Preview Language Rich: Insights from Multilingual Schools

Language Rich Insights from Multilingual Schools Stuart Shaw, Helen Imam and Sarah Hughes

University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

Information on this title: education.cambridge.org/ Š Cambridge International Examinations 2015 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2015 Printed in the United Kingdom by Printondemand-worldwide, Peterborough A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Includes bibliographical references and index isbn 13-9781316603451 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Information regarding prices, travel timetables, and other factual information given in this work is correct at the time of first printing but Cambridge University Press does not guarantee the accuracy of such information thereafter.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

About the authors

vii ix

Foreword by Gwyn Lewis

xi

Preface

xv

Chapter 1

Perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education

1

Chapter 2

Bilingualism and bilingual education: A review of the literature

9

Chapter 3

Key issues in bilingualism and bilingual education relevant to this research

27

Chapter 4

Findings from the language use and bilingual education surveys

35

Chapter 5

Outcomes: Confirmed expectations and new insights

71

Chapter 6

Using Cambridge language awareness research to inform practice

77

Chapter 7

Initiatives to support bilingual learners

95

References

121

Afterword by Peeter Mehisto

131

Index

135

Language Rich: Insights from Multilingual Schools turns the world’s demand for English into an opportunity for bilingualism. Taking bilingual education as the lens through which to examine the teaching of English, the authors make clear that the schools included in their study give evidence of multiple practices in implementing bilingualism in education, and thus open the field to new interpretations.

Ofelia García (The Graduate Center, City University of New York) This timely and lucid volume will be of immense value to the increasing number of schools around the world that are teaching bilingual learners. The authors use survey data from more than 30 countries to document for the first time the range of bilingual and monolingual education configurations operating in schools that offer the Cambridge international curriculum. The insights generated from this research are then transformed into powerful tools for more effective classroom instruction of bilingual learners and for more coherent organisation of school programmes serving these students.

The authors have succeeded admirably in their goal of supporting educators who aspire to turn the increasing demand for English into an opportunity for bilingualism.

James Cummins (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto) This unique publication provides swift access to key issues that educators need to consider in understanding the breadth and scope of bilingual education. It articulates complex issues succinctly and effectively, and identifies key drivers required to realise the benefits of teaching and learning through more than one language.

David Marsh (EduCluster Finland, University of Jyväskylä Group) While we all appreciate the need for bilingualism as a result of globalisation, few of us fully understand the complexities that schools that provide bilingual programmes of instruction face when trying to meet these demands.

Findings from research projects sponsored by Cambridge International Examinations are described in this concise volume that provide unique and important insights into bilingual education, practices and assessment

in multilingual schools around the world. There is a lot of useful, interesting and important information here for educators on professional teacher development assessment in bi/multilingual contexts and CLIL instruction.

Researchers, too, who seek to better understand the nature and effectiveness of bilingual education in its multiple forms, will find much to think about.

Discussions of the nature of academic language in classroom instruction and assessment are particularly important for thinking about what it means to be language proficient in a multilingual school.

Fred Genesee (Professor Emeritus, Psychology Department, McGill University) This is a top-class survey and interpretation of the most modern literature on bilingual schools. Authoritative, highly contemporary and written elegantly by seasoned authors, it is essential for all scholars of bilingual and multilingual education.

Colin Baker (Professor Emeritus, Education Department, Bangor University) The rise of bilingual and multilingual teaching is an educational phenomenon. This invaluable new book provides information and advice to schools across the world delivering their curriculum in more than one language.

Michael O’Sullivan (Chief Executive, Cambridge International Examinations)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are deeply indebted to a great many people.

The Cambridge International Examinations programme of bilingualism and bilingual education research – which underpins this book – has its genesis in work undertaken by our colleague Cristina Rimini (now Project Director, Kazakhstan) and by one of the book’s authors (Stuart Shaw) as long ago as 2007. In crafting a bilingual research agenda for Cambridge International Examinations, the research has subsequently been informed by contributions from the Teaching and Learning Strategy Team headed by Paul Ellis. It has become an evolving agenda.

The authors are especially grateful to Dr Ben Schmidt (Regional Director, Southeast Asia and Pacific), Gerry Delaney (formerly with Cambridge International Examinations and now with Cambridge English Language Assessment), alongside other members of staff. Particular thanks must go to Lauren Harris (Education Officer) and Martin Nuttall (Regional Director, Europe) for their helpful reviews of the text and survey tools.

We are appreciative of the help from our colleagues Nick Mazur (Senior Schools Development Manager – Western Europe) and Ben Forth (formerly Centre Support Manager) in identifying and contacting schools involved in the bilingual research. We also wish to express gratitude to Lynda Bramwell (former Market Research Manager) for managing the online survey software and for administering and distributing the questionnaires. As this book is a joint publication project between Cambridge University Press (CUP) and Cambridge International Examinations, we would like to recognise the work of our colleague Juliet Kennard (Publishing Development Manager) and her team for superintending all contractual issues with professionalism. vii

viii

Stuart Shaw, Helen Imam and Sarah Hughes

In addition, we wish to extend our thanks to the Chief Executive of Cambridge International Examinations, Michael O’Sullivan (and predecessor Ann Puntis), and to the directors, Roderic Gillespie (and predecessor Diane Palmer), Dr Tristian Stobie (and predecessor Dr Kevin Stannard), Janet Morris, Dr Helen Eccles and David Cogger for affording an opportunity to engage with the many complex issues associated with bilingual education and for locating bilingual learners at the heart of what Cambridge International Examinations does.

