B-MEIS Newsletter - July 2019 (Plain Text Version)
|
||
|
In this issue: |
REACHING THE GOAL: BILINGUAL WRITING RESEARCH Alsu Gilmetdinova, Kazan National Research Technical University named after A.N.Tupolev-KAI, Russia
In the globalized world where the cultures, languages, and politics are becoming increasingly interwoven and complex, the importance of research on bilingual and biliterate development can hardly be ignored. To effectively educate, peacefully coexist and promote economic progress it is imperative to prepare students to communicate in multiple languages orally and in writing. If scholarship on bilingualism has found its niche in the field of education, linguistics, psychology, a particular component of biliteracy development – bilingual writing – yet still needs to determine where it stands in the current state of affairs. Fitzgerald (2006) in the review of Multilingual Writing in Preschool through 12th Grade: The Last 15 Years has stated that out of the 60 articles examined for the study few generalizations could be made about what has been accomplished in the area of bilingual and multilingual writing due to the lack of rigorous methodology, information about the measures, intercoder reliability, and number of analyzed writing samples. The recent increase in the scholarship on second language writing has not yielded itself to the studies on writing development on more than one language. Most of the research has focused on various aspects of writing in English as a foreign/second language with meager amount of research on Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and a few others. As Gort (2002) summarizes most writing research has looked at one language or the other, but not both. The main research focus has been on the development of English (L2) writing (Chelala, 1981; Cumming, 1989; Friedlander, 1990; Halsall, 1986; Holmes & Moulton, 1994; Hudelson, 1989; Jones, 1982; Lay (1982); Peyton, 1990; Pfingstag, 1984; Raimes, 1985, 1987; Seda & Abramson, 1990; Urzua, 1987; Wald, 1987; Zamel, 1982, 1983) (p. 6). The scholarship on second language writing thus maintained a largely monolingual view on bilingual/multilingual writing criticized by Grosjean (1985, 1989), Moll, Saez, and Dworin (2001), Valdes (1992). The paucity of research on bilingual writing has also been influenced by the relative scarcity of studies on becoming literate in two languages, or more (Moll et al., 2001). The small number of theoretical frameworks to analyze bilingual development is a clear illustration of that (Cummins, 1991; de Jong, 2011; Hornberger 2003). Out of this limited choice, the framework offered by Hornberger in her book Continua of biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings (2003) seems to capture multifaceted, interrelated and successive nature of bilingual and biliteracy development. This notion of continua, according to Hornberger blurs the boundaries between what traditionally is characterized in terms of polar opposites, such as first versus second languages (L1 vs L2), monolingual versus bilingual individuals, or oral versus literate societies, it has been increasingly clear that in each case those opposites represent only theoretical endpoints on what is in reality a continuum of features. (p. 5) It is this notion of continua that will serve to guide the following analysis of bilingual writing as it is situated along the nine different continua (macro-micro, oral-literate, bilingual monolingual; production-reception, oral-written, L1-L2; successive-simultaneous exposure, convergent-divergent script, similar-dissimilar structure) represented in three figures – the continua of biliterate contexts, the continua of biliterate development in the individual, the continua of biliterate media. As students’ writing development in each language evolves, it doesn’t advance in a linear manner. Diversity avails in how children progress and develop. And as Moll et al. (2001) mention, “this diversity is particularly evident among bilinguals, for many factors can influence how they learn, how the languages interact, especially if both are fostered equally or if one language is privileged over the other” (Moll et al., 2001, p. 442). So, the notion of continua helps to convey that each component of this complex development, each point on the continuum is not finite, static, or discrete, “any single point is inevitably and inextricably related to all other points” (Hornberger, 2003, p. 5). According to Cummins’ (1991) Linguistic Interdependence Principle, academic biliteracy is accompanied by interconnected development of language, literacy and concept transformation. Bilingual development, as noted by Berninger (2000), does not take place in a linear manner, “development of various language systems occurs in ‘overlapping, parallel waves rather than in discrete, sequential stages” (as cited in Danzak, 2011a, p. 493). Thus, to understand bilingual writing development it is important to focus on both common and unique features along any one continuum. Benefits of Bilingualism Benefits of