Educ373: Literacy in a Multicultural Society Assignment 1

Educ373: Literacy in a Multicultural Society Assignment 1

In the twenty-first century, there are people from a rich variety of cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds in every society. Therefore, when translated into a classroom setting, the diversity languages will almost always be inevitable. This subsequently seeks the effective understanding and support of multiliteracies within educational discourses. Within the studies of multiliteracies, Ruiz’s (1984) statement that language can be seen as a problem, a right, or a resource is widely acknowledged and debated. As a result of the inherent support of certain aspects within the three models, teachers subconsciously make assumptions of the learning strategies that most benefit their bilingual students. As a result, classroom practices thatreflect on both teachers’ intentional and subconscious attitudesare adopted. According to Larson (1974), these assumptions are also evident amongst schools, as they question whether to uphold language variety, or to modify it, or eradicate it.

These three separate models are often seen as a progressive paradigm shift, where “language as a ‘problem’ is an ideological mistake we have or should have outgrown; language as a ‘right’ is slightly better but still too passive and conservative; whereas language as a ‘resource’ is the truly progressive stance that must sweep all before it” (Wright, 2002, p.1). However, views within all three models remain evident today, and it is hence questioned as to whether the three models coexist in most societies (Wright, 2002).

The language as a 'problem' orientation treats linguistic diversity as a problem to be remedied (Gort, De Jonh & Cobb, 2008) and views multilingualism as a negative force in need of streamlining in order to ensure social and political cohesion within the nation-state (Wiley & Lukes, 1996). According to Crawford (2004), this orientation further claims that global problems including poverty, illiteracy and tensions between ethnic groups, are supposedly caused by a diversity of languages. As a result of these perspectives against linguistic pluralism, it regards assimilation as the only cure of societal problems (Gort, De Jong & Cobb, 2008).

This perception views language as a disability that disadvantages students from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and suggests that remediation is required to raise students up to the level of their English-speaking peers (Crawford, 2004). According to Cummins (2009), with the view of language as a ‘problem’ in literacy, students from non-English speaking backgrounds are often defined by what they lack (English) as opposed to what they have (competence in one or more other languages) (p.265). Fuller (2006) adds to this, claiming that many believe that "Children's lack of English proficiency and mainstream cultural knowledge… is seen as a major impediment to school achievement” (p.1).

Many teachers view language as a ‘problem’ and therefore embed this belief into their assumptions and the classroom practices they choose to adopt (Cummins, 2007). Although their assumptions may be seen as misguided, the related classroom practices continue to dominate culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms (Cummins, 2007, p.222). Many educators mistakenly seek to make up for the cultural deficiencies of these students from non-English speaking backgrounds, and they mostly lead to a one-dimensional emphasis on learning English (Crawford, 2004). Therefore, they promote normative and monolingual discourses in literacy and learning, and dispute any literate practices in languages other than English (Diaz & Harvey, 2007, p.212).Within immersion and bilingual programs, it is also believed that students’ native language(s) and the target language should be kept rigidly separate (Lambert & Tucker, 1972).

It is suggested that teachers must acknowledge the multiple experiences of literacy from the perspectives of a range of cultural and language groups, as it can not only support students’ biliterate experiences, but can alsostrengthen classroom rapport (Diaz & Harvey, 2007, p.212).Educators and researchers must take into account the dynamic nature of children’s world experiences as bilinguals through investigating home and community literacy practices, and accordingly incorporate these throughout the school program (Diaz & Harvey, 2007, p.212).The misguided common classroom practices and beliefs described by Cummins (2007) and Fuller (2006) substantiate Ruiz’s (1984) claim that teachers’ attitudes of language as a ‘problem’ are recurrently embedded in their subconscious assumptions, and hence, fault their classroom practices and pedagogies. According to Larson (1974), this model purely rejects students who do not adopt the dialect most familiar to us and “we need to question whether this is based on any real merit in our dialect or whether we are actually rejecting the students themselves, rejecting them because of their racial, social, and cultural origins” (p.3).

The language as a ‘right’ orientation is based on the belief that all people have the right to choose which language(s) they use and in which language(s) to be educated (Baker, 2006). It also emphasises the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of language (Gort, De Jong & Cobb, 2008, p.45). As opposed to the views of language as a’problem’, this orientation supports the notion that “linguistic rights should be seen as a human right” (Gort, De Jong & Cobb, 2008, p.45), and subsequently, any forms of linguistic assimilation should be seen as an assault on human rights”(Rojas & Reagan, 2003). Consequently, in the attempt to protect language rights and provide equal education opportunities, language revitalization, additive bilingual education programs and maintenance programs for native languages are implemented (Gort, De Jong & Cobb, 2008, p.45).

Within the model of language as ‘right’, teachersoften strive to establish an inclusive classroom through educating students about the diverse cultures within their class. However, according to Anderson (1982), the views on how to integrate global education perspectives in many school curriculums are frequently misguided. Swee-Hin (1993)substantiates this, suggesting that when teachers attempt to implement such global perspectives, they too often “inject a flavour of the exotic into the curriculum” (p.13) through the arrangement of multicultural activities. Swee-Hin (1993) claims that the task is not as simple as that, as such activities do not equate to a holistic global approach and further implies that such ‘multicultural’ activities are irrelevant and inconsistent (p.13). This implies that teachers need to instead integrate global perspectives in more meaningful ways and across all curriculum areas for a more balanced program. It is alsosuggested that teachers should not only integrate global education through teaching students about the diverse cultures within their classroom, but they need to delve deeper and strive to understand the actual cultural needs of students from the non-English-speaking backgrounds (Swee-Hin, 1993).This should be done through understanding and raising awareness about diverse values, assumptions, lifestyles, and conceptual interpretations (Swee-Hin, 1993, p.13).

