Two Diverging Roads?: The Influences of Social Contexts on L2 Learning from Sociolinguistics and Sociocultural Perspectives
Cynthia James
ccj25@cam.ac.uk
Introduction
“I make more money than my teacher!”
A young teacher once shared a story of her experience of teaching English in a school located in one of the rural parts of North Borneo, in Malaysia. It is a small school in a small village in a small town by the sea, where the community members are predominantly fishermen and seamen. The small town also happens to be one of Malaysia’s famous tourist spots. People from various parts of the world flocked into the town all year round, attracted by the surrounding beautiful islands where snorkeling, scuba-diving and island-hopping are popular activities. The young teacher thought that this would provide a perfect setting for her students to learn English as an additional language, but she soon found out that she was wrong. As a young and enthusiastic teacher, she tried to draw on her personal experiences to form the basis of her classroom interactions with her students. Her strategies revolved around the roles of English in a rapidly globalising society, and how being proficient in the language can open up opportunities for studies at tertiary level and to get good jobs. In her English lessons, she showed examples, initiated classroom discussions, used appropriate stimuli and devised learning activities that she hoped would get her points across. The teacher drew on her own social contexts to form the basis of her classroom interactions with her L2 learners.
Many of the students are skillful boatmen, and they worked part-time after school hours to ferry tourists from one island to another. They never had to communicate directly with the tourists because there would always be professional tour guides who would do the translations from English to Malay, the students’ dominant language. The teacher’s attempt at encouraging these students to learn English did not seem to bear much fruit. Upon reflection, she suspected she might have used the wrong strategy. She kept trying to tell her students how knowing an additional language can benefit them in the future, but only a handful bought it. In the words of one of the students, “I believe we make more money with our boats than you do teaching English.” The student had a point.
This anecdote about the experience of a young teacher in the rural school by the sea is an example of how social and cultural contexts can influence L2 learning. In retrospect, the teacher thinks that getting herself better-informed of her students social and cultural background and situating her interactions within their unique social context (instead of her own) could have yielded different results.
Purpose and Aims
This essay aims to explore the relevance of social contexts in L2 learning, and how different social perspectives influence L2 learning in the context of bilingual classrooms. For this purpose, the essay will be divided into three parts. The first part (Part 1) will explore how social contexts is defined from sociocultural and sociolinguistics perspectives, and the roles of social contexts in the field of second language education. This part will also examine the similarities and differences between these two approaches.
Part 2 will provide examples of the influences of social contexts on L2 learning in both approaches discussed in Part 1 through two empirical studies. The two studies adopted the sociolinguistics and sociocultural approaches, respectively. This part will provide a summary of each study with a focus on the theoretical basis, methodology, discussions of the findings and conclusions derived from each study.
Part 3 will provide a critical analysis of the two studies in relation to important elements of social contexts, such as the learner, the teacher, the language and the research element. This part will bring together all the relevance of social contexts in L2 learning from the two different perspectives.
PART 1: SOCIAL CONTEXTS AND SOCIAL LEARNING PERSPECTIVES IN L2 LEARNING
Social Context and Conditions for Second Language Learning
In the context of second language education, the term “social context” has been interpreted in many ways by various scholars. For the purpose of this essay, we will look at “social contexts” as described by Spolsky (1989) and Brown (2000). Spolsky (1989) proposed a general theory of L2 learning which contains 74 “conditions” for L2 learning. According to Spolsky, his theory was based “firmly and clearly in a social context” (p. 14), and that “language learning is individual but occurs in society, and while the social factors are not necessarily direct in their influence, they have strong and traceable indirect effects” (p. 15). Spolsky dedicated conditions 42 to 49 specifically to “social context of L2 learning” (p. 18). One of the conditions deals with how the desires to learn L2 is influenced by the number of L2 speakers present. Spolsky also posited different conditions for formal and informal L2 learning, i.e. standardisation in formal learning situations, and vitality in informal learning situations. Social context, in Spolsky’s definition, include the values and positions of L2 within a society. For instance, the “officialness” of L2 is one of the conditions that has to be taken into consideration in L2 learning. Spolsky looked at how L2 learning might be influenced by the values of L2 either as “modern” or “great tradition” in a particular society, and the L2’s communicative and culturally integrated value versus the desire to maintain one’s linguistics or cultural identity (Spolsky, 1989). In sum, Spolsky’s theory of conditions for second language learning describes “social contexts” in terms of how the position and value of an L2 in a society influence the way L2 is learned (or should be learned) within that particular society.
