Highlighted Session: The power of language and languages of power: understanding language of instruction policy change across six postcolonial contexts

Group Submission Type: Highlighted Paper Session

Proposal

Despite progress in recent years in the proliferation of first language literacy programs, an estimated 37% of learners in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are still taught in a language they do not understand (World Bank, 2021). This is despite recent mounting evidence in LMICs underscoring that instruction in a child’s first language (L1) is one of the most significant factors fostering consistent learning gains (Evans & Acosta, 2020; Nag, et al., 2019). Despite this evidence, effective models of multilingual education are not prioritized in policy and practice in many contexts, representing a critical barrier to systemic improvement.

What explains the variations in language in education policy prioritization, implementation, and uptake across diverse contexts? Factors may include the “mythic” status of English and other international languages in postcolonial contexts (Trudell, 2021), which scholars argue remain firmly entrenched in a continued “linguistic imperialism” that perpetuate a set of myths and fallacies about how languages are taught and acquired (Phillipson, 1992; 2009). Scholars have also long recognized the ways in which language policy is a matter of power and ideology, both through implicit and explicit mechanisms like policy, testing, and curricula (Shohamy, 2006; Pennycock, 2017), and the ways in which this may perpetuate colonial structures (Brock-Utne, 2001).

Ruiz’s paradigmatic framing of orientations in language policy and planning - language as problem, language as right, and language as resource - remain salient both in the academic literature and in policy analysis (Hult & Hornberger, 2016). Historically - and persistently among many elites - international languages have been perceived as the languages of modernization and access to global development, while multilingualism has often been constructed as a problem, as a source of social division and as a barrier to prosperity and progress (Chimbutane, 2017). Recently, however, there have been shifts at multiple levels of language policy and planning, such that multilingualism is increasingly viewed as a right and an asset, though these views remain contested and rarely institutionalized or well-implemented in most contexts (Chimbutane, 2017).

Not enough is understood about how language in education policy shifts and how progress is made - or regressions are experienced - in advancing policies oriented towards additive bilingualism, particularly in postcolonial, low- and middle-income contexts. Once effective policies are prioritized, what constitutes effective implementation and where are trouble spots. And even if a system prioritizes well-designed multilingual education policy, implements it well at the systems-level, how is this policy received and appropriated at a local level?

This study seeks to help fill this knowledge gap by generating empirical evidence regarding the systemic factors that contribute to varying levels of prioritization, implementation, and uptake of multilingual education policies. The focus of this multi-country study is to understand: How and why has the multilingual education policy and implementation fostered or failed to foster enabling conditions for effective multilingual education?

It considers the following specific research questions:

1. To what extent is multilingual education a priority on the national policy agenda? What factors have facilitated or obstructed its political prioritization?
2. To what extent has the multilingual education policy been adequately-designed and implemented nationally? What factors facilitate or obstruct key areas of design and implementation?
3. To what extent is multilingual education policy adhered to or appropriated in schools? What factors influence these processes?

These questions were explored in a cross-national study that included six country cases: Kenya, Mozambique, Senegal, Mali, Rwanda, and the Philippines, with support from USAID’s SHARE Activity (Sustaining Holistic and Actionable Research in Education), and as a partnership between the University of Notre Dame and local research institutions.

To address research questions 1 and 2, the study employed a rigorous qualitative approach to theory testing called causal process tracing, a technique used widely by political scientists. The study teams first hosted workshops with a diverse set of system stakeholders to identify the degree of policy prioritization and implementation and to examine possible root causes of this level of policy prioritization and barriers to implementation. Analysis of workshop results informed an initial view of the system. Theorized causal mechanisms derived from the research literature on policy prioritization were then tested based upon the collection, review, and analysis of qualitative data. Data sources included over 90 interviews with system leaders (~15 per country) and a robust review of scholarly and grey literature and policy and government documents. Triangulating from these data sources, the level of evidence for given causal mechanisms influencing the level of policy prioritization (RQ1) and implementation (RQ 2) were evaluated and findings generated. Findings were generated first at the national-level, and will be synthesized through comparative analysis at the cross-national level.

To address RQ 3, the study explores school level uptake and appropriation processes under diverse local conditions. It examined the degree of adherence, appropriation, or resistance to national-level language in education policies, and considered explanatory drivers linked to socio-linguistics, context, and the presence or absence of adequate conditions for effective multilingual instruction. The sample consisted of 36 school cases (6 per national context). Data was collected from semi-structured interviews (144 teachers, 4 per school; 36 school directors, 1 per school), classroom observations (144, 4 per school), and focus groups (36, 1 per school). Data was analyzed first at the school-level, then at the cross-case, national-level, and will be analyzed last at the cross-country level.

Collectively, these inquiries promise to offer a robust and rich source of evidence on language policy and planning across six low- and middle-income countries. Utilizing rigorous analytic methods and an extensive data-set, the panel will offer critical insights into primary areas of difficulty in improving language in education policy, how it is prioritized politically, how it is implemented systematically, and how it is appropriated at the school level. In doing so, it promises to shine a light on the system-level factors that enable or impede effective ME policy with the aim of informing a key set of scholarly and policy problems.

Sub Unit

• Language Issues SIG

Organizer

• Annie Conaghan, University of Notre Dame-Pulte Institute of Global Development

Chair

• Barbara Trudell, SIL Africa Learning & Development

Individual Presentations

• Towards an understanding of the systemic factors producing classroom-level conditions and student language and literacy outcomes - TJ D'Agostino, University of Notre Dame; Caroline Freeman, University of Notre Dame

• Navigating the power of colonial language legacies - understanding multilingual education policy prioritization - Michael Tusiime, University of Rwanda

• Implementing ME policies - navigating complexity and key barriers to and drivers of implementation efficacy - Andre Kone, University of Arts and Human Sciences of Bamako

• Understanding the degree and drivers of multilingual education policy appropriation at the school and community level - Mbarou Gassama-Mbaye, ARED

Discussant

• Carlos Joaquim Manuel, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane