In the past decades, the field of TESOL has been primarily
concerned with teaching English through a monolingual framework, that
is, with the use of English as the only medium of instruction. This
monolingual tradition has been based on assumptions that students would
learn best if they were immersed in the target language and did not use
other languages. Often, instructors who have taught EFL or ESL,
including myself, have been asked to implement an “English-only” policy
in the classroom and reward students who abide by it. Recently, however,
applied linguistics research has called for a plurilingual turn in
TESOL (see overview in Taylor & Snoddon, 2013), which encourages
the use of students’ languages and cultures in classroom practices to
maximize the learning experience.
What Is Plurilingual Instruction?
The plurilingual turn in TESOL has emerged as a response to the
increasing linguistic and cultural diversity inherent in many urban
centers worldwide (Kubota, 2016). Plurilingualism puts forth the notion
that people can make use of languages and dialects to communicate with
others, including code-switching, and proficiency levels in these
languages vary depending on communication needs. For example, a person
may be proficient in one dialect of Spanish (L1) and one dialect of
English (L2) but also know a few expressions in other languages and
dialects. These languages and dialects are part of people’s plurilingual
repertoire, which also includes cultural knowledge, such as behaviours,
values, and customs in different cultural contexts. In societies with
increasing linguistic and cultural diversity, developing plurilingual
and pluricultural competence is timely so speakers can use their
repertoire to access information in different languages as well as
appropriately communicate with people from diverse linguistic and
cultural backgrounds.
Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence
Besides the linguistic and social dimensions of English, such
as grammar, vocabulary, and pragmatics, plurilingual and pluricultural
competence (PPC) should not be neglected in TESOL. PPC is a relatively
new competence in language pedagogy and refers to the need of using
language and cultural knowledge flexibly when communicating with others
(Council of Europe, 2018). For example, one can read an article written
in Brazilian Portuguese, write a summary about it in English, talk about
the summary using Azorean Portuguese, and listen to a podcast about the
same topic in Spanish. Language users can code-switch when
communicating, especially when their interlocutors know the same
languages. This mix is not considered a deficiency; it is in fact a rich
resource that has agentive power: Speakers may use different languages
to establish close connections with others and improve efficiency in
communication.
Recently, the new Companion Volume of the Common European
Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR) has introduced PPC
descriptors to guide language teaching and learning and can help shift
TESOL pedagogical orientations from monolingual to plurilingual (see a
list of descriptors in Council
of Europe, 2018, p. 157).
Research on Plurilingualism in Language Teaching
A solid body of international research on plurilingualism
exists, and results have largely been positive suggesting that
plurilingual instruction enhances learners’ motivation, agency, and
metacognition, among other factors (see overview in Galante, 2018).
However, there is a paucity of research examining the benefits of
plurilingual instruction compared to monolingual instruction, the latter
being a tradition in TESOL. To address this gap, I conducted a
quasi-experimental study in an adult English for academic purposes (EAP)
program in a Canadian university located in Toronto, the most
multilingual city in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2016).
The Study: A Comparison Between Plurilingual and Monolingual Instruction
Participants
The study investigated the extent to which a plurilingual
approach would impact international students’ perceived PPC levels
compared to a monolingual approach, as well as students’ and teachers’
perceptions of overall affordances and challenges of plurilingual
instruction. Seven teachers were recruited, and each taught two sections
of an Academic Listening and Speaking course: one using a plurilingual
approach (treatment group, n = 79) and one using a
monolingual approach (comparison group, n = 50). All
of the students had international status (study visa) and were from
Turkey, Russia, Japan, Korea, Ecuador, and China, with the vast majority
from China (84%).
Tasks
Ten plurilingual tasks, designed in collaboration with the
teachers, were delivered in the treatment group, and 10 monolingual
tasks were delivered in the comparison group, one per week. While the
monolingual tasks were regular EAP tasks, the plurilingual tasks
included an element of PPC, which was based on the PPC descriptors of
the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2018). For example, while one monolingual
task required that students match the definition of idioms to their
meanings and use them in an oral monolog in English, the plurilingual
tasks required that students reflect on idioms in the languages of their
repertoire and orally discuss whether the idioms had the same meaning
across the languages and cultures they knew. In one of the classes, for
example, students explained that the idiom reach for the
stars has an equivalent translation in Chinese but with a
slightly different meaning compared to English: In Chinese, reach for the stars has a negative connotation that
refers to unrealistic goals. All tasks (both plurilingual and
monolingual) lasted approximately 30–40 minutes each.
Data Collection and Analysis
To measure PPC levels, I designed and validated the PPC scale, a
4-point Likert scale with 24 items that asked students to either agree
or disagree with the items. The PPC scale was applied to both groups at
the start and at the end of the EAP program, 3 months later, to examine
if there would be any differences over time and across groups. In
addition, weekly diary entries asked students to write their
perceptions, both positive and negative, about the plurilingual tasks.
To further gather students’ perceptions of plurilingual instruction, two
more data collection instruments were used: classroom observations at
three different times—Weeks 1, 5, and 9—in all seven treatment groups
(total of 21 observations), as well as focus groups with students at the
end of the program to gather general information about tasks in their
EAP program, with no explicit mention of the plurilingual and
monolingual tasks. Finally, semistructured interviews with all seven
teachers were conducted at the end of the program to elicit their
perceptions of both affordances and challenges of plurilingual
instruction compared to monolingual instruction. Following a concurrent
embedded design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011), data from
classroom observations, learner diaries, and focus groups were analyzed
inductively, and data from the PPC Scale and teacher interviews were
analyzed deductively.
Plurilingual Instruction Is More Beneficial Than Monolingual Instruction
The goal of the study was to examine potential affordances and
challenges of plurilingual instruction compared to monolingual
instruction, as well as determine whether there would be differences in
students’ perceived PPC levels depending on the instructional approach
and over time. Analyses from student diaries and focus groups indicate
several affordances of plurilingual instruction, including the
enhancement of cognition, plurilingual and pluricultural awareness,
empathy, English and additional language learning, and critical
thinking, among others. From the students’ viewpoint, no challenges of
plurilingual instructional pedagogy were found but students indicated
challenges relating to translating from one language to another as well
as the need to maintain a monolingual posture with monolingual speakers
outside of the classroom.
Teachers unanimously reported preference for plurilingual
instruction, as it validated students’ plurilingual practices,
challenged monolingual ideologies, and offered an engaging environment
in which students took the role of the teacher. All of the instructors
suggested that teachers implement plurilingual instruction in the future
and argued for the need to “give up” their power in class and allow
students to develop agency over their own plurilingual and pluricultural
practices. In addition, strategies used by the teachers, such as
translanguaging and cross-linguistic/cross-cultural comparisons,
gradually became part of the EAP curriculum. Finally, PPC scale data
were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc independent
samples t-tests, with results indicating that students in the treatment
group had a statistically significant increase of perceived PPC levels
over time compared to students in the comparison group. These results
show that plurilingual instruction was more beneficial than monolingual
instruction for PPC improvement.
Implications for TESOL
This study is significant as it provides evidence from multiple
data sources and viewpoints that plurilingual instruction in TESOL
offers benefits that are not afforded by monolingual instruction.
Pedagogically, a practical achievement of this study is that it opens up
possibilities for validating students’ plurilingual practices and
enhancing the language learning experience in ways that are not possible
if monolingual instruction remains unchallenged.
As an ending thought, teachers who wish to implement
plurilingual instruction in their classes can make use of PPC
descriptors suggested in the CEFR Companion Volume (Council of Europe,
2018) and ensure that implementation suits their contexts; thus,
teachers need to analyze their language program, student population, and
administrative support (or lack thereof). Ultimately, by inviting
students to share their languages and cultures in the English classroom,
teachers are not only teaching the English language but also equipping
students with skills to develop PPC, a competence needed for the
21st-century societies that are linguistically and culturally diverse.
References
Council of Europe. (2018). Common European framework
of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment-companion
volume with new descriptors. Strasbourg, France: Author.
Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Galante, A. (2018). Linguistic and cultural diversity in
language education through plurilingualism: Linking the theory into
practice. In P. P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), International handbook on research and practice in heritage
language education (pp. 313–329). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Springer.
Kubota, R. (2016). The multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory,
and neoliberal multiculturalism: Complicities and implications for
applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 37(4) 474–494.
Taylor, S. K., & Snoddon, K. (2013). Plurilingualism in
TESOL: Promising controversies. TESOL Quarterly, 47,
439–445.
Statistics Canada (2016). Linguistic diversity and
multilingualism in Canadian homes. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016010/98-200-x2016010-eng.cfm
Angelica Galante is assistant professor in
applied linguistics at Concordia University in Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Visit http://www.breakingtheinvisiblewall.com
to learn more about her research and the plurilingual tasks used in the
study. |