SUBSCRIBE

13 Million Brits Plan to Learn Spanish in 2018

According to a poll recently released by the British Council, one out of every five UK adults (about 13 million people) said they plan to learn another language as a New Year’s resolution, while one in three (over 20 million Brits) intends to try and learn at least some phrases in another language in the year ahead.

For those respondents eager to take the linguistic leap in 2018, Spanish – which recent research by the British Council (https://www.britishcouncil.org/organisation/policy-insight-research/languages-future-2017) has highlighted as the most vital language to the UK post-Brexit – was the most popular choice among potential learners. It was followed by French, Italian, German, and Japanese.

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the two thousand people surveyed said they’ve always wanted to speak another language fluently, and 56% stated that they regret never having made the effort to do so.

Despite more than half (58%) of respondents thinking it’s more important than ever for people in the UK to learn another language, only a third said they can currently hold a basic conversation in one. Almost half (45%) admitted to being embarrassed by the level of their language skills.

Commenting on the results, Vicky Gough, schools adviser at the British Council, said: “It’s fantastic that many of us hope to brush up on our language skills in 2018. In particular, the languages we are most keen to learn are some of the languages the UK needs most.

“But the country is still facing a languages deficit. If we are to remain globally competitive post-Brexit, we need more people who can speak languages. Learning other languages not only gives you an understanding of other cultures but is good for business, for life and for wellbeing too. The New Year is the perfect time to get started.”

The British Council’s call comes as the uptake of languages in schools faces a challenging time. Official figures from Britain’s Joint Council for Qualifications highlight a 7.3% drop in the number of pupils in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland taking public school language exams in the past year. Scottish Qualification Authority figures indicate that the situation is similar in Scotland with significant drops in French and German uptake in the past year.

The UK’s current lack of language skills is said to be holding back the country’s international trade performance at a cost of almost £50 billion a year.

The new poll, carried out by Populus was commissioned by the British Council, the UK’s international organization for cultural relations and educational opportunities. The survey is part of its work to build relationships for the UK around the world through language, culture, and education.

The British Council offers a series of language learning videos (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaALxC_iM0-YOHikUMmmV-rbSgMc9Ei1W) with practical hints and tips, while schools can get ideas about how to make more time for language learning on the British Council’s Schools Online (https://schoolsonline.britishcouncil.org/) site.

 

 

Babies’ Babbling Builds Better Brains

It’s long been known that babies modify their sounds to become more speech-like in response to feedback from their caregivers, and that they learn things have names by caregivers naming objects. But a news study, published in Developmental Science examines how specific types of babbling elicit particular parental behavior.

To answer this, the research team—Rachel Albert, assistant professor of psychology at Lebanon Valley College; Jennifer Schwade, senior lecturer in psychology at Cornell University; and Michael Goldstein, associate professor of psychology at Cornell University—recorded and recombined the vocalizations of 40 nine-month-olds and their mothers, using a “playback paradigm,” widely used in animal studies, to assess how specific forms of sounds and actions by infants influenced parental behavior.

The research sessions were conducted in a playroom with toys. Infants were outfitted with denim overalls in which a wireless microphone was concealed. Sessions took place in Goldstein’s B.A.B.Y. Lab, which is outfitted with video cameras to record responses during live play.

“We expected that mothers would respond more often when babbling was more mature, and they did,” said Goldstein. “The increased rate of response meant more language-learning opportunities for the baby. The mothers’ speech was also more likely to contain simplified, learnable information about linguistic structure and the objects around the baby. Thus, by varying the form and context of their vocalizations, infants influence maternal behavior and create social interactions that facilitate learning.”

The researchers also found that mothers responded more often and more informatively to vocalizations directed at objects than those that were undirected.

“We suspected this would be the case,” Albert said, “because the object the baby is looking at creates an opportunity for the mother to label it, so she’s more likely to respond with specific information than when a baby is babbling at nothing.”

In this way, write the researchers, “the infant’s own vocalizations serve to structure social interactions in ways that facilitate learning. … These results contribute to a growing understanding of the role of social feedback in infant vocal learning, which stands in contrast to the historical view of prelinguistic vocalizations in which babbling was assumed to be motor practice, with no function in the development of communication and language.”

The study sheds light on correlations between early babbling and later language and studies finding that babies with more advanced syllables in their babbling have more advanced speech and vocabulary when they’re older.

“We think there may be a kind of feedback loop, where for example parents’ labeling objects and rewarding more advanced vocalizations by responding more frequently promotes word learning,” said Schwade.

These results may help in understanding delayed vocal development in at-risk populations and those with hearing delays, Down syndrome and autism spectrum disorder. Fewer vocal interactions between children and caregivers, write the researchers, could “cascade into long-term differences in response expectancies, impacting language development over time as opportunities for learning from contingent parental responses are reduced.

Cornell University. (2018, January 18). Babies’ babbling betters brains, language. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 19, 2018 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180118142545.htm

 

Social Climbing

Yue Meng and Nile Stanley see the educational value in social networking sites

If you type “Facebook educational usage” into Google, it will show millions of relevant sites in just .278 seconds. With the popularity of Facebook and other social networking sites, such as Twitter and Renren (China), there is an assumption that such sites are useful in classrooms and outside of classrooms. It is not surprising that educators are attempting to integrate social networking sites into both teaching and learning.

Nonetheless, teachers still hesitate to use social networking sites in classrooms, perhaps because of perceived risks of distracting students off topic, or exposing students to inappropriate content. In this article, we discuss both the strengths and issues of using social networking sites in education and offer an example of social network sites can enrich curriculum.

Social networking sites are online websites that provide user-friendly platforms for individuals to connect with others and express themselves. Users of social networking sites are able to share ideas, activities, events, and interests within their individual networks. Facebook, Sophia, and Renren are examples of these free learning communities.

Bartlett-Bragg (2006) defined social networks as a “range of applications that augments group interactions and shared spaces for collaboration, social connections, and aggregates information exchanges in a web-based environment.” Boyd and Ellison (2007) defined social networks as web-based services allowing individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.

Virtual relationships such as these provide individuals with a wide range of information from multiple sources. The popularity of social networks sites has changed students’ online learning into self-initiated learning through which students can learn by interacting with others.

