What do you think?
Rate this book
Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire
Population mobility is at an all-time high in human history. One result of this unprecedented movement of peoples around the world is that in many school systems monolingual and monocultural students are the exception rather than the rule, particularly in urban areas. This shift in demographic realities entails enormous challenges for educators and policy-makers. What do teachers need to know in order to teach effectively in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts? How long does it take second language learners to acquire proficiency in the language of school instruction? What are the differences between attaining conversational fluency in everyday contexts and developing proficiency in the language registers required for academic success? What adjustments do we need to make in curriculum, instruction and assessment to ensure that second-language learners understand what is being taught and are assessed in a fair and equitable manner? How long do we need to wait before including second-language learners in high-stakes national examinations and assessments? What role (if any) should be accorded students’ first language in the curriculum? Do bilingual education programs work well for poor children from minority-language backgrounds or should they be reserved only for middle-class children from the majority or dominant group? In addressing these issues, this volume focuses not only on issues of language learning and teaching but also highlights the ways in which power relations in the wider society affect patterns of teacher–student interaction in the classroom. Effective instruction will inevitably challenge patterns of coercive power relations in both school and society.
320 pages, Paperback
First published September 22, 2000
9 people are currently reading
65 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 20, 2021
This is a book about bilingual education, and describes bilingual vs. immersion programmes in various contexts (e.g. in schools in the US, in Belgium, etc.). It also talks about pedagogical theories, esp. the interdependence and threshold hypotheses (...a bit too much!), but also progressive and transformative pedagogy.
What put me off was that each chapter includes too many examples and names and theories, while not offering so much information on the topic - except for chapter 10 on transformative pedagogy, which does give two practical 'to do' lists, at last (pp. 261-262, and pp. 264-266).
I would also prefer it if the book were written in a more plain language; I think that way, it would be at least 50 pages shorter...
All in all, the whole reading experience was somewhat tedious, but I could glean some interesting points about good practice in bilingual education, nevertheless.
What put me off was that each chapter includes too many examples and names and theories, while not offering so much information on the topic - except for chapter 10 on transformative pedagogy, which does give two practical 'to do' lists, at last (pp. 261-262, and pp. 264-266).
I would also prefer it if the book were written in a more plain language; I think that way, it would be at least 50 pages shorter...
All in all, the whole reading experience was somewhat tedious, but I could glean some interesting points about good practice in bilingual education, nevertheless.
May 31, 2017
Phew... Took me a while. All in all we should value and promote bilingualism and the best way to do so is the so called dual immersion programs.
"[In dual immersion programs] English-dominant and target-language-dominant students are purposefully integrated with the goals of developing bilingual skills, academic excellence, and positive cross-cultural and personal competency attitudes for both groups of students." (Lindholm-Leary, 2001 pg. 30)
Traditional pedagogy
The basic premise of the traditional model is that the teacher’s task is to impart knowledge or skills to students. This implies that the teacher initiates and controls the interaction, constantly orienting it towards the achievement of instructional objectives. The instructional content in this type of program derives primarily from the internal structure of the language or subject matter; consequently, it frequently involves a predominant focus on surface features of language or literacy and emphasizes correct recall of content taught. Content is frequently transmitted by means of highly structured drills and workbook exercises, although in many cases the drills are disguised in order to make them more attractive and motivating to students.
..It is but a short inferential leap to suggest that we are implicitly teaching dependence upon authority, linear thinking, social apathy, passive involvement, and hands-off learning’ (1983: 29).
Progressive pedagogy
Its founding principles were that students should be active learners; that they should learn by doing; that education should be through practical experience rather than having to absorb facts; that the process of learning was more important than the content; that learning had to be meaningful rather than formal; and that the most effective learning was relevant to the individual rather than institutionally imposed. (1999: 255)
With respect to language and literacy instruction, ‘whole-language’ represents the most prominent approach that draws on a progressivist philosophy. Whereas tradi- tional approaches decompose language – break it up into its component parts for easier transmission – progressive or whole-language approaches insist that language can be learned only when it is kept ‘whole’ and used for meaningful communication either in oral or written modes. Knowledge within traditional curriculum is viewed as fixed and inert whereas in progressive pedagogy it is seen as catalytic in the sense that new information acts as a catalyst for further inquiry. Learning in traditional pedagogy is largely memorization whereas in progressive pedagogy learning is constructed collaboratively through interaction with peers and teachers.
Within a progressive pedagogical approach, the teacher’s encouragement for students to use both written and oral language actively allows students’ experience to be expressed and shared within the classroom context. This expression and sharing of experience makes possible the affirmation of students’ identity. By contrast, ‘banking’ approaches usually employ textbooks that reflect only the values and priorities of the dominant group, thereby effectively suppressing the experience of culturally diverse students.
Progressive approaches highlight the role of collaborative inquiry and the construction of meaning as central to students’ academic growth. The classroom is seen as a community of learning where knowledge is generated by teachers and students together.
Transformative pedagogy
The instructional assumptions of transformative pedagogy are similar to those of progressive pedagogy. However, they diverge with respect to social assumptions. Transformative pedagogy uses collaborative critical inquiry to enable students to analyze and understand the social realities of their own lives and of their communities. Students discuss, and frequently act on ways in which these realities might be transformed through various forms of social action. Instruction aims to go beyond the sanitized curriculum that is still the norm in most schools. It strives to develop a critical literacy which Ira Shor has defined as follows:
Habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, tradi- tional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning, root causes, social context, ideology, and personal consequences of any action, event, object, process, organization, experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media, or discourse. (1992: 129)
In short, critical literacy reflects the analytic abilities involved in cutting through the surface veneer of persuasive arguments to the realities underneath and analyzing the methods and purposes of particular forms of persuasion. Critical literacy in this sense is similar to James Banks’ concept of transformative academic knowledge which he defines as ‘the facts, concepts, paradigms, themes, and explanations that challenge mainstream academic knowledge and expand and substantially revise established canons, paradigms, theories, explanations and research methods’ (1996: 9). Transformative scholars, according to Banks, ‘assume that knowledge is not neutral but is influenced by human interests, that all knowledge reflects the power and social relationships within society, and that an important purpose of knowl- edge construction is to help people improve society’ (1996: 16). Although his primary focus is on academic scholars, Banks’ description applies equally well to
the pursuit of critical literacy by school-age students under the guidance of a teacher oriented to transformative pedagogy (see, for example, Jasso & Jasso, 1995; Students for Cultural and Linguistic Democracy, 1996; Terrazas, 1995).
Fifth grade teacher Bob Peterson, one of the editors of a volume devoted to analyzing and describing transformative pedagogy entitled Rethinking Our Class- rooms, illustrates the difference between traditional, progressive, and transformative pedagogy by contrasting the likely response of a teacher from each of these orientations to a student who brings in a flyer about a canned food drive that is being organized during the December holiday season:
The traditional teacher affirms the student’s interest – ‘That’s nice and I’m glad you care about other people’ – but doesn’t view the food drive as a potential classroom activity. The progressive teacher sees the food drive as an opportunity to build on students’ seemingly innate sympathy for the down-trodden, and after a class discussion, has children bring in cans of food. They count them, categorize them and write about how they feel. The critical teacher does the same as the progressive teacher – but more. The teacher also uses the food drive as the basis for a discussion about poverty and hunger. How much poverty and hunger is there in our neighbourhood? Our country? Our world? Why is there poverty and hunger? What is the role of the government in making sure people have enough to eat? Why isn’t it doing more? What can we do in addition to giving some food? (1994: 30)
In short, transformative pedagogy shares a common instructional orientation with progressive pedagogy (with some qualifications) but incorporates an explicit focus on social realities that relate to students’ experience. It also is informed by a coherent vision of the kind of society it hopes students will promote – one founded on principles of social justice – and classroom instruction is oriented to building students’ awareness of democratic ideals and giving them the academic and critical literacy tools they will need for full participation.
"[In dual immersion programs] English-dominant and target-language-dominant students are purposefully integrated with the goals of developing bilingual skills, academic excellence, and positive cross-cultural and personal competency attitudes for both groups of students." (Lindholm-Leary, 2001 pg. 30)
Traditional pedagogy
The basic premise of the traditional model is that the teacher’s task is to impart knowledge or skills to students. This implies that the teacher initiates and controls the interaction, constantly orienting it towards the achievement of instructional objectives. The instructional content in this type of program derives primarily from the internal structure of the language or subject matter; consequently, it frequently involves a predominant focus on surface features of language or literacy and emphasizes correct recall of content taught. Content is frequently transmitted by means of highly structured drills and workbook exercises, although in many cases the drills are disguised in order to make them more attractive and motivating to students.
..It is but a short inferential leap to suggest that we are implicitly teaching dependence upon authority, linear thinking, social apathy, passive involvement, and hands-off learning’ (1983: 29).
