Abstract
5. Concluding remarks
19
term 'bilingual teaching' can refer to a wide variety of pedagogical practices. It can refer to strong forms of bilingual instruction, such as the concurrent use of two languages in the same classroom ('translanguaging'), either by the same teacher or by team teachers, or the alternate use of the L1 and L2 in consecutive lessons or days ('Alternate Day Bilingual Teaching). Weak forms of bilingual teaching are typically characterized by the occasional and limited use of one language (usually the L1) during a designated 'other language' lesson. Weak forms of bilingual teaching may also include the use of bilingual glossaries of specific subject-matter terminology to ensure that the pupil has the requisite vocabulary in both the L1 and the L2, or the occasional and ad hoc use of code-switching and translation to clarify issues and solve communication problems. Such (weak) bilingual teaching strategies are common practice in many bilingual education programs, including the European School and Luxembourg programs.
The literature is not precise on how any of these different bilingual teaching strategies works in detail, nor what their outcomes are in terms of language and educational achievement. It is therefore not possible to make valid statements about this aspect of bilingual education in Latvia. However, on the basis of our research in L2 teaching in the European Schools (Housen 2002b), we would advise against the regular mixing of languages for teaching purposes in general and particularly against the frequent use of the 'dominant' language during lessons designated to the 'weaker' language. (In Latvia, the dominant language will normally be Latvian though in some schools it may be the ethnic minority language, in case Russian).
Regular use of the dominant language in 'weak language'-medium classrooms not only deprives pupils of vital input for language learning but it may also lead them to ‘switch off’ whenever the weaker language is used, making that language less pertinent to their immediate communicative needs and thus diminish their motivation to learn it.
20 This is essentially a political decision and illustrates that bilingual education in Latvia, as everywhere, derives its raison d’être not only from a concern with the linguistic and educational needs of a particular group in society, but also from political and ideological reasons. As pointed out by Baetens Beardsmore (1992), nations that operate on a monolithic ideology are often particularly reluctant with regard to bilingual education, and when provided there is often a powerful hidden agenda. The USA and former Soviet Union are two examples in case. The USA parsimoniously provides bilingual education for its mainly Hispanic minority population under the guise of equality of educational opportunity but does not hide the ultimate goal of rapid elimination of the need for bilingualism, which negatively affects the outcome of what sparse provision there is. Similarly, the former Soviet Union had widespread bilingual provision for its ethnically mixed republics but it consistently encouraged the promotion of Russian, so that Russian speakers were far less likely to opt for bilingual education while speakers of other languages were covertly encouraged to follow bilingual education in the process of Russification (Lewis 1981, MacLaughlin 1986). A very similar scenario seems to unfold itself at the moment in the Republic of Latvia. Latvia, like many other Eastern European countries, largely adheres to the modernist model of the state, heavily influenced by ethnic nationalism and ideals of homogeneity and unitary identities. This is in contrast to Western Europe, which, in the wider context of the European Union, has experienced a shift from the modernist ideology of uniformism and assimilation to an increasingly post-modern focus on diversity, heterogeneity, pluralism and hybrid identities (O'Reilly 2001). It is this ideology that underlies Western European models of multilingual and multicultural education such as that of the European Schools. This is also the ideological perspective from which the system of bilingual education in Latvia has been analysed in this paper. This perspective is characterised by several ideals, namely, that multilingualism is both a desirable and viable educational goal for everyone in society and, therefore, that the entire population be put under the same constraints with respect to language learning and academic development, and that attempts be made to respect language and culture of origin while also forging a new, non-ethnocentric identity.
These ideals find empirical support in the success of the European Schools system and the experiences of small nations such as Luxembourg, which stand as compelling reminders that bilingual education, when carefully planned and provided to the whole population, can help foster a country's economic vitality, reduce the dividing influences of nationalism and ethnicity in society and give the country a distinctive national identity. Whether these Western European experiences have some relevance for the Latvian context depends primarily on policy objectives, tempered by perceptions of public expectations with regard to assimilation, integration, language maintenance, language shift and the need for high levels of bi- and multilingual proficiency.
References
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1992). Bilingual Education. In J. Lynch, C. Modgil, C. & S. Modgil (eds), Cultural Diversity and the Schools:, Volume One, Education for Cultural Diversity: Convergence and Divergence. London:The Falmer Press, (pp. 273-283).
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1993). European Models of Bilingual Education: Practice, Theory and Development, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 14, 1 & 2, 103-120.
21 Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1995). The European School experience in multilingual education. In T.
Skutnabb-Kangas (ed.), Multilingualism for All, (pp. 21-68). Lisse:Swets & Zeitlinger.
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1999). Language Policy and Bilingual Education in Brunei Darussalam, Bulletin des Seances Académie Royale des Sciences d'Outre-Mer, 45(4), 507-523.
