Language teachers as active and critical partners in negotiating language policies

1
Language teachers as active and critical partners
in negotiating language policies

• Elana Shohamy
• Tel Aviv University
• IATEFL, Cardiff,
• April 1, 2009

2

• Language

3

Current views

• Language is dynamic, energetic, diverse,
  personal, fluid and constantly evolving
• No fixed boundaries, but rather fusions,
  hybrids, and multiple native AND non-native
  varieties
• After all, language is a dynamic process of
  negotiations, interactions and mediations,
  resulting from mutual attempts of meaning making

4

• Thus, a number of languages, codes and dialects
  can exist harmoniously
• These are also manifested beyond words, via
  multi-modal forms images, signs, music, clothes,
  food and other ways of languaging (Kress van
  Leeuwen)

5
English

• New Englishes are being created as we
  speak, in dynamic and personal ways in multiple
  types of spaces - global, local, and in between
  (Canagarajah, 2007, Jenkins, 2008)

6

• hybrids, fusions and mixes of L-1, L-2 and L-n,
  flowing over local, regional and transnational
  spaces
• new accents, words, tones, spellings are
  constantly being created
• multi-modal codes - esp. in cyber space of
  icons, colors, signs, sounds and designs,
  co-constructed with other languages and codes

7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
Jennins text

10
Yet, in spite of these creative and dynamic
features

• there are those who want to control language,
  close, freeze and standardize it
• mostly in order to promote/perpetuate political,
  social, economic and personal agendas (e.g.,
  social cohesion, power, domination, exclusion)

11

• and create stereotypical notions of language as
  good vs. bad high vs. low, correct vs.
  in-correct, polluted vs. pure, native
  vs. non-native

12

In nation/states languages have been constructed
as symbols of nation language

• and as criteria of
• belonging
• unity
• patriotism/loyalty
• group membership
• economic status
• class
• exclusion/inclusion

13
In Huttons (1999) words

• The combination of the nation-state
• and the emergence of the field of
• linguistics as a scientific discipline,
• resulted in defined and closed
• boundaries, native/non-native,
• mother tongue, national languages

14
But, in the changing world of

• trans-nationalism, diasporas, immigration, global
  markets, desire of groups to maintain collective
  identities
• emergence of flowing cyberspaces in oppositions
  to homogenous views of languages

15

languages fall in the midst of

• those seeking to maintain language order and
  standards
• vs.
• others attempting to view language in varied and
  complex ways pluralingual, multilingual,
  multi-coded, multimodal, democratic and free

16
Between

• uniformity and diversity
• native and non-native
• standard and un-standard (i.e, e-language)
• grammatical and ungrammatical
• accented and not accented
• oral vs. written

17

• Monolingual (English) vs. pluralingual
• Mono-modal vs. multi-modal
• English vs. national, indigenous, immigrant and
  endangered languages

18

• Removing the speakers of other languages from
  participating in society because of their lack of
  proficiency in hegemonic languages hurts the
  basic rights of members in democratic societies

19

• Language Policy

20

Method used to manage languages

• of countries and global spaces (the UN, the EU)
  of public spaces (hospitals, media, road signs,
  schools and even the internet) of homes
  (families) and of education (schools, classes,
  educational systems)

21



Spolsky, 2004
22

• Practices how language are actually used
• Ideologies what people/policy makers believe
  about language
• Management a way to manipulate and
• control the use of languages

23



24

• a multi-ethnic society of 7 million
• where Hebrew is the dominant and hegemonic
  language (although both Arabic and Hebrew are
  official)

25
Jews

• Mostly bilinguals
• 1. Hebrew, a home language and medium
• of instruction in all schools
• 2. English, a second language, learned in
• all schools from early age, widely used in
• business, academy and media

26
Arabs

• One million (20 of pop.), mostly trilingual
• 1. Arabic (dialects MSA)
• 2. Hebrew
• 3. English

27
Immigrants

• One million, mostly from the former USSR use
  Russian and/or other languages
• Once in Israel acquire Hebrew (2nd) and English
  (3rd)
• Children lose Russian and adopt an Israeli/Jewish
  BL pattern

28
But also

• Amharic spoken by 100,000 Ethiopians, who acquire
  Hebrew
• Approx 300,000 foreign workers using variety of
  languages - Romanian, Bulgarian, Spanish, Tagalo,
  Chinese, African languages, etc. and acquire
  basic variety of Hebrew
• Yiddish, spoken by Ultra Orthodox Jews, who also
  use Hebrew and some English
• Spanish, French, used by S. American and French
  immigrants, acquiring Hebrew and English

29
English

• Most Jews, Arabs and immigrants are proficient to
  various degrees in it, as studied in schools from
  early age
• Widely used in most domains of lives, esp in the
  academy
• Also an immigrant language and a lingua franca of
  Jews
• Resulting in different varieties of ELF

30

• Further evidence of language practice
• Linguistic Landscape

31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39

Jews
Palestinians EJ Palestinians Grey
Hebrew dark Arabic light English
40


41

• Hebrew, a mobilizing symbol of Zionist ideology
  of the Jewish society created in Palestine (since
  early 20th century)
• Hebrew introduced as medium of instruction in all
  Jewish schools while all other languages,
  including Jewish languages - Yiddish, Ladino,
  Jewish Arabic, commonly spoken at the time,
  were rejected

42


43

• a. National language policy
• b. Educational language policy

44
a. National language policy

• Arabic and Hebrew are official
• English, not official, but has all features of
  officiality
• Arabic, official, but limited presence

45
b. Lang Education Policy 3

• For Jews Hebrew (medium of instruction)
• English
• Arabic (MSA), taught
  in grades 7-9
• , community, world,
  heritage
• For Arabs Arabic (medium of instruction)
• Hebrew
• English
• other languages

46
Yet, de facto policy

• Earlier start of English than declared in policy
• Limited maintenance of immigrant languages
• Hebrew becomes a language of instruction for a
  number of subjects in Arab schools (esp sciences)
• 3 bilingual (Hebrew/Arabic) schools
• Limited use of the
• Limited study of Arabic in Jewish schools
• Declared policies are not implemented

47
So, what is the real LP?

• The declared?
• The official?
• The imposed?
• The negotiated?
• The resisted?
• The protested?
• The grassrooted?
• The tested?
• The displayed?
• The top-down/bottom-up?

48

• An expanded view of LP
• Focus on mechanisms

49
A critical views of LP

• Examines the covert ways in which language
  policies are made
• The cost in terms of language rights,
  discrimination and justice
• Engages in activism for repairing injustices

50
LP imposed top-down

• LP is imposed from above according to political
  agendas of those in authority
• It is done via mechanisms that mediate between
  ideologies of those in power and those affected
  by LP

51

• Ideology
• Practice

mechanisms
52
Mechanisms
53

• It is via the mechanisms that ideology is imposed
  on language practice
• It is also via the mechanisms that language
  policies can be negotiated and resisted by
  different stake holders
• Examples 1. imposition of national languages
  but, 2. The language varieties found on the
  internet

54

• Focus on teachers and schools

55

• Teaching attempts to fulfill declared educational
  language policies
• Thus, teachers often have contradictory views of
  declared policies, based on experiences (praxis)
• Yet, these voices are rarely heard as policies
  are imposed in harsh ways via various mechanisms.
  such as tests (e.g., Common European Framework
  Reference)

56

• Teachers are left out of policy decisions and
  have no representations in policy making
• Yet, they are expected to implement it (teach
  for the policy), w/o being consulted as to the
  validity of the policy claims
• Their students are then tested about the
  fulfillment of the policy goals

57

• Teachers are treated as bureaucrats, servants
  of the system and not as professional individuals
  whose experiences, praxis and knowledge can
  contribute to the creation of valid and
  achieve-able language policies

58

• By framing language policyas political and
  ideological acts, the professional agents are
  being removed
• Yet, classrooms can become micro-
• cosmos of multilingual , multil-modal,
• creative, open and interactive spaces
• Bottom-up????

59
1. Declared policies
60

61

• Policy documents
• Language laws
• Officiality
• Standardization
• Nationalization
• Citizenship laws

62
Who makes these declared policy decisions?

Government agencies Politicians Courts Teachers
are left out
63
Ex Officiality

• Declared policies have very little effect

64
The cost?

• Denial of rights and discrimination against
  those whose languages are official but not
  represented (e.g., entrance tests to universities
  of minority groups in the hegemonic language)
• Lack of language services medicine, health,
  translations
• Empowering some, marginalizing others
• Lack of participation

65
Examples of students views about how their daily
lives are affected by policy )

• Although I learned Hebrew in school for 10
  years, I am not as good in it in comparison to
  those born into the language yet at the
  university, there is no room for Arabic and I
  have to compete with students who were born into
  the language of course they will always be
  better than me

66

• I feel I am always being tested on my Hebrew
  in government offices the people always tell me
  speak clearly, I cannot understand you and often
  they yell at me for not trying harder

67

• When I get my papers from my professor, he
  only comments on my Hebrew and rarely relates to
  the what I wrote
• I constantly feel humiliated about my Hebrew
  and my English, so I simply become silent

68
Teachers negotiations/resistance

• Relating and encouraging the use of other
  official languages in classrooms
• Use of ML sources, texts, materials
• Teach about denial of language rights,
• Translation of documents to official languages
  in classrooms