Brown (2000), on the other hand, made the connection between second language learning and culture. He defined culture as “an ingrained set of behaviors and modes of perception” and that culture has become “highly important in the learning of a second language” (p. 144). Brown claimed that culture and language are part of one another, intricately interwoven and therefore, inseparable. Brown argued that acquiring a second language also means acquiring a second culture. He went on to highlight some of the aspects of the relationship between L2 learning and learning the cultural context of the L2. These aspects include cultural stereotypes, attitudes, learning a second culture, sociopolitical considerations and the relationship among language, thought and culture (Brown, 2000). Brown discussed how second language learning involves the acquisition of a second identity through a process known as “acculturation,” where he described four different stages of “culture shock” (p. 148). In addition to this, Brown also explored the concept of “social distance” which examines the cognitive and affective proximity of two cultures that come into contact within an individual (pp. 147 – 149). Central to Brown’s observation of the role of culture in second language learning is the need to embrace the culture of the second language as part of the L2 learning process.
While Spolsky’s (1989) general theory of L2 learning places great importance on accommodating social contexts in creating the optimal conditions for L2 learning, Brown (2000) posited the idea of embracing the culture of the second language as part of the L2 learning process. Spolsky’s general emphasis is on how learning conditions can best be created, and is arguably suggestive of the roles of the teacher or school in ensuring successful learning. In contrast, Brown (2000) explored the idea of “acculturation”, of adopting “a second identity”, of embracing the culture of the language. These seem to lean more towards the role of the L2 learners in optimising their own learning conditions. The variety between the observations made by Spolsky (1989) and Brown (2000) is one example of how social context in L2 learning can be approached from several different angles.
The Sociolinguistics Perspective
One of the “lenses” for examining social contexts in L2 learning is the sociolinguistics perspective. The term “sociolinguistics” has been around since the 1900’s, but became widespread in the 1960’s through the works of William Labov in the US and Basil Bernstein in the UK (Meyerhoff, 2011). Sociolinguistics focuses on the spoken language, and it examines the impacts of learners’ social and cultural contexts on language learning (Holmes & Wilson, 2017). Studies on sociolinguistics aims at finding regularities between linguistic variation in language use and social meaning, i.e. examining variations within a language, or between two different languages (Adamson, 2008). Sociolinguistics is also interested in explaining and identifying the factors which influence the process of internal, external and extra-linguistic changes in languages (Spolsky, 1989). For example, sociolinguistics studies examine the factors that causes vowel shift in a language (internal change), or how characteristics of a language evolves and expands when in contact with another language in the context of bilingualism (external change), or how language is influenced by factors such as social prestige, politics or school system (extra-linguistic change). Sociolinguistics theorists claim that linguistics cannot be complete without taking the social aspect into account (Coulmas, 2013). In the context of second language learning, sociolinguistics concerns with the variability in learner language. It deals with the concept of L2 socialisation, and describes L2 learning as situated social practice (Spolsky, 1998). Fundamental to sociolinguistics perspective of L2 learning are issues of power and opportunities for learning, individuals’ social identities and self-esteem as well as factors that influence learning motivation such as affect and emotions (Geeslin & Long, 2014).
Sociolinguistics approach to L2 learning experienced rejuvenated attentions among scholars in the field after Firth and Wagner’s (1997) seminal paper which brought to light the “imbalance” caused by the dominance of psycholinguistics thinking and cognitivist perspective in second language acquisition (SLA) research (Tarone, 2007). Firth and Wagner called for a reconceptualisation of SLA research to include more studies on the impacts of social contexts on L2 learning (Firth & Wagner, 1997). In response to this, Tarone (2007) argued that several strands of SLA research preceding Firth and Wagner (1997) were doing just that. Among examples given by Tarone are variationist research on interlanguage (IL) (Preston, 1996; Selinker & Douglas, 1985; Tarone, 1983), generative linguistics (Gregg, 1990) and the multicompetence model (V. J. Cook, 1992). Tarone went on to describe the development of the theory of second language acquisition through sociolinguistically-oriented research in the decade since Firth and Wagner (1997). Current models and theories of SLA, according to Tarone, “view the learner as a social being whose cognitive processing of the L2 is affected by social interactions and social relationships with others” (p. 840). Among works highlighted are a review of Vygotskian’s dynamic of social scaffolding in L2 learning (e.g. Swain & Deters, 2007), the notion of multicompetence (V. Cook, 2006), the interactionist model (e.g. Lyster & Mori, 2006), and the variability in the grammars (Tarone, 2007).
Tarone (2007) defined sociolinguistics as a “well-established branch of linguistics that focuses on the study of the impact of society, including the impact of social context, on the way language is used” (p. 837). Instead of serving as a branch of SLA research that moves away from psycholinguistics thinking, Tarone asserted that sociolinguistics approach establishes the balance between the cognitivist approach and social contexts in language learning. For example, in the studies related to interlanguage (IL), “sociolinguistics examines the interdependence between the social contexts in which IL is used and the cognitive processes of the learner that affect language change and variation, leading to acquisition” (p. 838).
In sum, the sociolinguistics perspective claims to be the bridge between the cognitive aspects and social contexts of language learning. It acknowledges the role of cognition in language learning, but not in isolation from the unique social contexts of individual learners. In Tarone’s words “…L2 use is not just about cognition in a vacuum. Rather, learners’ L2 input and processing of L2 input in social settings are socially mediated; social and linguistic contexts affect L2 linguistic use, choice, and development, and learners intentionally assert social identities through their L2 in communicating in social context” (p. 845).
The Sociocultural Perspective
Sociocultural perspective on second language learning mainly draws on the work of Vygotsky (1980). The relevance of sociocultural theories to second language acquisition has been advocated by Lantolf and his associates (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Sociocultural theory is a constructivist theory that stresses the interaction of interpersonal (social), cultural-historical, and individual factors as key to human development (Scrimsher & Tudge, 2003). Interactions with persons in the environment stimulate developmental processes and foster cognitive growth. Kozulin (2002) summarises some of the key concepts in sociocultural theory. From sociocultural perspective, social interactions are critical – knowledge is constructed only when there are interactions between two or more individuals. Self-regulation is developed through internalisation, i.e. developing an internal representation of actions and mental operations that occur in social interactions. Human development occurs through the cultural transmission of “tools”, such as language and symbols. In sociocultural theory, language is the most critical tool that develops from social speech, to private speech, and then to covert (inner) speech.
Key constructs in sociocultural approach to second language learning involves mediated learning, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), internalisation and Activity Theory. Lantolf (2000) and Lantolf & Thorne (2006) described “mediation” as the process through which humans deploy culturally constructed artifacts, concepts, and activities to regulate (i.e. to gain control over and transform) the material world or their own and each other’s social and mental activity. There are several different types of artifacts: concrete, which refers to physical objects like a book or a table; symbolic, which includes signs and symbols like music, arts and languages; as well as internal and external artifacts, which involves interactions with semiotic symbols with the aim of establishing an indirect, mediated relationship between ourselves and the world (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Sociocultural theory emphasises the centrality of language as an artifact for mediating thought. L2 also serves as both the object of attention and a tool for mediating its acquisition.
Mediation, according to Lantolf (2000), can happen through social interaction and by means of private speech. From sociocultural perspective, language learning is dialogic, and acquisition occurs in interaction and not merely as a result of interaction (Ellis, 2008). The concept of “scaffolding” is central to mediation through social interaction. It refers to the dialogic process by which one speaker assists another in performing a function that he or she is unable to perform alone. Social interaction also involves collaborative dialogue, in which speakers are engaged in problem-solving and knowledge building. Another way mediation can occur through social interaction is through instructional conversation, which refers to a pedagogic interaction that is teacher-led and curricular-goal oriented but is conversationalist (Ellis, 2008; Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Mediation by means of private speech occurs when audible speech that is not adopted to an addressee is used for the purpose of self-mediating or language learning and practicing. Private speech may be in the forms of imitation, vicarious response and mental rehearsal. According to Lantolf (2000), private talk is intended for the speaker, and not the listener. Therefore, it is not constrained by the same norms that affect social speech.
Another important key construct in sociocultural theory is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Classic Vygotskian perspective views ZPD as the difference between the learner’s actual developmental level and the higher level of potential development (Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1980). However, neo-Vygotskian perspective that has emerged in the recent years views ZPD not as an attribute of the learner with relatively fixed dimensions, but rather as task-specific, reciprocal and open-ended, and hence, emergent. In sum, ZPD is not perceived as a place, but rather as an activity (Ellis, 2008; Fahim & Haghani, 2012; Ortega, 2009).
Internalisation in sociocultural perspective refers to the process by which a person moves from object- or other-regulation to self-regulation (Lantolf, 2000). As an example, we can picture a learner trying to learn a list of L2 vocabulary. Using a dictionary to help understand the meanings of words is “object-regulation.” Acquiring assistance from a teacher in using the dictionary is “other-regulation.” “Self-regulation” occurs when the learner is able to use the dictionary independently on his or her own. In sociocultural theory, self-regulation is achieved through imitation as a creative, transformative activity that arises in and out of interaction with others (Lantolf, 2000).
Sociocultural perspective also draws from Activity Theory as one of its key constructs. Activity Theory, which was developed in 1981, suggests that human development and behaviour is a result of engagement in activities (Leont’ev, 2002). The activities are considered to be the result of integration of biological and sociocultural motives. According to this theory, motives stem from an activity system which involves subjects, objects of learning and artifacts. Motives are influenced by many other activity systems in the wider sociocultural context (Lantolf, 2000; Leont’ev, 2002).
To sum it up, sociocultural perspective looks at learning as a socially-mediated process taking place as a result of interaction between the learner and the sociocultural environment. In sociocultural theory, language learning involves how to use language to mediate language learning. This is primarily achieved by means of verbal interaction which can be monologic or dialogic (Swain, 2000). According to sociocultural approach to language learning, learners are thought to be active meaning-makers and problem-solvers in their learning process.
Two diverging roads?
Social learning theories are perceived as relatively “new”, compared to cognitive perspective which have been deemed by some as the “traditional” theory for research in second language acquisition (Zuengler & Miller, 2006). These more recent arrivals to the field of SLA view language use in “real-world” situations as “fundamental, not ancillary, to learning” (Zuengler & Miller, 2006, p. 37). Although sociolinguistics and sociocultural perspectives may describe social contexts in L2 learning in slightly different ways, the core principle is always the same. Both rely on an understanding of the social and cultural contexts of learners as part of their language development.
Sociolinguistics theory focuses more on the language aspects (e.g. variabilities, forms, speech, grammar, interlanguage etc.), and how all these aspects impact language learning. Sociolinguistics approach acknowledges that learning of L2 can be influenced by the differences and variations caused by social and cultural backgrounds of the learners. Sociocultural theory, on the other hand, focuses on the broader cultural aspects. It focuses more on the learning of language and how learners activate their prior knowledge from personal, social and cultural experiences to facilitate L2 learning. In other words, sociolinguistics approach in L2 learning examines the impacts of social contexts on L2 learning, whereas sociocultural theory draws on social contexts to create optimal conditions for L2 learning.
PART 2: A TALE OF TWO CITIES – A LOOK INTO BILINGUAL PRESCHOOL CLASSROOMS IN TWO DIFFERENT SOCIAL CONTEXTS
The two bilingual cities
This part will provide examples of the differences between the two social learning perspectives by examining two empirical studies on the subject. The first study (Study 1), which was set in Malta, adopted the sociolinguistics perspective while the second study (Study 2) on bilingual classrooms in Israel was conducted from the sociocultural approach. Before looking at the summary of each study, we will first explore what these two studies have in common and the differences between them, as well as the reasons why both are perfect for the purpose of this essay.
Although set in two different social contexts, both studies focused on the preschool settings, with respondents within the early childhood group. Both studies focused on the same aspects of L2 learning, i.e. teachers’ strategies and the roles of mediations in bilingual preschool classrooms. Both adopted the same research method; the researchers collected ethnographic data through a series of classroom observations, as well as through semi-structured interviews. They both dealt with the beliefs and issues on bilingualism, but each analysed this aspect from slightly different perspectives. The two studies also mentioned associations between the approaches adopted and the local government policies on education.
The two studies are different in the sense that each was executed in different demographical and political backgrounds. For Study 1, the languages involved are Maltese and English while for Study 2, the languages involved are Hebrew and Arabic. Study 1 made comparisons between two teachers in two different classrooms in two different schools while Study 2 focused on one classroom with two teachers. Study 1 claimed to have adopted a more sociolinguistics approach while Study 2 leaned more towards the sociocultural approach.
The similarities and differences provide a perfect setting for discussions within the context of this essay. The similarities between the studies open up rooms for objective comparisons, while the differences can be used to shed light on the different ways sociolinguistics and sociocultural approaches can be adopted in two quite similar settings. The different ways the researchers chose to conclude their findings provide insights on the influences of social contexts in L2 learning, either from the perspective of examining the impacts of social contexts on L2 learning (sociolinguitics), or in drawing information from social contexts to create optimal L2 learning conditions (sociocultural). The references that both studies made to the “other” approach can be used to analyse how these two social learning theories cross paths and intertwine.
Study 1: Teacher agency and language mediation in two Maltese preschool bilingual classrooms – a sociolinguistics perspective (Mifsud & Vella, 2018)
This study reports on how two teachers in a Maltese bilingual preschool classrooms used mediation strategies to teach L2 in their classrooms. Mifsud & Vella (2018) described these two teachers as offering “contrasting exemplars of bilingual education” (p. 273), and cited this as a reason for their being chosen for the study. The study looks at the relationships between personal beliefs about language, classroom practices and the individual needs of learners from a sociolinguistics perspective. The main objective of the study is to examine teacher agency, and how they use this agency to implement mediation strategies in the L2 classrooms.
Malta is a bilingual country which recognizes both Maltese and English as its official languages since 1934. The English language reached Malta in the 19th and 20th century through British colonialism. It is pointed out in the study that a majority of Malta citizens consider Maltese to be their home language, while the use of English is more widespread among professionals and the highly educated. Maltese is associated with “more integrative and identity feelings”, while English is valued for its “instrumental value and prestige” (p. 274). The current educational policy promotes bilingual education in all schools, and encourages a balanced use of Maltese and English. In the context of preschool education, Mifsud & Vella reported “very little or no monitoring or guidance from the school administration”, and that teachers are “very much left to their own devices” (p. 275).
