1
Introduction
In this paper I would like to give my reaction to Cummins’s theory regarding the range of
contextual support and the degree of cognitive involvement in communicative activities. His
theory is represented graphically as:
Cognitively Undemanding
C
B
D
Context Reduced
Context Embedded
A
Cognitively Demanding
Summary of Idea
Cummins’s idea is an extension of the basic distinction between conversational and
academic proficiency outlined by numerous researchers (e.g., Vygotsky, Bruner, Cummins,
Canale). This distinction is generally referred to as the difference between basic interpersonal
communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). Cummins
outlines the relationship between BICS/CALP and context. He explains that BICS is usually
easier to acquire because it is highly context embedded. In other words, everyday conversational
language is contextualized by a number of factors that make it easier to comprehend. For
example, BICS is often acquired face to face, which allows for physical cues to meaning and
immediate feedback if the message is misunderstood. Other examples of BICS being context
2
embedded include the specific time, place, and participants in conversations. CALP, on the other
hand, is often de-contextualized (e.g., reading and manipulation of text). CALP often relies on
linguistic cues and knowledge of the language itself to provide meaning. CALP depends on
knowledge of words that are rarely, if ever, used in a conversational setting (e.g., inverse,
coefficient) and knowledge of word meanings that are different in the context of conversation
than the context of academics (e.g., table, energy).
Cummins expands the dialogue about context and BICS/CALP by theorizing that the
relationship should not be viewed as a straight-line continuum where all BICS is context
imbedded and all CALP is content reduced. Rather, he proposes the matrix shown above,
whereby there are combinations of cognitively demanding and undemanding linguistics that are
content embedded or content reduced. Most interesting are quadrants B, where cognitively
demanding linguistic content can be context embedded, improving comprehension (e.g., verbally
presenting, debating, or defending a point of view), and quadrant C, where cognitively
undemanding linguistic content can exist in a content reduced environment (e.g., composing an
e-mail to a friend).
Although Cummins admits that the real world is more complicated than his simple
matrix, he argues forcefully that his tool is useful to linguists, policy makers, and teachers, for
understanding how to make cognitively demanding work more comprehensible for English
language learners (ELL), and how to better transition these students from BICS success to CALP
success. Perhaps most importantly, Cummins’s theory actually raises the bar in the debate
regarding bilingual education. It raises the bar above the discussion of language to a discussion
of cognition. This in my opinion is exactly where the bar belongs.
3
My Reaction
This idea has been liberating for me. I believe it will be a catalyst for my growth as a
teacher. The reason my reaction has been so strong is because this theory not only makes sense
to me, but also because it leads to a number of practical teaching solutions. These solutions will
allow me help ELL students, and even non-ELL students, better come to grips with higher
cognitive concepts, because I will be conscious of providing more context and
comprehensibility.
I am intrigued by the work of both Gibbons (1995, 1998) and Mackay (1992) in this area.
Gibbons’s use of small group work followed by teacher-guided reporting, followed in turn by
journal writing, gave me a very practical example of a progression from quadrant A to quadrant
B to quadrant D (supplemented with occasional quadrant C activities). Mackay, on the other
hand, followed the progression: A-C-B-D. Both methods are valid, for as Cummins (2000)
notes: “…tasks cannot be mapped in any precise way onto the quadrants because degree of both
contextual support and cognitive demand are a function not just of the tasks themselves but of
the characteristics and background experience of individual learners” (pp. 84-85). What is most
important in my mind is that educators are experimenting with the framework in an effort to
increase comprehension, relevance, and therefore cognition. This sort of in-class activism is an
antidote to “task reduction,” which, as Mackay (1992) notes, can “…trap students into a learning
environment which may permanently deprive them of the opportunity for developing the
proficiency and skills they need for academic success” (pp. 162-163). What excites me most
about the work of Gibbons and Mackay is that it has inspired me to imagine dozens of practical
learning experiences for students based on Cummins’s quadrant theory.
4
My personal teaching philosophy in relation to ELL students is no different than my
philosophy regarding all students. The concepts that can be learned at school every day, or any
day, are amazing and potentially life-changing. One science experiment, one math problem
solved, one great book read and appreciated can lead to a lifetime of understanding, and
sometimes, a lifetime dedicated to learning more. Cummins uses the relation between context
and cognition to outline potential paths for greater understanding and higher achievement for
ELL students. While the matrix is instructive for ELL students, I believe it is equally instructive
for all students. For ELL students, in my opinion, language is just another point of context,
nothing more or nothing less. If those who voted for Proposition 227 would understand this
simple fact, and focus as Cummins does on cognition and context over language, the discussion
regarding bilingual education would focus on “how best to” rather than “whether to.” To me
there is no difference between using bilingual education as a tool to increase context, or allowing
a student to do a chemistry experiment so they can better understand, or contextualize, the
complicated terminology in their text book. Entrusting a student with potentially explosive
chemicals seems more dangerous to me than entrusting them with their own language.