by Nick Roll
Neo-fascism in the classroom
My policy on the use of learners’ L1 in most of my classes throughout my career has been close to “neo-fascist” zero tolerance, sometimes even involving fines that would go towards an end of course cake buying activity. This was justified by the need for learners to immerse themselves in the language and learn to manage communication difficulties as they would have to do so in the so-called “real world”. Some recent experience and a little research has challenged this narrow default approach and I now move more fluidly up and down the cline of L1 (in)tolerance.
Monolingual native speaker bias to enlightened multilingualism
Many of us have been aware of the iniquitous inherited status of the “native” speaker teacher as if being born with some mythically static version of “British English” inherently leads to a superior ability to teach it as a foreign language. One of the inverse consequences of this irrational bias has been discussed in a previous CELFS blog by Kaz Yamamoto and Julia Gardos whose research project fortunately reveals that most students care about more important things such as (shock, horror!) teacher competence and enthusiasm.
In fact, I am now beginning to think that, if anything, a monolingual teacher should have an inferiority complex; to be a language teacher without having experience of learning a second or third language to a reasonable level could mean being less “qualified” to understand the needs of our emerging bilingual students. More than this though, in many international educational settings, (Wales, Switzerland, Spain, South Africa, United States, China, the list is endless…), it seems that a qualified, competent bilingual teacher with a bilingual cohort has a distinct advantage over a limited monolingual “native” speaker import. For a start, they can employ strategic “pedagogical translanguaging” (Probyn, 2015) and culturally rich intertextual knowledge (Forman, 2008) to enhance learning. I must admit that I have now become an advocate of providing bilingual education from kindergarten to University, even in the UK; if only it existed here. The negative anti-bilingual myths have largely been debunked, so why wouldn’t anyone want an education system that relatively painlessly improves cognitive development, academic achievement, intercultural understanding, creativity, multi-perspective criticality, employment prospects, and staves off dementia?! (Garcia & Li Wei, 2015; Canagarajah, 2011; Marian et al, 2013; Bialystok et al, 2013; Lynch, 2014).
Ok, you might be asking, what’s this got to do with EAP at a British University with a mostly Chinese and Asian dominated cohort eagerly enrolled on what often seem like fast-track academia acculturation programmes facilitated (or constrained) by mostly British, monolingual or limited bilingual teachers? Well…
The “natural way” – translanguaging space and “use” of L1 in the classroom
One reason is that our students could be described as emerging bilinguals or multilinguals and so they regularly switch and blend their languages outside the classroom within the University environment and far beyond often through multimodal digital technology. That’s their “real world” and so “translanguaging” could be described as a “natural” phenomenon. The term translanguaging was coined in Welsh by Williams (2002, cited in Garcia and Li Wei, 2015) and refers to the fluid interchange between input in one language and output in another in a process of mutual reinforcement and deep cognitive processing. Indeed, proponents of bilingual education and translanguaging inside the classroom argue that since fluid “heteroglossic”, multimodal translanguaging of practising bilinguals is a norm throughout the world, it should potentially be transformative for learners, teachers and the education system itself (Garcia & Li Wei, 2015). They argue for an “established translanguaging space” (Li Wei, 2011) or for partially subversive translanguaging “safe houses” (Canagarajah, 2004) within educational institutions where students can create new understandings and identities.
Clearly, allowing integrated translanguaging in a setting that is formally recognised as offering a “bilingual” education (in Wales or Catalonia, for example) makes sense despite the frequent, ill-conceived insistence on strict language separation. However, I can still hear cries of “that’s impossible or totally impractical” in an EAP British University context with a multinational cohort and teachers who generally do not speak any of their languages. And that might be justified. Up to a point.
BUT…I’d like to pose a question: could our learners’ developing “real-world” multilingualism and translanguaging practices be exploited further to enhance learning within the classroom too? Answer in the comments, below!
(Part 2 to follow …)
References:
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I. and Luk, G., 2012. Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(4), pp.240-250.
Canagarajah, S. (2011a) ‘Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy’, Applied linguistics review, vol.2, no.1, pp.1-28.
Canagarajah, S. (2011b) Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging, The Modern Language Journal, vol. 95, no.3, pp.401-417.
Canagarajah, S. (2004) ‘Subversive identities, pedagogical safe houses and critical learning’, in Norton, B. and Toohey, K. (eds) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 116–137.
Forman, R. (2008) ‘Using notions of scaffolding and intertextuality to understand the bilingual teaching of English in Thailand’, Linguistics and Education, vol.19, no.4, pp.319-332.
García, O. (2011) Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. John Wiley & Sons.
García, O. and Wei, L. (2014) ‘Translanguaging and Education’, In Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education (pp. 63-77). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
García, O. and Wei, L. (2015) ‘Translanguaging, bilingualism and bilingual education’, in Wright, W.E., Boun, S. and Garcia,O. (eds) The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education, John Wiley & Sons, pp.223-240.
Grosjean, F. (2010) [online]. Myths about bilingualism. http://www.francoisgrosjean.ch/myths_en.html (Accessed 10 October 2017)
Li Wei, (2011) ‘Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 43, no.5, pp.1222-1235.
Li, W. and Zhu, H. (2013) ‘Translanguaging identities and ideologies: Creating transnational space through flexible multilingual practices amongst Chinese university students in the UK’, Applied Linguistics, vol. 34, no.5, pp.516-535.