Through its research questions, the study seeks to find out the roles of teachers’ cultural background, language ideologies and beliefs on shaping their agency. It is also interested in finding out how teachers as agents mediate the children’s bilingual development by switching between languages. To answer these research questions, two classrooms were chosen as they represented “two contrasting cases of language use in Malta” (p. 276). The first classroom is English-dominant (a church school), while the other one is Maltese-dominant (a state school). The English-dominant church school aims to promote the use of English among children from different linguistic backgrounds. The Maltese-dominant state school, on the other hand, aims to provide a solid basis for Maltese, especially for those children who have Maltese as a second language. Table 1 summarises the profiles of both classrooms.
Table 1. Classroom profiles (Mifsud & Vella, 2018, p. 276)
Church school State school
Age range 4 – 5 3 – 4
Number of learners 18 16
Aims of bilingual education To promote the use of English among children from different linguistic background. The language policy is to present the Maltese language only as a subject. To provide a solid basis for Maltese, especially for those children who have Maltese as a second language.
To prepare them for formal schooling where both Maltese and English are the languages of schooling.
Teachers’ use of language Mainly English Mainly Maltese
Children’s home language Maltese – 8
English – 7
Maltese & English – 3 Maltese – 6
English – 2
Maltese & English – 4
Serbian – 1
Latvian – 2
Italian – 1
The participants for this study were two very experienced preschool teachers, Ms Carla from the church school and Ms Sabrina from the state school, as well as their students. Both teachers are bilinguals. The data for this study was collected through a number of observation sessions in the classrooms, as well as through semi-structured interviews with the teachers. Content thematic analysis was adopted to analyse the interview data. As for the classroom observations, video-recordings were coded for the information about the type of activity being carried out, the language/s used by the teacher and the learners, as well as the strategies adopted by the teachers to facilitate language learning. Table 2 captures the emergent themes from the interview data, while Table 3 summarises the language mediation strategies from video-recordings of the classroom observations.
Table 2. Emergent themes from the interview data (Mifsud & Vella, 2018, p. 278)
Theme
1. Personal use of language
2. Bilingualism in society
3. Social background and language use
4. Group membership and use of language
5. Strategies to mediate language learning
6a. Switching from one language to another
6b. Use of visuals
6c. Use of gestures
6d. Use of prosody
6e. Repetition of activities and routines
6. Reasons for switching from one language to another in classroom
7. Beliefs about bilingualism and child language development
Table 3. Observed language mediation strategies (Mifsud & Vella, 2018, p. 278)
Strategy
1 Gestures
1a Deictic gestures
1b Iconic gestures
1c Demonstrative gestures
2 Use of visuals
3 Use of prosody
4 Switching from one language to another
4a Translation of a word
4b Translation of a phrase
4c Rephrasing in the other language
4d Inter-sentential code-switching (no translation involved)
4e Intra-sentential code-switching (no translation involved)
Analysis of the data conclude that both teachers were aware of the importance of the promotion of bilingualism in children. Both disapprove of code-switching, and associated this practice with lack of competence in either language. Both teachers referred frequently to the prestige associated with the use of English by both parents and the children. The main difference between the teachers, as described by Mifsud & Vella (2018), was “the extent to which they adopted their school’s language policy” (p. 282). According to Mifsud & Vella, Ms Carla seemed to practice a more “flexible bilingualism” to facilitate language learning, in that she allowed translations from English to Maltese and often code-switch when necessary. Ms Sabrina, on the other hand, adhered strictly to the school administration’s language separation methodology. She practiced a strict “no translation” and “Maltese only” approaches in her classroom, although in some cases it seemed to have caused frustrations among her learners who struggled to follow the lessons in Maltese.
Mifsud & Vella attributed Ms Sabrina’s “inflexible” approach to bilingualism to a “lack of teacher agency”, and went on to describe the importance of “enacting a degree of agency despite constraints” (p. 282) in their discussions of the research findings. They also associated the difference between the mediation strategies adopted by Ms Carla and Ms Sabrina to the social contexts that surround the two classrooms. Ms Carla teaches English as an L2, while Ms Sabrina teaches Maltese as an L2. In both classrooms, English is perceived as “the more prestigious” language. From Mifsud & Vella’s observation, Ms Carla had an upper-hand as she was “provided with opportunities to engage in flexible bilingualism.” On the other hand, Ms Sabrina who had to teach the “less prestigious” language where English is widely spoken and highly esteemed would have to resort to “safeguarding the Maltese language in a ‘protected space’”(p. 284).
