Lana Thain Assignment 1 Essay Due: 29th Sep, 2017

EDPROFST 318 Assignment 1

The importance of the heritage/home language (L1) in learning a new language

(L2).

The home language or first language (L1) is an important resource that has

implications in learning a second language (L2), though too often, schools and

teachers in New Zealand disregard this resource, viewing the first language as a

deficit, detrimental to the academic success of the individual (Jones Diaz & Harvey,

2007). The following will examine three key ideas; cognitive benefits as a result of

bilingualism, how negotiating language in different sociocultural and linguistic

contexts has an impact on bilingual identity construction and using L1 as a resource

to support language learning as well as curriculum learning (Baker, 2011; Cummins,

2008; Jones Diaz & Harvey, 2007). Each of these three ideas will be discussed

alongside literature, research and two frameworks for effective practice; the Ministry

of Educations (2012) ESOL principles and Frankens (2005) principles of effective

literacy practice for English as an additional language (EAL) learners.

Cummins (1976) research into bilingualism and cognition shows that there is

cognitive and linguistic transfer between L1 and L2. Recent cognitive theories of

bilingualism have evolved from initial research that caused naive and deficit-based

understandings of bilingualism and cognition where languages were understood to

exist in balance; L2 could only develop at the expense of L1 (Baker, 2011). Termed

the separate underlying proficiency (SUP) model of bilingual language proficiency,

Baker (2011) explains that this model conceives two languages operating separately

without transfer and with a restricted amount of room for languages (p. 165) (see

Figure 1). The SUP model is now considered a misconception with evidence

1
Lana Thain

supporting the theory that LI and L2 proficiencies are manifestations of a common

underlying proficiency (CUP) (Cummins, 1981). Baker (2011) and Cummins (2008)

use an iceberg analogy to describe Cummins (1980) CUP model of bilingualism,

stating that despite surface linguistic differences, the two languages do not function

separately; there is an underlying proficiency making possible the cognitive and

linguistic transfer between L1 and L2. Evidence suggests cognitive benefits through

bilingualism, but under what conditions do these benefits occur? Two conditions that

Baker (2011) explores are represented through Cummins (as cited in Baker, 2011)

threshold theory and the developmental interdependence hypothesis. Cummins (as

cited in Baker, 2011) thresholds theory addresses the relationship between

bilingualism and cognition, represented as two thresholds relating to language

competence and the cognitive consequences of those thresholds (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. The Separate underlying proficiency model of bilingualism.

Retrieved from Biebricher, C. (6 September, 2017). Cognitive
theories of bilingualism and principles of effective practice.
Unpublished lecture slides, Auckland, NZ.

2
Lana Thain

Figure 2. The thresholds theory. Retrieved from Research from the 1970s
onwards: Jim Cummins, British Council, 2016, Retrieved 2017, Sep. 26,
from https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/ipa-other-
symbols.

The theory posits that the further the individual moves towards balanced

bilingualism, the more likely they are to experience positive cognitive benefits.

Therefore a low proficiency in L2 limits a students ability to cope with the linguistic

complexities of curriculum content delivered in that language (Baker, 2011). I have

seen this through placement where an 11 year old english language learner (ELL)

had recently arrived from China with low proficiency in English, but well developed

competency in Mandarin. In a mathematics unit around geometry, he struggled to

engage in the English monolingual environment as did not have the language

competency to understand the teachers verbal instructions, read written instructions

or use specialised vocabulary in English with the rest of the students. His low

proficiency in L2 was clearly a barrier to participating in learning in a monolingual

environment without support, causing him to experience negative cognitive

consequences.

3
Lana Thain

Another condition that can determine cognitive advantages or disadvantages

is outlined in Cummins (as cited in Baker, 2011) interdependence hypothesis

(Baker, 2011). It considers the relationship between two languages of a bilingual

learner, suggesting that the more proficient the learner is in L1, the easier it will be to

develop L2 (Baker, 2011; Jones Diaz & Harvey, 2007). Competency in L1 would

facilitate the cognitive and linguistic transfer into L2 as the learner has developed

prior knowledge around metalinguistics and language skills that are required of the

learner as they participate in language and curriculum learning (Jones Diaz &

Harvey, 2007). The 11 year old ELL that I met through practicum was able to

participate in the geometry unit as he had already learnt the concepts and

vocabulary in L1. He was able to draw on this curriculum and linguistic prior

knowledge and translate it to develop his curriculum knowledge and language

learning in L2. Although his L2 proficiency was still reasonably low, he was able to

participate in the unit, making cognitive and linguistic gains that were strengthened

by his competency in L1.

