EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
Empowering and Educating Language Minority Students in an English-Only Political
Climate
Literature Review
Doe Hain Jamall
University of the Pacific
EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
2
Introduction
Given the current resistance to bilingual education in the United States,
(Garcia & Bartlett, 2007) and given the plethora of languages in urban classrooms, it
seems wise to examine strategies to enable English Language Learners (ELLs) to
succeed academically without involving bilingual education. Both bilingual and
monolingual programs that are producing academically successful ELLs should be
studied to see what is being done to empower the children and promote learning.
Bilingual programs use a child’s first language (L1) to teach content while the
child learns English. Depending on the program, the child may be transitioned to
English within a relatively short period, or, in the case of dual proficiency programs,
continue to be taught in both languages. Proponents of this method cite “the success
of dual-immersion programs with measures of high academic achievement…”
(Martin-Beltran, 2009, p. 26).
Geneva Gay and James Banks of the University of Washington, Seattle, have
done a great deal of research in multicultural education, and many of their findings
support the use of cultural validation to empower minority students, thereby
improving academic achievement. While a number of the examples they cite employ
the use of African American Vernacular English, many do not, relying only on
cultural validation and culturally appropriate teaching strategies to improve academic
achievement (Gay, 2010).
Most of the articles selected for this review use a general framework of (or
similar to) critical discourse analysis (CDA), looking at the social contexts in which
discourse takes place, and also at the psychological and social results of discourse.
Critical discourse analysis is strongly influenced by poststructuralist discourse theory
and critical linguistics. It “examines how writing, texts and discourses are
EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
3
constructive phenomena, shaping the identities and practices of human subjects”
(Luke, 1997, p. 1). “Discourse” in CDA can refer to nearly any form of
communication, but for the purposes of this discussion it generally refers to face-toface communication or written text.
This paper examines a group of articles related to language use in schools.
They include programs with dual proficiency (DP) bilingual education, second
language (L2) instruction with first language (L1) support, and L2 immersion. It
begins with a brief discussion of bilingual education, and an examination of the
importance of non-linguistic factors in the education of language minority children. It
then examines four studies that look at (bilingual) educational programs which
validate and also use students’ heritage languages. Specifically it looks first at
language validation practices, then at cultural validation practices often found in
bilingual programs. Third, it discusses programs that employ only English for
instruction, yet encourage the use of L1 by the students (often with strategies similar
to those found in many bilingual programs.) The paper closes with questions and
suggestions for further research.
EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
4
Bilingual Education
Ample evidence exists that bilingual education generally promotes higher
academic achievement as tested in English among English Language Learners (ELLs)
than does English-only instruction (Collier, 1992; Genessee, Lindhom-Leary,
Sanders, & Christian, 2006; Montecel & Cortez, 2002;). Literacy is learned in the first
language (L1), and it appears to transfer, as a concept, to the second language (L2)
(Cummins & Swain, 1986). In bilingual education programs, as the child learns
literacy, she simultaneously learns academic content in a language she understands.
There is also evidence that teaching a child in her first language increases (or
at least prevents the decrease of) her self-esteem. Wright and Bougie, state that
“…heritage language education can have a positive impact on personal and social
identity” (2007, p.1). Rymes and Anderson find that “Legitimizing the home
language and culture…of students can facilitate their development of successful
school identities” (2004, pp. 110-111). This is important, as it has been suggested that
the validation of a child’s language helps to empower her, and that “…empowerment
translates into academic competence…” (Gay, 2010, p. 34). What is unclear is
whether the empowerment through language (and cultural) validation plays a larger
role in a child’s achievement or if the practicality of L1 use is more significant. There
is, of course, the possibility that each enables the child in different ways and perhaps
the benefits of each interact and support each other.
EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
5
Language and Culture Validation in Bilingual Classrooms
Language validation in bilingual classrooms
Many bilingual education programs employ strategies to validate both the
children’s language and their culture (Moll & Vellez-Ibanez, as cited in Rymes &
Anderson, 2004). A key component of language validation is use of the L1 for
instruction. This serves multiple purposes, the most obvious of which is
comprehension. Using the L1 for instruction also raises its status as a useful language.
As an additional benefit, Cummins (1981) has established that when the L1 status is
raised, the possibility of L2 acquisition is improved.
Related to L1 use for instruction is L1 use between teachers and
administrators. When authority figures model use of the L1 to speak to each other, its
status is raised further. They demonstrate that the language is valued beyond the
classroom, and that adults use it for genuine communication, not simply to promote it
in class (Garcia & Bartlett, 2007).
A second way in which L1 use is often validated is through content-based
instruction. When the focus is on content, the language of discussion becomes
secondary. At such times, an English sentence that lapses into Spanish, or vice versa,
is acceptable, as long as the mixed sentence leads (or helps lead) to a clearer
understanding of concepts. It also opens the door to metalinguistic discussion, so that
vocabulary can be developed in one or both languages (Martin-Beltran, 2009).
When teachers encourage the students to engage in “co-construction” (Foster
& Ohta, 2009), by comparing, creating new words, and thinking through possibilities,
they create a “bilingual interactional space” (Lee, Bonnet-Hill, & Gillespie, 2008).
Such a space validates the students’ funds of knowledge as they help each other work
through appropriate words and phrases (Martin-Beltran, 2009). This creates a very
EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
6
different atmosphere from one in which the (L2) teacher is the source of knowledge
and the (L1) student is the recipient. It also creates a “linguistically safe space” for
language experimentation. When there is such a safe space, children are less worried
about making mistakes in English (Garcia & Bartlett, 2007) and are willing to try out
new words and phrases.
This combination of use, modeling, metalinguistic discussion and “safe
spaces” helps students to understand that in learning English, there is no threat to their
first language identity. They are secure in their L1 identity, which enables them to
reach out to the L2 (Garcia & Bartlett, 2007, p.11).
Cultural validation in bilingual classrooms
Bilingual education programs often connect learning to children’s life
experiences (Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton, 2009). This serves to validate the children’s
experiences, and by extension, their culture. Culture, language and race are discussed
openly, and when possible, “cultural brokers” are brought in to share a skill or an
experience. These “cultural brokers” are community members whose experience can
be positive or negative, such as internment in the Japanese camps during WWII or
witness to a coronation. The experience itself is less important than the tie it creates
among members of the community (Gay, 2010).
Along with discussing skills and events that are common to the community,
some bilingual education programs teach students their own ethnic history and
literature (Gay, 2010). Thus, while a child learns about Abraham Lincoln and Martin
Luther King, he might also learn about Benito Juarez and Father Dolores Hidalgo of
Mexico. Since many bilingual education programs also employ an integrative
EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
7
curriculum, learning about historical figures, related personal experiences and skills
can be tied in with literature and language arts, and even math and science, depending
on the topic and grade level (Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton, 2009).
The use of cultural brokers and the practice of connecting learning to
children’s life experiences cannot be accomplished without communication with the
children’s families and communities. Many teachers and administrators cite this
communication as the cornerstone to an effective program (Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton,
2009).
Language and Cultural Validation in English-Only Classrooms
Bilingual education, particularly the dual proficiency model, has been shown
to be successful in raising academic achievement (Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton, 2009).
Strategies that validate children’s cultures have been found to empower students, and
empowered children often have higher rates of achievement (Gay, 2010). The
literature in this review shows that many bilingual programs employ cultural
validation strategies in an effort to promote higher academic achievement in their
ELLs. Thus the children benefit on two fronts. But what happens when the L1 is not
used for instruction?
The studies reviewed involved three classrooms, all of which had teachers
who spoke the L1. Of the three, only one prohibited its use in class. The result was
that the students remained mostly silent, offering one-word answers when necessary
or answers in Malay, as one student said, “to annoy the teacher” (Saxena, 2009, p.
176).
In the other two examples, the teachers not only allowed the children to use
the L1, they used it themselves when they felt it was necessary for clarification
EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
8
(Saxena, 2009; Goldberg, Enyedy, Welsh, & Galiani, 2009). Those two actions alone
employed (or encouraged) some of the cultural validation strategies mentioned above.
They modeled the language, and they emphasized that instruction was content-based,
not language based, which created a safe space for the children to participate in
discussions in whichever language enabled them to do so. In permitting, even
promoting, bilingual discussion among the children, the teachers created bilingual
interactional spaces that encouraged co-construction of knowledge as well as
language, when the children struggled for words. This co-construction required
metalinguistic discussion, child-to-child, which acknowledged the students’ funds of
knowledge. The teacher was not the only authority in class. The children helped each
other to learn both content and language, thus acknowledging “learners’ distinct
expertise and linguistic funds of knowledge (Martin-Beltran, 2009, p. 25).
Conclusions, questions, and suggestions for further study
Bilingual education has been shown to benefit students in two ways;
linguistically, by teaching content and literacy in the L1 while the children learn
English (Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton, 2009), and by using the L1 in the classroom,
thereby modeling its use and validating its importance (Martin-Beltran, 2009). In
addition to language use, however, bilingual programs often employ language
validation strategies, such as the creation of safe spaces for language experimentation
and the establishment of bilingual interactional spaces to encourage co-construction
of knowledge (Hayes, Rueda, & Chilton, 2009).
Bilingual programs often use cultural validation strategies as well, such as
tying learning to students’ life experiences, the use of cultural brokers, and the study
EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
9
of literature and prominent figures from the children’s culture in an effort to increase
academic achievement. Teachers in English-only classes sometimes find ways to
validate their students’ language and culture, but short of an administrator’s mandate,
are under no compunction to do so.
In looking at classrooms that validated both the languages and the cultures of
their students, my questions are as follows: How much of the students’ academic
achievement is due to the use of L1 and how much is due to the myriad ways in which
the L1 and the students’ culture were validated? Would implementation of those
methods without L1 use produce academic achievement close to the rates of bilingual
education combined with cultural validation? Would it be as effective if the teacher
allowed the use of L1 but did not speak it himself? Do particular strategies have more
powerful validation effects on students than others? Do those effects change from
culture to culture? By gender? The combinations, the cross-cultural comparisons and
the effects on multi-ethnic classrooms offer many opportunities for further study.
References
Cho, G., Shin, F., & Krashen, S. (2004). What do we know about heritage languages?
What do we need to know about them?, Multicultural Education, 11 (4), 2326. Retrieved from http://www.caddogap.com/periodicals.shtml
Collier, V.P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority
student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16 (1 &
2), 187-212.
EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
10
Cummins, J. (1991). Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual
contexts, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Retrieved from
http://www.aila.info/publications/ailapublications/aila../aila-review-08.html
Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory,
research and practice. London; Longman.
Foster, P; & Ohta, A.S. in M. Martin-Beltran, (2009). Cultivating space for the
language boomerang: The interplay of two languages as academic resources.
English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(2), 25-53.
Garcia, O. & Bartlett, L. (2007). A speech community model of bilingual education:
Educating Latino newcomers in the USA. The International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10 (1), 1-25. doi:10.2167/beb364.0
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice.
Teachers College Press; New York
Goldbert, J., Welsh, K.M., & Galiani, K. (2009). Legitimacy and language in a
science classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(2), 6-24.
Retrieved from
http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2009v8n2art1.pdf
Genessee, F., Lindhom-Leary, K., Sanders, W.M., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating
English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York:
Cambridge University Press
Lee, J., Bonnet-Hill, L., & Gillespie, J. (2008). Learning in two languages:
Interactional space for becoming bilingual speakers. The International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1), 75-94.
EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
11
Luke, A. (1997). Theory and Practice in Critical Discourse Analysis. International
Encyclopedia of the Sociology of Education (pp.1-13). Elsevier Science, Ltd.
Martin-Beltran, M. (2009). Cultivating space for the language boomerang: The
interplay of two languages as academic resources. English Teaching: Practice
and Critique, 8(2), 25-53.
Moll, L. & Vellez-Ibanez, C. in B. Rymes & K. Anderson, (2004). Second language
acquisition for all: Understanding the interactional dynamics of classrooms in
which Spanish and AAVE are spoken. Research in the Teaching of English,
39(2), 107-135.
Montecel, M.R., and Cortez, J.D. (2002). Successful bilingual education programs:
Development and the dissemination of criteria to identify promising and
exemplary practices in bilingual education at the national level. Bilingual
Research Journal 26(1), 1-21.
Mukul, S. (2009). Construction & deconstruction of linguistic otherness: Conflict &
cooperative code-switching in (English) bilingual classrooms. English
Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(2), 167-187.
Rymes, B., & Anderson, K. (2004). Second language acquisition for all:
Understanding the interactional dynamics of classrooms in which Spanish and
AAVE are spoken. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(2), 107-135.
Smitherman, G. (2004). Language and African Americans: Movin on up a lil higher.
Journal of English Linguistics, 32(3), 186-196.
EMPOWERING AND EDUCATING LANGUAGE MINORITY STUDENTS
12
Wright, S. & Bougie, E. (2007). Intergroup contact and minority-language education:
Reducing language-based discrimination and its negative impact. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 26(2), 157-181.