It is further suggested that teachers not only need to understand and accommodate to the cultural needs of students from non-English-speaking backgrounds, but close attention must also be paid to their specific learning needs. Zephir (1997) implies that the views of language as a 'right' are not entirely in order when students are not provided with English language support, andfurther claims that students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education. Lessow-Hurley (1996) supports this, stating that “those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences totally incomprehensible and in no way meaningful" (p.124). These theories imply that when language is viewed as a ‘right’, teachers need to prioritise students’ linguistic needs, as those who don’t understand English will lack the basic communication skills required to effectively engage with curriculum content.

Language as a ‘resource’is an orientation that is based on the idea that linguistic skills are a kind of asset and cultural capital as opposed to a deficit (Gort, Jong & Cobb, 2008). The model perceives native minority language(s) as a tool for academic success and the learning of English, and further perceives bilingualism as a professional advantage and a societal resource (Crawford, 2004). It further supports the notion that multilingualism is a resource that benefits homeland security, international diplomacy, the national economy, and the ethnic community (Gort, Jong & Cobb, 2008, p.45). Baker (1993) sums up the array of benefits within this model as suggested by various academics, and claims that all languages are a“natural resource that can be exploited for cultural, spiritual and educational growth, as well as for economic and political gain” (p.253).

From an educational viewpoint, it is discovered that "over and over we find evidence that native language competence appears to contribute, rather than distract from academic achievement” (Casanova, 1991, p.177). Accordingly, students from a non-English-speaking background are found to possess a range of cognitive abilities, as a result of their natural and given ability to organise their two language systems (Zephir, 1997, p.228). Such cognitive abilities include a deeper metalinguistic awareness, greater control of internal language processing, and a more analytical orientation of language (Zephir, 1997, p.228). Advocates of this model alsorecognisethatassuming that students’ native language is a resource validates the students’ language and culture, facilitates their self-esteem, reduces stress, and makes education a positive experience (Gallo, et al., 2008). While on a societal level, it prepares all students to succeed in the bilingual employment market, rather that isolating them from a multilingual world (Gallo, et al., 2008).

Advocates of this model believe that linguistic diversity does not cause separation or less integration in society (Baker, 1993, p.253). Rather, it is believed that elimination of students’ native language(s) by the schools is considered an “economic, social and cultural wastage (Baker, 1993, p.253). Similarly, Ruiz (1984) claims that within this model"language is a resource to be managed, developed and conserved" (p.28).Supporters of this orientation consequently advocate additive bilingual education, which assigns an intrinsic value to being literate in a second language and values and respects the cultures of those individuals who do not speak English as their native language (Rethinking Schools Online, 2000/2001). Furthermore, in a classroom setting, teachers who support this orientation strive to preserve languages other than English (Zephir, 2007), and often do so through the support of ‘multilingual education’ (Coelho, 2011). This implies that teachers who support the model of language as a ‘resource’ would innately accept the languages within their classroom, and therefore their teaching practices would not intervene with or hinder the learning of students from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Subsequently, it is implied that these teachers would adopt classroom strategies that accommodate to the needs of students from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and embrace the diversity of languagesas a result of their subconscious assumption of students’ native language(s)as beneficial ‘resources’.

The attitudes and assumptions that teachers possess are often reflected in their classroom practices. In relation to Ruiz’s (1984) statement that language can be seen as a problem, right or resource, there are various views and therefore various teaching approaches. With the view of language as a ‘problem’,one belief is that students’ native language(s) should be neglected and replaced with English alone; With the view of language as a ‘right’, one classroom strategyis to establish inclusive classrooms through promoting multiculturalism; And with the view of language as ‘resource’, some teachers embrace and aim to preserve languages other than English. However, as studies have shown that the assumptions of many educators’ are often misguided, classroom practices and pedagogies relating to the methods best suited to bilingual students are often subsequently faulted. Ultimately, as teachers need to support the learning of all students, teachers must also support the multiliteracies within their classrooms (Zephir, 1997).

References

Anderson, C. C. (1982). Global Education in the Classroom.Theory into Practice, 21(3), pp.168-176.

Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. (N. HornbergerEd., 4th ed.) Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed). Los Angeles: Bilingual Education Services.

Cummins, J. (2007).Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, p.221-240.

Cummins, J. (2009). Foreward: Pedagogies of choice: challenging coercive relations of power in classrooms and communities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12,pp.261-271.

Gallo, Y., Garcia, M., Pinuelas, L., & Youngs, I. (2008). Crisis in the Southwest: Bilingual education program inconsistencies. Multicultural Education, 6, pp.10-16.

Gort, M., De Jong, E., &, Cobb, C. D. (2008). Seeing through a bilingual lens: Structural and ideological contexts of structured English immersion in three Massachusetts districts. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 8(2),pp.41-67.

Lessow-Hurley, J. (1996) The Foundations of Dual Language Instruction (2nd ed). New York: Longman.

Parkes, J. (2008). Who chooses dual language education for their children and why. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11,pp.635-660.

Prof. Bruce Fuller at University of Berkeley. (2006-7). Cultural Pluralism, Language, and Education Policy [Transcript]. Retrieved from

Rojas, E. D., & Reagan, T. (2003). Linguistic human rights: A new perspective on bilingual education. Educational Foundations, 1, pp.5-19.

Swee-Hin, T. (1993). Bridging the World into the Classroom: Global Literacy and a Question of Paradigms. Geographical Education, 7(1),pp.13-21.

Wiley, T., & Lukes, M. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the U.S. TESOL QUARTERLY, 30(3), pp.511-535.

Wright, L. (2004). Language and value: Towards accepting a richer linguistic ecology for South Africa, Language Problems and Language Planning, 28(2), pp.175-197.