Mother-tongue Based Multilingual Education

Advancing Research-Based Understandings

Jessica Ball, MPH, PhD Early Childhood Development Intercultural Partnerships (www.ecdip.org)

University of Victoria

MTB-MLE Network

Research Agenda Initiative Kick-Off Event

September 13, 2013

Washington DC

I lost my talk . . . . .

The 10,000 foot overview

• What are we talking about?

• What languages are we using to talk about it?

• What are the contexts of our talk?

• How are we talking about it?

• Who are we talking about?

• Why are we talking about it?

• What do we think we know?

• What questions are we asking?

• What questions matter to whom?

• What are key gaps that a program of research could

meaningfully address?

What are we talking about?

What? Mother tongue based ….

Mother tongue (MT or L1):

The first language acquired in early years & that has

become his/her natural instrument of thoughts and

communication (UNESCO, 2003)

Mother tongue-based education:

The primary language of instruction is the

child’s mother tongue or first language (L1).

What? Multilingual education (MLE)

Formal use of more than 2 languages for

instruction and literacy (UNESCO, 2003).

Countries with multiple regional languages of wider

communication or more than one offical

language may support MLE that includes

children’s mother tongues and the more widely

spoken languages of the nation.

MLE is ‘stronger’ the more that L1 is used in

teaching and learning (Malone, 2003).

What? Mother tongue based Multilingual

education (MTB-MLE)

Sometimes called ‘bilingual education’, MTB-MLE

better conveys the practice of relying primarily on

learners’ mother tongue, and the culturally based

experiences, knowledges, and literacies that the mother

tongue expresses, as a foundation for learning, with

some introduction of L2 in part of the curriculum, often as

a formal subject of study. (Dutcher, 2003 and others)

“First Language First” (UNESCO, 2005)

Variously called developmental bilingual education

(Genesee, Paradis & Crago, 2004).

What? Heritage mother tongue

Refers to an ancestral language that may or may not be

spoken in the home and community. Proposed by

McCarty (2008) as the ‘living root of contemporary

cultural identities’, regardless of whether one speaks the

language.

(a controversial, backward looking term)

Education may be seen as a vehicle for retaining or

revitalizing a language, especially in Indigenous contexts

(Ball & McIvor, 2012).

How are we talking about it?

Theoretical approaches to first and second language

acquisition, and to MLE, based in: •education

•psychology

•Sociolinguistics,

•psycholinguistics,

•economics,

•political science,

•sociology,

•neuroscience

•others…

A program of research can develop multi- and inter-

disciplinary insights into the substantive issues

How are we talking about it?

Various frameworks provide rationales:

• Rights

• Cultural & linguistic endangerment/loss

• Psycho-social development

• Participation:

– Education

– Labour force

– Civil society

Child rights

UNCRC (1989) Article 30: stipulates right of Indigenous Peoples to use their own language in schooling.

UNCRC General Comment 7:

• Early childhood: birth through transition to school (8 yrs)

• Programs & policies are required to realize rights in early childhood

• Recognize & incorporate diversities in culture, language, and child rearing.

Parental rights

UNCRC Article 29

Education of the child shall be directed to development

of respect for the child’s parents, and the child’s own

cultural identity, language and values, as well as for the

national values of the country in which the child is

living….

(Also Article 5)

Community rights

UN Convention and Recommendation against

Discrimination in Education specifically recognizes “the

right of the members of national minorities to carry on

their own educational activities, including…the use or the

teaching of their own language.”

Community rights

UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to

National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities

(1992, Article 4)

– Affirms the rights of minorities, including Indigenous

Peoples, to learn and/or have instruction in their

mother tongue or heritage language.

Participation

Liberation pedagogy

Speech, language & literacy enable participation

Sense of place & value in education, labour force, civil society

Familiarity with/access to school, work, social environments

Community empowerment

Civil society rich in diverse

linguistic & cultural resources

Psychological development

Cultural identity associated with speaking the language of one’s culture of origin

Cultural knowledge embodied in language

Belonging within a cultural community that shares a language or dialect

Inter-generational communication

Self-concept: who am I? Commonalities with ancestors/ Distinctiveness from others

Self-esteem: proud of who one is & special competencies associated with family and culture of origin

The 10,000 foot

monolingual/monocultural view We say that most research on MTB-MLE has been done in

the global North, while celebrating growth of a ‘grey’ body

of literature (i.e., not gold: empirical, peer-reviewed) in the

global South.