This scenario correlates to the ESOL principles outlined by the Ministry of

Education (2012) and Frankens (2005) principles of effective literacy practice for

EAL students, whether they relate as strengths or areas of development. In terms of

strengths, the teacher identified the learning outcomes and the language demands in

the curriculum content, and ensured that the curriculum learning outcomes were

explicit and the same for all of the students (Ministry of Education, 2012). They also

adjusted their practice to ensure that their resources and lessons were more

inclusive and less reliant on English, drawing on the resource of the second

language in order to teach content that was age appropriate and involved specialised

4
Lana Thain

vocabulary (Franken, 2005). In reflection, there was little opportunity for productive

language, with the activities focussing receptive language such as listening to a

teacher-led explanation, reading the written vocabulary and matching it to an

illustration on the page, meaning that the tasks were not context-embedded (Ministry

of Education, 2012; Franken, 2005). The activities could have been adjusted to allow

for the use of materials even within the classroom, measuring and discussing

amongst themselves, scaffolded towards meeting the language and curriculum

learning outcomes for the unit.

Growing up bilingual is about negotiating social and cultural identity on a

daily basis (Jones Diaz & Harvey, 2007, p. 205). Bilingualism is not just about

communicating in more than one language, there are social, cultural and emotional

factors embedded in using various languages in different contexts, having direct

implications on identity construction. Negotiating the embedded power relations in

social interactions can affect a childs attitude towards their language and may cause

a shift in attitude from positive to negative. This can be particularly pertinent in an

environment that does not value the retention of the home language, causing

subtractive bilingual experiences; experiences where English comes at the expense

of the linguistic and cultural capital and habitus of the home culture (Jones Diaz &

Harvey, 2007).

English language (EL) learners may not be aware, but the value of their

bilingualism could be considered an asset, particularly when negotiating contexts

that rely on biliteracy in order to operate (Jones Diaz & Harvey, 2007). Jones Diaz

and Harvey (2007) describes these assets or advantages, calling them cultural and

linguistic capital and economic capital. Bourdieu (1993, as cited in Jones Diaz &

Harvey, 2007) describes cultural and linguistic capital as relating to the natural use of

5
Lana Thain

cultural norms, or habitus, and only existing and having value in those

bicultural/bilingual contexts which can lead to economic capital for the individual and

their family (Jones Diaz & Harvey, 2007). Jones Diaz and Harvey (2007) view the

concept of bilingualism and biliteracy being an asset to an individual as grounds

through which to value interlingualism in the education environment.

Despite growing awareness of the value of interlingualism, the home

language still suffers significantly in a strong monolingual environment, to the point

where high achievement of bilingual students in their home language is silenced or

ignored (Jones Diaz & Harvey, 2007). Research reports by Tuafati and McCaffrey

(2005) terms this a culture of silence, which draws on the deficit view of L1 being a

detriment to their achievement in the more important L2 (Jones Diaz & Harvey,

2007). Tagoilelagi-Leota Glynn, McNaughton, MacDonald and Farrys (2005, as

cited in Jones Diaz & Harvey, 2007) findings around transition from bilingual early

childhood settings to school state that this culture of silence of silence leads to

subtractive bilingual experiences and alters their perception of their home language

and culture from positive to negative.

In a previous practicum experience I observed a teacher who had a strong

monolingual classroom environment despite being bilingual themselves. The

students identified with a variety of languages and cultures, many of them sharing

languages, yet the teacher did not draw on this resource or attempt to nourish and

grow their understanding or perception of their home languages. In reflection, the

teacher could have aided the students in maintaining their culture through facilitated

opportunities such as inviting members of the community into her classroom or

encouraged a student to present an aspect of their culture or language to the class

6
Lana Thain

with the support of other bicultural students. This would have instilled a value of their

culture as an asset to their community and future.

In the practicum observation above, the teacher did not draw on the ESOL

principles outlined by the Ministry of Education (2012) or Frankens (2005) principles

of effective practice, in fact they opposed of them. I will strive to adopt the practices

that I have outlined as they align more closely with the principles of effective practice

as it particularly draws on knowledge of the learner and the culture and language

that they bring with them (Ministry of Education, 2012).

Cummins (2008) comments that bilingual education often takes the form of

the two solitudes approach, an approach where the languages are learnt separately

from one another with little to no integration in regards to content or linguistic

understanding. This enduring but outdated method of language instruction described

by Yu (2001, as cited in Cummins, 2008) is something that I have personally seen

through multiple practicum experiences, where the class leaves their regular

classroom once a week to participate in various language classes as a group in

rotation with other classes in their syndicate.

In the context of the bilingual and immersion model that is currently utilised in

New Zealand, Cummins (2008) proposes a new teaching for transfer method with

two major contributors to challenge the two solitudes assumption and draw on L1 as

a resource through which to support language learning and curriculum learning. The

first contributor to the success of the method references the principles of learning as

outlined by Donovan and Bransford (2005), drawing on the principle of engaging

prior understanding. Donovan and Bransford (2005) state that the fundamental

insight to this principle is that new understandings are constructed on a foundation

of existing understandings and experiences (p. 4). Cummins (2008) argues that in

7
Lana Thain

the context of bilingual education, the students prior knowledge was gained through

L1, therefore L1 is implicit in their understanding and a resource on which to base

new understanding. He maintains that the prior understanding is not only curriculum

based, but also cultural; bilingual learners have prior understandings in skills, beliefs

and concepts that significantly influence the way in which bilingual learners engage

with new information. Therefore Cummins (2008) argues that his optimal teaching for

transfer method must incorporate L1 and not view it as a detriment to the

development of L2. It is part of a students prior understanding and therefore the

foundations on which to lay new understanding, both in curriculum and linguistically.