69

70
A powerful mechanisms

• ideological wishful thinking, not based on
  empirical data
• imposed by political entities top-down
• limited resistance
• reinforced by textbooks, teachers, curricula and
  tests

71
Consequences

• Hegemonic languages are the only choice for
  language of instruction
• Marginalizing other languages
• Focus on how, not on what (loss of access to
  knowledge)
• Overlooks research

72
(No Transcript)
73
11th grade Math standard scores according to
years of residence
74

• It takes 9-11 years for immigrants to gain
  achievement similar to native speakers in a new
  language
• Immigrant/indigenous students cannot function
  fully in schools in a new language and worse is
  when they have to function in two foreign
  languages a national language and English

75
Cost, discrimination, rights

• Loss of all knowledge/content by
• immigrant and indigenous groups
• Loss of self concept about ones
• culture, marginalization
• Loss of language capacity that is already there

76
And teachers???They are not consulted in
educational policy making

77
Teachers resistance/negotiations

• LEP -?LL -?MLL
• The green classroom ML, MM classes
• Acceptance of language varieties
• Focus on content and less on form
• Incorporate broad types of genres including those
  of the Internet
• Empower students of other languages
• Translations of material to other languages

78

79

• Powerful devices imposed top-down
• Covert way of policy making as it affects what is
  learned
• Lead to high stake decisions for individuals and
  societies - create winners/losers
  successes/failures, rejections/acceptances.

80

• Given the power of tests and their consequences,
  individuals comply and change their behaviors
  according to test demands
• Difficult to resist and talk back often
  anchored in law (No Child Left Behind)

81

• Tests perpetuate national, hegemonic languages
  (English on the NCLB)
• Define knowledge and stipulate criteria for
  correctness (the native variety)
• Rating scales (as CEFR) become the teaching
  curriculum
• Denial of bilingual knowledge

82


Consequences of incorporating L-1
83
Jennins text

Ignoring the use of hybrids
84
Cost, discrimination, rights?

• Gatekeeping, exclusion of those not proficient in
  hegemonic language
• Misguided construct (L-2 only) vs.
  (L-1 L-2) for non-natives
• How can immigrants be tested in L-2 while it
  takes so long to acquire it
• Unrealistic demands
• Transmitting subtractive messages
• Language tests lead to de facto policies in
  covert ways, given their power

85

Teachers resistance/protest

• Classrooms assessment as a unique practice avoid
  replicating big testing
• Testing/assessment for learning
• Testing/assessment for delivering
  meanings/content
• Dynamic assessment for following developmental
  changes (not static)
• Multi-lingual, multi-modal assessment and
  accommodations

86

87

• Linguistic landscape
• The internet/cyber space
• The media
• Graffiti
• The cell phone
• Text messages, etc. etc.

88
Linguistic Landscape

• Linguistic items constructing the public space
• Top-down (by governments and those in authority
  (names of streets) vs. bottom up, signs put by
  private citizens, e.g., names of stores)

89
Consequences

• The public space is as arena of occupation and
  dominance, some groups and people are included
  but others are excluded
• Legitimacy of certain languages to be present in
  public spaces delivers messages of exclusion

90
Teachers protesting/negotiations

• Designing a ML spaces in classroom, shaping the
  class and school ecology
• Using the ecology to develop critical thinking
  about language in public spaces as a form of
  understanding society - inclusion, exclusion,
  domination, etc.

91
(No Transcript)
92
(No Transcript)
93
(No Transcript)
94
Item 11
95
(No Transcript)
96
(No Transcript)
97
(No Transcript)
98
(No Transcript)
99
Summary

• 1. Open, free and personal views of language
• 2. How languages fall in the midst of political
  agendas and battles
• 3. Components of LP ecology, ideology,
  management
• 4. The lack of participation of teachers in LP
• 4. Expansion of LP focus on mechanisms covert
  and overt ways of creating de facto policies
• 5. Using the mechanisms by teachers to protest
  and negotiate alternative policies (the green
  classroom)

100

• The need for language teachers to develop
  awareness that the teaching of English, and other
  languages, is not neutral but rather is embedded
  in ideological and political agendas of various
  agencies

101

• The need to adopt political and critical views of
  language policies and teaching and understand the
  overt and convert mechanisms through which
  language policies are introduced and imposed

102

• the need to view English language teaching, not
  as an isolated language case, but rather as
  embedded in a broader language policy agendas of
  a multiple languages, each within its unique
  function and goals, but connected to one another

103

• The need to negotiate alternative, inclusive and
  just language policies which are based on
  experiences, research and current views of
  languages

104

• the need to implement such policies in schools
  and classes
• and thus to turn such policies to the new
  ideologies