biliteracy on bilingual writing has been concluded by a number of scholars. Bialystok (1997) has posited that bilingual children have a better understanding of the representational properties of written language. The transfer of knowledge from one language to another is assisted by the grammatical proficiency in the target language (as cited in Kato-Otani, 2008). Kenner (2004) states that bilingual children who understand the difference between the two writing systems, are also able to connect them in order to transform meaning across these languages (as cited in Kato-Otani, 2008). The study of elementary school students bilingual writing development by Edelsky (1982) concludes that “writing knowledge transfers across languages” (as cited in Friedlander, 1990, p. 109). Hakuta (1987) suggests that “most transfer of skills from L1 to L2 occurs in a global way, rather than point by point, that is, transfer is not word for word, but rather involves processes and strategies” (as cited in Hornberger, 2003). Among the processes Francis (2006) indicates that bilingual students “possess shared and independent language mechanisms and structures that can serve as common underlying proficiencies (Cummins, 2000) that can transfer across language. Among these proficiencies Danzak (2011a) points out phonological awareness (Bialystok, 2007); vocabulary depth (Ordonez, Carlo, Snow, & McLaughlin, 2002), and knowledge of text-level conventions in writing (Durgunoglu, 2002). Danzak (2011a) also suggests that bilingualism and biliteracy are characterized by the transfer of higher level cognitive processes and concepts across languages. His study of The Integration of Lexical, Syntactic, and Discourse Features in Bilingual Adolescents’ Writing: an Exploratory Approach concluded that “if individual students were able to use more abstract lexical items, compose more complex sentences, and draft well-organized, genre-appropriate text in one language, [then] they could do so in the other” (p. 501). Furthermore, the study of a Two-way Bilingual Education program by Gort (2002) proposes that “access to two languages and support for bilingualism affect both the processes of writing and the products children create, leading to the development of biliteracy and metalinguistic awareness of two languages for Spanish-dominant and English-dominant students” (p. 3). Gort’s (2002) study of bilingual children’s cross-linguistic strategies and behavior indicated evolution of immature literacy processes and skills which are related to “the processes of encoding, spelling, monitoring, punctuation, capitalization, editing and revising” (p. 21). Types of Effective Instruction Moll et al. (2001) offer several summarizing comments about effective approaches for bilingual instruction, among them are the use of both languages by students and teachers interchangeably, resources in a variety of genres (Quintero & Huerta-Macias, 1995) and activities tailored to engaging with print through different channels, simultaneous acquisition of academic skills and social content and lastly, promotion of language as tool for thinking. Moll et al. (2001) identified the following factors which are necessary to create additive bilingual conditions that would make minority languages unmarked: “the groups’ linguistic vitality; the networks of linguistic contact in the minority or non-dominant language through media, schools, family, and friends, and the communities’ demographic, political, economic, and cultural resources or ‘capital’” (p. 446) Teachers can also resort to written translation as a means to enhance students’ metalinguistic awareness (Kato-Otani, 2008). Writing topics from children’s homes and communities (Danzak, 2011a), awareness about outside world, parent-community, and parent-teacher partnerships also help to foster bilingual writing development (Kato-Otani, 2008). To improve bilingual writing development of adolescents Danzak (2011) recommends explicit instruction on “understanding of communicative functions, genre conventions, and organization and text structures” (p. 502). Most researchers agree that language learners necessitate direct instruction and guided practice in all stages of the writing process (Danzak, 2011) as well as providing with ample opportunities “to review and practice key lexical, syntactic and discourse structures as students’ texts are revised and published” (Danzak, 2011b). What is apparent that the kind of instruction that should be given to monolingual students included special forms of literacy and discourses that are not found in English monolingual classrooms in order to recognize the interplay of languages and tap into these strengths (Dworin 1996; Kato-Otani, 2008; Rubin & Carian, 2005). Code-Switching Bilingual writing development can also be characterized by frequent shifts between the languages. According to Gort (2006) one of the reasons for this switches is the “desire to express themselves for things they care about” (as cited in Kato-Otani, 2008, p. 79). Huerta (1977), Pfaff (1976), and Poplack (1983) have also found that code-switching characterizes enhanced level of grammatical competence on the part of the speaker. Aguirre (1988), Jacobson (1985), and Tukinoff (1985) have expressed the benefits of code-switching for a meaningful communication. Many other studies have claimed the benefits of switches to the first language (Chelala, 1981; Johnson, 1985; Jones & Tetroe, 1987). The study of Lay (1982) discusses several instances when shift to the first language are most likely to occur: 1) with certain topics (especially those studied or acquired in the first language background); 2) searching unfamiliar topics; 3) at certain stages of language development (as cited in Friedlander, 1990, p. 111). Based on this premises Friedlander developed a study to analyze whether thinking about new topic or generating information to produce a written text can be aided by writing in the first language, and then translating it into the target language. His hypothesis was experimentally proved that “L2 writers will plan for their writing more effectively, write better texts containing more content, and create more effective texts when they are able to plan in the language related to the acquisition of knowledge of the topic area” (Friedlander, 1990, p. 112). Gort’s study illustrated the “children’s ability to code-switch was contingent upon several factors, including the relative strength of L1 and L2 (i.e. language dominance), their bilingual development, the linguistic context, and the corresponding language proficiencies of their interlocutor(s)” (pp. 19–20). In line with Lay’s study (1982), Gort (2002) also found that written code-switches originated from the reference to American popular culture or places that children had visited and knew for which equivalents in the first language did not exist (Disney World). Misconceptions According to Edelsky (1982), writing in the second language does not necessarily follow oral proficiency in that language as claimed by some scholars (Palmer, 1921). Edelsky also indicated that a “host of locally varying factors arising from many larger contexts” influence variability of practices in any given classroom (as cited in Moll et al., 2001, p. 438). Even writing that takes place in bilingual classrooms is universally conducted in English, thus excluding bilingual students of the opportunities to capitalize on “native-language skills and from tapping into prior experiences and schemata that could enrich their writing” (Reyes, 1991, p. 16). As Rivers (1987) argues, for these students writing becomes a task where the task is controlling the writing activity, rather than ideas are shaping what is written (as cited in Reyes, 1991). Research on bilingualism asserts that the linguistic repertoire that bilingual students bring to the classroom cannot be fully measured in a single language (Munoz-Sandoval, Cummins, Alvarado, & Ruef, 1998). Thus, the view of bilingual development as a whole and not decomposed as two halves is necessary (Grosjean, 1989). Valdes (1992) further argues that it is not useful to compare the bilingual and monolingual development, as “for reasons not clearly understood, even though most functional bilinguals can achieve native like control of many levels of a second languages, they will still continue to use learner-like features of the language in certain expressions” (pp. 102–103). Furthermore, the scholar states that limitations in linguistic ability of bilingual students should not be overlooked even if one may conjecture that nonnative writing abilities develop following a sequence similar to that of native writers. Reyes (1991) focuses on the type of writing instruction and claims that exclusive focus on the process approach to writing instruction of bilingual students does them a disservice by ignoring the importance of the product itself, for which these students are evaluated, assessed and judged upon. As a result, school districts use the information obtained from the English classes to report comparative performance for bilingual students, “thus perpetuating the cognitive-deficit view of language-minority students” (Reyes, 1991, p. 22). Danzak (2011a) also urges to use “culturally and linguistically grounded protocol that is interconnected with authentic writing and allows for system interactions to materialize” when assessing bilingual writing products. Another concept that sometimes is also associated with the deficit model of bilingual development is interlanguage/interliteracy. Gort’s (2002) study suggests thought that interliteracy is contingent upon a students’ bilingual and biliterate development and is parallel to their oral interlanguage, “thus it represents growth of biliteracy and not a backward developmental progression” (p. 24). Complexities All the studies of biliteracy have also mentioned the complexity of analysis of bilingualism and bilingual writing due to various factors including incipient literacy in one of the languages, socio-cultural elements among the few. For example the study conducted by Jimenez, Garcia and Pearson (1995, 1996) has