Online usage of social networking sites have become deeply embedded in the lifestyles of many young people. Blattner and Fiori (2009) observed that students’ social life is high tech, while often school life is low tech. Low tech classrooms are teacher-centered while high tech classrooms may be more student-centered and promote constructivist practices in which students have to collaborate.

The author’s study (Meng, 2012) of a student-initiated English as a Second Language learning community based on Renren (the Chinese version of Facebook) suggests social identity, perceived encouragement, and perceived ease of use as the factors that affect the interaction of social networking-based learning community in a positive way.

Specifically, students with recognized social networking identities attempt to use such sites to a greater degree, and may be more able to adapt to an online academic community. Online friends become online classmates.

Students’ efforts in social networking usage are highly dependent on how much encouragement they receive from social networking sites. Ease of use is defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort” (Davis, 1989).

An important factor influencing adoption of social networking sites is the combination of specific users’ technical skills and their competence in the peculiar features of social networking sites. Davis’s study also suggests social networking sites are related to learning and academic success by creating systems of information, contacts, and support.

Studies show social networking sites support collaborative learning, engage individuals in critical thinking, and enhance communication and writing skills through activating members’ work in personalized environments (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Lockyer & Patterson, 2008). Benefits for language classrooms include providing constructive educational outcomes, immediate opportunities to interact with peers, instructors, and native speakers of a variety of foreign languages, and developing social pragmatic competence in communication (Blattner & Fiori, 2009).

Social networking certainly promotes collaboration as it provides opportunities for students to join new networks that can open up spaces for collaborative learning. For example, students can work together to complete a project on Facebook. Through email and instant messaging, students are able to interact with other group members, discuss the project, assign working parts and combine individual learning outcomes.

They can easily exchange ideas, share information and work together. The diversity of social networking populations provide students more opportunity to communicate with peoples from all over the world.

Importantly, multimedia learning resources and materials found online can accommodate different learning preferences and needs. With the ability to post videos, photos, and other resources, students can share content easily with others, and give feedback about resources and materials. For example, teachers could upload teaching materials (video, presentation, e-books, photos, or other materials) before class for students to preview. Students are also able to share ideas on materials which may help to promote communication.

The challenges we face while using social networking sites for educational purpose are clear. Most students are used to logging on to social networking sites to communicate on a daily basis. As soon as they log in, they are inundated with information, potentially disrupting their study schedule or even making them forget the initial learning purpose.

Under these circumstances, social networking sites are no longer a learning tool, but a distraction from the right track. Students need to be able to use computers and other technologies with flexibility, creativity, and purpose.

How we address this problem depends on how we teach our digital-age students to properly use technology. Today, students are born in a digitally-infused society. It remains important for them to use technology with a sense of personal and community responsibility.

If schools exclude the technology and teachers do not help students use technology in healthy and smart ways, where can our students acquire virtual community citizenship? Teachers should integrate social networking sites into teaching and learning contexts as a proactive way to start helping students to gain digital citizenship and information literacy. Students need to be able to recognize the learning opportunities and use technologies as part of the process to accomplish learning goals. Social networking sites provide an opportunity for both students and educators to learn to solve problems together in a technological world.

Another challenge teachers face is the need to constantly learn new technology. There is widespread agreement among educators that all students need to be proficient computer users. However, in many schools, teachers and students still use computers only as the equivalent of flash cards and electronic worksheets.

For teachers, the new challenge is not just to be a master of Microsoft Office software or basic word processing. One of the reasons why teachers reject social networking sites is the fear that the unfamiliar technology will cause an uncontrolled situation in the classroom. If the productive side of technology use is neglected in the general curriculum, how can educators help students to acquire the necessary skills to survive in our society? Even when students acquire isolated skills and tools, they may lack an understanding of how to use those various skills together to complete tasks and eventually solve real life problems.

Moving from teaching isolated technological skills to an integrated approach to social networking takes a great deal of planning and effort. This is the biggest hurdle preventing us from using new technology, because social networking sites are largely user-friendly and easy to operate. Educators can easily be proficient with some effort. Roach and Beck (2012) comment that social networks offer educators a powerful tool for developing the new literacies.

They point out how the National Council of Teachers of English, NCTE (2008) suggests that 21st century readers and writers must develop proficiency with technology; solve problems collaboratively and cross-culturally; manage multiple streams of information; design and share information for global communities; and attend to the ethical responsibilities required by these complex environments (p. 253).

Social Networking Integrated into a Classroom Setting

Ms. Li is a high school history teacher. At the beginning of one semester, she created a Facebook history page for her class. She found Facebook highly useful in the following: (1) planning the class; (2) increasing student involvement; (3) implementing differentiated instruction; (4) communicating with parents; and (5) improving language development.

As a new teacher who did not have previous lessons and little experience to build upon, Li used networking to make her lesson planning more effective and efficient. First, it provided access to resources for both Li and her students. Before each class, she would publish resources on the class history page that she created for her students. The resources included electronic textbooks, historical documentary videos, historical pictures, and some links to relevant history websites.

Compared with traditional textbooks, the multimedia resources were found to be more interesting. Since students used Facebook on a daily basis, there were many chances for them to access the class history page. Second, networking assisted her in monitoring and recording student feedback and helped her make lesson plan changes. For example, before class, Li posted the objectives and background knowledge for students to make sure they were ready for new higher-level lessons.

If students found out they lacked the pre-knowledge for class, they could reply instantly. Then, she sent or posted extra resources for students or changed the class plan to a more appropriate level. Third, it saved time because it was easy to use the storage and retrieval capabilities to modify and reuse previous class plans. What was more exciting was that she did not need to save those previous documents and lesson plans herself. Facebook saved them automatically as long as she did not delete them on purpose. Therefore, there was no need to worry if her computer crashed.

Social networks increase student involvement. Effective teachers know the best way to teach is to involve as many students as possible. Facebook can help achieve this goal since some students feel more comfortable in sharing opinions online than in traditional classes. For each class, Li would prepare several questions for students to discuss. She would post early on the history page, so that students knew what they would discuss in class.