Baker, C. (1996). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (2nd Edition). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Council of Europe (1997). Report on Workshop 12B: Bilingual Education in Secondary Schools: Learning and Teaching Non-Language Subjects through a Foreign Languag. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Diaz, S., Moll, L. & Mehan, H. (1986). Sociocultural Resources in Instruction: A Context-Specific Approach. In Californian Department of Education, Beyond Language: Social and Cultural Factors in Schooling Language Minority Students, (pp. 187-230). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
EEC (1990). Joint Conference of the Commission of the European Communities and the Council for Cultural Co-operation of the Council of Europe: “Secondary Schools and European/International Education in Europe: Mobility, Curricula and Examinations’, Namur, 21-23 May (mimeo, unpublished).
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisitio. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fishman, J. (1976). Bilingual Education: An International Sociological Perspective. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.
Haberland, H. (1991). Reflections about Minority Languages in the European Community. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), A Language Policy for the European Community: Prospects and Quandaries. New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Hammerly, H. (1991). Fluency and Accuracy: Toward balance in language teaching and learning.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245-259.
Housen, A. (2002a). Processes and Outcomes in the European Schools Model of Multilingual Education, Bilingual Research Journal 26, 1, 43-62.
Housen, A. (2002b). Second language achievement in the European School system of multilingual education. In D. So & G. Jones (Eds.), Education and Society in Plurilingual Contexts, (pp. 96-127).
Brussels: VUB Press.
Krashen, S & Biber, D. (1998). On Course: Bilingual Education's Successes in California. Sacramento, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Lebrun, N. & Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1993.) Trilingual education in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. In H. Baetens Beardsmore (ed.), European Models of Bilingual Education, (pp. 101-120).
Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Lewis, E. (1981). Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Oxford: Pergamon.
McLaughlin, B. (1986). Multilingual Education: Theory East and West. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Language and Education in Multilingual Settings (pp. 32-52). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Melvin, N. (1995). Russians Beyond Russia - The Politics of National Identity. London: Pinter.
Ministry of Education and Science (2001). Development of Education: National Report of Latvia. Riga:
International Bureau of Education, March 29th, 2001.
Montone, C., & Loeb, M. (2000). Implementing two-way immersion programs in secondary schools (Educational Practice Rep. No. 5). Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
O'Reilly, C. (2001). Introduction: Minority Languages, Ethnicity and the State in Post-1989 Eastern Europe. In C. O'Reilly (Ed.), Language , Ethnicity and the State, Vol. II: Minority Languages in Eastern Europe Post 1989, (pp. 1-16). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Ramirez, J., & Merino, B. (1990). Classroom talk in English immersion, early-exit & late-exit transitional bilingual education programs. In R. Jacobson & C. Faltis (Eds.), Language Distribution Issues in Bilingual Schooling. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (ed.). (1995). Multilingualism for All, Lisse:Swets & Zeitlinger.
Spolsky, B., Green, J., & Read, J. (1974). A Model for the Description, Analysis and Perhaps Evaluation of Bilingual Education (Navajo Reading Study Progress Report 23). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.
Stern, H. (1992). Issues and options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22 Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer
(Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1996). Discovering Second Language Teaching Strategies and Practices: From Program Evaluation to Classroom Experimentation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(2-4), 89-104.
Tucker, R. (1998). A global perspective on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J. Cenoz & F.
Genesee (Eds.), Beyond Bilingualism. Multilingualism and Multilingual Education (pp. 3-15).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
UNDP. 1996. Latvia Human Development Report 1997. Riga: United Nations Development Programme.
UNDP. 1997. Latvia Human Development Report 1997. Riga: United Nations Development Programme.
UNDP. 1998. Latvia Human Development Report 1997. Riga: United Nations Development Programme.
Watson, J. (1984). Cultural Pluralism, Nation-Building and Educational Policy in the Penisular Malaysia.
In C. Kennedy (ed.), Language Planning and Language Education, (pp. 132-150). London: Allen &
Unwin.
Figure 2. Language distribution in Model 1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Grade level
L3-subject Bilingual (L1+L2) Latvian-medium Latvian-subject L1-medium L1-subject
Figure 3. Language distribution in Model 2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Grade level
L3-subject Bilingual (L1+L2) Latvian-medium Latvian-subject L1-medium L1-subject
Figure 4. Language distribution in Model 3
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Grade level
L3-subject Bilingual (L1+L2) Latvian-medium Latvian-subject L1-medium L1-subject
Figure 5. Language distribution in Model 4
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Grade level
L3-subject Bilingual (L1+L2) Latvian-medium Latvian-subject L1-medium L1-subject
Figure 6. Language distribution in the LASOR Model
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Grade level
L3-subject Bilingual (L1+L2) Latvian-medium Latvian-subject L1-medium L1-subject
Figure 7. Language distribution in the Gymnasium 'Maksima' program
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Grade level
L3-subject Bilingual (L1+L2) Latvian-medium Latvian-subject L1-medium L1-subject
1