Development discourse on language of instruction and literacy: Sound policy and Ubuntu, or lip service?

• In Event: Language Issues SIG Highlighted Session: Debating education in linguistically diverse contexts

Abstract

Both humanist and quality concerns should have made language of instruction a priority in educational development discourse since UNESCO issued its classic 1953 statement that it is “axiomatic” that children should learn in their own languages. Yet there has not been a clear development trajectory regarding language-in-education policy. Over the years donors have been known to support individual projects using non-dominant languages, but rarely have they taken a firm stand on the issue, either pedagogically or in terms of the language rights of marginalized groups. Meanwhile, strong international evidence has accumulated that children who learn in their “first language first” do better in school overall, developing literacy skills that can be transferred to additional languages, constructing strong identities and developing self-esteem (Cummins 2009; Heugh 2011; Thomas & Collier 2002; Walter 2013).

Recent years have seen increasing interest in improving educational quality and in reaching the most marginalized. Large-scale assessments like EGRA (e.g. Gove & Wetterberg 2011) have demonstrated that even if a change in medium of instruction cannot single-handedly improve educational services, it can go a long way toward giving learners access to basic reading and writing skills—and thus to the curriculum. Some agencies have taken steps to issue policy documents (e.g. Pinnock 2009 for Save the Children) that make bolder statements about the need to provide basic education in learners’ own languages. Further, the International Conference on Language, Education and the Millennium Development Goals, co-sponsored by development agencies in Bangkok in November of 2010, brought together a range of NGOs, political leaders and scholars to discuss the importance of the learner’s first language (L1) in achieving the MDGs.

This study explores whether the cognitive and identity-based advantages of L1-based approaches as documented in the scholarly literature are being reflected in the development discourse. We have adopted the full 12 years of UNESCO Global Monitoring Reports as our corpus, presuming them (along with their associated background papers) to be representative of international thought on achievement of the MDGs. Using NVIVO, we have identified linguistic and rhetorical discourse fragments through coded word groups, grammar features and literacy figures. We will report on the completed study at CIES; preliminary findings suggest that there is increasing recognition of learners’ L1 as an effective tool for initial literacy and learning, but that deeper understandings of the transversal role of language are still lacking. Just as gender issues have been superficialized in some development discourse (Tiessen 2007), language issues may be getting lip service without real consideration of the “whys” and “hows” of L1-based approaches. Our research suggests there is a need for better understanding of the importance of learners’ own languages in accessing quality education, which could lead to the planning of more effective and Ubuntu-oriented development interventions.



References
Cummins, Jim (2009) Fundamental psycholinguistic and sociological principles underlying educational success for linguistic minority students. In Skutnabb-Kangas, Phillipson, Mohanty and Panda (eds) Social Justice Through Multilingual Education, 19–35. Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gove, Amber & Wetterberg, Anna (eds) (2011) The Early Grade Reading Assessment: Applications and interventions to improve basic literacy. Research Triangle Park NC: RTI.
Heugh, Kathleen (2011) Theory and practice-Language education models in Africa: Research, design, decision-making and outcomes. In Ouane & Glanz (eds) Optimising Learning, Education and Publishing in Africa: The Language Factor. A Review and Analysis of Theory and Practice in Mother-Tongue and Bilingual Education in Sub-Saharan Africa, 105–156. Hamburg: UNESCO UIL/Tunis: ADEA.
Pinnock, Helen (2009) Language and education: The missing link. London: Save the Children UK. http://www.unesco.org/education/EFAWG2009/LanguageEducation.pdf
Thomas, Wayne & Collier, Virginia (2002) A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/CollierThomasComplete.pdf
Tiessen, Rebecca (2007) Everywhere/Nowhere: Gender Mainstreaming in Development Agencies. Bloomfield CT: Kumanian Press.
Walter, Stephen (2013) Exploring the development of reading in multilingual education. In Benson, Carol & Kosonen, Kimmo (eds) Language Issues in Comparative Education, 265-281. Rotterdam: Sense.

Authors

• Carolyn Benson, Teachers College Columbia

• Kevin Matthew Wong, Teachers College, Columbia University