In order to encourage students’ responses, she graded the responses for credits. This not only encouraged the active involvement of each student, but also provided her with feedback about the whole class’s learning progress. In addition to information about individual student’s answers, Facebook also provided opportunities for group discussion. Li found that students were more motivated and attentive, and the feedback from all students provided invaluable information about their progress.

Facebook can help with differentiating instruction by providing alternate instructional resources. Li posted different kinds of resources for her students to choose from so they could choose their favorite learning resources. For struggling students, Li provided more primary level resources to help them to better understand the class content. It was also valuable in providing practice and reinforcement for students who needed extra help.

For example, by viewing students’ responses online, Li could identify students who were still struggling with content. She could then help those individual students with different assignments and other adjustments. Also, learning was social and more capable students assisted less capable students, particularly in language development. Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” could be advanced through the use of technology (De Costa, Clifton, & Roen, 2010). Students as online mentors can even earn community service hours.

Social networks offer tools to communicate with parents beyond e-mail, as parents are able to view class content and even class discussion as long as they are “friends” of the page. It not only encourages parental involvement in the process, but also makes home-school links more effective. Students and parents are now able to monitor missing assignments and current grades, which increases the opportunities for success.

In conclusion, social networks are a valuable 21st century literacy tool to use for educational purposes. Not only because they help promote authentic communication, practical social language development, and constructivist learning, but because they shift power to our students. Because of social networking sites, students’ voices have been heard, and their opinions have been valued.

Skeptics may dismiss Facebook and social networks as frivolous, and some educators may fear lecturing less and students learning more by themselves. We believe, as our learned society’s advocate, that educators should prepare our students for responsible digital citizenship and consider carefully the opportunities and challenges of emerging technologies, and the new literacies. Research into the impact of social networks for learning and how to integrate Facebook thoughtfully into the language curriculum are needed.

References

Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). “Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests.” The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80.

Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2006). “Reflections on pedagogy: reframing practice to foster informal learning with social software.”
Retrieved on April 14, 2012 from http://www.dream.sdu.dk/uploads/files/Anne%20Bartlett-Bragg.pdf.

Blattner, G., & Fiori, M. (2009). “Facebook in the language classroom: Promises and Possibilities.” International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6 (1). Retrieved on April 14, 2012 from http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_09/article02.htm.

Boyd, M. D., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). “Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Davis, F. D. (1989). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.” MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.

DeCosta, M, Clifton, J., & Roen, D. (2010). “Collaboration and social interaction in English Classroom.” English Journal, 99 (5) 14-21.

Lockyer, L., & Patterson, J. (2008). “Integrating social networking technologies in education: A case study of a formal learning environment.” In Proceedings of 8th IEEE International conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 529-533). Spain: Santander.

Meng Y. (2012). “An Empirical Study of the Factors Affecting SNS-based Network Learning Community Interaction.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Shaaxi Normal University, Xi’an, China.

Roach, A. K., & Beck, J. J. (2012). “Before coffee, Facebook: New literacy learning for 21st Century teachers.” Language Arts, 89 (4), 244-255.

Yue Meng is a graduate student majoring in Educational Technology at the University of North Florida for in an exchange program with Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, and China. She can be reached at [email protected].

Dr. Nile Stanley is a visiting scholar, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, China through exchange with the University of North Florida. He can be reached at [email protected].

Moving to Shift Pedagogic Mountains

Reyes Quezada and Cristina Alfaro stress the importance of developing culturally and linguistically proficient biliteracy teachers for the new generation of ELLs

In order to effectively roll out the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to teach the new generation of English Language Learners (ELLs), now more than ever, it is critical for current and future teachers to have a deep understanding of language learning research-based theory and practice.

In order to remain relevant, teachers need to be well prepared to address the linguistic and cultural diversity in their classrooms. Therefore, preparing culturally and linguistically proficient teachers is urgent.

As previous ELLs ourselves and now as biliteracy professors in teacher education we know, first hand, of the many challenges that are encountered by ELLs when learning a new language and the academic content at the same time.

Educators should recognize that ELLs are doing “double the work” of their English-fluent peers because they must learn English while learning academic content (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). For this reason, the foci of this article center on the pedagogical and ideological shift necessary to create access for ELLs to the CCCS.

New Generation of English Language Learners

Teachers need to be prepared to address the linguistic and cultural diversity in their classrooms — we cannot afford to repeat the inadequate instruction that has created Long Term English Learners. Although the majority of ELLs are born in the U.S., there is a growing number of ELLs labeled as “Long Term English Language Learners,” or students who have had the official Limited English Proficient designation for seven years or more (Olsen, 2010).

“Given the current demographic shifts in the U.S. population, it is likely that all teachers at some point in their careers will encounter students who do not yet have sufficient proficiency in English to fully access academic content in traditional classrooms. Many teachers do not have preparation to provide high-quality instruction to this population of students” (Ballantyne, K.G., Sanderman, A.R., Levy, J., 2008).

Recent studies indicate that low academic achievement among ELLs is a structural problem that must be addressed along the entire educational pipeline (Olsen, 2010).

A deliberate and strategic effort on the part of educators, specifically teachers and administrators, is necessary for improving ELLs access to the CCSS in all content areas through literacy and biliteracy development.

The new generation of ELLs enter our schools with different educational needs as well as with assets and “funds of knowledge” brought forth by the students and their families (Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N., 2005). ELLs are a heterogeneous group of students with varying degrees of primary language, English language, and academic language proficiencies.

Limited degrees of English language development (ELD) and academic language development (ALD) restrict English learners’ access to grade-level academic content areas. ELLs are a diverse group — variables that account for their diversity include: Place of Birth; Developmental Differences; Language Exposure (primary and second language); Parental Education; Community Attitudes; Socio-Economic Status; Time in the United States; and Experience in Formal Schooling (Bailey, Heritage & Butler, in press).

These are the new generation of English Learners in our American schools who need to gain access to the CCSS in order to be college- and career-ready. Imagine this scenario: “you are a teacher, counselor, or administrator; you are mindful of the students in your school whose proficiency in English is not what you want for them.

Take a moment and focus on one or two such students. The students you selected may be immigrants, they may be second-generation or third-generation residents, or they may speak a form of English considered nonstandard in some circles” (Quezada, Lindsey and Lindsey, 2012 p. 5).

What do you do with these students? How do you meet their educational, language, and cultural needs? How do you address the major shifts and the increased rigor in the CCSS for this growing population of students?

Common Core State Standards

The CCSS are deeper, wider, higher, clearer, and fewer than the previous standards. They represent an astronomical reform for K-12 education in the U.S. We are concerned with the most critical part of the CCSS; the aspect that has not yet been addressed — the implementation for ELLs.

We see this as a momentous opportunity to shift the paradigm of a largely underserved student population — Long Term English Learners constitute the most rapidly growing segment of students in schools across the nation.

Heated debates and concerns revolve around how to best implement and assess the CCSS as well as provide the needed professional development to effectively address the linguistic and cultural needs of ELLs. The educational needs of ELLs can no longer be considered a boutique proposition concentrated within a handful of states (Santos, M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Cheuk, T., 2012 p. 3).

The challenges for American teachers working with ELLs have become greater, now that the CCSS have been adopted by 46 states. The Standards provide guidelines as to what knowledge and skills are needed to succeed in English Language Arts and mathematics that will be needed as students graduate from high school and move on to college or a career. The guidelines provided fall short of providing a comprehensive support mechanism in order for ELLs to succeed. There are six major shifts in English Language Arts:

  1. Increased Reading of Information Text
  2. Text Complexity
  3. Academic Vocabulary
  4. Text Based Answers
  5. Increased Writing from Sources
  6. Literacy Instruction in all Content Areas Although these shifts are critical to the success of all students in general and ELLs in particular, we offer what we consider to be an equally important shift for educators at all levels
  7. The ideological shift.

Shift 7: The Ideological Shift


New Generation Teachers

Teachers with degrees, a multitude of professional development, and competencies have minimal academic impact when working with ELLs when beliefs about their students’ learning potential and low expectations are prevalent. The new generation of teachers must work hard to develop ideological clarity with respect to their personal and professional beliefs and core values, particularly when it comes to working with ELLs and poor children (Alfaro, 2008).

Teachers need to embrace ELLs from a constructivist perspective that view ELLs funds of knowledge — the assets and resources they bring from their individual contexts as strengths upon which to build. This ideological shift in the context of rolling out the CCSS for ELLs must be inclusive of the following five areas:

Developing Culturally and Linguistically Proficient Teachers

Shift from being a traditional teacher to a “culturally proficient biliteracy teacher” whose belief system will hold students’ cultural backgrounds of language, race, gender, and socioeconomic status as assets on which we are to construct their educational experiences” (Quezada, Lindsey and Lindsey, 2012 p. 6). It is well documented that students should be able to use their first language and incorporate their cultural aspects in class to help aid comprehension (Verplaetse & Migliacci, 2008; Crawford & Krashen, 2007), particularly in English Language Arts.

Teachers as Researchers

Shift their role from the technician who follows a one-size-fits-all curriculum to a researcher of students’ cultural and linguistic background as well as the content standards. Teachers shift from consumers of prepackaged material to producers of culturally and linguistically relevant curriculum that prepares college- and career-ready students. In this manner, teacher and student engage at a deeper, wider, greater, and higher level.

Teachers as Facilitators

Shift their role from depositors of knowledge to facilitators of knowledge as it relates to ELLs’ work in learning the language and content simultaneously. Teachers facilitate the necessary language demands, progressions, scaffolds, and supports necessary to provide access to the curriculum.

Teachers as Students/Students as Teachers

Shift to creating interactive relationships between student and teacher. Teacher creates a classroom environment in which the learning is reciprocal. A teacher/learner continually improves practice by learning from students’ success and challenges — this is a daily mindset. Conversely, students understand that as they learn they also teach their peers and their teacher. In this manner, teaching and learning becomes an authentic dialogical process.

Teachers as Collaborators

Shift from working in grade level silos to vertical and horizontal collaboration. The major change here is that teachers cannot afford to ignore what goes on in grades above and below their assignment. Similarly, content area teachers must go beyond their comfort knowledge zone to strategically integrate literacy, math, science, and social studies.

In summary, a whole child-centered approach is needed when serving ELLs as the CCSS do not meet the spirit of the policy in this aspect. This whole child-centered approach will endure policies, practices, and relationships to ensure each child, in each school, in each community, is healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged (Carter, 2010).

Although the CCSS are deeper, wider, clearer, and fewer it does not mean that they address the needs of a new generation of English Language Learners. National education reform movements do not necessarily improve schools — the teachers who teach at them do.

By creating culturally and linguistically proficient teachers who shift their role as teacher researchers, who act as teachers and students and use students as teachers and learn to be teacher collaborators, we can then ensure that each English Language Learner, challenged for long-term success in college, career, and civic life (Carter, 2011).

References

Alfaro, C. (2008). “Teacher Education Exam­ining Beliefs, Orientations, Ideologies & Prac­tices.” In Bartolome, L. (Ed), Ideologies in Education: Unmasking the Trap of Teacher Nuetrality. Vol. 319, Peter Lang Publishing Group.

Bailey, A. L., Heritage, M., & Butler, F. A. (in press). “Assessing young language learners: Developmental considerations and curricular contexts.” In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Companion to Language Assessment. New York: Wiley-Blackwell Press.

Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A.R., Levy, J. (2008). “Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity.” Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. From http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/practice/mainstream_teachers.htm.

Carter, R., G. (July, 2010). “Maximizing the impact of the common core: Is it good for kids.” Retrieved July 20, 2012 from http://www.ascd.org/news_media/Is_It_Good_for_the_Kids_Editorials/Is_It_Good_for_the_Kids_-_May_2011.aspx.

Carter, R., G. (May , 2011). “Common core at a crossroads.” Retrieved July 20, 2012 from http://www.ascd.org/news_media/Is_It_Good_for_the_Kids_Editorials/Is_It_Good_for_the_Kids_-_May_2011.aspx.

Crawford, J. & Krashen, S. (2007). English learners in American classrooms: 101
questions, 101 answers. New York: Scholastic.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (2005). “Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.” In N. González (Ed.) Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for California’s Long Term English Learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.

