|
|
 |
Biliteracy,
Empowerment, and Transformative Pedagogy |
| |
  | |||
| |
Biliteracy,
Empowerment, and Transformative Pedagogy Jim
Cummins University
of Toronto
The
continuing concern about preparing students for the technologically
sophisticated workplace of the 21st century with its requirement of
higher literacy levels among workers has given rise to concerted efforts at
school reform in countries around the world. However, in most countries, despite
the fact that linguistically and culturally diverse students tend to be strongly
over-represented in school failure categories (e.g. dropout rates), few of the
prescriptions for school reform specifically address the causes of educational
failure among such students. Even fewer contemplate bilingualism and biliteracy
as part of the solution rather than as part of the problem. I
argue in this paper that biliteracy must become an essential component of
educational reform efforts directed at under-achieving Latino/Latina students.
However, literacy or even biliteracy are insufficient as educational
goals if they remain at the level of "functional literacy" and fail to
promote “critical literacy.” In other words, students must learn not only to
"read the word," but also to "read the world" (Freire &
Macedo, 1987). I argue that the
public focus and apparent political commitment to improving the ability of
students (and adults) to "read the word" represents a facade that
obscures an underlying societal structure that continues to discourage students
from "reading the world." This reality implies that educators who
strive to create educational contexts within which culturally-diverse students
develop a sense of empowerment, through acquisition of cultural and critical
literacy, are of necessity challenging the societal power structure. By "power structure" I am referring to the division
of status and resources in the society and also to the ways in which discourse
is mobilized through the media to legitimate and preserve the current division
of status and resources. A
further distinction relating to the societal power structure is useful to make
at this point. Throughout the paper
I distinguish between coercive and collaborative relations of power.
Coercive relations of power refer to the exercise of power by a dominant
group (or individual) to the detriment of a subordinated group (or individual).
The assumption is that there is a fixed quantity of power that operates
according to a balance effect; in other words, the more power one group has the
less is left for other groups. Collaborative
relations of power, on the other hand, operate on the assumption that power is
not a fixed pre-determined quantity but rather can be generated in
interpersonal and intergroup relations, thereby becoming "additive"
rather than "subtractive." In other words, participants in the
relationship are empowered through their collaboration such that each is
more affirmed in her or his identity and has a greater sense of efficacy to
effect change in her or his life or social situation. Thus, power is created in
the relationship and shared among participants. In educational contexts, cooperative learning activities and
sister class networks constitute documented examples of the academic and
personal benefits that accrue when coercive relations of power shift to
collaborative relations of power (e.g. DeVillar & Faltis, 1990; Cummins
& Sayers, 1995). Within
this context, empowerment refers to the collaborative creation of power. Transformative
pedagogy refers to interactions between educators and students that foster
the collaborative creation of power. These
terms will be further elaborated throughout the chapter. A
fundamental argument of the present chapter is that the root causes of academic
failure among subordinated group students are to be found in the fact that the
interactions between educators and students frequently reflect and reinforce the
broader societal pattern of coercive relations of power between dominant and
subordinated groups. Reversal of
this pattern requires that educators resist and challenge the operation of
coercive relations of power and actively seek to establish collaborative
relations of power both in the school and in the broader society. The
next section focuses on the issue of biliteracy and examines the public debate
on bilingual education in light of the research data. The goal is to demonstrate
that biliteracy is a feasible educational outcome for all students and what
requires explanation is the public discourse that vehemently denies this
reality. I then shift from a focus
on "biliteracy" to the broader issue of literacy itself.
I suggest that not only are many educational policies dedicated to
reducing bilinguals to monolinguals, they are also structured to constrict the
possibilities for students' identity formation and to limit the scope of their
ability to think, or in Freire's terms, to read the world. Finally, drawing on
Ada's (1988a, 1988b) work, I suggest an alternative pedagogical orientation
designed to promote critical biliteracy and student empowerment.
The Public Debate
on Bilingual Education
In
June 1998, California voters reversed almost 25 years of educational policy in
that state by passing Proposition 227 by a margin of 61 to 39 percent.
Proposition 227 was aimed at eliminating the use of bilingual
children’s first language (L1) for instructional purposes except in very
exceptional circumstances. Despite the considerable impact of Proposition 227 on
bilingual education, most dual-language or two-way bilingual immersion programs
appear to have emerged relatively unscathed.
