Rachel Ann L.
Reyes MAED Language Education
Bilingual-Education Models Types and Designs Henry T. Trueba In the face of all diversity it is important to keep in mind that certain curricular models are not necessarily replicable or inherently more effective in themselves than others, if diverse from their socio-cultural, economic, political, and linguistic contexts. The typologies in this paper will refer precisely to structural functional views of society and to the types of bilingual education programs that seems to fit societal characteristics best. Typologies and models come from social scientists, teachers and practitioners. The level of discussion and purposes of each typology may often be diverse, overlapping, or even based on different philosophies.
Provide a general idea of the existing models, the problems involved in developing them, and their potential use in bilingual education.
TYPOLOGIES
Dual Models
1. One-way and Two-way. Sterns (1963) distinguish programs with two languages as mediums of instruction from those in which only one language is used. He makes no reference to any gradual or abrupt transition from the childrens first language or mother tongue (L1) to a second language (L2). It is short-range classifications. 2. Transitional and Maintenance Programs. Have had such a national impact on federal and state legislation and have received such a controversial reaction that it is important to discuss them. Transitional Childs L1 language is used only as an interim medium of instruction until he/she acquires fluency in L2. - compensatory or remedial - Cure the language deficiencies of ethnic children so they can permanently enter regular classrooms with an all L2 curriculum. - Frequently understood chronologically as a program that should last three years at the most. - Refers to both the language use (from the home to the school language) as well as the nature of the classroom (from a special to a regular classroom).
o o o
Transitional models may have many destructive effects for L2 acquisition, subjectmatter learning and child development. Under certain social conditions a child whose L1 is neglected and who is forced to immerse in the second language prematurely may suffer serious consequences. Transitional models may ultimately cause the child to become monolingual in the second language, jeopardize his/her normal linguistic, academic, and psychological development, and increase the waste of human talent.
Maintenance the childs L1 or home language and L2 are used regularly with approximately equal emphasis as mediums of instruction for subject matter. The long-range purpose of such program sis to ensure the continuation and development of the childs linguistic skills in L1, for both social and academic interaction, and the acquisition of L2. - do not determine fixed amounts of time for language-use policies. o Requires greater flexibility in our educational structures, larger expenditures and a great deal more work. o A long-term investment, and one which must contend with societal resistance so that the childs motivation to maintain his/her language and culture will not be undermined. In both transitional and maintenance programs, efforts are predominantly focused upon ethnic persons, although some programs properly balance the student population with native speakers of the dominant language in society.
3. Salvage the Child and Salvage the Language. Spolsky (1974) corresponds to the previous typology and share its problems. Dichotomies, as simple devices, must group reality into two camps, thus ignoring important distinctions of the programs. While the relative usefulness of twofold classifications must be recognized, it is perhaps unfortunate that in the case of transitional versus maintenance models, decision makers who support bilingual education were given several oversimplified solutions as the only viable and effective program types from which to choose. 4. Programs for Assimilation or for Pluralism. (Kjolseths, 1973) corresponds to the previous dichotomy. He severely criticizes the existing assimilation programs. - Presence or absence of the socio-cultural and linguistic concerns of the ethnic community in the planning, organizational and operational phases of a bilingual program. - Has been very instrumental in stimulating discussion, but it needs further empirical evidence and a deeper sociolinguistic perspective to make more explicit and relevant applications for ongoing programs. 5. Elitist and Folk Bilingualism. Elitist - Gaarder (1976) characterizes elitist bilingualism as one voluntarily obtained by individuals, usually in schools.
Folk is acquired out of necessity by immigrants in the streets and not through formal teachings. - Has no choice in the matter, which reflects a social and political structure of dominance over the learner. Gaarder emphasizes the significance of the ethnic groups autonomy and power in order to maintain and develop the mother tongue in the face of enormous societal pressure to give it up and substitute it with the dominant language. This distinction of types of bilingualism has important consequences for our understanding of language use in bilingual programs (standard versus regional forms; amount of time and attention to be given to each language, selection of teachers and their skills in L1 and L2, etc.)
Three and Four-Type Models
1.Compensatory, Maintenance, and Enrichment Types Fishman (1976) we cant see each of them as an undifferentiated and frozen model, for each has a variety of subtypes. His description of the first two corresponds to his original dichotomy. Enrichment bilingual education - Described in Fishmans distinction of the use of marked language (i.e. those brought to school as a result of bilingual education, 1970). - education through the use of two languages s mediums of instruction - Designed for all members of society (not for minorities alone). - Recognized as intrinsically desirable for all and has established the important prerequisite of involving the larger social group in learning a second language often the marked one. - The only program that can prepare the dominant socio-cultural environment to recognize the distinct characteristics and values of other linguistic and cultural groups. - Best way of demonstrating the academic societal advantages of bilingual education - Immersion schools ( Canada, France, Germany and Latin America) are supported by those who can afford to pay for a good education and those who are always successful in school regardless of what language they learn by. o High quality and produce outstanding success they attract very best students o Immersion made a significant contribution to American education. o The crucial question is whether or not we are ready for this type of bilingual education in the United States. Compensatory and transitional bilingual education is no more than a desperate attempt to fight fire with fire. It is based on the misconception that the non-English mother tongue is a disease of the poor (1976, p.231 ) to be cured with that type of bilingual education which will ultimately succeed in producing a monolingual person in L2.
