Bilingual Education:
Bilingual education has been extensively researched across a wide range of literature, highlighting its significance in diverse educational contexts. In the New Zealand setting, language learning is closely linked to the country’s changing demographic landscape, where Pasifika populations have grown substantially over time. This growth underscores the importance of engaging Pasifika learners through rich, authentic, and culturally sustaining language learning experiences. Such an approach not only supports linguistic and cultural identity, but also aligns with the broader principle that every individual should be empowered to contribute to society in meaningful and effective ways. This also brings me to the fact that New Zealand has one of the largest gaps in academic achievement between students who speak the schools main (English) language as their first language and those who don't (OECD, 2019). This is solely because Pasifika students are taught only in English, with few bilingual options available for them. Expanding Pasifika bilingual education in New Zealand primary schools can help close this gap and improve education outcomes dramatically for our Pasifika Learners (May, 2020).
English only approaches sends a message that other languages will interfere with the learning of English therefore as a result in cognitive overload for students (May, 2020). This way of thinking supports the fact that there are some of this way of thinking in junior teachers of our team where English was the only purpose for reporting academic achievement to parents. Our parents also hold this same mentality due to the fact that they are not informed well in terms of what literature defines being bilingual. On the other hand May, (2019) confirms that we need to understand that a far more effective approach to language learning is underpinned by the principle of linguistic interdependence. This approach highlights the interconnectedness of language learning, specifically how knowledge of one’s first language supports the development of a second language or target language.
This interconnectedness of language learning is what myself and my team of teachers need reassurance and reinforcement about because when done well this eliminates all confusion and dis-belief in how we educate our second language learners. Instructional teaching only in the dominant language stripes away the super power of our learners. We need to move away from educating our students in a monolingual English language classroom and use their well developed language as a support system in order to grasp the dominant language.
Research findings over the last 60 years have strongly supported the advantages of bilingualism in additive educational contexts, only when educators like myself value bilingualism and use bilingual pedagogies and approaches in the teaching and learning process (May, 2020) As a result improved academic achievement therefore a very high chance of students doing well in high school and moving into higher level education. According to Peal and Lambert (1962) they found that bilinguals surpassed monolinguals on both verbal and no-verbal intelligence measures and that bilinguals have a more diversified set of mental capabilities. This research study compared French monolingual and bilingual students in Canada and was identified as the foundational text for this whole idea of additive bilingualism, cognition and education (Peal and Lambert, 1962).
Teaching for Transfer:
This is a very important idea especially for our Pasifika learners who are finding themselves learning in a bilingual setting. Language connections between their heritage language and the dominant language need to be deliberately reflected upon and discussed amongst educators. When done well educators can see the connections therefore in a strong position to help our learners make these connections for themselves. This interconnectedness really supports this idea of teaching for transfer supported by the researchers, Cummins, (2008) and McCaffery, (2015) demonstrated that knowledge, skill, and understandings could be transferred from the first to the second language or from the second to the first language. This two way transfer strategy means that the curriculum knowledge can be taught through the use of both languages and when done at an earlier stage the students' benefits are endless. What does this mean in my context? Well it's pretty evident to say that it doesn't matter what language the students are strong in, what we need to acknowledge and identify with students is the languages are a two way transfer meaning language skills are interchangeable. Kang (2016) states that correct use of transfer of Chinese grammar is likely to help students learn English. He goes on to explain that transfer refers to using the knowledge and experience from L1 to help gain new knowledge in learning L2.
Saville-Troike & Barto (2017) also support the important idea of positive transfer having a great impact on L2 learning – if L2 follows a grammar rule or structure from L1, that is one less rule to learn! The important question here is whether the educator knows and can set up the learning environment in a way where this transfer is identifiable and can be assessed across all curriculum areas. As mentioned above it quoted that “when done at an earlier stage benefits are endless (Cummins, 2008; McCaffery, 2015). When I really think hard about this I say to myself do they mean an earlier stage in terms of starting at a young age? Or does it mean as soon as the educator can support these students with transferring language skills the better? Myself as an educator when I think about my own context of learning I keep on self regulating the idea around can I identify when and where students are transferring language skills? Cummins, (2005) argues that bilingual students benefit when teachers teach for transfer across languages, rather than treating them as completely separate. This approach supports identity, engagement, and deeper learning.
Although teaching in a bilingual unit is a positive and unique environment, it can only become an effective learning environment when the educator is able to design a learning programme that supports bilingual pedagogies and approaches. The dilemma here is that in my context I have students who are moving on to high school. Academic English is the goal for most of these students. Why? Well, because not all high schools provide a bilingual pathway also it is clear to say as an educator English is the academic language we need to be proficient in especially in higher education. Our Pasifika communities have a very strong education driven mindset because they understand that education is the key to success for their children. Throughout my teaching career in a bilingual setting there hasn’t been one parent that I have come across that does not want their children to be successful. So this holds significance and importance to myself as an educator to make sure students are equipped with the language capabilities they need to comprehend academic language in both Gagana Samoa and English. Now this is easier said than done. Proves the reasons why my Masters project is about language proficiency.
Task based approach to learning:
The task based language teaching focuses solely on the use of authentic language in order to complete meaningful tasks in the target language. Willis, (2008) suggests there are certain questions that you need to think about in order to understand what the sole purpose of the task is. Is the focus solely on meaning? Is completing the task a priority? Does the activity relate to real world activities? This language task approach supports critical thinking around the use of language and the participation of learners with language. Bygate, Skehan and Swain (2001) sum it up very nicely by confirming that a task is an activity which requires learners to use authentic language, with emphasis being solely on meaning to attain a specific objective. When thinking about my delivery and design of my project these were the considerations I had to take into account because language is such a sophisticated idea it goes without saying that there is always an end product. What was I trying to do? Or what did I want the students to learn at the end of our sessions. It was the comprehension of the Gagana Samoa Language. According to Ellis 2005, a task based approach to language teaching makes no attempt to stipulate the language forms to be taught rather it allows students to choose the language needed to achieve the outcome. Instead the content is specified holistically in terms of tasks it does not deny that learners need to attend to language form. For language acquisition to take place, this has to occur in a context where attention to meaning is the primary focus. In more simple terms it is about the communication of meaning and learners using all the language skills they have with them in order to understand meaning. Students will still learn about grammar and language forms but in a more natural way and not in an isolated way.
This whole task based approach and the thinking critically about the design and delivery of tasks supports the Cummins framework (Cummins, 1981). This framework allows educators to think deeply about the sort of task design to use depending on the language strengths and needs of the students. This particular framework aims to support the use of communicative approaches to language and content learning across the curriculum (Cummins, 1981). The different tasks are categorised along two continuums. The tasks that are designed for learning range in difficulty along one continuum from cognitively undemanding to cognitively demanding. Along the other continuum tasks range from context-embedded to context-reduced. When students have access to a range of additional visual and oral cues we see these tasks as context embedded and when there are no visual cues, oral cues and no other sources of help we consider this as context-reduced tasks. A good example of this would be a group of educators listening to a dense lecture full of vocabulary. Thinking about this in my context this framework is such an effective tool when used properly and effectively. I argue this point very strongly because it shows how reflective and critical we are as educators. Language skills of all students are not at the same level and this framework supports this idea because students need to see, hear and speak using a lot of examples of how language is used in a variety of contexts. This also links to the importance of rich, authentic and meaningful communication amongst students when learning through a language. In order to guarantee this educators need to successfully set up the class environment where students are able to participate in communicative tasks that guide them to creating effective reciprocal learning relationships where students are connecting what they learn to their life experiences and prior learning. In support of this creating tasks that line up correctly with Cummins framework so that we ensure lessons are effective and worthwhile. We know that all curriculum areas have their own content language focus but how much time is actually dedicated to developing the language skills of our students in order for them to participate successfully in completing their learning outcomes? This reflective incitement leads me to agree with Met’s views that “Teachers need to view every content lesson as a language lesson” (Met, 1994, p. 161). In my mind this may seem to be a very difficult task at first but in my learning context I see the purpose and I see the benefits in thinking this way. We need to teach the vocabulary and language structures that will be used during every lesson and unit of work. Baker and Wright (2021) explain that teaching a language focuses on learning the structure and use of the language itself, while teaching through a language involves using that language as the medium for learning in other subjects. This distinction is essential in bilingual education, where effective programmes integrate both — helping students develop language proficiency while accessing academic content. Achievement in a particular curriculum area is partly dependent on proficiency in the language of that curriculum area (Baker & Wright, 2021). Very important when teaching we think about the language needed for each curriculum area. This gives us educators the capacity to provide every opportunity we can to integrate the learning of language form together with structure as well as develop the confidence in our learners to use heritage and dominant language during medium of instruction.
Measuring the proficiency of Language:
Literature strongly supports the idea of how one measures second language acquisition or language proficiency. Being able to be proficient in a language should involve being able to communicate confidently when writing, reading, speaking and listening. These are the four modes that educators today assess and design their programme around because let's be honest, language involves being able to speak, read and write at a certain level and to be able to do this confidently. The big question here is how do we measure language proficiency or in other words second language acquisition? Assessment in bilingual education today continues to be a challenge for most educators in terms of resourcing but more importantly the purposes for assessment. Why do we assess? And what are we assessing? Very two important questions when thinking about assessment. Literature supports the idea of the urgent need for a new theoretical framework to improve the development and validation of foreign and second language proficiency assessments (Bachman & Clark, 1987). I know for a fact that in my context there is a massive need for educators like myself to really think critically about the assessments we are assessing our students with. What am I actually assessing? Most tests are based on model language proficiency testing where it doesn’t actually test the full capabilities and abilities needed for communicative language use (Bachman & Clark, 1987). What does this mean? Well it means learners are able to use language in the most appropriate context. According to Bachman and Clark (1987), they confirm most or if not all language assessment scores, usually tell you how one compares to another and do not measure their absolute mastery level of language proficiency. They called this way of assessment norm-referenced focused. This way of measuring language proficiency is less useful for program evaluation and making decisions about an individual's specific skills. areas.
When thinking about my project delivery and how I measured how my students are learning and understanding Gagana Samoa I saw the importance of deliberately planning ways where students are thinking and talking about language through a communicative approach where tasks are designed purposefully for communication. Linking this back to what Bachman and Clark (1987), specifically suggests about the need for a new theoretical framework to measure language proficiency, they noted so many elements to consider and what caught my attention was the communicative language proficiency element of measuring language Bachman and Clark (1987). In this paper they talk about communicative language proficiency in terms of organizational language, which covers the rules for forming words and texts, pragmatic competence which covers the use of language appropriately in context and being able to use language strategically. The two language competent skills that caught my attention after reading this paper was the process of explicit linguistic information and the illocutionary force of the test material” Explicit linguistic information meaning the actual words and grammar used or the literal meaning of the language and Illocutionary force meaning the intended meaning or purpose behind the words — for example, whether someone is making a request, giving a command, apologizing, or promising. So overall, they’re saying that when someone reads or listens to the test material, they need to understand both what is said (the words) and what is meant (the speaker’s intention). This gave me a good basis on what to measure and how to measure language proficiency when supporting my learners. What I have come to appreciate and understand is how Bachman and Clark (1987) and Cummins, (2005) share similar ideas when we think about language proficiency. In all honesty the 5 types of transfer can be also seen as a form of assessment too. What I mean is how educators should be able to identify these skills and make a judgment based on how well they transferred language skills in one language to another. In saying this I noticed a difference in terms of how one author strongly emphasizes meaning in context and the other author doesn’t mention language in view of context. All these considerations link well to the teaching for transfer approach because when trying to identify the transfer we need to understand for ourselves the different types of transfer that can happen for language learners. According to Cummins, (2005) there are 5 types of transfer,
There are five types of transfer:
Transfer of conceptual elements – e.g. understanding the concept of the water cycle.
Transfer of metacognitive and metalinguistic strategies – e.g. graphic organisers, mnemonic devices, learning vocabulary
Transfer of paralinguistic features – e.g. gestures to aid communication
Transfer of specific linguistic elements – e.g. knowing the meaning of photo in photosynthesis
Transfer of phonological awareness – e.g. knowing each word is made up of individual sounds
In hindsight, these types of transfers link well to Bachman and Clark (1987), research about measuring language proficiency and how we need to consider improving the way we measure language proficiency for our language learners. The goal is to have and create an assessment that is criterion reference focused where your scores confirm what you can do with language. The challenge would be to confirm the abstract definition of language proficiency in Gagana Samoa and not compare our learners to each other rather confirm what they can actually do with language. Everyone is at different levels and stages of their language learning and we need to bridge this gap when it comes to language assessments. Overall what we need to consider as educators and professionals is to take action for the field of language testing to modernize its methods, focus on real-world communication, and create tests that give scores that are meaningful in terms of actual ability.
Flipped learning in a bilingual setting.
According to numerous educators, flipped learning approaches enhance student engagement, in active learning activities, facilitated by the instructor and peers. They have also noted various advantages such as enhanced student engagement, increased student performance and strengthened course design (Hung, 2017). However this approach is questionable in a sense that is flipped learning sufficient enough in showing good signs of progress for Second Language Acquisition? This leads me to think about my own context of learning and question myself about whether flipped learning is good enough for my leaners? According to (Hung, 2017). They argued that flipped learning is best reserved for teaching and learning procedural knowledge. Which indicates the teaching style of a step by step process to learning. I'm not sure what to think about this statement but I believe learning isn’t always a procedure. Learning is flexible where teachers are adapting to the needs of the students and addressing these needs through a differentiated learning programme.
The flipped learning model identifies four major components, or the so-called four pillars of F-L-I-P (Hung, 2017). These pillars set the tone for project design. This means teachers can use these four pillars to support their design for learning.
Flexible environment
Learning culture
Intentional content
Professional Educator
These pillars all show a significant importance in a classroom setting and I believe needs to be more reflected upon in order to show the effectiveness of this flipped approach. In my own context flipped learning has a place in bilingual education especially in supporting this whole reciprocal learning space where students are acknowledging their prior knowledge and building on this with new learning through meaningful and engaging communication.
