ibidem-Press, Stuttgart

This book acknowledges the past and present Traditional Custodians of the Lands across Australia and pays respect to their Culture and Identity which has been bound up with the Land and Sea for generations.

Education can only be successful if students are met where they are,

linguistically and culturally.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments

List of Abbreviations

Preface

Chapter I Introduction

1. Background and Relevance

2. Approach and Objectives

3. Structure of the Book

Chapter II Foundations of Multicultural Classrooms

1. Language and Multilingualism

2. Culture and Multiculturalism

3. Teaching and Learning in Multicultural Classrooms

3.1 Perspectives on Diversity in Education

3.2 Implementing Bilingual and Bicultural Approaches

3.2.1 Two-Way Education

3.2.2 Immersion Education

3.3 Education Policies

Chapter III Languages and Cultures in Australia

1. Multilingualism and Multiculturalism

2. The Multicultural Australian Classroom

3. Indigenous Australia

3.1 The Bilingual Context

3.1.1 The Significance of Indigenous Languages

3.1.2 The Significance of the English Language

3.2 The Bicultural Context

Chapter IV First Nations Education in Australia

1. A History of First Nations Education

2. Foundations of Indigenous Teaching and Learning

2.1 Relationships

2.2 Storytelling and Yarning

2.3 The Concept of Shame

3. Proposed Frameworks and Pedagogies

3.1 Eight Ways of Aboriginal Learning

3.2 Culturally Nourishing Pedagogy

3.3 Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

4. Adopted Approaches in Australian Schools

4.1 Two-way Schooling

4.1.1 Two-way Bidialectal Education

4.1.2 Worawa Aboriginal College

4.2 The Stronger Smarter Approach

5. Challenges in Indigenous Australian Education

Chapter V Research Study

1. Current Research Directions

2. Objectives and Design of the Study

2.1 Procedure

2.1.1 Constructing the Interview Form

2.1.2 Transcribing the Interview Data

2.1.3 Coding the Transcripts

2.2 Sample

3. Findings

3.1 The Role of Indigenous Languages

3.1.1 Pride vs. Embarrassment

3.1.2 Recognition of Linguistic Heritage

3.1.3 Orality of Indigenous Languages

3.1.4 Code-switching

3.1.5 Language Concepts and Worldview

3.2 The Role of Indigenous Cultures

3.2.1 Pride in Culture

3.2.2 Relationship Building

3.2.3 Family and Community Involvement

3.2.4 Home Values and Worldview

3.2.5 Cultural Concepts and Learning Styles

3.3 Frequency Analyses of Language and Culture Categories

3.4 Challenges in Indigenous Education

3.4.1 Historical Burden

3.4.2 Culture-related Differences

3.4.3 Lack of Awareness and Recognition

3.4.4 Systemic Shortcomings in Education

3.4.5 Lack or Stereotypical Inclusion of Culture

3.4.6 Socio-economic and Health Parameters

3.5 Frequency Analyses of Challenge Categories

3.6 Incorporating Indigenous Perspectives

3.6.1 The Importance of Incorporating Indigenous Language and Culture

3.6.2 Strategies for Incorporating First Nations Perspectives

3.6.3 Analysis of the Honey Ant Readers Textbooks

4.1 Summary of Findings

4.2 Discussion of Findings

5. Implications for Teaching Practice

Chapter VI Conclusion and Outlook

Bibliography

Appendix: Interview Form

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to Barbara Hinger, professor of foreign language education at the University of Graz, for her continuous support and for her encouragement to conduct further research in this intriguing field. Moreover, I am thankful for the valuable feedback from Eva Maria Hirzinger-Unterrainer, professor of foreign language education at the University of Innsbruck, in connection with this book.

I am also particularly grateful for the fruitful collaboration with Australian author and linguist Margaret James, who introduced me to her ambitious projects with remote Australian communities and let me use her inspiring language learning materials for my book. Moreover, the research study would not have been possible without the generous support from Prof. Juanita Sherwood, pro-vice-chancellor of Indigenous Engagement at Charles Sturt University. In addition, I would like to thank Larry Hancock, a Gumbaynggirr language teacher in New South Wales, for allowing me to include one of the songs and lyrics he composed in the traditional Indigenous language of Gumbaynggirr in this book.

Naturally, I would like to thank all the dedicated teachers, teaching assistants, principals, and university professors who were willing to share their valuable perspectives, experiences, and time with me and thereby vitally supported the research project.

Finally, a special cheers goes to all my mates in Austria, Australia, and other parts of the world for their continuous encouragement and support. I am particularly grateful for the critical eye from my friends and colleagues Alice, Elena, James, Sandra, Magdalena, Theresa, Benny, Theresa, Veronika, Nicola, Kathrin, Grit, Sofie, Alexandria, Fabian, and Lukas in connection with this book.

Without all of these special human beings, this book would have never evolved the way it did.