The authors would like to express their thanks to a number of consultants who contributed to the language awareness research. All highly respected applied linguists within the assessment community, these consultants – Annette Capel, Heather Daldrey and Nancy Sneddon – were chosen for their intimate knowledge of English for speakers of other languages, their familiarity with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, their status as senior examiners and their participation in other, similar research studies.

We are beholden to Dr Neil Jones (formerly of Cambridge English Language Assessment) for providing inspiration and perceptive guidance and knowledge at various stages in our outworking of the bilingual programme of research.

Expert external reviews of the draft text were provided by Dr Gwyn Lewis (former Senior Lecturer and Deputy Head of the School of Education at Bangor University, and former Research Collaborator in the ESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism in Theory and Practice, also at Bangor), and by Dr Peeter Mehisto (visiting research associate at the Institute of Education, University of London). The final text was very much strengthened by their perceptive and scholarly suggestions.

From inception to completion, this publication would not have been possible without the early encouragement and continued professional guidance of the publisher, CUP. In particular, we wish to acknowledge Claudia Bickford-Smith (Director of International Education Business) for her ongoing positive support, Lucy Mills (Publishing Manager, Secondary International Education) for her exemplary handling of the author proposal review process, Paul Sloman (Editor) for coordinating the production process and Kyle Sheldrake (Global Marketing Executive) for communicating the book to appropriate audiences.

And last, but not least, we thank the many schools who responded to our surveys and provided such rich insights. We are indebted to the teachers delivering educational programmes from Cambridge International Examinations for their openness in sharing their experiences and thoughts on bilingual education for the benefit of the wider community.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Stuart Shaw is the Principal Research Officer at Cambridge International Examinations (which is part of Cambridge Assessment). Stuart began his career as an engineer and holds a degree in Physics, a diploma in Applied Physics and a research degree in Metallurgy. His early experience, gained with an international company, covered a range of engineering specialisms.

Following his time in industry, he entered the TEFL world, gaining a certificate and diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and a Master’s degree in applied linguistics. He had several years’ experience as an EFL teacher and Director of Studies. Stuart also holds a postgraduate degree in Theology. Stuart has worked for Cambridge Assessment since January 2001 where he is particularly interested in demonstrating how Cambridge Assessment seeks to meet the demands of validity in its assessments. Before leading a research team in the area of mainstream international examinations, Stuart worked on a range of Cambridge English Language Assessment products with specific skill responsibilities for assessing writing.

Stuart is an experienced presenter and has lectured for the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics and the Faculty of Education, both at the University of Cambridge, where he is an affiliated lecturer. Stuart has a wide range of publications in English second language assessment and educational research journals. Recent books include: Examining Writing: Research and Practice in Assessing Second Language Writing (Shaw & Weir, 2007); The IELTS Writing Assessment Revision Project: Towards a Revised Rating Scale (Shaw & Falvey, 2008); Validity in Educational and Psychological Assessment (Newton & Shaw, 2014). Stuart is a Fellow and a member of the Professional ix

x

Stuart Shaw, Helen Imam and Sarah Hughes

Development Committee of the Association for Educational Assessment in Europe and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors.

Helen Imam has worked with Cambridge International Examinations in a number of roles, first with responsibility for assessment portfolios in English and Humanities, then as Education Manager for teaching and learning initiatives, which included supporting schools and partners with bilingual education, culminating in her most recent role as Senior Assessment Adviser with a special interest in languages. She has a first-class degree in linguistics, a diploma in TESOL and an MA in applied linguistics and TESOL. Before her career with Cambridge International Examinations, Helen worked in North Africa and South Asia as an English as a second language teacher and teacher trainer, intermittently returning to the UK to work in educational and health publishing. Her Cambridge experience includes working with partners in different countries to develop assessments and to support bilingual learners, as well as researching and communicating the language demands of assessments with the aim of maximising fairness and understanding. Her interests include academic language proficiency, strategies used by bilingual learners to achieve in content subjects through a language that is not their first language, trying to demystify research and trying to apply research findings to practical outcomes. She is also a lover of music.

Sarah Hughes is Research Manager at Cambridge International Examinations.

On completing a first degree in applied psychology, Sarah worked at Cambridge Assessment researching the cognitive demands that examination questions place on learners. While at Cambridge Assessment she gained a Master’s degree in educational research from Cambridge University specialising in assessment of problem-solving. She studied for a Postgraduate Certificate of Education in Primary Education with a specialism in mathematics at the Institute of Education, London. Following this she taught in primary schools. Her research experience includes roles in UK and international awarding bodies and government agencies. Sarah is a Practitioner of AEA-Europe. In her current role at Cambridge International Examinations she applies her understanding of assessment research and literature to the improvement of assessment practice. Her recent research focuses on the quality and validity of assessment instruments.

FOREWORD W. Gwyn Lewis

The second half of the twentieth century has seen a significant expansion of bilingual and multilingual education for both majority and minority language children – that is, both for students who are and who are not members of the majority language and culture of the larger national community in which they live and are educated. Internationally, bilingual education practices are becoming increasingly popular, with many – if not the majority – of countries having some form of bilingual education today (Baker, 2015). As we continue to experience new and different bilingual and multilingual educational initiatives – acknowledging the linguistic heterogeneity of children – bilingual education has been transformed into an increasingly solid field of research and application (Abello-Contesse et al., 2013).