These programs aim to develop bilingualism and biliteracy among both
language minority and language majority students (e.g. Spanish L1 and English L1
speakers). Most of these programs
use between 90 percent and 50 percent minority language instruction in the early
grades with instructional time equally split in the later elementary grades.
These programs have been spreading rapidly in other states such as Texas and
thus the potential for developing biliteracy among students is still very much a
reality in spite of the strong rhetoric against bilingual education. The
debate leading up to the Proposition 227 referendum in California crystallized
all of the arguments that had been advanced for and against bilingual education
in the previous quarter century. Both
sides claimed “equity” as their central guiding principle. Opponents of
bilingual programs argued that limited English proficient students were being
denied access to both English and academic advancement as a result of being
instructed for part of the day through their L1.
Exposure to English was being diluted and, as a result, it was not
surprising that bilingual students continued to experience difficulty in
academic aspects of English. Only maximum exposure to English (frequently termed
“time-on-task”) could remediate children’s linguistic difficulties in that
language on entry to school. Proponents
of bilingual education argued that L1 instruction in the early grades was
necessary to ensure that students understood content instruction and experienced
a successful start to their schooling. Reading and writing skills acquired initially through the L1
provided a foundation upon which strong English language development could be
built. Transfer of academic skills
and knowledge across languages was evidenced consistently by the research
literature on bilingual development. Thus,
L1 proficiency could be promoted at no cost to children’s academic development
in English. Furthermore, the fact that teachers spoke the language of parents
increased the likelihood of parental involvement and support for their
children’s learning. This, together with the reinforcement of children’s
sense of self as a result of the incorporation of their language and culture in
the school program, contributed to long-term academic growth. In
the context of Proposition 227, bilingual advocates argued that bilingual
education itself could not logically be regarded as a cause of continued high
levels of academic failure among bilingual students since only 30 percent of
limited English proficient students in California were in any form of bilingual
education. Less than 18 percent
were in classes taught by a certified bilingual teacher, with the other 12
percent in classes most likely taught by a monolingual English teacher and a
bilingual aide (Gandara, 1997). Thus, they argued, educational failure among
bilingual (particularly Latino/Latina) students is more logically attributed to
the absence of genuine bilingual programs than to bilingual education in some
absolute sense. The
arguments on both side of this debate can be articulated as theoretical
propositions and examined in relation to the research data.
Theory
underlying opposition to bilingual education.
Three
major propositions underlie many of the pedagogical arguments against bilingual
education. These are: (a)
the claim
that "time on task" is the major variable underlying language learning
and hence immersion in English is the most effective means to ensure the
learning of English; (b)
the claim
that under these conditions of immersion, language minority students will
quickly (within 1 year) pick up sufficient English to survive academically
without further special support; (c)
the claim
that English immersion should start as early as possible in the student's school
career since younger children are better language learners than older children.
Rosalie
Pedalino Porter (1990) clearly articulates the first and third principles in
stating: My personal experience and professional
investigations together impel me to conclude that the two overriding conditions
that promote the best learning of a second language are (1) starting at an early
age, say at five, and (2) having as much exposure and carefully planned
instruction in the language as possible. Effective
time on task - the amount of time spent learning - is, as educators know, the
single greatest predictor of educational achievement; this is at least as true,
if not more so, for low-socioeconomic-level, limited-English students.
Children learn what they are taught, and if they are taught mainly in
Spanish for several years, their Spanish-language skills will be far better than
their English-language ones. (pp. 63-64) Nathan
Glazer (Glazer & Cummins, 1985) has articulated the second principle as
follows: ... all our experience shows that the most extended
and steady exposure to the spoken language is the best way of learning any
language. ... How long? It depends. But one year of intensive immersion seems to
be enough to permit most children to transfer to [regular] English-language
classes. (p. 48) Many
other examples of these positions could be cited based on both academic and
media commentary (see Cummins, 1996). The
opposition claims are in direct contrast to those made by academic advocates of
bilingual education, as outlined below. Theory
Proposed by Bilingual Education Advocates. It is important first to highlight the fact
that most bilingual education theorists have distanced themselves from the
popular conception of the rationale for bilingual programs, namely the
"linguistic mismatch" hypothesis.
This position suggests that a home-school language switch (or linguistic
mismatch) will inevitably lead to academic difficulties since children cannot
learn through a language they do not understand. While this claim has been persuasive to many policy-makers
and educators (and, in fact, underlies the quick-exit transitional focus of most
U.S. bilingual education programs), it is seriously flawed.
