<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-box gmail-recent-news-categories-details"><p>Language in education. </p>
<h1>Recognizing multilingualism in education</h1>
<p>Although Nepal has rich linguistic and cultural resources,
educational discourses and practices hardly recognize and capitalize on
them for quality learning. Contrary to the evidence that shows strong
cognitive, academic and social importance of multilingualism in
education, schools, both public and private, are increasingly adopting
English as medium of instruction (EMI) policy.</p>
<p><img alt="" src="http://www.myrepublica.com/uploads/media/languageineducation.jpg" style="height: 433px; width: 650px;"> However,
whether this policy contributes to quality learning of children, who
speak languages other than English at home and in the community, is
questionable. British Council’s position paper on the English language
in basic education, attempts to address this question and focuses on why
it is not desirable to adopt EMI policy in the early grades. Informed
by a deep analysis of cases from multilingual countries, the report
makes the stance of British Council on language education policy clear:
EMI for the early graders whose first language is not English creates a
barrier for quality learning. </p>
<p>Although this claim has long been discussed by researchers in second
language studies, this report is quite relevant for two reasons. First,
as a position paper, this report highlights British Council’s commitment
towards equitable, inclusive and quality education by recognizing
linguistic diversity as resource for learning. This commitment is
particularly important “to prevent misconceptions arising about the
British Council seeking to promote English over mother tongue” (p. 4).</p>
<p>As stated in the report, British Council, the organization popularly
known as the promoter of English globally, embraces the fact that
“children’s participation in well-designed multilingual programmes
underpins learning in all subjects, including English, through use of
the mother tongue or a familiar indigenous language” (p.3). With this
position, British Council not only acknowledges the substantial body of
knowledge that shows the need for multilingual education for quality
learning, including English, but also, and perhaps, more importantly,
communicates its stance that multilingualism is not a problem rather a
resource for helping children learn creatively and effectively. </p>
<p>Secondly, the report focuses on educational aspect (i.e., how early
grade children learn effectively) to analyze impact of EMI policy on
students’ learning in low-income countries. Adopting the evidenced-based
approach, the report critiques a deeply rooted misconception that
considers EMI and teaching English as subject (EaS) as similar. In
low-income and multilingual countries (e.g., Nepal and India), EMI
policy is increasingly adopted with an assumption that children, who
speak languages other than English at home, learn better English if they
are taught academic content (e.g., Social Studies, Mathematics and
Science) solely in English. However, as robust research has
consistently found , teaching early grade children in a language they
are not fully competent is detrimental to learning both second language
and academic content. </p>
<p>As the report highlights, “there is little or no evidence to support
the widely held view that EMI is a better or surer way to attain
fluency in English than via quality EaS” (p. 3). Therefore, British
Council clearly states that the organization is not supporting the
practice of the early introduction of EMI policy. However, they will
continue to support and promote high quality teaching of English as a
subject.</p>
<p>Overall, British Council does not just make its position on language
in education policy explicit through this report, but also recommends
for “well-designed multilingual programmes” to strengthen effective and
equitable learning of all subjects, including English. To achieve this,
all concerned stakeholders, including parents, teachers and communities,
should work together to create a multilingual educational space where
students from all linguistic and cultural backgrounds see themselves as
source of knowledge, which they can use, with the help of teachers,
fully and creatively in learning processes.</p>
<h1>NIITE trained over 7000 teachers</h1>
<p><img alt="" src="http://www.myrepublica.com/uploads/media/vaishali.jpg" style="height: 190px; width: 150px;"></p>
<p><strong>Vaishali Pradhan<br>
Programmes Manager – English </strong></p>
<p><strong>What has British Council done for improving English Language Teaching (ELT) in Nepal? </strong></p>
<p>British Council has been working in Nepal in the areas of English
language teaching and learning and wider education and skills for the
past 60 years. We have done many projects in partnership with the
National Centre for Education Development (NCED) to support and promote
the continuing professional development of teachers.</p>
<p>We have examples of successful projects like English for Teaching,
Teaching for English (ETTE) and ETTE+ which we delivered in
collaboration with District Education Offices in different districts.