The second contributor to Cummins (2008) teaching for transfer builds on

Cummins (1980) CUP model of bilingualism. Under this model, Cummins (2008;

1980) understands that there is a cross-linguistic transfer that cannot be ignored in

his teaching for transfer method due to the central operating system that does not

distinguish between languages. This model of bilingualism is reinforced by the

research findings of Verhoeven (1991, as cited in Cummins, 2008) that indicates that

a strong emphasis on instruction in L1 does lead to better literacy results in L1 with

no retardation of literacy results in L2 [and] literacy skills being developed in one

language strongly predict corresponding skills in another language (p. 69). That is,

bilingual education in L1 does not work to the detriment of L2, in fact it strengthens

both languages.

Whilst on practicum, I was given the opportunity to observe a Maori bilingual

classroom. Without directly referencing Cummins (2008) teaching for transfer

method, the bilingual teacher, drew on the childrens prior understanding of and in te

reo Maori as a catalyst of curriculum and L2 language learning. I should also note

that L1 of some of the students was English; they were developing te reo Maori as

8
Lana Thain

their L2 as chosen by themselves and their parents. The teacher used te reo Maori

frequently, keeping in mind that some students had low proficiency in te reo. In

reflection, this was a highly inclusive practice that strengthened and reflected both

groups of learners. The students were not separated into groups according to their

L1, rather they were able to move around the room amongst different peers. There

was ample opportunity provided for students to discuss in L1 in order to translate into

L2, which buildt their understanding of the curriculum content in both L1 and L2 and

also strengthens their linguistic understanding. The balanced bilingualism that the

teacher had was an asset to her learning environment and learners, I query whether

it would have been as effective had she had low proficiency in te reo Maori.

Cummins (2008) teaching for transfer method and the practices of the te reo

Maori bilingual teacher align well with the ESOL principles outlined by the Ministry of

Education (2012) or Frankens (2005) principles of effective practice. Cummins

(2008) specifies that learning outcomes are curriculum and language based, and

translation is a useful tool that ensures a balance between receptive and productive

language whilst allowing for context- embedded tasks and repetition (Ministry of

Education, 2012; Franken, 2005).

This essay has discussed how L1 is an important resource that has

implications in learning L2, examining three key ideas; cognitive benefits as a result

of bilingualism, how negotiating language in different sociocultural and linguistic

contexts has an impact on bilingual identity construction and using L1 as a resource

to support language learning as well as curriculum learning (Baker, 2011; Cummins,

2008; Jones Diaz & Harvey, 2007). The teaching for transfer model that Cummins

(2008) proposes aligns with two frameworks for effective practice; the Ministry of

9
Lana Thain

Educations (2012) ESOL principles and Frankens (2005) principles of effective

literacy practice for English as an additional language (EAL) learners.

10
Lana Thain

Reference List:

Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5). Bristol,

United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3). Bristol,

United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.

Biebricher, C. (6 September, 2017). Cognitive theories of bilingualism and principles

of effective practice. Unpublished lecture slides, Auckland, NZ.

Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of

research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working papers on

bilingualism 9, 143.

Cummins, J. (1980). The construct of language proficiency in bilingual education. In

Alatis, J. E. (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual education (pp. 81-103).

Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University.

Cummins, J. (1981). Four Misconceptions About Language Proficiency in Bilingual

Education. NABE Journal, 5(3), 31-45. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ubrj19

Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption

in bilingual education. In J. Cummins, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of language and education (2, pp. 65-75). New York, NY:

Springer.

Donovan, S. & Bransford, J. (2005). How Students Learn: History in the Classroom.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Franken, M. (2005). Principles of effective literacy practice for EAL students in New

Zealand classrooms. Waikato journal of education, 11(2), 67-82. Retrieved

from http://wje.org.nz

11
Lana Thain

Friesen, D. C., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Metalinguistic Ability in Bilingual Children: The

Role of Executive Control. Rivista Di Psicolinguistica Applicata, 12(3), 4756.

Jones Diaz, C. & Harvey, N. (2007). Other words, other worlds: Bilingual identities

and literacy. In L. Makin, C. Jones-Diaz & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in

childhood: Changing views, challenging practice (2, pp. 203-216). New South

Wales, Australia: Elsevier Australia.

Ministry of Education. (12 April 2012). ESOL principles. Retrieved from

http://esolonline.tki.org.nz/ESOL-Online/Teacher-needs/Pedagogy/ESOL-

principles

Safinia L., Payesteh, B. & Finestack, L. (2015). Metalinguistic awareness in bilingual

children. Retrieved from

https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/171786/Safinia_UROP_

Poster_LF%20FINAL%20FINAL.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Tuafuti, P., & McCaffery, J., (2005). Family and community empowerment through

bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism 8(5), 480-503.

12