Language as a Bridge that Connects Peoples Understandings - Essay Example

?English as an Additional Language as Observed in a School Language is a bridge that connects people’s understandings. In order to understand each other, people must be able to share one common language. In our increasingly globalized culture, more and more people from different nationalities come together, bringing with them influences of their cultures including their mother language. It is not uncommon to see foreign children in English schools learning the English language in addition to their first language from their home countries. The government has thus come up with a document to guide educators in helping such children. The “Rationale for Planning for Children Learning English as an additional language” (DCSF, 2008) recognizes the importance of children’s first language (L1) and that it can be used to aid them to learn English as an additional language (EAL) or any other language for that matter. Educators must observe the following key principles in teaching foreign children. First, bilingualism is an asset instead of a liability for children who know more than one other language other than their mother tongue or primary language. Baker (2006) contends that evidence supports that there are cognitive and performance advantages in being bilingual over being monolingual. Another principle to be remembered by educators is that language learners should be kept cognitively challenged with the continuous provision of linguistic and contextual support. Lastly, the acquisition of another language should go hand in hand with the student’s cognitive and academic development within the same school environment and the student would not need outside support. This implies that the school curriculum is already embedded with these language learning principles. School Observation One school was observed regarding its adherence to the policies set by the “Rationale for Planning for Children Learning English as an Additional Language” document as well as analyse its practices with theories on bilingual education. The school looked like a typical one when one enters it. No welcome procedures were observed nor signs around the school seen in relation to the cultural composition or languages of the students or teachers. However, towards the entrance of the main building, a bulletin board on Black History Month was on display. This was the only piece of evidence in the campus that showed recognition of another culture. As one enters the Year 1 Key Stage 1 classroom, the same generic ambience was observed. Children were grouped into various groups according to their ability levels. On the wall near the teacher’s desk is a list of pupils’ literacy levels indicated with pictures of fruits. For example, the low ability group belonged to the grape group. The middle ability group belonged to the banana group and the high ability group belonged to the apple group. The same was done with numeracy levels. However, these were represented by shapes. For example, the low ability levels for numeracy belonged to the triangle group, the middle ability level in the square group and the high ability level in the circle group. These groupings were for the mainstream students. The EAL learners and SEN learners belonged to another group. A special corner for learning another language featured pictures of different body parts with words in Spanish. For example, a picture of eyes with the Spanish word eyes, “Ojos” underneath. Also, there were words displayed in Spanish and translated in English such as “Good morning”, “Good afternoon”, “Hello”, “Goodbye” and so forth. However, there were no EAL books nor books with any other language except English seen in the book corner. Other adornments on the walls include different pictures of children’s actions with the words indicating the actions such as good listening, eyes looking, lips closed, sitting with their legs crossed. These pictures represented good behaviour as indicated with a thumbs-up picture. For EAL students, such visual aids are graphic enough to be understood even without words. Classroom displays indicate what pupils have been learning in class. For example, a display board of “Number bonds to 10” include pictures of plant pots with the number 10 on the pot. The plants in the pot have numbers displayed in the flowers which add up to 10. These were both displayed for addition and subtraction. Another display indicates connective words for vocabulary, which seems to be the current lesson as later observed. There were also different coloured hot air balloons hanging in the classroom displaying numbers. The children were observed at work. A Teaching Assistant sits with 1 EAL child and 3 SEN children. The group of SEN and the EAL child with the teaching assistant sit at the top end of the horse shoe setting of tables, grouped in order of attainment levels. The teacher spoke in English the whole time. On the day of the observation, the lesson was on Literacy. The teacher clapped her hands in rhythm to get the children’s attention and the children joined in with hand clapping and settled down to listen to instructions for the activity. The teacher stood up whilst her class sat in front of the board on the carpet space. Learning Phonics and high frequency words were the first part of literacy hour. The white board was used for children to see the different words. Children sat on the floor, with a small white board and a felt tip pen each. The teacher sounded out the word on the white board. She used her hands to indicate spacing of how to sound out words or to widen words and to clap when word was said. Individual children were asked to say the words in turn and the whole class then said the words altogether. The teacher counted from 5 to 1 for children to tidy away equipment to get ready for next lesson entitled “I can write the middle of my story”. The children were doing story writing with patterned language in sentences and full stops. They