Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going as a Heritage Language Community? Olga Kagan, UCLA Washington, D.C. September 19, 2015 OP-­‐ED, LA TIMES Dec 2014 “We need to embrace and advance homegrown bilingualism, but that can happen only if we offer these [heritage] languages in our educa=onal system.” 2 IntergeneraFonal Transmission •
•
•
•
•
•
Dear Dr. Kagan, I was your student a few years ago (back in 2010). Since then, I got married to Anna (also a UCLA alum who took “Russian for Russians”) and we now have a wonderful one-­‐year old son named Max. Both Anna and I are heritage speakers and we want to con=nue the Russian language and tradi=on with our children. I remember you once telling me it is difficult for 2nd and 3rd genera=ons to con=nue to speak Russian since they become fully assimilated. Hopefully with your help, we can make sure our culture is passed down. Igor N. Dec 2014 3 EducaFonal System 1. K-­‐12 2. Community schools 3. AXerschool programs 4. Higher educa=on 4 Outline •  Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going as a Heritage Language Community? •  The past
•  The present
•  The future
5 A BIT OF HISTORY THE PAST 6 Cajun Language Recent History 1999 -­‐-­‐ The 1st Na=onal Conference on Heritage Languages in America The main quesFon: Is there any research data? 2000 -­‐-­‐ UCLA Research Priori=es Conference The main quesFon: What are the major research gaps in HL educa=on? 2002 – Second Heritage Conference 8 2002 -­‐-­‐ The Alliance For the Advancement of Heritage Languages: started compiling the Heritage Language Programs Database to promote informa=on sharing and capacity building. 9 2006-­‐2018 •  National Heritage Language
Resource Center -- funded by the
Title VI U.S. Department of Education
•  One of 16 NLRCs
•  The only one dedicated to heritage
languages
•  Research; design of innovative materials;
teacher training
10 Ongoing and Recent AcFviFes: •  Publishing the Heritage Language Journal •  Have developed an Online Heritage Teaching Workshop hdp://startalk.nhlrc.ucla.edu/
default_startalk.aspx •  Are working on a Cer=ficate in HL Educa=on –  to be launched in summer 2016 •  Have created a website for the Community Schools Forum 11 The Center Advocates HL-­‐focused pedagogy because HLLs •  differ from FL learners’ •  have a poten=al of reaching a high level of proficiency in a shorter =me •  can become ‘a na=onal resource’ (Brecht & Ingold 2002) 12 Who are Heritage Language Speakers? •  Heritage language speakers are early bilinguals •  Growing up in families where a language other than English is spoken; •  With their heritage language being the weaker language of the two Source: The NHLRC White Paper, 2010 13 TWO MYTHS HL SPEAKERS ARE
•  native speakers
(# 1)
•  same as FL learners (# 2)
14 Language Use NaFve Speakers HL Speakers/ FL Learners Learners Family + + Community + + (limited) Full range of interac=on + FL classroom NS/ + + In-Between (?)
NS HLL FLL 16 WHAT DO WE KNOW? THE PRESENT 17 NHLRC Survey (2007-­‐09) •  An online survey
•  1,800 responses
•  22 languages
•  College-age respondents
•  Survey Report
http://www.nhlrc.ucla.edu
For analysis, see M. Carreira & O. Kagan (2011)
18 What languages did you speak? 200 180 160 140 120 English 100 HL Both 80 60 40 20 0 0-­‐5 years old 6-­‐12 years old 13-­‐18 years old 18+ years old 0-­‐5 years old 6-­‐12 years old 13-­‐18 years old 18+ years old 19 A Student’s PerspecFve •  “Growing up speaking my HL at home has provided me with sufficient vocabulary to carry on conversa=ons with my parents, but I have not learned how to speak formally to those outside the home.” (NHLRC Survey 2009) 20 21 HLL’s MoFvaFons •  To communicate with family in the U.S. •  To learn about cultural/linguis=c roots •  To communicate with family in the HL country •  For future career (Spanish, Chinese) Source: Carriera and Kagan (2011) 22 HL and Family •  At home, oXen =mes there is miscommunica=on. I get easily frustrated when I cannot get across a very simple point with my parents. In a way, it has been a barrier between my parents and me and making us grow apart somewhat. •  Because of my Tagalog dad and I have grown way closer and can joke around in Tagalog. …my Lola (grandmother) is gerng very old, and chooses who and what to respond to -­‐ but she always and quickly responds to me when I speak Tagalog with her. It has been great and my family & rela=ves in the Philippines are amused by it 23 as well. 24 ConFnued Use of Language •  HL-­‐based AcFviFes in the past 6 months –  90% -­‐ spoke on the phone –  76% -­‐ listened to music –  69% -­‐watched TV or DVDs –  30 % community events (NHLRC Survey 2009) 25 HL Speaker: A generic profile •  Second or 1.5 generation
•  Sequential bilingual
•  Continued (limited) use of HL
•  HL specific motivations: linguistic
and cultural
•  Dual identities
Source: NHLRC Survey (2007-09) analyzed in
Carreira & Kagan (2011)
26 The NHLRC Survey •  Provides us with data on – Language use – Artudes, mo=va=on & iden=ty – Self-­‐assessment •  BUT NOT assessment of HLL’s linguisFc ability 27 What we know from linguisFc research: •  Vocabulary appears to be the best
indicator of HLLs’ overall proficiency
•  Grammar in HL is …selective and
localized.