Do we mean we are only literate in (and selectively value)

research written in English conducted by Western educated

researchers using Western goals for children’s learning?

Need review and synthesis of MTB-MLE relevant

research published in multiple languages.

What is the colour of evidence?

Grey: not peer reviewed, not published in prestige journals,

often commissioned by INGOs, NGO, donors

Green: not peer reviewed or published formally, carried out

at a grassroots level, often by communities, local schools

and school district councils

Gold: peer reviewed, published by established

investigators/agencies

As we gather evidence, how should we regard non-

academic reports of impacts and experiences with MTB

and MTB-MLE in communities/countries?

Who are we talking about?

Some children’s mother tongue is privileged in formal education.

Other children’s mother tongue is dismissed, denied, or given only token support by dominant society, reflected in policies, schooling, health care and other domains.

Should children at high risk of marginalization because of having a mother tongue that is not the LoI be the primary focus of a research agenda advanced by the MTB-MLE Network?

Should ALL children be the focus, holding multilingualism as a valued outcome of Education for All?

Why are we talking about it?

Educational equity, child rights, moral imperative

Estimated 72 million children still out of school, many

more dropping out before completing Grade 1 or

continuing without gaining basic skills

Many of these marginalized children are members of

ethnolinguistic minority and Indigenous language

communities.

The population of under 14 years old is projected to

reach 4.5 billion by 2100, and most of this growth will be

in the global South

Global loss of linguistic, cultural and biodiversities

(e.g., see S. Romaine)

Why language matters

for Millennium Development Goals

• Promote gender equality and empower women

• Eradicate poverty and hunger

• Reduce child mortality and improve maternal health

• Combat HIV and AIDS, malaria and other diseases

• Ensure sustainable development

• Foster global partnerships for development

• Achieve universal primary education

Sandy Barron, Why language matters for MDGs, for the

Multilingual Education Working Group based at

UNESCO Bangkok (2012)

Why? Linguistic Endangerment

The Tower of Babel

Multiple Mother Tongues

a Punishment from God

“

Cultural and linguistic endangerment / loss

The world’s repository of language and culture is steadily depleted by LoI policies that impose dominant languages on children’s formal learning.

Of 6000+ languages spoken globally now, as few as 600 are expected to be living languages by 2099.

Language loss endangers cultural diversity, knowledges, identity, self-esteem, belonging, and appears to be correlated with loss of biodiversity.

What is the role of LoI policy in ‘linguistic genocide’?

Education as a bridge to ….? Monolingual, mono-culture, unidirectional learning journeys

There can be no doubt that a child raised in a bilingual environment is

handicapped in his language growth”

(Thompson, 1952)

Schools often treat bi/multilingualism as a cognitive handicap. Arriving at

school with only an Indigenous language, especially one without a recognized

orthography, may be seen as the greatest ‘handicap of all.

‘ Rather than constructing ethnolinguistic diversity as a problem to be overcome, can

measures of early literacy, such as EGRA and other tools, help to build bridges to MTB-

MLE?

A different bridge?

From a monlingual to a multilingual habitus?

Chlldren and their family members arrive at the doorstep of formal schooling

(when they do) with a precious resource: their home languages.

.

As we articulate priority research questions, should we challenge research

;problems’, goals, and tools for measuring outcomes that are based on passive

acceptance of a dominant language (or English) as the LoI, singular notions of

what counts as ‘literacy’, or on outcome measures, such as EGRA, that are

based monolingual assumptions.

Courageous research:

Who is included? Who is excluded?

What is gained? What is lost?

Are these trade-offs the best ones, from the perspectives of: Individual

learners, parents, language communities, regions, natons, global concerns?

Are there more locally responsive MTB-MLE pedagogies that could help to

avoid some of the subtractive effects of mainstream education, while

maximizing gains?

