Education programmes in a social context

In this section, two types of L2 or FL programmes are introduced and reviewed: monolingual vs. bilingual education programmes and study abroad vs. study at home.

2.4.4.1 Monolingual vs. bilingual education programmes

Social context is very important because the setting not only reflects the social environment, it also naturally determines the educational programme. With consideration for the social contexts tabulated in Table 2.3 and instructional medium, educational programmes take on two broad approaches. The first involves monolingual programme where only one language is used in the classroom as a medium of instruction. The second involves the bilingual programme where two (or sometimes more than two) languages are used for instruction (see Table 2.4) (Siegel 2007:150). Decisions around programmes are also the outcome of LP decisions about the role of the L1 and L2 as a medium of instruction and as a subject of study.

Table 2.4 Types of education programmes

Programme Description Examples

Monolingual: L1 monolingual L2 monolingual

L1 is the only medium of instruction; L2 is taught as subject

L2 is only medium of instruction: Submersion programs (no support for L1 speakers)

English speakers learning German in Austria

Spanish-speaking immigrants learning English in California

Bilingual: Transitional

Immersion

L1 initial medium of instruction and language of initial literacy; later switch to L2

L2 is the medium of instruction for all or most content areas; later switch to both L1 and L2

Fijian-speaking students learning English in Fiji

Some English-speaking students learning French in Canada

Source: Siegel (2007:150)

Monolingual programmes include two sub-models. In L1 monolingual programmes, the L1 is the medium of instruction and L2 is the subject of classroom study. For example, Australian high school students use English as the instruction medium and Japanese as a subject of

classroom study. Chinese high school students of China use Chinese as the medium of instruction and English as a school subject. This is typically found in external L2 (foreign language) situations (see Table 2.3). In L2 monolingual programmes, the L2 is the only medium of instruction as found in submersion programs in dominant L2 settings. This is typical of MFL teaching in China where instructors use Chinese as the medium of instruction while teaching it as a FL.

Siegel (2007:151) includes three sub-models under the rubric of bilingual programmes: transitional programmes (from L1 to L2); immersion programmes (from L2 to L1 + L2), and continuing (L1 + L2). In transitional programmes, the students‟ L1 is the medium of instruction for the first few years of school and the language in which children are taught initial literacy. During this period, L2 is taught as a subject. Eventually there is a changeover to L2 as the medium of instruction. An excellent example is the language practice in many South African schools where speakers of African languages are taught in mother tongue (or L1) for the first four years of school and shift to English in Grade 4. During the first years, however, English is taught as a school subject (Lemmer 2011). Immersion programmes are found in coexisting L2 or external L2 situations. The L2 is used as the medium of instruction for all or most content areas, usually beginning early in primary school. However, teachers are bilingual and the content is modified to make it more understandable to students. After the first few grades, there is a strong emphasis on the development of the L1 and instruction is in both languages. The best-known immersion programs are in francophone Canada.

2.4.4.2 Study abroad vs. study at home

Another two contradistinctive types of language acquisition programmes exist: study abroad vs. study at home.

Language study abroad refers to a programme organised by an educational institution for FL students (either as a group or as individual students) who spend a period of time studying the FL in the target language country. It is believed that the combination of formal classroom learning and informal learning (out-of-class) is the perfect setting in order to learn a FL efficiently. Moreover, the most efficient way to learn a language appears to be spending time in the target language country, due to the multiple opportunities for learners to practise the FL.

This practice is becoming more and more popular in developed countries around the world. According to Baró and Serrano (2011), the Erasmus programme is the most popular mobility programme for studying abroad within the European framework. Scholarships are awarded to European undergraduate students to enable them to study in a European country other than their own for one semester, or for a whole year to improve their FL skills and get to know another culture. In the US, study abroad is a flagship offering among higher education institutions. The Institute of International Education (http://www.iie.org/) reports that the number of Americans studying abroad increased by 8% in the 2008/09 academic year. Cubillos et al. (2008) also reported that participants in a study abroad group showed higher levels of confidence and used different listening comprehension strategies from participants in the at home group.

The development of reading ability in a study abroad context has also been examined. Dewey (2004) investigated reading and compared the FL reading development of 30 American students studying Japanese as a FL: 15 participants in an immersion setting at home and 15 in a study abroad setting. The study abroad participants showed greater confidence when reading after their 11 weeks in Japan. Writing development in a study abroad context has also attracted attention. Sasaki (2004; 2007; 2009) focused on written production. These studies examined the written production of undergraduate students learning English in two contexts (i.e. study abroad and at home over a 3.5-year period). Sasaki found improvements in FL proficiency, composition quality and writing fluency in both groups, but the study abroad group tended to show greater development of more qualitative variables such as writing strategies and writing styles. After exhaustive interviews, Sasaki attributed these gains to the greater vocabulary increase among the study abroad participants, who in turn felt more confident writing in English. Other studies have investigated vocabulary acquisition in a study abroad context and conclude that study abroad has advantages over the at home context (Dewey 2008:127-148).

Freed and Lazar (2003) compared several oral fluency variables of 28 English native speakers studying French as a FL in three different learning contexts: a group studying in France (study abroad), a group studying in an immersion setting in their country, and a group studying in a regular institution in their home country (at home). Their findings suggest that the at home group experienced fewest gains in oral performance. This was also confirmed by studies of students studying Russian as a FL in study abroad and at home settings (Brecht & Davidson 1991:16). Freed and Lazar (2003) summarised the linguistic skills of students who have been

abroad: “They speak with greater ease and confidence, expressed in part by a greater abundance of speech, spoken at a faster rate and characterized by fewer days-fluent-sounding pauses. As a group, they tend to reformulate their speech to express more complicated and abstract thoughts, display a wider range of communicative strategies and a broader repertoire of styles. Their linguistic identities extend beyond the expected acquisition of oral skills to greater self-realization in the foreign social world.”

If the social context perspective is taken into account, the study abroad programme is similar to the L2 monolingual programme (see Table 2.4) in a L2 dominant setting (see Table 2.3). The difference is that the study abroad programme is normally a term programme, i.e. the time period is limited, but the L2 monolingual programme does not have a time limit as learners could be either studying abroad or immigrants who permanently study in the L2 dominant setting.

2.5 SUMMARY

This chapter reviewed the theory and framework of language policy planning through answering the questions: who plans what for whom, why and how. Thereafter, attention was given to theories of SLA and FLA acquisition and different educational programmes to this end. This provides a conceptual framework for the ensuing chapters. The following chapter discusses language policy with special reference to MFL policy as a background to the provision of MFL in key university providers in China and at all four university providers in South Africa.