compared the reading achievements of fully bilingual, monolingual and less proficient bilingual students. They concluded that despite some visible gains of the bilingual student “successful integration of reading strategies across languages, such as the use of metalinguistic knowledge to monitor comprehension, may necessitate considerable instruction and practice” (as cited in Moll et al., 2001, p. 437). Bilingual instruction in many countries and the United States is not an exception takes place within the confines of strong political and ideological environment where minority people and/or languages are surviving in economically, socially and culturally disadvantage contexts. The hidden curriculum of overall monolingual proficiency (English only), complex emotional contexts in many schools and communities emphasize ‘deculturalization” of schooling (Spring, 2004). These attitudinal, emotional and economic influence thwart effective bilingual instruction and maintenance of minority languages. As Moll et al. (2001) suggests biliteracy is “intricately related to dynamics of social, cultural, and institutional contexts the help define its nature” (p. 447). And in order for bilingual to succeed in academia and social and professional lives, it is important for them not only to master the linguistics set of skills and abilities in both languages, but to “become competent in a range of practices or uses of literacy that constitute the experience of living and going to school in a bilingual community” (Moll et al., 2001, p. 447). As Reyes (1991) posits, there are no easy solutions to the teaching and assessment of bilingual learners; however, teachers can start to pave the way for a more just and fair instruction and evaluation by offering mini-lesson on teaching discrete writings skills based on the writing errors made by students, contextualizing the language, urging schools and districts to provide with linguistic resources and qualified bilingual personnel (or consultants) who can use portfolio based assessments in both languages and thus, validate students’ native languages as a foundation for bridging to literacy in the second language. As quoted in Danzak (2011a) “Perkins (1980) found that the linguistic measures were better predictors of holistic writing outcomes than were the standardized test scores” (p. 493). The problematic nature of bilingual assessment remains to be understudied even these days. Concluding Thoughts and Questions for Further Studies First and foremost result of this literature review indicates the need for more research on bilingual writing development. The scholars working in different fields, including rhetoric and composition, modern languages, comparative literature could also contribute to the development of research in this field. As Valdes aptly noted, “by using bilingual individuals to study questions of major theoretical interest, [we] will be able to strengthen the explanatory power of existing theories about the process and practice of writing in general” (Valdes, 1992, p. 129). There are numerous questions openly posed by both Fitzerald (2006) and Valdes (1992) that can easily be taken up for a number of studies. Minority language development, the impact of students’ background on their writing development, types of effective writing theories (process vs. product oriented theories), instructional methods and curriculum that can dramatically enhance or hinder the way each feature evolves on the interwoven and complex web of bilingual and biliterate continua. References Aguirre, A. (1988). Code-switching, intuitive knowledge, and the bilingual classroom. In H. S. Garcia & R. C. Chavez (Eds.) Ethnolinguistic Issues in Education (pp. 28–38). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Education. Berninger, V. W. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections with language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 65–84. Bialystock, E. (1997). Effects of bilingualism and biliteracy on children’s emerging concept of print. Developmental Psychology, 33 (93), 429–440. Bialystock, E. (2007). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language Learning, 57, 45–77. Chelala, S. (1981). The composing process of two Spanish-speakers and the coherence of their texts: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University. Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second- language proficiency in bilingual children, in E. Bialystok (Ed.) Language Processing in Bilingual Children (pp. 70–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Danzak, R. L. (2011a). The Integration of Lexical, Syntactic, and Discourse Features in Bilingual Adolescents' Writing: An Exploratory Approach. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 42(4), 491–505. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0063). Danzak, R. L. (2011b). Defining identities through multiliteracies: EL teens narrate their immigration experiences as graphic stories. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(3), 187-196. de Jong, E. (2011). Foundations for Multilingualism in Education: From Principles to Pracitce. Caslon Publishing. Durgunoglu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 189–204. Dworin, J. (1996). Biliteracy development: The appropriation of English and Spanish literacy by second and third grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tuscon. Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program. The relation of L1 and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 211–228. Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Multilingual writing in preschool through 12th grade: The last 15 years. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 337–357). New York: The Guliford Press. Francis, N. (2006). The development of secondary discourse ability and metalinguistic awareness in second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 37–60. Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 109–125). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gort, M. (2002). A Preliminary Model of Bilingual Writing Development for Spanish-Dominant and English-Dominant Students: Portraits from Dual-Language Classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Grosjean, J. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6 (6), 467–477. Grosjean, J. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. Hornberger, N. (2003). Continua of Biliteracy. In N. Hornberger (Ed.) Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings. NY: Multilingual Matters. Huerta, A. G. (1977). The acquisition of bilingualism: A code-switching approach. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Jacobson, R. (1985). Title vii demonstration projects program in bilingual instructional methodology final report. San Antonio, TX: University of Texas at San Antonio and Southwest Independent Reading Association. Johnson, C. (1985). The composing processes of six ESL students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University. Jones, C. S., & Tetroe, J (1987). Composing in a second language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.) Writing in Real Time (pp. 34–57). New York: Addison-Wesley. Kato-Otani, E. (2008). Writing development of a bilingual child: Japanese and English. Child Language Seminar, University of Reading, 2007. Lay, N. (1982). Composing processes of adult ESL learners: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 406. Moll, L. C., Saez, R., & Dworin, J (2001). Exploring biliteracy: Two student case examples of writing as a social practice. The Elementary School Journal, 101 (4), 435–449. Munoz-Sandoval, A, Cummins, J, Alvarado, C, & Ruef, M. (1998). Research in bilingualism: implications for assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Ordonez, C. L., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., & McLaughlin, B. (2002). Depth and breadth of vocabulary in two languages: Which vocabulary skills transfer? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 719–728. Palmer, H. E. (1921). The principles of language study (pp. 127–1420. London: Oxford University Press. Pfaff, C. W. (1976). Functional and structural constraints on syntactic variation in code-switching. Chicago linguistic society parasession on diachronic syntax (pp. 248–259). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Poplack, S. (1983). Intergenerational variation in language use and structure in a bilingual context. In C. Rivera (Ed.), An Ethnographic/Sociolinguistic Approach to Language Proficiency Assessment (pp. 169–184). Avon, England: Multilingual Matters. Quintero, E., & Huerta-Macias, A. (1995). Bilingual children’s writing: Evidence of active learning in social context. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 9 (2), 157–165. Reyes, M. d. l. L. (1991). Bilingual Student Writers: A Question of Fair Evaluation. English Journal, 80(8), 16–23. Rivers, W. J. (1987). Story writing: A comparison of native and L2 discourse. In J. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Eds.) Research in Second Language Learning: Focus on the Classroom (pp. 196–211). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tukinoff, W. J. (1985). Applying significant bilingual instructional features in the classroom. Rosslyn, VA: InrerAmerica Research Association, Inc. Valdes, G. (1992). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing: Toward professional responses to a new challenge. Written Communication, 9(1), 85–136. Alsu Gilmetdinova works at the intersection of bilingual education, adult EFL instruction and leadership. Her research interests revolve around multilingual education, language policy and teaching English as a foreign language. She has published in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Language and Education, World Englishes, and International Multilingual Research Journal among others. She is an incoming chair of Bilingual-Multilingual Education Interest Section of TESOL International, active member of Russian associations of teachers of English: National Association of Teachers of English, National Writing Center Consortium. |
|