Compensatory or traditional approaches alone will not solve the basic societal problems of the non-English speaking poor and therefore, will not solve their basic educational problems. 2. Pull-out Submersion, and Immersion Programs Cohen and Swain one in which students are segregated for ESL instruction, a method that often carries a stigma, and implications for cognitive deficiencies for them (1976, p.56). Submersion students are forbidden to use their native language, and are placed indiscrimately with native speakers of the other language, and receive subject-matter instruction in L2 and formal ESL instruction. - Teachers are monolingual in the other language and have low expectations for the students. Immersion all students start at the SAME level of L2 skills - allowed to use their L1 in early grades for language arts (Grades 2 to 4) - receive all other instruction in L2 from kindergarten on. - In grade 5, subject matter content may be taught in L1. - Occasionally, native speakers of the second language may be introduced to foster intercultural communication. - All students are selected from normal learners in regular classrooms. - All teachers are bilingual, but they use only L2 with students and with each other. - The L1 instructor is other than the regular teacher L2 is the medium of instruction rather than a subject. - Teachers expectations are high, and this kind of program is usually optional. Immersion programs seem to be rather successful with higher social classes who value the acquisition of a second language and voluntarily seek it (Cohen and Swain). o The desirability of a second language, achievement, motivation, and academic success are determined by the social environment. Therefore, it is doubtful to gain success in the United States through immersion. 3. Four Types of Program on the Basis of L1 Maintenance. Fishman and Lovas (1970), in their well-known typology, present four different types of programs intended to produce transitional, monoliterate, partial and full bilingualism. Transitional: L1 used as an interim instrument to incorporate students in regular classroom. Monoliterate Bilingualism: oral development of L1. Reading and subject-matter instruction in L2. Partial Bilingualism: reading and subject matter in L1 and L2, with bias for L2 subjects other than culture. Full Bilingualism: reading and subject matter in L1 and L2. This division encompasses programs in which there exists a diverse commitment to maintaining L1. It represents a further refinement of the original dichotomy presented before and has the advantage of distinguishing various degrees of L1 maintenance. 4. Voluntary Assimilation, Forced Assimilation, Forced Segragation, and Autonomy. Paulston (1975a) adapting a functional model of society combines a centrifugal and centripetal forces operating on super-ordinate and subordinate members of society in order to prudce the four types.
Certain types of bilingual education will find support in different types of societies, depending on the structural relationship between ethnic groups and dominant class members. The only way to understand the apparently contradictory findings from research on bilingual education is to investigate the societal conditions in which L1 and L2 exist, rather than look at the curriculum design, language teaching methods, or program characteristics. Language and subject-matter learning is socially determined by the relationships between superordinate and subordinate groups. We can presume that the ethnic groups seeking autonomy (rather than assimilation) will favor maintenance programs, while those seeking incorporation of ethnic minorities will support transitional types of bilingual education.
Multidimensional Models
1. Five Types. Gonzales (1975) Transitional: remedial, compensatory with ESL Bilingual Maintenance: L1 maintenance and L2 acquisition Bilingual Bicultural Maintenance: L1 maintenance and L2 acquisition and integration of culture of L1 group into curriculum. Bilingual Bicultural Restorationist: L2 (Eng.) maintenance and optional restoration of L1 and corresponding culture. Culturally Pluralistic: Different language groups involved in linguistically and culturally plurastic schooling.
Borrows from previous typologies but, is the first to include cultural maintenance, as well as to develop restorationist and pluralistic types of programs. - The restorationist and pluralistic models may correspond to types of bilingual education and represent a very promising trend. 2. Five Dimensions and Three Levels for Bilingual Education. Spolsky et al. (1974) developed a societal model that may lead to better description and evaluation of bilingual programs. - They use six dimensions linguistic, psychological, sociological, culturalreligious, political, and economic which affect bilingual education. Each dimension operates at 3 different levels: (1) situational, (2) operational, and (3) the level of outcomes. - Spolskys intent is to make readers aware of the complex sets of relationships that exist between bilingual education and the entire human environment. - His message is similar to that of Paulston in that he reminds us of the societal determiants of success in language and subject-matter learning. - Both Paulston and Spolsky are in search of empirical data which will permit further refinement of their models and greater applicability to classroom dynamics, evaluation and teaching techniques. 3. Cohen and Laosas Seven Types of Programs (1976). L1 first, L2 later. L2 only
L1 and L2 at the same time L2 first and L1 later. Three types of programs for introducing a subject matter are: L1 only (grades 1 to 5) L2 only (grades 1 to 5) L1 and L2 at the same time. The most important feature of this typology is that it is based on ACTUAL studies done, rather than one personal speculation. The correspondence of types for literacy skills and subject matter in each geographical area (emphasis on Mexico, Peru, Ecuador and the Philippines) contrasts with the emphasis on L2 in Canada, where obviously the immersion programs discussed above have been very successful. 4. Valencias Nineteen Types of Programs. presented a sophisticated version of a variety of transitional programs in which there are diverse patterns of transition (gradual, abrupt, partial, complete) with optional features of enrichment, such as SSP (Spanish for the Spanish-Speaking) and SSL (Spanish as a Second Language) . The Spanish-speaking groups in the Southwest differ significantly in exposure to the Spanish language, in English-language skills, and in familiarity with standard forms of both languages.
