Language Diversity Surveys As Agents of Change

cover

title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject publication date: lcc: ddc: subject:

next page >

Language Diversity Surveys As Agents of Change Multilingual Matters (Series) ; 102 Nicholas, Joe. Multilingual Matters 1853592331 9781853592331 9780585148915 English Linguistic minorities--Education--Great Britain, Education, Bilingual--Great Britain, Language surveys--Great Britain-History. 1994 LC3736.G6N53 1994eb 371.97/0941 Linguistic minorities--Education--Great Britain, Education, Bilingual--Great Britain, Language surveys--Great Britain-History.

cover

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i

Language Diversity Surveys as Agents of Change

< previous page

page_i

next page >

< previous page

page_ii

next page > Page ii

Multilingual Matters Approaches to Second Language Acquisition R. TOWELL and R. HAWKINS Attitudes and Language COLIN BAKER Breaking the Boundaries EUAN REID and HANS H. REICH (eds) Coping with Two Cultures PAUL A. S. GHUMAN Education of Chinese Children in Britain and the USA LORNITA YUEN-FAN WONG Equality Matters H. CLAIRE, J. MAYBIN and J. SWANN (eds) European Models of Bilingual Education HUGO BAETENS BEARDSMORE (ed.) Immigrant Languages in Europe GUUS EXTRA and LUDO VERHOEVEN (eds) Language, Minority Education and Gender DAVID CORSON Linguistic and Communicative Competence CHRISTINA BRATT-PAULSTON Opportunity and Constraints of Community Language Teaching SJAAK KROON Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Bilingual Education CHRISTINA BRATT PAULSTON The Step-Tongue: Children's English in Singapore ANTHEA FRASER GUPTA Sustaining Local Literacies DAVID BARTON (ed.) Teaching and Researching Language in African Classrooms CASMIR RUBAGUMYA (ed.) The World in a Classroom V. EDWARDS and A. REDFERN Please contact us for the latest book information: Multilingual Matters Ltd, Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon, Avon BS21 7SJ England

< previous page

page_ii

next page >

< previous page

page_iii

next page > Page iii

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS 102 Series Editor: Derrick Sharp

Language Diversity Surveys as Agents of Change Joe Nicholas MULTILINGUAL MATTERS LTD Clevedon · Philadelphia · Adelaide

< previous page

page_iii

next page >

< previous page

page_iv

next page > Page iv

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Nicholas, Joe, 1951Language Diversity Surveys as Agents of Change/Joe Nicholas p. cm. (Multilingual Matters: 102) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Linguistic minoritiesEducationGreat Britain. 2. Education, bilingualGreat Britain. 3. Language surveysGreat BritainHistory. I. Title. II. Series: Multilingual Matters (Series): 102. LC3736.G6N53 1994 371.97'0941-dc20 93-50651 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1-85359-233-1 (hbk) ISBN 1-85359-232-3 (pbk) Multilingual Matters Ltd UK: Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon, Avon BS21 7SJ. USA: 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol, PA 19007, USA. Australia: P.O. Box 6025,83 Gilles Street, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia. Copyright © 1994 Joe Nicholas. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed and bound in Great Britain by the Longdunn Press, Bristol.

< previous page

page_iv

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_v

Page v Contents Acknowledgements

vii 1

1 Introduction 2 British Language Diversity Surveys 1977-89

20

3 The College Language Diversity Survey: Introduction, Methods and Results

42

4 The College Language Survey: Discussion, Recommendations, Conclusion

61

5 Breaking the Spiral of Silence: Interview Data

76

6 Modelling Change: Theoretical Representations of Language Questionnaire Surveying

105

7 Conclusion

125

Bibliography .

149

Appendix 1. HWLC Survey materials

155

Appendix 2. Survey Report

156

Index

163

< previous page

page_v

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i

Language Diversity Surveys as Agents of Change

< previous page

page_i

next page >

< previous page

page_vii

next page > Page vii

Acknowledgements The main text of this study and opinions therein are attributable to the author alone. Nevertheless, as with other such studies many teachers and students involved in the activities described expressed ideas which contributed to the development of my own understanding. I wish to particularly to thank those who contributed to the administration of the college language survey and gave interviews. For reasons of confidentiality and the sensitive nature of some of the material recorded, however, they will remain anonymous. I am able to acknowledge the contributions of, and thank by name, my very supportive research supervisor, Dr Viv Edwards, many of whose suggestions are incorporated in this text.

< previous page

page_vii

next page >

< previous page

page_1

next page > Page 1

1 Introduction Form and Content of the Study The presence of large proportions of students, or pupils, using different languages in British education has occasioned a number of different responses, ranging from drives towards integration with the English monolingual 'majority' to multicultural and multilingual approaches. One very particular response has been the gathering of factual information answering questions about the languages used. This book is concerned with investigating the power of such surveys to do more than statistical research simply 'gathering data'. I wish to explore the potential of language use surveys to initiate awareness raising amongst teachers and other staff, and to promote other more concrete changes in institutions and educational policy. The research presented centres upon a case study of one particular language diversity survey of students in an Inner London College of Further Education, carried out in 1986/87, but also reconsiders the wider record of language diversity surveys in British education since the late seventies. The study seeks to investigate the effects of language diversity surveys, and puts forward a hypothesis as to their nature and functioning. The first section of this chapter gives an overview of the study. The second and third sections review the context of responses to language diversity in British education. The final section gives some notes on the terminology employed. The research and arguments put forward here follow on from the major work of the two language diversity survey projects based in the Institute of Education, London University: the 'Survey of Linguistic Diversity in ILEA Secondary Schools' carried out 1977-78 (Rosen & Burgess, 1980) and the Linguistic Minorities Project which functioned 1979-83 (LMP, 1985). However, the college survey research is also in the tradition of a number of small scale, largely unpublished language diversity surveys which have been set up by teachers with the support of the institutions in which they are employed attempting to answer the basic questions of what languages are used and amongst what proportion of the student community. My own role as the researcher has not been that of the sociolinguist as a consultant or observer from outside, but as a teacher involved at every level from

< previous page

page_1

next page >

< previous page

page_2

next page > Page 2

classroom to committee, attempting to observe with detachment, but often involved in ideological debate and struggles over the decisions taken about the survey or its recommendations. The approach of the research reported here is interdisciplinary. It takes three strands, from sociolinguistic surveys, from Action Research, and from Communication theory. These three forms of investigation are used to explore the ways in which the processes of a language diversity survey, as well as the data which it yields, can influence change within an institution. This research is in the tradition of ethnographic research which embraces 'reflexivity' and 'theory generation' (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983). That is to say, that the research has not begun from a rigid research design and a hypothesis to test, prove, or disprove. The research design has evolved and accommodated lessons learnt in the course of the research and responses and suggestions from the individuals and groups involved. This has often been a necessity in order to retain the consent and cooperation of the teachers, students and educational management involved. The research is theory generating in the sense that it puts forward ideas and hypotheses generated from data collected, from observation, and from monitoring of the project. The notion that the processes of carrying out a language survey, and the talk and re-examination of practice stimulated by it, are at least as valuable as the statistics collected at the end, is explored using ethnographic methods and a case study. Chapter 2 reviews the relatively short history of social surveys of linguistic diversity in Britain. The particular problems of the methodology of such surveys are elaborated (Nicholas, 1988). Chapters 3 and 4 are concerned with reporting the case study research from which the argument of this book has proceeded, the language diversity survey at Hammersmith and West London College. Chapter 3 is concerned with the aims, methods and results of the survey. Chapter 4 presents the discussion of the results, and the recommendations arising. It is notable that it reports a proportion of plurilingual language use greater than that documented in any other college language survey to date (Nicholas, 1987), although this is not of major significance for the purposes of the arguments here. Chapter 5 is based upon interviews with college staff and students following the publication of the language survey report in the college. These interviews give information on how a language diversity survey can raise awareness and effect change in an institution (Nicholas, 1989). Chapter 6 is concerned with a theoretical discussion of the various processes of discussion, agenda setting, change, and resistance to change, coming out of the observations made of the college language survey as an

< previous page

page_2

next page >

< previous page

page_3

next page > Page 3

Action Research Project. In Chapter 6, models concerned with representing the means by which communication processes and the mass media have an effect upon their audiences are put to a new use in explaining how an action research project, or a language use survey, can, through the dissemination of 'new' information and ideas, instigate change. The final chapter summarises the findings, and the hypothesis put forward on the functioning of language survey awareness raising and other 'effects' observed. Review of Responses to Language Diversity in British Education In this second section we now look at the historical background of approaches to bilingualism, or plurilingualism, in British education, with some particular reference to the Inner London Education Authority as the local context for the survey reported here. The third section of this introduction will then consider further the context of staff attitudes to, and the need for investigation, into language diversity in Further Education and the college where this research was carried out. British education has been slow to respond to the needs of bilingual pupils and students. The perceived importance of standard English as the language of the curriculum and the nation is a factor which has not favoured policies supportive of competence in other languages. The responses to bilingualism or multilingualism recorded below have taken place in the context of an educational establishment which has traditionally been monolingual and intolerant of dialect and language diversity. Inasmuch as a language policy existed in Britain during the first half of the twentieth century it focused on the unacceptibility of Celtic languages and non-standard dialects of English in education and the importance of teaching the standard. British schools were monolingual, monocultural institutions'. (Edwards, 1983) The history of the British response to bilingual education can be summarised under four headings which I will summarise and then discuss in further detail. Phase (1): (1960s/early 70s) 'Assimilation and English for immigrants' Beginning in the early sixties, language diversity in schools, and the needs of bilingual pupils, were catered for in an assimilationist context of 'education for immigrants'. One of the first responses to the presence of significant proportions of the children of immigrants in British schools was to attempt to place ceilings of around 33%, and to propose dispersal of such

< previous page

page_3

next page >

< previous page

page_4

next page > Page 4

children, possibly whether they had ESL needs or not (HMSO, 1965). English as a Second Language teaching developed in the late sixties in a somewhat haphazard way, with differences between schools and great diversity of practice among Local Education Authorities. The early 70s saw a development of ESL as more long term and complex than the temporary patching up job that had initially been envisaged. Phase (2): (late 70s) 'Multicultural education' The idea that students' different cultural backgrounds should be respected and brought into the curriculum led in some cases to limited recognition of students' use of other languages in materials and lesson content (James, 1979). The fashionable upsurge of multiculturalism dominated responses to the education of ethnic minorities, to the exclusion of language issues (James & Jeffcoate, 1981: xi). Education in the language of the minority speech community, or 'mother tongue' teaching, was resisted, even ridiculed, by the English educational establishment, but was often set up by the communities themselves in 'Saturday schools' (LMP, 1983). Phase (3): (1980s) 'Bilingual education' ESL was integrated into mainstream teaching and ESL teachers joined subject teams. A concept of supporting bilingualism in education, recognising, supporting and exploiting students' use of other languages in the classroom, e.g. through translation, became influential. The term 'Bilingual Education' was widely applied to these approaches, but these initiatives fell well short of the true denotation of this term, meaning full use and recognition of two or more languages in the education of the child (Siguan & Mackey, 1987). The 'mother tongue issue', promoted by community pressures for teaching in mother tongue, became higher in profile. Phase (4): The impact of the National Curriculum, 1989 onwards The appearance of the Cox report and the introduction of the National Curriculum by the Conservative administration in 1989, mark the beginning of a 'fourth phase' in education for bilingual/multilingual students. This phase is still taking shape, but the National Curriculum emphasis upon the teaching of standard English and the disregard of the needs of pupils with 'home languages' in addition to English have led many to see this as a move to return to the practices of the first phase described. These four phases will now be elaborated in terms of what they reveal about responses to language diversity in education.

< previous page

page_4

next page >

< previous page

page_5

next page > Page 5

1960 onwards One of the first responses to significant numbers of students using other languages was the provision of tuition in English as a Second Language. Schools came to cater for the needs of bilingual and multilingual pupils as second language learners, who were seen as needing English tuition in order to be assimilated into the mainstream (Derrick, 1966). 'Withdrawal' of ESL learners for special instruction developed and became established in the early seventies as a 'progressive' means of dealing with their 'problems', and a means of preparing them for assimilation into the mainstream. Afro-Caribbean pupils were not recognised as using another language form, and those not using required standard English in their writing were often consigned to 'remedial' classes, or even special education (Townsend, 1971; Tomlinson, 1980, Smith & Tomlinson, 1988). Thus, the provision of ESL as a response to the presence of plurilingual pupils in urban classrooms in the sixties and early seventies had two aspects: assimilation, and the perception of language diversity in schools and colleges as a problem and an indicator of social disadvantage. As we shall see in the next chapter, the ILEA (Inner London Education Authority) continued in all its language diversity surveys, or 'censuses', to link the measurement of the extent of the use of other languages by pupils to an assessment of their competence in English, perhaps reinforcing the idea that bilingualism among school pupils could only be recognised in terms of a deficiency in English. The end of this phase saw some significant developments in ESL teaching for adults. A national industrial language training scheme got under way in 1974. The RSA Certificate in the Teaching of English to Adult Immigrants was piloted in 1975. 1975 onwards Published in 1975, the Bullock Report contained a sentence, much quoted since: No child should be expected to cast off the language and culture of the home as he crosses the school threshold, nor to live and act as though school and home represent two totally separate and different cultures which have to be kept firmly apart. Multicultural Education of a kind was the first positive official response to cultural pluralism in Britain in the late seventies. At its most positive and aware, this response achieved much in recognising the needs of all pupils and students to be prepared for life in a multiethnic, multicultural Britain. The multicultural approach soon came under critical scrutiny, however, and was attacked for being tokenist, even patronising, and marginalising the cultures it set out to represent. It was portrayed as resulting in extracurricular events with offerings of Indian food and West Indian steel band

< previous page

page_5

next page >

< previous page

page_6

next page > Page 6

music which were tokenist, and supported cultural stereotypes. It also became the object of ideological debate, in which racism, antiracism and equal opportunity were held up as more relevant issues for multiethnic education. 'Very few theories can have suffered so short an optimistic phase as those concerned with multiracial education' (Williams, 1981). The multicultural approach in ILEA in the late seventies favoured rhetoric about the vitality and richness of a multicultural society (ILEA, 1977: 1), but such a multicultural approach mounted no challenge to the exclusive dominance of standard English in the curriculum and the ESL approach to language diversity. In stark contrast to the principle of cultural diversitywhich could easily be accommodated within the Authority's commitment to equality of opportunitymother tongue provision smacked of separatism and was liable to arouse opposition'. (Troyna & Williams, 1986) Ironically, the multicultural approach did not give language its central place in culture, and instead concentrated on other aspects of curriculum content, and affective aspects of the development of self esteem and attitudes to others (James & Jeffcoate, 1981). The response, such as it was, to language diversity was seen as the domain of specialists, i.e. as part of ESL, although some commentators, and the Department of Education and Science (DES), had detected a lapse of commitment to, and inadequate provision in, ESL provision during the seventies (Derrick, 1977; DES, 1972). 1980 onwards The move in the eighties from multiculturalism to antiracism was accompanied by changes in language teaching. Racism in ESL practice and materi ls was identified and condemned by advisers and some teachers. 'Withdrawal' of ESL pupils from the mainstream was attacked and discontinued in many schools, and the team teaching methods with subject teachers which had been advocated as an alternative were widely adopted. An argument was mounted that ESL practice itself had racist aspects (Chatwin, 1985). ESL came under the influence of a so called 'bilingual' model of education for speakers of other languages which emphasised a positive view of bilingualism for the pupil, and language diversity as a resource for the school. Language diversity surveys, such as the ILEA Language Census, and the Rosen & Burgess 'Survey of Linguistic Diversity in London Schools' (Rosen, 1980), were influential in disseminating awareness of the scale of linguistic diversity in schools, so that teachers who had previously been unaware, began to look at and use the linguistic resources their pupils could bring to the classroom. The ILEA, for example, adopted a policy which considered the rights and educational advantages of bilingual children in using their mother tongue skills in the classroom, and

< previous page

page_6

next page >

< previous page

page_7

next page > Page 7

learning in mother tongue. Official discourse about multiethnic education and pupils' use of other languages changed from talking about second language speakers to referring to all speakers of languages other than English as 'bilingual'. A range of materials began to appear using language diversity in the classroom as a positive resource. The Languages Book (Raleigh, 1981) was the outcome of a response to the Survey of Linguistic Diversity in London Schools coordinated by Rosen & Burgess. The 'language awareness' approach (Hawkins, 1984) was influential in involving all language teachers in these approaches. Some schools, such as North Westminster Community School, set up the study of a community nonEuropean language within the same curriculum as 'modern' European languages (Garson, 1982). In some schools, plurilingual pupils were actively encouraged to acquire qualifications in their 'other' languages. A response to linguistic diversity in schools was no longer necessarily solely a matter for the ESL specialists. 1989 onwards The introduction of the National Curriculum at the end of the eighties represents a set of developments in the responses to bilingual and multilingual pupils or students in British education (Phillips, 1989). The publication of the Cox report in 1989 gave forth many promising pronouncements on how these responses should proceed. Cox endorsed the views of the Kingman report (1988) that bilingualism should be seen as an asset and linguistic diversity as a resource for language work in the classroom with all students. . . .the presence of large numbers of bilingual and biliterate children in the community should be seen as an enormous resource which ought to become more, not less, important in the British economy in the next few years. (DES, 1989) There are equal opportunities statements in the literature of the National Curriculum which stress the advantages of a common curriculum of good practice provided to all. The emphasis on standard English, as a core foundation subject, and across the whole of the National Curriculum, has positive equal opportunities implications. It needs to be understood within the context of the developing ideological debate about bilingual education such as arguments about 'empowerment', which support the importance of bilingual students having full access to an education in standard English. The National Curriculum has however come under strong criticism for ignoring the needs of bilingual learners. The procedures for assessment at various stages in the education of the pupil doubly disadvantage bilingual learners. In the case of the English curriculum, differences between monolingual pupils for whom English is the 'mother tongue' and bilingual pupils

< previous page

page_7

next page >

< previous page

page_8

next page > Page 8

in the position of 'second language' learners, are not fully recognised or taken account of. In the case of language learning in more general terms the fact that bilingual learners are making progress in the acquisition of at least two languages is not given equable, positive credit (Levine, 1990). Farzana Turner (1989) has pointed out that there is the potential within the National Curriculum for designated 'community' languages to have the same status as other 'modern foreign languages', although many pressures operate against this. There are differences between this more general picture and the particular history of responses to language diversity in Further Education. Further Education often seems to have lagged behind the Primary and Secondary sectors in its response to issues of ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity. One reason for this may be that educational provision in the Further Education sector has traditionally been more conservative with a small 'c', being somewhat less concerned with the task of 'education for life' than schools, and strongly linked with preparation for work. The provision of training and other vocational courses within FE has sometimes evaded wider educational issues (FEU, 1987). In addition, the substantial numbers of the children of migrant workers using languages other than English who first began to make an impression on classrooms in industrial centres in the sixties took some little time as they progressed through the education system to make the same impact upon Further Education. I will review the history of responses to language diversity in Further Education, or 'FE', in Inner London by reference to the four phases described above. (1) When substantial proportions of plurilingual students began appearing in inner city Further Education colleges, many had already been through ESL instruction at school. In 1975 the Bullock Report put forward the observation that the need for more advanced ESL instruction stretching students who had got beyond the basics had gone unrecognised. In FE colleges also there was a lack of any such 'second stage' or more advanced ESL language support. However, urban FE colleges differed from schools in that many offered English as a Foreign Language classes to various kinds of foreign visitor. Those British students in FE who could not cope with the language demands in standard English of the courses which they aspired to pursue were usually dealt with in one of four ways. They might go unrecognised, or their particular needs ignored. They might be dealt with through 'remedial' work with slow learners. They might be referred on where there was more comprehensive provision available in Adult Education, which often offered ESL classes. They might be put into English as a

< previous page

page_8

next page >

< previous page

page_9

next page > Page 9

Foreign Language classes with foreign students. The evidence remains in many English as a Second Language departments in Further Education today that ESL in FE developed out of English as a Foreign language teaching. (2) In the late seventies Further Education was still influenced by assimilationist approaches. ESL and multicultural education were in different compartments, and ESL courses, which were still establishing their credentials, were teaching English as a passport to better opportunities in an English speaking society. . . . the overwhelming belief held by most ESL providers was that a greater command of English would lead to better education and employment prospects. . . Looking back, we can realise that (this view) was based on an extreme deficit model of the ethnic minority communities'. (Nicholls & Hoadley Maidment, 1988) In Further Education colleges ESL became established as a separate course area in the late seventies, often taking students who were more recent arrivals and refugees. The boundaries between EFL and ESL were often not clearly perceived. An awareness of Afro-Caribbean English Creoles as different from 'bad' or 'broken' English developed in some mainstream and remedial sections. (3) In the early eighties ESL became further established in FE with specialist staff identified and appointed. FE was seen as having a different role from adult education, particularly in its provision for 16+ students continuing their education, and refugees who wanted a bridge giving them access into Higher Education. The withdrawal of students 'with second language difficulties' continued, but in response to the criticisms of this practice 'links' with mainstream courses and were built. On specific 'linked skill courses' ESL was combined with practical skills, such as computer use, dressmaking or car maintenance. The concept of 'language support' for bilingual students on mainstream courses was put into practice. Courses offering teaching in mother tongue emerged: e.g. for the Institute of Linguists' Bilingual Skills Certificate (Wrangham, 1987). (4) The introduction of the National Curriculum simply underlines the divide between Further Education and 'school', since most of FE lies outside the National Curriculum at present. Bilingual education in FE has continued to refer to 'support services' which include numeracy and other basic skills as well as English for Speakers of Other Languages on the one hand, and courses and qualifications in community languages on the other. In the early nineties the development of ESOL services has continued to support bilingual students' access to mainstream courses, and has benefited from a more general trend to more

< previous page

page_9

next page >

< previous page

page_10

next page > Page 10

'flexible learning', improving access for students who might otherwise be unable to take up courses. In addition, the moves towards more commercial models of service in Further Education have led to ESOL and access for bilingual and multilingual students being represented as responding to a wider 'market' and opportunities for increasing 'take up' and thereby swelling student numbers. Attitudes to Bilingualism in Education: 'The Monolingual World View' Versus Positive and Pluralist Views Any review of the discussions of the educational response to the use of community languages other than English can sometimes be misleading. The history of official responses and educational philosophies often refers to those at the forefront of change, rather than the realities at the grassroots in the institutions themselves. Many of the changes referred to above relate to enlightened good practice of the time, and there are attitudes and practices in education which are still grounded in earlier responses. So, it should be borne in mind, in comparing the summary above with the context of the research recorded here, that the energetic debate which has surrounded responses to language diversity in British education has not always been reflected in the general level of awareness of the teacher of 'mainstream' subjects in Further Education. Wright (1986) has remarked on the power of traditional attitudes and the 'influence of staffroom gossip'. Views and approaches to bilingualism and language diversity which have been described in a historical context as if they were entirely of the past remain influential in the here and now. In reading various accounts of the history of language issues in the education of ethnic minorities, it has been sometimes difficult to square the developments and the progress they report with the situation on the ground in Further Education. The impetus of most language diversity surveys published at the time of writing, as discussed in Chapter 2, has primarily been concerned with gathering reliable measures of the 'other languages of England' and the size of populations using different community languages. One stark simple fact was a spur to our workthe absence of any up to date reliable information on the. . .numbers of speakers of minority languages. (Rosen, 1980: 50) Similarly, the Schools Language Surveys undertaken by the Linguistic Minorities Project establish as their first priority the need for quantitative data on languages used and the proportions of pupils using the languages (LMP, 1985: 316). In the case of the study of the college language survey at the centre of this investigation the intention was to explore and test out the realisation that the effects of such surveys in instigating change might be

< previous page

page_10

next page >

< previous page

page_11

next page > Page 11

more important than the 'hard data' collected. There was a priority to exploit the potential that surveying activity had to ventilate discussion, and affect attitudes and practices, in the institution. The original impetus of the college language survey reported in this research grew out of the lack of recognition of the many languages used by the student population, and an assessment of the college as an institution as being dominated by 'monolingual English views', or other negative views of bilingualism. The belief that a survey could be designed and conducted in ways that opened these views to question was not merely a personal view, but was supported by some members of the college committees concerned with language across the curriculum and multiethnic education. The survey process could enable the presentation of more accurate and positive views of bilingualism. This also allowed for the monitoring of survey 'effects', as elaborated in Chapter 6. There are many people including many teachers who still see it as the role of plurilingual students to fit in with the monolingual majority. One argument encountered in the research reported here (both directly in interviews and from monitoring of other discussions) was that, in recognising language diversity, colleges should beware of distracting students from preparing to meet the pressures of the 'real world', i.e. an English monolingual society. There is also ample evidence in this thesis that a bilingual student is often accepted as such only if identified as having language problems. Linguistic diversity is not often recognised in education as having the status of an issue of independent standing. It has been sidelined, either as being part of broader issues of 'race', and the province of multicultural, or antiracist approaches, or as being the province of language 'experts'. Possibly the only challenge to this has been the lobby for mother tongue teaching. In those Colleges of Further Education with significant proportions of students using languages in addition to English, mostly in conurbations, the extent of linguistic diversity is not normally revealed in the day to day workings of the institution, from the point of view of most staff at least. In an environment where standard English is the medium of instruction and classroom talk, the exclusion of languages other than English is taken for granted: many teachers would not realise that the capability for the use of other languages among students was even possible. A certain level of fluency and literacy in standard English are presumed for entry to college courses, although they are not necessarily defined. They are often more likely to be spelt out on basic courses. College signs and publicity will be in English only. The library will have a stock of books for the foreign language courses in European languages offered. However, there will be few materials in any non European languages used in the student population and local communities. The great majority of staff are monolingual

< previous page

page_11

next page >

< previous page

page_12

next page > Page 12

English speakers and take the primacy of standard English in the curriculum, to the exclusion of anything else, for granted. The description above conforms with the observations made of the situation in Hammersmith and West London College, the Further Education College where the research reported here took place, at the time the college language survey was set up. It is still generally true of many, perhaps most, FE colleges. Some Further Education Colleges with significant bilingual or multilingual populations have attempted to recognise their presence through positive language policies, and by offering courses in community languages. However, as elsewhere in the education system, discussion of language diversity in Further Education tends to be linked with 'problems'. Discussion of bilingualism/multilingualism from a monolingual viewpoint as problematic, or in negative terms, has a long history in Britain (Saifullah Khan, 1983). Monolingual educationalists have supported the idea that the brain of the child has difficulties in coping with more than one language at a time and that exposure to two or more languages can have detrimental effects upon language development. According to Grosjean (1982: 221), the majority of studies prior to 1960 found that bilingualism had a negative effect upon the development of the child. Although such ideas are mostly discredited by more recent research, they continue to exert an influence in education particularly amongst monolingual teachers. According to Swain & Cummins (1979) research studies with negative findings are found in the context of negative attitudes to bilingualism, where use of the first language is not encouraged. The ideas of 'semilingualism', which put forward the model of bilingual learners without a full competence in any language, maintain an intuitive appeal for many teachers (Martin Jones & Romaine, 1984; Romaine, 1989). There is evidence that these ideas are sometimes the result of negative attitudes towards, and misunderstanding of, code switching phenomena, where bilingual speakers mix features of two languages (Haugen, 1969: 70; Mkilifi, 1978: 144). As will be seen, such deficit views among Further Education teachers appear to centre upon speakers of non-European languages and operate upon a double standard so that the possession of skills in high status European languages are more often recognised and valued. It is thus argued here, and later in this book, that the language curriculum in British education is dominated by monolingual English speakers' views and attitudes. There is a substantial amount of evidence in the case study of the Inner London college presented here that a 'monolingual English world view' dominated the curriculum and the ethos of the institution. It is argued that such a curriculum does not appropriately address the needs

