Impact of Language Barriers on Refugees Education - Research Paper Example

Impact of Language Barriers on Refugees Education I. Introduction a. Overview of the Research Topic Admittedly, language barriers feature as one of the most common issues affecting education of refugees in the United States. Other issues affecting refugee education in the US include but not limited to; social prejudices, family economic predicaments and psychological trauma. Technically, the issue of language barrier is a primary influential factor on refugees’ education. The other issues like psychological traumas and family economic predicaments assume secondary roles in influencing refugees’ academic progress. In the US, specific challenges faced by refugees regarding the language barriers include lack of proficiency in English as an instruction language, and limited proficiency in social language within academic environments. In the United States, English is the primary language used in classroom instruction and assessment programs. On the other hand, social language is instrumental in facilitating academic interactions between students (Brown, Miller, & Jane, 2006). Limited proficiency and lack of confidence regarding these education language concepts act as considerable obstacles in refugees’ academic journeys. b. Demographic Background of the Topic Technically, a refugee refers to an individual who fled his or her native country, and who is not willing to return for fear of persecution. Currently, the total number of refugees in the world is approximately 22.4 million persons. Substantial portion of this number, about 75%, reside in the Middle East and North Africa. The rest are evenly distributed across Western nations in Europe and America. In 2000, United States had 90,191 refugees (Brown et al, 2006). Most of these refugees come from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin American nations. Approximately 30% of refugees entering the United States are children below the age of 15 years. Some of these children end up being adopted by American families while others stay with their parents. Across the 50 US states, refugee children are present in classrooms. For every 50 students, there is at least one refugee student in US schools (Peggy, 1999). II. Literature Review a. Pre-immigration Barriers As insinuated earlier, language barriers predispose refugee students to poor academic performance in US schools. These language barriers can be pre-immigration or post-immigration in nature. Pre-immigration language barriers exist before persons are forced to flee their native countries. Apparently, most children in certain African nations like Somalia have had little or no contact with education (Watkins, Razee & Richters, 2012). Social interactions in their original communities are occurring through native languages. Normal activities in such third-world communities involve catering for basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. Education is often relegated into preferential options for urban societies. Life in these native communities does not depend on education. Members of such communities have congenital difficulties in mastering the art of academics, and not only harbor limited willingness to seek academic knowledge but also demonstrate inadequacy in the ability to concentrate in class (Watkins et al, 2012). Children in rural communities have never learned English, leave alone entering a classroom setting. When refugees from such primitive communities enter the United States, their literacy levels are desperately minimal. b. Post-immigration Barriers Immediately after refugees enter the United States, the mainstream population expects them to blend into social institutions like education environments. When young refugees are adopted by American families, they are enrolled in US schools to study together with other students. The first post-immigration language barrier encountered by these refugee students is language acquisition (Watkins et al, 2012). English and other instruction languages will be the refugees’ second language. In this context, refugee students are forced to struggle with challenges of second language instruction. Despite the use of intensive instruction techniques as a means of facilitating language acquisition among refugees, such efforts could not synchronize the literacy levels all students in US classrooms. As aforementioned, these refugee students demonstrate limited ability to concentrate in a classroom. Post-immigration language barriers worsen when the synergistic impact of limited concentration and inadequate proficiency in instruction language materialize (Irene, 2006). At the end of intensive instruction programs, refugee students still cannot proficiently write or speak in US English. Consequently, the students cannot objectively discern academic concepts. Besides the problems associated with second language instruction, refugee students also encounter barriers related to social language in academic contexts (Smith, 2010). Conventionally, learning occurs through interactive discussions within academic settings. Often, instructors require students to interact and work as teams in enhancing their understanding of concepts in mainstream subjects like business. Technically, the level of participation of each learner is directly proportional to resultant level of understanding of the concepts (Lynn, 2005). In this case, low participation leads to inadequate learning while active participation yields substantial comprehension of academic concepts. In group-learning, refugee students demonstrate minimal participation because they lack confidence in social languages used in academic interactions. Refugee students in learning teams are reluctant to contribute because the lack adequate dexterity regarding appropriate use of academic terminologies. Therefore, their reluctance in participation will gradually dissolve their confidence in academic capabilities; hence language barriers cause interrupted education among refugee students (Lynn, 2005). c. What I learned from the Research Topic After conducting the literature review on language barriers in refugee education, I learned that contentedness in academic undertakings depends on the level of consonance with the learning environments. Limited consonance, which in this case involves lack of confidence in social language and limited literacy on instruction language, causes a correspondingly negative feeling of contentedness. Unfortunately, US schools expect refugee students to compete with the other US students in academic undertakings (Lynn, 2005). Results from such competitions are not objective because refugee students and United States students have distinct levels of language literacy. Because of limited fluency in instruction language, refugee students struggle to discern academic concepts. Contrarily, US students, who are native users of the instruction language, lack any difficulty in discerning the same academic concepts. In this case, there is limited consonance between the education capabilities of refugees and that of students from United States communities. Consequently, refugee students are not only discontented but also uncomfortable with US education environments primarily because of language barriers. d. Personal Opinion on the Topic Personally, I think the issue of language barriers among refugee students is inadequately addressed by current academic programs in the United States. When refugee students enroll in schools, they are separately taken through intensive language acquisition programs before being merged with the mainstream student population (Brown et al, 2006). At the end of the intensive programs, which last for approximately six months, instructors presume that the refugee students are sufficiently proficient in the instruction language. However, these students do not acquire substantial skills within the 6-months programs that will enable them to compete objectively with other proficient students. In this case, I agree with the purpose of intensive programs in facilitating language literacy among refugee students. However, I am not comfortable with the presumption employed by instructors before dispatching refugee students into the mainstream student population. I think additional strategies to ensure objective proficiency should be used rather that presuming effectiveness of the existing intensive programs. III. Conclusion In conclusion, it remains evident that language barriers, specifically the issues of second language instruction and limited confidence in social language, are undermining education of refugee students in US schools. Language barriers, which could be pre-immigration or post-immigration in nature, compromise on the eventual outcomes of refugee students’ academic journeys. Despite presence of adaptive instructional programs to enhance proficiency of language among refugees in US schools, more still needs to be done to neutralize obstacles presented by pre-immigration and post-immigration language barriers. Undeniably, research of such topics is important in improving the education lives of refugees living in non-native cultures across the world. References Brown, J., Miller, J. & Jane, M. (2006) Interrupted schooling and the acquisition of literacy: Experiences of Sudanese refugees in Victorian secondary schools. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 29(2), 150-162. Irene, B. (2006) Becoming a citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada. Pittsburg: University of California Press. Lynn, M. (2005) Educational needs and barriers of refugee students in the United States: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 329-364. Peggy, S. (1999) Refugees as English language learners: Issues and concerns. Center of Applied Linguistics, Washington , DC.: Eric Publications. Smith, R. (2010) Determinants of second language proficiency among refugees in the Netherlands. London: Oxford University Press. Watkins, P; Razee H; & Richters J. (2012) “I’m telling you…the language barrier is the most, the biggest challenge: Barriers to education among Karen refugee women in Australia.” Australian Journal of Education, 56(2), 126-141. Read More