Traditional Bilingual Theoretical Frameworks
Subtractive Frameworks
Transitional model.
Transitional models were originally developed in the early twentieth century around WWI (Garcia, 2009, p. 124). Due to many anti-immigrant sentiments during this time many states in the US began to enact English only policies. Bilingualism was seen by many as a problem that needed to be solved. Some researchers developed transitional models with linguistic goals of monolingualism, including a language shift. That shift ending with only knowing one language, the more powerful one. More official models were developed by Fishman in 1976 and Hornberger in 1991, both from monoglossic perspectives (Garcia, 2009, p. 113). The transitional model falls under traditional frameworks as a non-diglossic type of education because the languages being taught are not compartmentalized.
This type of bilingual model is known as subtractive because monolingualism is the norm and what all should strive to attain. This model is also subtractive due to the goal of linguistic and cultural assimilation (Garcia, 2009, p. 116). Transition times to English only classrooms vary from 1-3 to 5-6 years, depending on if the program is early-exit or late-exit. Students are generally in the primary grades and are taught exclusively in their first language until they become fluent in the target language (Garcia, 2009, p. 124). These types of programs have been established in the US for newcomer immigrants and are mostly geared toward language minority students.
This model seems to be a quick solution to influxes in immigration. Only put forth into the education system as a solution to the problem of bilingualism; as perceived by many with monoglossic ideologies. The most effective bilingual models will not have monolingualism as an end goal, and I would not recommend this type of model in my current school district, although it is the current model being implemented.
Additive Frameworks
Maintenance model.
The maintenance and traditional models share the same traditional framework. They were both developed from a monoglossic viewpoint, and the same researchers are associated with this model. Fishman and Hornberger both supported developing bilingualism, yet not biculturalism. The maintenance model was developed as the worlds viewpoint on minority languages shifted, from a problem to a right, in the late 1970’s, due to worldwide economic downturn. Maintenance models were developed from the need to afford minority languages the same protections as majority ones (Salgado, 2015).
The maintenance model differs from the transitional model, as a diglossic type of education because each of the languages being taught are carefully compartmentalized. This model also differs from the transitional model in that it is additive, instead of subtractive. Students should leave the program with proficiency in two languages. The maintenance model’s linguistic goal is bilingualism with language maintenance. This model is also additive since students are able to strengthen their cultural identities by continuing to develop their first language while acquiring a second. This model affords students civil rights affirmation by placing value on their native language.
This seems like an effective model for bilingual education except for the fact that emphasis is placed on monolingual values. This model is not sufficient enough for the dynamic and translanguaging types of societies currently emerging. I would not recommend this model as the best model for bilingual education, due to its lack of emphasis on multiculturalism. Without emphasis on culture, proficiency in a second language has little value in real like interactions and everyday situations.
Enrichment model.
The enrichment model falls under the traditional bilingual framework and has a diglossic language ideology, where each language is compartmentalized (Garcia, 2009, p. 125). The enrichment model was the third bilingual educational model developed by Fishman and Hornberger. This model is similar to the maintenance model as they are both additive. However the enrichment model is primarily for majority language learners. It is different from the maintenance model because it is bilingualism for the elite, wherein a second language is added to their repertoire.
Since this type of education is reserved for the elite, it is also known as prestigious bilingual education. (Garcia, 2009, p. 120) The socially elite were the originators of bilingualism, dating back to the second century. Greek-Latin bilingual education was reserved for Roman boys from Aristocratic families (Garcia, 2009, p. 13). Although this model of bilingual education has been around for centuries, there are other models that are better suited to the current diverse languaging practices. Therefore, I would not recommend this type of model for my current school district or others with similar demographics.
Immersion model.
Immersion programs are similar to enrichment models, as both traditionally serve language majority students and are additive bilingual education models. In the United States, regular native English speakers are in a class where only the second language is spoken throughout the day, for about one year. Immersion differs from enrichment because the students are instructed exclusively in their second language. They are immersed into the target language; under the principal that language is best acquired through authentic communication (Garcia, 2009, p. 126). This type of schooling is possible since the students who are immersed in a second language, normally speak the society’s language of power at home.
Sometimes language minorities are placed in classrooms where only their second language is being spoken, this is not immersion, but rather submersion or sink-or-swim (Garcia, 2009, p. 140). This model is discussed further under mislabeled bilingual education program types. Immersion programs are generally classified as early or late immersion depending on what stage the children are at in their education. There are also total and partial immersion programs that vary in the amount of second language exposure; from all day to part of the day (Garcia, 2009, p. 127).
Immersion programs can be beneficial to students who are wanting or needing to acquire basic proficiency in another language within a short period of time. Since the children’s first language is supported by home and societal influences, it is perfectly healthy for these type of children to be immersed in a foreign language for part or all of their school day. However, if these programs continue to be implemented for majority language learners without support for multicultural or translanguaging experiences; students will have restricted exposure and therefore limited real-life applicability.
New Bilingual Theoretical Frameworks
Recursive Frameworks
Developmental model.
The maintenance model has evolved into the developmental model due to increased acceptance and need to maintain home languages while developing others. Developmental bilingual education became popular at the end of the twentieth century leading to changes in educational policy. In 1980, Otheguy and Otto showed the importance of not just maintaining students home languages, but developing them further (Garcia, 2009, p. 128). The original Bilingual Education Act of 1968 did not include any goals for bilingualism nor require bilingual education; it was not until the 1984 reauthorization that developmental bilingual education was specifically approved (Garcia, 2009, p. 171).
Developmental bilingual education does not simply seek bilingualism but also biculturalism. This model was developed due to globalization and the increased translanguaging practices of people worldwide. Developmental programs differ from maintenance, due to their heteroglossic vision. Developmental models place emphasis on both bilingualism/multilingualism and biculturalism. In addition, the developmental model falls under a relatively new framework that is recursive, accepting of children’s continuous movement along the bilingual continuum. Developmental models also differ from maintenance as they may include more than one language minority group, with differing degrees of linguistic oppression and different home languages (Garcia, 2009, p. 128).
Developmental models are most appropriate in certain specific linguistic enclaves. I would support the use of developmental models in situations where multiple different language groups are converging in a central geographical location. This type of model would seem helpful in equalizing multiple minority languages while still valuing and developing each minoritized language.
Immersion revitalization model.
The immersion revitalization model was developed after successful implementation of immersion bilingual education programs in Canada. These programs are geared towards ethnolinguistic minorities whose heritage language has undergone dramatic language shifts (Garcia, 2009, p. 128). The children are immersed in a classroom where the heritage language is spoken, in an attempt to preserve and revitalize not only the language, but also the values and culture. This model supports nation-building and promotes cultural sovereignty (Garcia, 2009, p. 247).
The immersion revitalization model is also known as a language nest immersion program and has been implemented in Indigenous communities since the 1980’s. These types of bilingual education programs are essential in preventing language death, as they help avert language shifts in certain societal conditions (Garcia, 2009, p. 80). This type of model has proven beneficial for language revitalization and should be implemented based on the threatened state of minority languages.
Dynamic Frameworks
Two-way bilingual education.
Two-Way bilingual education consists of fluent native English and foreign language speakers in the same class. The instruction takes place in both languages, often times with two teachers, each only communicating in a certain language (Salgado, 2015). This type of bilingual education is commonly known as dual-language. Dual language was originally developed as another form of additive bilingual education (Estrada, Gómez, & Ruiz-Escalante, 2009). In 1995, Gomez and Gomez developed a dual language education model, that is now being used in hundreds of schools across Texas and other states (Estrada, Gómez, & Ruiz-Escalante, 2009).
In 2002, a more dynamic dual-language design was developed by Howard and Christian (Garcia, 2009, p. 130). Looking through newly developed frameworks, some also see two-way bilingual education as dynamic. The dynamic nature of the classroom involves interrelationships and multimodalities (Garcia, 2009, p. 118). Students engage in translanguaging practices within bilingual pairs.
Research has shown the positive effects of two-way bilingual education for both majority and minority language speakers. However, the drastic positive changes that have resulted from minority language learners enrollment in two-way programs, is enough proof as to its effectiveness. I would fully support the implementation of a two-way bilingual education program, given the appropriate demographic circumstances. A proper balance of fluent native English and foreign language speakers, creates an environment where children are spread out along different points of the bilingual continuum, allowing children to develop and learn from one another.
Multiple multilingual model.
The multiple multilingual model is another dynamic type of bilingual education. It allows for highly complex multilingualism, with a least three languages (Garcia, 2009, p. 131). Hence, this model is also known as a 3-language system where students initially learn in the official state language. Then after two years another official language is introduced. Finally after several years a third language is learned (Salgado, 2015). This type of model would be effective for countries in Africa such as Uganda, whose official language is English, as none of the Ugandan languages are considered strong enough to be named the counties national language (Tembe & Norton, 2008). The multiple multilingual model in Uganda would promote equality among all the languages in the society.
This model promotes a heteroglossic ideology; especially since it supports bilingualism while maintaining recognition of the range of language communities. Students in one classroom will come from different points along the bilingual continuum allowing them to experience a hybrid culture. The development of these transcultural identities is seen as a resource; as language focus shifts to intercultural, multilingual education (Garcia, 2009, p. 119).
This model was developed as a result of increased multilingual situations worldwide. In places such as India and Africa, the linguistic complexity of the societies require people to posses multilingual skills in order to participate meaningfully in various translanguaging practices(Garcia, 2009, p. 131). This model is one of the best bilingual models for the current globalization trends. This dynamic bilingual education would prepare all students, both linguistic minorities and majorities, to participate in a global society.
CLIL & CLIL-type model.
The CLIL was started by the European Commission and stands for Content and Language Integrated Learning (Garcia, 2009, p. 130). This form of bilingual education is geared towards all students and teaches them different languages in multiple subjects. The linguistic goal of this type of program is pluralingualism with mastery of the students mother tongue, plus at least two other languages. The model falls under new frameworks with a dynamic languaging experience.
This type of model supports a heteroglossic viewpoint as it validates the growing translanguaging practices and transculturalism. In this case bilingualism is considered a resource as students benefit from their language interactions. Students come from all different points of the bilingual continuum (Garcia, 2009, p. 130). This type of model would be very beneficial in diverse student populations where children can bring in different perspectives and experiences. This model has been successfully implemented in countries such as Malaysia, and should continue being used for mainstream populations.
Mislabeled Bilingual Education
Submersion
Submersion is a type of education which has been implemented with language minorities. In the United States these programs attempt to assimilate students labeled as English Language Learners as quickly as possible by placing them in an English only class. In Arizona, English-only policies have been implemented and the submersion programs have been labeled as “Sheltered English Immersion” (Mora, 2010). This type of education is technically not bilingual and can be frustrating for the students.The classroom teacher may or may not be proficient in the students native language, and many times communication in any language other than English is frowned upon.
Due to the restrictive nature of this program, and the lack of support for the student’s first language, I would not recommend this type of education for any language minority students. Language minority students will benefit from support in their native language, and will acquire a second language faster when supported.
Conclusion
The multiple multilingual model is the best bilingual model and I would implement it in my current school district. This model supports multilingualism and comes from a heteroglossic perspective. The children in today’s schools need to be more prepared to compete in a global society. Since this type of education is dynamic and allows for the maximum amount of translanguaging and transcultural experiences, it would be beneficial to anyone. Many of the other bilingual models are effective only for certain majority or minority populations. Since my current school district consists of many different student populations, the learning opportunities would be limitless if implementing a multiple multilingual model.
References
Estrada, V. L., Gómez, L., & Ruiz-Escalante, J. A. (2009). Let's make dual language the norm. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 54-58.
Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mora, J.K. (2010). Overstated optimism: Arizona’s structured English immersion program under Horne v. Flores. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (online submission) Denver, CO.
Salgado, Y. (2015). Notes for a lecture on Bilingual Education Policy. The University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Odessa, TX.
Tembe, J., & Norton, B. (2008). Promoting local languages in Ugandan primary schools: The community as stakeholder. Canadian Modern Language Review,65(1), 33-60.