It fails to account either for the success of English background children
in second language immersion or dual-language programs or the fact that under
certain conditions language minority students can succeed academically in
English-only programs (Cummins, 1981a, 1996). Academic
advocates of bilingual education have consistently rejected compensatory (or
transitional) bilingual programs and argued for programs that promote
biliteracy. Cloud, Genesee and Hamayan (in press) group these programs (second
language immersion for majority students, developmental or late-exit programs
for minority students, and dual-language programs for both groups) under the
label of Enriched Education. Three
central psychoeducational principles, supported by empirical research, underlie
this emphasis on enrichment or developmental bilingual education: (a)
continued
development of both languages enhances children's educational and cognitive
development ; (b)
literacy-related
abilities are interdependent across languages such that knowledge and skills
acquired in one language are potentially available in the other (Cummins, 1996;
Verhoeven, 1991); (c)
while
conversational abilities may be acquired fairly rapidly in a second language,
upwards of five years are usually required for second language learners to
attain grade norms in academically-related aspects of the second language
(Collier, 1987; Cummins, 1981b). Together,
these principles suggest that reinforcing children's conceptual base in their
first language throughout elementary school (and beyond) will provide a
foundation for long-term growth in English academic skills.
The theory also suggests that we should not expect bilingual children to
approach grade norms in English academic skills before the later grades of
elementary school. Consistency of the
Alternative Positions with the Research Data
There
is virtually no disagreement among applied linguists regarding the consistency
of bilingual program evaluation results with the theoretical principles advanced
by advocates of bilingual education. The data clearly refute the validity of the
“time-on-task” proposition and they also refute the “linguistic
mismatch” proposition. The
distinction between conversational and academic language proficiency is
supported, as is the significant relationship of academic proficiency across
languages, even languages that are linguistically distant from each other (e.g.
Basque-Spanish, Chinese-English) (see Genesee, 1979).
The Ramirez report (Ramirez, 1992) shows very clearly, for example, that
instruction through Spanish for part of the school day results in no loss in
English academic skills. The data are completely inconsistent with the
predictions of the time-on-task proposition.
Even opponents of bilingual education such as Christine Rossell (1992)
acknowledge that the time-on-task hypothesis is refuted by the Ramirez data:
"large deficits in English language instruction over several grades
apparently make little or no difference in a student's achievement" (p.
183). Expressed more positively, instructional time devoted to promoting
bilingual students’ L1 literacy
entails no adverse consequences for English language or literacy development. The
most clear-cut evidence in relation to the alternative theoretical propositions
comes from the outcomes of dual-language or two-way bilingual immersion
programs. Evaluations of these programs have consistently shown strong academic
performance over the course of elementary school for both language minority and
language majority students (Cazabon, Nicoladis, & Lambert, 1998; Cloud et
al., in press; Dolson & Lindholm, 1995) Let us just consider the outcomes of
one program, the Oyster Bilingual School in Washington DC to illustrate the
pattern. Oyster
Bilingual School (Washington, DC). The bilingual program was started in 1971 and
involves instruction in both Spanish and English for about 50% of the time in
each language from kindergarten through grade 6. Each class is taught by two
teachers, one responsible for English-medium instruction and one for
Spanish-medium instruction. This instructional organization is achieved
primarily by means of creative management of resources rather than by additional
external funds such as Title VII or Title I (personal communication Elena
Izquierdo, former principal of Oyster School) although the school fought
successfully within the district to avoid cutbacks that were affecting other
schools. Students
read in both languages each day so there is simultaneous development of literacy
in the two languages. The student body is comprised of approximately 60%
Spanish L1 (primarily Salvadorean) and 40% English L1 (about half
African-American, half Euro-American). The
academic results of this program have been outstanding. For example, at the
grade 3 level Reading, Mathematics, Language and Science scores were 1.6--1.8
median grade equivalents above norms (percentiles 74—81). The grade 6 grade
equivalents were 4.4—6.2 above norms (percentiles 85—96) (1991 data reported
in Freeman, 1998). According
to Freeman, the school has evolved a social identities project that
positively evaluates linguistic and cultural diversity and communicates this
strongly to students. In the words
of one of the teachers: “It’s much more than language.” Freeman
provides detailed discourse analyses that illustrate how the interactions
between educators and students in Oyster bilingual school “refuse” the
discourse of subordination that characterizes the treatment of minorities in the
wider society and in most conventional school contexts.