Quezada, L., R., Lindsey, R. & Lindsey, D. (2012). Culturally Proficient Practices: Educators Supporting English Learning Students. Corwin Press. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Santos, M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Cheuk, T. (2012). Teacher Development to Support
English Language Learners in the Context of Common Core State Standards. Stanford University Understanding Language. Available at http://ell.stanford.edu/papers.

Short, D.J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the Work: Challenges and Solutions to Acquiring Language and Academic Literacy for Adolescent English Language Learners: A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, D.C.: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Verplaetse, L.S. & Migliacci, N. (2008). “Making mainstream content comprehensible
through sheltered instruction.” in L.S. Verplaetse & N. Migliacci (Eds.) Inclusive pedagogy for English language learners. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reyes L. Quezada ([email protected]) is a professor in the Department of Learning and Teaching at the University of San Diego’s School of Leadership and Education Sciences in California.

Cristina Alfaro ([email protected]) is director of College and Community Engagement for Multilingual Initiatives and associate professor in the College of Education at San Diego State University.

Bilingualism Benefits Low-income Children

In a study published in Psychological Science, the journal of the Association for Psychological Science, Pascale Engel de Abreu of the University of Luxembourg and her colleagues examine the effects of bilingualism on the executive functioning of low income
children. “Low-income children represent a vulnerable population,” says Engel de Abreu. “Studying cognitive processes in this population is of great societal importance and represents a significant advancement in our understanding of childhood development.”

Existing research, conducted with older bilingual children and bilingual adults from middle class backgrounds, suggests that knowing two languages may have different effects on different aspects of executive functioning: while being bilingual seems to have a positive influence on the ability to direct and focus attention (control), researchers have found no such benefit for how people encode and structure knowledge in memory (representation).

Engel de Abreu and her colleagues hypothesized that this pattern would also hold for younger bilingual children who were low-income. A total of 80 second graders from low-income families participated in the study. Half of the children were first or second generation immigrants to Luxembourg, originally from Northern Portugal, who spoke
both Luxembourgish and Portuguese on a daily basis. The other half of the children lived in Northern Portugal and spoke only Portuguese.

The researchers first tested the children’s vocabularies. Both groups completed the test in Portuguese and the bilingual children also completed the task in Luxembourgish. The researchers examined how the children represented knowledge in memory, and measured the children’s memory, using two different tasks to see how much visual information the children could keep in mind at a given time.

The children then participated in two tasks that looked at their ability to direct and focus their attention when distractions were present. Although the bilingual children knew fewer words than their monolingual peers, and did not show an advantage for representation
tasks, they performed better on the control tasks than did the monolingual
children, just as the researchers hypothesized.

“This is the first study to show that, although they may face linguistic challenges, minority bilingual children from low-income families demonstrate important strengths in other cognitive domains,” says Engel de Abreu.

The findings could inform efforts to reduce the achievement gap between children of different socioeconomic backgrounds. “Our study suggests that intervention programs that are based on second language teaching are a fruitful avenue for future research,” says Engel de Abreu. “Teaching a foreign language does not involve costly equipment, it widens children’s linguistic and cultural horizons, and it fosters the healthy development of executive control.”

Acetaminophen Usage During Pregnancy May Be Linked to Language Delay

A study recently published in European Psychiatry suggests that mothers who took acetaminophen during their pregnancies had higher rates of language delays in their two-year-old daughters compared to mothers who did not. Delays, however were not seen in boys, who generally develop language at a slower rate than girls.

The study was written by researchers at Karlstad University and Lund University in Sweden, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in the U.S., and the Institute of the Ruhr-University in Germany.

The study included 754 women who enrolled in a Swedish study in allergies during their pregnancies during weeks 8-13. They were interviewed on their use of acetaminophen—an over-the-counter pain reliever and fever relief medication such as Tylenol, which is sold in the U.S. The researchers then followed up with the new mothers when their children were at 30 weeks and administered language development screening along with personal assessments of how the mothers thought their children were developing.

Researchers found that acetaminophen usage during the first trimester was fairly common, as 59% reported taking at least 1 pill during the time, while others reported taking up to 100 pills. Researchers compared mothers who had “high use” (defined as at least 6 pills) to mothers who did not take the medication.

The study defined a language delay as speaking less than 50 words. Delay was found for 64 children (8.5%) and was more common among boys (12.6%) than girls (4.1%). Further details show that girls born to the high use mothers were six times more likely to have language delays than girls whose mothers had not taken the medication at all.

Researchers are unsure as to why language delays were markedly different between girls and boys. One theory is that acetaminophen usage closes the gap between girls and boys development.

La Doppia Vita

Simona Montanari proves how an Italian-English dual-language program in Southern California is improving English literacy

In the public classrooms of Glendale Unified School District, a small part of Los Angeles is being taught language arts, math, and science in Italian nearly all day long.

More than a decade after Proposition 227 mandated that California’s English language learners be taught exclusively in English, Glendale has become one of the nation’s laboratories for dual-language programs in which instruction is delivered in two languages from kindergarten through 12th grade.

At Benjamin Franklin Magnet School, where the Italian immersion program is offered, the standard California curriculum is taught primarily in Italian during the first two years (K-1), while English instruction, initially limited to 10%, increases gradually in the following grades. From 5th grade, half of all instruction is delivered in Italian and the other half in English.

As the city with the fourth highest number of Italian Americans in the U.S. (approximately 95,300 out of a total population of 3.7 million),1 Los Angeles seriously needed this program. Recently-arrived Italians — who, unlike early immigrants, are mostly middle-class professionals working in industry, business, and academia — lamented that their children did not have the opportunity to be educated in Italian along with English like the offspring of their Spanish- or French-speaking colleagues.

At the same time, following the new-found caché in all things Italian, second-, third-, and even fourth-generation Italian Americans have become increasingly interested in reclaiming their Italian heritage and learning, or having their children learn, their ancestors’ language. Aware that Italian immersion — unlike taking Italian in high school or college — will produce high levels of bilingualism in their children, Italian American parents in Southern California have welcomed Glendale’s Italian-English dual language program.

Many were deeply committed to its creation and were a major force behind its launch in 2009. Others, through their involvement, volunteering, and fundraising, have made the program truly unique. A few years after its start, the program features an extensive library of Italian books and media; it hosts Italian-language assistants and visiting teacher-interns from Italy; and it offers a variety of afterschool and summer enrichment activities in Italian.

