Theories of Bilingualism and the Curriculum

A discussion of Chapter 8 from Baker & Wright’s Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7^th edition

Jesper Haraldsson

Karlstad University

2023-11-13

Presentation objectives

• theories of bilingualism
• critically analyse the evolution and applicability of these theories (within curricular settings)

To do this I will:

• explore the theories from early deficit models to contemporary holistic approaches
• discuss the importance of accurate theories in education settings

I have two objectives today, first, I’ll cover theories of bilingualism. These theories are not merely academic; they are the scaffolding upon which much of the current educational policy and practice is built.

Secondly, I’ll attempt a critical analysis of these theories. To reach these objectives it’s important to understand the narrative of bilingualism in educational theory is one of dramatic transformation. It began in an era where bilingualism was misunderstood, perceived through the lens of deficit models that saw bilingual individuals as possessing divided loyalties—linguistically but also cognitively.

As we progressed, these notions were challenged and eventually gave way to more holistic approaches. These newer models recognize bilingualism as an intricate interplay of linguistic, cognitive, and socio-cultural factors just to mention a few.

Cummins and Proficiency Model¹

SUP vs. CUP

• Separate Underlying Proficiency (SUP): separate language competencies with restricted cognitive capacity
• Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP): unified cognitive capacity supporting both languages²
• critique: oversimplification and correlational³

Jim Cummins’ work on bilingualism has been a cornerstone in educational linguistics. He introduced the (SUP) and (CUP) models in his 1981 chapter The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students

from Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework developed by the California State Department of Education, note here already a link to curriculum development. SUP proposed that bilingual individuals have distinct language competencies for each language, with a restrictive cognitive capacity in that they operate separately without transfer, while CUP suggested that a single cognitive capacity supports both languages, making possible what Cummins described the “possible transfer of concepts, skills, and learning strategies across languages”, hence the dual iceberg representation. This is a view that is still 40 years later the general consensus. The problem with this view is that it is an oversimplification of the complexities of the bilingual brain as shown by studies such as by Hull and Vaid. Moreover most evidence supporting CUP is predominantly correlational and alternative explanations exist such as common langauge-learning environments across L1 and L2.

Image source: The “dual iceberg” Representation of Bilingual Proficiency, Cummins (1983a), p. 377

1. Baker & Wright (2021), Cummins (1981)

2. Cummins (2016), Otheguy et al. (2019)

3. Goodrich & Lonigan (2017), Hull & Vaid (2007)

Cummins contd.¹

Thereshold theory ²

• two levels of competence defining the impact of bilingualism
• critique: the difficulty in operationalizing proficiency and account for language’s multifaceted nature

Linguistic developmental interdependence hypothesis

• connection between L1 and L2 competencies

Cummins’ Threshold Theory suggests that bilingualism’s impact is contingent upon reaching certain levels of linguistic competence in both languages.one threshold being the level of no negative consequences of bilingualism and the other the level of positive cognitive benefits of bilingualism. While intuitive, this theory has been criticised for the challenge in defining and measuring ‘proficiency’. Cummins did however in response to Canale and Swain cease using “linguistic competence” and “language proficiency” interchangeably and offered a definition of language proficiency to include “linguistic competence and other aspects of language use, including, in particular, school literacy,” The theory also accounts for research findings that seem contradictory in nature; that some bilinguals seem to experience cognitive advantages in relation to their bilingualism but others do not.

Cummins also posited the Linguistic developmental interdependence hypothesis, which suggests a connection between a learner’s first and second language competencies. This interdependence implies that skills in one’s native language can bolster the acquisition of a second language—a principle that has informed many bilingual education programs.

1. Baker & Wright (2021)

2. Macswan (2000)

Cummins and Academic English¹

Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) distinctions

• dichotomy between conversational fluency and academic proficiency
• critique: oversimplification²

Secondary perspective ³

Perhaps one of Cummins’ most well-known contributions is the distinction between BICS and CALP. This dichotomy attempts to separate casual from academic language proficiency.