Mifsud & Vella concluded their analysis with four considerations. Firstly, they called for the need to draw more attention to “adaptive pedagogies” that are informed by a robust understanding of language and bilingualism (p. 284). Secondly, they encouraged teachers to think beyond language and acquire more understanding of power on the interactional dynamics of bilingual classrooms. They asserted that without such understanding, teachers may risk “contributing to the reproduction of broader social inequalities” (p. 285). Thirdly, they raised the need for a more “informed teacher agency”. Mifsud & Carla believed that teachers must be empowered to reflect on their agency, and how this is constrained by the structural ecologies which surround them (p. 285). Finally, Mifsud & Carla raised the implications for teacher education. Teacher education should focus on encouraging the teachers to reflect on their language use and mediation strategies to cater for the individual needs of their students.
Study 2: “There is no need for translation, she understands”: teachers’ mediation strategies in a bilingual preschool classroom – a sociocultural perspective (Schwartz & Gorbatt, 2017)
Study 2 was set in one Arabic-Hebrew preschool in Israel. This bilingual preschool applied a two-way language programme that incorporated instructions in both Hebrew (the social majority language) for the native Arabic-speaking students and Arabic (the minority language) for students whose L1 is Hebrew. The main objective of the two-way programme is “to increase intergroup communicative competence and cultural awareness” (Schwartz & Gorbatt, 2017, p. 143). The study’s main aim is to examine how teachers encourage students to use their L2 during teacher-learner conversations. The participants of this study was one Hebrew-model teacher, one-Arabic model teacher, and preschool students using either Hebrew or Arabic as their L1. The study focused on the type of language mediation that occurs between the teachers and students during lessons and other learning activities. The mediation was intended to encourage the students to use their L2.
Israel is a bilingual country, and both Hebrew and Arabic are official state languages. Hebrew is a dominant language, and is used daily in government offices, social institutions, media and popular culture. Arabic, on the other hand, is a minority language and is the mother tongue of one fifth of the Israeli population. The study pointed out that Arabic-speaking children have no trouble getting exposure to Hebrew as they are always surrounded by Hebrew-rich environment through daily conversations, TV programmes and news broadcasts. Hebrew-speaking children, on the other hand, get very little exposure to the Arabic language. This is further enhanced by the tension between the Jewish and Arab populations and the tendency to live mainly as separate communities (p. 146).
The main aim of the Center for Bilingual Education which was established in 1997 was “to promote bilingual and bicultural education and the development of diverse ethnic communities with both Jewish and Arab members” (p. 146). The Center introduced the two-way language programme, focusing on early childhood, and which involves having two teachers (one Arabic-speaking and one Hebrew-speaking) teaching in one class. To roll this out, target bilingual preschool was established in 2004 in central Israel in an Arab community. In addition to language learning, the school is supposed to provide opportunities for students to learn Arabic and Jewish cultures through daily activities in the classroom. In this setting, the two teachers teaching in the classroom are expected to coordinate their daily instructional practices and to share responsibilities.
This study adopted the mixed-methods analysis, and data was collected through field notes, video-recording of classroom observations and semi-structured interviews with the teachers. The participants were two bilingual preschool teachers: Sukainah, the Arabic-model teacher who speaks both Arabic and Hebrew fluently and has more teaching experiences; and Avital, the less-experienced Hebrew-model teacher who is highly proficient in Hebrew and was just beginning to learn Arabic at the time of this study. The students involved in this study were 28 preschool children, aged 5 to 6 years old. Out of the 28 children, 19 were L1 Arabic-users, 9 were L1 Hebrew-users. As part of their strategies to teach Hebrew, the teachers appointed six children who came to the preschool with a relatively high proficiency in spoken Hebrew as “language experts.” The main role of these language experts was to provide peer mediation to their less proficient classmates.