This is a program with few equals in the United States. As a matter of fact, despite being the fifth most studied language in higher education settings (college and graduate school) (Furman, Goldberg, & Lusin, 2007), Italian is rarely offered in elementary school and Italian immersion public programs are almost non-existent (with the exception of one in Wisconsin and one in the state of New York).

One might ask, why educate children in Italian since they will probably grow up and end up living and working in the U.S.? Today’s Italian immigrants are well aware of the reasons. Research all over the world has shown that children in long-term bilingual programs not only develop higher competence in English than children in English-only programs but they reach higher academic achievement than children educated in only one language (Lindholm-Leary, 2001).

This is because the high levels of bilingualism brought about by bilingual education produce a variety of cognitive benefits, aiding memory, problem solving, decision-making, and other brain functions (Bialystok, 2001). For instance, early bilingualism helps the child develop creative thinking — the ability to think and solve problems in ways that are original, flexible, and creative (Kharkhurin, 2010).

High proficiency in two languages also fosters metalinguistic awareness — knowledge and understanding of language(s) and its elements (Cummins, 1978). Bilingual education also leads the child to develop a deeper understanding and retention of academic content, because learning such content in two languages requires more attention and cognitive effort than learning it in just one (Hakuta & Gould, 1987).

For these reasons, dual language or immersion programs like the Italian one at Benjamin Franklin are growing in popularity. These programs constitute, in California, the new face of bilingual education without the stigma that has been traditionally associated with this type of schooling. Before 1998, when Proposition 227 was approved in California, bilingual education was often seen — and resented by some — as a form of public assistance for the sole benefit of immigrants’ children.

English language learners — or children who spoke another language upon school entry — were placed in special classrooms with similar-background children and instructed in both their home language and English. These programs, however, were segregating because they did not include native speakers of English.

In 1998, voter-approved Proposition 227 outlawed bilingual education and mandated that all English learners be placed in English-only programs. Since then, many of California’s English language learners, now almost 1.6 million or 25% of California’s school-age population, have been educated exclusively in English.

Although parents may still request that their children receive some sort of bilingual instruction, as in the case of dual-language or immersion programs, less than one-third of the state’s English language learners are enrolled in such programs, either because such bilingual resources do not exist or because English immersion is believed to be the most successful path to English language development.

Unfortunately for these children, a vast body of research (see August & Shanahan, 2006, and Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006, for a summary) has now shown that English immersion is not more successful than bilingual education in teaching English language learners. State standardized test scores from 2003 to 2010 show that the gap between English language learners and all students has widened, with their performance in English and language arts being considerably lower than all other students.

In a review of more than 500 studies on English-language learners, Goldberg (2008, p.14) concludes that “teaching children to read in their first language promotes reading achievement in English.” This is because literacy, knowledge, and skills transfer across languages (Cummins, 1979). For example, when a child learns to read from left to right in one language, he can easily transfer this knowledge to other languages with similar writing systems.

The same goes when learning to pair the letter ‘b’ with the /b/ sound (equally applicable in Italian and English, for example) or perform mathematical additions. In Goldberg’s words (2008, p. 15) “if you learn something in one language, you either already know it in (i.e., transfer it to) another language or can more easily learn it in another language.”

Therefore, although it might seem counter-intuitive, learning in one language boosts learning in the other language. Learning Italian helps children develop a better grasp of English grammar, just as learning how to play the piano enhances many other musical skills. For this reason, Goldberg (2008, pp. 42-43) concludes, “local or state policies, such as in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, that block use of primary language … are simply not based on the best scientific evidence available.”

Student data from Glendale’s Italian immersion program confirm Goldberg’s conclusion. S.C., an Italian-speaking child who started kindergarten in Fall 2009 barely speaking English, not only developed English literacy after two years of Italian immersion but, by the end of first grade, scored higher in English reading tests than her English-speaking peers.

This was not initially the case. At the end of kindergarten, thanks to the 90% instruction in her first language, S.C. could read at grade level in Italian but scored at 0.0 in the standardized STAR Reading test in English, a language that she heard little in school and at home. Over the summer, S.C.’s decoding (pairing a ‘t’ with the /t/ sound) became more automatic in Italian, making her ready to start learning to decode in another language.

By the second month of 1st grade (September 2010), she was assessed in English reading with the same standardized STAR Reading test and scored at 1.3 (3rd month of 1st grade). By November 2010, she scored at 1.6 (6th month of 1st grade). In March 2011, she scored at 2.2 (2nd month of 2nd grade).

In May 2011, her English reading score soared to 3.3 (3rd month of 3rd grade). This means that in just one year, S.C.’s English reading skills advanced of more than three years, surpassing most native English-speaking children at the same age. These results were produced while the child was being instructed in Italian 90% of the time and in English only 10%.

While it usually takes two or three years for children in dual language programs to catch up with and surpass children in English-only programs in English-language assessments (Lindholm-Leary, 2001), it is clear that all children — English speakers and learners alike — can benefit tremendously from the opportunities and challenges brought about by a bilingual education.

The Italian American community in Southern California is fortunate to have this program and should not miss the opportunity to raise its children bilingually and bi-literally. It is hoped that other language communities will follow this example and make bilingualism and bi-literacy the norm in monolingual America.

References
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Available online at www.cal.org/projects/archive/nlpreports/executive_summary.pdf
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1978). “Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9(2), 131-149.
Cummins, J. (1979). “Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.” Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251.
Furman, N., Goldberg, D., & Lusin, N. (2007). “Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, Fall 2006.” Web publication produced by The Modern Language Association of America. Available online at http://www.mla.org/pdf/06enrollmentsurvey_final.pdf
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English Language Learners. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goldenberg, C. (2008) “Teaching English Language Learners: What the research does-and does not-say.” American Education, pp. 8 – 44. Available online at www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2008/goldenberg.pdf
Hakuta, K. & Gould, L. (1987). “Synthesis of research on bilingual education.” Educational Leadership, 44, 39-45.
Kharkhurin, A.V. (2010). “Bilingual verbal and nonverbal creative behavior.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 14(2), 211-226.
Lindholm-Leary, K.J. (2001). Dual language education. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.
1 These statistics are drawn from “A Profile of Today’s Italian Americans,” A Report Based on the Year 2000 Census, compiled by the Order Sons of Italy in America, OSIA, http://www.osia.org.

Simona Montanari is Associate Professor in the Department of Child & Family Studies at California State University, Los Angeles, where she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses on language development and second language acquisition in childhood. She received a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Southern California specializing in language development in monolingual and multilingual children.

Dr. Montanari has published her research in prestigious peer-reviewed journals and she is regularly invited to present on early bilingualism and trilingualism locally and internationally. Dr. Montanari has also been involved in the creation and implementation of an Italian-English dual language program in the Glendale Unified School District, for which she continues to work as a consultant.

Advancing Dual Language Education

Jenny Muñiz summarizes the latest recommendations

Dual-language programs, which provide instruction in both English and a partner language, are rapidly emerging across the country. Yet despite their growing appeal, state and local dual-language implementation policies and practices remain inconsistent.

This makes it difficult for both new and existing dual-language programs to assess the quality of their programs and plan for improvement. The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), Dual Language Education of New Mexico (DLENM), and Santillana USA address this challenge and outline a set of quality benchmarks for dual-language programs in the newest edition of the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education.

For two decades, dual-language teachers and administrators across the country have used this resource to design new dual-language programs and to better evaluate existing ones. (In a new report, Amaya Garcia highlights the Westminster School District, which used the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education as a central resource in the design of two lauded dual-language programs.)

The third edition of the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education was published this year—one decade after the publication of the second edition—and was developed with the support of practitioners, researchers, and administrators. In this revision, the authors—Elizabeth R. Howard, Kathryn J. Lindholm-Leary, David Rogers, Natalie Olague, José Medina, Barbara Kennedy, Julie Sugarman, and Donna Christian—cite up-to-date research and offer recommendations that reflect the most recent developments in the dual-language arena.

Some of the newest developments in the third edition include: 

  • Highlighting the benefit of expanding dual-language programs from pre-K through twelfth grade;
  • Outlining how programs can approach sociocultural competence;
  • Exploring the role of assessments;
  • Promoting the use of technology; and
  • Proposing ways to safeguard access to dual-language programs for English learners.

Pre-K–12 Alignment

While most dual-language programs are still found in elementary schools, dual-language programs in secondary schools have become more common in the last decade. The growth of programs for older students is due in part to the increasing number of students graduating from dual-language elementary programs and research that shows consistency and alignment are critical to the academic success of English learners.

As dual-language programs become more popular in middle schools and high schools, however, the need to carefully plan for quality implementation and strong alignment between “feeder” schools increases.

The new Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education puts more emphasis on pre-K–12 alignment (as opposed to K–8 alignment in the last edition) and recommends that, whenever possible, dual-language programs develop pre-K–12 alignment plans even before implementing their programs.

Sociocultural Competence

Of the three pillars of dual-language education, the third pillar—sociocultural competence—is considered the most overlooked. However, according to David Rogers, one of the authors, it is now gaining more traction: “We often refer to the third pillar as the forgotten goal, and districts would pass over it when they were creating their alignment, but now a lot more schools are adopting dual-language programs because of the sociocultural competence component.”

The third edition defines sociocultural competence as “a term encompassing identity development, cross-cultural competence, and multicultural appreciation.” An emphasis on this concept makes sense because when incorporated successfully it can lead to positive outcomes for the self-esteem, cross-cultural attitudes, second-language attainment, and overall academic achievement of students.

The authors include key descriptors in the third edition that provide more guidance to dual-language educators about how to systematically support the cultural and linguistic diversity of English learners while concurrently providing content instruction in both languages.

Educators seeking to reach the highest level of quality—what the third edition denotes as “exemplary practice”—in sociocultural competence must embed a variety of sociocultural strategies (e.g., identity development, cross-cultural awareness, conflict resolution, perspective taking, empathy development) into content learning at all grade levels, in all subjects, and in both languages.

To support sociocultural competence, the third edition also affirms the first pillar of dual-language education—biliteracy and bilingualism. The authors underscore the need to support “additive bilingualism” (an instructional model in which students can learn a second language while retaining the home language) by implementing cross-linguistic strategies and ensuring both program languages have equal status.

Teachers who go as far as to elevate the status of the partner language and use language as a resource to improve family and community engagement can achieve exemplary practice in this area.

Assessment and Accountability

A recent development in the dual-language arena, and the field of education more broadly, is a collective re-evaluation of assessment practices. Educators are shifting from focusing on test prep to focusing on improving instruction—a shift that has been animated by the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which replaced No Child Left Behind (NCLB) last year.

Such a change is important because the high-stakes standardized testing that NCLB popularized dramatically narrowed educators’ understanding and use of assessments by characterizing assessments only as vehicles for accountability and, often, harsh sanctions.

The third edition challenges this dominant narrative and defines assessments as what they actually are: tools for evaluating and improving instruction. One recommendation, for example, asks educators to incorporate more formative assessments in addition to summative assessments. (The purpose of the former is to continuously gather feedback and adjust instruction, and the purpose of the latter is to measure success at the end of a unit or year, such as in end-of-term standardized tests.)

The new edition also emphasizes the importance of assessing students in both languages and suggests using multiple measures in both languages when making decisions about placement for special programs (e.g., special education and gifted education).

 

Technology

Opportunities for incorporating technology in the classroom have increased with the development of new digital tools (e.g., online learning, game-based learning, interactive whiteboards). In response to this shift, the authors encourage the regular use of technology in the classroom.

Educators seeking to reach exemplary practice in this area need to develop “new, innovative, technology-based lessons” that can help students “meet content, language, and literacy standards in both program languages at all grade levels.” The authors also emphasize the need to share digital tools within and between schools.

This is an important change because evidence suggests some low-income students may not have access to technology at home. Without regular access to technology, these students can be at a disadvantage when participating in technology-rich lessons or new computer-based assessments.

Access and Advocacy

One of the drivers behind the rapid expansion of dual-language programs is their rising popularity among the parents of native English speakers who recognize the benefits of bilingualism in a globalized world.