Why? Educational inequities

Language-in-education policies can contribute to the

marginalization/minoritization of children whose mother tongue(s)

is/are not the privileged language(s).

1. Smits et al., (2008): 22 LICs : 160 language groups

Children entering unfamiliar learning environments in an unfamiliar

language: a significant contributor to persistent high rates of early

school non-attendance, non-engagement, and failure among minority

& Indigenous children

2. Bender et al., (2005): Mali

MTB classroom 5 times less Grade 1 repetition

3 times less drop out

27% less expensive for 6 yr primary cycle than French only

From ‘best’ to ‘promising’ and ‘effective’

practices

Could we let ourselves off the hook of trying to find the universal best way, and

move instead through research to identify effective, meaningful approaches to

language in education that are locally defined and practiced, supporting cultural

belonging, adaptation to local circumstances, and lifelong learning that enables

people to take advantage of equitable opportunities to improve their quality of

life?

Why? Many challenges to implementing

MTB-MLE in complex situations

What is known?

The dominant language in a society is presented to children and families as normative, desired, privileged, high status, and, very often, the required language of early learning and all education programs.

For minority language children, this is a SUBMERSION approach (a.k.a. Sink or Swim).

Subtractive bilingualism … second language becomes more proficient than mother tongue.

Children do not ‘soak up languages like

sponges!’

Many children grow up speaking more than one language.

But language does not spring forth in full bloom during the

early years.

Language acquisition takes a long time.

Outcomes range from conversational fluency to academic

proficiency.

Depends on many factors

Alternative language-in-education approaches

• Mother tongue-based programs

• Bilingual (two-way bilingual) programs

• Multilingual programs

***Developmental bilingualism – Mother tongue as primary language while second

language is introduced as a subject of study for eventual transition to learning in the second language

Alternative approaches cont’d

“Bridging”: Planned transition from one language to another

‘Short cut’ or ‘early exit’: abrupt transition after only 2 or 3

years of school.

‘Late transition’ or ‘late exit’: transition after child has

cognitive academic proficiency in first language (CALP)

Maintenance bi/multilingual education

After second language is introduced, both first and second

languages are media of instruction.

First language instruction as a medium of instruction or

subject of study ensures ongoing support for academic

proficiency in the mother tongue.

Also called ‘additive bilingual education’ (languages are

added but do not displace mother tongue)

Tentative conclusions of research (Lightbown, 2008 and others)

• Children can acquire 2+ languages in EY

• Languages don’t compete for ‘mental space’ and bilingualism doesn’t ‘confuse’ children.

• Given adequate inputs & opportunities for interaction, children can acquire multi-lingual proficiency

• Cognitive advantages of developing proficiency in 2+ languages

• Early learning is no guarantee of continued development or lifelong retention: languages can be maintained, attenuated, or forgotten

Tentative conclusions of research (cont`d)

Late transition is better than short cut

While children can learn more than one language, whether they develop more than conversational fluency about everyday events in a language depends on increasingly advanced learning opportunities in that language

Cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) takes about 6 years of formal education

ALL OF PRIMARY SCHOOL

Questions: Transfer

What kinds of literacy skills (e.g., phonemic awareness,

writing, comprehending, etc,) need to be developed to

what level in order to establish a solid foundation for

learning in another language?

How does transfer of skills to L2 or L3 happen, under

what circumstances, for which learners, at what point in

their education?

Questions: What about the early years?

• Until now, deliberations have focused on language use,

development, & maintenance in formal primary schooling

& beyond.

• Little research on mother-tongue use, development &

maintenance in the early years when family members &

early childhood practitioners are typically the child’s first

teachers.