Bilingualism and, more specifically, ‘bilingual education’ – deemed ‘a simple label for a complex phenomenon’ (Cazden & Snow, 1990) – has been widely researched as a discipline in recent years, and we have come a long way in our knowledge and understanding of bilingualism and the complexities, intricacies and wonders of the bilingual mind (Thomas & Mennen, 2014), and in establishing what constitutes effective models of bilingual education. But, as Baker (2008) suggests, we seem to be moving away from effective models of bilingual education to effective classroom practices, where two or more languages are either separated for teaching and learning or used concurrently in complex combinations. It is timely, therefore, that we now focus more on engaging with emerging optimal dual language instructional practices and classroom organisation that maximise language development and educational, cognitive advantages for individual children. xi

xii

W. Gwyn Lewis

It is in this context of effective practices – drawing on a recent programme of research undertaken by Cambridge International Examinations – that this book provides much-needed practical insight into how languages are actually understood and used for both teaching and learning ‘on the ground’ in bilingual settings within international schools. The detailed reporting of two online questionnaires – administered in international schools served

by Cambridge International Examinations – highlights some important findings about how language(s) are used in a kaleidoscopic variety of bilingual contexts to enhance learning by meeting the needs of twenty-first century bilingual learners. This, together with other findings from research

by Cambridge International Examinations into the language demands of external assessments, helps further enrich our understanding of emerging effective practices in bilingual education today and the way in which two or more languages interact with each other and affect pupils’ learning and development.

Set against a comprehensive critique of the different models and practices of bilingual education that are emerging in the twenty-first century – especially the way in which recent research has begun to challenge the strict separation of languages in the bilingual classroom (which has characterised many bilingual education programmes in the past) – this book succinctly portrays the educational opportunities and challenges facing the bilingual and multilingual communities served by an international assessment body such as Cambridge International Examinations. Clearly focused and structured, the book in its entirety provides much-needed, valuable and sound practical guidance and support – firmly grounded in bilingual everyday experiences and written in a reader-friendly style – for a variety of practitioners working with learners in various bilingual and multilingual settings.

Adopting both a ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approach, the authors are able to reflect on ways in which the research has confirmed expectations gleaned from the literature, alongside providing new insights for further research and investigation into a range of important practical day-to-day issues.

Valuable and informative quotations by respondents provide further rich insights into the complexities of defining what is meant by bilingual education in the 2010s and what it entails to meaningfully plan and implement the use of languages as media of instruction for non-language content subjects.

Of particular interest and relevance is the discussion on how the research outcomes have informed the construction of a survey tool for practitioners at every level to enable them to carry out their own self-analysis of bilingual practices. This self-service survey tool – with the potential for use in national,

xiii

Foreword

regional or local contexts – will provide invaluable assistance to practitioners in identifying, interpreting and clarifying different bilingual approaches.

This will inevitably lead to providing more refined and bespoke support both for teachers and learners as they develop differentiated strategies for teaching and learning in a variety of bilingual and multilingual settings.

The way in which this book addresses the challenges and opportunities facing bilingual and multilingual education in the twenty-first century makes it a most welcome addition to the growing body of literature in the field, as it successfully combines a theory-based discussion with practitioner-based insights into some of the most current and emerging topical issues. It is a valuable contribution to the discussion on the way in which bilingual education continues to grow and expand ‘as it takes its rightful place as a meaningful way to educate all children and language learners in the world today’ (García, 2009).

Dr W. Gwyn Lewis Formerly at Bangor University

References Abello-Contesse, C., Chandler, P. M., López-Jiménez, M. D. and Chacón-Beltrán, R. (eds) (2013). Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century: Building on experience.

Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. (2008). Postlude. In J. Cenoz and D. Gorter (eds), Multilingualism and minority languages. AILA Review, 21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Baker, C. (2015). Foreword. In P. Mehisto and F. Genesee (eds), Building bilingual education systems: Forces, mechanisms and counterweights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cazden, C. B. & Snow, C. E. (eds) (1990). English plus: Issues in bilingual education. The annals of the American academy of political and social science. London: Sage.

García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A global perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Thomas, E. M. and Mennen, I. (2014). Introduction: Advances in the study of bilingualism.

In E. M. Thomas and I. Mennen (eds), Advances in the study of bilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

PREFACE

English is a global language – a lingua franca or lingua mondo. It is also the medium of instruction and assessment for Cambridge International Examinations’ programmes of learning and assessment. Cambridge international programmes are increasingly offered in a variety of educational and bilingual contexts, and for many international students English is an additional language – their second language (L2), or perhaps their third language (L3). This context can: • make it difficult for students to understand lessons, and access and succeed in examinations in the L2 (English) • cause students and their parents considerable anxiety about the maintenance of their first language (L1) • affect students’ motivation.

However, instead of constituting an impediment, English-medium instruction could be seen as an opportunity to be bilingual if the L1 is also being developed. Rather than leave this to chance, many schools following Cambridge international programmes choose to offer bilingual education programmes in order to develop both languages systematically. Even if schools choose not to offer bilingual programmes, learners can be encouraged to draw upon and share the richness of their own culture and language in class and to continue to use and develop their L1 language skills outside class.

A bilingual education is thought to: • benefit schools on several levels. For example: - It prepares students with language skills in specialised subject contexts (such as physics or maths) to better prepare them for further education. xv

xvi

Stuart Shaw, Helen Imam and Sarah Hughes

- It opens up new areas of professional development for teachers.

- It demonstrates that school leaders have a forward-looking approach and a commitment to L1 as well as L2 development that appeals to school stakeholders and the wider community.