were also learning about connectives such as “the next day, now after, soon” and so forth. These words were displayed on the wall, as earlier mentioned. Examples of writing the middle part of a story was demonstrated by the teacher on the white board with children sitting on carpet space. The children joined in and were later asked to go to their fruit tables (which is their literacy ability group) to finish writing the middle parts of their stories. It was learned that the following day, parents were expected in school. It is a weekly activity held on Wednesdays when parents stayed for thirty minutes to read stories to the children. Analysis of the Observations The student who observed the school found it difficult to conclude whether the school was abiding by the principles endorsed by the Rationale for Planning for Children Learning EAL or not. Judging from the outside premises, only a bulletin board with Black History Month was displayed to reflect its recognition of another culture. Within the classroom, the only manifestation of EAL was differentiated instruction for the EAL student and some pictures on the wall to show glimpses of the Spanish language in words and pictures. It is not even sure if the Teaching Assistant was providing appropriate EAL curriculum to the EAL student because they were segregated from the rest of the other groups along with the children with SEN. The government consultation document ‘Aiming High: Raising the Achievement of Minority Ethnic Pupils’ (DfES 2003) states that “the particular needs of bilingual pupils are best met through a coordinated whole school approach led by head teachers and senior managers” (DfES, 2005, p. 14). However, if this was followed by the school, it was certainly not obvious because there was no salient manifestation at least during the time of observation. Cummins (1986) contend that children are empowered when their cultural roots are celebrated. In this school, it seems that only the Black and Spanish children were given recognition if school displays are considered. Makin, Campbell & Diaz (1995) discussed additive and subtractive bilingualism. One issue in second language acquisition is its effect on the first language of the individual. The immense concentration necessary to learn a second language may create a negative impact on the first language. This is known as Subtractive bilingualism. When a child becomes fluent in a second language due to immersion in that language, there is a strong tendency to forget the first language, causing disruptions in communication with family members who only know the first language. Transmission of cultural beliefs and parenting interactions would need a shared language for it to be successful. If not, social relationships with families or other members of the community who are monolingual may break down. On the other hand, in learning a second language, a child need not forget the first language, but can be fluent in both. This is called Additive Bilingualism which means that although a child actively learns a second language, concurrently, there is continued development in the home language (Lambert, 1977; Otto, 2010). The goal is to enhance language skills in both languages. The Rationale for planning for children learning EAL (2008) also recommends that children have free access to their primary language (L1) in order to fully understand their second or additional language (L2). However, it was observed that the teacher used English the whole time, not stopping to check if the EAL student understood her or not. The lesson on writing the middle part of their story may have been difficult, especially if the EAL child does not understand the connective phrases suggested. It may have been the Teaching Assistant’s role to do so. In which case, she should be more lenient in allowing the EAL child to use L1 in class as a tool to learn L2, which is English. In agreement with the Rationale, the first language of the child has been proven in a study to be a tool useful in learning a second language (Swain & Lapkin, 2000). It was found that collaborating with other students in tasks for learning a second language, students try to make sense of the requirements and content of the task, focusing their attention on language form vocabulary use and overall organization, then turn to their native language to process and discuss before finally getting back to completing the task. However, in the observations, the EAL student was separated from the rest of the typically-developing students in the activities and was grouped with children with SEN. If this is usually the case, then the EAL child will be limited in opportunities to collaborate with the other children in learning English better. Swain and Lapkin point out that without the use of their native language, they might not be able to accomplish the task effectively or it might not be accomplished at all. They argue that the insistence of not being allowed to access their first language in a linguistically and cognitively complex task of decoding a second language task would deprive them of an important cognitive tool. What the student observer expected in a bilingual education is the application of what Baker (2006) referred to as Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills or BICS and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency or CALP. Baker explains that children apply BICS in their communication with contextual supports and props such as face-to face “context embedded” situations where they read the other person’s non-verbal gestures, hand movements and sounds to support verbal communication. This then requires full communication using both verbal and non-verbal skills. Baker also explains that CALP happens in “context reduced” situations requiring higher order thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis or evaluation. This is usually encountered in more academic learning and communication where language is “disembedded” (Baker, 2006). Due to limited