•  Pragmatics: formality/informality is of
paramount importance
28 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 29 HL Curriculum Made Simple Vocabulary expansion + Certain grammaFcal points + PragmaFc competence + Cultural enrichment 30 Macro (Top-­‐down) approaches “A defining feature of macro-­‐based approaches is that they teach grammar and vocabulary as dictated by func=on or context.” Carreira (2015) •  Content/theme-­‐based •  Project-­‐based •  Community-­‐based Curriculum Development Macro Micro task task text text form form 32 Five “FROM-­‐TO” Principles of Curriculum Development ALLOW FOR A MACRO APPROACH in HL instrucFon 1. aural > to reading 2. spoken > to wrilen 3. home-­‐based register > general/academic 4. everyday acFviFes > in-­‐class acFviFes 5. moFvaFon & idenFty > content 33 From MoFvaFon to Content MoFvaFon 1.  CommunicaFng with family 2.  Interest in cultural and linguisFc roots 3.  Dual idenFty Content 1.  Cultural themes; history of im/migraFon 2. History of the country; language structure 3. CreaFng a bicultural individual 34 AN EXAMPLE A PROJECT BASED ON THE FIVE PRINCIPLES (ABOVE) 35 A TranslaFon-­‐based Project •  Students: HL speakers of Russian •  Proficiencies: from illiterate HLL to almost na=ve •  Goal: preparing English sub=tles for a documentary •  AddiFonal goals: acquiring background knowledge •  Strategy: crea=ng ZPD for each student •  Class management: small group work Week by Week •  Weeks 1-­‐3. transcribing sec=ons of text in small heterogeneous groups to produce a complete transcript. •  Weeks 4-­‐8. working on wriden transla=ons into English. Transla=ons were discussed in class. •  Weeks 9-­‐10. 1) comple=ng sub=tles; 2) giving a presenta=on in Russian: “What background informa=on would a viewer need in order to understand the documentary?” From Translator’s Diaries 1. “…it was par=cularly difficult for me to understand the word order.” 2. “From the very first page there was a ques=on of sentence structure. The text is full of incomplete sentences. Could they also be translated into English as incomplete sentences?” 3. “I didn’t know a lot of words. Many of the words were period terms (soviet or socialist meaning).” What Was Achieved? Students •  no=ced the differences between English and Russian syntax •  learned new vocabulary and new concepts in context •  developed a metalinguis=c understanding of the language and its uses and func=ons •  realized that their bilingualism had a meaningful social func=on Sepng higher goals FOR THE FUTURE 40 DATA FROM TWO RESEARCH PROJECTS 41 Project 1. Flagship Overseas Source: Davidson & Lekic (2013)
Modality SPEAKING READING WRITING LISTENING * ILR raFngs HLLs (pre to post program) * 2+ > 4/4+ 2+ > 4 2 > 4 2+>4 FLLs (pre to post-­‐
program) * 2/2+ >3/3+ 2>3/3+ 2 > 3 2>3 42 Results: HLLs and FLLs In an overseas immersion •  HLL tend to gain more than FLL in the same amount of =me, but •  the Fme investment needs to be significant Source: Davidson & Lekic (2013) 43 Project 2. NHLRC/ACTFL research project •  What prevents heritage speakers from reaching Superior on an official ACTFL OPI? Stage 1: Spanish and Russian Stage 2: Chinese study is under way Source: MarFn et al (2013) 44 The Study Concluded that… Proficiency levels increased with
1. more contact with the heritage culture;
2.  greater use of the heritage language or a
mixture of heritage language and English;
3.  living or spending significant time in a
country where the language is spoken;
4.  having formal instruction in the heritage
language at the college level.