>From 2008 to 2016, more than 800 English language teachers were trained
on language and pedagogical skills.</p>
<p>We believe that in order for training to be implemented at classroom
level, it is essential to have a cadre of well-trained teacher trainers
who are not only able to plan and deliver, observe others and give
constructive feedback but are also reflective practitioners who take
responsibility for their own professional learning as well as supporting
teachers with theirs. Over the years we have been able to build the
capacity of over 175 teacher trainers, many of whom are still working as
government roster trainers for various projects. We are now working
closely with NCED to develop their ELT training curriculum and will be
piloting it in a few districts very soon. </p>
<p><strong>Which level of teachers does British Council focus on for its teacher training initiatives? What has been the impact?</strong></p>
<p>Our past ELT projects have been for teachers at primary level however
we’ve gradually shifted our focus towards teachers from grades 6 and
above. The level of teachers really depends on the content and structure
of the project being delivered. The ETTE project had a major focus on
developing the English language proficiency of the teachers themselves
whereas ETTE+ had a balance between teaching skills and language skills.
Project evaluation reports have shown major impact in both these areas
with teachers feeling confident to use English more widely as well as
being capacitated to use effective communicative teaching techniques in
their classrooms. I’ve been to many schools myself during the
implementation phases and have witnessed active and engaged classrooms.
</p>
<p><strong>You recently concluded a project that supported teachers from
English Medium Schools. How did the project go and what were the
achievements? </strong></p>
<p>Our most recent project was the National Initiative to Improve
Teaching in English (NIITE) which was developed and implemented in
partnership with NCED. It came as a result of a large number of
teachers requesting support from NCED as their school had changed to EMI
but they felt ill-equipped to deliver their lessons. </p>
<p>The objective of this project was to build teacher confidence in
their own knowledge and use of English in the classroom and to build
their awareness of language supportive approaches for teaching in
English Medium contexts. Over three years, the project trained over 7000
teachers from grades 6-8 and build the capacity of around 120 trainers.
Moving away from a traditional style of teacher training, NIITE had a
strong focus on continued support for teachers using self-access
materials, online support, classroom observations and feedback and the
use of TeachApp (mobile app).</p>
<p>As a result, a huge impact was seen on teachers using language
supportive approaches in their classrooms with Nepali increasingly being
used in a deliberate informed manner to facilitate learning, as
described and encouraged by the training. Students liked their greater
participation in lessons and wanted to learn to function in English,
though often that was difficult. So, the main achievements we see are
in the model of training and the ability of teachers to directly apply
their training in the classroom. However, we also see clearly the
significant challenges of schools shifting to EMI in this ad hoc,
unplanned way. In the future we would like to see the NIITE model used
to support schools and teachers wanting a planned transition to English
Medium Instruction. </p>
<p><strong>What level of achievements have you seen on students studying in EMI schools?</strong></p>
<p>That’s a very good question but very hard to answer because until now
there is very little data about the learning achievements of students
from EMI schools in Nepal. It is only very recently that the Ministry
of Education started collecting data to look at this. A few small scale
studies have been done in Nepal but the findings are not conclusive or
representative. </p>
<p>Internationally there is a lot of very strong evidence that shows
that millions of children are not achieving learning goals in school
because they are not being taught in a language they understand. Going
hand in hand with this, is an equally strong evidence base that clearly
shows the young children learn best in a familiar language, ideally a
home language or onethey have regular exposure to outside the classroom.
Another thing we know is that if you want to see improved achievement
in English proficiency, then being taught it well as a subject is more
likely to produce good results.</p>
<p>Many schools here have changed into EMI following parental demand and
the pressure of increasing student numbers. This demand for English is
legitimate but the answer to this isn’t necessarily English medium.
There is often a misconception that being good at English is synonymous
with English medium instruction. However, there is little or no evidence
to prove this. Evidence based research show that in low and middle
income countries, implementing EMI at primary level can actually have a
negative impact on the learning outcome of students.</p>
<p>Therefore we believe that teaching English as a subject well with
trained English teachers can be the answer to parental demands. And if
schools do wish to move to EMI at upper primary, a planned transition
needs to be in place where the ‘readiness’ of the school is assessed in
terms of teachers’ capacity in English, pedagogy and access to good
English resources. </p>
<h1><strong>Teaching in mother tongue to improve learning</strong><br>
<img alt="" src="http://www.myrepublica.com/uploads/media/lavadeoawasti1.jpg" style="height: 433px; width: 650px;"> </h1>
<p> Article 31 of the Constitution has ensured the right to education.
It guarantees the right to learn in mother tongues. It has also
entrusted the Language Commission with the responsibility of exploring
the possibility of using mother tongues. The right to get education in
mother tongues has been enshrined in the law.</p>
<p>However, the guardians want that their children be taught in the
English language. The law does not prescribe separate mediums of
learning for public and institutional schools. Therefore, the right of
every child to learn in his/her mother tongue has been guaranteed in the
Constitution. However, the institutional schools have adopted English
medium and the public schools, taking their cue from the institutional
schools, have started teaching in the English language. National and
international researches show that the children who get education in
their mother tongues perform better and their English, too, is good. </p>
<p>Dr Lava Deo Awasthi, chairperson of the Language Commission, sheds
light on the issues pertaining to learning in mother tongues. Excerpts:</p>
<p><strong>Why has it become necessary now to make mother tongues the mediums of learning at the school level?</strong></p>
<p>Not only now, we realized long ago that children should get the
opportunity to learn in their mother tongues. National and international
studies show that learning in mother tongues enhances the capacity of
children. If we want to improve their learning, we need to provide them
the opportunity to learn in their mother tongues. Researches have shown
that it will help them learn both Nepali and English better. The
Constitution, too, has guaranteed the right to get education in the
mother tongue. We are committed to abide by the Constitution. It is
necessary to teach children in their mother tongues in the schools.</p>
<p><strong>But even moral and social studies are taught in English in schools these days. What do the students learn from it? </strong></p>
<p>This is a result of misunderstanding. Moral and social education is a
completely fundamental issue. Moral education cannot be learned in
English. This is true about social education as well. Social education
works only if the students gain knowledge about their societies. Social
education and society are interlinked. Moreover, moral education is
linked to character. These subjects are related to our own society. So,
teaching these subjects in a foreign language won’t work. Social
education transforms our lives and inspires us to be good. Moral
education is not different. Learning in the mother tongue is also
related with our cultures and social values. So, these subjects should
be taught in the local language or mother tongue in schools. </p>
<p><strong>We talk about teaching in mother tongues. But in
institutional schools, all subjects except Nepali are taught in English.
In this situation, how can mother tongues be made the mediums of
teaching?</strong></p>
<p>The Language Commission has already submitted a report to the
government, addressing these issues. Our concern is that children should
learn, whether they go to public or institutional schools. It is more
important to ensure that children learn. It is meaningless if they do
not learn. We have found that children do not learn even in private
schools. It is necessary to teach them in their mother tongues. These
issues are included in the report we have submitted to the government.</p>
<p><strong>The school curriculum has a provision for teaching mother
tongue/local language/ Sanskrit of 100 marks up to Grade 8. However,
schools teach English instead of these subjects. What has the Language
Commission recommended to the government to tackle this issue?</strong></p>
<p>That’s wrong and we know that schools are doing this. We have made
recommendations to the government to address this issue. Schools are
misusing the provisions in the curriculum. The curriculum should be
strictly implemented. </p>
<p><strong>There are 123 languages in the country. Have arrangements been made to train teachers to teach in these mother tongues? </strong></p>
<p>All languages cannot be taught in a school. There are different
languages in different localities. The medium of teaching should be
based on the locality. The commission is studying this and trying to
develop a model of teaching in 8 to 10 languages. The infrastructures
and facilities available in the schools will determine how to go ahead.</p>
<p><strong>It seems quality education won’t be possible in the provinces
and the local bodies if local resources are left unused. How to tackle
this challenge?</strong></p>
<p> It has two dimensions. One, we all should abide by the Constitution
which has ensured learning in mother tongues. The local bodies or
provinces cannot go against this constitutional provision. </p>
<p>Two, they should be able to manage the local resources. That should
be a priority. So, local bodies must exploit resources to tap the
potentials of children for the development of nation.</p><p></p>
<p></p>
<div class="gmail-addthis_sharing_toolbox"></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail-add-container">
<ins id="gmail-aswift_0_expand" style="display:inline-table;border-color:currentcolor;border-style:none;border-width:medium;height:90px;margin:0px;padding:0px;width:728px;background-color:transparent"><ins id="gmail-aswift_0_anchor" style="display:block;border-color:currentcolor;border-style:none;border-width:medium;height:90px;margin:0px;padding:0px;width:728px;background-color:transparent"></ins></ins>
</div>
<br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+<br><br> Harold F. Schiffman<br><br>Professor Emeritus of <br> Dravidian Linguistics and Culture <br>Dept. of South Asia Studies <br>University of Pennsylvania<br>Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305<br><br>Phone: (215) 898-7475<br>Fax: (215) 573-2138 <br><br>Email: <a href="mailto:haroldfs@gmail.com" target="_blank">haroldfs@gmail.com</a><br><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/" target="_blank">http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/</a> <br><br>-------------------------------------------------</div>
</div>