Baker and Wright offer eight main criticisms of the BICS/CALP distinction, which range from false dichotomies to the neglect of how racial and socioeconomic factors influence student experiences and language development. These criticisms remind us that language is not just a cognitive process but also a social one, deeply intertwined with identity and power structures. This is not new Vgostky suggested this in the 30s, in fact Cummins discusses how affective factors and bilingualism effect minority students’ academic progress in 1984.

Critics, and even Cummins himself, in his joint paper with Calderon argues that the separation created by BICS/CALP, and I quote “oversimplifies the phenomena and risks misinterpretation” (something Cummins accuses Edelsky et al., 1983 and Rivera, 1984 of) and makes it quote “difficult to discuss the crucial development issues” caused by the dichotomy. It also fails to account for the complexity and variability of language use in academic settings. Furthermore it does not fully address that language use is complex and context-dependent, therefore Cummins proffers his Quadrant model.

Before I move on I just want to reference a secondary perspective on academic English, one supported by Street and Valdéz amongst other which, Scarella describes as emphasizing multiple literacies because academic English is itself diverse and has no wideley accepted standard. Through this perspective Zamel and Spack in Scarella argue that schools should quote “accept wider varieties of expression, to embrace multiple ways of communicating” end quote as it marginalizes students otherwise, this could be achieved through teachers evaluating students work with a more cosmopolitan and less parochial eye.

Image source: Jim Cummins, University of Toronto (2022); Social, Educational, and Psychological Influences on Minority Studets’ Academic Progress, Cummins (1984), p. 94

1. Baker & Wright (2021)

2. Calderon & Cummins (1982), p. 41; Cummins (1984), p. 138; Cummins (2017)

3. Scarcella (2003), pp. 3-5

Academic English

Bilinguals only?

there are no native speakers of academic language¹

Solution:

align language teaching much more closely to discipline-specific genres²

There are no native speakers of academic language, so says Filmore in Baker and Wright. This quote from Filmore in 2013 suggests that the challenges of academic language are not limited to bilinguals.

Based on this, higher education institutions are making a shift from generic ESL, ELL, LOTE training for students falling under those categories to instead develop education programs and courses with subject-specific experts in order to, and I’m quoting Leung and Lewkowicz here, “align language teaching much more closely to discipline-specific genres” and not limited to bilingual students.

1. Filmore (2013) in Baker & Wright (2021)

2. Leung & Lewkowicz (2017), p. 175

Cummins’ Quadrant Model¹

Quadrant model

• combines context and cognitive demand in assessing language proficiency
• critique: lack of sensitive to the dynamic uses of language across different contexts

The Quadrant model combines context and cognitive demand to assess language proficiency, it attempts to provide a more nuanced understanding. Yet, critics highlight its lack of sensitivity to how language dynamically operates across diverse contexts, potentially misrepresenting the nature of language proficiency.

Image source: Range of contextual support and degree of cognitive involvement in communicative activities, Cummins (1983b), p. 131

1. Baker & Wright (2021)

Cummin’s BICS/CALP & Quadrant Model–Policy and Practice¹

The inclusion of EAL [English as an additional language] students in nationally mandated high-stakes testing, […] should EAL students be exempt from taking high-stakes tests, and, if so, for how long […] after arrival in the host country?

The extent to which psychological testing of EAL students for diagnostic purposes through their L2 is valid and ethically defensible.

The distinction is discussed in numerous books that aim to equip educators with the understanding and skills required to teach and assess linguistically diverse students

While Baker and Wright highlight the positive reception by teachers of Cummins quadrant model based on his 2017 chapter in the Encyclopedia of Language and Education I found that his later section on the BICS/CALP models impact on policy and practice noteworthy due contextualising its effect. Here he highlights that the model has invoked policy discussion such as whether bilingual students should be exempt from high stake testing for a duration after arrival, CLICK, the ethicality of psychological testing based solely on bilingualism, and also CLICK how the model has transferred into teacher education texts as well as its partial foundation in the 2014 Common Core State Standard in the US. Through this it seems that there is an ambiguity over the approach to academic language and it’s impact on how curricula are designed and which linguistic skills are emphasized in educational settings.

1. Baker & Wright (2021), Cummins (2017)

Evolution of Thought and New Models¹

• Perspectives on academic language
• Role of academic english
• Disciplinary language
  • example²
• Language architecture

The idea of academic language then is here to stay, something Baker and Wright make abundantly clear through their demonstration of its integration into the EdTPA, US Common Core State Standards.

A part of this is the notion of disciplinary language which acknowledges that academic language is not monolithic; it varies by subject area. For example, cohesion in general might refer to things sticking together, but in botany refer to the process in some plants of parts growing together that are usually separate (as with stamen fusion) while in physics it refers to the intermolecular force that hold together the molecules in a solid or liquid, while in linguistics it refers to how parts of a text are connected together. Recognizing this subject-specific use of language is critical for the development of effective bilingual education strategies.

We can also not overlook the role raciolinguistic ideologies play in shaping perceptions of language competencies. These ideologies often create hierarchies that privilege certain language varieties over others, affecting the recognition of students’ actual competencies.

Image sources: Biological cohesion: Simpson (2019); water cohesion: Solomon et al. (2008), p. 37

1. Baker & Wright (2021)

2. Smith (2013)

Practical Models and Case Studies¹

Translanguaging in academic work

• evidence supporting students’ capacity to perform academically in non-standard English²

Let’s pivot to translanguaging, a concept that’s gained traction for its validation of students’ ability to use their full linguistic repertoire. This perspective contends that students can perform academically, even in what is considered ‘non-standard’ English. Evidence from classroom case studies underscores this capability, challenging the insistence on ‘standard’ language forms as the sole marker of academic proficiency. With that being said research is not limited to translanguaging with English as the majority language there is also research confirming this with Swedish as a majority language such as Torpsten’s “Translanguaging in a Swedish Multilingual Classroom”, German with Furstenau et al.’s “Language Comparison as an Inclusive Translanguaging Strategy: Analysis of a Multilingual Teaching Situation in a German Primary School Classroom”, and also Japanese with Aoyama’s study and French in Australia with Weinmann and Charbonneau’s study.

Image source: A conceputal map of ‘translanguaging’, Bonacina-Pugh et al. (2021)

1. Baker & Wright (2021)

2. Fürstenau et al. (2020), Aoyama (2020), Torpsten (2018), Weinmann & Charbonneau (2020)

Practical Models and Case Studies¹

Bilingual common core initiative

• a dual-language proficiency framework (NLAP and HLAP)²

Literacy squared model

• emphasizing the simulateanous development of literacy in both languages

Moving to New York’s Bilingual Common Core Initiative, we see an attempt to institutionalize a dual-language proficiency framework. The Home (formerly known as native language) and the new language (formerly known as ESL) are given equal importance. In Velasco’s presentation she describes the implementation as allowing for both sets of templates to be used in conjunction, thereby allowing teachers to modify and adapt their instruction according to the language and literacy levels of their students. The New Language Arts Progressions or NLAPs target students who are learning English as a new language. These students will very likely be developing oral and literacy skills simultaneously. The Home Language Arts Progressions or HLAPS are for students developing their home language, usually their oral skills are more developed than their literacy skills. Velasco also suggests that teachers of students with interrupted formal education and heritage language learners would also be candidates for using these templates. Yet again showing us that resources for bilinguals are not limited to bilinguals.

The Literacy Squared model emerges as a response to the need for a holistic approach. By emphasizing the simultaneous development of literacy in both of a student’s languages, this model presents a more dynamic understanding of bilingual literacy development—one that also provides support for evaluating the growth of emerging bilinguals across both languages.

Image sources: EngageNY (2022a) and EngageNY (2022b)

1. Baker & Wright (2021)

2. Velasco (2016)

Standards and Teacher Orientations¹

TESOL proficiency standards

• inclusion of conversational language and subject-specific standards

Baker and Wright highlight some of the changes in standards that reflect this knowledge I’ve now discussed. TESOL Proficiency Standards shifted to include conversational language but also develop subject-specific standards.

Image source: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (2006), p. 1

1. Baker & Wright (2021)

Standards and Teacher Orientations contd.¹

State standards

• WIDA², ELPA21, independent
• scaffolding and support enabling academic work at all proficiency levels

WIDA’s framework

• multidimensional approach to language across curricular areas

Limitations and language development models

• adressing the need for more inclusive and comprehensive models

Turning to state standards such as WIDA (named after Wisconsin ,Delaware and Arkansas, its three founding states) and ELPA21, we see a recognition of the need for scaffolding and support that allows for academic participation at all levels of language proficiency. This marks a shift from a deficit model to one that builds on students’ linguistic abilities, enabling them to engage meaningfully in academic work.

WIDA’s framework is exemplary for its multi-dimensional approach, encompassing not just the academic language within curricular areas but also the socio-cultural competencies that enable language use in context.

However, despite these advancements, there remain limitations. Current models and standards continue to be criticized for not being fully inclusive or comprehensive. They may not account for the full spectrum of linguistic and cultural experiences of bilingual learners or the rapidly changing linguistic demands of the 21st-century classroom.

1. Baker & Wright (2021)

2. WIDA University of Wisconsin-Madison (2023)

Final Thoughts

Curricula need to go beyond acknowledging to actively incorporating translanguaging practices, validating students’ full linguistic repertoire as a legitimate tool for learning. While attempts at this have been exemplified they are often only on regional levels and actual and correct application of these is little researched.

Developing standards and materials that cater to the entire spectrum of bilingual students. This includes creating robust resources for less commonly taught languages, which are often neglected. By expanding our linguistic purview, we not only enrich the educational landscape but also validate the identities of all students.

References

Aoyama, R. (2020). Exploring japanese high school students’ L1 use in translanguaging in the communicative EFL classroom, 23, 1–18.

Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2021). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (Seventh edition). Multilingual Matters.

Bonacina-Pugh, F., Da Costa Cabral, I., & Huang, J. (2021). Translanguaging in education. Language Teaching, 54(4), 439–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000173

Calderon, M., & Cummins, J. (1982). Communicative Competence in Bilingual Education--Theory and Research, Packet I. Language Proficiency Acquisition, Assessment, and Communicative Behavior, Series B. Student Edition. Bilingual Education Teacher Training Packets. (RIE, ED226605) (p. 75). Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, Dallas.

Cummins, J. (1981). The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1334.9449

Cummins, J. (1983a). Bilingualism and Special Education: Program and Pedagogical Issues. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6(4), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510525

Cummins, J. (1983b). Language Proficiency, Biliteracy and French Immersion. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de l’éducation, 8(2), 117. https://doi.org/10.2307/1494722

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. College-Hill Pr.

Cummins, J. (2016). Reflections on Cummins (1980), “The Cross‐Lingual Dimensions of Language Proficiency: Implications for Bilingual Education and the Optimal Age Issue.” TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 940–944. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.339

Cummins, J. (2017). BICS and CALP: Empirical and Theoretical Status of the Distinction. In B. V. Street & S. May (Eds.), Literacies and Language Education (pp. 59–71). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02252-9_6

EngageNY. (2022a, July 15). P-12 EngageNY - ELA - HLAP RI.11-12.4. https://nysed.sharepoint.com/sites/P12EngageNY-ELA-EXTA/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?ga=1&id=%2Fsites%2FP12EngageNY%2DELA%2DEXTA%2FShared%20Documents%2FEnglish%20Language%20Arts%2FBilingual%20Language%20Arts%20Progressions%2FStandard%204%2FReading%2FGrade%2011%2D12%2FHLAP%2011%2D12%20S4%2FHLAP%20RI%2E11%2D12%2E4%2Epdf&viewid=74a2b97e%2D3088%2D44b7%2Dab73%2D420870c488b4&parent=%2Fsites%2FP12EngageNY%2DELA%2DEXTA%2FShared%20Documents%2FEnglish%20Language%20Arts%2FBilingual%20Language%20Arts%20Progressions%2FStandard%204%2FReading%2FGrade%2011%2D12%2FHLAP%2011%2D12%20S4

EngageNY. (2022b, July 15). P-12 EngageNY - ELA - NLAP RI.11-12.4. https://nysed.sharepoint.com/sites/P12EngageNY-ELA-EXTA/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?ga=1&id=%2Fsites%2FP12EngageNY%2DELA%2DEXTA%2FShared%20Documents%2FEnglish%20Language%20Arts%2FBilingual%20Language%20Arts%20Progressions%2FStandard%204%2FReading%2FGrade%2011%2D12%2FNLAP%2011%2D12%20S4%2FNLAP%20RI%2E11%2D12%2E4%2Epdf&viewid=74a2b97e%2D3088%2D44b7%2Dab73%2D420870c488b4&parent=%2Fsites%2FP12EngageNY%2DELA%2DEXTA%2FShared%20Documents%2FEnglish%20Language%20Arts%2FBilingual%20Language%20Arts%20Progressions%2FStandard%204%2FReading%2FGrade%2011%2D12%2FNLAP%2011%2D12%20S4

Filmore, L. W. (2013, January). English Learners & the Common Core: A Fightning Chance to Learn. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/2yvpSDul0fc?t=2355

Fürstenau, S., Çelik, Y., & Plöger, S. (2020). Language Comparison as an Inclusive Translanguaging Strategy: Analysis of a Multilingual Teaching Situation in a German Primary School Classroom. In J. A. Panagiotopoulou, L. Rosen, & J. Strzykala (Eds.), Inclusion, Education and Translanguaging (pp. 145–162). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28128-1_9

Goodrich, J. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2017). Language-independent and language-specific aspects of early literacy: An evaluation of the common underlying proficiency model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 782–793. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000179

Hull, R., & Vaid, J. (2007). Bilingual language lateralization: A meta-analytic tale of two hemispheres☆. Neuropsychologia, 45(9), 1987–2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.002

Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2017). Second Language Academic Literacies: Evolving Understandings. In B. V. Street & S. May (Eds.), Literacies and Language Education (pp. 169–180). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02252-9_14

Macswan, J. (2000). The Threshold Hypothesis, Semilingualism, and Other Contributions to a Deficit View of Linguistic Minorities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(1), 3–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986300221001

Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2019). A translanguaging view of the linguistic system of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(4), 625–651. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2018-0020

Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A Conceptual Framework. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6pd082d4

Simpson, M. G. (2019). Plant Morphology. In Plant Systematics (pp. 469–535). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812628-8.50009-2

Smith, S. (2013). Technical Vocabulary. https://www.eapfoundation.com/vocab/other/

Solomon, E. P., Berg, L. R., & Martin, D. W. (2008). Biology (Eight ed). Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (2006). TESOL Pre-K–12 English Language Proficiency Standards Framework. Retrieved from https://www.tesol.org/media/fuwijiu4/bk_prek-12elpstandards_framework_318.pdf

Torpsten, A.-C. (2018). Translanguaging in a Swedish Multilingual Classroom. Multicultural Perspectives, 20(2), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2018.1447100

University of Toronto. (2022, December 7). Emeriti Faculty. https://www.oise.utoronto.ca/cerll/emeriti-faculty-members/

Velasco, P. (2016, November). The Bilingual Common Core Initiative. Retrieved from https://docs.steinhardt.nyu.edu/pdfs/metrocenter/xr1/2016_2017/PD_Materials/November_01_2016/ElementaryHSPPTNYURBERNNov12016F.pdf

Weinmann, M., & Charbonneau, N. (2020). Enabling Translanguaging in the French Language Classroom. OLBI Working Papers, 10. https://doi.org/10.18192/olbiwp.v10i0.3816

WIDA University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2023). Mission and History | WIDA. https://wida.wisc.edu/about/mission-history