Source: MarFn et al (2013) 45 The Future HL EDUCATION INSTITUTIONALIZED 46 The Next Step For HL programs to become part and parcel of our educa=onal system: 1. Accepted as part of our educa=onal mission; 2. Introduced at the majority of ins=tu=ons; 3. Receiving rou=ne alloca=ons of =me and money; 4. Not being dependent upon the ac=ons of specific individuals but upon the organiza=onal culture. Based on: Miles, M.B., Ekholm, N. and Vandenberghe, R. (eds.).(1987) Las=ng school improvement: exploring the process of ins=tu=onaliza=on. Leuven, Belgium : Acco 47 And then… •  We will be able “to embrace and advance homegrown bilingualism” because, heritage languages will be offered in our educa=onal system. •  Heritage languages will become ‘a na=onal resource’ (Brecht & Ingold 2002) 48 PublicaFons •  Handbook of Heritage, Community, and Na6ve American Languages in the United States: Research, Policy, and Educa6onal (T. Wiley et al. eds). CAL/
Routledge 2014 •  Beadrie, S., Dukar, C., Potowski, K. Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Prac6ce McGraw-­‐
Hill, 2014 •  Handbook on Heritage Language Educa=on: From Innova=on to Program Building (O.Kagan, M.Carreira, C.Chik, eds.) Routledge (projected for 2016) 49 References Maria Carreira, & Olga Kagan (2011) The Results of the Na=onal Heritage Language Survey: Implica=ons for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, Volume 44, No 1. pp. 40-­‐64. Dan E. Davidson & Maria D. Lekic (2013) The Heritage and Non-­‐Heritage Learner in the Overseas Immersion Context: Comparing Learning Outcomes and Target-­‐Language UFlizaFon in the Russian Flagship (pages 226-­‐252), Heritage Language Journal, 10-­‐2, 2013 Cynthia Mar=n, with Elvira Swender, and Mildred Rivera-­‐Mar=nez (2013) Assessing the Oral Proficiency of Heritage Speakers According to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012 – Speaking (pages 211-­‐225) Heritage Language Journal, 10-­‐2, 2013 50 51 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 52 2012-­‐2013, UCLA •  2012 -­‐-­‐ Survey and discussions with local community schools •  April 2013 -­‐-­‐ Community Language Schools Conference: Challenges and achievements in community language schools 53 Discussion: Topics of Interest Sharing strategies for fundraising
3
4
Very interested
A little interested
Not interested
Ways of motivating children who do not value
learning their home language
6
1
Very interested
A little interested
Not interested
Managing classrooms with students at different
levels of language mastery
6
1
Very interested
A little interested
Not interested
The relationship between your school
and the local community and school district
5
2
Very interested
A little interested
Not interested
Teaching methods and teacher training
6
1
Very interested
A little interested
Not interested
Sharing present and future goals for your school
and how best to achieve these goals
4
3
Very interested
A little interested
Not interested
54 NaFonal CoaliFon of Community-­‐Based Language Schools •  membership website hosted by the UCLA Center for World Languages a nd Na=onal Heritage Language Resource Center. •  free and open to par=cipants in any community language school, including administrators, teachers, and parents. •  hdp://www.nhlrc.ucla.edu/nhlrc/resources/
ar=cle/143931 55 ONLINE WORKSHOP 56 The Online CerFficate in Teaching Heritage Languages •  A course for teachers whose language classes include heritage language (HL) students. These classes could be dedicated to HL students, or they could be mixed classes. •  The course is an asynchronous course where par=cipants work through the modules at their own pace. However, it will be offered within a specific =me period: We will offer it in the summer over an eight week period. •  The modules will provide par=cipants with a detailed understanding of concepts and defini=ons pertaining to HL learning and teaching, as well as the ways in which these impact classroom prac=ces and materials development. 57 Thank you okagan@ucla.edu 58