She points out that the discourse practices in the school “reflect an
ideological assumption that linguistic and cultural diversity is a resource to
be developed by all students, and not a problem that minority students must
overcome in order to participate and achieve at school” (p. 233).
Specifically, educators have choices in the way they organize
discourse practices and these choices entail significant consequences for both
language minority and majority students. The school requires all students
to become bilingual and biliterate in Spanish and English, and “to expect,
tolerate, and respect diverse ways of interacting” (p. 27). In
other words, the school “aims to promote social change on the local level by
socializing children differently from the way children are socialized in
mainstream US educational discourse” (p. 27): Rather than pressuring language minority students to
assimilate to the positively evaluated majority social identity (white
middle-class native English-speaking) in order to participate and achieve at
school, the Oyster educational discourse is organized to positively evaluate
linguistic and cultural diversity. ... this socializing discourse makes possible
the emergence of a wide range of positively
evaluated social identities, and offers more choices to both language minority
and language majority students than are traditionally available in mainstream US
schools and society. The Oyster educators argue that students’ socialization
through this educational discourse is the reason that [limited English
proficient], language minority, and language majority students are all
participating and achieving more or less equally. (p. 27) The
themes that Freeman emphasizes run through virtually all the programs for
language minority students that have proven successful in elevating academic
achievement
(Cummins, 1996)
. Respect for
students’ language and culture is strongly communicated to students
and they are encouraged to see themselves as potentially fully bilingual
and biliterate. Programs that are less successful (e.g. many quick-exit
transitional programs) tend to see the students’ L1 as simply a temporary
bridge to English and do not aspire to bilingualism and biliteracy. The
Oyster data clearly show that there is interdependence across languages within
well-implemented bilingual programs. Students do not lose out in English despite
spending only 50 percent of their instructional time through English. The
time-on-task proposition would predict significant underachievement in English
as a result of less time through that language. Clearly, the opposite is the
case in this particular program. The
success of dual-language programs is not disputed by opponents of bilingual
education. Porter (1990), for example, describes dual language education as
"particularly appealing because it not only enhances the prestige of the
minority language but also offers a rich opportunity for expanding genuine
bilingualism to the majority population" (p. 154). She also notes that
these programs "are also considered to be the best possible vehicles for
integration of language minority students, since these students are grouped with
English-speakers for natural and equal exchange of skills" (p. 154).
Charles
Glenn who has also expressed concerns about transitional bilingual education is
likewise an enthusiastic supporter of dual-language programs as the following
quotations illustrate: More than any other model of education for linguistic
minority pupils, two-way bilingual programs meet the diverse expectations that
we set for our schools. Properly designed and implemented, they offer a
language-rich environment with high expectations for every child, in a climate
of cross-cultural respect. Linguistic
minority pupils are stimulated in their use of English, while being encouraged
to value and employ their home language as well.
(Glenn, 1990, p. 5)
. The best setting for educating linguistic minority
pupils—and one of the best for educating any pupils—is a school in
which two languages are used without apology and where becoming proficient in
both is considered a significant intellectual and cultural achievement.”
(Glenn & LaLyre, 1991, p. 43)
What
evidence do opponents of bilingual education advance to support their claims.
The major evidence they refer to is the report written by Rossell and
Baker (1996) which claimed to show that 83 percent of the comparisons they
reviewed between structured immersion (essentially English-only) and
transitional bilingual education favored structured immersion while there was no
difference in 17 percent of comparisons. This
literature review has been critiqued in detail elsewhere (e.g. Cummins, in
press; Greene, 1998; Krashen,
1999). It is sufficient to note here that nine out of the ten studies that
Rossell and Baker claim show the superiority of monolingual structured immersion
are in fact bilingual or trilingual programs whose success refutes the
time-on-task theory and supports interdependence across languages. In
summary, the relevant distinction to make in understanding the research data on
bilingual education is not between “English-only” and “bilingual
education” in some absolute sense that ignores the huge variation in
philosophy and implementation across programs. Rather the appropriate
distinction is between what Cloud et al. (in press) term Enriched Education
which aspires to biliteracy and remedial programs that view students’
bilingualism as a problem to be overcome and aspire only to monolingualism and
monoliteracy. Enriched Education programs have overwhelming evidence of success
in the research literature. However,
it is important to ask whether these programs could be even more successful than
they currently are. There is
considerable variation in the way literacy is taught in all programs, bilingual
and monolingual. In the second part
of this chapter, I suggest that optimal outcomes for students and society will
accrue to programs that combine an enriched education focus on biliteracy
with a transformative pedagogical orientation that actively challenges the
operation of coercive relations of power in the wider society. Transformative
Pedagogy and Empowerment
The
persistence of “banking” education. One disturbing aspect of the findings of the Ramirez
report is that the classroom environment in both bilingual and English immersion
programs reflects transmission models of pedagogy or what Paulo Freire (1983)
has called a "banking education."
