Non-English L1s have often been stigmatized as a hindrance to learning in classes conducted in English. However, my interest lies in the presence of non-English L1s within our classrooms, how they are incorporated, and subsequently, what kind of effect do they have on engagement? My past experiences within my hometown’s South Korean community have led me to erroneously believe that using one’s non-English L1 would be an obstruction to learning, and learning the English language in particular. However, I soon learned that this is not the case—and the literature agrees.
Coelho’s research-based guide offers an accessible yet comprehensive scope of the literature, stating that the “positive recognition of the languages they bring to school with them can encourage them to maintain and continue to develop their own languages while they are learning the language of the school.” The language is not only significant for the maintenance of a student’s own cultural identity, but also “provides a strong foundation for second language learning” (Coelho, 2012). Coelho speaks of the non-English L1 as a facilitator of learning rather than an interference. In particular, I would like to indicate how the theme of positive recognition is threaded throughout the passage. The recognition is not only for their native languages, but also for their cultural identities and the acquisition of a second language. Subsequently, she writes that these beneficial effects can “lead to higher academic achievement” (Coelho, 2012).
The aforementioned findings do not explicitly state their connection to engagement. However, Cummins (n.d.) relates the positive recognition of an ELL’s language and their cultural knowledge as “important resources in enabling academic engagement.” Both Cummins and Coelho have indicated the link between cultural identity and language, and how the realization of those elements contribute positively to a student’s education. Cummins again, writes that “learning will be optimized when [teacher-student interactions] maximize both cognitive engagement and identity investment” (as quoted in Cummins, n.d.). From their work, I observe that there is a relationship between language, cultural identity and engagement. Language is an integral component of cultural identity, and by recognizing a student’s cultural and linguistic backgrounds by interactions within the classroom, a student’s engagement can be positively affected.
Language is an integral component of cultural identity, and by recognizing a student’s cultural and linguistic backgrounds by interactions within the classroom, a student’s engagement can be positively affected.
Stille (2015) draws upon Bonny Norton, and Cummins’ research to examine the relationship between the language, the language learner, and the learning context. She recalls Pierre Bourdieu’s term “investment,” and uses it to examine how the triangular relationship is constructed. More pertinent to my inquiry, Stille writes that “investment integrates the language learner and the learning context” (2015, p.484), and that “using a language is an investment in a learner’s own social identity” (2015, p.485). The aforementioned relationship between cultural identity and language is echoed in Stille’s work, and is then tied to Cummins’ discussion about student engagement. In particular, she paraphrases Cummins, saying that “when students see their language, culture, and community reflected in and respected by school, this positively affects their engagement with learning.” (Stille, 2015, p. 485).
Consistently, the idea that language, cultural identity and engagement are interwoven and inseparable is reinforced. Furthermore, Cummins appears to be the foundational scholar for ELL-related studies and is a constant contributor across the literature. I am fortunate to have a body of research that is strongly connected and supported by a myriad of scholars. Even more fortunate is the fact that my practicum experiences thus far reflect the ideas and outcomes of the literature I have reviewed. For the future, I am interested in learning techniques for non-English L1 implementation in the classroom, and have already begun examining that budding sub-question.
References
Coelho, E. (2012). Language and learning in multilingual classrooms: A practical approach. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Chow, P., Cohen, S., Giampapa, F., Leoni, L., et al. (n.d.). ELL students speak for themselves: Identity texts and literacy engagement in multilingual classrooms. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from www.curriculum.org/secretariat/files/ELLidentityTexts.pdf
Stille, S. (2015). Identity as a site of difference: Toward a complex understanding of identity in multilingual, multicultural classrooms. Intercultural Education, 26(6), 483-496.
Other References
Carr, Sarah. “The Reinvention of Bilingual Education in America’s Schools.” Slate. Columbia Journalism School’s Teacher Project, 5 Jan. 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.
Carroll, P.S., & Hasson, D.J. (2004). Helping ELLs Look at Stories through Literary Lenses. Voices From The Middle, 11(4), 20-26.
Coelho, E. (2012). Language and learning in multilingual classrooms: A practical approach. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Chow, P., Cohen, S., Giampapa, F., Leoni, L., et al. (n.d.). ELL students speak for themselves: Identity texts and literacy engagement in multilingual classrooms. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from www.curriculum.org/secretariat/files/ELLidentityTexts.pdf
Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the english-language classroom: Pedagogical considerations. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 317-321.
Smith, P., & Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2015). Handbook of Research on Cross-Cultural Approaches to Language and Literacy Development (Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.