• encourage every learner to be a language learner: - Bilingual learners are often using an L1 at home or in their community and are learning through an L2 at school. Where English is the language of school instruction and assessment, then it is also the medium through which learners access learning and communicate their understanding in some or all of their subjects.

• encourage every teacher to be a language teacher: - Subject teachers delivering lessons in English and preparing learners for assessment in English need to support learners with the language they need in order to achieve in other subjects.

• encourage multilingualism in schools: - Cambridge International Examinations supports the learning of languages through the provision of language curricula. Even where curricula are not available in certain minority languages, or where multilingual schools are not able to teach a large number of minority languages, schools can still support multilingualism by promoting other languages and making use of the L1 as a valuable learning resource in the classroom. It can also create a genuine sense of internationalism.

Bilingual education has been predicted to ‘expand significantly in the near future as a critical mass of policy-makers and educators are becoming aware of the research’ (Professor Jim Cummins, email correspondence to Cambridge International Examinations, March 2011). However, until recently it was not known to what extent bilingual education has been operating within the school community following Cambridge international programmes or, more broadly, how schools have been supporting students who are learning through English as an additional language.

Furthermore, it is not clear whether the international educational community even shares the same concept of a ‘bilingual school’ or a ‘bilingual education’, as exemplified by the following anecdotes from one of the authors of this book (Helen Imam): It is 2001. I read an article which criticises English-medium education as a threat to first languages in a certain region of the world. I feel anxious.

xvii

Preface

It is 2008. I study definitions, descriptions and case studies of ‘bilingual education’ and think I understand, until I start talking to other people in the field …

It is 2009. I am in an assessment meeting with representatives from an overseas ministry of education. Students in their state schools have been taking Cambridge exams in many subjects for decades. Over lunch, I hear that a couple of subjects are taught through the official L1 and also that there are many indigenous L1s spoken by students. The contact point of the business with the client has always been English-medium education and assessments, but perhaps we had been oblivious to an underlying system of bilingual education. How could we better support, and learn from, the educational experiences of this languagerich nation?

It is 2010. We receive a ministry of education delegation from a country interested in introducing ‘bilingual education’ in their country using Cambridge programmes and qualifications for the English-medium part of the programme.

When I ask about the first-language part of the programme, I hear that some students will remain in first-language instruction for all content subjects, while others will learn through English only. So ‘bilingual’ in this instance is really an institutional rather than an individual experience. One of the officials adds that one or two subjects, such as religious studies and national history, might be taught through the L1 to all students, even those students who are studying most of the curriculum through English. This satisfies me as being ‘bilingual education’, but I wonder whether this would be questioned by some experts to be enough of the curriculum to be identified as such.

It is 2011. I attend a conference and am inspired to hear how an Englishmedium international school in Italy creates ‘interlingual classrooms’. This triennial conference used to be entitled the ‘English as a Second Language Conference’, but its title has recently been extended to include ‘mother tongue’ – the ‘English as a Second Language and Mother Tongue Conference’. I realise that mother tongue development, in the absence of sufficient educational provision, is a concern of, and is picked up by, English as a second language teachers in international schools.

It is 2012. I am at a seminar for ‘bilingual schools’. In the lunch break I chat to a participant and ask which subjects are taught through the L1 at her school.

She responds, ‘Oh, in the international part of the school where I teach, students learn all subjects through English only’. This reminds me of the 2010 encounter described above, and I wonder whether ‘international stream’ might be a more accurate term for such contexts.

It is 2013. I receive a letter from a school principal headed ‘bilingual education’, but the content of the letter seems to be about English-medium education. When I query this, he says that the English-medium secondary education is building

xviii

Stuart Shaw, Helen Imam and Sarah Hughes

on the students’ L1-medium primary education and so therefore it is adding a language and making them ‘bilingual’, and they are still learning the L1 as a subject. I wonder if transitioning from one phase of education in one language to another phase of education in another language counts as ‘bilingual education’ and whether it is sufficiently strong or additive. Also, he reports that for one subject in his school two teachers systematically use both the L1 and the L2 (English).

Could this be a bilingual teaching approach rather than bilingual education?

It is 2014. Someone asks me: ‘How many bilingual schools are there in the Cambridge International Examinations school community?’ I realise that even if we managed to ask every school if they were a bilingual school, and got a reply, the answers would depend on their own understanding of what bilingual schools and bilingual education are. If we wanted to quantify schools, we needed to come up with a definition of what we meant by ‘bilingual education’ and by ‘bilingual school’. At the same time, we did not want to ignore the potential language richness in all international schools, even those that are not running bilingual education programmes.

It is 2015. I dip into the work of luminaries in the field of bilingual education as well as multilingual English-medium classrooms, and I read the comments of respondents from our two surveys. I feel less anxious than in 2001 and also realise that fixed models and formulae for bilingual education cannot be easily applied to every context, and I wonder instead whether bilingual education, as well as bilingual and plurilingual teaching approaches, should be seen as more of a value put into practice in a myriad of ways.

Consequently, Cambridge International Examinations has established a research programme designed to identify ways to support bilingual learners and bilingual education in schools following its programmes and qualifications. It is hoped that the research outcomes on which this book focuses will not only benefit bilingual schools but strengthen the commitment of Cambridge International Examinations to all bilingual learners (for whom English is not an L1) who are learning through an additional language.

Stuart Shaw Helen Imam Sarah Hughes September 2015

1 Perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education

Opportunities and challenges

1

English has become a global language not just in business, but in education. In education, it is a major medium of instruction and assessment for the programmes of international awarding bodies such as Cambridge International Examinations, who develop and provide programmes of learning and assessments worldwide in a wide range of subjects. These programmes of learning are delivered by schools all over the world in a variety of multilingual and educational contexts, and increasingly in bilingual education contexts. One key function of these programmes is to prepare students whose first language (L1) is not necessarily English as candidates for international high-stakes assessments. The focus of the book is on learning and assessment through a second language (L2), often referred to as an additional language, as well as approaches to support the L1. English is the example of the L2 used in this book.

This international context poses both a potential threat to, and an opportunity for, language development. The international quest for English and for an English-medium education can cause anxieties about achievement through the L2, as well as about the maintenance of L1s. An alternative to wholly English-medium education is bilingual education, in which two languages are used within the curriculum as media of instruction for non-language content subjects. Learning some content subjects (such as science and history) through an L2, and other content subjects through an L1, can create authentic language environments as students are immersed in and have to use both languages for communication about meaningful content. Bilingual education is a fast-developing practice that is becoming an

2

Stuart Shaw, Helen Imam and Sarah Hughes

increasingly widespread direction of language learning in schools (Mehisto & Genesee, 2015).

In order to explore related concerns and opportunities, and to better understand and support bilingualism and bilingual education, Cambridge International Examinations has undertaken a programme of research designed to reveal the hidden richness of bilingualism in schools using Cambridge curricula as well as the emerging practices of bilingual education in these schools. Apart from anecdotal feedback, little was known about these schools’ perceptions of the needs of students learning through an additional language, or of the pattern of bilingual education in schools. However, the research reported in this book has enhanced understanding of the extent to which bilingual education is operating in Cambridge International Examinations’ global school community and, more broadly, how these schools are supporting – and can best support – students who are learning through a language that is not their L1. Attention is also given to the role of the L1 in teaching and learning.

Focus of the book The book presents findings that have emerged from the following Cambridge research studies: • insights from two online questionnaires to international schools where the Cambridge international curriculum is known to be delivered and assessed, aimed at scoping the extent of bilingual education and the role of the L2 and L1 in teaching and learning • studies into the language demands of external summative assessments in Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE)1 non-language subjects (Imam, 2010; Shaw, 2011, 2012; Shaw &

1 Cambridge offers the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE), which is a 2-year qualification aimed at 14–16 year-olds. The Cambridge IGCSE encourages learner-centred and inquiry-based approaches to learning. It has been designed to develop learners’ skills in creative thinking, inquiry and problem-solving, giving learners a sound preparatory basis for the next stage in their education. More than 70 subjects are available for study, and schools may offer any combination of these subjects. In some IGCSE subjects there are two course levels, known as the Core Curriculum and the Extended Curriculum. The Extended Curriculum includes the material from the Core Curriculum, as well as additional, more advanced material.

3

Perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education

Imam, 2013), as well as similar internal research undertaken on the International Advanced Subsidiary (AS) / Advanced (A) level,2 aimed at contributing to ‘language awareness’ guidance for teachers and examiners (although the A level research is not reported here).

• alignment studies (as part of the Shaw & Imam research, 2013) of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001a) with the linguistic input (question papers, syllabuses and mark schemes that guide the examiners on marking) of, and productive demands made on candidates by, certain (non-language) content IGCSE assessments. The main aim here was to identify the language levels of these assessments.

Apart from the publication of this book, the research has led to a number of other key initiatives, as outlined in chapters 6 and 7.

Impetus for the book The original impetus for the research was to provide Cambridge International Examinations and its community of schools with a clear idea of the number of types of schools (for example, bilingual, monolingual English-medium and monolingual non-English-medium schools) offering Cambridge curricula and to draw out the schools’ support needs. By sharing insights from this Cambridge research more widely, through this book, Cambridge International Examinations hopes to help to: • provide new information to schools on supporting bilingual learners and on bilingual education • clarify terminology

2 Cambridge also offers the International Advanced Subsidiary (AS)/Advanced (A) level which is a 2-year international qualification aimed at the 16–18 age range and is intended to follow on from the IGCSE. The AS/A level is used as an entry qualification for universities worldwide. A-level courses are designed to be flexible and can be structured in a variety of ways. In Option 1 Candidates can take all papers of the Cambridge International A-level course in the same examination session, usually at the end of the second year of study. Option 2: candidates can opt for a ‘staged’ assessment route, taking the Cambridge International AS level in one examination session and completing the final Cambridge International A level at a subsequent session. Option 3: candidates take only the Cambridge International AS level at the end of either a 1-year or 2-year course. The Cambridge International AS level syllabus content is half a Cambridge International A-level programme.

4

Stuart Shaw, Helen Imam and Sarah Hughes

• identify perceived challenges as well as benefits of bilingual education • identify the professional development needs of educators working with students studying through an L2 • raise language awareness in the assessment process.

It is also hoped that the book can help schools internationally to turn the potential demand for English into an opportunity for bilingualism.

Finally, the findings and outcomes of the research (reported in chapters 4, 5 and 6) stress the importance of stakeholders making a strong commitment of fairness towards bilingual learners who are learning through an L2. In a reader-friendly style, the book explores whether approaches in the literature are being implemented on the ground, and, in a bottom-up approach, exposes new approaches that are being made in practice for further consideration by other schools and by academics. As well as sharing the concerns and benefits of bilingual education, the book gives a voice to schools. To our knowledge, detailed reporting of the rich questionnaire data collected from such schools has not featured in the literature.