observation in the classroom, these processes were unfortunately not observed by the student observer. Clay (1998) posits that all children must take an active part in negotiating meanings. Piaget and Vygotsky, key people in the study of language and thought, believe that development will not take place unless children engage in rich, meaningful conversations with others by which language is internalized to more complex thinking (Neuman & Roskos, 1993). Benson McMullen (1998) agrees that children’s collaboration with their peers in problem-solving sessions encourages listening to each other’s ideas and in turn, express their own thoughts clearly. The varied ideas on dealing with problems evolve in group discussions making children understand that there may be more than one solution to a problem. It also prompts children to negotiate with others which solution to try. Adults play a huge role in the language development of children, as they need someone who uses simple language in correct form and is flexible enough adjust his language to suit the child’s (Clay, 1988). That is why it is important for adults to engage in conversations with the children no matter what age they are. It is only in bringing them out of their shells and allowing them to communicate will they learn how to express what is inside of them. Exposure to various literacy materials such as books, drawing and writing (scribbling), activities, pictures, posters etc. as well as enjoin their parents to collaborate in activities that foster language and cultural development. The regular activity of parents coming to school to tell stories to their children may be used as opportunities to share each family’s culture, especially that of the EAL students. Teachers should remember that the children’s native culture and language should be maintained in their personal growth even when they become learned in English or any other form of language (ex. Technological, visual, oral, written, etc.) that would help them succeed in an increasingly globalized world. The Rationale for planning for children learning EAL (2008) takes upon Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of “scaffolding”. As the term implies, scaffolds are temporary supports in the process of learning which are gradually taken away when the student is already capable of learning without them. The Rationale explains that in EAL, scaffolding comes in three forms, One is scaffolding by adults by making their expectations clear by sharing learning objectives and criteria for success with the students by way of modeling and demonstrating the English language, ‘recasting’ of the children’s language from their L1 and providing them with opportunities to use their whole language repertoire to aid them in understanding their L2. Another form of scaffolding is through collaborative work. They engage in small group talks or work in pairs, usually with children who are more adept in the language are paired with children who are less adept. The teacher may also use scaffolding through visual support, via pictures, props, models, frames and language prompts, graphic organizers, diagrams, maps, plans and essentially all the print and picture cues they put up in the environmental setting (DCSF, 2008). The school observed had some of this scaffolding in place, however, these were not enough to support the EAL students in that school. The Rationale has provided clear guidelines for the education of EAL students. However, not all schools have gained the adeptness in following it. It may take some time, but the beginning efforts of educators are already well appreciated. In the long run, it is believed that such efforts will eventually pay off as children who are initially struggling with the English language will gain competence in the language. That in itself is a great boost to make them feel that they belong and can be contributing members of the institution. Later, as they grow out of school, they can become productive and successful citizens of society. References Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th Edition). Clevedon, England, Buffalo, N.Y.: Multilingual Matters. Benson McMullen, M. (1998), 'Thinking before doing: A giant toddler step on the road to literacy', Young Children, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 65-70. Clay, M.(1998) By Different Paths to Common Outcomes, Stenhouse Publishers, Maine, pp. 5-32 Cummins, J. (1986) Empowering minority students: a framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review 56(1). DCSF (2008) Rationale for planning for children learning English as an additional language. London: DCSF [available online at http://www.naldic.org.uk/docs/resources/documents/pri_lit_eal_plannin g_08.pdf] DfES (2005) Aiming High: Guidance on the assessment of pupils learning English as an additional language. Retrieved on May 9, 2011 from http://www.naldic.org.uk/docs/resources/documents/5865-DfES- AimingHigh1469.pdf DfES (2006) Excellence and Enjoyment: learning and teaching in the primary years, Creating a learning culture: conditions for learning. Primary National Strategy, Crown. Lambert, W. E. (1977). The effects of bilingualism on the individual: Cognitive and sociocultural consequences. In P. Hornby (Ed.), Bilingualism: Psychological, social, and educational implications (pp. 15-27). New York: Academic Press. Makin, L., Campbell, J., & Diaz, C. J. (1995). One childhood, many languages: Guidelines for early childhood education in Australia (pp. 40-58). Pymble, N.S.W.: Harper Educational Publishers. Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. A. (1993) Language and literacy learning in the early years: An integrated approach, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX, pp. 27-31, 34-61. Otto, B. (2010) Language development in early childhood. (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2000) Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 4,3 pp. 251– 274. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Read More