You are deadly!1

1 Deadly is an expression in Aboriginal English denoting fantastic (Arthur 1996).

Muya Wajaarra1

Muyalu nyanuum-bigamba ngaanya x3

Let your light come down into me (and fill me up)

Let your breath come down into me (and fill me up)

Let your spirit come down into me (and fill me up)

Let your spirit come down into me (miilarramba ngaanya)

Wajaarra nganyu (miilarramba ngaanya)

Gayirri nganyu (miilarramba ngaanya)

(guitar, sticks)

Giidany nginu jalaawa

Giidany bulaamba jalaawa

Giidany ngujaamba jalaawa

Giidany ngaanyu jalaawa (miilarramba ngaanya)

Ngayan-nginu jalaawa

Ngayan-bulaamba jalaawa

Ngayan ngujaamba jalaawa

Ngayan ngaanyu jalaawa (miilarramba ngaanya)

Muyalu-nyanuum-bigaamba ngaanya (miilarramba ngaanya) x3

Let your light come down into me (miilarramba ngaanya)

Let your breath come down into me (miilarramba ngaanya)

Let your spirit come down into me (miilarramba ngaanya)

Muyalu nyanuum-bigaamba ngaanya (miilarramba ngaanya) x3

miilarramba ngaanya x2

Spirit Come Down2

Spirit saturate me fully x3

Let your light come down into me (and fill me up)

Let your breath come down into me (and fill me up)

Let your spirit come down into me (and fill me up)

Let your spirit come down into me (fill me)

Come down to earth into me (fill me)

Pour into me (fill me)

(guitar, sticks)

Moon descend into you (one)

Moon descend into you (two)

Moon descend into you (all)

Moon descend into me (fill me)

Sun descend into you (one)

Sun descend into you (two)

Sun descend into you (all)

Sun descend into me (fill me)

Spirit saturate me fully (fill me) x3

Let your light come down into me (fill me)

Let your breath come down into me (fill me)

Let your spirit come down into me (fill me)

Spirit saturate me (fill me) x3

fill me x2

1 Song in the traditional Indigenous language of Gumbaynggirr, a variety spoken in New South Wales; lyrics and English translation by Larry Hancock, Gumbaynggirr language teacher.

2 Song in the traditional Indigenous language of Gumbaynggirr, a variety spoken in New South Wales; lyrics and English translation by Larry Hancock, Gumbaynggirr language teacher.

List of Abbreviations

ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority

ACT Australian Capital Territory

AE Aboriginal English

ATSI Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

EFL English as a Foreign Language

ESL English as a Second Language

HARs Honey Ant Readers

IA Indigenous Australian

NAPLAN National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy

NSW New South Wales

NT Northern Territory

QLD Queensland

SA South Australia

SAE Standard Australian English

TAS Tasmania

VIC Victoria

WA Western Australia

Preface

Seeing one of your students proceed in research after having finished their diploma studies is always a pleasure for a supervisor. In her very first course on foreign language education at the University of Innsbruck, Jasmin was one of my students. Her interest in the various topics presented and discussed in the sessions was immediately observable. During her studies, Jasmin enrolled as an exchange student at the University of Technology, Sydney, where she was awarded a study abroad excellence grant. Impressed by the cultural richness and Indigenous heritage, Jasmin started to plan a research project investigating the interface of education and Indigenous cultures in Australia and decided to apply for an international research funding offered by the University of Innsbruck. Her application being successful, Jasmin returned to Australia to carry out her diploma thesis project on the very topic she presents in this book. Learning from Australians First Nations Perspectives is what Jasmin embraced to do in her exploratory, small-scale interview study with 11 experts in the field of Australian First Nations education whilst also glancing at two volumes of the Honey Ant Readers textbook series put forward by Margaret James.

All in all, it takes quite some courage and curiousness to open up to a culturally diverse and pretty different background to one’s own. Jasmin successfully stepped into that endeavor due to her goal-orientation as well as her outstandingly open-hearted and communicative qualities which made her pursue a challenging target in a self-paced way. Hence, Jasmin’s contribution offers valuable insights and fresh perspectives, strengthens research on Australian First Nations education and raises the issue of multilingual classrooms in an increasingly diverse world.

Finally, I’d like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land on which Jasmin carried out her research. I would also like to pay my respect to their Elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.

Barbara Hinger

July 2021, Graz, Austria

Chapter I

Introduction

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.

Nelson Mandela, in a speech at Madison Park High School, Boston,

23 June 1990 (Ratcliffe 2018)

Nelson Mandela, one of the most distinguished activists, politicians, and revolutionaries for freedom and equality, expresses the effectiveness and fundamental importance of education in the above quote. As a result of the possibility and responsibility of equipping learners with the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes for citizenship, and thus preparing them for participation in a global society, educators are accorded a highly significant role. As multilingualism and multiculturalism constitute increasing realities in societies and classrooms across the globe, it is of particular importance for educators to learn about the factors connected to students’ home language and culture that can facilitate or impede their learning and to revise teaching materials and methodology accordingly.

Due to my role as a teacher and teacher educator, the aspect of cultural diversity and student heterogeneity inside classrooms has always been of particular interest and relevance to me, something my work with refugee students as well as my research project in Australia certainly amplified. Originally, my genuine interest in approaches to teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms with a specific focus on First Nations education was kindled through a case study I conducted at an Aboriginal school. I explored their methodologies as an assignment during my study-abroad semester in Sydney. Later, my work in a transition class for juvenile refugee students in Austria reinforced this interest and generated the desire to provide the necessary, evidence-based underpinnings for a more equitable education system and effective classroom practice through research. This book presents a research project which investigated the inclusion of First Nations perspectives in the multicultural Australian school setting.

Prior to the composition of this book, which is based on a Diploma Thesis at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, some insights into the research findings were presented at international conferences and published as proceedings papers (refer to Peskoller [2019] for a publication in English and Peskoller [2018] for a publication in German). However, this book presents and discusses the research project in its entirety and grants full access to the data obtained from the Australian educational context.

The inclusive term Indigenous Australian is used throughout the book to pay respect to people past and present who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, the two Indigenous groups in Australia. Moreover, as “[o]ne of the great mythologies of Indigenous education and educational research is that there is one singular, homogeneous entity of the ‘Indigenous Community’” (Philips & Luke 2017, 960), the denotation First Nations Australians proves beneficial as a way of acknowledging them as the traditional inhabitants, owners, and custodians of the land and sea, while simultaneously alluding to the great diversity within Indigenous Australia. If not specifically annotated, the term Aboriginal is also used with the same inclusive and appreciative reference.

In this introductory chapter, the background and relevance of the study is discussed and its approach and objectives are briefly illustrated through a presentation of the underlying research questions. Finally, a structure of the book is provided.

1. Background and Relevance

In this day and age, numerous individuals with increasingly diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds meet and negotiate meaning on a regular basis. As the scope of multilingualism and multiculturalism within societies is increasing on a global scale, schools have developed into meeting places for a growing number of languages and cultures (Bierwirth et al. 2017). Consequently, discussions on the significance of including a variety of perspectives in classroom discourse and the imperative of ridding the latter of a prevailing monocultural straitjacket have emerged. Against the backdrop of these changing realities, authors have advocated for revisions and adaptions of current teaching methodologies and classroom materials in order to do greater justice to an increasingly diverse student population.

While certain areas of the world might have only recently experienced this global phenomenon, Australia’s society has always been characterized by multiculturalism. This reality derives from the fact that the country was initially inhabited by the already multilingual and multicultural First Nations peoples, constituting the oldest living culture in the world (ACARA, n.d.b), and evolved into an immigrant nation as a result of colonialization (Ellis, Gogolin & Clyne 2010, 441). More specifically, before European settlement started in 1788, at least 200 Indigenous languages were spoken throughout the country. Since many of these had regional dialects and varieties, an estimated 500 ways of speaking existed in Indigenous Australia. Unfortunately, due to processes of colonialization and atrocious policies of assimilation, fewer than 80 of these varieties have survived into the 21st century (Arthur 1996, 1). In 1978, Australia officially declared itself to be a multicultural nation (Liddicoat 2009, 190).

Today, First Nations Australians find themselves living a multilingual and multicultural life. On the one hand, traditional ways of knowing, being, and doing are still important for the maintenance of a strong sense of identity. On the other hand, showing an understanding of the dominant, non-Indigenous culture and being proficient English language speakers are essential requirements for Indigenous Australians to achieve success in society. For many Indigenous students, school education constitutes the main medium for becoming acquainted with the non-Indigenous language and culture.

As the development of high-quality materials and valuable approaches to teaching and learning constitutes a core endeavor in educational research, and due to the fact that multilingualism and multiculturalism have evolved into central characteristics of global societies and classrooms, this research study aims at providing insights from the learning context of Indigenous students in Australia, a country acclaimed for its linguistic and cultural diversity. Specifically, the project investigates factors connected with Indigenous Australian students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds that are essential for their learning in school, identifies related challenges for everyday schooling, and sheds light on educational approaches which experienced educators in the field propose for multicultural classrooms. At the interface of the increasingly multicultural nature of classrooms across the globe and the insights from First Nations education in Australia, the findings should be relevant to all educators striving to support their diverse students’ learning as best as possible.

2. Approach and Objectives

The research project aimed at identifying language- and culture-related factors that experienced educators in Indigenous education perceive as relevant for Indigenous learners. The study also attempted to identify existing challenges in First Nations education and to collect effective strategies for considering First Nations perspectives in teaching materials and methodology. In order to obtain the desired insights, semi-guided interviews were conducted with experts in Indigenous education. Specifically, the questions guiding the qualitative study read as follows:

 Which language- and culture-related factors do experienced educators perceive to impact Indigenous Australian students’ learning at school?

 Which challenges exist in teaching and learning with Indigenous Australian students and how can Indigenous perspectives be incorporated in teaching materials and methodology?

Multiple perspectives were collated in the study as Indigenous and non-Indigenous teachers, teaching assistants, principals, and university lecturers shared their perspectives and experiences. Substantiated insights into the multilingual and multicultural learning context of Australian First Nations students were obtained. Based on the findings from this explorative study focusing on Indigenous Australia, strategies for teaching practice in multicultural classrooms in Australia and beyond can be derived. Hence, the outcomes and implications of the study should provide assistance to all educators in a day and age where linguistic and cultural diversity has become the global norm.

3. Structure of the Book

The book consists of six chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction

An overview of the background and relevance as well as the objectives of the research study are given.

Chapter 2: Foundations of Multicultural Classrooms

The fundamental concepts of language, multilingualism, culture, and multiculturalism are defined. Subsequently, the focus shifts to multicultural classrooms starting with a discussion on perspectives on diversity in education. Then, approaches to teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms are presented and relevant education policies are outlined.

Chapter 3: Languages and Cultures in Australia

The concepts of multilingualism and multiculturalism are discussed in the context of Australia. Focusing on its First Nations, the significance of languages in Indigenous Australia is highlighted, examining both traditional Indigenous languages and varieties of English. Finally, Indigenous Australians’ ways of knowing, being, and doing are introduced and the multicultural realities of First Nations Australians are highlighted.

Chapter 4: First Nations Education in Australia

A brief historical account of First Nations education including relevant policy documents is provided and cultural foundations of Indigenous approaches to teaching and learning are explored. Moreover, proposed frameworks for Indigenous education as well as adopted approaches at specific schools in Australia are presented. Lastly, selected challenges in the field are discussed.

Chapter 5: Research Study

After a discussion of current research dimensions in First Nations education, the design and objectives of the empirical study are outlined by illustrating its underlying research questions and design. Subsequently, the findings of the qualitative research study are presented, analyzed, and interpreted. Finally, the results are discussed and implications for teaching practice in multicultural classrooms are derived.

Chapter 6: Conclusion and Outlook

The last chapter contains a concise review of the study conducted and suggests potential directions for further research in the field.

Chapter II

Foundations of Multicultural Classrooms

Since “we all see the world differently, our context and experiences are divergent, and the way we explore language is again distinctive” (Power et al. 2015, 4), this chapter defines the key concepts of language and multilingualism as well as culture and multiculturalism. Having established this fundamental terminology, perspectives on diversity in education are discussed and select approaches to teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms are explored. In conclusion, education policies affecting multicultural classrooms are addressed.

1. Language and Multilingualism

Fundamentally, languages constitute systems of interrelated signs used for the purpose of communication (Edmondson and House 2011, 7-8) and can thus be described as “fluid codes framed within social practices” (García 2009, 49). Concurrently, Eades (2013, 57) states that “language is much more than the reflection or expression of society and culture; it is a dynamic and creative instrument of social action”. Investigating its symbolic nature, Kramsch (2009, 7) highlights that language use “mediates our existence through symbolic forms that are conventional and represent objective realities” and that “construct subjective realities such as perceptions, emotions, attitudes, and values.”

In relation to the concept of language, a distinction between dialect and accent also needs to be provided at this stage. Endorsing the existence of a continuum between language varieties and dialects depending on regional, societal, political, and cultural leverages, sociolinguist Trudgill (2000, 5) provides the following definitions:

The term dialect refers, strictly speaking, to differences between kinds of language which are differences of vocabulary and grammar as well as pronunciation. The term accent, on the other hand, refers solely to differences of pronunciation, and it is often important to distinguish clearly between the two.

As the concept includes both standard and non-standard varieties of a language, Standard English should itself be regarded as a dialect of English due to its distinct grammatical and lexical features. In this context, authors have complained that standard varieties are often considered the only proper way to speak and they have accentuated the fact that a society’s values and structures are displayed in the attitudes towards non-standard varieties (e.g. Trudgill 2000, 5–9). This aspect alludes to the slow recognition of Aboriginal English as a distinct dialect of Standard Australian English (SAE), which is explored in Chapter III.3.1.

In the context of language teaching and learning, a differentiation between home, second, and foreign languages is essential. The following figure should assist readers in understanding this fundamental terminology.

Figure 1: Differentiation of the Language Concept1

In order to differentiate between the two non-native languages in Figure 1, the function and purpose of the language are decisive factors. Putting the focus on English language teaching, the acronyms ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) exemplify the two concepts. In ESL contexts, learners might still practice their L1 at home but need English as the means of communication in everyday life, as is for instance the case in Australia, Canada or the UK. The term EFL, on the contrary, pertains to contexts in which English does not play an essential role within society, as it is not necessarily required for communicative purposes or in educational settings due to other dominant languages. It is necessary to differentiate between ESL and EFL contexts, since syllabuses, classroom pedagogies and education policies usually display considerable differences (Carter & Nunan 2001, 2).

The focus is now transferred to the coexistence of two or more language varieties within one speech community or country, which is generally denoted bi- or multilingualism, respectively. In simple terms, bilinguals “use two or more languages (or dialects) in their everyday lives” (Grosjean 2010, 4). Conversely, other authors have adopted the concept of multilingualism to “describe the use of three or more languages by an individual or within a society” (Baker & Wright 2017, 431). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) defines multilingualism rather broadly as “the knowledge of a number of languages, or the co-existence of different languages in a given society” (Council of Europe 2001, 4). In addition, bidialectalism has been used to describe the “phenomenon whereby someone can communicate in more than two dialects of the same language” (Carter & Nunan 2001, 94) and can be regarded as one form of bilingualism. Finally, the concept of plurilingualism refers to an individual’s totality of linguistic resources in the CEFR (Fäcke & Meißner 2019, 2).2

Generally, different manifestations of bilingualism have been identified in the field. For instance, along with other linguists, Brown (2007) makes use of the expressions subtractive and additive bilingualism to imply the respective status and effect of the home language in and on the processes of learning a new language. In this sense, an L1 “is referred to as subtractive if it is considered to be detrimental to the learning of a second language” whereas “[a]dditive bilingualism is found where the home language is held in prestige by the community or society” (Brown 2007, 139). In this regard, García (2009, 73) addresses the deliberate encouragement that students abandon their home language in favor of the majority language in monolingual schools, thereby ensuring a subsequent monolingual generation. She identifies the treatment of Indigenous children in schools all over the world as possibly the strongest driver for subtractive bilingualism leading to the vast reduction in the number of Indigenous languages. In addition to subtractive and additive bilingualism, García (2009, 73–74) also differentiates between recursive and dynamic bilingualism in her work. As such, efforts made to revitalize traditional Indigenous languages frequently re-introduce them by assigning them new functions or contexts of use. As speakers move back and forth between different varieties depending on the setting, this form is termed recursive bilingualism. Furthermore, due to globalization and the resulting linguistic complexity in the 21st century, bilingualism and language practices constantly need to adjust to an ever-changing world of multilingual communication, hence reveal highly dynamic features. García illustrates these four types of bilingualism in the following manner (Figure 2):

Figure 2: Forms of Bilingualism3

García’s conceptualization of dynamic bilingualism is also apparent in the CEFR, which outlines the following:

[A]s an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands […], he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. (Council of Europe 2001, 4)

Investigating bilingual speakers’ usage of different language varieties, a concept of particular relevance is code-switching. This involves “the alternate use of two languages, that is, the speaker makes a complete shift to another language […] and then reverts back to the base language” (Grosjean 2010, 51–52). The term can be used to refer to changes at word, phrase or sentence level in a conversation (Baker 2011, 107). There are different reasons for bilinguals to activate their distinct language systems in this way. First and foremost, there might be a more suitable expression for a certain idea in one language that “adds a little something that is more precise than trying to find an equivalent element in the base language” (Grosjean 2010, 53). Other motives for code-switching include filling a linguistic requirement, identifying with a group or demonstrating one’s expertise (Grosjean 2010, 54–55).

According to the CEFR, “[l]anguage is not only a major aspect of culture, but also a means of access to cultural manifestations” (Council of Europe 2001, 6). Hence, the next section defines and discusses the concepts of culture and multiculturalism.

2. Culture and Multiculturalism4

Since it is “a far-reaching dynamic concept and an elaborate, ever-changing phenomenon” (Wintergerst & McVeigh 2011, 3) an abundance of understandings and definitions of the concept of culture exists. Despite it being one of the most frequently used expressions in the social sciences and humanities, culture is also one of the most underdetermined concepts in everyday language use, connoting different phenomena in different contexts and fields of research (Surkamp 2017, 179). Accordingly, Baker (2015, 46) elucidates that “our definitions of culture will always be partial and open to revision and change.” Despite the complexity of the field, this chapter includes and discusses select efforts at a definition of both culture and multiculturalism and illustrates the understanding of culture underpinning the study.

To start with, Brown (2007, 132) outlines that “[c]ulture is a way of life. It is the context within which we exist, think, feel, and relate to others.” In contrast, Hollins (2015, 20) regards culture as emerging from people’s experience and acquired understanding “about how to live together as a community, how to interact with the physical environment, and knowledge or beliefs about their relationships or positions within the universe.” Adopting a comparative intercultural perspective, Hofstede and McCrae frame their operating definition of culture as

[t]he collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group or category of people from another. This stresses that culture is (a) a collective, not individual, attribute; (b) not directly visible but manifested in behaviors; and (c) common to some but not all people. (Hofstede & McCrae 2004, 58)

This approach exhibits similarities to the two central meanings of culture identified by Throsby (2001). On the one hand, culture is used to “describe attitudes, beliefs, mores, customs, values and practices which are common to or shared by any group.” This group “may be defined in terms of politics, geography, religion, ethnicity or some other characteristic” (Throsby 2001, 4) ensuring a sense of identity. On the other hand, culture also “has a more functional orientation, denoting certain activities that are undertaken by people, and the products of those activities, which have to do with the intellectual, moral and artistic aspects of human life” (ibid., 4). In relation to these perspectives, Baker and Wright (2017, 426) define culture as “the set of shared meanings, beliefs, attitudes, customs, everyday behavior and social understandings of a particular group, community or society.”

What can be perceived based on these preliminary elaborations is the great diversity of definitions of the concept of culture, which virtually unanimously appear to involve processes of grouping people together according to seemingly shared features and identifying dimensions that distinguish them from others (Dockery 2010, 318). While such approaches may provide comprehensible outlines of the concept, they have been criticized for adopting a simplified, static, and homogeneous understanding of culture, which, in light of the globally increasing scope of diversity in societies and classrooms, has been deemed inappropriate.

On the contrary, as “culture is constantly changing and adapting” (Yunkaporta 2020, 61), authors have advocated for the adoption of an understanding of culture as a complex and dynamic entity including a “multiple, fragmented and hybrid nature of identity” (Baker 2015, 111). In this context, Kramsch (2009, 225–226) pleads for a movement towards a late modernist approach, which abandons a focus on nations and borders, and regards culture as a “dynamic process, constructed and reconstructed in various ways by individuals engaged in struggles for symbolic meaning and for the control of identities, subjectivities and interpretations of history.” Based on this understanding, Ladson-Billings (2017, 143) also outlines that

it is important to emphasize the dynamic and fluid nature of culture that is much more than lists of “central tendencies” or worse, “cultural stereotypes.” From an anthropological perspective, culture encompasses worldview, thought patterns, epistemological stances, ethics, and ways of being along with the tangible and readily identifiable components.

Thus, Aboriginal scholar Yunkaporta (2020, 242) concludes that it is “the cultural lens that we carry everywhere with us. […] Your culture is not what your hands touch or make—it’s what moves your hands.”

As with the criticism raised in connection with the concept of culture, the definitions of bi- or multiculturalism reveal similar predicaments due to the simplifying undertone that afflicts many of them. In the Encyclopaedia of Bilingual Education, for instance, the concept of biculturalism is defined as

the ability to effectively navigate day-to-day life in two different social groups and to do so with the anticipated result of being accepted by the cultural group that is not one’s own. […] [The term] refers to the necessary knowledge, skills, and beliefs that individuals can access to participate within their own and another cultural group. (Smith 2008, 65)

Similarly, Baker and Wright (2017, 431) have recently defined multiculturalism as “[a]dopting the cultural practices associated with more than one cultural or ethnic group.” In this context, Australian linguist Eades (2013) relates the term biculturalism to the previously discussed concept of multilingualism claiming that “[m]any people are bicultural, having the ability to participate in two or more sociocultural groups—just as bilingual people can speak two or more languages, and bidialectal people can speak two or more dialects” (Eades 2013, 13).

In summary, while various definitions of the concept of culture have been suggested, this book regards culture as an open, complex, dynamic, and highly individual construct. Based on this late modernist understanding (Kramsch 2009), the term multicultural is used to describe classroom settings which are characterized by increasingly diverse ways of knowing, being, and doing. In addition, the terms bicultural as well as the plural derivative cultures are occasionally used with the same inclusive reference in order to accentuate the pluralistic, heterogeneous, and dynamic nature of culture and to emphasize the cultural diversity existing within Indigenous Australia.

3. Teaching and Learning in Multicultural Classrooms

Having defined the fundamental terminology related to the field of study, this section discusses perspectives on including learners’ various backgrounds in educational settings and subsequently presents a concise sample of existing approaches to teaching and learning. Lastly, education policies relevant for multicultural settings are outlined.

3.1 Perspectives on Diversity in Education

Fundamentally, Australian educationalist Joseph Lo Bianco (2009, 113) accentuates that “[p]erhaps the strongest indicator of the transformed realities of contemporary education in a globalised world is the depth of cultural, racial and linguistic diversity in schools.” Adding to this, the American pedagogical theorist Ladson-Billings (2017, 145) establishes that “all students have culture” and emphasizes that “their culture is a valuable, indeed necessary, starting point for learning.” On the basis of these clarifications and their significance for educational settings, all classrooms in this global day and age can be regarded as characterized by an increasing diversity, which takes a likewise increasing number of shapes and forms. In connection with diversity in school, dialectologist Yiakoumetti (2012, 1) states the following:

Research clearly demonstrates that incorporating linguistic diversity into education can lead to social, cultural, pedagogical, cognitive and linguistic advancement. In spite of this evidence, many educational contexts around the world are characterized by an unwillingness to commit to change and a stance that argues for exclusive use of a prescribed standard variety in the classroom.

Referring to this criticism, Dooley (2009, 75) insists on the need for educators to consider that, for learners, “[u]nderstanding what the teacher says or what is written in texts used in class is a key to academic engagement. Yet, for students who are learning the medium of instruction as an additional language, understanding is often elusive.” The transition from the spoken to the written word has been identified as an encumbrance for many bilingual students (Windle 2009, 97–98). Apart from linguistic impediments, culture-related obstacles in diverse classroom settings have been identified, lying in the fact that students reveal “a range of abilities and varying degrees of familiarity with the school context in which they find themselves” (Gearon 2009, 210). In other words, students in one classroom might show drastically divergent views on education and might connect different values, expectations, and functions with schooling in general. In summary, Windle (2009, 96) observes that students frequently “tend to devalue their linguistic and cultural resources, rather than seeing them as resources for learning. For many […] students, bilingualism appears to be a burden rather than an advantage in their engagement with school.”

As a consequence, Gearon emphasizes the necessity for teachers, especially in the context of foreign language education, to understand the mechanisms and ramifications of certain factors in connection with teaching and learning, and to adapt their strategies accordingly to support both language learning and intercultural learning (2009, 210). Subsequently, Windle (2009, 106–107) illustrates the following modes of behavior required from instructors in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. First, teachers need to disregard the common misconception that bilingualism is the primary cause of low academic achievement. Additionally, they need to design effective approaches to teaching and learning while striving to comprehend the individual student’s identity and cultural framework. Doing so can help build a solid foundation of mutual understanding and a connection between students and teachers.

Building on Windle’s (2009) plea, however, Ladson-Billings (2017, 145) has underscored the predominantly defective understanding of teachers’ own backgrounds and identities as an obstacle. Linking this identified shortcoming with the fundamental objectives of education, Watkins et al. (2016, 62) argue the following:

With schools as important sites in which values and understandings around cultural diversity are formed, it is imperative that teachers possess the necessary professional capacities to assist students in making sense of the multicultural society in which they live ensuring a sense of civic belonging and social inclusion that provide the basis for an equitable and fair polity.

Specifically, Ladson-Billings (2017, 145) argues that learners need to develop a multicultural perspective through schooling which entails that students “broaden their cultural repertoires so that they can operate more easily in a world that is globally interconnected.” Therefore, Boon and Lewthwaite (2016, 468) affirm that teaching staff at educational institutions is required to be culturally competent and needs to possess “the knowledge and skills to effectively teach diverse groups of students.”

Specifically investigating contexts in which Standard English is the dominant linguistic variety, Ball and Bernhardt (2012, 209) suggest that “[a] first step that schools […] can take is to acknowledge the validity of children’s particular English dialect. This acknowledgement can promote children’s sense of being capable learners and of belonging in the mainstream school setting.” In conclusion, Partington (2003, 42) states,

School should be a sanctuary from difficulties experienced outside the school and it should be a place where they [students] can be encouraged to succeed and take advantage of opportunities for education and training. For this to happen, however, schools need to change. This change can only occur through more effective education of teachers.

3.2 Implementing Bilingual and Bicultural Approaches

Generally, a variety of definitions and models of bilingual education and a seemingly equally extensive number of ways for classifying and grouping them exist in the field. Fundamentally, Baker (2011) and Grosjean (2010) emphasize the need for a distinction to be made between approaches in which bilingualism is encouraged and those in which a monolingual classroom is targeted (Baker 2011, 207; Grosjean 2010, 230–235). Thus, a distinction can be made between strong and weak forms of bilingual education, which can be differentiated from monolingual forms of education (Baker & Wright 2017, 198ff.); similarly, García (2009, 146–153) makes use of the terms monoglossic and heteroglossic for purposes of differentiation. A further distinction relates to the goals of bilingual education. The three most common types of bilingual education and their respective objectives are listed in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Aims of Bilingual Education Models5

Adding to this concise overview of types of bilingual education models, Table 1 depicts an extract from Baker’s comprehensive typology of bilingual education to exemplify one way of classifying the various existing approaches to, and sub-branches of, bilingual education.

Monolingual Forms of Education
Type of Program | Typical Type of Child | Language of the Classroom | Societal and Educational Aim | Aim in Language Outcome
Mainstreaming / Submersion | Language Minority | Majority Language | Assimilation | Monolingualism
Weak Forms of Bilingual Education
Type of Program | Typical Type of Child | Language of the Classroom | Societal and Educational Aim | Aim in Language Outcome
Transitional | Language Minority | Moves from minority to majority language | Assimilation/ Subtractive | Relative Monolingualism
Mainstream (with [Foreign] Language Teaching) | Language Majority | Majority language with second/foreign language lessons | Limited Enrichment | Limited Bilingualism
Strong Forms of Bilingual Education
Type of Program | Typical Type of Child | Language of the Classroom | Societal and Educational Aim | Aim in Language Outcome
Immersion | Language Majority | Bilingual with initial emphasis on L2 | Pluralism and Enrichment | Bilingualism & Biliteracy
Maintenance/ Heritage Language | Language Minority | Bilingual with emphasis on L1 | Maintenance, Pluralism and Enrichment | Bilingualism & Biliteracy
Two Way/Dual Language | Mixed Language Minority & Majority | Minority & Majority | Maintenance, Pluralism and Enrichment. | Bilingualism & Biliteracy
Mainstream Bilingual | Language Majority | Two Majority Languages | Maintenance, Pluralism and Enrichment. | Bilingualism

Table 1: A Typology of Bilingual Education6

While weak forms of bilingual education include the risk of fostering a subtractive form of bilingualism (see Figure 2), strong forms, on the contrary, encourage additive bilingualism. Connecting the concepts of language and culture, Baker (2011, 249) states that “bilingual education ideally develops a broader enculturation, a more sensitive view of different creeds and cultures” and it “will usually deepen an engagement with the cultures associated with the languages, fostering a sympathetic understanding of differences”.

Two approaches that are classified as strong forms of bilingual education in the typology presented in Table 1, immersion education and two-way education, will now be investigated more deeply. In addition, the two-way concept is explored further in connection with contemporary Australian educational discourse in Chapter IV.4.1.

3.2.1 Two-Way Education

Linguist François Grosjean (2010, 239) describes a two-way program as a form of bilingual education “that promotes bilingualism and biliteracy, as well as a very real understanding of the people and cultures involved.” Both languages are actively implemented in class and used throughout schooling with students who usually come from one of two main language groups (Grosjean 2010, 239).

In the context of the United States, Baker (2011) outlines that this strong form of bilingual education is typically applied when an almost equal number of minority and majority language speakers exists in one classroom. Baker exemplifies this with a group of learners in which one half speaks Spanish as their home language while the other half speaks English as their L1. Generally, ensuring a language balance in both status and number of speakers in order to prevent one language variety from becoming dominant is paramount in two-way schools (Baker 2011, 222–223).

The major goal of such types of schooling is to foster bilingualism, biliteracy, and biculturalism for all students. In order to achieve this aim, several practices are employed such as assigning both languages equal status, implementing a bilingual school ethos, and making use of bilingual staff members and language minority parents as teacher aides (Baker 2011, 225–226).

3.2.2 Immersion Education

Another possibility for actively acknowledging various linguistic and cultural backgrounds in educational settings is immersion education, which qualifies as a strong form of bilingual education (Baker 2011, 222) (see Table 1). Various scholars have demanded that educational approaches only qualify as immersion education if at least 50% of class time is spent on subject-specific education using a language other than students’ L1 for instruction (Surkamp 2017, 134; Tedick, Christian & Fortune 2011, 2).

Generally, Brown (2007) outlines that immersion education is predominantly adopted in additive bilingual contexts in which learners normally share the same home language and show close levels of proficiency in the target language. Frequently, the teachers in immersion education know or even share the students’ linguistic or cultural background (Brown 2007, 141). In this regard, García (2009, 149) emphasizes that “[d]espite the immersion of the child in the other language for education, the child’s home language is honoured, respected, used throughout the school, and taught right after the immersion period.”

Differentiating between programs, Tedick, Christian, and Fortune (2011) name foreign language immersion, bilingual immersion, and Indigenous language immersion as the three major types of immersion education. These as well as their respective characteristics are consolidated in Table 2:

Foreign language immersion programs (one-way) | Bilingual immersion programs (two-way) | Indigenous language immersion programs
linguistically homogenous students; speaking majority language additive bilingualism and biliteracy academic achievement fostering development of intercultural understanding | language minority and language majority students learning each other’s languages additive bilingualism and biliteracy academic achievement cross-cultural understanding | indigenous and increasingly more non-indigenous leaners revitalize endangered indigenous languages and cultures can be one- or two-way additive bilingualism and biliteracy home identity academic achievement

Table 2: Types of Immersion Education7

Building on this three-fold typology, Baker (2011) suggests a further differentiation be made according to the learners’ commencing age and the total amount of immersion time. Table 3 illustrates Baker’s approach:

AGE | Early immersion (infant stage) | Middle immersion (approx. ten years) | Late immersion (secondary level)
TIME | Total immersion commences with 100% immersion, reducing to 80% after several years and finishing junior schooling with 50% immersion in the second language per week | Partial immersion comprises 50% immersion in the second language throughout schooling

Table 3: Decisive Factors in Immersion Education8

In reference to both Table 2 and Table 3, Surkamp (2017, 134) notes that education systems in multicultural contexts favor two-way immersion programs in which teachers and learners from two language groups work together.

3.3 Education Policies

Building on several of the previously addressed challenges and realities concerning teaching and learning in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms, different education policies will now be investigated regarding their respective effects on minority language speakers, specifically looking at their situation in schools.9

In regards to teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms in a global age, Hornberger (2009, 197) observes that “[e]thnolinguistic diversity and inequality, intercultural communication and contact, and global political and economic interdependence are more than ever acknowledged realities of today’s world, and all of them put pressures on our educational systems.” Fundamentally, Serra et al. (2018, 33) establish that “the culture of an education system reproduces the culture of a society’s dominant classes—in other words, schools are microcosms of societal power structures.” Contrasting policy statements and legal documents from designated multilingual and multicultural countries across the globe, it is possible to detect greatly differing levels of importance attributed to them and varying degrees of readiness to implement educational approaches in multicultural classrooms. Hence, Churchill’s observation from the 1980s is undoubtedly still valid today:

[P]olicy making about the education of minorities must cope with an overriding fact: almost every jurisdiction in the industrialized world is failing adequately to meet the educational needs of a significant number of members of linguistic and cultural minorities. (Churchill 1986, 8)

Adding to this and to Yiakoumetti’s observation in section 3.1., Trudgill (2000, 126) states that the “teaching of minority languages […] is obviously of benefit to minority-group children, not only in the learning of reading and writing but in other subjects as well.” According to Trudgill, doing so would have “an effect of recognizing the child’s social and cultural identity and integrity and encourages the development and growth of minority cultures” (ibid., 126). In this sense, Pike (2015, 159–160) identifies the following necessity:

As majorities can so easily pay scant regard to the wishes of minorities in a democracy, it is vital to educate members of the majority about the perspectives of minorities. […] A focus on understanding and appreciating the differences between the cultural background of minority ethnic groups and the majority should not be eschewed.

Moreover, in connection with modern language education policies and globalization, García, Flores, and Woodley (2012, 72) argue the following:

As language diversity becomes more complex as a result of globalisation, […] language education policies throughout the world have often become more intolerant of language differences. Thus, more students are increasingly taught in the dominant language of the state without harnessing the linguistic resources they bring.

Also connecting the dimensions of globalization, minority language groups, and education policies, Grosjean (2010, 231) clarifies that

in areas of the world with minority groups that come from immigration, rare is the country that has a deliberate education policy of allowing minority children to acquire and retain both their home, immigrant language and the majority language, and hence a policy of fostering bilingualism.

In order to receive a better idea of what education policies might or might not undertake in regards to the educational needs of their linguistic and cultural minorities, Churchill’s (1986) framework provides an overview of the “six principal policy responses to the educational and language needs of minority groups within the OECD” (May 2012, 18).10 These are presented in ascending order according to their degree of incorporation and recognition of minority languages in Table 4.

Education Policy | Minority Aspiration
Learning deficit Socially-linked learning deficit Learning deficit from social/cultural differences | Recognition phase
Learning deficit from mother tongue deprivation | Start-up and extension phase
Private use language maintenance | Consolidation and adaption phase
Language Equality | Multilingual co-existence phase

Table 4: Stages of Education Policies for Language Minority Groups11

Stage one policies strongly advocate a fast transition to the target language and claim that the use of minority languages is the reason for the educational disadvantage and failure of minority groups. Initial minority aspirations include efforts for the recognition of the existence and specific needs of linguistically and culturally diverse people. At stage two, family and social backgrounds are identified as the main cause for educational detriments for minorities. Thus, programs and projects are enforced to help minority groups adjust to the majority language and culture. Stage three policies recognize that disadvantages for minority groups in education grow from the lack of recognition, acceptance, and a positive attitude towards their languages and cultures. Level four acknowledges that the minority language needs to be supported at least temporarily to facilitate learning and thus incorporates it in the first years of schooling. From this type of transitional bilingualism, minority aspirations might aim at extending minority language programs. At stage five, termed the private use language maintenance, minority groups obtain the right to practice their home language and culture in their private lives. A common policy response at this level includes maintenance bilingualism programs in schools, i.e. ongoing schooling in the minority language. Minority aspirations at this stage focus on the improvement of quality and the incorporation of the minority culture in education. Finally, the minority language is granted official status and autonomy at the language equality stage. The latter encompasses an allocation of language programs in several public institutions over which minority groups obtain full control and which they organize and is thus termed the multilingual co-existence phase (May 2012, 19–31).

Linking education policies with multilingual education and First Nations perspectives, Hornberger (2009, 197) expresses a “deep conviction that multilingual education constitutes a wide and welcoming educational doorway toward peaceful coexistence of peoples and especially restoration and empowerment of those who have been historically oppressed.” Thus, proceeding from an Indigenous perspective, Hornberger proposes ten certainties about multilingual education policy and practice which are relevant for any classroom at a global age (Hornberger 2009, 197):

 National multilingual language education policy opens up ideological and implementational spaces for multilingual education.

 Local actors may open up—or close down—agentive spaces for multilingual education as they implement, interpret and perhaps resist policy initiatives.

 Ecological language policies take into account the power relations among languages and promote multilingual uses in all societal domains.

 Models of multilingual education instantiate linguistic and sociocultural histories and goals in each context.

 Language status planning and language corpus planning go hand in hand.

 Communicative modalities encompass more than written and spoken language.

 Classroom practices can foster transfer of language and literacy development alongside receptive-productive, oral-written and L1-L2 dimensions, and across modalities.

 Multilingual education activates voices for reclaiming the local.

 Multilingual education affords choices for reaffirming our own.

 Multilingual education opens spaces for revitalizing the Indigenous.

With these certainties and the revealed potential of multilingual education for Indigenous voices and perspectives in mind, the next chapter focuses on languages and cultures in Australia.

1 Modified from Edmondson & House 2011, 8.

2 This book makes use of the terms multilingualism and multilingual to refer to the totality of an individual’s or society’s linguistic resources. Bilingualism and bilingual is used with the same inclusive reference.

3 Data and Images retrieved from García 2009, 72–74.

4 Within the scope of this book, an exhaustive presentation of the concept of culture cannot be given. Therefore, an overview of select discussions in the field, and the definition of culture underpinning this research study, is provided.

5 Data retrieved from Baker 2011, 207.

6 Modified from Baker & Wright 2017, 199.

7 Data retrieved from Tedick, Christian & Fortune 2011, 2.

8 Data retrieved from Baker 2011, 239.

9 A specific analysis of education policies relevant for Indigenous Australian learners can be found in IV.5.

10 OECD is an acronym for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, an international organization which was founded in 1961.

11 Modified from Churchill 1986, 157.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.