Audience for the book The overwhelming majority of books in this area tend to be academic in their focus. This book, by contrast, is grounded in practicalities and offers substantial guidance to school managers and teaching staff who are currently implementing (or thinking of implementing) bilingual education programmes.

The book is aimed primarily at those working in the field of bilingual education in bilingual schools and in English-medium schools with multilingual student groups. However, some parts of the book may also be of interest and relevance to anyone who is directly involved in curriculum planning and materials development, and to key practitioners in assessment and examination bodies and those with an academic interest in language teaching and assessment.

Conventions used in the book For many international students, English is an additional language – their second language (L2), or perhaps even their third language (L3). Such students have traditionally been referred to as ‘English as a second language

5

Perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education

learners’ (ESL or E2L), or ‘additional language learners’ (EAL) or, increasingly, ‘bilingual learners’, acknowledging their L1s. This book uses L2 (to distinguish from L1) while recognising that the L2 may actually be an L3.

There are different understandings of what characterises L1 and L2, which can cause confusion. For example, is the L1 the language a student learned first? The language the student knows best? Uses the most? Identifies with?

Or that others identify the student with?

L1 as a medium of instruction in a bilingual education programme is used here to mean an official L1 identified by the school, that is not necessarily an individual’s mother tongue. The maintenance or development of the L1 refers here to the language learned first by individuals.

The terms ‘bilingual’ and ‘bilingualism’ are used here to refer to individuals or groups who routinely use two or more languages for intercultural communication in varying contexts.3 However, there are many definitions and understandings of the term ‘bilingual’. The Council of Europe, for example, allows for range in its definition: ‘An individual is designated as “bilingual” if they have a degree of competence in two languages or varieties of language’ (Council of Europe, 2007, p. 30).

We use the term ‘bilingual learner’ in its broad sense for a student in an international school context who typically uses their L1 at home or in the community and is learning primarily through an L2 – for example, English – at school. Their learning may take place in a variety of educational contexts.

They may be learning all subjects through the L2, or if they are on a bilingual education programme, they may be learning only some subjects through the L2. Many people therefore use the term ‘bilingual learner’ instead of ‘second’ or ‘additional language learner’ to highlight the value of two languages. This is the approach adopted by this book. However, others use ‘bilingual learner’ to refer only to students on bilingual education programmes.

‘Bilingual education’ is used here to refer to a programme of teaching and learning in which students study some non-language content subjects, such as maths or geography, mainly through the L2 or L3, and some subjects mainly through the L1.4 Alternatively, they may study the same subject

3 If the emphasis is on multiple languages, then terms such as trilingual (education) or multilingual (contexts) or plurilingual (competence, with different degrees of proficiency) are used.

4 ‘Content subjects and language are inextricably linked. Learners cannot develop academic knowledge and skills without access to the language in which that knowledge is embedded, discussed, constructed or evaluated. Nor can they acquire academic language skills in a context devoid of academic content. Content subject classes can provide rich opportunities for language development’ (Crandall, 1994, p. 256).

6

Stuart Shaw, Helen Imam and Sarah Hughes

through two languages. Cambridge international programmes and qualifications are often used for the English-medium strand of a bilingual education programme.

This understanding of bilingual education is linked to other educational concepts such as ‘immersion’ or ‘content and language integrated learning’ (CLIL). When bilingual education is delivered in content classes, students develop subject knowledge and new language skills at the same time. The content teacher has a responsibility not just for supporting content learning but also to support students’ language development in order to master content.

The content teacher is encouraged to liaise with the English language department in the school, who may also be adopting a CLIL approach while supporting learning in content classes. Even in monolingual (English-medium) schools, students may not be native speakers of English and so some of the bilingual approaches (such as CLIL) might be used in these schools, too, to help facilitate learning. Moreover, CLIL can be used to make a foreign language programme more motivating by teaching real content (for example, using historical sources) through the target language.

Confusion, however, is caused when some people (for example, in their desire to learn or teach English) use the term ‘bilingual education’ to refer to either L1 and L2 language classes or even to English-medium education where all subjects are taught through the L2.

We use the term ‘international schools’ to refer broadly to schools that deliver a curriculum that is predominantly international in its orientation and is separate from the national curriculum taught in the country. Such schools are found more in the private and independent sector than in the state sector.

International schools aim to develop an international perspective. However, the international curriculum may also be taught in addition to parts of the national curriculum. Some international schools offer an international curriculum to a largely expatriate student body, thereby serving multilingual groups. Some schools offer an international curriculum to a mainly local student body who are bilingual learners learning content subjects through an L2. The term can also apply to independent schools offering the national curriculum with elements of an international curriculum, or to state-maintained schools offering the national curriculum with elements of an international curriculum. Some countries prefer to use the terms ‘intercultural’, ‘global’ or ‘independent’ schools. Because international schools are serving multilingual or bilingual student groups, in this book we also sometimes refer to international schools as ‘multilingual schools’ to emphasise their language richness.

7

Perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education

Finally, we use the term ‘schools’ in our research to refer to international schools that are using Cambridge International Examinations programmes and qualifications.

Structure of the book The remainder of this chapter explains the structure of the book. The book consists of seven chapters. In this introductory chapter we have highlighted the notions that the potential threat (anxieties about achievement through English as an L2 and about maintenance of L1s) and the potential opportunity (for bilingual education) are the triggers for a bilingual education research agenda for Cambridge International Examinations. The definitions of bilingualism and bilingual education offered in this chapter have their genesis in the research literature and reflect our institutional understanding of, and conceptual approach to, bilingualism and bilingual education.