As expressed in the report: Of major concern is that in over half of the
interactions that teachers have with students, students do not produce any
language as they are only listening or responding with non-verbal gestures or
actions. ... Of equal concern is that when students do respond, typically they
provide only simple information recall statements. Rather than being provided with the opportunity to generate
original statements, students are asked to provide simple discrete close-ended
or patterned (i.e. expected) responses. This
pattern of teacher/student interaction not only limits a student's opportunity
to create and manipulate language freely, but also limits the student's ability
to engage in more complex learning (i.e., higher order thinking skills). In sum
... teachers in all three programs offer a passive language learning
environment, limiting student opportunities to produce language and develop more
complex language and thinking skills" (Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey, & Pasta,
1991, p. 8).} The
predominance of transmission models of pedagogy is not surprising in view of the
fact that other large-scale studies of American education have documented the
same phenomenon (Goodlad, 1984; Sirotnik, 1983). However, there are additional unfortunate implications of
transmission models for culturally-diverse students since the curriculum will
typically reflect the values and priorities of the dominant group and
effectively suppress the experiences and perspectives of subordinated groups.
Thus, transmission models of pedagogy allow few opportunities to validate
and amplify student identity. In
other words, while the late-exit programs documented in the Ramirez Report
appear to create conditions for student empowerment with respect to cultural and
linguistic incorporation, and parental involvement, their pedagogical
orientation restricts the
possibilities for genuine student empowerment. This
suggests that efforts to reverse the pattern of Latino/Latina academic
underachievement must examine not only the language of instruction but also the
hidden curriculum being communicated to students through that instruction.
While improving literacy levels has been a major goal of educational
reform reports, few policy-makers have asked the question: "What kinds of
literacy and for what purposes?" This question has been answered by
Sirotnik (1983) in discussing the implications of Goodlad's major study of
American classrooms. He points to
the fact that the typical American classroom contains: a lot of teacher talk and a lot of student listening
... almost invariably closed and factual questions ... and predominantly total
class instructional configurations around traditional activities - all in a
virtually affectless environment. It
is but a short inferential leap to suggest that we are implicitly teaching
dependence upon authority, linear thinking, social apathy, passive involvement,
and hands-off learning" (p. 29). The
remainder of this paper focuses on the development of literacy for empowerment.
I propose an academic language development framework that incorporates
the orientation to critical literacy advocated by Alma Flor Ada (1988a, 1988b). A
Framework for Transformative Pedagogy. The framework outlined in Figure 1 is intended to
provide a general guide to the implementation of pedagogy that will effectively
promote second language learners’ linguistic and cognitive development as well
as encourage the growth of critical literacy skills. It assumes that for optimal
progress to occur, cognitive challenge and intrinsic motivation must be infused
into the interactions between teachers and students.
The
starting point is to acknowledge that effective instruction in an L2 must focus
initially on meaning or messages. Virtually all applied linguists agree that
access to sufficient comprehensible
input in the target language is a necessary condition for language acquisition;
most applied linguists, however, also assign a role to (a) a focus on formal
features of the target language, (b) development of effective learning
strategies, and (c) actual use of the target language.
These components are incorporated in the Focus on Language and Focus on
Use components of the framework. The
Focus on Message component argues that the interpretation of comprehensible
input must go beyond just literal comprehension and extend into critical
literacy. This implies a process whereby students relate textual and
instructional meanings to their own experience and prior knowledge (i.e.
activate their cognitive schemata), critically analyze the information in the
text (e.g. evaluate the validity of various arguments or propositions), and use
the results of their discussions and analyses in some concrete,
intrinsically-motivating activity or project (e.g. making a video or writing a
poem or essay on a particular topic). In short, for learning of academic
content, the notion of comprehensible input must move beyond literal,
surface-level comprehension to a deeper level of cognitive and linguistic
processing. This perspective is elaborated below in considering Ada’s work. The
Focus on Language component attempts to put controversial issues such as the
appropriate time and ways to teach L2 grammar under the “umbrella” of Language
Awareness. The development of
language awareness would include not just a focus on formal aspects of the
language but also the development of critical language awareness which
encompasses exploring the relationships between language and power.
Students, for example, might carry out research on the status of
different varieties of language (e.g. colloquial language versus formal
“standard” language) and explore why one form is considered by many
educators and the general public to be “better” than the other.
They might also research issues such as code-switching and the functions
it plays within their own lives and their bilingual communities.
Or they might analyze letters to the editor on bilingual education and
inquire why certain kinds of letters tend to get published while others do not. In
short, a focus on formal features of the target language should be integrated
with critical inquiry into issues of language and power.
Also, to be effective, a focus on language must be linked to extensive
input in the target language (e.g. through reading) and extensive opportunities
for written and oral use of the language. The
Focus on Use component is based on the notion that L2 acquisition will remain
abstract and classroom-bound unless students have the opportunity to express
themselves–their identities and their intelligence–through that language.
Ideally there should be an authentic audience that motivates communication in
both oral and written modes. The three examples of language use presented in
Figure 1 (generate new knowledge, create literature and art, act on social
realities) are intended to illustrate important components of critical
literacy. Language must be used to
amplify students’ intellectual, esthetic, and social identities if it is to
contribute to student empowerment, understood as the collaborative creation of
power. Unless active and authentic language use for these purposes is promoted
in the classroom., students’
grasp of academic (and conversational) English and Spanish is likely to remain
somewhat shallow and passive FIGURE 1 INSTRUCTION
FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT A.
FOCUS ON MESSAGE
B.
FOCUS ON LANGUAGE
C.
FOCUS ON USE Using
Language to:
Ada’s
critical literacy framework. One framework which elaborates a critical literacy
approach to the education of culturally-diverse students is presented by Ada
(1988a, 1988b) on the basis of Paulo Freire's work. Ada's framework outlines how interpersonal spaces can be
created between teachers and
students that encourage students to share and amplify their experience within a
collaborative process of critical inquiry.
She distinguishes four phases in what she terms "the creative
reading act. Each of the phases distinguished by Ada is characterized by an
interactional process (either between the teacher and students or among peers)
that progressively opens up possibilities for the articulation and amplification
of student voice. The
"texts" that are the focus of the interaction can derive from any
curricular area or from newspapers or current events.
The process is equally applicable to students at any grade level.
Ada (1988a, p. 103) stresses that although the phases are discussed
separately, "in a creative reading act they may happen concurrently and be
interwoven." Descriptive
Phase.
In this phase the focus of interaction is on the information contained in
the text. Typical questions at this level might be: Where, when, how, did it
happen? Who did it? Why? These are the type of questions for which answers can be
found in the text itself. Ada
points out that these are the usual reading comprehension questions and that
"a discussion that stays at this level suggests that reading is a passive,
receptive, and in a sense, domesticating process" (1988a, p. 104). When the process is arrested at this level, the focus remains
on internalization of inert information and/or the practice of "reading
skills" in an experiential and motivational vacuum.
Instruction remains at a safe distance from any challenge to the societal
power structure. This phase represents a focus on functional literacy isolated
from both cultural and critical literacy. Personal
Interpretive Phase. After the basic information in the text has been discussed, students
are encouraged to relate it to their own experiences and feelings.
Questions that might be asked by the teacher at this phase are: Have you
ever seen (felt, experienced) something like this? Have you ever wanted
something similar? How did what you
read make you feel? Did you like it? Did it make you happy? Frighten you? What
about your family? Ada (1988a)
points out that this process helps develop children's self-esteem by showing
that their experiences and feelings are valued by the teacher and classmates.
It also helps children understand that "true learning occurs only
when the information received is analyzed in the light of one's own experiences
and emotions" (p. 104). An
atmosphere of acceptance and trust in the classroom is a prerequisite for
students (and teachers) to risk sharing their feelings, emotions, and
experiences. It is clear how this
process of sharing and critically reflecting on their own and other students'
experiences opens up identity options for culturally-diverse students. These
identity options are typically suppressed within a transmission approach to
pedagogy where the interpretation of texts is non-negotiable and reflective of
the dominant group's notions of cultural literacy.
The personal interpretive phase deepens students' comprehension of the
text or issues by grounding the knowledge in the personal and collective
narratives that make up students' histories.