< previous page

page_12

next page >

< previous page

page_13

next page > Page 13

of a College of Further Education with a majority of bilingual/multilingual speakers in the student population. The narrow monolingual view regards community languages other than English as the concern only of the family, the religious or cultural group, or ethnic minority, and not that of British education, including colleges, where standard English alone should be encouraged. The possession of skills in standard English is essential to the empowerment of British speakers of other languages and opens doors to the advancement of their interests. It seemed to be widely assumed among staff in the college studied, however, that education, in promulgating such skills, must ignore, even obliterate, the other language abilities of bilingual and multilingual students. It was in varying degrees assumed that students had a similar conception of their needs, and understood the nature of standard English and how its use was to be developed in whatever course the student was following. The relation between standard English and the use of other languages by plurilingual students was not normally addressed, except, in some cases, where it was seen as a problem. Attention to issues of language and dialect diversity and the use of other language varieties in teaching was widely seen as a distraction, or not relevant to, the central place of standard English as the medium of instruction and mainstream communication. Modern studies of bilingualism/multilingualism cite evidence of linguistic and cognitive advantages in the simultaneous learning and use of more than one language (Hornby, 1977; Blanc & Hamers, 1989). There is a wealth of evidence that plurilingual learners can benefit from education and support for their mother tongue, not only in mother tongue development and regard for the heritage culture, but also in learning and using 'the language of education' or second language. Some seven different studies (Cummins, 1982, 1984; Alladina, 1985c) conducted in Canada, Sweden and the United States have shown that where bilingual school children were taught both their mother tongue and the language of education, the acquisition of the second language was greatly helped. Although the concept of 'interference' has been popular among teachers to explain the appearance of errors in second language use which seem similar to features in the mother tongue, it has never been verified in over ten years of subsequent research (Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982). It has been shown that existing skills and abilities in a language assist the learner in acquiring skills in another language. Literacy in the mother tongue, in particular, benefits literacy in 'the language of education'. If a teacher undermines the confidence of the learner in 'first language' skills then confidence in being able to operate in a 'second language' will be undermined. It is a source of great frustration to bilingual or multilingual students to encounter the attitude, from the monolingual teacher, that their achievements and abilities in using

< previous page

page_13

next page >

< previous page

page_14

next page > Page 14

a number of languages are to be seen as an obstacle when speaking or writing English. The importance of English as an international language is sometimes allowed to obscure the fact that we all must learn to communicate and co-exist in a multilingual global community (DES, 1990). Monolingual English speakers tend to have poor motivation and rate a poor reputation for learning and using the languages of other countries in trade and tourism. The 'monolingual world view' is noted for narrow cultural horizons, arrogance, and even racism. Monolingual English speakers have been shown to be prone to misunderstandings in cross-cultural communication in English (Gumperz, Jupp & Roberts, 1979). Monolingual English speaking people in daily contact with the learner of English, or in other cross cultural situations, often fail to recognise that it is their English cultural assumptions and expectations which cause problems in English (LMP, 1985; UNESCO, 1982). The cultivation in colleges of opportunities to share languages in the classroom has advantages for plurilingual and monolingual students in sensitising communication and opening up horizons. Positive aspects and approaches to linguistic diversity in the college under study were widely ignored previous to the college language survey. This is not entirely unusual in Further Education, but it ignored positive action elsewhere to recognise and further British bilingualism/ multilingualism as an asset. In a linguistically conscious nation in the modern world we should see (bilingualism) as an asset, as something to be nurtured, and one of the agencies which should nurture it is the school. Certainly the school should adopt a positive attitude to its pupils' bilingualism and wherever possible should maintain and deepen their knowledge of their mother tongue'. (Bullock, 1975) There is an EEC Directive (EC, 1981, 1984) which states that member states should promote the mother tongue of migrant workers' children. Although this directive is controversial, and has been ineffective (Edwards, 1983: 37-39; EC, 1984), it has been used to support positive recognition of bilingualism and language diverse communities in Britain. At the time of the research the ILEA had a stated commitment to further bilingualism among students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds by: encouraging all students to maintain, develop and recover proficiency in their first language which may be the mother tongue or a community language. (ILEA Inspectorate, 1986) Different views on language and education are not simply matters of opinion: they reflect political positions. In order to summarise the ideological context of this study I would like to isolate a taxonomy of ten different

< previous page

page_14

next page >

< previous page

page_15

next page > Page 15

kinds of response or ideological positions which relate to the attitudes and opinions of teachers and others involved in education, and thus educational responses to language diversity. Of course, the views of individuals may reflect a combination of the positions isolated here. This taxonomy is based on multiple sources and the experience of pursuing this research, but it draws upon and may be compared with others (see Edwards, 1983: 40). Integration There is a belief and an argument that language diversity and plurilingualism are an obstacle to the integration of 'minorities' into mainstream British culture. It is argued that it is in the best interests of students for them to concentrate upon the acquisition of standard English as their first priority. Monolingualism as the norm Monolingual students are paradoxically seen as having the advantage over bilingual students. The presence of bilingual learners in classes are seen as the focus of 'problems'. Thus, it has been quite common to see the 172 different languages which the ILEA recorded from a census (1987) of school pupils in Inner London used as evidence of the 'difficulties' faced by those schools. This set of views tends at its most extreme to see bilingualism as against the norm, and the brain as a receptacle which suffers from the learning and cognitive demands of operating in more than one language. One example of research which has been used (mistakenly) to support such a view is the hypothesis of 'semilingualism' (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984) which attempts to show that bilingual children who receive no education in the language used at home suffer in both language and educational development. This research is sometimes used wrongly to support the folk tale that there are bilingual children who 'have not learnt either, or any, language properly'. Linguistic parochialism At its crudest this is monolingual English ignorance and hostility to 'foreign' languages. The power of popular linguistic prejudices which regard dialects of English, including English Creoles, as incorrect and substandard should not be ignored. English is even regarded as a superior language, rationalised by reference to 'English Literature' and the status of English as an International Language. In conjunction with this is an indifference to linguistic diversity, and an attitude that such matters, if of any moment at all, should be the province of 'experts', e.g. ESL teachers, not the province of mainstream education, being best confined to the homes or

< previous page

page_15

next page >

< previous page

page_16

next page > Page 16

religious subculture of the minority concerned. These attitudes are close to the 'linguicism', or linguistic imperialism, discussed by a number of commentators (Phillipson, 1988; Bhanot, 1989). Empowerment This term is used to refer to the radical corollary to the integration argument. It is argued that standard English is the key to enabling people from minority ethnic groups in Britain to have equal opportunities in their life chances and to defend best their group interests. Cultural diversity The presence of a range of different languages in client/pupil/student groups and the community is seen as something to be celebrated and used in positive ways. It is something to be positively represented in literature and policies. It is a resource for teaching about cultures and related matters. It is something which provides a starting point, or route to, teaching about 'race'. It is something which can make teaching materials, even those predominantly in English, more subtle and interesting. Language diversity is also seen as something 'rich' and 'colourful', with the use of different languages recorded and displayed in exhibitions and on classroom walls. This response has been strongly associated with multicultural education. Cultural identity The languages and dialects used by plurilingual students and their communities are a part of their 'heritage' and history. Education which ignores the students' languages other than English thus denies part of their identity. This also relates to issues of self esteem in the individual pupil, or 'child centredness'. Childen who can maintain links between the culture of the home and that of the school will be more secure and better motivated. (Edwards, 1983). Utilitarianism The abilities in other languages, latent or developed, which plurilingual students possess are things potentially of great value to the individual student and ultimately Britain as an internationally active and trading nation. Such an approach may stress the value of qualifications and the exploitability of the use of other languages. The use of another language is thus an important aspect of plurilingual individuals' career prospects. From the point of view of marketing and recruiting students, recognising

< previous page

page_16

next page >

< previous page

page_17

next page > Page 17

the languages used in the community the college serves, may increase the success of the college and its courses. Bilingualism There are a variety of different arguments stressing positive models of bilingualism/multilingualism and the cognitive advantages of acquiring more than one language competence. (There are also negative models of bilingualism as a learning problem for the studentsee 'Monolingualism as the Norm', above). Antiracism This approach sees language issues as understandable primarily, or only, as part of a wider context of power, ideology and a struggle against racism in the nation. In its early stages antiracism tended to concentrate upon identifying and opposing racism in institutional and teaching practices and teaching material. More recently, there has been some recognition that the position of mother tongue education has suffered from institutional and other forms of racism and therefore this has been supported. Racism Language is, of course, a marker of ethnicity. Racism can be manifest in crude and overt antagonism towards other languages. There are more subtle manifestations of racism than hostility to the use of other languages however. There can be stereotyping and institutional practices which reinforce the exclusion of language diversity and inequality of opportunity. The maintenance of languages other than English within British minority ethnic communities can be perceived as a threat to the perception of the English language as the 'distinctive property' (Powell, 1988) of the English. On the other hand, mother tongue teaching can be argued for by racists as a means of facilitating repatriation. The preceding argument has underlined the proposition that research upon the use of languages in addition to standard English in student populations in Further Education cannot take place in an ideological vacuum. Such research can be 'objective' and without bias in the sense that methods can be designed for the highest accuracy of measurements and observations and strong attempts can be made to ensure that all findings and views observed are represented as accurately as possible. There is also a responsibility upon any researcher who engages in action research into linguistic diversity to consider how the use of languages in addition to

< previous page

page_17

next page >

< previous page

page_18

next page > Page 18

English by students in education is represented. There is also in my view, a responsibility to represent linguistic diversity positively and to counter ignorance with accurate information. In fact, it is unlikely that research upon linguistic diversity will gain maximum accuracy in measurements, particularly where self reports are used, without such a policy. One of the issues which this research considers and attempts to resolve, therefore, is how empirical research can be carried out whilst promoting a position with ideological or controversial implications. Such an issue is of particular relevance to 'Action Research' which is concerned with the application of new ideas and practices, and processes of change in the curriculum which inevitably involve such concerns. Terminology Describing the Use of More Than One Language The terminology employed in this book is a compromise. The term 'bilingual' and its frequency of use in Further Education, and elsewhere in education, for students who use a language other than English at home has occasioned some debate among teachers. There is the idealised view of the 'balanced' bilingual, who is seen to have complete and equal abilities in two or more languages. This kind of bilingual tends to be seen by many monolingual English speakers as exceptional, beyond the norm, since the bilingual has exceeded the 'normal' monolingual capacity to only fully acquire one language. This 'favourable' view of bilingualism also tends to be associated with knowledge of a European language, so that Asian or African languages are not included, not valid, or 'invisible' where high status 'bilingualism' is concerned. The decision within many educational authorities to apply the term 'bilingual' to all those using other languages at home, including students undertaking English language courses and still in the process of acquiring competence in English, occasioned controversy, and some resistance among teachers who appealed to the former use as the 'true' definition of the term. It has been apparent that the latter definition has resulted in a different set of assumptions being attached to the use of the term bilingual. In some cases it has become a euphemism for black, and an alternative to 'ethnic minority'. The term has come sometimes to have associations of 'educational deficit' and lack of attainment in English as the 'second language'. There is even the attitude among some teachers that someone with perfect English cannot therefore be 'bilingual'! The term 'bilingual' can be problematic for further reasons. 'Bilingual' is used in many contexts as an umbrella term to cover all use of more than one language, including both bilingual and multilingual language use.

< previous page

page_18

next page >

< previous page

page_19

next page > Page 19

Nevertheless, the term, and the prefix 'bi-' in particular, strongly indicates in many people's minds the use of two languages, not more. It can therefore be misleading to describe students using other languages in addition to English, as 'bilingual' since so many are in fact multilingual. Multilingualism is almost as common in British minority language communities as the use of two languages. It is thus, strictly, more accurate to talk of the plurilingual population to include all users of other languages, 'plurilingual' being a term which can explicitly include both bilingual and multilingual language use. For this reason, the term 'plurilingual' is often used here to denote both bilingual and multilingual students. 'Multilingual' thus distinguishes users of three languages or more. Nevertheless, there are many occasions in this text when 'bilingual' is used to include speakers/users of more than two languages, since this remains a common usage. For example, sometimes 'bilingual' has been used in its more general meaning because that is the way it is used in the literature under discussion. An attempt has been made to ensure that the meaning in which 'bilingual' is being used is clear from context.

< previous page

page_19

next page >

< previous page

page_20

next page > Page 20

2 British Language Diversity Surveys, 1977-89 Introduction The main purpose of this chapter is to review critically the history of language diversity surveying in Britain, and to question the methodologies employed. There has been a period of intense activity in language diversity surveying in Britain since 1977, mostly taking place in Local Education Authority schools. It might be asked why it took until 1977 for this significant interest to be taken in the diversity of languages used by many school pupils, and in the community. Part of the answer lies in the dominance in national life of British standard English to the exclusion of any other possibilities, and the entrenchment of monolingual English views. These forces pursue a hegemony in standard English as a national and international language, which distances and often devalues the 'other' languages and cultures of Britain and of historically colonised parts of the world. Rosen & Burgess (1980), in setting up their language survey in 1977 highlighted the irony of the fact that 'we have scholars who can tell us more about linguistic diversity in remote African and Asian communities than they can about the diversity under their own noses'. There is a tradition in the British establishment which distances linguistic diversity from the mainstream, and keeps it 'remote'. In the 1970s it became increasingly difficult for linguistically aware educationalists to ignore the fact that British schools in many, mostly inner urban, areas were changing: the proportion of pupils using, or able to use, languages other than, or in addition to, English was significant and growing. In some inner urban schools such pupils were in the majority. However, plurilingual or 'bilingual', pupils with native fluency in English were not, and often still are not, recognised. Concern towards, and interest in, linguistic diversity in schools has rather tended to focus on 'problems' and the connection of abilities in more than one language with lack of ability in English language skills. Statistical data on language diversity in schools has thus often been sought, or interpreted, as evidence for the formulation of policies in English as a Second Language teaching, and to allocate resources

< previous page

page_20

next page >

< previous page

page_21

next page > Page 21

for such support. More recently, language survey data has been used to argue for, and allocate resources to the teaching of the majority community languages spoken in the areas served by schools in addition to English. The researchers and their supporters pursuing language surveys have usually been spurred on by positive egalitarian aims, wishing to counter negative and narrow attitudes towards language diversity. Surveys can themselves have educational and 'awareness raising' functions, a central idea in the argument of this text. They can promote the positive recognition of the skills of plurilingual people, and thus enhance their esteem. This has been important in schools language surveys in raising the status of pupils speaking other languages in the eyes of their teachers and peers, and in their own eyes. Discussion of language surveying activity may also be linked with two broad movements in contemporary education. The 'language awareness' movement has promoted greater interest in links between community languages in schools and other areas of the language curriculum (Hawkins, 1984; Jones, 1989; Clark et al., in press). The multicultural and antiracist educational movements have also promoted the recognition and use of community languages in schools, and countered the tendency to ignore non-European languages. However, the main aim of British language surveys has been an attempt to provide some hard data about the use of 'other' languages in Britain, in the face of the astonishing situation that Britain is the only country in the European Economic Community not to have comprehensive official statistics on these matters. This chapter has two main sections. In the first, three major British surveys of language diversity will be critically scrutinised: the Inner London Education Authority Language Census, 'The Survey of Linguistic Diversity in London Schools' led by Rosen & Burgess, and the work of the Linguistic Minorities Project. In the second part of the chapter the various issues which affect the methodology and the reliability of data collected in British language surveys will be brought together in an analysis based upon a separation of social survey methods, linguistic issues and ideological factors. The Surveys The Inner London Education Authority Language Census The Inner London Education Authority takes the credit for being one of the first bodies in Britain to undertake surveys of linguistic diversity. It completed five biennial surveys: in 1978, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1989. The ILEA survey was termed a 'Language Census' in 1981. It consisted of 'an aggregated form with schools submitting one form for each year or age

< previous page

page_21

next page >

< previous page

page_22

next page > Page 22

group in the school' (ILEA, 1987) and was a census of all primary and secondary pupils in the ten divisions of the authority. The census recorded a steady rise in the proportion of pupils reported as speaking a language other than, or in addition to, English at home: 13.9% (1981), 16% (1983), 19% (1985), 23% (1987) and 25% (1989). The number of bilingual pupils rose by 15% between 1985 and 1987 and by 8% between 1987 and 1989. Although the rate of increase has slowed the evidence is that this proportion will continue to increase (ILEA, 1989). The six reports issued by the ILEA Research and Statistics branch (1979,1982,1983, 1986,1987 and 1989) provide some evidence of development in the approach of the ILEA census to language diversity surveying. The census was seen by its own researchers as 'only a starting point' with a need for further investigations in depth (ILEA, 1987). This should not obscure the fact that, as will be shown, the methodology of the census was flawed and that the ILEA approach, as represented by the census, responded little, if at all, to outside developments in methodology, or other work in the same field. The first ILEA language survey in 1978 sought to gather statistics on pupils with other home languages, with the aim of rationalising help to pupils 'not fluent in the English language'. A questionnaire was circulated to school head teachers entitled 'Statistics of Pupils for Whom English is Not a First Language', asking schools to give information on pupils in this category and their 'first languages', together with assessments of the pupils' fluency in English. In other words, the invaluable information which this first ILEA enquiry produced about knowledge of languages other than English among its pupils was essentially a by-product of an enquiry into ESL needs. (LMP, 1985:132) The title for the schools' questionnaire was replaced in surveys subsequent to 1978 by the heading 'Language Census', sub-headed 'Statistics of Pupils with a Home Language other than or in addition to English' (sometimes abbreviated PHLOE). The census continued to perform the function of 'an enquiry into ESL needs', and plurilingual pupils were assessed according to four stages of English learning. The fact that the primary purpose of the ILEA survey has remained as an ESL survey in order to provide information for the allocation of teaching resources to schools is 'admitted' in the last report (ILEA, 1989). The 1978 survey was the first and only attempt by the ILEA to record statistics on Caribbean 'English dialects' and Creoles. The researchers (see ILEA, 1986: 2) reported that the results were misleading and, interestingly, that 'some teachers confused ethnicity and language'. The perceived difficulties experienced in the 1978 survey appear to have deterred the

< previous page

page_22

next page >

< previous page

page_23

next page > Page 23

researchers from continuing to gather data on pupils using 'English-based' Creoles and West Indian dialect. Teachers completing the forms thenceforward were instructed not to enter 'dialects of English or English Creoles'. Given that methodological problems in collecting data on English associated Creoles appear to have resulted in the exclusion of such data from the ILEA survey, it seems inconsistent, not to say insensitive, to justify this data in the manner used in the 1986 report. Dialects of English and English-based Creoles (e.g. Jamaican Creole) were not recorded in the census. It would have been inconsistent to include such dialects and not dialects of other languages. Statistics on the use of 'English-based' Creoles continued to be summarily excluded from the survey, justified by the argument that as 'dialects of English' they could not be returned. In fact, statistics on French-based Creoles were collected, but included in the returns for French, inflating them considerably. Yet, Krio (closely related to Jamaican Creole) was given the status of a recognised listing from the 1983 survey on. In the reports of the 1985 and 1987 census returns there is a paragraph headed 'Limitations'. Four factors are identified. (1) The use of 'broad-based language categories': the census does not provide information on dialects. (2) Fluency and literacy in the 'home language' is not recorded. (3) 'Multiple language use' is not recorded. (In other words, the census ignores multilingual language use, and brackets all plurilingualism in the terms of one 'first language' worthy of report.) (4) There is no assessment of the demand for community language teaching. It becomes apparent in reading all the reports that there was a tendency on the part of the researchers to confine the work of the census to a narrow remit, established largely by precedent. Thus, multiple language use was not recorded, 'because of practical considerations' and 'the amount of work'. The adherence of the ILEA census to the monolingual, and perhaps Eurocentric, concept of a 'first language' or 'home language' also leads to all kinds of confusion and inaccuracy. Many plurilingual pupils would, with reason, represent English as their first and home language, and no other. The census would also be unlikely to elicit an accurate response from pupils using other languages who regarded English as their 'first language' in the school environment. In addition, respondents who did identify a first language other than English, where the language commonly used at home was seen as 'lower' in status to other languages used, in many cases would

< previous page

page_23

next page >

< previous page

page_24

next page > Page 24

be likely to volunteer 'higher status' languages, or national languages, in preference. This is well documented elsewhere (LMP, 1985). There were many other weaknesses in the procedures of the ILEA census. The objectivity of the procedures is seriously in doubt since the schools which operated it knew that the statistics would be used as criteria for the allocation of resources. It might be argued that the census cannot be considered as a true survey, but rather as a 'head counting' exercise relying mainly on the knowledge of teachers. There is no guarantee that the forms used resulted in questions being put to pupils, who are the nominal 'respondents'. In the 1985 and 1987 censuses teachers 'were encouraged' to question pupils (or parents) to obtain information. However, the form on which schools made their returns clearly relies on teachers' knowledge or records, from the classroom and school environment, of the use of home languages other than English by their pupils. Even where data was elicited from students there seems to be no awareness on the part of the researchers of the sensitivity of such questioning. Indeed, one of the gravest weaknesses of the census was that it continued to gather information on language diversity, in conjunction with an assessment of the fluency in English of those pupils who were identified as speakers of other languages. There appeared to be no understanding among those who set up the census that there is a powerful conflict between the objective measurement of the use of languages in addition to British English in schools, and the academic evaluation of the skills in English of pupils using other languages. It is ironic that the 1987 Census ends in a paragraph on 'equal opportunities implications' which emphasises 'worrying trends' in the assessments made of the fluency of plurilingual pupils. Although the number of pupils with a home language other than, or in addition to English increased between 1985 and 1987, both the number and percentage of pupils who were fluent in English decreased. (ILEA, 1987) There is no positive statement anywhere in the report pointing out the rich heritage of language and cultural diversity in the schools of the Authority which the census records. 172 different languages were identified in 1987; this increased to 184 in the 1989 census. In both cases English-based Creoles were excluded. It seems reasonable to assume that lack of training, and ignorance, among most teachers reporting to the census, and a reluctance among pupils to be identified with 'the ESL minority', amongst other factors, must have led to a serious underestimate of the use of community languages by ILEA pupils, and other inaccuracies, in the ILEA census results. As Alladina & Edwards (1990) have pointed out, the returns for many languages in the

< previous page

page_24

next page >

< previous page

page_25

next page > Page 25

Authority are suspiciously (even impossibly) low and need to be verified. For example, in the 1989 census, from a school population of over 280,000, Welsh was recorded as having 22 speakers, Marathi 15, and Sindhi 21; 25% of the pupils in ILEA schools were identified as using a language other than English at home. We have strong reason to suppose, in all cases, that these figures are serious underestimates. The ILEA Language Census is a good example of how language diversity surveys were originally conceived in Britain and indeed how their results continue in some quarters to be interpreted: namely, as measures of the need in schools for English as a Second Language teaching and support. They thus reinforced the image of languages other than English in the community as a 'problem' for British education and their use by pupils as a barrier to fluency in English. It is surprising that such outdated attitudes continued to be supported through the well publicised, and influential Language Census in the context of an educational authority with a positive equal opportunities policy and an expressed wish to promote a positive image for bilingualism in education. The Survey of Linguistic Diversity in London Schools The 1978 ILEA Language Census was not the first attempt to collect data on the diversity of languages used by London school pupils. In 1977-78 a pioneering survey, the 'Survey of Linguistic Diversity in London Schools' under the direction of Rosen & Burgess working from the Institute of Education, was administered in 28 inner London schools. Teachers were asked to undertake a structured investigation of first year pupils in the 11-12 year old age group, collecting data on languages other than English and dialects of English. (English associated Creoles were classified as 'overseas dialects' of English.) From a sample of 4,600 pupils, 749 (15%) were reported as speaking a language other than English. Also, 711 (15%) were reported to speak an overseas dialect of English, 628 of whom were said to speak a Caribbean 'dialect'. This survey culminated in 1980 in the publication of 'Languages and Dialects of London Schoolchildren', by Rosen & Burgess, which reports the survey and discusses language diversity surveys. The methodology of the Rosen & Burgess survey, while more rigorous than the ILEA census, is open to similar criticisms. It relies on teachers' knowledge and reports, does not ensure that information is directly elicited from pupils and also builds in an assessment of pupils' English fluency. The survey questionnaire devised by Rosen & Burgess is entirely addressed to the teacher, so that the pupil, the supposed 'respondent', is only referred to in the third person. The questionnaire does not specify a direct question to

< previous page

page_25

next page >

< previous page

page_26

next page > Page 26

the pupil at any point. Significantly, it is the teachers rather than the pupils who are thanked as donors of information. In actuality, the methodology and practice of the survey, in the ways the data was collected on the spot, varied. Rosen & Burgess recommended as normal practice a plenary 'group interview', but they left most procedures to the discretion and judgement of the teacher. At no point was it envisaged that a teacher would be sitting down with a child and simply going through the questions as a one-to-one sustained investigation. . . So we were reliant for our procedure on the judgement of the teachers with whom we were working. . . The central technique as it turned out was the group interview, begun typically with questions about language a long way from the information we finally sought. (Rosen & Burgess, 1980) The terms of the reporting here, for example, in the words, 'centrally' and 'typically', imply a range of procedures, but do not spell them out. It would be useful to know what procedures were employed which differed from those endorsed by Rosen & Burgess. There is a 'pioneering' spirit, in the account which they give in the 1980 book about their survey, which tends to propagandise in favour of the direct importance of the research and sometimes gloss over problems, or possibilities of inaccuracy. For example: Where children were reluctant to vouchsafe information about themselves, it was important that this right be protected. But, in practice, such reluctance was very rare. Presumably, where such reluctance exists, straightforward withholding of personal information may also be present. It is questionable whether reluctance of this kind is always so obvious as to be measurable, particularly by the researcher. Rosen & Burgess follow the early tendency, which continues in the ILEA census discussed above, of attempting to combine an evaluation of respondents' skills in standard English, and to correlate these results with 'bilingualism'. This is included as the last of the three aims on which their survey was based: The correlation of information obtained from (1) (data on bilingualism) and (2) (literacy in other languages). . .whether literacy in English is helped or hindered by literacy in another language. . . (Rosen & Burgess, 1980) Inevitably, in teachers' perceptions the survey would thus have been seen as an exercise to measure the abilities in English of pupils speaking languages other than English. Such an exercise could be viewed from an

< previous page

page_26

next page >

< previous page

page_27

next page > Page 27

enlightened viewpoint as having the possible outcome of showing that literacy in other languages could assist literacy in English. The fact remains, however, that many British teachers have negative attitudes towards pupils' abilities in languages other than English, or functional bilingualism. A body of opinion among teachers maintains that the possession of a 'first language' other than English is a handicap in British schools, especially in achieving fluency and literacy in standard English. Since there is such stigmatisation, it would seem likely that a proportion of pupils would withhold information about their use of languages where they coulda likelihood which would be increased by the fact that their teachers were conducting an evaluative exercise at the same time. The teachers' estimates of fluency by different linguistic groupings are given in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Reading and writing related to percentage of sub-group estimated as having significant difficulties in different language groupings Reading (%) Writing (%) 4 5 1. Strong Standard (N = 267) 6 9 2. Weak Standard (N = 441) 11 11 3. Other countries overseas dialect, mainly Standards (N = 35) 15 19 4. Weak London (N = 1625) 15 21 5. London/Jamaican (N = 298) 17 24 6. Non-London: Great Britain based (N= 83) 19 30 7. East Caribbbean (total) (N = 77) 22 27 8. Strong London (N = 1445) 29 35 9. Language other than English (N = 256) 37 37 10. Caribbean Creole Speakers (N = 27) Source: Rosen & Burgess, 1980: 84, Table 24). Rosen & Burgess come to the following conclusions on the basis of this data: • There is an unmistakable tendency for standard speakers to be estimated much more highly as readers and writers. • There is no evidence to suggest that bidialectal or bilingual pupils are in general markedly less fluent than their monolingual (although not their standard speaking) counterparts.

< previous page

page_27

next page >

< previous page

page_28

next page > Page 28

• There is some not unexpected evidence to suggest that pupils who are still in initial or intermediate stages of learning English as a second language for whom an overseas-based Creole is a dominant language are likely to be experiencing difficulties in reading and writing'. (1980: 84,87-88) It is possible to argue that this interpretation is the most positive one available, and that it masks less positive and more disturbing interpretations. According to Table 2.1, speakers of full Creole are most likely to be assessed as having significant difficulties in reading and writing English, followed closely by speakers of other languages. The next most likely group to be so assessed are strong speakers of non-standard London English dialect. It is worth pointing out that pupils in this last London dialect group would all probably come from less advantaged working class socioeconomic groups. In the end, the figures which Rosen & Burgess give indicate that the teachers involved in their survey were more likely to attribute significant literacy problems to speakers of other languages, especially Caribbean Creole speakers, than to any other language grouping. Given the low status in education of strong London dialect and the fact that teachers tend to treat dialect features in reading and writing simply as 'mistakes' (Cheshire, 1984; Williams, 1989), the proximity of this group to the groups of speakers of other languages does not (as Rosen & Burgess would have us believe) lessen the impact of these figures: it can be argued that they indicate negative assessments and attitudes on the part of (doubtless sympathetic) teachers. These attitudes would probably induce a corresponding reluctance on the part of pupils speaking other languages to volunteer information which could be academically disadvantageous. There are particular reasons for suspecting that the responses for Creoles and West Indian dialect gave the researchers on this survey an underestimate of the true extent of the use of Creoles among the pupils surveyed. Indeed, these factors would tend to operate in any survey of the kind described here. Most obviously there is the low, even negatively marked, status of Creoles in many contexts, particularly educational contexts, discussed, for example, by Rosen in an interesting article (1980): This phenomenon of learning to 'talk black' is the more impressive since it often runs counter to the wishes of parents who disapprove of 'bad talk'. Pupils who have in their repertoire a Caribbean Creole may in the school situation be reluctant to admit that they have it. Many competent Creole users do not see their use of a Creole as 'reportable' in the terms of teachers or linguistic researchers. It would appear that revealing abilities in Creole has a characteristic sensitivity to factors such as social context, interlocutors etc. (Labov, 1969; Edwards, 1986). Abilities

< previous page

page_28

next page >

< previous page

page_29

next page > Page 29

in English associated Creole may be denied by users from a youth subculture as a part of the function of Creole as a 'secret language' (Stone, 1981). Finally, there is the question of how far teachers' knowledge about, and attitudes towards, Creoles and 'English-based' Creole in particular, may have affected their reporting of them in the survey questionnaires. There are roughly 300 words of advice referring to 'West Indian dialect' in the teachers' introductory notes, including the advice: Don't worry, then, if your answer is based on a relatively rough and ready judgement. (Rosen & Burgess, 1980) Many teachers must have been confused as to what constituted speaking a Creole. There is corroborative evidence from a range of sources (in Edwards, 1986: 29-30) which indicates that Rosen & Burgess seriously underestimated the use of 'West Indian dialects'. To conclude, there are many sound reasons for doubting the statement by Rosen & Burgess that pupils' reluctance to vouchsafe linguistic information about themselves was very rare in this survey and for thinking that, in actuality, information would often have been withheld. Elsewhere, Rosen has shown a greater curiosity towards the issues behind data collection in language surveys than in Rosen & Burgess, 1980. What evokes pride and warmth in the family circle or at a wedding may perhaps evoke embarrassment or shame in a setting like school. Pupils who may be content or delighted to speak their minority group language in certain out of school situations may not wish attention drawn to it in school when it will seem to emphasise or suggest alienness. (Rosen, 1980) In an environment where pupils with plurilingual abilities fear revealing their 'alienness', surveys which seek such revelations need great subtlety and sensitivity of approach. However, the limitations and weaknesses of 'The Survey of Linguistic Diversity in London Schools' as described above ensured that significant distortion was 'built in' to the methodology of the survey, probably resulting in serious underestimates in the measurements taken of linguistic diversity in the schools surveyed. The Linguistic Minorities Project (LMP) The Linguistic Minorities Project was set up in September 1978 at the University of London Institute of Education. The project was funded by the Department of Education and Science for three and a half years, ending in April 1983. The LMP has undertaken the most substantial research into linguistic diversity in Britain. As reported in 'The Other Languages of England' (1985), their surveys have been carried out in four different areas

< previous page

page_29

next page >

< previous page

page_30

next page > Page 30

of urban England: Bradford, Coventry, Peterborough, and the north London Boroughs of Waltham Forest and Haringey. LMP survey forms and procedures have also been used by a number of Local Education Authorities, including Brent, Hounslow and Ealing. Information about the project, and support to such ILEAS, continued to be disseminated through the Language Information Network Co-ordination (funded by the European Economic Community) until the end of 1984. A successor, the Community Languages and Education Project, employing a number of LMP team members and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, has continued to follow up some of the work of the project. The Linguistic Minorities Project surveys consisted mainly of the Schools Language Surveys and, on a lesser scale, the more sociolinguistically detailed Adult Language Use Survey (ALUS). The Schools Language Survey was administered in the five areas given above, with the cooperation of the Local Education Authorities, throughout Primary (5-11) and Secondary (11-16) schools. The surveys covered a total population of some 216,000 pupils. The proportions of pupils who reported (or were reported by teachers as) speaking another language at home varied from 7.4% in Peterborough, up to 30.7% in Haringey. Surveys using LMP forms have revealed LEAs with higher percentages: in the Ealing Schools Language Survey in 1985 41.7% of pupils across the borough reported speaking another language at home (London Borough of Ealing, 1985). The LMP also developed a Secondary Pupils Survey, resembling an activity pack, usable by both plurilingual and monolingual pupils through the choice of alternative routes through an 11 page illustrated questionnaire. The LMP Schools Language Survey (SLS) simplifies the process of eliciting the basic data required by a linguistic diversity survey, as compared with the Rosen & Burgess questionnaire, and develops the methodology employed. The influence of Rosen & Burgess's work on the design of the SLS, and the Secondary Pupils' Survey is acknowledged (LMP, 1985). The larger scale of the SLS and the fact that participating schools had not had the same level of consultation, but were instructed by the LEAs, enforced brevity and simplicity so that a 'much smaller number of questions, simply worded' had to be employed in the SLS questionnaire. The LMP improved on the survey procedure in that they specify: (1) that the pupil must be treated as the respondent in the survey by being consulted and questioned directly, and (2) -the actual form of words to be used in asking the questions. The LMP approach places an emphasis on asking the pupil which contrasts with the reliance and trust Rosen & Burgess place on the teacher's opinion. They also make explicit to the teacher/interviewer in the instruc-

< previous page

page_30

next page >

< previous page

page_31

next page > Page 31

tions that accompany the questionnaire the sensitive nature of such questioning and stipulate that confidentiality may be required and should be respected. The ideal methodology specified by the LMP in the note to the teacher on 'Putting the Questions' is very different from Rosen & Burgess's 'central technique' of the group interview. We suggest that you put the questions to the pupils individually, if possible, not in front of the class as a whole, since some pupils will certainly be shy about referring to what they may regard as an 'odd' linguistic background. We ask you to put the first question (see below) to all the pupils in your class, even when you think it very unlikely that the pupil concerned ever uses a language other than English, because experience shows that teachers are occasionally unaware of a pupil's linguistic background'. (See 8.1 SLS, LMP, 1985) However, the methodology prescribed and the practice followed in the classroom were not always the same, and methods actually employed in the classroom varied, as also happened in the Rosen & Burgess survey. LMP briefings for teachers were voluntary and the efficacy of these, and of the instructions attached to the questionnaire, depend upon and vary according to, the commitment of the teacher/interviewer involved. The approach of the teacher will also vary, in the conditions of the SLS, according to the context and the respondent. For example, the wording of the crucial initial question, which was very carefully composed, piloted and rephrased, in practice, had to be adapted in certain cases. The form of words for Question 1 is: Do you yourself ever speak any language at home apart from English? In the SLS 'Manual of Use' (LMP, 1984), it is reported that this wording needs to be adapted according to the age and understanding of the pupils. For 8-12 year olds of Pakistani origin the question became: Do you talk in English or in 'Pakistani' to your Mummy and Daddy at home? Questions for 5-7 year olds included: What do you talk in your house? Do you speak 'X'(named language) in your house? and Do you speak 'X'? Feedback from teachers following these wordings indicate the problematic and ambivalent nature of such questions and the degree to which the teachers as interviewers intervened, altering the wording, and employing the kind of leading questions which are normally excluded from questionnaire surveys as not reliable. A teacher of 3-4 year olds reported:

< previous page

page_31

next page >

< previous page

page_32

next page > Page 32

Question 1 was not easily understood by the children. They found the words 'language' and 'apart from' difficult to understand. They did not seem to make a distinction between the different languages they spoke (and words used when speaking those languages). I tried alternative reformulations of Question 1: 'Do you talk the same as your Mummy when you're at home?', 'Do you talk/say the same (words) at home and at school?' (LMP, 1984) The LMP (1985) report criticism and resistance from some teachers to the use of 'ever' in the model Question 1 as encouraging 'exaggeration'. (Many teachers educated in, and accustomed to, academic standards applied to language learning, seem to react more readily with suspicions of overestimates of knowledge of other languages among their pupils, rather than comprehending the pressures on pupils not to report the use of languages in addition to English in surveys). The wording of questions, particularly this crucial initial question, as laid down by the LMP for the SLS, can only be taken as a recommended form of words. The wording of questions actually put in practice were evidently often altered by teacher/interviewers, to a degree not measured. Despite the pains which were taken over developing and piloting LMP procedures and materials, the methodology of the Schools Language Surveys may be seen to suffer from many of the significant weaknesses of their predecessors, and thus to fall short of the standards of scientific accurate measurements. In at least three respects, the classroom stands between the survey and the elicitation of reliable self-reports from plurilingual respondents. There is the pressure from peersthe fear of exhibiting 'alienness' described by Rosen above. There is the fact that the survey is conducted in 'the language of the classroom': in a constrained situation and discourse, and in English only. There is the problem of untrained and unsuitable elicitors: teachers co-opted as interviewers. The kind of mass surveys mounted by LEAs, such as the SLS, arguably suffer greater problems in the area of teacher/elicitor sensitivity and commitment to the aims of the research, than in smaller research surveys cooperatively arranged with schools, such as that set up by Rosen & Burgess. It was in the end more important that a school wanted to work with us and could manage within its own schedule the necessary space. . .' (Rosen & Burgess, 1980) The LMP arranged teacher briefings for the SLS, but many teachers, who reported back on their pupils in the completion of the questionnaire did not attend these meetings. Nor would all teachers have been able to give the attention to individual children required by the confidential one-to-one

< previous page

page_32

next page >

< previous page

page_33

next page > Page 33

interviews. In addition, it is plain that not all teachers would have been understanding or sympathetic to the survey and its aims. Not surprisingly, teachers expressed 'reluctance. . .to undertake what was seen as yet more pointless form filling imposed to some extent by an outside agency' (LMP, 1985). Language surveys inevitably have an ideological aspect in their materials and aims, even in their very existence, as will be further discussed later. The LMP noted an extreme form of ideological antipathy. We had some evidence too of blatant discriminatory and racist reactions to the possibility or the actuality of the research. . . (Rosen & Burgess, 1980) The LMP did not only survey schools: an Adult Language Use Survey (ALUS) was developed, which counterbalanced the simpler 'head counting' and methodology of the SLS with a more sophisticated enquiry into the linguistic experience of plurilingual British citizens. It was in fact the first sociolinguistic survey in inner city areas on such a large scale to be undertaken in minority communities as opposed to school classrooms. The ALUS set out not only to give some measure of the extent of bilingualism and multilingualism, but also to record patterns of language use, and attitudes towards the maintenance and teaching of the different community languages. The questionnaire consisted of 156 questions in English and the anticipated home language. Trained bilingual interviewers from the community, speaking the anticipated languages of the respondents, were employed. The respondents were a preselected sample, put together using electoral rolls, phone directories and 'community lists'. 2,500 respondents from eleven linguistic minorities in Coventry, Bradford and London were interviewed; the eleven languages were Bengali, Cantonese/'Chinese', Greek, Gujerati, Italian, Panjabi, Polish, Portuguese, Turkish and Ukrainian. The opening question in the ALUS gave rise to problems: this is discussed in the second section of this chapter, below. Sampling strategy on the survey was also problematic. The margin of error, for example, of using computers programmed to extract names from electoral rolls and identify them with possible home languages can be 15% (LMP, 1985). In addition, the questionnaire design was based upon a diglossic view of bilingualism and the identification of discrete domains of use, whereas it later became clear that the languages within the communicative repertoire of the plurilingual groups surveyed did not necessarily fall into such neat categories. However, by comparison with other language surveys, the ALUS remains innovative and, in using the resources of the speech communities themselves, points the way for the future.

< previous page

page_33

next page >

< previous page

page_34

next page > Page 34

To conclude, the LMP Schools Language Survey represents the most efficient and sensitively designed large scale survey of school pupils to date. Nevertheless, it cannot be separated from other schools language surveys, in following questionable procedures and methodology, which may have led to corresponding inaccuracies in the data collected. Discussion As we have seen, language surveys and their methodology are problematic. It is also reasonable to conclude that there are major inaccuracies in the data and that, given the nature of the problems in survey procedure, these show significant underestimates of the use of other languages, in addition to English, in the populations surveyed. It is the intention in this final section to summarise, relate and extend the analysis of problems in the methodology and to conclude with some indications of the lessons to be learnt from the history of language diversity surveying. Alladina (1985a) identifies at least four factors responsible for 'weaknesses in the methodology and survey instruments' and consequent underestimates in the statistics available from language diversity surveys carried out in Britain. These four factors relate to unreliability due to (a) self reports, (b) elicitors, (c) sampling strategy, and (d) language classification. It can be seen that the first three of these factors may be related to the use of the interview and the sample, which are basic tools in social surveys, and in language surveys. Problems of language classification, by contrast, are particular to diversity surveys as a form of sociolinguistic research. Further problems may be subsumed under a third category: the various ideological pressures which bear upon surveying the languages of 'ethnic minorities' in Britain, as touched upon at the end of the last section. To summarise, the problems of language surveys may be related to three facets of their nature: (1) as a form of social survey, (2) to the special problems of applying such research to linguistic data, (3) to language diversity surveys in an ideological arena. Language Diversity Surveys as Social Surveys Language diversity surveys are difficult to categorise within the various kinds of social survey: they fall between surveys of 'the demographic characteristics of a set of people and their social environment' (Moser & Kalton, 1971) and surveys on opinions and attitudes, where similar issues of ideology, group pressure and the sensitivity of questioning and information arise. Social surveys rely upon a situation in which respondents are

< previous page

page_34

next page >

< previous page

page_35

next page > Page 35

asked to give information about themselves to relative strangers, either in a 'donor role' (Shipman, 1972), or, in some surveys, for payment. In language surveys, in Britain, the respondents able to give information on the use of languages other than English find themselves in an unusual situation, since their day-to-day experience outside their language community will have been of indifference, or even hostility, to their use of other languages. Given this context, the use of self reports in language surveys is a particular weakness. In the schools language surveys, children are surveyed as pupils, by their teachers. Part of the skill of being a pupil is to be able to detect clues and give the answer the adult wants even though it was not understood. (Shipman, 1972) The use of the classroom teacher as the elicitor makes for a poor sort of survey. Teachers are authority figures and notoriously judgemental. Even where teachers are asked, and bother, to check their preconceptions, it would be a bold pupil who unexpectedly spoke out for the survey. Moreover, the teachers' training for this task has consisted of briefings (optional), and a circular. This compares poorly with social surveys which rigorously select and train their interviewers'how to approach subjects, how and where to sit, the tone of voice to use' (Shipman, 1972). Children will clam up when teachers, often ignorant of phonemic differences between English and other languages, sometimes arrogantly anglocentric, misunderstand, mishear or mispronounce their language names, or ask abruptly for a repetition. In order to gain the confidential and uninhibited responses necessary for accurate measurements/data in surveys, elicitors will need to be of a particular kind and not the teachers of the respondents. Further factors of unreliability relating to the use of the interview in schools language surveys are peer pressure, as discussed previously, and other factors of the context in which the respondent is called upon to answer, such as the wider social context and environment. In social surveys, researchers often know little of special factors operating in the various contexts in which the interviewers collecting the data operate. Institutions, especially heavily authoritarian ones like schools, are not suitable places to ask individuals for the open disclosure of personal information (Goffman, 1959). Furthermore, if the respondent is asked about their use of another language in a situation, or place, where they do not use that language, the person will often feel motivated to give a negative response. The distorting influence of environment, or context, on responses seems to have gone largely unrecognised.

< previous page

page_35

next page >

< previous page

page_36

next page > Page 36

In addition to self-reports and elicitors, questionnaires also cause weaknesses in data collection. As we have seen schools language survey questionnaires have shown weaknesses in the drafting of their questions, especially where the pupils are only 'supposed respondents', and the questionnaire addresses enquiries to the teachers, as in Rosen & Burgess's and the ILEA census questionnaires. A wider problem is that of ambiguity in questionnaires. In the pilot of the college survey around which this study is based a question referring to learning a language 'at home', was in some cases interpreted by migrant students as meaning 'in your country of origin', which is broader than the intended meaning of 'in your family' (Nicholas, 1986). Questions have to be painstakingly drafted, redrafted, piloted, rewrittensometimes again and againin order to ensure that what is meant is clear and that the intended meaning is conveyed to the target audience. Researchers often knowingly word questionnaires in compromises which incorporate the least possibility of ambiguity. The ambivalence of the term 'first language' or 'home language', often used in surveys as if only one language can fit into the category, can compound ambiguity in questionnaires. The ILEA language census, which only elicits or recognises one possible 'home language', must cause a variety of distortions; for example, it must discourage pupils who use English as a home language and another language (or other languages) at home, from reporting the use of other languages to the survey. In the case of the LMP Adult Language Use questionnaire some major problems 'only came to light after it (the questionnaire) had been used with over 800 respondents, and following piloting and revision' (LMP, 1985: 151). As with the SLS, the opening, or screening question gave rise to ambiguity. The ALUS opening question was asked in the language the researchers had predicted to be the home language (in addition to English) of the respondentand first took the form: Would you please list for me all the languages you know? Subsequent questions were ambiguous since the respondent was often unsure as to which language the question referred. The question was redrafted at quite a late stage, and the following was adopted: Which languages do you know besides..........? (anticipated language named) One particular question continued to evidence (interesting) problems of ambiguity: How well do you understand/speak........... ? (named language) Respondents sometimes construed this as referring to the 'standard' of the language spoken, i.e. how far the respondent spoke the standard form as

< previous page

page_36

next page >

< previous page

page_37

next page > Page 37

opposed to a non standard dialect form (Haugen, 1966; Cheshire et al., 1989), whereas the intention was to discover fluency. Ambiguity is an area in the methodology, which though small seems worthy of investigation. Linguistic Problems in Language Diversity Surveying The issue of ambiguity may be seen to overlap with the issues dealt with in the second part of this discussion, which deals with the specifically linguistic problems of using social survey methodology to collect sociolinguistic data. They are summarised here under three topics: language use and the 'L1 concept', language classification (language labels etc.) and the status of Creoles, Patois, Pidgins etc. The concept of a 'first language', or 'mother tongue', is a convenience in talking about language use and eliciting information, which seems to have been adopted in language surveys without much critical examination, or concern for accuracy. It has been suggested by its critics that it is a Eurocentric idea. In most communities around the world the use of a number of languages in everyday communication is a common and unremarkable occurrence. Only in England where 'the monolingual world view' so distorts language issues could multilingualism (using more than two languages) be seen as unusual. The practice of identifying a single 'first language' may be seen as a monolingual obsession and connected with deficit theories of bilingualism/multilingualism which see the mind as a kind of container which has problems in holding more than one language at once. The use of the L1 concept in language surveys obscures the fact that many plurilingual people grew up using or speaking a number of languages at home, and data can be distorted as a result. The practice in the ILEA language census of measuring the use of one home language'other than, or in addition to English'and that used'most often at home' failed to make any allowances for multilingual pupils and leads to inaccuracies in the data. For many speakers of other languages in addition to English, English has been acquired 'as a first language' with parents, but the use of another language reflects ethnic background. (This phenomenon has been well documented in other countries, such as Singapore (Tay, 1979)). The adherence in language surveys to measuring L1 data increases the suspicion that such surveys are a covert form of ethnic monitoring. Languages for plurilingual people play different roles and the idea that the national language of a country is only 'first' for monolinguals and a 'second language' for speakers of other languages, is becoming increasingly unacceptable.

< previous page

page_37

next page >

< previous page

page_38

next page > Page 38

Accuracy in the naming of languages and the dissemination of information and raising of awareness among elicitors to this end, are major issues in survey methodology, as evidenced in the prominence of such information in the teachers' notes in the schools surveys. Language labels used by respondents or elicitors may be imprecise or confusing, reducing the value of the data. Labels in common use are sometimes ambiguous, as in the case of the group of languages termed 'Chinese' (Wong, 1990). Although this term corresponds to a related group of languages, not mutually intelligible in their spoken form, the ILEA language census gives data for Chinese (4,325 respondents, 6.6% and the third most spoken 'language', 1987). Other surveys attempt to identify whether Cantonese, Hakka, Hokkien, Mandarin or any other member of the group is indicated. There are also labels current in the community which reflect the common ignorance about languages and their names among the monolingual majority in Britain. The ILEA 1979 census gives 1129 speakers of 'Indian' and 'Pakistani'ethnic rather than language namesa feature which probably reflects the knowledge of the teachers and headteachers who were supposed to elicit the data. In the 1981 census the fact that only 43 students came into these categories probably indicates some raising of awareness among ILEA teachers involved in the surveys (Alladina, 1985b). Where respondents themselves volunteer such responses as 'Nigerian', 'Yugoslavian' or 'African', this kind of response may reflect communicative expectations of ignorance on the part of the person asking the question, based on past experiences of incomprehension of the accurate term from outsiders, so a label like Lingala, for example, is transposed by steps to 'African'. Various attitudinal and social factors such as the political status of languages, in addition to linguistic aspects of status such as 'standardisation', bear upon the reliability of survey data. The LMP report that some of their Bengali speaking interviewers on the ALUS 'forcefully expressed their disapproval' towards questionnaires in Bengali, which used expressions accessible to speakers of Sylheti, as 'such poor Bengali'. 'Vernacular' or 'undeveloped' languages which do not possess a recognised written form, may be seen as base or degraded, not only by speakers of the standard closest to the vernacular form, but also by those who can speak the vernacular form (Haugen, 1966; Alladina & Edwards, 1990). Thus respondents will name the standard form as their 'first language' and omit any mention of the lower status local language mostly used at home. The case of the South Asian languages Hindi, Panjabi and Urdu, which are commonly known in combination, is an example where a complex of national, regional, religious and linguistic factors bear upon use, and show the inadequacy of simplistic 'first language' categories. Pakistani background respondents have frequently reported speaking Urdu to the exclu-

< previous page

page_38

next page >

< previous page

page_39

next page > Page 39

sion of the Panjabi actually used at home, when Urdu is rather the language of literacy (LMP, 1985). The Rosen & Burgess language survey was unusual, by contrast with the later ILEA and LMP surveys, in eliciting data about Creoles and West Indian dialect specifically and separately. These language forms, more than any other, are the icebergs in the data, with their extent largely concealed. They are sometimes classified by researchers as 'dialects', or somehow 'not separate' languages, from the European languagesmainly English, French, Spanish and Portuguesewith which they are associated and therefore not reportable in a language survey. Equally, Creole speakers often will not report their use of Creole (or 'Patois', or 'West Indian dialect') in the terms of linguistic researchers, or many other interviewers. Revealing abilities in Creole, as discussed in the review of Rosen & Burgess's survey above (p. 28), depends upon a variety of factors, particularly the ethnicity of the interviewer, other interlocutors and formality (Edwards, 1986). (The history of Afro-Caribbean people and their languages also has great bearing on these matters.) Measurements of the use of Creole in black Afro-Caribbean populations vary greatly in different surveys, ranging from 10-20% in the Rosen & Burgess survey to 100% (Tomlin, 1981). Those surveys which make no attempt to elicit reports of Creoles in some specific form will have little or no reliable data on their use. Where Creole questions are included, researchers are faced, of course, with a variety of methodological problems. In addition to those above, there is the basic problem that there is no received terminology with general acceptance in Creole language communities (Dalphinis, 1985, 1990). It is thus difficult to arrive at satisfactory terms and questions relating to Creoles, or West Indian dialects, which communicate the necessary distinctions. Many speakers, for example, do not find the term 'English-based Creole' acceptable or familiar. Some speakers will refer to their language as a 'broken' form of the European language with which it is associated; terms which are easily misunderstood by outsiders. To sum up, the lack of reliable data on Creoles remains a serious weakness in the language surveys undertaken in Britain. It is plain that the methodology necessary to include data collection on Creoles, Patois or West Indian dialect will require further research. Ideological Aspects of Language Diversity Surveying Language diversity surveys normally have an ideological aspect: a survey of languages spoken in an area is bound to impinge upon political and social issues. For a number of reasons, language diversity surveys in Britain

< previous page

page_39

next page >

< previous page

page_40

next page > Page 40

operate unavoidably in an ideological arena. The presence and use of languages in addition to English in Britain cannot be measured as neutral, demographic, 'hard facts', primarily because they exist in a hostile environment, a part of which is the monolingual English hegemony already mentioned. This hostility, which also includes prejudice and racism, overt or covert, exists at every level of British society: in the street, in the classroom, in the political system. Of course, it is a factor in the underreporting and underestimates in survey data. It is significant that in the case of the LMP Adult Language Use Survey the main questions initiated by the respondents to the interviewers related to confidentiality, particularly from where their names had been obtained (LMP, 1985: 137). This hostile environment is an important consideration in the schools language surveys. Many people regard the use of 'minority languages' in schools as a 'problem', or with suspicion, including, unfortunately, some teachers (Edwards et al., in press). The British media encourages these suspicions with folk tales of schools where community languages have displaced monolingual English traditions (Gordon, 1987). The Swann Report (1985) on the education of pupils from 'ethnic minorities' advocated the exclusion of the teaching of community languages from schools, saying that this could be 'best achieved within the ethnic minority communities'. There are also more recent setbacks, such as the suggestion of inferior status for languages other than the working languages of the European Community in the National Curriculum guidelines for language education (DES, 1990). Educational myths, such as those of 'semilingualism' (Martin Jones & Romaine, 1986) support negative stereotypes of language diversity at the highest levels of the educational system. It is evident from the experience of performing language diversity surveys that they swiftly reveal and draw out racist antagonism. These various ideological forces, at a grassroots level, have an effect on respondents in dissuading many from reporting (Lomas, 1980). In the schools language survey these pressures work in a variety of ways: through pressures towards conformity and the use of teachers as elicitors, for example. However, language diversity surveys can have a positive role in this hostile context. They can lend recognition and esteem to the reporting of abilities in other languages. They can put language diversity higher on the agenda in education. In summary, it is clear that language surveys cannot be separated from ideological concerns. What can be learnt from the history of language diversity surveying? If language diversity surveying activity is to continue in Britain, then there are opportunities to learn from the conduct of past surveys. There is

< previous page

page_40

next page >

< previous page

page_41

next page > Page 41

a need to involve people from the language communities themselves, and not just as interviewers or consultants. In the absence of such participation by the speakers and users of the languages being researched upon, the exercise would stagnate in the old tradition of social anthropology where researchers from the Western World studied the social patterns, and speech behaviour of people in 'primitive' societies. (Alladina, 1985a) There are various dangers of tokenism in just 'doing a survey'. There are the dangers of tinkering with the issues, but not being able to follow through research and plans for change. Even the Linguistic Minorities Project appeared frustrated with aspects of the follow through from their work. . . .our institutional base, and our styles of media and communication were bound to restrict the impact of our research, making it more accessible to the highly educated English speaking people, and more susceptible to manipulation by institutions which have the power to resist change in the status quo. (LMP, 1985: 380) The reports and books published about the ILEA Language Census, the 1978 'Rosen & Burgess' Survey, and the Linguistic Minorities Project surveys have not recognised the extent of problems in the methodologies used and unreliability in the data gathered. An improvement in the reliability of survey data could be achieved if the issues of survey processes discussed here were given greater attentione.g. in the participation of the communities under study, the choice and training of elicitors, the devising and piloting of methods and materials and the interpretation of data. Where there are unavoidable limitations on these measures, a proportion of the population surveyed could be monitored in depth, using ethnographic approaches, to gain some measure of distortions and their scale. The surveys discussed here were widely seen at their inauguration as having a pioneering role. There is a need for further development in the methodology of any new surveys if this research is not to stagnate.

< previous page

page_41

next page >

< previous page

page_42

next page > Page 42

3 The College Language Diversity Survey: Introduction Methods and Results Introduction These three chapters, Chapters 3, 4 and 5, are concerned with presenting the case study through which the central ideas put forward in this book were formulated and investigated. This research was carried out through a language survey of a college of Further Education located in West London. This chapter presents the context, aims, methodology and quantitative results of the survey itself under the headings: (1) Introduction, (2) Methods and Materials, and (3) Results. Chapter 4 is presented under the headings: (4) Discussion and (5) Recommendations. Although the college language survey and this chapter in particular, includes the traditional terms of quantitative research, the research is developed qualitatively in Chapters 4 and 5 in order to examine the hypothesis upon which my central argument is based. This is the hypothesis that the qualitative effects of the processes of questionnaire survey research on language diversity are of greater significance and import than the quantitative hard data produced. We will begin by looking at the context, or 'history' of surveys of language diversity in Further Education in Inner London. Language Surveys in Colleges of Further Education As far as my researches have been able to show there have been at least three 'in-house' surveys attempting to measure language diversity in Further Education Colleges in Inner London in the eighties: Woolwich College (Sept- Oct 1984), Westminster College (Sept-Oct 1985) and South East London College (Sept-Oct 1987). The reports from these surveys have not been published and the references given are to reports held in the libraries of the colleges themselves. These surveys are probably quite

< previous page

page_42

next page >

< previous page

page_43

next page > Page 43

Table 3.1 Surveys of linguistic diversity in Inner London Colleges of Further Education, 1985-1987 College Sample Proportion of plurilingual students In Number % of Sample 780 248 Woolwich 30% 799 82 Westminster 10% 567 South East London 1469 38.6% representative of unpublicised, autonomous surveying activity taking place in colleges and schools to establish the scale of language diversity and demand for courses and materials. There is strong evidence of under reporting in view of the kind of factors described in the previous chapter bearing upon reporting in the methodologies used (see Table 3.1). The Woolwich survey was not administered by teachers as such, but through the library, by issuing the students with a postcard printed with a questionnaire when they joined the library. The questionnaire includes a question asking the respondents if they feel they need extra language tuition and also a question asking if they would like mother tongue materials in the library. The card was attractively and informally printed and was anonymous (Barry & Trushell, 1986). The Westminster survey was a functional exercise carried out by the English language support section, aimed at revealing bilingual students and whether 'they needed language support'. The survey evaluated students' skills in English. The survey team did not appear to recognise any conflict between the aims of gathering accurate data on the numbers of bilingual students in the college and at the same time assessing 'their proficiency in English'. The survey was not anonymous and included a section which elicited the teacher's opinion and comments (Balakrishnan et al., 1985). The South East London College survey was, like that at Woolwich, carried out upon students when they joined the library, and cut off at 1469 respondents on the 30th October 1987. The questionnaire, which was influenced by that used at Hammersmith, used a table eliciting understanding, reading and speaking in up to four languages, and then asked students which was their 'family language'. They were then asked about the library materials and courses they would like to study in different languages. The questionnaire was not anonymous (South East London College, 1987). These different college language surveys were all 'inhouse' inquiries carried out over a fairly short period of time and were concerned with

< previous page

page_43

next page >

< previous page

page_44

next page > Page 44

functional questions about language support and library materials, rather than academic research. No data is available on any wider discussion, or judgement on the perceived usefulness, or otherwise, of the surveys. Introduction to the Hammersmith and West London College Language Diversity Survey The Hammersmith and West London College Language survey took place over the period January 1986-June 1987, and submitted a final report in November 1987. At the time of the research the college was part of the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA), but following the abolition of ILEA it has since changed to the control of the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, a process which has had some effect upon the research. The college has three faculties, divided into seven departments; two faculties are based at the main site and a satellite faculty, the School of Building Studies, has its own site, and is usually referred to as 'Lime Grove'. There was at the time a population of some 12,000 students; over half of these attended part time. The majority of full time students fell into the 16-18 year old range, the majority of part time students were over 18. Further education is concerned with post 16 non advanced or other vocational educational provision; although academic courses for students 16+, including 'adult returners', also play a role depending on what other provision is available in the Local Authority area. Most students attended this college in order to follow courses which led to vocational or professional qualifications, although academic General Certificate of Secondary Education, and Baccalaureate, qualifications were also pursued. The large population of foreign students (over 20%) following English as a Foreign Language qualifications were not included in the final report of the survey results, since the survey was concerned with populations of students resident in Britain using languages in addition to English. In the college context discussed above, it was envisaged that the process of carrying out a survey of users of languages other than English and the presentation of the data yielded from the survey, should pursue broader awareness raising about issues of bi- and multilingualism. Through the survey, students and staff would perceive that there was 'official interest' in the use of other languages in the student population, and thus come to value language diversity more. Plurilingual students might gain in esteem and be further encouraged to see their use of languages other than English as of value and worthy of report. The survey was developed as an Action Research project in the sense that the object of the research was not simply to gather data but to actively promote change towards more positive awareness and policies in relation to language diversity in the institution.

< previous page

page_44

next page >

< previous page

page_45

next page > Page 45

There was something of a contradiction, or problem in gaining a commitment from teachers to the carrying out of the survey, in telling the same teachers that one of the aims of the survey was to raise their awareness of language diversity. This assumes that teachers are prepared to put some effort into having their awareness raised. Indeed, teachers without any such awareness might not be prepared to participate in such a language survey. At the head of the questionnaire there was the general, and perhaps bland, statement: We hope to use the information collected in the survey to improve the services, and resources, in the college for everybody. The letter to tutors, which all teachers participating in the administration of the survey received, was similarly unspecific. This survey will gather information about the languages in addition to English used by our students. The information will be useful in working out language policies to meet the varied needs of students in the college. In the event, in all consultations and communications setting up and presenting the language survey, 'what for' questions from teachers about the aims of the survey were the most frequent and probing. General statements were not accepted and usually had to be followed up with more detailed descriptions of aims. Nor did it seem to be satisfactory simply to describe the data which the questionnaire would yield: teachers asked about the aims of collecting such data. It was often assumed, or suggested, that an aim was to get data which would be useful in tackling 'problems' and providing ESL teaching. Different categories of aims would vary in importance and function during stages in the carrying out of the survey. During the setting up of the survey and consultations with the staff of the different faculties, it was important to state the 'ideological' aim of representing bilingualism/ multilingualism positively in asking teachers to discuss students' use of other languages in a sensitive, non-evaluative and positive manner. During the administration of the survey and processing of results, 'data gathering' aims would come to the fore. In the final phase of presenting the results and recommendations of the survey 'curriculum change' aims would develop and become more overt. From the perspective of the action research taking place 'ethnographic' aims would operate and develop throughout. In conclusion, the broad aims of the survey were as follows.

< previous page

page_45

next page >

< previous page

page_46

next page > Page 46

Data gathering (1) To employ a surveying methodology which would maximise reports from plurilingual respondents and attempt to avoid any methodological features which might induce under reporting. (2) To gain an indicative measure of the other languages, in addition to English, used by students, and the proportion of the student population who used or understood other languages, in the different faculties, departments and courses offered within the college. (3) To gain some indication of the demand for library resources and courses and qualifications in community languages, from an appropriate plurilingual group. Curriculum Change (1) To put forward recommendations for action and change within the college on the basis of the aims, results and experience of the results of the survey. (2) To argue for appropriate curriculum provision in response to the use of community languages in the student population. Awareness Raising (1) To communicate through the survey, its materials and practice, a positive, informed attitude to plurilingualism and the use of languages other than English in the student population. (2) To support and promote discussion and awareness raising among staff about linguistic diversity, in particular its presence in the college and potential contribution to educational provision. Ethnography (1) To observe and record the college as an institution, including the attitudes of teachers, in relation to language diversity in the student population; and to monitor the effects of the survey on this relation. (2) To objectify the experience of a small-scale language survey in a Further Education College, make observations and suggest guidelines for future work. (3) To use the survey as an Action Research project to observe those processes of institutional change which might be set in motion by such a survey, and the processes by which changes were discussed and rejected or adopted. This concludes the section concerned with the context and aims of the survey. We now move on to the methodology.

< previous page

page_46

next page >

< previous page

page_47

next page > Page 47

Methods and Materials Methods The administrative and ethnographic methodology of the data gathering aspect of the survey involved: (1) Consultation with management, committees and staff, through the administrative college structure of Faculty Assemblies and staff meetings, to gain agreement to the carrying out of the survey. (2) Devising and piloting the methods of administrating the survey including the materials described below. (3) Drawing up a 'judgement' sample. This involved deciding on: (a) the target number of students in the population, and (b) the course areas which needed to be included in the sample, in order for the population surveyed to cover the range of courses provided in each department. (4) 'Recruiting' teachers to administer the survey in their classes and providing them with the necessary information and materials. (5) Monitoring the progress of the survey in each Faculty and ensuring that questionnaires were returned. (6) Processing the data. (7) Feeding back and disseminating the data to management, teachers and students, followed by discussion of the implications of the survey findings. (8) Following up the survey with assessment of action taken in response to recommendations and any other impact of the survey. (9) Observation of the college response to plurilingualism through documentation, feedback and participant observation. Issues related to teachers' attitudes to linguistic diversity issues and the treatment of plurilingual students in the college tended to take on a higher profile and come under discussion during the survey activities. The questionnaires and teachers' notes and instructions were distributed and returned in class packs. Teachers were asked to distribute a questionnaire to each and every student attending their class on a particular day, to allow, and if necessary assist, the students to complete the questionnaire in class time and collect them all in when completed. Teachers were asked and given written instructions not to allow students to take their questionnaires away. Discussion of languages used by students and linguistic diversity in Britain was encouraged. However, teachers were asked to keep such discussion separate from the completion and the actual content of the completed questionnaires, in order to maintain and confirm the confidentiality and anonymity of the information given.

< previous page

page_47

next page >

< previous page

page_48

next page > Page 48

Materials for survey administrators/teachers In addition to the questionnaire, there was an evident need for instructions, notes and some minimal records for teachers, to facilitate the administration of the survey. These took the form of a letter to the teacher administering the survey, together with some notes to assist teachers in answering respondents' queries (see Appendix). The 'letter to the tutor' gave the minimum instructions necessary. The letter gave a very general statement of aims, clear instructions on administration, including a paragraph explaining the importance of respecting the confidentiality of the completed questionnaires, and a boxed in 'form' asking teachers to record and feedback the number of questionnaires returned, the number of students present at the time of administration in the class, the total number of students in the class, the title of the course and class, and the teacher/administrator's name, which it was assured would not be included in the processed data. Teachers were also assured that the data they returned would only be used for the language survey (since attendance and the number on roll in a class can be quite sensitive data in FE, despite the existence of registers). The teacher's notes which were printed on the reverse of the letter were kept within the bounds of an A4 page. In the first section (A) Points 3,4 and 5 referring to the terminology of the questionnaire were largely based on the questions and guidance which teachers had sought in meetings and during piloting of the materials. Points 1 and 2 asking teachers to introduce the questionnaire positively, and emphasising that no judgements were to be made about respondents' fluency in English, had an 'awareness raising' function, although they were also based on experience of teachers' attitudes, and responses to the survey. In the light of the survey aims it was felt to be very important to stress the premise that multilingualism, not monolingualism, is the norm in the world and to give a positive statement about multilingualism and bilingualism. In most communities around the world the ability to speak a number of languages is common in everyday communication. This multilingualism is a source of cultural and cognitive richness. Section (B), 'Naming of languages', was a summary based on materials from the Linguistic Minorities Project survey materials and manual (LMP, 1983, 1984). These notes also had an awareness raising function and attempted to predict the areas where assistance in language naming might be useful.

< previous page

page_48

next page >

< previous page

page_49

next page > Page 49

The questionnaire It was decided to use a skills breakdown into 'understanding', 'speaking' and 'reading/writing' skills. 'Understanding' was included to maximise response. A 'reading/writing' question or category was included for two main reasons. Firstly, it gave some indication of the level of education in other languages and measurement of literacy was thought to be important. Secondly, it could help to give some indication of demand for materials and courses in community languages; following piloting, two questions on this were included. In order to give reliable measures, the questionnaire had to be completed by all students in the sample. The initial categories therefore simply elicited basic data on the course followed and there had to be a screening question addressed to all respondents. The questionnaire was designed to embody multilingualism as a norm. On the basis of pilot interviewing, the questionnaire was designed to include a table for up to four languages, although teachers were told that respondents could continue outside the table if they wished. The use of the term 'first language' was avoided, as it reflected the monolingual prejudice that only one language could be acquired initially in the family. The language varieties of West Indian origin referred to as Creoles or West Indian dialects are the subject of various debates in linguistics and a large and complex literature (see Edwards, 1981 for a bibliography, and 1986: 39-44, for a summary). For the purposes of this college language survey we would wish to set some of these debates on one side, since, whatever their status in most cases, it is at least as important for teachers and education authorities to have information about West Indian language varieties from surveys as about any other language grouping. Indeed, not to gather information about West Indian language varieties in surveys is a denial of the awareness raising and other qualitative functions of carrying out a language survey. The position taken when setting up the college language survey was that to accord West Indian Creoles similar status to other languages was important in order to carry out the positive awareness raising functions of the survey. There is support for such a position from other sources (Dalphinis, 1985). It became apparent from piloting that no single set of terms had 'received' status across the speech communities surveyed. The final formulation of the 'screening' Creole question was therefore made as inclusive as possible. (3) Do you understand a Creole, Patois or West Indian Dialect?' Yes/No Please tick. IF NO: Please go to Question 4.

< previous page

page_49

next page >

< previous page

page_50

next page > Page 50

IF YES: Please tick whether it is: (a) English-based French-based Spanish-based Portuguese-based African Other (b) Can you speak it? Yes/No Please tick box. The adoption of a written questionnaire, which resembles the 'postal questionnaire' method used in social surveys, had the objectivity of a 'form-filling' process which distanced the teacher and allowed information to pass more directly between respondent and survey researchers. The questionnaire could convey information which might raise the awareness of the teacher. The form of words used in questions could be controlled. A semi-official form gave authority to the survey and to the recognition of plurilingualism in the student population. Individual questionnaire forms could stay anonymous and could remain separate from classroom discussion. The questionnaires were simple and took a relatively short time to administer. The sample A judgement sample was used. A target group of courses in each department was identified, which would give a representative picture of the students following the range of course areas offered. The sample included all areas of the college work, apart from English as a Foreign Language courses (EFL). EFL was excluded from the data presented in the final report, since all these students are by definition plurilingual and nearly all foreign visitors. The aim of the survey was to measure the extent of plurilingualism on mainstream courses recruiting largely British students. The total sample of 1773 students represented 19.7% of the college population in those areas surveyed. There was a slight bias to full-time students, in that 29% of the full-time student population was sampled, whereas 19% of the larger part-time population was represented in the sample. The sample was affected by student attendance since the questionnaires were administered to those attending the selected courses on the day the survey was administered in their class. A sample including the students attending on a particular day should reflect the 'real' as opposed to the 'ghost' registered student population. (In Further Education colleges at this time students who no longer attended often remain registered). Teachers were asked to report back if they felt that the attending sample was unrepresentative and many non-attending students were chased up for greater accuracy.

< previous page

page_50

next page >

< previous page

page_51

next page > Page 51

Observation of the survey process The experience of the survey and its qualitative development and effects were recorded in various ways. I began the survey working on my own and then, as more resources were allocated to completing the exercise, I continued in a supervisory role advising and supporting a team of three teachers coordinating the survey in their own Faculties. I collected documentary evidence of the progress of the survey and recorded my own experiences and observations as a participant observer in a diary. The fact that a language diversity survey is dominantly perceived to be an exercise in acquiring 'hard data' from students' self reports of their language use, is an advantage in terms of ethnographic observation of staff attitudes and institutional practices and policy. Staff may have been more open in talking about the issues raised than they might have been had 'awareness raising' and the monitoring of attitudes been a formal, expressed and central aim of the whole exercise. The setting up of the survey stimulated conversation and exchanges of views upon the subject of students speaking other languages. A 'ventilation' of existing views and the entire subject took place. The subject of linguistic diversity in the student population appeared to rise higher on the agenda of the institution before data collection was even begun. This was true not only in the sense that the survey was raised and reported upon in formal meetings within the college deliberative structure, but also that the topic of language diversity surfaced more than previously observed in informal conversations and 'common room' gossip. The teachers of the survey team fed back queries and information from the consultation stages of setting up the survey. It was decided during the consultation stage to adopt an approach within Faculty meetings which emphasised the 'objective' information gathering nature of the survey. Teachers were to be encouraged to participate in the survey beyond administering the questionnaire, through class discussions, for example. They would be asked, however, to keep such discussion separate from the administration of the questionnaire, and to emphasise to the students that the information given would not be openly discussed, but would be kept confidential. This entailed the dissemination of information about why students might be reserved about openly discussing their own use of community languages. The particular difficulties of eliciting Creoles had to be explained and the background to the form of wording used in the questionnaire explained. This wording remained contentious and it was much criticised by some teachers with knowledge of the issues involved. There was some pressure for example to reword 'English-based Creoles' as

< previous page

page_51

next page >

< previous page

page_52

next page > Page 52

'African English Creoles'. (This was resisted because of evidence that this term was not understood by students). Following data collection each member of the survey team reported back to her or his Faculty and/or Departments. This reporting back was some time in advance of the publication of the final survey report and provided valuable feedback about what teachers needed and wanted to know. It was apparent, for example, that language names often needed to be contextualised. More comprehensive information was given by the survey team when reporting back to their departments than was finally shown in the report for the college as a whole (see Appendix), or than is given in the results here. Results There were four main dimensions of the survey results, as follows: (1) the proportions of plurilingual and monolingual respondents, (2) the languages reported, their frequency and the skills reported, (3) the proportions of bi- and multilingual respondents (i.e. the proportions of respondents reporting one, two, three and four languages in addition to English), (4) the response to two 'attitudinal' questions, which were added to the questionnaire. Proportions of plurilingual and monolingual respondents The survey documented the highest figure recorded in any comparable survey in a Further Education college in terms of the proportions of respondents reporting the use of other languages. The proportion of students in the sample reporting use of other languages are given in Table 3.2. It is possible to achieve different figures, or highlight different interpretations of the results, by changing the criteria for evaluating respondents' reports in the questionnaire, or even by looking separately at the two college sites. In most cases, however, even using the most conservative criteria, the survey indicated that a majority of students used either a language other Table 3.2 Respondents reporting languages, other than, or in addition to, English (includes English-based Creoles) Students in sample 1773 Number of plurilinguals 1178 % of plurilinguals 66.4%

< previous page

page_52

next page >

< previous page

page_53

next page > Page 53

than English or an English-based Creole. We will now consider the effects of applying two different criteria, in turn. 'Reporting of academic language use' Teachers were asked to explain that academic languages, as in reports of French or German simply studied at school, should not be entered on the main questionnaire. Some respondents, or teachers, may have misunderstood the purpose of the survey, nevertheless, and some European languages taught in school or college may be overreported as a result. Table 3.3 Respondents reporting other languages (excluding respondents reporting 'French only') Sample 1773 Number of plurilinguals 1178 % of plurilinguals 66.4% Respondents reporting other 1025 languages excluding 'French only As a % of the sample 58 The strategy used to give a possible figure which allowed for such over-reporting, was to take out all reports of 'French only' (see Table 3.3). In the instructions not to include reports of languages only known from academic study French learnt at school was specifically excluded. Despite this some reports of French only were annotated 'O' level or 'A' level by the survey respondents on the margins of the form and were therefore undoubtedly of the academic nature excluded in the teachers' instructions. Many also were from French bilinguals. In particular, some speakers of French Creole reported French only and did not indicate their use of Creole. Excluding respondents as in Table 3.3 is not an accurate way of estimating the proportion of respondents who only had an academic language to report. However, French was not included in the 'top ten' most reported languages in the short report of the survey disseminated in the college, since it was felt that the results were inflated by a number of factors. This may be a problem in not distinguishing between 'first languages' and languages acquired in 'secondary' or academic contexts. This is a very crude measure, which does not guarantee any more accurate measures than the figures in Table 3.2. It is a technique used elsewhere when reports of French are high in frequency (see, for example, the Woolwich College Survey, Barry & Trushell, 1985).

< previous page

page_53

next page >

< previous page

page_54

next page > Page 54

'Exclusion of Creoles' Table 3.4 gives the proportion of the sample reporting the use of other languages, showing results firstly excluding reports of 'English-based Creole' only, and then excluding both these reports and those of 'French only'. It is possible to exclude respondents who reported English-based Creole only. This is necessary where one wishes to compare the results of this survey with others, such as the ILEA schools Language Census, which do not recognise English-based Creole as a language with a status apart from English, and thus class speakers of this language variety with monolingual English speakers. Table 3.4 Respondents reporting other languages (excluding respondents reporting 'English-based Creole only'/'French only') 1773 (1) Sample 1178 (2) Number of plurilinguals 66.4% (3) Plurilinguals as % of sample 185 (4) Respondents reporting 'Englishbased Creole only' 993 (5) Respondents reporting other languages excluding 'Englishbased Creole only' 56% (6) (5) above as % of sample 840 (7) Respondents reporting other languages excluding both French only & EB Creole only 47% (8) (7) as a % of the sample To conclude this section of the results, the proportion of respondents in a language survey sample accounted as plurilingual depends not only upon the methods employed for measurement, but also upon the various criteria employed in interpreting the data collected. It is a measure of the impact of these criteria that the 'simple' measurement of the proportion of plurilingual respondents in the college indicated by the data can vary from 66.4% (Table 3.2) to 47% (Table 3.4, line 8). Indeed if the figure for the college main site is taken, excluding the School of Building Studies as unrepresentative, then the top figure can rise to 73%.

< previous page

page_54

next page >

< previous page

page_55

next page > Page 55

The languages reported, their frequency and the skills reported In the previous section the data collected was examined in terms of respondents. In this section the languages which these respondents reported are examined. Given the fact that the questionnaire accommodated multilingualism and respondents were thus able to report a number of languages, it is important to emphasise the difference between respondents and reports. In some surveys only one 'first language', or 'home language', other than English, is elicited and thus it is possible to identify plurilingual respondents with a single report of another language. In the survey discussed here, no attempt was made to identify multilingual respondents with one 'first language' and thus in some cases the number of reports of languages exceeds the number of respondents. The questionnaire accommodated reports of up to six differentiated forms of Creole and up to four other languages, other than English. In practice, it was rare for any respondent to report more than two different Creoles, or more than four other languages in addition to English. The proportions of bilingual and multilingual respondents are discussed in the following section. In the question relating to Creoles, the questionnaire elicited skills along only two dimensions: understanding and speaking. In the question relating to 'other languages', the screening question elicited languages understood and two further questions elicited whether the respondent spoke and read or wrote the language(s) reported. The reports of languages and skills given by plurilingual respondents, across the college, are summarised in Table 3.5. Notes and Key to Table 3.5 Twelve reports were given of language names which it was impossible to decipher or confirm with Voegelin (1977). Total number of reports of use of different languages = 1889. Read/Wr = Reports indicating understanding, speaking and reading or writing the language. R/W only = Reports indicating understanding and reading or writing the language. U only = Reports indicating understanding of the language only. Fanti, Nfanti = Alternative language names Farsi (Iranian) = Label in brackets indicates a national name used by respondents included in the report statistics. Language Name = Language names verified from Voegelin (1977). 1. Gallego is not always seen as a language distinct from Spanish, and is placed adjacent to Spanish here to ease comparison or inclusion. 2. National names given, which it was not possible to correlate accurately with language labels.

< previous page

page_55

next page >

< previous page

page_56

next page > Page 56

Table 3.5 Language and skills reported, college-wide results Language name Total Skills users Speak ReadWr R/W only U only 1. Afrikaans 3 3 2 2.Akan 1 1 3. Amharic 30 29 29 1 4. Arabic 76 63 52 10 3 5. Aramaic 1 1 1 6. Armenian 4 4 3 7. Assamese 1 1 1 8. Bahesia 1 1 9. Bakwiri 1 1 10. Baluchi 2 2 2 11. Bengali 14 14 7 12. Bilocano 1 1 1 13. Bisayan 1 1 1 14. Cambodian 1 1 15. Cantonese 39 39 30 16. Cebuano 1 1 17. 'Chinese' 13 13 9 18. AfricanCreoles 13 13 19. 'Englishbased'Creoles 219 153 66 20. 'French based' Creoles 71 44 27 21. 'Spanish based'Creoles 18 9 9 22. 'Other Creoles' 50 36 14 23. Czech 1 1 1 24. Danish 5 1 1 3 25. Dari 1 1 1 26. Dutch 4 4 4 27. Edo 1 1 28. Ewe 3 3 29. Fellani 1 1 30. Fanti, Nfanti 5 4 1 1 31. Farsi Iranian 43 42 33 1 1 32. Filipino, Pilipino 3 3 2 33. Finnish 4 3 2 34. French 232 206 110 11 14 35. Ga 17 16 8 1 36. Gaelic 19 12 7 1 6 (table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_56

next page >

< previous page

page_57

next page > Page 57

(table continued from previous page) Language name Total users 37. German 38. Greek 39. Gujerati 40. Hakka 41. Haryani 42. Hausa 43. Hebrew 44. Hindi 45. Hokkien 46. Hungarian 47. Ibo 48. Idoma 49. Ilocano 50. Indonesian 51. Italian 52.Japanese 53. Kapampangan, Pampangan 54. Khmer 55. Kikuyu 56. Korean 57. Kurdish 58. Kutchi 59. Ladino 60. Lao 61. Luganda 62. Malay 63. Malayalam 64. Maltese 65. Mandarin 66. Marathi 67. Marwari 68. Maymay 69. Malinka 70. New Guinea Patois 71. Norwegian 72. Oromigna

< previous page

60 35 69 3 2 10 10 77 1 1 7 1 5 4 69 5 3 1 1 2 8 2 1 2 2 6 1 1 9 5 1 2 1 1 3 1

Skills SpeakReadWr R/W U only only 45 45 6 9 31 23 1 3 65 28 2 2 3 2 2 10 3 10 5 67 36 10 1 1 7 2 1 4 2 1 3 1 60 50 5 4 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 7 2

1 1 7 1

1 1

2 2 5 1 1 7 3 1 2 1 1 1 1

2 2 3 4 2

3 1

1 2 2

1 1 1 1 (table continued on next page)

page_57

next page >

< previous page

page_58

next page > Page 58

(table continued from previous page) Language name Total Skills users Speak ReadWr R/W only U only 73. Pangasinan 2 1 1 1 74. Pidgin 3 3 75. Polish 29 29 27 76. Portuguese 37 28 17 5 4 77. Panjabi 75 71 16 78. Pushtu 1 1 1 79. Romanian 1 1 80. Runyankore 1 1 1 81. Russian 1 12 12 82. Serbo Croat 2 2 1 83. Se-Sotho 1 1 84. Se-Tswana 1 1 1 85. Shona 1 1 1 86. Sindhi 1 1 1 87. Sinhalese 5 3 2 88. Somali 4 4 3 89. Spanish 124 111 78 6 7 90.Gallego 10 10 8 91. Swahili, Kiswahili 13 12 5 1 92. Swedish 16 15 13 1 93. Tagalog 18 17 15 1 94. Taiwanese 1 1 1 95. Tamil 6 5 2 1 96. Thai 5 5 4 97. Tigrinya 19 19 19 98. Turkish 17 16 13 1 99. Twi 12 10 5 1 1 100. Ukrainian 1 1 1 101. Urdu 77 76 49 1 102. Vietnamese 7 6 4 1 103. Welsh 10 8 4 1 1 104.Wolof,Jolof 5 5 2 105. Yoruba 41 38 27 3 106. 'Ghanaian2 3 2 1 107. 'Nigerian'2 2 2 108. 'Zambian'2 1 1 1

< previous page

page_58

next page >

< previous page

page_59

next page > Page 59

Since this is a sample survey of approximately 20% of the student population this is only an indication of the scale of the diversity of languages among the students. It also specifically excludes foreign students attending English as a Foreign Language classes. If data from an early, pilot survey of EFL students in January 1986 is also considered (where 73 different languages were reported by a sample of 878 students, 44% of enrolment), then 15 further languages may be included. These were Affar, Assyrian, Azerbaijani, Bassa, Basque (Vasc), Bulgarian, Flemish, Galigna, Icelandic, Lingala, Mina, Ndoumou, Ototela, Quecha and Tigre. It is only possible to speculate on the number of languages which might be reported in a full survey or census of the entire college student population. The 172 different languages reported in the ILEA Schools Language Census 1987 (ILEA, 1987), perhaps gives some guide to the likely scale. It can be seen from the alphabetical list of languages reported that a large proportion of languages have only one, or very few, users, whereas there is a relatively small number of languages which have large numbers of users. Table 3.6 shows the most spoken languages in order of number of reports, or respondents reporting use of that language. The proportions of bilingual and multilingual respondents in the survey Forty-two per cent of the survey respondents who reported another language, reported themselves as 'multilingual' i.e. speaking more than two languages (see Table 3.7). Questions relating to teaching and materials in community languages Two questions relating to teaching and materials in community languages were placed in the 1987 questionnaire used in three out of the four college faculties (73% of respondents surveyed). These questions were addressed only to those reporting reading and writing skills in other languages. The questions were: (1) Would you like to see books and magazines in the library in the languages you read and write? Yes/No (2) Would you like courses and qualifications in this (these) language(s) to be available in this college? Yes/No Of the 566 respondents thus addressed, 374 (66%) responded that they would like to see books and magazines in the other languages in which they could read and write in the library. 403 respondents (71%) indicated that they would like courses and qualifications in community languages to be available in the college.