And while dual-language programs can serve as quality enrichment opportunities for native English speakers, they are especially beneficial for English learners. Dual-language advocates are now concerned that students who need dual-language programs the most will be left behind.

José Medina, another contributor to the third edition, recognizes this risk and notes, “One of the things we [the authors] target in this new edition is the idea of privilege in dual-language programs.”

This objective is important because, as he correctly observes, “Dual-language programs cater to parents that are most vocal, which most often are English-speaking parents.”

To address this concern, the third edition of the Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education contains specific language that underscores the importance of working with parents and communities to secure access to these programs for English learners. As Medina explains, “In this third edition the focus is not just parent involvement, but parent advocacy.”

The publication of the third edition of the Guiding Principles of Dual Language Education comes at an opportune time—as bilingual programs are expanding rapidly across the nation, in some places for the first time. The growing popularity of these programs among native-English-speaking parents and nonnative-English-speaking parents alike makes it necessary to support dual-language policymakers, administrators, and teachers in quality program implementation.

The authors of this resource hope it will do just that—and have even made the resource available for free online download. According to David Rogers, the authors have “high hopes that this document will help guide people who are implementing a dual-language program to go back with a microscope and analyze the key components of their programs to ensure they are improving.” Indeed, with the help of this resource and the hard work of dual-language educators, more dual-language students will benefit from exemplary practice.

Jenny Muñiz is a Millennial Public Policy Fellow for New America’s Education Policy program. A native of Compton, CA, Muñiz has most recently spent time working as a bilingual teacher in San Antonio Public Schools as a Teach for America corps member. This article was originally published by New America (www.newamerica.org).

References:

http://www.cal.org/resource-center/publications/guiding-principles-3

https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/educating-californias-english-learners/

http://www.cal.org/resource-center/publications/guiding-principles

http://www.lindholm-leary.com/resources/review_research.pdf

http://www.cal.org/cal-susa/online/dle-intro/

https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-explainers/early-ed-prek-12/dual-language-learners/instructional-models-dlls/additive-bilingual-program-models/

http://www.cal.org/resource-center/publications/guiding-principles-3rd-edition-pdf-download 

Iran Bans English From Primary Schools, Citing “Cultural Invasion”


Iran has announced that English would no longer be taught in primary schools after Islamic leaders warned that early exposure to English would help facilitate a “cultural invasion.” Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has previously expressed concern over speaking English.

The ban comes as a particular surprise, as many Iranians study and speak English. Proficiency levels, however, have been on the decline. According to the EF English Proficiency Index, Iran has fallen from 28th place (of 54) in 2012, to 65th place (of 80) in 2017.

“Teaching English in government and nongovernment primary schools in the official curriculum is against laws and regulations,” said head of the state-run High Education Council, Mehdi Navid-Adham. “This is because the assumption is that, in primary education, the groundwork for the Iranian culture of the students is laid,” adding that extracurricular English classes may also be blocked.

Ayatollah Khamenei said in that speech directed to teachers, “That does not mean opposition to learning a foreign language, but (this is the) promotion of a foreign culture in the country and among children, young adults and youths.”

“Western thinkers have time and again said that instead of colonialist expansionism … the best and the least costly way would have been inculcation of thought and culture to the younger generation of countries,” Ayatollah Khamenei said, according to the text of the speech posted on Leader.ir, a website run by his office.

In a previous speech directed at teachers, Khamenei criticized English in nursery schools, stating that it was part of a greater Western move of instilling “thought and culture to the younger generation of countries.”

“These remarks do not mean terminating English language teaching at schools, but the main issue is to know our rival and how precisely the opposite party has made planning to influence the country’s future generation,” he said.

The announcement comes amid anti-government protests in Iran that began in December. The protests, which have voiced concert over Iran’s standard of living, have resulted in at least 21 deaths have 1,000 arrests.

Protection for Turkey’s ‘Bird Language’

The whistled “bird language” used by small groups of Black Sea villagers in remote northern Turkey has joined a UNESCO list of endangered languages in need of “urgent safeguarding.”

Around 10,000 people, mostly from the district of Çanakçı in the province of Giresun, currently use and understand the language, according to UNESCO.

Initially developed to allow people to communicate across steep mountain valleys, the language’s decline began to accelerate with the advent of mobile phones, which provide an easy communication alternative.

Welcoming efforts to preserve the language, Turkey’s culture minister Numan Kurtulmuş tweeted: “Whistled language, also known as bird language, which has echoed in the eastern Black Sea region for centuries, has entered the list of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding of UNESCO.”

“I congratulate my fellow Black Sea locals who have kept this culture alive,” he said.
The whistled language is commonly used in the village of Kuşköy, which translates as “bird village.” Until 50 years ago, it was widely spoken in the areas of Trabzon, Rize, Ordu, Artvin, and Bayburt, but has since either disappeared entirely or been reduced to a few words spoken by shepherds.

According to UNESCO, although the people of Çanakçı understand the importance of the language, technological developments and emigration have resulted in a “decline both in the number of people using the whistled language and the areas where it is spoken.”
“It is also clear that the new generations’ interest in whistled language has considerably diminished,” the organization said. As a consequence, the practice risks being gradually separated from its fundamental sphere of use, to become “an entertainment-oriented, artificial practice.”

The organization also lauded the language as a “strong indicator of human creativity,” as whistling sounds modulated by the fingers, tongue, teeth, lips, and cheeks are able to simulate and articulate words.

Dozens of whistled languages are found across the world, primarily in areas where steep terrain or dense forests make communication difficult over distances, such as the Atlas Mountains of North Africa, the highlands of northern Laos, or the Amazon basin in Brazil.
Since 1997, Kuşköy has held the Bird Language Festival to promote the language’s use. The district has also provided training programs to primary school pupils for the last three years.

Despite these efforts, UNESCO found that “the whistled language may soon totally disappear, unless essential safeguarding measures are undertaken using an integrated approach.”

1...208209210...332Page 209 of 332

Subscribe for exclusive content

Language Magazine is a monthly print and online publication that provides cutting-edge information for language learners, educators, and professionals around the world.

Subscribe

LanguageMagazine 2023

Language Magazine