*note that most of the examples in this paper are those in Turkey/Turkish.
.....................................................
There are a few intresting points I gathered from this paper. I can summarise how this paper actually opposing the Communicative Language Teachng, CLT. Why so? Let's take a look into this matter.
Cummins starts this paper by throwing two questions-
1) How can we explain the fact that in well-implemented bilingual programs the foreign or minority language (e.g. English in Turkey) can be used as a medium of instruction at minimal or no cost to students' proficiency in the majority language (e.g. Turkish)?
2) What forms of program organization and instructional strategies are most effective in promoting students’ proficiency in both languages (L1 and L2)?
I am more interested in the first question, as it is somehow related to the situation in Malaysian classrooms.
Cummins mentions that conceptual knowledge in L1 and L2 is interdependent, as concepts, academic content and learning strategies transfer across languages. He then further discusses his very own The Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummins, 1981);
To the extent that instruction in Lx is effective in promoting proficiency in Lx, transfer of this proficiency to Ly will occur provided there is adequate exposure to Ly and adequate motivation to learn Ly.
Really, I don't understand this at first. What is Lx? What is Ly? Cummins the explains;
In concrete terms, what this principle means is that in, for example, a Turkish-English bilingual program intended for native speakers of Turkish, English instruction that develops Englishreading and writing skills is not just developing English skills, it is also developing a deeper conceptual and linguistic proficiency that is strongly related to the development of literacy in the majority language (Turkish). In other words, although the surface aspects (e.g. pronunciation, fluency, etc.) of different languages are clearly separate, there is an underlying cognitive/academic proficiency that is common across languages. This common underlying proficiency makes possible the transfer of cognitive/academic or literacy-related proficiency from one language to another.
Cummins then summarises the transfer that possible:
• Transfer of conceptual elements (e.g. understanding the concept of photosynthesis);
• Transfer of metacognitive and metalinguistic strategies (e.g. strategies of visualizing, use of graphic organizers, mnemonic devices, vocabulary acquisition strategies, etc.);• Transfer of pragmatic aspects of language use (willingness to take risks in communication through L2, ability to use paralinguistic features such as gestures to aid communication, etc.);
• Transfer of specific linguistic elements (knowledge of the meaning of photo in photosynthesis);
• Transfer of phonological awareness- knowledge that words are composed of distinct sounds.
Let's take a look at more graphic explanation:
The Dual-Iceberg Representation of Bilingual Proficiency.
From this figure, we can see that there are so much similarities between two languages, thus the elements mentioned above can be transfered. Cummins et al. (1984) found that there is minimal relationship in term of grammatical knowledge, but significance relationship is observed for literacy-related knowledge (reading comprehension, vocabulary, etc.) and pragmatic dimension of oral language, or communicative style.
Verhoeven (1994) reports stronger cross-lingual relationships for literacy and pragmatic language skills than for lexical knowledge. Phonology (as measured by phoneme discrimination tests) was also significantly related across languages which Verhoeven interprets as reflecting the influence of metalinguistic factors on phonological performance in both languages.
McLaughlin (1986) reports on a second study carried out by German linguist Jochen Rehbein (1984). This research found that:
the ability of Turkish children to deal with complex texts in German was affected by their ability to understand these texts in their first language. Rehbein's investigations suggest that there is a strong developmental interrelationship between the bilingual child's two languages and that conceptual information and discourse strategies acquired in the first language transfer to the second(McLaughlin, 1986, p. 34-35).
Implications of the Interdependence Hypothesis for Pedagogy in Bilingual/Immersion Programs
Clearly, one of the implications is how we look into teaching English in our classrooms. Many teachers of second languages (e.g. French in the Canadian context) believe that instruction should be delivered exclusively through the target language. They interpret communicative language teaching as a form of the direct method that mandates exclusive instructional use of the target language and discourages students from any use of their L1. Any use of the L1 by teachers or students is viewed as a regression to the grammar-translation method that has fallen into disrepute.
The dominant monolingual instructional orientation is evident in the following three inter-related sets of assumptions, none of which is empirically supported:
• Instruction should be carried out exclusively in the target language without recourse to students’ L1. Bilingual dictionary use is discouraged (= direct method assumption);
• Translation between L1 and L2 has no place in the teaching of language or literacy. Encouragement of translation in L2 teaching is viewed as a regression to the discredited grammar/translation method; or in bilingual/immersion programs, use of translation is equated with the discredited concurrent translation method in which teachers switch constantly between languages translating all relevant instructional content;
• Within immersion and bilingual programs, the two languages should be kept rigidly separate (= two solitudes assumption).
Cummins then further suggests two means to promote cross-language transfer;
1) creation of dual language multimedia books (sounds familiar, especially during the reign of PPSMI);
2) Sister class exchange- students from another country to share experience in the target language, as well as using the L1.
...........................................................................
DISCUSSION POINT
I talked to a senior teacher in March when I was in Temerloh for Hari Kecemerlangan SBP Zon Timur. She asked me, given the fact that I graduated from overseas, what is the best methodology in teaching English. Well, of course I gave the textbook answer- CLT. But, in reality, is it so? That teacher actually has a different opinion on the matter. She claimed that Grammar Direct Translation is the best method given the fact that students need a good grasp of Grammar, before they can communicate effectively in the language. Somehow, what she said is supported by this paper by Cummins.
In my opinion, it depends on the students' language proficiency. I'm now teaching in an SBP, where most of my students can comprehend English relatively good, although some of them would reply in Bahasa. In this case, I would use CLT. In fact, earlier this year when the new Form One came in, I made compulsory to buy English-English dictionary and I made it very clear- I dont want to see any English-BM dictionary used in my class. And in the classroom, I would ranting non stop in English.
But it is different in my lessons in the tuition centre not too far from my school. In this tuition class, most of the kids are from daily schools around here. Their English is relatively low, compared to my students. So I change my strategy- I use Grammar Direct Translation. I translate almost everything- I give the equivelant in BM. Verb=Kata Kerja. Adjective=Kata Sifat, and so forth. I believe that I need to build their vocab first before I can get them to speak the language.
I wonder what was wrong in the previous curriculum, the one I was in, that they urgently need to change it. I am a living product of that curriculum. Am I not successful?
No comments:
Post a Comment