< previous page

page_59

next page >

< previous page

page_60

next page > Page 60

Table 3.6 Languages with more than 10 reports, in order of the magnitude of reports Language name Total Language name Total number of number of reports reports 232 17. Greek 35 1. Frenchl 219 18. Amharic 30 2. English-based Creole 124 19. Polish 29 3. Spanish 77 20= Tigrinya 19 4= Hindi 77 20= Gaelic (Irish) 19 4= Urdu 76 22= Tagalog 18 6. Arabic 75 22= Spanish-based Creole 18 7. Panjabi 71 24= Turkish 17 8. French-based Creole 69 24= Ga 17 9= Gujerati 69 26. Swedish 16 9= Italian 66 27. Bengali 14 11.Chinese 2 60 28= Kiswahili 12. German 13 50 28= African Creoles 13 13. 'Other' Creoles 43 28= Russian 13 14. Farsi 41 31. Twi 12 15. Yoruba 37 16. Portuguese 1. Reports of French were adjusted in order to allow for reporting of academic language use (see Appendix 2, and p. 53 above). 2. This group's reports of 'Chinese' and Cantonese, Hakka, Hokkien, Mandarin and Taiwanese (see p. 162). Table 3.7 Proportions of respondents reporting one, two, three and four languages other than English, expressed as percentages of the total report 1 other 58% 2 other 26% 3 other 11% 4 other 5%

< previous page

page_60

next page >

< previous page

page_61

next page > Page 61

4 The College Language Survey: Discussion, Recommendations, Conclusion Discussion Proportions of monolingual and plurilingual respondents The data indicates that a majority of the student population reported themselves as using another language, or other languages, in addition to English, and thus are bilingual or plurilingual in some degree. This result appeared to have more impact than any other statistic. It was interesting to observe that although many people expressed surprise at the scale of the figure, no-one publicly queried it. A number of teachers, in fact, confirmed the accuracy of the figures saying that they felt it to be true that, in most classes, a majority of students used another language, or languages, in addition to English. Staff responses will be further examined later. In interpreting the figures and comparing them with those of other surveys, it is important to be aware of the particular methodology of the survey, particularly the fact that this survey not only recognises English-based Creole as a separate language in its own right, but also that it includes an explicit and prominent question eliciting different Creoles (Table 4.1). Table 4.1 Percentage of respondents reporting languages other than English in the Hammersmith West London College Survey 1986/87 English-based Creole Included Excluded 66.4% Across the college 56 % 71% Barons Court site 60 % 39 % Lime Grove site (School of Building) 27 %

< previous page

page_61

next page >

< previous page

page_62

next page > Page 62

Table 4.2 Pupils reported as speaking a language other than, or in addition to, English in the ILEA Schools Language Censuses 1983, 1985, 1987 1983 1985 1987 ILEA, All schools 16.2% 19.3% 22.7% ILEA, Division 1 20 % 22.1% 25.4% These figures document a higher figure for the proportion of respondents reporting the use of other languages than in any other language survey in a Further Education college. Again, by comparison with the averages for ILEA schools, the figures are substantially higher for the college. In the biennial ILEA Schools Language Census the figures for 19831987 were as shown in Table 4.2. In comparing the figures from the college language survey with the ILEA Language Census, the factors in the methodology of the ILEA survey which encourage underreporting, discussed earlier, should be taken into account. On a number of occasions, teachers admitted that they tended to equate plurilingualism with non-European ethnicity and to assume white students fluent in English to be monolingual. This latter assumption was often contradicted in the questionnaire data. Given that the ILEA schools survey depends upon teachers' rather than pupils' reports of plurilingualism, it is only possible to speculate how many plurilingual pupils may be reported as monolingual, either to, or by, their teachers. In addition, if the various interpretations of the figures for the proportion of plurilingual respondents in the sample population given in Tables 3.2-3.4, show nothing else, they underline the point that such a proportion is not a simple fact, but depends upon the interpretation of the data, and on what constitutes plurilingualism, or a 'language'. The college figures are not necessarily to be set against ILEA SLC figures for 1987, or 1985. The school population ILEA surveys is in the 4-18 age group, whereas the college population is 16+, although concentrated in the 16-21 age group. Even taking into account this and the methodological differences in the measurements, the figures for the college are still greatly above ILEA averages for schools. A number of factors may be considered, in accounting for the higher figures for the college student population, compared with school pupils. The higher staying on and returning rates among ethnic/linguistic minority communities in Further Education are well documented. The 1987 ILEA Language Census indicates higher staying on rates into the 6th form for all main linguistic minority language groups, other than Turkish. There are

< previous page

page_62

next page >

< previous page

page_63

next page > Page 63

indications that most of the language minority communities, in general, place a higher value on education after 16 than the norm for English monolingual community (FEU, 1987). Many ethnic minority students who have underachieved at school see Further Education as a 'second chance'. Also, the well documented higher than average youth and adult unemployment for ethnic minorities bear on these figures. The languages reported, their frequency and the skills reported Two aspects of the languages reported had an impact: the large number and diversity of languages reported and the main language groups identified in the plurilingual population. The simple statistic that the survey identified 105 different languages from a sample of 1773 respondents was the subject of considerable interest. As can be seen from Tables 3.5 and 3.6 there are a great number of languages with few reports and a small group with relatively large numbers of speakers. In the publication of this data for the college the 'majority' languages other than English were presented in the form of a list of the 'top ten' languages in the order of number of reports. It is instructive to compare these ten major groups with those from ILEA data from the schools (see Table 4.3 below). A comparison of the ten most reported languages in this survey with those from the ILEA Schools Language Census, both for the whole Authority and the divisional area in which the college is situated, shows some interesting parallels. This comparison is, of course, limited by the fact that the ILEA Census only records reports of a single home language other than, or in addition to, English, and ignores multilingualism. The data used for the comparison comes from the ILEA Census of 1983. Since the college has an older population than that of schools this information from four years before the college survey is more appropriate for comparative purposes than that of the 1985 survey. Looking at Table 4.3, there are strong similarities between the college and ILEA results for Spanish, Urdu, Arabic, Gujerati, Italian and Chinese. It is interesting that the placing of French-based Creole in the college sample survey is close to that of French (which includes pupils reporting French-based Creole as their home language) in the ILEA figures for Division 1 (it also stands at 11th most spoken language ILEA wide). The college student population included students from all over the ILEA, but was in large proportion drawn from Division 1. This can be seen in the comparison between the college results, and the two sets of ILEA data. The fact that Hindi, Urdu and Panjabi are higher in the college results is mainly accounted for by the fact that the ILEA results are for the home language reported as the first language, whereas the college results record multilingual language use, and combinations of these languages were frequently reported.

< previous page

page_63

next page >

< previous page

page_64

next page > Page 64

Table 4.3 Comparing the ten most reported languages from the Hammersmith West London College Language Survey with those from the ILEA Schools Language Census 1983 ILEA Division 1 (Hammersmith & HWLC Survey Fulham ILEA wide l.English-based Creole1 1. Spanish 1. Bengali 2.Spanish 2. Arabic 2. Turkish 3= Hindi, Urdu 3. Portuguese 3. Gujerati 5. Arabic 4. Urdu 4. Spanish 6. Panjabi 5= Gujerati, French2 5. Greek 7. French-based Creole 6. Italian 6. Urdu 8= Gujerati, Italian 7. Bengali 7. Panjabi 10. Chinese 8. Tagalog 8. Chinese 9. Chinese 9. Italian 10. Panjabi 10. Arabic 1. English-based Creole is not measured in the ILEA Census. 2. French-based Creole is classified with French in the ILEA statistics. Looking at the ILEA wide data Bengali, Turkish and Greek are in the 'top ten', whereas they are positioned at 27th, 24th and 17th, respectively, in the college survey data (see Table 4.1). The lower figures in the college data for Bengali and Turkish can be explained by the below average staying on rates recorded for these language groups post 16 (ILEA, 1987). In Division 1 data, Portuguese, Bengali and Tagalog are in the top ten, while at positions 16th, 27th and 22nd in college data. It is notable from the college data in Table 4.1 that Farsi (14th) and Tigrinya (20th) are prominent language groups which are less prominent in the schools surveys, and which reflect recent migration, often by refugees. With regard to the skills which respondents claimed in the languages reported, the overwhelming majority of reports include speaking skills. The data also shows, in general, high levels of literacy in the plurilingual population. There are indications of declining levels of literacy among speakers of South Asian languages, particularly Panjabi and Hindi. With the exception of Creoles, very few (11) of the respondents reporting plurilingual language use did not report speaking skills in at least one language. The relatively larger proportions of reports giving 'understanding only' in Creoles are worthy of remark. There is probably a significant element of underreporting of speaking skills in the case of Creoles. The

< previous page

page_64

next page >

< previous page

page_65

next page > Page 65

data thus strongly indicates that in the case of initial elicitation of Creoles it is more reliable and perhaps advisable, to ask respondents if they 'understand' a Creole, Patois or West Indian English dialect, rather than 'speak' or 'use' it. As might be expected, Arabic and some major European languages had significant proportions of reports indicating literacy only. In the case of Arabic, the language is often learnt for religious reasons, and only used for the reading of scripture. The proportions of bi- and multilingual respondents in the survey It can be seen from these results that the survey elicited a significant proportion of reports of multilingual as opposed to bilingual language use. Nearly half the plurilingual population college wide (43%) may be described as multilingual, reporting two or more languages other than, or in addition to, English. Such a result calls into question the way in which plurilingualism is widely discussed in Britain, in terms of 'bilingualism', and of a 'first language' other than English. In the specifically plurilingual area of 'English for Bilingual Students' in the college multilingual respondents were in the majority (69%). Demand for materials and courses in community languages from respondents reporting reading or writing skills in community languages The data from these questions provided ammunition for the argument for course provision in community languages. The data certainly indicated a high level of interest among plurilingual respondents for further resources and courses in other languages in the college they attend. Recommendations The simple empirical aim of a language diversity survey is to provide 'hard' data on the use of languages within a population, and such an aim may be seen to have been achieved in the 'results' section above. However, even if such had been the only aim of this survey, experience proved that this alone would not have satisfied the college audience to which the survey and its results were initially addressed. Just as the main questions from staff during the setting up and consultation stages of the survey concerned the purposes of collecting such data'what for?' questionsso, on being presented with the hard data as summarised above, there was much enquiry as to outcomes and the action to follow. These enquiries might be termed 'so what?' questions. There was thus an expectation among the audience for conclusions and recommendations for action from the survey report going beyond the quantitative remit of the data collected.

< previous page

page_65

next page >

< previous page

page_66

next page > Page 66

Some of the recommendations may not be seen as directly related to the survey results in terms of the data collected. In fact, these recommendations also have a relationship to the effects of the survey as a process in which discussion of language diversity is stimulated and which is further explored in the next chapter. The process of a language diversity survey provides opportunities for feedback and debate in which a number of ideas concerning institutional responses to, and the educational context of, the use of other languages in the student population can be floated and discussed. Observations show, for example, that it was mostly students who raised the issue of signs and notices in different languages and scripts, whereas some teachers raised the issue of college publicity. In this section, the main recommendations put forward are of the kind addressed to the college. These recommendations were generated 'reflexively'. That is to say, they reflect not only my own participation as the researcher, but also input from staff and students in the form of suggestions and responses to the informal and early formulations of recommendations and conclusions. Recommendations in nine main areas were put forward and argued, in the presentation of the survey results, and finally through appropriate college committees. (Access to) courses and qualifications in community languages The first recommendation put forward was that there was an urgent need for the college to extend provision for courses in community languages, where plurilingual students could positively exploit their knowledge and use of languages other than English as part of their studies in Further Education. It was argued that it was ironic that in a college with such a wealth of community languages, that the only language courses and qualifications other than English offered at that time were the European 'foreign languages' traditionally offered to English speaking monolinguals: courses in French, German, Italian and Spanish. The imbalance of this situation was underlined in that these courses already enrolled significant proportions of mother tongue speakers, especially in Spanish. According to the ILEA schools language census, Spanish is the most frequent home language other than English in the borough. However, other majority languages with large local speech communities could be offered: Hindi, Urdu, Arabic, Punjabi, Gujerati and 'Chinese' (Cantonese) had the highest incidence in the college survey; Portuguese, Bengali, Tagalog, and Farsi were also prominent in the ILEA census. There was strong evidence of a demand for access to courses and qualifications in community languages from the student population. In the course of the survey a number of students had indicated their interest in

< previous page

page_66

next page >

< previous page

page_67

next page > Page 67

gaining qualifications in the other languages they used, although it was also clear that many students who needed further qualifications had not previously considered, or been encouraged to think of, their skills in another language as a source of qualifications. The college careers office had reported numerous requests for such courses from students. There were also frequent enquiries from local schools asking about the availability of community language courses in the college. The survey itself had provided evidence of the demand for such courses in the 71% positive response to the question, 'Would you like courses and qualifications in this/these languages (= languages other than English read or written) to be available in the college?'. In addition to the arguments already mentioned, it was argued that such qualifications have increasing value in employment and for access to higher education. There was a need to consider not only 'O' and 'A' levels, but other appropriate examinations and syllabuses, such as those from the Institute of Linguists and Royal Society of Arts. However, the desirability and demand for such courses might not be primarily in terms of qualifications and their wider cultural and educational value should also be recognised. It was argued that whatever courses in community languages were offered, it was a matter of some urgency, given the wide diversity of languages used in the student population, that there should be information readily available to students on what courses and qualifications in community languages were available elsewhere, and how to apply for these. Staff recruitment It was argued that recruitment advertising and selection criteria for all staff, but particularly teachers and others in regular communication with students, should make reference to the desirability of speaking or understanding community languages. Staff Development It was recommended that all lecturers, not only language specialists, would benefit from the availability of leave supported, in-service training in language awareness and issues of language diversity, a proportion to be offered at the college itself. In particular, it was recommended that there was a pressing need for training and raising of awareness among those teachers who act as 'gatekeepers' and admit students to their various courses, so that bilingualism/multilingualism was recognised positively, and not seen as indicating learning problems. We were not alone in pressing for this and the ILEA made training available in these areas before its demise.

< previous page

page_67

next page >

< previous page

page_68

next page > Page 68

Sharing language diversity in the classroom It was argued that in the existing circumstances, language diversity, with some exceptions, was an underused resource in the mainstream curriculum. Bringing language diversity into the curriculum would reap benefits for all students. It was important that provision which responded to the needs of speakers of community languages and mother tongues other than English should not be seen as exclusively for 'bilinguals only'. Opportunities for learning about language diversity and learning other languages should be offered to all students and monolingual English speakers should be specifically included. It was demonstrated that the survey had already stimulated work with students' language histories and student designed classroom surveys in the college. Examples of students' work of this kind, stimulated in some classes during the survey, were displayed in the library when the survey data was 'published' in the college. In order to give some indication of the potential of classroom work on language diversity that might be done, a 'skills profile' such as was used on the former Certificate of Pre-vocational Education (CPVE) was developed as a sample description of such work. The 1987 CPVE 'Core Competence Statements' made the following explicit reference to abilities in languages other than English: Communications. 1. Recognise and use a few words of a second/foreign language. 2. Communicate well in a second/foreign language'. These examples illustrate how language diversity/ abilities in language forms other than standard English might be more fully integrated into the Core Competence framework: Communications: Language (1) Identify aspects/components of language communication (spoken/written, vocabulary, intonation, register etc.) (2) Recognise means of improving English language skills (learning strategies, study skills, etc.) (3) Recognise different forms of communication (language, body language, images, signs) Communications: Languages/Dialects (1) Identify different kinds of language use in and across languages ('standard'/dialect, monolingualism/bilingualism / multilingualism). (2) Describe use of a language or dialect other than British standard English.

< previous page

page_68

next page >

< previous page

page_69

next page > Page 69

(3) Find out and present basic information about an unfamiliar language or dialect in college/workplace/local community. (4) Describe languages and dialects used in a group (e.g. classroom survey). (5) Recognise the value of using more than one language and/or dialect. Social & Environmental Studies/Social Skills: Language and Culture (1) Recognise the connection between languages/dialects, 'high' and 'low' status, and power. (2) Increasing awareness of cultural styles and conventions in communication. (3) Recognise bias in language use and its effect. (4) Identifying the role of language use/attitudes to language use in stereotyping, prejudice and racism. (5) Identifying relationships between language use, values and culture. (6) Developing sensitivity to cultures distanced from self It was suggested that it would be useful if all those working on the content of courses offered could be asked to consider how they could use the language diversity in the curriculum. Some interested teachers had already shown that linguistic diversity could be used as a resource for language awareness and antiracist education. It was argued that, through language awareness work, language diversity could be used as a resource in areas of the curriculum where it had previously been largely overlooked, for example in subjects such as Communications, Social Sciences, Librarianship, and Business Studies. A final note of some concern is that the core competences quoted above from the 1987 CPVE syllabus have not appeared in subsequent syllabi. College environment and publicity A number of arguments were put forward to support the use of languages other than English common in the college, in the 'official discourse' of the college, as in college notices on the one hand and course and other publicity on the other. It was reasoned, thus, that there would be both a symbolic and an educational value in having college notices, and also publicity available in majority languages. It would help bilingual and multilingual students to feel at home and welcomed in the college. It would underline the fact that these are languages used and valued in this country. It would give a linguistic profile to the multicultural nature of this college. The fact that all college notices were solely in English had been remarked on by students doing projects on the language diversity in the college. It was remarked that there was more evidence of linguistic diversity on

< previous page

page_69

next page >

< previous page

page_70

next page > Page 70

Kensington High Street than there was on the walls of the college. (Students had recorded signs in Arabic, Farsi, Chinese and French in the High Street). It was inferred that the existence of publicity for college courses in such languages as Spanish, Hindi, Urdu and Arabic would have a similar function. It would also probably increase enquiries and thus demand for a number of courses. The college library It was suggested that the library should re-examine its acquisitions policies in the light of the language survey results, with a view to increasing the provision of materials in languages other than English and, in particular, extending this beyond the existing emphasis on European languages taught as 'foreign' languages in the college. The data from the 'attitudinal' questions at the foot of the questionnaire form was quoted in support of action on resources in community languages. This data from 566 respondents, reporting reading and writing skills in other languages (apart from Creoles), showed that 66% (374) would like to see books and magazines in community languages in the library. Some specific suggestions were made. It was important to recognise that the college library had made a particular effort in its acquisitions to reflect the ethnic diversity of the college, but this had been mainly in community and international publications in English media. Dual language dictionaries were stocked in the reference collection and were well used. However, it was suggested that, in addition there should be provision of such material in non-European languages for loan. Although the response of the library would be subject to resourcing limitations, it was recommended that the building up of stock in reference materials, such as dictionaries, in the languages used in the student population should be undertaken, and the taking of weekly, or daily, newspapers in Spanish, Hindi, Urdu, Arabic and Chinese should be considered. It was also suggested that the dictionary collection in other languages should be extended, particularly to include Amharic, classical Arabic, Bengali, Creoles, Hindi, Irish Gaelic, Kiswahili, Punjabi, Tagalog, Tigrinya, Urdu and Yoruba (which all have significant communities in the college and division). Further surveying activity and data collection The question was posed as to whether it was important for the college to continue to obtain some measure of linguistic diversity in the college. The evidence of the ILEA language censuses was that plurilingualism

< previous page

page_70

next page >

< previous page

page_71

next page > Page 71

would continue to increase. The simplest way to continue to collect data would be to include a language question on enrolment forms. (The college enrolment forms now do include such a question). Creoles and patois As can be seen from the survey results, 'English-based' Creole was the most frequently reported language variety in the college. It was reported by 12% of the student population in the sample, or 18.6% of the population reporting the use of other languages. French-based Creole was the seventh most commonly reported language variety. Language surveys tend to highlight such questions as, 'what is a language' and what is meant by terms such as language, dialect or creole, and their use. The carrying out of the survey threw into some prominence such questions about the nature and status of West Indian Creoles and their use in Britain, particularly since a number of respondents made it clear that they did not see their use of Creole as reportable in the terms chosen in the questionnaire and it is likely that Creole use by students is in fact underreported in the survey data. The reliance of the college survey on students' self reports was thus in doubt in terms of the reliability of the data collected being anything but a crude indication of the use of English-based Creole in the student population. The self ascription of using Creole, or 'talking black', is more strongly linked than some other linguistic affiliations as a statement of ethnicity, or 'act of identity' (Sebba & Le Page, 1983; Le Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985). Le Page & Tabouret-Keller make the point, however, that there may be a difference between an objective assessment of an individual's language use and those linguistic affiliations the person will own to in order to assert their ethnic identity. Furthermore, what people are prepared to report is sensitive to context and the use of West Indian Creoles as languages of resistance may be something which speakers or users would wish to keep to themselves in the context of the college environment. There were further difficulties in putting forward recommendations following on from the data collected. It was recognised that there were reservations in the speech communities themselves about the acceptance of Creole usage in mainstream educational discourse (Dalphinis, 1985). The British Black community has never asked for the teaching of Creole in the same way that other language communities have asked for community language teaching. Maureen Stone (1981) has pointed out the naivety and possible damage of 'legitimising' a 'heretical culture' within mainstream structures and ignoring the power relations they represent. Roger Hewitt (1982) has highlighted the paradox that whereas commentators remark the

< previous page

page_71

next page >

< previous page

page_72

next page > Page 72

low prestige of Creole among wider society and users themselves, it is at the same time seen as motivated by the users' needs and decisions to preserve separate identity. Thus, one major obstacle to incorporating a positive response to English-based Creole was recognition of the fact that finding any consensus upon the 'inclusion' of Creoles in education would be difficult. The response from teachers to the survey and its data on Creole usage showed that many teachers recognised that Creoles had a special status and that complex issues were involved. In discussions, some lecturers expressed concern at their lack of knowledge of Creole. In this context, it was felt that recommendations for college responses to Creole use could not be put forward in the same way that recommendations had been put with regard to other languages and caution needed to be exercised. In particular, the views of Creole users themselves needed canvassing. It was nevertheless important that teachers should understand that the appearance of Creole features in students' writing do not constitute simple mistakes, that such language use has force of expression, and that the writer should be allowed, finally, to judge whether the use of such features was appropriate or not. It was argued quite strongly that the use of English-based Creole had something in common with English dialect in relation to standard English and, educationally, it was self-defeating to try eradication strategies in the classroom. Abilities in the use of standard English could, and did, develop side by side with use of Creole. A positive response to Creoles as part of the linguistic diversity in the college could be achieved through recognition and study of their use in literature and music and their value as a resource for language awareness. Despite difficulties relating to perceptions of the status of Creoles it would be wrong if they were not recognised formally in college language policy as part of the richness of linguistic diversity. Finally, it was agreed that the survey had highlighted the need for Creoles to be an important part of any language awareness training proposed for staff. Language support and English for Speakers of Other Languages The provision in the college of English for Speakers of Other Languages which was offered at the time took place apart from mainstream provision, following a 'withdrawal' model. The need for more flexible provision to allow all students who needed extra help in English to undertake mainstream courses with English language support was highlighted. It was argued that such support was more likely to succeed through double staffing to allow the language support teacher to work alongside the course tutor, rather than the 'drop in' workshops offered in existing provision.

< previous page

page_72

next page >

< previous page

page_73

next page > Page 73

Such workshops were seen as 'extra work', which had a stigmatising connotation, and had a poor attendance record from all but the most strongly motivated students. Double staffing also had an in service benefit in passing skills between the language teacher and the subject teacher, in either direction. It was important that ESOL/language support should not be seen as the only response to language diversity in the college, otherwise this provision could imply a view of plurilingual students as having 'problems'. In discussion of these proposals during the presentation of the language survey results, a number of questions were raised. Firstly, it was asked whether the positive responses outlined meant promoting an artificial ethos in the college, which would not prepare students for the 'real world' outside. It was counterargued that continuing to support a monolingual 'hidden curriculum' in the college ignored developments in the 'real world'. Contemporary British society is not only multiethnic, it is multilingual, and this is particularly true of the community the college serves. Conversely, it was pointed out that a positive college response should involve making links with employers and the community to ensure that the use of community languages was more widely recognised and valued. This point, regarding the role of a Further Education College in preparing plurilingual students for life and work in a wider society with high priorities in the use of standard English and low priorities in the recognition of the use of other languages in the British population was, however, an important one in the minds of many teachers. It is an important factor in explaining doubt or resistance to positive responses to language diversity in the curriculum, and recurs in the next chapter, which is also concerned with teachers' attitudes. In addition, it was asked how these proposals would help or benefit monolingual English speakers in the college. It was pointed out that most 'monolingual' speakers, in common with plurilingual speakers, in the student population do not use standard English as their 'mother tongue'. Rosen & Burgess in their survey of 'The Languages and Dialects of London Schoolchildren' found that pupils using London or regional dialect were as likely to be assessed as having problems in reading and writing as their bilingual counterparts (1980: 84). Rosen & Burgess suggested that a curriculum which positively recognises linguistic diversity can equally benefit all students, and that both non-standard English speakers and plurilingual English speakers can benefit from approaches which recognise bilingual and bidialectal language use. Evidence was also put forward that some monolingual students were interested in the other languages used by their peers and that such interests could be fruitfully explored with their teachers.

< previous page

page_73

next page >

< previous page

page_74

next page > Page 74

In the college, the carrying out of the language survey had highlighted the many existing policies and procedures which the survey recommendations sought to change. It was believed that these policies and procedures had supported a traditional 'monolingual world view' which limited language awareness and awareness of different language communities. The argument was put that all students could benefit from a college approach to language which promoted a positive awareness of language diversity. These recommendations were discussed and adopted by the Language Across the College Committeethe appropriate committee in the college deliberative structurein the form of a list of motions, which were formally put to the college Academic Board. This document is given verbatim below. Language Across the College Committee. To: Academic Board. 14th March 1988 From: Language Across the College Group. Proposal: In response to the findings of the college language survey, the Language Across the College group makes the following recommendations for implementation: (1) Community Language Teaching Provision The college will extend the provision for the teaching of languages other than English used in the student population. Initially, these will be Arabic and one South Asian language. (2) Recruitment Staff selection procedures and documents in job descriptions and advertising will emphasise the multilingual nature of the college, and recognise the value of applicants speaking or understanding another language (including Creoles). (3) Staff Development In-service training in language awareness and other positive responses to language diversity should be a priority for all staff. (4) Curriculum The further integration of positive responses to language diversity into courses with language and communications components will be a curriculum development priority.

< previous page

page_74

next page >

< previous page

page_75

next page > Page 75

(5) College Environment and Ethos The college environment should positively reflect the multilingual nature of the student population and our community. Specifically, it is recommended that: *Notices in standard English will be complemented, to include representative majority languages and their appropriate scripts (e.g. Spanish, Hindi, Urdu, Arabic, Panjabi, Gujerati and Chinese. *A poster of the languages used in the college and community identified by the college language survey will be produced and displayed. (6) College Publicity College publicity should be available in majority languages used by target groups. (7) The College Library The college library is asked to make further provision of appropriate materials in majority community languages a priority. (8) Data Collection The college will take steps to include a question about information regarding Creoles and other languages spoken at home in enrolment forms. These proposals were passed by the college Academic Board, and incorporated into the draft College Language Policy (Nicholas, 1991). As such, the implementation of these proposals is monitored through the College Language Policy, supervised by the college deliberative structure. In conclusion, these recommendations may be seen as a highly visible part of the impact and follow-up to the work of the College Language Survey. The breadth and specificity of these recommendations may seem surprising as a part of the conclusions of a survey collecting limited data on the use of languages in addition to English in a college student population. In fact, although somewhat more comprehensive and wide-ranging they are not untypical of the kind of inhouse college language survey described in the introduction to Chapter 3. They support and illustrate the proposition that a language survey can have functions wider than those simply of a data gathering naturein awareness raising, stimulating discussion, supporting recommendations, and thus promoting action and change. They are complemented by other influences on the teacher and classroom, in particular in raising awareness and influencing attitudes, as reported in the following chapter.

< previous page

page_75

next page >

< previous page

page_76

next page > Page 76

5 Breaking the Spiral of Silence Data on Responses to Language Diversity in the College, and the Effects of the Language Survey The publication of the final report of the college language survey was followed by college events to disseminate the results, including formal discussion at meetings. Three months later, interviews with staff were conducted and a study of a class doing an assignment-based on the survey was made. These studies investigate the qualitative effects of language surveying. The complex methodology used here of a combination of different methods, perspectives and sources of data (e.g. written evidence from the dissemination and reporting of a questionnaire survey, interviews with students and staff, participant observation) follows a form of research described as 'triangulation'. The term, triangulation, is derived from land surveying where it refers to the use of bearings taken upon two or three landmarks in order to locate the position of the surveyor at their intersection. In social research triangulation can take a number of forms, from the use of a number of intersecting data sources (self, informants, other accounts) in an investigation, to the combination of different methodologies in order to test a hypothesis. The combination here of the reporting of a questionnaire language survey yielding quantitative data, with follow up qualitative research, including interviews and participant observation, makes possible the comparison of data deriving from different forms of research relating to language diversity and the qualitative effects of a survey. There is evidence from the recommendations of the survey report given in Chapter 4 of the power of a language survey to raise issues and support change. It is important to compare this conventional evidence with interview data giving the perceptions of staff and students. The accounts examined here provide the perspectives of different participants.

< previous page

page_76

next page >

< previous page

page_77

next page > Page 77

The diverse data examined in this thesis illuminate the proposition that language surveys have a variety of qualitative effects which are more than simply those coming from the dissemination of quantitative data. These data can be used to 'test' the hypothesis put forward. However, it is truer to the real progress of the methodology of this study to describe the hypothesis as having been generated from the data. Thus, if I offer an addition to the definition offered of triangulation, it is that in this study different methodologies were combined in order to arrive at the hypothesis of the workings of survey effects put forward. Any reader wishing more detail upon the methodologies employed here is directed to the research thesis (Nicholas, 1991). The Classroom Study This section explores the classroom and student perspective on the survey. The work revealed is in itself an outcome, and a documented effect, of the college language survey. It also shows the potential of survey work undertaken by students themselves to generate learning experiences of value in promoting language awareness, and raising the esteem of bilingual and multilingual students. The study reported here is based on an assignment undertaken by one class of thirteen students, in the 16-18 age group, following the Certificate of Pre-vocational Education (CPVE). The students were mixed in gender and ethnicity and eight of the thirteen could be identified as using languages or Creoles in addition to standard English. The case study reported here used a number of data sources including the teacher, the students and their work. Individual interviews with five student volunteers and the teacher were taped and transcribed. The names used here are fictitious. Once again, those seeking further detail on methodology are directed to the original research thesis (Nicholas, 1991). The class read the college report of the survey, using it as a library resource, but then developed various skills by carrying out their own survey of their class, and writing up a report reflecting on what they had learnt. The assignment was an example of the integration of different skills within a piece of work, including interviewing and report writing (communication), graphics and pie charts presenting results (numeracy and design), group work and problem solving. Initially, the students were asked to write a passage in and about their first language. They collected information about the languages spoken in the class, drawing up of a list of their languages, before designing a more formal questionnaire survey.

< previous page

page_77

next page >

< previous page

page_78

next page > Page 78

Findings Monitoring of this class gave confirmation of the fact that language surveys can be a positive experience for both plurilingual and monolingual students. All students said that they had found the exercise interesting and useful, and all said that they had never done anything like this in their previous education. Students were impressed by the sheer scale of languages spoken in the college and the fact that a majority used more than one language was usually new information. The class survey, combined with the reading of the report of the college language survey, appeared to break through the students' division of the college into two worlds, one based on the classroom, and the other based on their social interaction. The college as a community embracing a diversity of language and cultural groups comes through in the students' comments and reports as a new concept: It made me aware that I didn't know, I didn't realise, how many students in the college spoke so many different languages. There aren't many people who just speak English. I thought it was pretty good. (Berrin, Turkish speaker) Two students who spoke and understood English-based Creole wrote: I also thought that this language survey was useful to the class because it made us realise that our college has students with cultures from all round the world. . . (From Lindley's written report 'findings') I think that it (the survey) was useful because it gave me a greater knowledge of how different backgrounds and cultures blend at Hammersmith and West London College. (From Clifford's written report) Clifford, speaking in one of the taped interviews, was enthusiastic about what he felt he had learnt, not only from reading the college language survey, but also by carrying out some of the same surveying himself. I enjoyed it because it's. . .like learning something new every day, because I didn't know the variety of different languages. . . I saw your survey first. . .but then that's just everything written down, yeah, but when we actually go out and do. . .it ourselves, like seeing is believing, and I just understood how vast and different languages were. What Clifford's words seem to support is the importance of students being able to 'own' a survey through finding things out for themselves. It was also the view of myself and the class teacher that they came more to own, and identify with, the college language survey as a result of the classroom assignment. In both their written reports, and during the interviews, the students were asked to comment on whether they felt the college should do anything more to recognise the language communities of its

< previous page

page_78

next page >

< previous page

page_79

next page > Page 79

students. The students indicated that the college should offer more materials and courses in different languages, and some advocated multilingual signs: The college could provide exams in other languages, rather than the usual ones e.g. French and Spanish. Also the posters, signs etc. that they put up in and around college could be in more than one language. (From Paul's written report) Berrin who had taken 'O' level Turkish elsewhere said on tape that she would have taken up opportunities to study Turkish further: I think that there should be more language taught, more different languages taught here. As far as I know, I think it's just Spanish and French and German. I think that there should be more variety of different languages. I would have done an 'O' or 'A' level in Turkish, if they did it here. (Berrin) Clifford shrewdly described the bias towards Western European languages in the curriculum: When you go to schools, and they say foreign languages, in general it's European, it means French or Spanish or German, just European languages. You don't see, (or) it's only once in a while you see, something like Chinese, or anything like that. You have to go out and work hard to try and you have to search in order to be able to take a Chinese exam. You have to know the right people to talk to, and everything like that. But French and Spanish, in general, it's just provided for you. . . One of the students on tape talked about the situation of a plurilingual person for whom the distinctions of 'first' and 'second' language have no meaning. Robert, a Spanish/English bilingual, explained that people hearing his accent took him for a monolingual English speaker. He was asked what he identified as his 'first' language. R: I wouldn't know what to say. JN: If you were to go to another college, and they were filling in a form. And they asked you what your first language was. What would you say? R: I would normally put 'Spanish', and then 'dash English'. Robert then revealed that he had sometimes withheld information that he was other than a monolingual English speaker, because of the 'view of others' that it was a disadvantage. 'Cos if a teacher thinks your second language is English, then some teachers put you down. I think they think that if you know or if English is your second language you're less able to do other work like Maths, when it's got nothing to do with maths.

< previous page

page_79

next page >

< previous page

page_80

next page > Page 80

This cogent observation perhaps requires mediation. Issues concerning linguistic diversity and cross-cultural communication do have relevance to mathematics teaching. For example, examination questions can have a bias against plurilingual students by being couched in language or examples which favour the experience and knowledge of monolingual English students. Robert's intention plainly is to point up the false logic of the prejudice of many monolingual teachers that the plurilingual pupil is more generally less intelligent, or academically able, than the monolingual student, beyond the narrower relevance of proficiency in standard English to academic achievement. Both students and teacher reported that they found the survey rewarding in itself, in sharing information, and as a topic of discussion. The report of the college language survey was only of such interest to the students because they carried out a survey themselves and in Clifford's words 'seeing is believing'because the report 'was just everything written down'. This research into student feedback from the survey also strongly indicated the value of preparatory work and follow up activities and discussion, in reinforcing and extending the awareness raising and other educative functions, which surveys can have in the classroom. Indeed, there was criticism of the fact that the survey was not linked in, or followed up, with further examination of language and cultural diversity: I think it was quite useful to actually learn about different languages and cultures, but there didn't seem to be a great deal of follow up after it. There wasn't anything done to improve, like, relations between the different languages. (Paul) The interviews here indicate that the participation of respondents in language surveys has great potential for educational and language awareness raising activities. The students show a strong interest in the language diversity of their community. The students make connections between the results of language surveying, the college curriculum and their own experience. Indeed they show more interest in, and insight into, the language survey data than many teachers. They show an awareness of the connections between the language survey and multiethnic education. They also make shrewd observations on the narrowness of the language curriculum offered to them. The monolingual students showed equal interest and evidence of learning from the exercise. Discussions and the taped interview with the teacher who developed this assignment and taught the class provided opportunities to compare the above data from the students with the teacher's perceptions. I was thus able to set up a triangulation between the student interviews and the interview with the teacher.

< previous page

page_80

next page >

< previous page

page_81

next page > Page 81

The report of the college language survey was used to link the students' first languages with language diversity in the college and to introduce the task of a mini survey administered by the students themselves: We weren't telling them what we thought their first language was, so they could write down anything at that point. So once that started and the students said, 'I can speak this' and, 'I can speak that', and raising discussion, fairly informal, about languages. And then I did inform them about the survey. And looked at that. And they were interested to see all the different languages in the college. The class tutor had also worked with a lecturer who taught the class numeracy to incorporate work on graphs and charts into the assignment: It then went on to them doing a mini survey in the classroom. That's where ....... came in, and he did a lot of numeracy work on that: graph work, pie charts displaying the actual findings in that class. They were interested in the maths, but they did actually come back to talking about language. The tutor strongly confirmed the potential of such work to change the negative perceptions of their bilingualism which some plurilingual students acquire from their educational experiences: The general reaction to that assignment was that they felt that something positive was being done about their second language. One of the students, I remember saying to me, that this was the first time that he had actually felt that his language was an advantage, rather than a disadvantage, in terms of education. The teacher felt that the assignment had had benefits for all the students, but particularly for the bilingual and multilingual students whose self-esteem had been raised. She said that in her opinion CPVE students often suffered from a sense of having failed within secondary education; they had tried to get onto GCSE courses at the college but had been refused, and taken the CPVE as the only 'second chance' available to them. She felt that the language survey assignment had helped the plurilingual students towards the realisation that being bilingual or multilingual meant that they had skills which had not been previously reinforced or recognised, and skills which a monolingual teacher did not have. She believed that this esteem raising effect was relevant to 'student centred learning' and the idea that students should be encouraged to take more responsibility for their own learning. She related this effect to her own position as a monolingual teacher working with plurilingual students, and to a change in the role, or relationship, of student and teacher:

< previous page

page_81

next page >

< previous page

page_82

next page > Page 82

I think it's taught me a lot, and it's taught me a lot about the language diversity in the college. But it's done something else, which I'm quite interested in, because sometimes it's turned around the role in the classroom between the teacher and the studentwhich I've found positive, in that the students have suddenly realised that they've got something haven't got i.e. another language. . . I mean, obviously they could regard that as being a way of scoring over me, but they haven't. They have regarded it as being something to feel pleased about. It is a way I have actually got round to approaching it, to say, 'Well, you can do that and I can't do that'. Sometimes, I would actually start by saying, 'I can only speak English'. She also reported that the Afro-Caribbean students had been influenced by the effects of the assignment work in raising the esteem and status of the plurilingual students within the group. Initially these students had said they themselves did not use Creole, but as they saw the raising of the status of those members of the class who spoke other languages, they became more forthcoming about their own knowledge of Creole. In particular, they had enjoyed doing interviews with other Creole speakers using a video camera: There was a group of boys who, well, they wouldn't admit it very clearly, but they talked about Creole. And as work went on, they started by saying they didn't understand it, and towards the end at least one of them was actually talking about understanding it. And they were certainly able, in terms of the film, to go out to their friends in the college, and get them to speak sort of Creole onto their video. These benefits were not limited to the plurilingual students participating in the language survey assignment, but they also had had beneficial effects upon the monolingual students in the group. The monolingual students had felt involved in the assignment, and had benefited from language awareness work upon register and dialect in English. They had also benefited in terms of Equal Opportunities, since they had developed a respect for bilingualism and their fellow bilingual students. Taken together, the data from the students' participation in the language survey assignment and the evidence from the classroom teacher, provide powerful confirmation of the potential of language survey work in the classroom. This is strong ethnographic evidence to back up the more anecdotal statements from Rosen & Burgess (1980) and the Linguistic Minorities Project (1985) that language surveying can have positive effects on the esteem of plurilingual learners, and on the language awareness of students in general. The evidence from the students' reports and interviews and the perceptions of the teacher provided confirmation of the importance

< previous page

page_82

next page >

< previous page

page_83

next page > Page 83

for older students of being able to carry out their own survey, and therefore 'own' the findings for themselves. This provides a critical perspective on the LMP Secondary Pupils Survey (1985: 344), since for the purposes of such broader language awareness work with older pupils and those in Further Education at least, it may be a weakness that this presents the pupils with another ready made questionnaire. Finally, I would like to quote what Lee, who was not taped, wrote in his final report for the language survey assignment. Note that where he writes about 70% of the college he refers to the main site: Before doing this I was not really aware of the volume of different languages spoken in the college. The most common language apart from English was English-based Creole, followed by the Asian languages. I found it interesting as a monolingual student to see just how many people in the college do speak two or more languages. In actuality over 70% of all people in this college speak at least one other language as well as English. The facts are though that there are still no signs around the college in anything but English, and there is still very little foreign reading matter in the library, and hardly any in non European languages. I think that this should definitely be improved in order to help the cause of Equal Opportunities. Staff Interviews Methodology In the previous chapter there has been evidence of the potential of a language survey to set in train change in the form of recommendations. Examples of this include proposals submitted through the formal committee structure of the college institution, and the final publication of the college language policy in 1990. Such data is appropriate to a case study (Cohen & Manion, 1986: 120), but it was necessary to compare this evidence and my own participant observation, with the perceptions of other staff, who had observed the progress of the survey from different viewpoints. This was thus an attempt to 'triangulate' different forms of data to establish the presence and nature of the effects of the language survey within the college as an institution. Traditionally, the triangulation approach consists of examining phenomena from various points in order to compare and extend findings. Arguably, this study 'reverses' some of the features of triangulation (Walker, 1985: 82), in that the phenomena examined arise out of the intervention into the college reality provided by the language survey itself, and the study looks outwards at different evidence and perspectives on the

< previous page

page_83

next page >

< previous page

page_84

next page > Page 84

impact, or 'effects', of that intervention. This feature, that the research itself intervenes in 'objective reality' and then seeks to observe the consequences of that intervention, is further explored in the next chapter. Interviews were conducted with eight members of staff over a short period. The purpose of these interviews was to gain information and feedback about staff attitudes and observations regarding linguistic diversity in the college, and to the survey and its impact. The more complex aim was to compare the reactions of these eight individuals with the written evidence of survey effects, and my own observations as a participant, in order to form a triangulation. The experience of pilot interviews indicated that the most effective means of questioning for such interviews would be an unstructured informal format, based on a list of topics rather than prepared questions (Powney & Watts, 1987). These anticipated topics for the interviews were: (1) The issues raised by language diversity in the college. (2) The initial responses of the interviewee to language diversity on coming to the college. (3) Language diversity in the interviewee's classes.* (4) Responses to language diversity in the teaching of the interviewee.* (5) Observations of the attitudes and responses of colleagues to language diversity in the college. (6) The interviewee's experience of the conduct and impact of the survey. (7) The responses of other staff to the survey. (8) Any effects or changes brought about by the survey observed by the interviewee. (9) Any topic suggested by the interviewee as relevant, not included above. The interviewees were free and even encouraged to contribute their own agenda as topic (9) indicates. In addition, the openness of these topics, the 'low' profile and late introduction of the topic of the survey itself, were part of a strategy which was adopted with the intention of eliciting a context for the survey, and de-emphasising the central nature in the concerns of the interviewer of questions relating to survey effects. It is clear from the data that interviewees did not feel under any pressure to 'talk up' the survey as being of any more significance than it actually was, and they are often cautious in attributing effects and changes to the influence of the survey. Two pilot interviews, recorded in written note form, were undertaken. Six further interviews were recorded on tape: with the three members of the 'team' responsible for administering the survey in their own departments, and with two other Lecturers, not directly involved in the survey, and a Head of Department. In order to preserve anonymity, the interview* (3) and (4) were adapted for non-teaching management.

< previous page

page_84

next page >

< previous page

page_85

next page > Page 85

ees are referred to as Respondents 1-8. Respondents 1, 2 and 6 were involved in the college management (1 and 2 were not taped). 3, 4 and 5 worked on the survey team. Respondents 6, 7, and 8 were not directly involved with the survey. In the selection of the staff respondents there was an attempt to construct a sample representative of the staff as a whole (Nicholas, 1991: 234). The views of the survey and plurilingualism within the college given by the respondents interviewed were by no means uniform, but it was possible to piece together a common picture of ways in which students and staff functioned in relation to language diversity. The reporting and analysis of the interviews will be organised in order to bring out convergences between individual accounts and the more general implications. The discussion will be divided into two parts. Part 1 begins with attitudes and assumptions prior to the survey, before looking at respondents reports of the impact of the College Survey. The presentation moves on to examine the interview data on the response after the publication and dissemination of the results. More contentious views including 'resistance' to the survey, are finally presented. In Part 2 I consider evidence which supports a hypothesis about the workings of language surveys as agents of change. I shall introduce a theoretical model to describe these workings, which will be further developed and contrasted with comparable models in the next chapter. The Staff Interviews Results: Responses to language diversity and the college survey The survey had helped reveal the assumptions about plurilingual students which existed in the college prior to the survey. There was agreement among the respondents that there had always been a recognition in the college that plurilingual or bilingual students had specific needs, differing from those of monolingual students. Even where other teachers were reported as disagreeing with this, as at the School of Building Studies, the attitude seemed to be that students using other languages should not get special treatment, or should address these needs by going on English language courses first, so that they could then be 'treated the same as other students'. Two respondents gave observations about the 'ignorance' of teachers who put down plurilingual students' deviations from standard English to laziness or stupidity: Particularly skills teachers, rather than communications teachers, do not actually realise why some students make the errors they make. They think it's because they can't spell, or they haven't learnt their grammar properly. (Respondent 4)

< previous page

page_85

next page >

< previous page

page_86

next page > Page 86

They think, 'Oh, that student can't spell. That student leaves off the ''ed'' endings. That student can't get subject verb agreement'. Because they're not aware of language, they just say, 'That's carelessness', 'They're lazy', 'They're not concentrating'. So they don't realise it has a linguistic base. (Respondent 3) There was some agreement that there had been various changes in the college with regard to linguistic diversity. The make up of the student population had changed within the time of many members of staff: I have a feeling that the classes have become more bilingual. (Respondent 7) Among these more linguistically aware respondents, there was also some awareness of the changes in the proportions of various language groups, which the ILEA schools censuses record (ILEA Research & Statistics, 1979-1987). It may be that this relatively rapid turn over of major language groups, increased a sense of an inability to keep up with the proportions of language diversity, among some members of staff, as this respondent indicates: What surprises me is the cores that come and go through the years. There's a very Spanish core that has actually gone through. Now, it's very Arab and Ethiopian. I'm not sure what languages they speak. They're going through, and I wonder what's coming next. There's no way that I could keep up with it. (Respondent 8) Four respondents gave their observations and perceptions that plurilingual students sometimes had low esteem for their extra language abilities, and that speakers of non-European languages in particular suffered in self-esteem from the perceived low status of the languages they used. Respondent 8, for example, who spoke French, explained that she was always surprised by the fact that whereas Asian students admired her ability to speak French and English, they discounted their own language abilities: Before I saw the report, I was always amazed that the students, once they heard my name, they immediately thought it was French. And then they related to the French, and said, 'Oh, isn't that clever? Can you speak it?' And would then go on about the French language. To which I would reply, 'How many languages do you speak?' And they wouldn't count that as a language, and that always surprised me. (Respondent 8) The widespread habit, or schema, of linking bilingualism, or the presence of students speaking other languages, as a 'problem' was one reason

< previous page

page_86

next page >

< previous page

page_87

next page > Page 87

for this low esteem and the low status of 'community' languages in the classroom: There have been students, who have come in from off site units, and in schools. And they have been in language units, and that sort of thing. I'm not saying they have had negative experiences, but they have come in regarding their language, actually, as being something to actually solve, a problem to solve. (Respondent 7) There was an implied clash of viewpoint between the respondents interviewed, who recognised in their different ways that plurilingual/ bilingual students had specific language needs and a significant section of other members of staff who had in many cases expressed resistance to the survey, and who were said to have no interest in these needs. Many staff, it was said, continued their teaching as they would to classes of monolingual English students, with no acknowledgement of the linguistic diversity in their classes whatsoever: I think there are a lot of people here using the same teaching notes, the same teaching techniques, they used 15 years ago, when we were predominantly an English/white college. (Respondent 6) A number of teachers resisted administering the survey questionnaires to their classes on the grounds that the students were all white, or monolingual English speakers. There was also an expectation that speakers of community languages would not be found on higher level courses. As discussed below, these prejudgements were false and were challenged in the survey results. The respondents' reporting of any impact the college language survey had yielded a complex response. Respondents 3, 4, 7 and 8, and to a lesser extent 1 and 2, all gave opinions that the survey had had significant positive effects of various kinds. On the other hand, Respondents 5 and 6 expressed doubts as to whether any substantial effects had taken place. Respondents 5 and 6 nevertheless may be seen to contradict their view that the survey had little or no effect since they both supply evidence of effects on their own attitudes and actions. Respondent 5, for example, expressed his surprise at finding the extent of bilingualism among white, 'fair-haired' students. Respondent 6 disparages the 'awareness raising' effects of the survey, but reveals that he attempted to set up courses in some community languages in response to the survey in the department he managed. The under-reporting of the use of English-based Creoles in language surveys, which was discussed in some detail in Chapter 2, is also relevant to the linguistic awareness and confidence of the teacher. It is interesting to listen to the observations of the survey participants, and other respondents, on this phenomenon. Respondent 3 made the point that the under-report-

< previous page

page_87

next page >

< previous page

page_88

next page > Page 88

ing of Creoles was intensified where the teacher administering the survey in the classroom had little or no knowledge or awareness of what was being asked: I think Creole was under-reported, particularly in those classes where teachers could not explain, or did not know what a Creole was, if they could not explain the relation between Creole and 'broken English', or 'broken French. This data converges with the observations of Respondent 7 from the case study of the CPVE class above, and her comments to me (in personal communication) that students using English-based Creole had become less reticent about their abilities as they noticed the rising prestige of abilities in other language varieties during their own survey work. There was confirmation from four respondents of the idea that the survey process could have a positive effect on the self-esteem of students using other languages. Respondent 3 pointed out that sharing information about the other languages used by the students in a class could breed a kind of solidarity, reducing any isolation felt by speakers of minority languages, as well as raising the esteem of plurilingual students: I think for students it was quite useful, because I think, like talking about Equal Opportunities and other things, students do realise that they're not the only person from a different language backgroundthat a lot of other students are very similar. And students that are not, you know, sometimes see that other students have got an advantage in being able to use so many different languages. Respondent 8 also noticed this effect simply from getting students to write their languages on the board before showing them the survey report: We actually wrote up a welcome message, it was a bit tokenist, but we all put into this in a different language and the students who actually had more than one language: the other students were impressed by it, and they rose in their esteem. . . All respondents agreed that the survey had attracted interest and, amongst some teachers, had led to awareness raising. In particular, the scale of language diversity reflected in the figures for proportions of students reporting the use of other languages, and the number of different languages reported, was said to have been received with surprise. The School of Building stands out as something of an exception to the response in the rest of the college: One or two people came up to me and said they were amazed that there were so many languages and had I done the figures properly? And I showed them the original stuff, but that was it really. That was the end

< previous page

page_88

next page >

< previous page

page_89

next page > Page 89

of it. I mean, nobody cared what was going to happen about it in the end. By the time it came out, everyone looked at it, registered the figures, the numbers, and then forgot it. (Respondent 5) Any new awareness of linguistic diversity was linked with questioning of the effectiveness of follow up to the survey: I get the feeling although it has sensitised a lot of people to the issues, it's kind of faded away on the breeze. And perhaps more could be made as a follow up, but I am not quite sure how. There is an attitude to give students any kind of materialon metaphors and similes, for example, or whatever when students have specific needs to do with their language problems, to do with the past tense, or whatever, and these needs are ignored. (Respondent 4) Monitoring of the after effects uncovered a muttering consensus questioning 'What happens next?' Indeed, one of the strongest survey effects observed was a pressure wave of expectation, following on the reporting and presentation of the quantitative data, asking for positive recommendations for change. The staff appeared to expect a quantitative survey to be linked to qualitative effects. However, there was also an impatience with the amount of activity in the college devoted to paper investigations, not matched by action: It's so easy to do a survey and find out all these things. But now what happens? What's it all for? We publish this vast collection of languages. And we've tested public opinion from the students of what they want. The next stage is to quantify the results of thatif anything has happened. And I can't point to anything that's happened as a result, apart from raising consciousness or awareness. But that's not good enough, is it? What has changed in the classroom as a result of that survey? I would have thought nothing. (Respondent 6) There was evidence from the respondents that some teachers had taken on follow up to the survey themselves. Respondents 4, 7 and 8 remarked on the positive effects of the survey upon plurilingual students' self-esteem already discussed. They had all pursued follow up work on language in the classroom and had noticed a 'turn around' in the teacher/student role whereby plurilingual students have realised that their language use represents abilities the monolingual teacher does not have: I think it gives students a better self-image, if the teacher values their language abilities, rather than saying, 'Oh, you don't speak English very well'. You can say, 'Your English isn't one hundred per cent perfect, but you speak this, this, and this language which I, as a teacher, can't do'. (Respondent 4)

< previous page

page_89

next page >

< previous page

page_90

next page > Page 90

And then I showed them the survey report, and said, 'Have you seen all the different languages that are spoken in the college?' And then, they all started to say, 'Oh yes, my so and so, my friend so and so speaks this'. But they seemed to know much more about the languages than I did. (Respondent 8) These data confirming the positive effects of surveying in recognising plurilingual students' possession of skills and raising their esteem and thus being able to change the relation of plurilingual student vis à vis the monolingual teacher, triangulate strongly with evidence from the classroom case study above, and my own participant observation. This effect upon esteem is linked with the power of language surveys to open up and support a positive discourse about bilingualism. As already discussed here and in Chapter 3, the college language survey and the ensuing discussion of it revealed certain stark contrasts between teachers who took an interest and were prepared to take on board ideas relating to the importance of language diversity in the college and its teaching, and teachers who resisted such moves. Respondent 1 pointed out that this polarisation has its own folk jargon, being referred to as the split between the 'converted' and the 'unconverted'. Whereas the converted debate the issues energetically, the unconverted evade, ignore or resist any such debate, and thus appear immune to change. At the same time, my own participant observation of the phenomena of 'resistance', was that such responses are part of reactions to change, and that there are dangers of labelling in simply attributing resistance to the 'unconverted' as individuals of a type, rather than seeing it as part of the response within people and an institution to change. Nevertheless, the respondents expressed a strong sense of the presence of a bloc of staff who were immune to any 'awareness raising' potential coming out of the activity around the survey. Respondents 3 and 4 talked of the staff who still perceived the language difficulties of bilingual students as having nothing to do with their being bilingual (which they do not recognise anyway!), but as being innate, or the result of laziness or lack of attention: Some people perceive bilingual students' language problems as stupidity or ignorance.(Respondent 4) They feel if their English is not up to, of an acceptable standard, they think that's just laziness. They don't realise there is such a thing as language interference. . . They don't see it like that. They just say, 'That's carelessness', or, 'It is an error', 'They're lazy', 'They're not concentrating'. (Respondent 3) Respondent 7 gave her perception, which accorded with my own observations, that there was a significant section of teachers who simply did not

< previous page

page_90

next page >

< previous page

page_91

next page > Page 91

see that a recognition of language diversity in the classroom, or of the role of language in the learning process of bilinguals, was anything to do with their job: I think people are more aware, but, I think, some people have almost never regarded it as being part of their job, to have anything to do with language diversity. (Respondent 7) In part these attitudes were seen to stem from the split between 'content' and communications, or 'mainstream' and specialist teachers. The premise among the 'content' and mainstream teachers was that language diversity was not relevant to their teaching and not their concern. Resistance to the implications of a language survey can dominate the response from teachers in an institution, so that the 'awareness raising' functions of a survey described here do not occur. In such conditions a language diversity survey will only reveal existing attitudes and there is little or no change in the institution as a result. Resistance appeared to dominate the response to the college language survey in one faculty, the .School of Building Studies: The survey has had no effect whatsoever. The teachers weren't too bothered about doing it in the first place. There were only a few who wanted to know what it was about. Because I said it would only take a minute or two to do, then that's why it was done, and as soon as it was done it was forgotten. (Respondent 5) The teachers at the School of Building appeared to display a kind of blindness to the presence of linguistic diversity. This disregard overlooked the problems with the language skills demanded on certain courses experienced by plurilingual students: I don't think the staff here think about bilingual students at all. . . In the three years I've been here, no-one's actually come to me and said, you know, anything about bilingual students. . . I know a lot of teachers in Construction and Estate Management and every year they have a lot of people, because they're allowed to actually do the continual assessment assignments. . .and they let them do them again. Some of them wind up doing them two or three or four times. And the problem is, could be, the language. The teachers themselves don't have the language expertise to deal with bilinguals. (Respondent 5) These comments must be compared with the quantitative results from the survey which show that 49% of students in this faculty reported themselves as using another language or Creole in addition to English. Respondent 5 had experienced great resistance from other teachers to the administration of the survey, which he had ingeniously overcome by

< previous page

page_91

next page >

< previous page

page_92

next page > Page 92

representing it as a matter of official ILEA policy. Some teachers in the faculty conceived of the survey as a power for change far beyond that attributed to it elsewhere in the college: And there was a few said, 'We don't want to know really. It's a waste of class time'. So I countered with, 'Well, it's ILEA policy, it's law, and you've got to do it'. But they demanded to know, some of them, what it was going to be used for. 'Does it mean more money will be spent on certain students?' Those students being foreigners or West Indian. You know, it was to do with the West Indians really. And they had the idea that kids who weren't really up to itthis was their misconceptionwere going to be corraled, and extra time, teachers, money, resources were going to be spent on them, and they felt that this was unfair on their indigenous second generation Irish lads. (laughter on tape) With some teachers at the Faculty of Building this conception of the survey as being in the vanguard of sweeping changes was linked with a more general semipolitical paranoia towards any kind of initiative which might disturb the status quo of their everyday teaching: There is this idea in ......, amongst some teachers, that anything that seems at all unusual is some kind of very cunning and intelligent ploy or trick by 'the lefties' to find something to disrupt their status quo, their everyday way of teaching. . . (They think) they might end up with some horrifically radical and progressive way of teaching. They think if they do, if they comply with a sort of questionnaire like that, whatever the findings are, it could be used against them in a clever manner. So that they wind up having some kind of free expression class. Finally, it may be that even in this situation of resistance some change can be achieved. Respondent 1 pointed out that the survey had provided evidence to contradict the widespread attitude at the School of Building that plurilingual students did not exist in significant numbers, and this would be used in subsequent debate. The survey was used subsequently to argue the case for a course in the faculty specifically targeted at bilingual students. Apart from this however, the feedback from the Faculty of Building Studies indicated that this area of the college had reacted negatively and thwarted any potential the survey process had for changing attitudes or practices in their own area. The survey had stimulated debate as to the role that other community languages could or should play in Britain, and what the role, if any, of the college should be. It seemed to be agreed that the college should provide language support in English for plurilingual students throughout the college and language awareness training for staff. There were, however, opposing views on whether the importance of English to students' success

< previous page

page_92

next page >

< previous page

page_93

next page > Page 93

should exclude approaches supportive of plurilingual students' other languages. Debate centred on whether the college had any role in supporting major community languages with courses and qualifications: As far as the college goes, it's got a dual role, it's got to prepare students for the world that they're going into, and it's also got to cater for the needs that students do haveif they do need extra help, or if they want material available in their own language. I mean, I think the college has got a lot of roles to play, and it's got to play them all. I do think the college has also got to, through its teaching and its ethos, got to encourage students to change the world for the better. (Respondent 3) If a student were doing three science 'A' levels, and were really very bright, and was a little unsure of English, where would I emphasise the thrust for his recreation and leisure? Would I say, 'Go and learndo a GCSE in Urdu or Arabic'or 'Should we put you in a workshop for additional English help?' To me I think his future depends upon the additional English, not on his heritage language. If the institution, academic institution, prioritises the heritage language, then I think you've got a problem. The heritage language can be prioritised in the private life, or in the Saturday life, or in the Sunday, religious life. (Respondent 6) The first viewpoint, as represented by Respondent 3, is based on the idea that the college institution can foster progressive trends which subvert, or provide alternatives to, the English monolingual world view: I think it can widen out into the use of languages in overseas markets. . . It's less monolingual in its emphasis. I think it's gradually happening that British people are becoming less insular; they are looking outwards, not just to America and Europe, but elsewhere. (Respondent 3) Respondent 6 (who enjoys a position of much greater power and influence in the college than Respondent 3) by contrast, emphasises an argument which attempts to justify the English monolingual world view: Unless we emphasise the 'Englishness' of the future, in terms of the language, I think we are going to put these students at a great disadvantage. . . I don't think that history teaches us that anyone can move into another culture, with citizenship, and remain with their own culture and their own language for more than two generations. I think that's almost impossible. There has to be a merging. I think it's up to the private individual, or the family, or even their religion, their religious life, to keep the other language going. (Respondent 6) This view is not borne out by histories of those 'minority' languages and cultures which have survived all attempts from the culture of 'the majority'

< previous page

page_93

next page >

< previous page

page_94

next page > Page 94

to engineer them out of existence, as in the United States, for example. However, this view of history is central to the kind of thinking which Respondent 6 articulates. It is an important piece of data to consider in coming to an understanding of those views which oppose support for language and cultural diversity in mainstream British education for integrationist reasons. Respondent 3 also raised a point about the role of different languages for plurilingual students which stands out: I feel a lot of students use their language, like their background, in two ways. . . They either accept it as part of their whole person. And they use it, and it fits in quite happily with them as a person. And they use it when they want to. And they don't use it when they don't. And so it's fairly fluid, and they just develop as a person. Other people, I do think, and this is only to do with languageI suppose it must apply to race as well, I don't know, but I'm thinking of it in languagesometimes pigeonhole their lives. And they tend to think, 'Well, I use that language at home, I use this language at work, I use this language with my friends'. And they don't actually talk very much about their different, the different aspects of their lives. Teachers' attitudes to language diversity in their classes may be seen in a similar way. Some teachers did not recognise the co-existence of other languages in their students' lives as having any bearing upon their practice. If it was called to their attention they would package it away into the compartments, or concerns, of other specialist teachers or courses. Other teachers were more open-minded, interested in what they could learn from their students' use of other languages. The survey was used somewhat differently by these open-minded and interested teachers who used it to develop their knowledge, awareness and classroom practice in relation to linguistic diversity. Staff interview results: Towards a hypothesis describing the workings of language surveys as agents of awarenessraising and change In this section I intend to present evidence from the interviews providing further confirmation of the potential of language surveys to initiate or encourage discourse and change. I will compare my own observations and inferences against the staff perceptions of the workings of the survey process as an agent of change as explored above. These ideas have developed reflexively, such that they have developed out of an interaction between my own ideas, generated as a participant observer of the survey, and the data from the interviews. What these interviews can provide is data

< previous page

page_94

next page >

< previous page

page_95

next page > Page 95

of a 'theory generating' nature, and indicate deeper patternings underlying surface effects. We will begin from the situation before the survey took place. With regard to the ethos and policy of the college when respondents had first arrived, there was a common thread in the interviews leading to the conclusion that language diversity issues had not been on the agenda. Respondent 3 said that, when she came to the college in 1982, staff appeared particularly to lack recognition of the presence of cultural and linguistic diversity, compared with her experience of other colleges: Language diversity did not have as strong a position as it does in other collegesthat in the department I work in a lot of people didn't perceive that there were students from different language backgrounds. Whereas, other colleges I've worked in with more to do with ESL, there was an acknowledgement that their students were from different cultural backgrounds. So, language diversity, I suppose in a way, just was not a big feature. The multiethnic and antiracist initiatives in the college, supported then by ILEA, at the time work began on the survey in September 1985 had not foregrounded, or even noticeably included, language diversity: When I first came to the college, in terms of the curriculum, although multicultural education was there, and encouraged, and developed. Language didn't seem to be part of it. . . It didn't seem to be encouraged. ESL and EFL were sort of separate students to me, even though, if I had thought about it, there were ESL students in my classes. It seemed to be a different area. And that there was nothing positive done about language. It was seen as a problem for bilingual students. (Respondent 7) This respondent went on to remark that this had also been true of the teacher training college, from which she had come to Hammersmith in 1984: Coming from Garnett and having done the multicultural bit, you didn't actually talk about language there very much. Certainly, nobody ever said, 'Do you not regard ESL, or bilingualism, as being in a deficit model?' Or anything like that. It wasn't included at all in the discussion; it certainly didn't impinge on me. The fact that language diversity was simply not recognised meant that plurilingual students and the languages other than English used, were simply inaudible to most teachers. As a result most teachers would not register any measure of the bilingualism in their classes: I don't remember ever discussing bilingualism in my classes, when I arrived, or thinking about my classes, or worrying about them, because they were bilingual. Now, I look at my CPVE classes, and in some it's

< previous page

page_95

next page >

< previous page

page_96

next page > Page 96

50%, and in some it's 75-80% students who speak more than one language. I never asked them before anyway. (Respondent 7) In considering the impact of the survey upon the college, it is possible to discern different responses. The simplest distinction is that between agreement with the basic principle of setting up a survey and opposition, or 'resistance'. Such a dilemma may occur in an individual teacher, and so we are not simply talking on an interpersonal level about teachers who agreed and teachers who expressed opposition. The three respondents who had participated in the administration of the survey in their own departments had all encountered resistance: At the time, it generated a certain amount of interest, and some people said, 'This is a good thing', and other people said, 'This is a complete waste of time'. (Respondent 4) The respondents' reports all show that this resistance to the survey took a number of forms. As also noted by those working on the Linguistic Minorities Project Schools Language Surveys (1985: 314), a small number of teachers were worried about the motivation behind asking such questionsand implications of gathering statistics on their students which might be seen as some form of covert ethnic monitoring: I remember there was this resistance to it (the survey). I think, partly because people weren't quite clear what it was for. It's a bit like ethnic monitoring, isn't it? People worry about it. Students worry about it, in the sense of students with refugee status. It was on that sort of level that people thought, 'Why do people want to know?' (Respondent 7) A point of view found more widely, questioned the point of gathering statistics on students' other languages. What use would it be to the students themselves if these were recorded in this way? Teachers who could see no real, practical outcome questioned whether the survey could justify the resources expended on it. Teachers who were hostile to Equal Opportunities initiatives, particularly from ILEA, attacked the survey as being part of this. Often connected with this last point of view, was hostility from sections of teachers who felt that the survey might be in the vanguard of some plan to overthrow their own classroom practice: I think some teaching staff felt that it was a waste of effort and resources, and it wasn't going to achieve anything useful. Some others felt that identifying the language backgrounds of people wasn't going to help those people anyway. So again it was a wasted effort. Other teachers felt that it was probably part and parcel of initiatives, ILEA initiatives, Equal Opportunities, to turn everything upside down. They felt threatened, I suppose by it, and wanted to know what was behind it. (Respondent 3)

< previous page

page_96

next page >

< previous page

page_97

next page > Page 97

Some respondents reported that the survey process had changed the way they viewed students who used other languages: It's changed my knowledge and my approach. . . I have come round to feeling myself to be disadvantaged because I only speak English. (Respondent 7) In particular, most of the teachers interviewed indicated that their attitudes to plurilingual students' use of English, or 'errors', had altered as a result of an awareness coming out of the survey process: It stops you making value judgements about them. (Respondent 4) Respondent 8 explained that the fact that English-based Creole had been reported as the most commonly spoken other language in her faculty had led her to guess at it, or 'hear' it in her students' writing: It's not an English grammatical error. It's not their own error. That is the English-based Creole, isn't it? Then they, how can I say it? It looks like a mistake. You could read it and it would sound as if they'd spoken it, as though they'd said it. . . Again, as a non-specialist, if you tell me that English-based Creole is the main language of this faculty, after English, exactly what is it? because I have guessed at it. As a result she had come to accept sentence structures which she believed to emanate from English-based Creole in students' writing, although she also said that she would have liked some specialist guidance: For me as a teacher, it meant that I stopped looking for accurate English grammar. I came to realise that it was English-based Creole, and so when I was reading something, I would try to and read it as they were saying it, and accept it rather than correct it. So it meant that I accepted them more, although I don't know whether it's going to do them any good in the business life, because they still have to have correct English grammar. but, as I wasn't a professional and I'm not an English teacher, I felt it better to leave them with their sentence structure. Some of the CPVE projects, which are their own work, I actually have not corrected, because I feel as if they're just showing that they've done the research. And they have done it. And then they're actually putting it on paper. What they've done is accurate, but what they've written might not be. So I haven't corrected. The content is accurate. But I would've needed advice on what to do, and still do. I have quoted these extracts at some length because, regardless of whether the teacher's practice in response to use of a Creole variety of English is 'right', it reveals an internal dialogue, or process, wherein the teacher reveals questioning and rethinking of her own assumptions and practice. This examination of the assumptions underlying old, and possibly

< previous page

page_97

next page >

< previous page

page_98

next page > Page 98

new practice, I have termed, 'ventilation', and it was a common initial response from those teachers affected by new knowledge or awareness coming out of the survey process. There is clear corroboration from the interview data that the survey had an 'agenda-setting' function: that it succeeded in placing the topics of language diversity and the language curriculum across the college higher on the agenda of both informal and 'official' debate: It has, I think, made people talk about it. (Respondent 3) It has sensitised a lot of people to the issues. (Respondent 4) I think the results of the survey came as a bit of a shock to people like me, as a Head of Department, who had no idea of the diversity, you know, the numbers of different languages. (Respondent 6) I think people are more aware. (Respondent 7) My response was from seeing the booklet. I was amazed at the amount of different languages there were. (Respondent 8) As mentioned previously, when administering the survey some teachers had said that there was no point doing the survey in certain of their classes because they were all native speakers of English, or all white. The survey revealed that the stereotype of linguistic diversity, or 'bilingual students', as non-white had no foundation, there being significant dimensions of linguistic diversity among white students: Looking at the make up of the classes, I was surprised, how many had actually put down that they could speak other languages. I was surprised at how many said they were fluent. I was surprised at the languages that were coming out. Well, it was just a personal thing really. Look at the student and you'd thinlc, you know, they were fair-haired, and all of a sudden they'd write down Portuguese, that somewhere in their history obviously there was Portuguese or something. It's not stereotyping, but you'd look at someone's features and colouring, or whatever. (Respondent 5) The survey revealed and questioned teachers' assumptions about their students. For example, one expectation of a surprising nature, which was revealed during the 'ventilation' stage, even among teachers who expressed positive attitudes towards bilingual students, was that 'higher level' courses would not show significant proportions of students speaking community languages. The findings of the survey directly contradicted these views: In doing the survey, a lot of teachers said to me, 'Oh well, it's a waste of time doing it with my class because they're all monolingual. They all

< previous page

page_98

next page >

< previous page

page_99

next page > Page 99

speak English'. And then, when they got the results, and found that there were a great diversity of languages, they were surprised. They said, 'Well, my students are professional students'. There was this sort of elitism. On a lower level course, it would be alright to have students from different language backgrounds, but on a professional course, 'No, they are all monolingual. Otherwise they wouldn't be good enough to be on a course like this. They'd never get the command of English'. From some quite surprising people, this idea that proficiency in one language precludes proficiency in other languages, and therefore they can't be using other languages. (Respondent 3) I also found evidence of teachers rethinking their assumptions in response to information such as this coming out of the survey which ran contrary to their expectations. Most of the teachers interviewed indicated that the survey had had an effect upon their teaching, and was having an influence upon colleagues. Two respondents (3 & 7), had been had inspired to develop materials using language diversity in the classroom. The work of Respondent 7 has been discussed in some detail already in the classroom study above. Across the college, the survey had had a significant role in breaking the spiral of silence which had marginalised language diversity as of interest only within the language communities themselves, or the province of a few English as a Second Language experts. Respondent 8 who had only had contact with the survey through reading the report booklet had been spurred to set up an activity writing her students' languages on the board: (After seeing the booklet for the first time) . . .I actually asked them. I wanted to hear them tell me what languages they spoke. I could see, visually, that there was a lot of language diversity there. . . So, I went in to actually see what they said they spoke. I didn't know what half of the languages were. So, it was near Christmas, New Year, and we wrote on the blackboard. I began in French, and then I said, 'Come on. Who else can speak another language?' They seemed to know much more about the languages (in the booklet) than I did. We actually decorated the board in the other languages, and then I showed them the survey report, and said, 'Have you seen all the different languages that are spoken in the college?' And then they all started to say, 'Oh yes, my so and so, my friend so and so speaks this'. But they seemed to know much more about the languages than I did. This had been a spontaneous activity, hut the teacher was considering a more planned version in future years: In future I think I'd spend more time on it. I'd organise it in a tutorial rather than just doing it on spec.

< previous page

page_99

next page >

< previous page

page_100

next page > Page 100

The survey triggered a change in awareness to varying degrees among a limited number of staff which put the language diversity on the agenda across the college: It has I think made people talk about it. Not a lot, but, I mean, people do when they see me mention it. And say, well, you know, 'What was the result of it? What happened? What was the good of it? What was the purpose of it? What are you going to do next? What's going to happen next?' And so, I suppose, that by being talked about, at least people acknowledged that, if you like, it's now on the table. (Respondent 3) In the follow-up to the survey the debate moved on to questions of evaluation and the advisability of different actions in response to the completion of the survey: in other words, to employ the terminology of meetings with teachers on the subject, the question moved on from 'What for?' to 'So what?'. The Head of Department interviewed had been influenced by the meetings presenting the results and recommendations of the survey to make resources available for courses in two community languagesArabic and Urdu. He had been disappointed that help had not been forthcoming from other staff to recruit the part time teachers needed: I attended meetings, following on the language survey, and became aware that something had to be done, and we were one of the few colleges not offering heritage languages. And on the advice of that party (Senior Lecturer for Multiethnic Education), it seemed that Arabic and Urdu were in demand, but then I got quite disappointed. I offered to put Arabic and Urdu on. Are people expecting me to go out and recruit a teacher of Urdu and Arabic? I've been quite disappointed that my response to plough resources into this area hasn't been taken up. (Respondent 6) Respondents 3 and 7, as already mentioned, had gone about developing materials using language diversity in the classroom, as a follow up to the survey. For them in fact the main influence of the college survey had been the effect on their own teaching and writing of classroom materials. Both felt that they had begun something which would widen out and influence students and colleagues in the college: It's made meI will introduce language issues more readily into materials I'm developing, and into classrooms. And I think, also, it will have an effect, gradually, on the course as a whole, because I think it can widen out into the use of languages in overseas markets, and things like that. It is giving a more positive image of students' and teachers' use of languages. It's less monolingual in its emphasis. (Respondent 3)

< previous page

page_100

next page >

< previous page

page_101

next page > Page 101

I think it's taught me a lot, and it's taught me a lot about the language diversity in the college. . . It's changed my knowledge, and my approach, and then I'm influencing a class of students. And, because it became an integrated project, that has involved the maths department. So it does spread. Maybe everyone isn't, directly, doing something about it, but they are more aware of it. Respondent 7) Of the three respondents who had administered the survey in their own departments, Respondent 3 had developed a component on language diversity for a course in Business Studies, which incorporated the findings and the questionnaires from the college language survey: The language survey is used in the classroom. The students fill it in, and then its findings are discussed. And I also gave a lecture on this course to the students on language diversity. A whole lecture, which is quite a part of the teaching schedule was assigned to language diversity. She felt, as also did Respondent 7, that work on language diversity with students provided a valuable 'way in' to further work on equal opportunities. The way in which the ventilation of thinking encouraged by a language survey can set in train links with other issues is clearly described: It has spilt over into things like Equal Opportunities. Part of a course I teach on. We were talking about media, and it was brought out how women and Afro-Caribbeans are given very stereotyped roles in advertising. And an Asian student pointed out how Asians do not feature at all in advertising. I think if we hadn't talked about language beforehand, then, this wouldn't have come out. So, I think it is something which opens up, makes people more open in their attitude and prepared to discuss things like this. (Respondent 3) There was agreement that the survey had put language diversity issues higher on the college agenda than previously. Two different kinds of effects could be discerned. There were those which promoted, or could be accommodated by, pre-existing priorities for change which had existed within the college prior to the survey. These had a 'fit' with previous institutional priorities. An example was the way in which survey findings and recommendations were used to argue for the expansion of language support for plurilingual students across the college. There was also evidence of more radical change, not promoted in previous agenda for change. The primary effect of this second kind observed had an individual, rather than institutional basis, in the way certain individuals had changed in their approaches to plurilingual students, and were developing materials and influencing colleagues to make greater recognition and utilisation of language diversity as a positive feature of classes, and as a resource.

< previous page

page_101

next page >

< previous page

page_102

next page > Page 102

We now come to the theoretical conclusions which come out of the data from this chapter. They involve the categorisation of language survey effects into ventilation, resistance, focusing, and effecting. A questionnaire survey and its reporting provide various means encouraging the respondents, and the audience for the findings, to ventilate their observations, attitudes and assumptions on the subjects studied. The meetings and discussions which preceded and followed the survey and the publication of the report, made teachers talk about subjects which previously had received little discussion in the 'mainstream'. Such ventilation is the first stage through which change following the intervention of a language survey proceeds. The second term, resistance, refers to responses which question and resist change. Resistance may stem from doubt a,s to whether a survey will achieve the positive results espoused, as for example where staff raised worries about head counting students from different ethnic backgrounds. Resistance may also come from those who have a vested interest in a status quo which the discussion the survey is likely to stimulate will disturb. Of course, resistance is a safeguard in some cases against changes which merit criticism or opposition. Essentially, resistance is not a label to be attached to a person but is a response to change that any individual may experience to some degree. 'Focusing', refers to the process by which discussion builds around topics or issues. This is the first stage in which a dialogue begins between the aims of those who set up and promulgate issues through a survey, and those who participate in, or read it. Focusing will come under the influence of, not only the aims of researchers, but also the preexisting attitudes or premises of the survey audience. Where these differ, the effecting of any change will depend upon the conclusions of any dialogue which ensues. 'Effecting' refers to the results which a questionnaire survey and its findings have on knowledge, attitudes and practices in the target communities or institutions. We can further clarify this term by differentiating shaping effects and reshaping effects. Shaping effects refer to the ways in which the target community or institution accommodates and makes meaning or use of the process and findings of the survey according to pre-existing priorities or agendas. Reshaping refers to progress and change of a more radical kind incorporating new ideas, or priorities marginalised in pre-existing agendas. reshaping, effects show in awarenesses and practices deemed innovatory in terms of the aims of the researchers. All such effects are difficult to attribute in a cause and effect sense. The data presented here generated the categorisation used in this classification or model. First of all, the survey ventilated pre-existing views and

< previous page

page_102

next page >

< previous page

page_103

next page > Page 103

premises upon which teachers and management based the college's work with plurilingual students. This 'ventilation' process revealed resistance to responses or changes in relation to the treatment of plurilingual students, as well as willingness to discuss, be involved in, or even initiate, positive developments. This idea of 'resistance' was shown to cover a variety of responses ranging from scepticism, ignorance or indifference, even to antagonism suspicious of any accommodation of linguistic diversity in the curriculum. It was also associated with a variety of negative views and stereotypes of plurilingual students. On the one hand, a plurilingual student might be stigmatised because of problems with standard English by teachers insensible to their use of other languages. On the other hand, plurilingual students suffered from low esteem, or low expectations from their teachers because of concepts of a 'semilingual' nature (Martin Jones & Romaine, 1986). Ventilation for plurilingual students could mean opportunities to discuss their use of other languages as positive abilities, and, in the case of the classroom study, to review previous negative experiences. The major issues which emerged from the focusing stage of the college survey were the need for staff training to help them develop strategies to teach plurilingual students more effectively; the capability of language awareness work in lessons to improve the esteem and status of bilingual students and the awareness of the teachers involved; and a debate as to whether resources should be concentrated on English language support, or should also include support for students' use of other languages through courses and materials. The classroom study provides evidence that both plurilingual and monolingual students can productively engage in such discussion. Open meetings were held following the survey report, but few students contributed. In hindsight, meetings specifically for students to respond might have been more effective. There is further data relevant to focusing in the form of recommendations, in Chapter 4. The question of the effects of the survey is problematic, and the difficulties of measuring such effects may explain why other surveys have given such scant detail on their monitoring. The college language survey was followed by a wider awareness of language diversity and bilingualism, and some recognition of this area as a college-wide issue rather than the concern of a specialist English as a Second Language section. The interview data provides some illuminating evidence on the effects of the survey on individual teachers and, as shown above, there is evidence of real change, or 'reshaping effects', in changes reported by individuals in their work with students and colleagues. The classroom case study provides qualitative data corroborating positive effects of classroom work using surveys on the esteem of plurilingual students, as also reported by Rosen & Burgess (1980) and the Linguistic Minorities Project (1985). Interestingly, there is also

< previous page

page_103

next page >

< previous page

page_104

next page > Page 104

specific data from the classroom study confirming positive effects for monolingual students and their awareness of linguistic diversity and equal opportunities issues. At an institutional level, in terms of those recommendations immediately taken up, 'shaping effects' promoting preexisting priorities were mainly evident in this research. The next chapter will extend and develop this discussion, and the model of survey effects it presents, in the context of Action Research, the major schools language surveys and other models describing the effects of dissemination of information.

