lecture 1: Bilingual Education: Theories and Models Douglas Fleming PhD Associate Professor Faculty of Education University of Ottawa

Although there is clear consensus in the academic literature that bilingual education (BE) methods are effective, there is still much confusion in public discourse about these approaches; May (2008) argues that this is due to common misunderstandings about the theory underpinning BE and the various models that have been developed in relation to it.

“BE is instruction in two languages and the use of those two languages as mediums of instruction” (Anderson and Boyer, 1970, 12); BE is NOT a program that might include sts who are bilingual but does not use two languages as targets or mediums of instruction; BE is NOT where the target language is taught as a subject or in submersion, immersion or sheltered programming.

The goal of BE is to “foster and/or maintain longer- term student bilingualism and bi-literacy [that adds] another language to the student’s existing language repertoire” (May, 2008, 20); Additive bilingualism: The learner does not lose his or her native language or cultural identity. A target language and cultural identity are gained; Subtractive bilingualism: The learner’s native language and cultural identity are replaced by the target language and cultural identity.

Theory

Transitional model: “uses the L1 of minority language students in the early stages of schooling but aims to shift students away from the use of their L1 as quickly as possible towards the greater use of the dominant language, in order to cope academically in “mainstream” or general education” (May, 2008, p. 21); Typically: only 1-2 years; Subtractive: moves from bilingualism to monolingualism.

Maintenance model: “Aims to maintain the minority language of the student, strengthen the student’s sense of cultural and linguistic identity and affirm their individual and collective ethno-linguistic rights” (May, 2008, p. 22). Typically: 4 years or more Additive: emphasizes maintaining proficiency in the L1 and gaining proficiency in the L2.

Enrichment model: Aimed at “achieving bilingualism and bi-literacy for individual students and ongoing maintenance of the minority language(s) in the wider community [in order to support] minority languages, cultural pluralism and an integrated national society based on autonomy of cultural groups” (May, 2008, p. 23); Typically: no time limit; Additive: emphasizes developing greater proficiency in both the L1 and L2.

Heritage model: “Focuses on the reclamation of a heritage language no longer spoken as an L1” (May, 2008, p. 23); Includes Indigenous language revitalization; Typically: part time; Additive: emphasizes language revitalization and/or cultural maintenance.

Dual language model: “include native speakers as well as non-native speakers of the target or minority language in the same classroom in roughly equal proportion (May, 2008, 24). Typically: In elementary programming in the U.S. Additive: goal is to foster bilingualism for two groups of L1 sts.

English-only prescriptions are based on: misconceptions about immersions models; the mistaken assumption that additive bilingualism is not possible because the brain’s capacity for new knowledge is finite; attitudes held over from the audio-lingual approach (1950’s-1960’s) that overemphasize the value of drills; inflexible orientations towards curricula and lesson- planning; considerations based on power and politics.

Longitudinal Comparative Research: Ramírez, Yuen & Ramey (1991) found that Spanish-speaking sts taught in late-exit (Sp/En)bilingual programs had great growth in not just English language oral skills, but also in mathematics and general literacy development. Thomas and Collier (2002) found that bilingual programming not only achieved better academic results than those that were considered mainstream, but also enjoyed a much lower drop-out rate.

On the basis of these studies, May (2008) argues that the length of L1 education is the most influential factor “in predicting the educational success of bilingual students, including socioeconomic status” (May, 2008, 29); This is due not simply for cognitive reasons, but also for those related to affective variables; As Lo Bianco, Orton & Yihong argue (2009), the maintenance of one’s L1 is linked to positive attitudes towards the first culture, self-esteem and motivation.

Why do you think facts about bilingual education are often ignored in public and policy discourse? What model of bilingualism would be the most useful in your own situation? How would curriculum design and lesson planning best reflect your chosen model of bilingualism? Is there any place for English (or target language) Only prescriptions in the classroom?