It is also developing a genuine cultural literacy in that it is
integrating students' own experience with "mainstream" curricular
content. Critical
Analysis Phase. After children have
compared and contrasted what is presented in the text with their personal
experiences, they are ready to engage in a more abstract process of critically
analyzing the issues or problems that are raised in the text. This process involves drawing inferences and exploring what
generalizations can be made. Appropriate
questions might be: Is it valid? Always? When? Does it benefit everyone alike?
Are there any alternatives to this situation?
Would people of different cultures (classes, genders) have acted
differently? How? Why? Ada
emphasizes that school children of all ages can engage in this type of critical
process, although the analysis will always reflect children's experiences and
level of maturity. This phase further extends students' comprehension of the
text or issues by encouraging them to examine both the internal logical
coherence of the information or propositions and their consistency with other
knowledge or perspectives. When students pursue guided research and critical reflection,
they are clearly engaged in a process of knowledge generation; however, they are
equally engaged in a process of self-definition; as they gain the power to think
through issues that affect their lives, they simultaneously gain the power to
resist external definitions of who they are and to deconstruct the
sociopolitical purposes of such external definitions. Creative
Action Phase.
This is a stage of translating the results of the previous phases into
concrete action. The dialogue is
oriented towards discovering what changes individuals can make to improve their
lives or resolve the problem that has been presented.
Let us suppose that students have been researching (in the local
newspaper, in periodicals such as National Geographic problems relating
to environmental pollution. After
relating the issues to their own experience, critically analyzing causes and
possible solutions, they might decide to write letters to congressional
representatives, highlight the issue in their class/school newsletter in order
to sensitize other students, write and circulate a petition in the neighborhood,
write and perform a play that analyzes the issue, etc.
Once again, this phase can be seen as extending the process of
comprehension insofar as when we act to transform aspects of our social
realities we gain a deeper understanding of those realities. Within
Ada’s framework, the process of making input comprehensible is an active
constructive process that can be facilitated or inhibited by those we are
interacting with (or by characteristics of texts we are reading). The framework
expresses the point that we cannot understand messages without acting on them
either internally (through thinking about them) or externally by acting on them
in the “real” world. The
personal interpretive and critical analysis phases represent internalized action
on texts or messages. While this
internalized action can be carried out by individuals, the process will usually
be enhanced when the action is collaboratively constructed in the context of
social interaction. The personal interpretive phase deepens the individual's
comprehension by grounding the knowledge in the personal and collective
narratives that make up our experience and history. The critical analysis phase further extends the comprehension
process by examining both the internal logical coherence of the information or
propositions and their consistency with other knowledge or perspectives.
Finally, the creative action phase constitutes concrete action that aims
to transform aspects of our social realities.
This external action to transform reality also serves to deepen our
comprehension of the issues. With
respect to expansion of possibilities for identity formation, culturally-diverse
students engaging in the critical literacy process outlined in Figure 1 have the
possibility of actively voicing their own realities and their analyses of issues
rather than being constricted to the identity definitions and constructions of
"truth" implicitly or explicitly transmitted in the prescribed
curriculum. When classroom
interaction progresses beyond the descriptive phase, students engage in a
process of self-expression; in other words, by sharing and critically
reflecting on their experience they collaboratively construct an interpersonal
space that expands their options for identity formation. The
operation of this process is evident in Freeman’s account of the Oyster School
bilingual program where the instruction and interaction in the school actively
encourages students to “refuse” the discourse of disempowerment that
frequently characterizes dominant group/subordinated group interactions in the
wider society. I would concur with Freeman in attributing the outstanding
academic results obtained by students in this program primarily to the ways in
which identities were being negotiated in the context of teacher-student
interactions. For other Enriched
Education programs to achieve similar results, their focus on promoting
biliteracy must be integrated explicitly with a transformative pedagogy that
affirms students’ identities while simultaneously challenging coercive
relations of power. Conclusion
I
have suggested that the debate on the merits or otherwise of bilingual education
can be understood only by considering the power relations that are operating in
the wider society. The history of the education of culturally-diverse students
in the United States and most other countries is a history of thinly-disguised
perpetuation of the coercive relations of power that operate in the wider
society. The attempt to limit the framework of discourse so that promotion of
biliteracy is not even considered as a policy response to the underachievement
of Latino/Latina students illustrates the operation of coercive relations of
power. Culturally-diverse students
are defined as deficient and confined to remedial programs that frequently act
to produce the deficits they were ostensibly intended to reverse.
Empirical evidence that points to biliteracy as a feasible (and readily
attainable) educational goal for culturally-diverse students has been either
ignored or distorted by media and academic opponents of bilingual education.