Progressive pedagogy
Its founding principles were that students should be active learners; that they should learn by doing; that education should be through practical experience rather than having to absorb facts; that the process of learning was more important than the content; that learning had to be meaningful rather than formal; and that the most effective learning was relevant to the individual rather than institutionally imposed. (1999: 255)
With respect to language and literacy instruction, ‘whole-language’ represents the most prominent approach that draws on a progressivist philosophy. Whereas tradi- tional approaches decompose language – break it up into its component parts for easier transmission – progressive or whole-language approaches insist that language can be learned only when it is kept ‘whole’ and used for meaningful communication either in oral or written modes. Knowledge within traditional curriculum is viewed as fixed and inert whereas in progressive pedagogy it is seen as catalytic in the sense that new information acts as a catalyst for further inquiry. Learning in traditional pedagogy is largely memorization whereas in progressive pedagogy learning is constructed collaboratively through interaction with peers and teachers.
Within a progressive pedagogical approach, the teacher’s encouragement for students to use both written and oral language actively allows students’ experience to be expressed and shared within the classroom context. This expression and sharing of experience makes possible the affirmation of students’ identity. By contrast, ‘banking’ approaches usually employ textbooks that reflect only the values and priorities of the dominant group, thereby effectively suppressing the experience of culturally diverse students.
Progressive approaches highlight the role of collaborative inquiry and the construction of meaning as central to students’ academic growth. The classroom is seen as a community of learning where knowledge is generated by teachers and students together.
Transformative pedagogy
The instructional assumptions of transformative pedagogy are similar to those of progressive pedagogy. However, they diverge with respect to social assumptions. Transformative pedagogy uses collaborative critical inquiry to enable students to analyze and understand the social realities of their own lives and of their communities. Students discuss, and frequently act on ways in which these realities might be transformed through various forms of social action. Instruction aims to go beyond the sanitized curriculum that is still the norm in most schools. It strives to develop a critical literacy which Ira Shor has defined as follows:
Habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, tradi- tional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning, root causes, social context, ideology, and personal consequences of any action, event, object, process, organization, experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media, or discourse. (1992: 129)
In short, critical literacy reflects the analytic abilities involved in cutting through the surface veneer of persuasive arguments to the realities underneath and analyzing the methods and purposes of particular forms of persuasion. Critical literacy in this sense is similar to James Banks’ concept of transformative academic knowledge which he defines as ‘the facts, concepts, paradigms, themes, and explanations that challenge mainstream academic knowledge and expand and substantially revise established canons, paradigms, theories, explanations and research methods’ (1996: 9). Transformative scholars, according to Banks, ‘assume that knowledge is not neutral but is influenced by human interests, that all knowledge reflects the power and social relationships within society, and that an important purpose of knowl- edge construction is to help people improve society’ (1996: 16). Although his primary focus is on academic scholars, Banks’ description applies equally well to
the pursuit of critical literacy by school-age students under the guidance of a teacher oriented to transformative pedagogy (see, for example, Jasso & Jasso, 1995; Students for Cultural and Linguistic Democracy, 1996; Terrazas, 1995).
Fifth grade teacher Bob Peterson, one of the editors of a volume devoted to analyzing and describing transformative pedagogy entitled Rethinking Our Class- rooms, illustrates the difference between traditional, progressive, and transformative pedagogy by contrasting the likely response of a teacher from each of these orientations to a student who brings in a flyer about a canned food drive that is being organized during the December holiday season:
The traditional teacher affirms the student’s interest – ‘That’s nice and I’m glad you care about other people’ – but doesn’t view the food drive as a potential classroom activity. The progressive teacher sees the food drive as an opportunity to build on students’ seemingly innate sympathy for the down-trodden, and after a class discussion, has children bring in cans of food. They count them, categorize them and write about how they feel. The critical teacher does the same as the progressive teacher – but more. The teacher also uses the food drive as the basis for a discussion about poverty and hunger. How much poverty and hunger is there in our neighbourhood? Our country? Our world? Why is there poverty and hunger? What is the role of the government in making sure people have enough to eat? Why isn’t it doing more? What can we do in addition to giving some food? (1994: 30)
In short, transformative pedagogy shares a common instructional orientation with progressive pedagogy (with some qualifications) but incorporates an explicit focus on social realities that relate to students’ experience. It also is informed by a coherent vision of the kind of society it hopes students will promote – one founded on principles of social justice – and classroom instruction is oriented to building students’ awareness of democratic ideals and giving them the academic and critical literacy tools they will need for full participation.
January 19, 2017
A good text to access key areas of pedagogy. However, this covers all approaches to bilingual learning- so sometimes I struggle to see its exact relevance to UK context.
July 4, 2024
Jim Cummins, the man that you are
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews