bilingual education frameworks and types

bilingual education frameworks and types

1. 4 theoretical frameworks that shaped bilingual education programs

   • 2 NEW ONES WITH NON-LINEAR NATURE
     • DYNAMIC MODEL
       • supports L interactions
         • THE CORE OF THIS PROGRAMS ARE
           • Plurilingualism
           • dynamic form of bilingualism
       • this theoretical framework sees all students as a whole
       • sees bilingualism as a source, supports INTEGRATED ED
       • promotes transcultural identities
         • joining diff cultural experiences and generating a HYBRID CULTURAL EXPERIENCE
       • Allows the coexistence of diff lgs as the development of multiple linguistic identities to keep linguistic ecology for efficiency, equity, integration
       • DYNAMIC BILINGUALISM, A RESOURCE FOR ALL
       • LINGUISTIC ECOLOGY
         • PLURILINGUALISM
     • because of personal, sociohistorical circumstances, BILINGUALISM takes different directions
       • RECURSIVE MODEL
         • it supports L revitalization
           • through education
             • bilingual education programs with L rev seeks to recapture a lost L and Culture and imagine it in the future
         • BILINGUALISM THE GOAL AND RIGHT
         • works towards acceptance of all linguistic and cultural differences
         • promotes biculturalism
         • these programs have as a core biiingualism
           • they protect and nurture (nutren) L
             • children are emergent bilinguals
         • LINGUISTIC ECOLOGY
           • BILINGUAL CONTINUUM OF L REVITALIZATION
     • however not all states, social groups have same resources for these 2
     • HERE, CHILDREN SHOW BILINGUAL AND MULTILINGUAL PROFICIENCY AS THEY START SCHOOL
   • 2 traditional MONOGLOSSIC FRAMEWORKS
     • in some societies, the MONOGLOSSIC ONES are the only ones applied or accepted
       • NOT ALL SOCIETIES HAVE BEEN THAT MUCH IMPACTED BY GLOBALIZATION
         • nor they have the power to develop schools in charge of analyzing how lg practices are carried out
     • MONOGLOSSIC
       • SUBTRACTIVE MODEL
         • SEEKS THAT CHILDREN'S MINORITY L BE SHIFTED TO MAJORITY L
         • BILINGUALISM AS PROBLEMATIC
         • MONOCULTURALISM and MONOLINGUALISM IS THE GOAL
         • CORRESPONDS TO transitional MODEL HORNBERGER 1991
         • L1+L2-L1=L2
         • LINGUISTIC ECOLOGY
           • SHIFT
         • MONOCULTURALISM
       • ADDITIVE MODEL
         • SEEKS DIGLOSSIC BILINGUAL EDUCATION TYPES
         • MAINTENANCE OF CHILD'S 1ST L AND THE MAJORITY L
         • CORRESPONDS TO ENRICHMENT MODEL HORNBERGER 1991
         • SEES BILINGUALISM AS AN ENRICHMENT
         • L1+L2=L1+L2
         • LINGUISTIC ECOLOGY
           • LINEAR ADDITION OF LGS
         • NURTURES BICULTURALISM, SOMETIMES IS MONOCULTURAL
       • PROMOTES A NON-DIGLOSSIC BILINGUAL ED TYPE
         • SEEKS THAT LGS-MINORITY CHILDREN SHIFT TO MAJORITY L
   • types of bilingual education
     • Every bilingual model
       • haS to be properly imported
         • they have to be applied in places that have to do with the context
           • William F. Mackey
             • CAUTIONED ABOUT exporting models of bilingual schooling as magic formula
     • a type is more fluid than a model
     • THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK MATCH
       • SUBTRACTIVE BILINGUAL ED
         • TRANSITIONAL TYPE
           • based on superiority of the majority L and culture
             • must be well taught to the child
           • allows bilingualism as a temporary measure
           • when child learns majority L, l1 is left aside
           • the l1 is a tool to acquire l2
           • lately used with immigrants
           • teachers speed up the l2 learning through l1
       • ADDITIVE BILINGUAL ED
         • IMMERSION TYPE
           • IGNORES CHILD'S L
             • DURING 1 YEAR
             • THEIR L IS ALSO HONORED
           • INSTRUCTION IS MADE IN THE L TRIED TO BE ACQUIRED
           • THIS ED IS FOR CHILDREN WHOSE L IS POWERFUL
           • CHILDREN NEED TO CONTINUE HAVING ACCESS TO THEIR L1
           • ADDITIVE=BUILDS THE POWER THAT L1 HAS IN L2
           • ESPOSURE TO L2 IS MADE IN CLASS
           • EARLY IMMERSION BILINGUAL ED
             • EARLIEST GRADE OF SCHOOL
               • 1ST YEAR
                 • TEACHERS SPEAKS IN L2 BUT UNDERSTAND CHILD'S L1
               • 2ND YEAR
                 • IMMERSED IN L2 DURING 1ST YEAR, THEN L1 IS USED AGAIN
               • 3RD YEARD
                 • 50/50 L1&L2
           • LATE IMMERSION BILINGUAL ED
             • Programs that start after CHILD has been educated in his L1
           • PARTIAL IMMERSION BILINGUAL PROGRAM
             • BOTH EARLY AND LATE PROGRAMS IMMERSE CHILDREN IN THE L2 ONLY PART OF THE DAY
         • PRESTIGIOUS TYPE
           • ELITE BILINGUAL EDUCATION
           • 2 LGS OF PRESTIGE
           • THESE PROGRAMS ADD A LG THAT DIFFERS FROM THEIR ETHNOLINGUISTIC GROUP
           • FUNDED BY PARENTS' TUITION (INSTRUCCIÓN)
         • MAINTENANCE TYPE
           • programs with these focus
             • maintain the groups home L while they reach proficiency in L2
             • instill a strong bicultural identity in children
           • now referred to as DEVELOPMENTAL BILINGUAL ED
           • THESE PROGRAMS DEVELOP PROFICIENCY IN BOTH LGS
       • RECURSIVE BILINGUAL ED
         • IMMERSION REVITALIZATION TYPE
           • Seek to revitilized lost minoritized lgs to recover them and incorporate local knowledge in school curricula
           • these programs are also called
             • heritage lg immersion
         • DEVELOPMENTAL TYPE
           • understanding that deaf ppl. indigenous and minorities, need more than maintenance, THEY NEED TO DEVELOP ACADEMIC P in the L1
             • they have sociolinguistic aims
               • linguistic interraltionships
                 • understanding that the relationships between 2 or more lgs is strategic. children of different ethnolinguistic groups need contact with eachother, with respect to difference.
           • it's insufficient to speak of maintenance, the task of bilingual programs is to develop academic functions in L1 AND ASSURE L maintenance.
           • MAINTENANCE BILINGUAL ED IT'S MONOGLOSSIC BECAUSE IT ONLY CONCERNS FOR MAINTAIN IT BUT WHAT ABOUT PROFICIENCY?
           • MADE FOR NON-DOMINANT L GROUPS
           • RECEIVE SUPPORT FROM STATE
           • BASED ON BILINGUAL/MULTILINGUAL AND BICULTURAL MODEL OR COMMUNITY SEEKING EQUITY
       • DYNAMIC BILINGUAL ED
         • POLY-DIRECTIONAL OR TWO WAY (DUAL L EDUCATION)
           • CHILDREN HERE DO NOT SIMPLY SPEAK L A OR L B
             • CHILDREN WHO GO TO SCHOOL TO DIFF COUNTRIES WITH DIFF LGS
           • MORE THAN 2 LGS GROUPS ARE INVOLVED IN LEARNING AND STUDYING THOUGH EAH OTHER'S LGS
         • CLIL and CLIL-type
           • teaching lgs in mainstream ed
             • from pre-school for all populations
           • content and language integrated learning
             • students learn a subject and a second language at the same time.
           • provides a practical-sustainable way of educating for plurilingualism
           • teaches 1 to 2 subjects in an additional lg
           • protects 1st L development
         • MULTIPLE MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION TYPE
           • 3 lgs involved
             • it's for groups who manifest
               • complex multilingualism that creates bilingual continuum
           • this program exists in India for example
             • linguistic complexity requires
               • formal bilingual ed
     • deaf bilingual ed
       • usually developmental and heteroglossic
         • deaf ppl ed programs are becoming complex
           • deaf children sometimes have to learn a 3rd lg
             • also international sign Lg
               • programs for deaf around the world are on rise

2. blingualism

   • none type of bilingual ed model is better than other
   • TODAY IT NEEDS TO DO MORE THAN MAINTAIN MINORITY LGS, IT NEEDS TO BE ATTENTITVE ON THE DNAMICS OF BILINGUALISM ITSELFY
   • ITS ECOLOGY HAS SHIFTED IN SOME CONTEXTS
     • DUE TO
       • COMPLEX BILINGUAL SITUATIONS
       • GLOBALIZATION

3. SOCIAL CONTEXT

   • 21st greatest advnce is that ed is not preserved for elite anymore
     • public schools have more issues of linguistic heterogeneity
       • different backgrounds
         • UNESCO 1953
           • CHILDREN HAVE TO BE TAUGHT IN MOTHER L
       • SCHOOL FOR MASSES
         • provoked
           • L shift
       • INEQUALITIES RECOGNITION AND AWARES OF L EDUCATION IN the 60S
         • MADE POSSIBLE THE SURGE OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF BILINGUALEDUCATION PROGRAMS

4. MODEL RELATES WITH L, CULTURE, SOCIETY. TYPES REFERS TO SS AND TEACHERS CHARACTERISTICS

5. HORNBERGER'S MODELS 1991

   • transitional HORNBERGER 1991
     • LINGUISTIC GOAL
       • LANGUAGE SHIFT
     • CULTURAL GOAL
       • CULTURAL ASSIMMILATION
     • SOCIAL GOAL
       • INCORPORATE TO SOCIETY
   • maintenance HORNBERGER 1991
     • LINGUISTIC GOAL
       • L MAINTENANCE
     • CULTURAL GOAL
       • STRENGHT CULTURAL IDENTITY
     • SOCIAL GOAL
       • CIVIL RIGHTS AFFIRMATION
   • Enrichment Model HORNBERGER 1991
     • LINGUISTIC GOAL
       • LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
     • CULTURAL GOAL
       • CULTURAL PLURALISM
     • SOCIAL GOAL
       • SOCIAL AUTONOMY