This is evidenced by the fact that most academic opponents of bilingual
education are on record as supporting dual-language programs for majority and
minority students but yet they persist in claiming that “bilingual education
does not work.” They also persist in defining bilingualism
as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution. Educators
who aspire to challenge the operation of coercive relations of power in the
school system must attempt to create conditions of collaborative empowerment.
In other words, they must attempt to organize their interactions with
students in such a way that power is generated and shared through those
interactions. This involves becoming aware of, and actively working to
change, the ways in which particular educational structures limit the
opportunities that culturally-diverse students might have for educational and
social advancement. It also
involves attempting to orchestrate their interactions with culturally-diverse
students in such a way that students' options for identity formation and
critical inquiry are expanded rather than constricted.
For Latino/Latina students promotion of critical biliteracy is a
necessary part of this empowerment process since, in the absence of critical
biliteracy, students are unable to read either the word or the world in their
two cultures. References Ada,
A.F. (1988a). Creative reading: A relevant methodology for language minority
children. In L.M. Malave (Ed.) NABE
'87. Theory, research and application: Selected Papers. Buffalo: State
University of New York. Ada,
A.F. (1988b). The Pajaro Valley experience:
Working with Spanish-speaking parents to develop children's reading and
writing skills in the home through the use of children's literature.
In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and J. Cummins (Ed.), Minority education:
From shame to struggle. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Cazabon,
M. T., Nicoladis, E., & Lambert, W.E. (1998). Becoming bilingual in the
Amigos two-way immersion program. Washington, DC: CREDE/CAL.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F.,
& Hamayan, E. (in press). Dual language instruction: A handbook for
enriched education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Collier,
V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic
purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641. Cummins,
J. (1981a). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In California. State. Department of.
Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students:
A theoretical framework . Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and
Assessment Center, California State University. Cummins,
J. (1981b). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A
reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 1, 132-149. Cummins,
J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse
society. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins,
J. (1999). Beyond adversarial discourse: Searching for common ground in the education
of bilingual students. In I. A. Heath & C. J. Serrano (Eds.), Annual
editions: Teaching
English as a second language
(pp. 204-224). Guildford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill. Cummins,
J. (in press). The ethics of doublethink: Language rights and the debate on
bilingual education. TESOL Journal. Cummins,
J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural
illiteracy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin's Press. Freeman,
R. D. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters. DeVillar,
R.A. & Faltis, C.J. (1991).
Computers and cultural diversity: Restructuring for school success. Albany: SUNY Press. Freire,
P. (1983). Banking education.
In H. Giroux & D. Purpel (Eds.) The hidden curriculum and moral
education: Deception or discovery? Berkeley,
CA: McCutcheon Publishing Corporation. Freire,
P. & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy:
Reading the word and the world. South
Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Genesee,
F. (1979). Acquisition of reading
skills in immersion programs. Foreign Language Annals, 12, 71-77. Glazer,
N. & Cummins, J. (1985). Viewpoints on bilingual education. Equity and
Choice, 2, 47-52. Glenn,
C. L. (1990). Introduction, Two-way integrated bilingual education .
Boston: Department
of Education, Office of Educational Equity. Glenn,
C. L. (1991). Integrated bilingual education in the USA. In K. Jaspaert & S.
Kroon (Eds.), Ethnic minority languages and education (pp. 37-55).
Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger Goodlad,
J.I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future.
New York: McGraw Hill. Greene,
J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont:
CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. Krashen,
S. D.(1999). Condemned without a trial: Bogus arguments against bilingual
education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Porter,
R. P. (1990). Forked tongue: The
politics of bilingual education. New York: Basic Books. Ramírez,
J. D. (1992). Executive summary. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 1-62.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Ramirez,
J.D., Yuen, S.D. Ramey, D.R. (1991). Executive
summary: Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion
strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for
language-minority children. Contract No. 300-87-0156. Submitted to the U.S.
Department of Education. San Mateo: Aguirre International. Sirotnik,
K.A. (1983). What you see is what you get - consistency, persistency, and
mediocrity in classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 16-31. Verhoeven, L. (1991). Acquisition of biliteracy. AILA Review, 8, 61-74 Biographical
Note: Jim Cummins teaches in the Department of Curriculum,
Teaching, and Learning of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the
University of Toronto.
His research has focused on the education of bilingual students and The possibilities and pitfalls of technology in education.
| ||||||||||||||||||