Analysis of the quantitative data revealed that teachers used a variety of different mediation strategies, and the frequency of the use can be arranged in the following order (most frequent to least frequent): request for the use of the L2, managing the children’s demand for direct translation, the teacher as a model for the L2 learner, and contributions from the language experts. Table 4 shows the total frequency of use for each strategy.
Table 4. Frequency of the observed strategies and number of turns (Schwartz & Gorbatt, 2017, p. 150)
Hebrew model teacher
(number of cases) Arabic model teacher
(number of cases)
Category Total number of cases Number of turns Requests for use of Hebrew Requests for use of Arabic Requests for use of Hebrew Requests for use of Arabic
Request for use of L2 43 449 1 21 4 17
Managing children’s demand for direct translation 11 95
Teacher as a model for the L2 learner 8 80
Contributions from language experts 5 73
Qualitative data analysis from the classroom observations and semi-structured interviews with the teachers provided a more in-depth understandings of each of the strategy used, how the teachers used them and why. The study found out that the teachers explicitly requested for use of the second language. In most cases, the target language was Arabic and the target population were the L1 Hebrew-using children (p. 150). The reason for this was revealed through the interview with Avital, the Hebrew-model teacher who believed that Arabic language is in a “weaker position” as the Hebrew-speaking children were not highly exposed to its use in their daily lives. Hence the explicit persistence mediation of the use of Arabic by the L1 Hebrew-using children employed by Avital, in tandem with instructions by the Arabic-model teacher, Sukainah.
As for managing the children’s demand for direct translations, the findings suggested that the demands were more frequently made by the L1 Hebrew-using children, and occurred especially at the beginning of the academic year during the adjustment period. Sukainah, the Arabic-model teacher, managed these demands by adopting the “never give in” approach (p. 153). Lesson observations revealed that she only completely switched over from Arabic to Hebrew when it was highly necessary to do so, for example to avoid misunderstandings. Through the interviews, Sukainah attributed this use of strategy to her critical attitude towards direct translation. She expressed preference for using cues through gestures and body movements to help her learners understand, rather than resorting to translating directly from Hebrew to Arabic.
Using the teacher as a model for L2 learner was another strategy employed in this bilingual classroom. Central to this strategy is the role of Avital, the Hebrew-model teacher who was just learning to speak Arabic. In lessons and classroom activities, Avital constantly modelled strategies to learn Arabic to the L1 Hebrew-speaking children. She demonstrated great interest in the language, asked questions, and learned from mistakes. Sukainah, the Arabic-model teacher, played along by addressing Avital in Arabic during shared activities and circle time. According to Schwartz & Gorbatt, “it appeared that Avital ‘anchored’ her L2 comprehension process by means of the same scaffolding tools that Sukainah used in her communication with the children” (p. 156).
The final mediation strategy used in this classroom was employing the assistance of the “language experts.” Classroom observations revealed how teachers sought the help of these advanced learners to mediate interactions with their novice counterparts. An example given in the study was when Sukainah openly asked one of the experts, Shareef, to translate a Hebrew instructions into Arabic to facilitate understandings of the novice learners. According to Sukainah, the language experts did not just help in negotiating understanding but also in establishing social interactions between the two ethnic groups. One example given was that of Jamila, a language expert, who connected the Arab and Jewish kids through games that they played together. From an excerpt of an interview with Sukainah who described the amazing contribution of Jamila: “Dondoon and Ophir, who didn’t know any words at the beginning of the year, now understand everything and are now friends with all the other children” (p. 159).
This study has successfully demonstrated the roles of mediation strategies in a bilingual classroom, and how different strategies were used through teacher-learner conversations. It also provided a lot of insights on how social and cultural backgrounds can impact the choices of mediation strategies adopted by individual teachers.