malave(ed.)NABE 87.Theory,ResearchandApplication:SelectedPapers(pp. 97-111) Buffalo: State University of New York.

Au, K.H. (1979) Using the experience-text-relationship method with minority children.Reading Teacher 32, 677-679.

Baker, C. and Prys Jones, S. (1998) Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Brisk, M.E. (1998) Bilingual Education: From Compensatory to Quality Schooling. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, K. (1999) Global learning networks: Heartbeats on the Internet. In J.V. Tinajeroand R.A. DeVillar (eds) The Power of Two Languages 2000 (pp. 309-319). New York:McGraw-Hill School Division.

Brown, K., Cummins, J., Figueroa, E. and Sayers, D. (1998) Global learning networks:Gaining perspective on our lives with distance. In E. Lee, D. Menkart and M.Okazawa-Rey (eds) Beyond Heroes and Holidays: A Practical Guide to K-12 Anti-Racist,Multicultural Education and Staff Development (pp.334354).Washington, DC: Networkof Educators on the Americas.

Candelaria-Greene, J. (1996) A paradigm for bilingual special education in the USA:Lessons from Kenya. Bilingual Research Journal 20, 545-564.

Carrell, P.L. (1988) SLA and classroom instruction: Reading. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics 9, 223-242.

Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society.Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. andSayers, D. (1995)BraveNewSchools:ChallengingCultural IlliteracyThroughGlobal Learning Networks. New York: St. Martins Press.

Delpit, L. (1995) Other Peoples Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: TheNew Press.Delpit, L. (1998) Ebonics and culturally responsive instruction. In T. Perry and L. Delpit

(eds) The Real Ebonics Debate (pp. 1726). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.Dochy, F., Segers, M., and Buehl, M.M. (1999) The relation between assessment practices

andoutcomesof studies: The case ofresearch onprior knowledge. ReviewofEducationalResearch 69, 145-186.

Edwards, V. (1998) The Power of Babel: Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms.Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.

Freeman, R.D. (1998) Bilingual Education and Social Change. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

Harris, S. (1990) Two Way Aboriginal Schooling: Education and Cultural Survival. Canberra:Aboriginal Studies Press.

Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York:Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1993) The Power of Reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.MacNamara, J., Svarc, J. and Horner, S. (1976) Attending a primary school of the other

language in Montreal. In A. Simoes (ed.) The Bilingual Child (pp. 113-131).New York:Academic Press.

McWilliam, N. (1998)Whats in a Word? VocabularyDevelopmentin MultilingualClassrooms.Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

Oyster Bilingual School (1999) Local School Plan. Oyster Bilingual School.Shor, I. (1992) Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.Swain, M. (1997) Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning.

Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 34, 115-132.


Downloadedb


2012

Documents

Instructional Conditions for Trilingual Learning