Lynch, M. (2016) [online]. Why bilingual education should be mandatory https://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-lynch-edd/why-bilingual-education-s_b_6168638.html (Accessed 10th October 2017)
Marian, V., Shook, A. and Schroeder, S.R., 2013. Bilingual two-way immersion programs benefit academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(2), pp.167-186.
Mazak, C.M. and Herbas-Donoso, C. (2015) ‘Translanguaging practices at a bilingual university: A case study of a science classroom’, International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, vol. 18, no.6, pp.698-714.
Ofelia Garcia (n.d.) [online]. Available at https://ofeliagarcia.org/ (Accessed 5 June 2017)
Probyn, M., (2015) Pedagogical translanguaging: Bridging discourses in South African science classrooms. Language and Education, 29(3), pp.218-234.
very nice article Nick. food for thought, indeed. do recall during the summer, telling my class they could speak in mandarin for a particular ‘share ideas’ activity, and they looked at me with suspicion; and then spoke in English. so is interesting the learners’ take on it, too
Thanks for responding Ryan. In fact in Part 2 of this blog (coming soon…) I start considering students’ perspectives on this, based on a little experiment in the presessional and their feedback. Of course “further research is required..”!
yes will give the part 2 a read now Nick
While I understand the attempt at sarcasm, I think the picture of Hitler is taking it too far and is in poor taste. His monstrous actions are not to be used as a funny allegory of classroom practices.
Hi Mira,
I take your point and will certainly consider the future use of such an absurdly extreme image/symbol to metaphorically represent what could be considered an extreme pedagogical position. The purpose was as a simple attention-grabbing, satirical technique while the representation of the image and Teacher’s position was I thought unambiguously negative i.e equivalent to an “abuse of power”.
You do raise an important issue regarding the meanings and interpretations of images published on an academic blog and what is and isn’t fit for purpose and audience. I am not sure I share your perspective entirely (censorship v freedom to publish debate), but you certainly made me think, so thank you for that!
Thorougly enjoyable read, Nick. I can certainly attest to the value of a bi-lingual system. In Germany it is very popular in schools, both my kids were enrolled in bi-lingual classes.
When I was learning German, I was so grateful that my teacher used English with me – I’d have been lost without that inital crutch. (I’m now pretty close to fluent). And I keep this experience in mind when teaching English. It really helps to use one’s one language to navigate and clarify instructions. Then tasks can be carried out more effectively. I also notice when operating with higher order thinking skills, sometimes it is necessary to figure stuff out in your own language – I certainly need to do that when engaged in any German CPD sessions.
As you so honestly related, we each have to figure out such teaching beliefs for ourselves.
Looking forward to Part 2.
Thanks for your comment. Dealing with complex content and employing higher order thinking skills are where I think some L1 use can potentially scaffold understanding (I like your use of the word “crutch”!) This will be mentioned with an example in Part 2 in a couple of weeks!
Most interesting Nick. More will be revealed on this..
What a fascinating read. I for one really identified with the writer’s journey along the cline, as I have been venturing through similar territory since I started teaching 20 years ago.
When I enrolled on my Celta course all those years ago, I was surprised and delighted to read the accompanying marketing material telling me how I’d be able to work worldwide as an English teacher, even though I couldn’t speak a word of my students’ languages. However, after qualifying it didn’t take me long to realise that if I wanted to be a truly effective English teacher, the most useful thing that I could do would be to learn my students’ own L1. So I set about doing that and found that I was now far more able to predict my learners’ difficulties with learning English, understand false friends and cognates and also – importantly – gain a sense of authenticity in their eyes because I was interested in their language and culture as well as practicing what I was preaching. In the process, my effectiveness in the classroom increased tenfold and feedback from my students improved dramatically.
In light of this experience, I reflected on my initial Celta course. Although the quality of the instruction on my Celta course had been excellent, and I am still thankful to the fine teachers who made it possible, this reflection led me to some uncomfortable conclusions. For example, I decided that the ‘zero tolerance to L1′ position which had been preached by our Celta instructors was a fundamentalist one, deeply ingrained into the EFL/ESL industry and created to enable organisations to market teacher training programmes to would-be teachers who had limited skill sets. Specifically, these would-be teachers were mainly mother-tongue English speakers and most of them would have little or no knowledge of their learners’ first languages. This description certainly applied to me when I did my pre-service training.
What better way to ensure that such newly-qualified teachers could find work than to preach a doctrine which states – hey presto – that it is actually an advantage for students to have an English teacher who has no knowledge of their own language and never uses it in the classroom!
This caused me something of a crisis precisely because the feedback from my students had told me totally the opposite thing: it was clearly a big plus for them that I could speak their own language. They wanted their own language to be used – selectively – in the classroom when it could potentially be an advantage to them. Sadly, I lost faith in the ‘absolute truth’ which I had been taught on my Celta course. For me, the ‘zero tolerance to L1’ doctrine became an invalid one. Indeed, in subsequent research I have found it very hard to find any empirical evidence that approaches applying ‘zero tolerance to L1′ produce better results for language learners than learning settings in which teachers have a good knowledge of their learners’ L1s and seek to use these languages – when appropriate – in the classroom.
Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with the writer’s views on multilingual education. Let me give the example of Switzerland, the country where I live. Many of my students come from bilingual families, and work or study in organisations where meetings take place in a mixture of Italian, French, German and English, with speakers often switching languages within the same sentence! Teaching English in such a context, how can we insist that our learners use English only in the classroom, when their day-to-day normality is such a plurilingual one?