4 Cornerstones to secure a strong

foundation for young children

Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care & Development

(www.ecdgroup.com)

1. Start at the beginning: parenting programmes, services for vulnerable families.

2. Get ready for success: access to early childhood care & development programmes

3. Improve primary school quality

4. Include early childhood in policies

Start at the beginning

• We know very little about the roles of mother tongue

based pedagogies in formal and non-formal learning in

the early years. (Global Compact on Learning Research

Task Force Report, Brookings, 2012)

Investigate roles of mother-tongue and bi/multilingual

acquisition in the early years

– Encouraging enrolment, engagement and success in the

transition to school

– Supporting foundational skills

– Revitalizing endangered languages (e.g., immersion programs

such as Te Kohanga Reo in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Punana

Leo in Hawaii, Welsh-medium programs)

Questions: Linguistically and culturally

appropriate pedagogies

Research shows that students are more likely to succeed when

curriculum content and pedagogies are linguistically and culturally

meaningful.

i.e., Not only what is taught but how it is taught and how learning is

measured

How can we expand our notion of what EFA entails to embrace

multi-literacies (oral, text-based, land-based, etc) and multiple ways

of demonstrating learning (e.g., oral, performance, project, adaptive

competenece)

How can the potential of computer-mediated learning be harnessed

to ensure linguistically appropriate and culturally meaningful

pedagogy?

Questions: Culturally and linguistically

appropriate outcome measures

Measurements of intelligence, and more recently of

learning to read (in the LoI) have been widely used sorting

mechanisms.

Can we work in specific communities or regions to

construct more multi-dimensional, locally relevant

outcome measures? Would research show that some

holistic measures can be valid on a larger scale?

Questions: From local to global

There is a wide variety of teaching and learning contexts (languages, teaching and learning resources, learner and family characteristics, needs and goals, institutional policies and practices, and national policies, etc.

Can we commit enough funds to adequately characterize the nature of the environments in which studies are conducted? (Ethnographies, inventories, that could contribute to the development of a research-based decision-making and planning tool?

Can we embrace complexity and nuance and still find meaningful measures for cross-community/cross-national comparison?

Can we identify which kinds of approaches are likely to be effective only in particular local situations and which approaches could potentially be scaled up?

Questions: Teaching practice

How can teachers support optimal learning in MTB-MLE

classrooms?

What approaches to curricula and teaching are feasible

and effective in classrooms of children with diverse

mother tongues?

When it IS necessary for children to acquire a new

language at school entry, how can partnerships with

families and communities support children to continue

developing proficiency in the mother tongue?

What contributions can community members make to

quality MTB-MLE? (STC studies)

How can teachers be effectively prepared to introduce a

dominant language as a subject of study while children

are acquiring literacy in their mother tongue?

Questions: Recruitment, training and

mentoring of teachers and teacher

assistants

What’s next? Research approaches

Partnerships among communities, governments, NGOs,

research institutions, teacher training institutions,

universities.

Who could be our partners for what kinds of research

studies?

Who could fund what kinds of research?

Exploratory studies involving ethnographies, ‘most

significant change’ types of data collection.

Confirmatory studies involving randomized control studies.

Longitudinal studies that follow children in MTB-MLE

through secondary/tertiary ed.

References

Ball, J. (2010). Educational equity for children from diverse backgrounds: Mother tongue-based bilingual or multilingual education in the early years: Literature Review. Paris: UNESCO.http://www.unesco.org/en/languages-in-education/publications/

Ball, J., & McIvor, O. (2012). Canada’s big chill: Indigenous languages in education. In C.Benson & K. Kosonen (Eds.). Language issues in comparative education: Inclusive teaching and learning in non-dominant languages and cultures (pp. 19-38). Boston: Sense Publishers.

Barron, S. (2012). Why language matters for the Millenium Development Goals. Bangkok: UNESCO.

Bender, P., Dutcher, N., et al. (2005). In their own language…Education for All. Education Notes. World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/EducationNotes/EdNotes_Lang_of_Instruct.pdf

Dutcher, N. (2003). Promise and perils of mother tongue education.

www.silinternational.org/asia/ldc/plenary_papers/nadine_dutcher.pdf

Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M.B. (2004). Dual language development

and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning.

London: Paul Brookes.

Smits, J., Huisman, J., et al. (2008). Home language and education in the developing world. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2003). Education in a multilingual world. UNESCO Education Position Paper. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2005). First language first: Community-based literacy programmes for minority language contexts in Asia. Bankok: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2008). Mother tongue instruction in early childhood education: A selected bibliography. Paris: UNESCO.

Wagner, D. (2010). Quality of education, comparability, and assessment choice in developing countries. Compare, 40 (6), 741-760.

© Jessica Ball 2013

www.ecdip.org