Chapter 2 offers a broad commentary on the concepts of bilingualism and bilingual education. We highlight the difficulties in defining the two terms.

We also demonstrate how the trajectory of the evolution of the definition of bilingualism has been characterised by a shift from complete fluency in more than one language to the everyday use of more than one language. We also present a number of models of bilingual education that we consider to be relevant to schools. The models are first described and then their respective characteristics discussed.

In chapter 3 we provide an overview of the research context that takes as its focus key issues in bilingualism as relevant to schools following Cambridge international programmes and qualifications.

Chapter 4 reports on the main findings garnered from the research into students’ and teachers’ language use in the schools researched and the different models of bilingual pedagogic practice evident in these schools.

In chapter 5 we discuss our research results, which not only align with previously reported findings in the professional literature but offer new insights.

In chapter 6 we demonstrate how insights from other recent Cambridge language awareness research have led to guidance for schools with bilingual learners (for example, senior staff, content teachers and students) and for assessment agencies (for example, test constructors, question paper setters and examiners). This guidance is partly shared with the reader for potential use in their own context.

8

Stuart Shaw, Helen Imam and Sarah Hughes

In chapter 7 we offer initiatives to help schools to support bilingual learners and to implement bilingual education. The chapter culminates in the presentation of a bilingual survey tool for schools to consider using in their own context as a means of self-analysis. The self-service survey can be used by managers in international, national or regional contexts, or at individual school level, to help determine which schools are bilingual schools, their model of bilingual education and their support needs.

2 Bilingualism and bilingual education:

A review of the literature

Overview In this chapter we provide the reader with a brief overview of the literature on bilingualism and bilingual education. Features of bilingualism and bilingual education are extremely well rehearsed in the literature, and there now exists a broad, expanding commentary regarding the two concepts. The academic literature, however, has not been without controversy and has engendered confusion – particularly in the second half of the twentieth century – among scholars, practitioners and educational policy makers as to what the research is saying (Cummins, 1999, p. 26) (although there is now general agreement among academics about the benefits of bilingual education for language majority students). We demonstrate how, over the years, attempts to articulate a precise, technical definition of bilingualism and bilingual education have revealed a range of divergent conceptions. We also show that bilingual education programmes use and adapt numerous different models and approaches. Of particular relevance to the research described here are bilingual education approaches relating to immersion, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and translanguaging.

Defining bilingualism Although the term ‘bilingualism’ is widely adopted and appears frequently in the literature (and everyday use), it remains a largely ‘abstruse’ concept (Sia & Dewaele, 2006, p. 1), and is difficult to define. Baetens Beardsmore 9

10

Stuart Shaw, Helen Imam and Sarah Hughes

(1982) highlights the problem in articulating a precise definition of the term bilingual, observing that it is difficult to propose ‘a generally accepted definition of the phenomenon that will not meet some sort of criticism’ (p. 1).

Skutnabb-Kangas and Cummins (1988) further illustrate the manifold complexity of defining bilingualism by cataloguing and exemplifying a number of criteria underpinning its conceptualisation, including notions of what constitutes the first language: origin (the language(s) learned first), competence (the language(s) most familiar), function (the language(s) most frequently used), internal identification (the language(s) most identified with) and external identification (the language(s) most identified with by others).

More often than not, the term bilingual is interpreted either very narrowly or very broadly. One of the reasons the term has proved resistant to precise definition is that researchers and academics, educators and policy-makers in disparate educational and political contexts appear to apply different definitions to the concept. As knowledge of the breadth and understanding of bilingualism has grown in recent decades, the discourse surrounding bilingualism has concentrated on ‘the many kinds and degrees of bilingualism and bilingual situations’ (Crystal, 2003, p. 51).

In an attempt to circumvent some of the criticisms alluded to by Baetens Beardsmore (1982), definitions of bilingualism have become much less stringent. For example, in a chapter on bilingualism in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Hakuta (1986) specifies that: … the definition of bilingualism in this book is deliberately open-ended. It begins where ‘the speaker of one language can produce meaningful utterances in the other language’ (Haugen, 1953, p. 7). This definition is preferable to a narrow one that might include only those with native-like control. (p. 4)

Thus contemporary definitions of the term bilingual tend to focus less on restrictive, narrowly based interpretations where a bilingual is someone who functions like two monolinguals (Bloomfield, 1935, p. 56), and more on elastic, broadly conceived conceptualisations that refer to minimal proficiency in one or both languages (Hornby, 1977), or that stress the everyday use of two languages (Grosjean, 1994, p. 166), or the ‘presence of two or more languages’ (Dewaele, Housen & Li, 2003, p. 1), or ‘someone who controls two or more languages’ (Hakuta, 1992, p. 176).

Mehisto (2012) uses the term bilingual to refer to ‘individuals and groups of people who use two or more languages for intercultural communication in varying contexts’ (p. 2). For example, in a bilingual education context, a bilingual learner would refer to a learner who is meeting curriculum

11

Bilingualism and bilingual education: A review of the literature

expectations through more than one language, which would imply that they are also biliterate.

However, in certain educational contexts, a bilingual learner might refer to a learner who uses their first language (L1) at home and is learning through a second language (L2) at school. Some people and organisations, such as the National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum in the UK, and the European Council of International Schools therefore, often use bilingual learner instead of, or in addition to, English as a second or additional language learner, to highlight the existence of two languages.

Recent definitions appear to create a justification for employing a flexible definition of bilingual by sidestepping the issue of being either too narrow or too broad, and by legislating for the variability of language competence due to the complexities of language itself. The more contemporary, flexible concept of bilingualism tends to reflect an awareness of the interdisciplinary nature of studies in bilingualism – for example, applied linguistics, sociology and education. A broad interpretation also reflects the international school context relevant to our research of bilingual learners needing to use two (or more) languages.

Models of bilingualism Traditional models of bilingualism have been presented in the literature in terms of dichotomies: individual and societal bilingualism;1 balanced bilingualism;2 compound and coordinate bilingualism,3 and additive and

1 Individual bilingualism refers to a person who knows and practises two languages. Societal bilingualism, on the other hand, is conceptualised in terms of the broader social context (group, community, region or country) and refers to the way multiple terminologies are used in and by that community.

2 Balanced bilingualism refers to individuals whose competences in both languages are equally well developed; that is, they possess equivalent fluency in the two languages though they may not be able to pass for a native speaker in either language (Baker, 1996, p. 8).

3 In the coordinate bilingual the two languages function as independent systems for the processing (encoding and decoding) of information, and so the coordinate bilingual may not be able to translate between the two languages on a word-for-word basis. The compound bilingual, however, has one semantic system and two codes and one language is dominant, and so they tend to formulate their thoughts first in one language (probably the first language) and then translate into the second language.

12

Stuart Shaw, Helen Imam and Sarah Hughes

subtractive bilingualism.4 Li (2000) provides an overview of these and other dichotomies of bilingualism including achieved/ascribed bilingualism; maximal/minimal bilingualism and productive/passive bilingualism.

The types of bilingualism referred to above have been classified as traditional bilingual education types and have been described fully by experts in terms of their characteristics, goals and learner outcomes, and the types of children to which they apply. Subsequently, however, García (2009a; 2009b) and others (García & Wei, 2014; Velasco & García, 2014) have argued that traditional conceptions of bilingualism that treat languages as separate entities learnt in a linear order are no longer applicable to the linguistic heterogeneity (and complexity) of the 21st century (García, 2009a; 2009b). Instead, García has presented the case for an alternative view of bilingualism as a general and holistic capacity that goes beyond the notion of two separate autonomous languages. She proposes that two other theoretical frameworks be added – a recursive one and a dynamic bilingual one – in order to ‘recognize recursive and dynamic bilingualism as important goals for bilingual education in the twenty-first century’ (García, 2009a, p. 385).

Recursive and dynamic bilingualism Recursive bilingualism develops in cases in which the language practices of a community have been suppressed or lost (as a result, for example, of oppressive policies and practices). In an attempt to revitalise their mother tongue, recursive bilinguals tend to oscillate between language learning and language loss as they seek to recover their ancestral language practice. In such cases: the development of the community’s mother tongue is not a simple addition that starts from a monolingual point, because the ancestral language continues to be used in traditional ceremonies and by many in the community to different degrees. (García, 2009b, p. 143)

4 Additive bilingualism refers to adding another socially relevant language to an individual’s repertoire of skills at no cost to the first language competence; that is, the first language is maintained (Cummins and Swain,1986; Luckett, 1993). A contrasting phenomenon is when learning a second language interferes with the learning of a first language. This is described as subtractive bilingualism, in which the second language is added at the expense of the first language and culture, resulting in the diminution of first language proficiency (Cummins, 1981a, 1981b; 1999).

13

Bilingualism and bilingual education: A review of the literature

Thus, bilingualism is not simply additive, but recursive: because it reaches back to the bits and pieces of an ancestral language practices, as they are reconstituted for new functions and as they gain momentum to thrust forward towards the future. (García, 2009b, p. 143)

García (2011) contends that bilingualism is dynamic and not merely additive, as suggested by Lambert (1974). Moreover, dynamic bilingualism goes beyond the conception that two languages are interdependent (Cummins, 1981a). From a dynamic bilingual perspective, languages are not seen as autonomous systems as ‘the language practices of bilinguals are complex and interrelated; they do not emerge in a linear way or function separately since there is only one linguistic system’ (García & Wei, 2014, p. 14; emphasis in original). These authors argue that aspects of a single linguistic system are most frequently practised according to ‘societally constructed and controlled “languages”’ (p. 14), but at other times produce new practices.

Dynamic bilingualism also takes note of multiple language practices and multimodality5 in order to interact with increasingly multilingual communities. Accordingly, García describes dynamic bilingualism as ‘a dynamic cycle where language practices are multiple and ever adjusting to the multilingual multimodal terrain of the communicative act’ (García 2009a, p. 53) (see Baker, 2000, 2003; García & Kleifgen, 2011; Woolfolk, Hughes, & Walkup, 2013, for a discussion of heteroglossic views of bilingualism).

For bilingual education to meet the needs of children in the 21st century, it is argued that abilities such as translation, language switching and processing information bilingually are becoming increasingly important. The emphasis needs to shift from separating languages (as in the past) to bilingual or multilingual discourse practices. It is in this context that García (2009a) adds the recursive and dynamic theoretical frameworks described above to the traditional ones: The recursivity and dynamism of bilingualism today … demands bilingual skills that are much more than just monolingual skills in two separate contexts. If we focus then not on separate languages as we have done in the past, but on the bilingual or multilingual discourse practices that we need and that are readily observable in bilingual classrooms, we can see that bilingual arrangements that build on

5 Multimodality characterises communication practices in terms of the textual, aural, linguistic, spatial and visual resources – or modes – used to compose messages (see Murray, 2013; Lutkewitte, 2013).