< previous page

page_104

next page >

< previous page

page_105

next page > Page 105

6 Modelling 'Change': Theoretical Representation of Language Questionnaire Surveying Introduction The intention in this chapter is to use models from both Action Research and the study of communication, in order to explore the processes of change set in motion by the language surveys. The model of language diversity surveying suggested in the previous chapter will be further developed and elaborated. There are strong links between Action Research and ethnographic rather than quantitative methods (Bolster, 1983). Action Research in real life situations often means that variables cannot be isolated or measured in quantifiable terms. Action Research in education is also addressed to an audience of teachers who may find the language of quantitative research inaccessible. The 'teacher as researcher' principle of Action Research has encouraged eclecticism. Researchers have used methods such as interviewing, participant observation and case study for practical reasons of their available skills and ready access, as well as from philosophical positions (Hammersley, 1986). The development of the methodology of language diversity surveying, as described in Chapter 2, has been largely in terms of the collection of quantifiable data, in the form of statistics on language use in the population under study. As we shall see in this chapter, this quantitative model of the research has emphasised the dissemination of, and response to, this data, in considering, or evaluating, any effects. (See the various working papers and progress reports of the Language Information Network Co-ordination, e.g. LINC October, 1981; LMP/LINC, 1983). By contrast, the application of an action research model, observing social interaction and institutional

< previous page

page_105

next page >

< previous page

page_106

next page > Page 106

responses in the context of the intervention provided by a language survey, has enabled an alternative model of the qualitative effects of such research activity to be developed. The Action Research paradigm has developed according to a combination of premises. The research begins from a 'problem' and a need. The teacher conducts the research, and uses both the roles of teacher and researcher to gather data. The teacher/researcher participates in the study. Colleagues are involved in the research process: as collaborators, as consultants and critics (Ebbutt, 1982). The research takes in the point of view of both teachers and students, as well as that of the researcher, 'experts' and 'management'. Data is collected in order to discover underlying ideas and construct concepts, rather than test pre-determined hypotheses. (In other words, the data includes qualitative as well as quantitative information and it is 'hypothesis generating'.) There is an interaction between the research design and the object of investigation, and also between the researcher and those other persons involved. In other words, the study is 'reflexive' (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983). The research uses a number of methods of data collection, i.e. 'triangulation'. These, so far, are the traditional features of Action research. The specific Action Research methodology used in this research has also followed four further principles. The research has a positive ideology which it seeks to promote through raising awareness and effecting change beyond that within pre-existing agenda. It has a change dynamic: it is involved in promoting an integral agenda for change, whilst studying and monitoring actual change. The research promotes this integral agenda not only through products of the research such as data gathered, 'results' and 'reports', but also through the actual processes of the research itself. The use of a questionnaire survey for action research purposes proceeds upon an understanding of such a methodology, as a process of communication, opening up discourses, of which the dissemination of data is only one part. The involvement of action research with change, as elaborated in the last four methodological premises, is problematic. It is difficult within an action research format, and almost impossible in the case of a language diversity survey, to isolate variables, and identify where research instigates change, as opposed to where it takes part in, or reflects, changes instigated elsewhere. Where language surveys are concerned, any changes resulting from such surveys are difficult to measure, or attribute to the survey in simple cause and effect terms. The specific models of Action Research that are available are schema of the entire Action Research approach as a programme for the teacher/ researcher rather than explorations of how effects are generated. Lewin

< previous page

page_106

next page >

< previous page

page_107

next page > Page 107

(1946) in his pioneering work in action research identified four phases to the processplanning, acting, observing and reflecting. Kemmis (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1981) developed these phases into a 'spiral' model whereby the four phases constitute one turn in the spiral, and a revised plan then instigates a second (see Figure 6.1). Ebbutt (1983) rejects the spiral aspect of the model as too 'neat' for the messy processes of action research, and substitutes a 'cycle' allowing for constant feedback of information from 'monitoring and reconnaissance' into planning (see Figure 6.2). As we shall see in this discussion, these 'spiral' and 'cycle' aspects of the models are relevant to the discussion of effects. However, these models are open to criticism on a number of points. The models proposed by Kemmis and Ebbutt are criticised by David Hopkins (1985) for being prescriptive, mystifying, and unenlightening: They delineate a sequence of stages but say little about the 'what' and 'how' within these stages. (Hopkins 1985) In addition, these models do not appear to say much about the 'change dynamic' of action research, or incorporate its interactive and collaborative

Figure 6.1 Kemmis's spiral model of action research (from Hopkins, 1985)

< previous page

page_107

next page >

< previous page

page_108

next page > Page 108

Figure 6.2 Ebbutt's model of action research (from Hopkins, 1985) social aspects. They throw little light on how action research comes to have an effect upon any participant, or audience, other than the researcher themselves. From the perspective of Lewin's four phases, this discussion is primarily concerned with the action stage, and to a lesser extent with that of observing. However, the effects with which we are concerned are those upon wider participants in, and the observing 'audience' for, survey research. From the perspective of the argument and the model developed here, Lewin's four phases, and the models of Kemmis & Ebbutt, ignore the potential of all four phases in truly collaborative, interactive research, as 'action', to have effects. For example, if participants, or 'audience', are consulted at 'planning' stages, this may be seen as an 'act' with effects. This discussion will describe the relations between language surveys, individual participants and institutions, and the processes of change which can take place. The discussion will begin by looking at different models describing how change and innovation can evolve and be applied in an educational context. Models of Change and Research Dissemination in Organisations Ronald Havelock (1971) puts forward three models which he claims represent a summary of the different orientations of several hundred studies of the utilisation and dissemination of scientific knowledge in a

< previous page

page_108

next page >

< previous page

page_109

next page > Page 109

number of different fields: from medicine, agriculture and manufacturing industry in addition to education. The first model Havelock considers is the industrial/scientific 'RD and D' (Research Development and Diffusion) model. The model is guided by five assumptions. Research follows a rational sequence in its evolution, application and delivery of results. Planning and consultation are built in. The roles of researchers and collaborators are defined and there is organised division of labour. Finally, those who receive the information which the research process 'produces' are seen as 'passive but rational', in the sense that it is expected that they will accept correctly presented statistical information and use it for rational ends. Questionnaire language surveys follow a basic model for scientific research of developing and testing the research instrument, gathering and analysing data, and presenting a research report, comparable to the RD & D model. It is reflected in the traditional 'IMRAD' format (Introduction, Methods, Results, Analysis, Discussion) in which such research is usually written up. (1) Preparation: Planning, consultation and piloting of methods and materials (2) Research: Administration of survey, data gathering (3) Data processing: Analysis and interpretation of data (4) Delivery: Presentation of report and results (5) Dissemination: Discussion, recommendations and follow up Figure 6.3 The 'RD & D' approach to survey research This approach describes many aspects of the thinking behind, and subsequent presentation of, classic British language diversity surveys such as the Rosen and Burgess schools surveys (1980) and the LMP Schools Language Surveys reported in The Other Languages of England (LMP, 1985). It describes, and to a degree accounts for, the product rather than process orientated interpretation presented in the reports of these surveys emphasising the statistical language data gathered. Language surveys are seen in terms of a linear, almost assembly line, process, whose purpose and function is the delivery of data through tried and tested scientific methods. This contrasts with the emphasis upon interaction in the next model we shall consider. The second model which Havelock puts forward is the 'social interaction model'. This model looks at the way in which new ideas are diffused through social networks. In simple terms, the model describes how change can take place in groups as a result of the influence which individual

< previous page

page_109

next page >

< previous page

page_110

next page > Page 110

Figure 6.4 The social interaction model members of the group exert on one another. These individuals then exert a similar influence on other groups of which they form a part. The model as drawn in Figure 6.4 emphasises variables such as group membership, social relationships, characteristics of senders and receivers etc. It also includes the idea that informal personal contact is a vital part of the process by which change is influenced and adopted. On the one hand, it appears that neither this model, nor the ideas that it represents, has been significant in the strategies and observations of change reported from the major surveys as represented by Rosen & Burgess, and the LMP. On the other hand, although this model and the ideas it represents are absent from the stated aims and methodology of the main language surveys, it is plain that social interaction was important in the ways the surveys were actually set up and administered. The concept of social interaction as a mode for the development and dissemination of research is implicit in those aspects of language surveying methodology of the Rosen & Burgess and LMP surveys, which employed consultation and cooperation between the teachers and the researchers, and in the dialogue with community groups and students in the classroom. It was also, simply, a strong motive in the publication of the books Languages and Dialects of London Schoolchildren and The Other Languages of England coming out of these two survey projects. In the case of Rosen & Burgess, it is necessary for the most part to 'read between the lines' to discern the

< previous page

page_110

next page >

< previous page

page_111

next page > Page 111

importance of social interaction in the development and dissemination of their surveywith the exception of one or two gnomic comments: Much of the time we spent in school we spent with teachers talking to children about language. Parameters and tables and statistics are one end product of such talking, as is the way of these things. But it is the conversation which stays in the head. That seems not unfitting. (1980: 94) The LMP appear to have been more aware of the importance of social interaction in the dissemination of the results of their surveys, and in particular of the necessity of involving the speech communities surveyed as outlets for the findings. It is interesting to note that they report an imbalance in the pattern of dissemination. They suggest that the impact of their research was more accessible to, and more easily influenced by institutions and power in the hands of 'highly educated English speaking people', rather than those minority communities which cooperated in the delivery of the information gathered: For however much we aimed to counter the prevailing view about minority languages and their speakers, our institutional base, and our styles and media of communication were bound to restrict the impact of our research, making it more accessible to the highly educated English speaking people, and more easily susceptible to manipulation by institutions which have the power to resist change in the status quo. . .' (1985: 383) The third model of research Havelock discusses is the 'problem solving model'. In a problem solving model there is a non-directive relationship between the client-user and the outside 'change agent', or researcher. As a result, the user organisation determines what change should take place in the light of the information which cooperation with the outside consultant has provided. To a degree the researchers of the two major surveys cited above follow a problem solving orientation in diagnosing a need in consultation with the 'user organisations' within which the research is to take place (the LEAs). Both research groups follow the non-directive characteristics of a problem solving model in that they appear to have taken a consultant rather than an interventionist role in supporting any change consequent upon information provided by the surveys. In other words, Rosen & Burgess and the LMP, in their respective schools survey projects, left the application of the knowledge provided by the surveys in terms of change largely up to the user LEAs. The three models so far discussed are classic constructs of how research can be used and disseminated, and are commonly used for the pursuit or

< previous page

page_111

next page >

< previous page

page_112

next page > Page 112

Figure 6.5 The problem solving model (from Havelock, 1971, reproduced by permission of NCET, Coventry) study of institutional change. The RD & D model charts the working processes which culminate in the production and packaging of a 'product' for a 'passive' consumer. The social interaction model considers the audience for research in a social context, where individuals in social groups pass on and adopt new ideas. The problem solving model by contrast concentrates more on a process whereby the user or client is assisted in finding their own solution to their needsthe researcher relating to the user as a consultant, or 'change agent', rather than an innovator. It can be seen that the problem solving and social interaction models refer to, and reveal different aspects of, action research and linguistic diversity survey research. Only the RD & D model seems to be in conflict with action research, in the sense that the assumption of a 'passive' consumer conflicts with the participative and reflexive philosophy of action research, whereby the 'user' or 'consumer' of change participates in the evolution of the research and its 'products'. However, for the purposes of this discussion these established models throw limited light upon the processes of change, and the dissemination of new ideas and information, revealed in language surveys, and in particular the ways in which language diversity is opened up as a topic for discussion and an area for change, as revealed in the concepts of ventilation, resistance, focusing and effecting put forward and studied in the previous chapter. In particular, the conception of a 'user', or user organisations limits study of

< previous page

page_112

next page >

< previous page

page_113

next page > Page 113

the effects of research to the sponsor, when in an educational setting a number of different groups may be affected by surveys or action research. Language surveys have a number of different 'users', who have different use characteristics. In the case of language surveys it is perhaps easier, and certainly more accurate, to talk about a number of different 'audiences' for the research including not only the 'user organisation', or sponsor, which will ultimately make specific responses to findings, but also the survey respondents, and various 'audiences' for the findings and report material among the communities served by the institution. These models are also limited in what they can reveal about the dissemination of knowledge and ideas by research of the nature of a language survey, since in each model only one aspect of what must be multivarious processes of influence is represented. The RD & D model, as a model of development, tells us at what stage the findings of research are passed on to the consumer. The problem solving model shows how research may relate to the needs of the user. We are shown where, or in what circumstances, new ideas may pass between individuals and groups in the social interaction model. These models are designed to show the working processes of research whereby knowledge and ideas are developed and then disseminated to 'users'. They are not designed to show how ideas themselves develop in the interaction between researchers, research findings and the different potential users or audiences for those findings. Nor do they show how this 'discourse', or the exchange of ideas between individuals, can lead to the implementation of change within an institution. They are thus limited in the amount of light they can throw upon the ways in which research influences users and has effects upon audiences and institutions. Models of 'Media Effects' as Models of Change Processes in Action Research At this point a set of models will be introduced which have been designed to show in what ways users or audiences respond to, or are influenced by, the communication of information and ideas. These models come from mass communications research where they are used to study the topic of media effects: the ways in which messages in the mass media act upon audiences and society. These models were not originally designed for the study of the processes by which research activity in an institution can communicate information and promote change, but I hope to show that they are both relevant and powerful in such a study. Specifically, they help to understand the effects of language surveys upon audiences and institutions. The three models from studies of mass media effects which I will use,

< previous page

page_113

next page >

< previous page

page_114

next page > Page 114

or adapt, for this purpose are the 'information gap hypothesis', 'the spiral of silence' and the concept of 'agenda setting'. Surveys of language diversity in Britain reflect a need for information about the minority language communities resident in England. There is a pioneering ethos in both the Rosen & Burgess and LMP surveys to provide linguistic and statistical information about the diversity of languages used in LEAs. A useful concept for discussing this apparently simple idea of there being a lack of knowledge in English society about the minority language communities which are a part of that wider society is that of the 'information gap' (Tichenor et al., 1970). One formulation of the information gap hypothesis is to say that in large pluralistic societies there arise inequalities in knowledge whereby information about constituent groups is not disseminated. The flow of information which can close such information gaps is restricted by the 'communication potential' of the receiver, or receiving group. Communication potential depends upon personal and social characteristics of individuals, and characteristics of social structures, including relations of power and status. Thus, Rosen & Burgess and the LMP might have identified knowledge and information gaps about community languages in England, but the dissemination of the information they provided to close these gaps has remained obstructed by channels of dissemination, access difficulties, and limitations in the ability and motivation of their target audiences to absorb the relevant information. Languages and Dialects of London Schoolchildren (1981) and The Other Languages of England (1985) were seen by some as a noble attempt to disseminate information and raise issues about which the wider community was expected to be, and seems to have remained, apathetic, uninterested, and in some cases hostile. On the other hand, the main thrust of the language survey researchers' drive to provide information may have been to the 'user organisations' who administered the surveys in schoolsthe Local Education Authorities and the schools themselves. These organisations in their turn have carefully controlled the dissemination of the data, taking regard of the likely use of that information by the receiving group. The premise of the information gap hypothesis that different groups have different access to, and capacity to manipulate, the flows of information which are generated in modern society and media is echoed in the comments from the LMP quoted above. The LMP say that they found that despite their efforts, those in powerful positions, usually white English speakers, were more able to manipulate the effects of the survey data than the minority language communities. It is predictable from this theory that the various language minority communities subject to LMP surveys would be less able to make use of the survey findings than those from groups of 'highly educated English speaking people' by virtue of reasons such as

< previous page

page_114

next page >

< previous page

page_115

next page > Page 115

status and place in British social structures. If we apply the model to language surveys, it underlines the importance of the issue of the utilisation of the data which is provided and disseminated through the survey and its follow up activities. Where an information gap exists about language diversity in a population, a language survey cannot simply 'close' this gap. Issues and problems are raised about how the resulting flow of information will be used by different groups. The different ways in which groups within the population are able to use the information, may actually cause further, or wider, information gaps. The information gap hypothesis thus describes how information dissemination may have differences in take up between different social groups. Another concept from the area of mass media and their effects upon their audiences, which is also of use in considering the relations between action and survey research and the processes of change in organisations, is that of 'agenda setting' (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). The model describes the way in which the attention and representation which different matters receive in the mass media is hypothesised to have a direct correlation with public perception of the importance of those matters. There is evidence from American election campaigns, for example, that the more attention which an issue receives in the mass media the more important will it be perceived by the audience, or public. The 'agenda-setting model' has relevance in explaining, various observed effects in language survey research. Language surveys themselves have an agenda-setting effect in their power to change the position and advance the priority of language diversity issues in an organisation. This effect is described clearly in agenda setting terms in the interview from the previous chapter with Respondent 3: It has, I think, made people talk about it. . . And so. . .by being talked about, at least people have acknowledged that, it's now on the table. In the relatively small community of a college or a school, a language survey has similar communications effects to the mass media: the issues and importance of language diversity is a message conveyed through various communication processes in meetings, the dissemination and completion of questionnaires, and the publication of findings; people discuss the issues and they are raised in other meetings and committees. This new agenda of public discussion feeds back into the decision making structure of the institution. In the context of a previous lack of response within the institution, a context for new responses to linguistic diversity and change is thus created. The agenda setting model is useful as a means of describing two ways in which the agenda for change which a language survey can create comes under pressure from other agendas - either as 'rival agendas'

< previous page

page_115

next page >

< previous page

page_116

next page > Page 116

The agenda-setting model: matters given most attention in the media will be perceived as the most important. Figure 6.6 The agenda setting model (from McQuail & Windhall, 1981) or pre-existing agendas. Respondents indicated in interviews that the capacity of language diversity issues to gain attention was limited by the scale and urgency of other changes taking place within the college and further education, most evidently in the demise of the ILEA and the transfer of the college to the local borough and local financial management. There was a sense among individuals of 'change fatigue' and an overcrowded agenda for change. In addition, the potential for promoting change, which a survey creates, tends to be affected by the pre-existing agenda for change in an institution. This may be a conscious strategy on the part of individuals and groups within the institutional hierarchy to use the findings of research to back changes they would like to see: It is also possible for findings to be manipulated by people or institutions in positions of power retaining them for their own purposes. (LMP, 1985: 340) But there is also a structural tendency for language survey effects and the institutional agenda for language issues to interact. Thus, it was said by the Linguistic Minorities Project that the schools language surveys had the most positive effects in those user Local Authorities who already had had plans to advance linguistic pluralism, for example by employing community language teachers.

< previous page

page_116

next page >

< previous page

page_117

next page > Page 117

There is a development of the agenda setting model which seems particularly apposite to this study. The 'spiral of silence' examines how both written and spoken discourse may affect the currency of voiced opinion on a topic, or 'public opinion'. The spiral of silence has been used previously to explain the effects that questionnaire surveys can have on public discourse and opinion. A crucial element in the model is the assumption that individuals try to avoid the isolation of being alone, or in an 'unpopular minority', in holding certain attitudes and beliefs. The model thus expresses the hypothesis that people are strongly influenced in their reluctance, or willingness, to speak out on issues by their observation of the environment of opinion, and whether a view is gaining in strength, moving down the spiral of silence, or moving up the spiral, losing support. Elisabeth Noelle Neumann, then Director of the Institute of Communication research at the University of Mainz, who originated the model, related the model to the power of opinion polls in revealing the 'actual' proportions of different opinions on matters of potential debate, and their movement i.e. whether opinions were perceived to be gaining or losing in popularity. Where these opinion poll results differed from the previous portrayal of public opinion by mass media and other opinion leaders, they promoted changes in public opinion, since individuals tending towards those views revealed in the surveys as being more popular than previously represented were correspondingly more willing to speak out. Research revealed that respondents were more motivated to speak out on opinions perceived to be gaining in popularity, whether they were minority views or not (Noelle Neumann, 1974,1980). An opinion poll thus has the ability to 'break', and even reverse, the movement of the spiralling process. The effects of the college language survey reported here on public discourse and opinion within the college institution suggests that questionnaire language surveys can have a similar effect in breaking the spiral of silence whereby individuals are persuaded not to speak out about language diversity in the college community. The model has considerable power in explaining the sudden rise in the discussion of linguistic diversity and associated issues which the survey was observed to provoke. The more individuals perceive these tendencies and adapt their views accordingly, the more the one faction appears to dominate and the other to be on the downgrade. Thus the tendency of one to speak up and the other to be silent starts a spiralling process which increasingly establishes one opinion as the prevailing one'. (Noelle Neumann, 1974) Part of the power of this model for examining action research, and language surveys, as activities disseminating new ideas and promoting change, is the fact that it includes discourse and interpersonal communication as a major

< previous page

page_117

next page >

< previous page

page_118

next page > Page 118

An example of a spiral of silence: mass media expressing dominant opinion together with an increasing lack of interpersonal support for deviant views with an increasing number of individuals either expressing the dominant opinion or failing to express deviant ones (after Noelle Neumann 1974). Figure 6.7 'The spiral of silence' factor in eliciting and supporting, 'deviant' opinions, or new ideas, as well as the organs of official communication. The concept of a spiral of silence bearing down upon a minority, or a 'silent majority', seems particularly appropriate to the situations from which language surveys often begin. In many schools and colleges throughout Britain with significant plurilingual populations languages other than English are marginalised, and ESL and foreign language teaching are the prime component of any response. Kaushall (1981) has commented on 'the conspiracy of silence' surrounding mother tongue teaching. The low position of language diversity on British educational agenda is widely taken for granted, and rarely challenged outside language teaching and linguistic research: The basic assumption, so basic as never to have been questioned, behind the teaching of English in our schools, was that English is the mother tongue of our pupils and that the task of the teacher was to make pupils literate in that mother tongue'. (Rosen & Burgess, 1980: 6). Since our survey had a statistical core we needed to know what data already existed. Some few local authorities keep careful statistics but they are the exceptions and even at school level there are only isolated instances of schools which have figures. Where data are collected they usually relate to recent immigrations'. (Rosen & Burgess, 1980: 17).

< previous page

page_118

next page >

< previous page

page_119

next page > Page 119

Although the assumption that all pupils aspire to English as their only mother tongue has been questioned from a variety of quarters, it is dubious how far the present situation, or that when Rosen & Burgess were writing, merits the past tense used in the first quotation. The remarkable fact, given the wealth of linguistic diversity in so many British schools revealed by language surveys, is not that linguistic diversity itself but the lack of mainstream responsea 'silence'. When the Linguistic Minorities Project began its work in the Autumn of 1979 there were no publicly available and comprehensive data about the languages known and used by school pupils in England from different linguistic minorities. (LMP, 1985) (Referring to resistance encountered in LEAs and schools to the proposition of mounting schools language surveys) . . .Although the above reservations were on the surface different in origin, expressing a range of local sectional concerns and vested interests at the time of negotiation, they seem to us to have been covertly rooted in deeper societal attitudesfor example, in racism towards minorities in general, or in a monocultural and parochial attitude towards bilingualism and linguistic pluralism in particular. Such attitudes among the dominant culture may rarely be made explicit, but were in some cases the unspoken basis for resistance to the survey'. (LMP, 1985: 314) These comments appear to give support to one of the hypotheses of this research: namely, that not only positive views towards linguistic pluralism, but also resistance to such views often remains 'unspoken' until any process of ventilation takes place. The college language survey and follow up interviews reported in this research reveal a similar condition of silence on matters of linguistic pluralism in the institution, apart from that section specialising in second language teaching. Although on the main college site over 70% of students identified themselves as using other languages, the impression is that each speech community felt isolated by their language differences prior to the survey, rather than feeling part of a linguistically plural majority. One member of staff interviewed in the study reported in the previous chapter (Respondent 3) suggested that the lack of interest in language diversity in the Business Studies area was a reflection of the fact that there was no acknowledgement that students were from different cultural backgrounds. By contrast, some of the staff interviewed from other areas (Respondents 2 and 6) expressed the view, not only that they felt that language diversity had not been talked about among staff, but also that multicultural and antiracist issues had actually monopolised the discussion of cultural pluralism, to the exclusion of language.

< previous page

page_119

next page >

< previous page

page_120

next page > Page 120

Whatever the reasons for it, the silence about language diversity, except as an English as a Second Language 'problem', and the startling lack of recognition of the extent of plurilingualism among the college student population formed the state of affairs prior to the setting up of the survey. The interview transcripts reveal an agreement among respondents that the college survey had 'made people talk about language issues', and had 'put language diversity in the college on the table'. There was less satisfaction from the point of view of those who would have liked to see action and change in response to the research upon the college as a linguistically plural institution, although many effects could be discerned. How then can we describe language surveys and their potential effects, including the insights of college survey and the various effects it was observed to have upon students, staff and institution, incorporating the insights afforded by some of the research and communication models discussed above? A model which is at the same time more comprehensive, and addresses the question of how awareness raising and change develop within an institution from such a survey, is needed. If we begin by using a similar framework to that elucidated in the RD & D model above, those Research and Development/communication processes in a language survey which contribute to awareness raising and change can be listed thus: (1) Consultation: setting up, presenting methods and materials, consultation with teachers, etc. (2) Administration: distributing and administering questionnaires, discussion between students and teachers, etc. (3) Reporting and dissemination of results: presentation of report, follow up meetings to discuss findings (4) Presentation of recommendations and follow up: discussion and presentation of recommendations, monitoring of change It is important to emphasise that the above (from Stage 2) includes communication between students and between students and staff, as well as between staff, and between staff and management. What is the relationship between this simple model, and the four functions of 'ventilation, resistance, focusing and effecting' elucidated in the previous chapter? The model above can be integrated with these functions into a 'spiral of debate' model, which shows how language surveys can reverse the spiral of silence, and begin a process leading to institutional change. The assumptions behind such a model of the effects of survey research are that: (1) The effects and changes instituted by survey research come out of a dialogue between institutional hierarchies, researchers, participants and 'audiences'.

< previous page

page_120

next page >

< previous page

page_121

next page > Page 121

Figure 6.8 An RD & D model of language surveys as agents of change (2) The processes of awareness raising and change act within affected individuals, groups and the institution (rather than 'upon' them). (3) Not only the information provided by, but also the communication processes of, survey research are central to awareness raising and change. (4) Survey research instigates 'awareness raising' and change in the first place by an effect upon the level of discourse in an organisation about language diversity. (5) These processes of change are subject to the influence of other change processes and pre-existing priorities for development and change in the organisation (see 'the Institutional Agenda' in Figure 6.9). (6) Resistance is also an ingredient in these processes of change. Ventilation refers to the process whereby language surveys raise the profile of language diversity in an institution as a topic for public discussion. Ventilation begins around Stage 1, as the issues surrounding the setting up of a survey including justification, aims, methodology and outcome, direct attention to language diversity in the student population and questions of the college response. Ventilation has a function similar to that of the spiral of silence above. There is a snowball effect, as more teachers (and students) espouse curiosity or positive interest in language

< previous page

page_121

next page >

< previous page

page_122

next page > Page 122

Key: 1. Consultation 2. Administration 3. Reporting 4. Presentation of recommendations a)Reshaping Effects b)Shaping Effects Figure 6.9 The spiral of debate model of language diversity surveys and their effects diversity as a part of the student community, emboldened by the realisation that they are not alone in such interest. In addition, ventilation covers the raising of a number of possible topics, viewpoints, or areas of opinionation, which I shall term 'discourses'. These discourses will include ways of looking at language diversity which have emerged previously, for example, the discourse which presents language diversity as 'a problem', and alternatively, the discourse which presents this as a 'resource'. It is suggested that ventilation includes the emergence of new discourses, for example from the college language survey the discourse that monolingual attitudes are a problem, and the discourse that linguistic pluralism puts the monolingual teacher into a relationship of learning from the plurilingual student. A number of these discourses can be discerned emerging in the interviews discussed previously.

< previous page

page_122

next page >

< previous page

page_123

next page > Page 123

Ventilation can continue to operate throughout, but at Stage 3, issues emerge in the 'focusing' process. Focusing is the process by which issues, recommendations and choices emerge from the previous discussion and become topics for more polarised debate. In the college language survey ventilation seemed to begin with the 'What for?' type of questioning; the emergence of focusing followed questions of the 'So what?' variety. The results of focusing are complex, but in simple terms it is those matters on which there is a combination of a consensus and a priority for implementation from those empowered to implement such change, that are most likely to proceed. Effecting refers to the emergence or implementation of such change. Effecting as a process of 'awareness raising' and attitude change also overlaps with the previous functions, especially since such a process can take place within individuals. Respondent 7, for example, had begun developing teaching materials in response to the survey before the publication of the survey findings. Change stemming from the survey at the level of the institution can only appear at the end of the survey process, at Stage 4 above. The 'resistance' process differs from the three phases above in that it directly impinges upon all the other processes. According to most of the observations made during the college survey it appeared most strongly in the ventilation phase, but persisted throughout. In the case of the Building Studies Faculty resistance almost stifled even the ventilation phase in that area of the college. Thus, the process of resistance has the potential capability of halting the processes described in the model most crucially in the early phases, but could do so at any point. Lastly, in order to complete the model it is necessary to introduce another process which bears upon all others. In order to conduct research on and within the process of institutional change, it has been necessary to take into account the idea of 'pre-existing' and 'rival' agenda for change. It has therefore been necessary to distinguish between effects from the survey which simply promoted existing priorities for change, 'shaping effects', and changes promoted by the survey research which would never have received priority within pre-existing agenda, termed 'reshaping effects'. In this sense the institutional agenda is particularly prone to intervene between the phases of focusing and effecting, taking up and moulding those priorities for change which are similar to preexisting priorities on the institutional agenda. The process of the 'institutional agenda' in the model also includes pressures from other areas of change within the institution: rival priorities, and also the influence of other areas of change. In the case of the college survey, for example, the scale of change in other areas of the life of the college, in particular the looming change from ILEA to local

< previous page

page_123

next page >

< previous page

page_124

next page > Page 124

borough control, restricted the capabilities of the survey to innovate in an arena already beset by disruption and change. It is not suggested that language surveys are always the best means to instigate the change processes described in the model. In some circumstances, other kinds of action research, or staff training and development, may be more efficient. However, a language diversity survey does have, as this chapter has elaborated, a unique, and perhaps underestimated communicative power to break the spiral of silence, promote language issues on the institutional agenda, and instigate a range of far reaching changes.

< previous page

page_124

next page >

< previous page

page_125

next page > Page 125

7 Conclusion This study makes a contribution to research into the use of languages in addition to English in Britain, and to the literature on language diversity surveys in education in particular. This contribution, and the implications of its findings for future research, will be assessed and summarised in this chapter under six headings. (1) The methodology of language diversity surveying, and its bearing upon the interpretation of survey data. (2) The college language survey. (3) The classroom and staff studies. (4) The spiral of debate model and the implications of viewing language surveys as forms of discourse. (5) The application of the action research concept to language diversity surveys. (6) Suggestions for future research. The Methodology of Language Diversity Surveying, and Its Bearing Upon the Interpretation of Survey Data As shown in Chapter 2, the sources of error in questionnaire surveys administered by interviewers to respondents (Shipman, 1972; Bell & Roberts, 1984) are compounded when this form of survey methodology is applied to research into linguistic diversity. There are particular problems as a result of applying such research to linguistic data. For example, factors of the recognition and status of language varieties in the community culture, will distort self reports. In addition, such surveys take place in the context of a wider society where monolinguals are in the majority, and minority ethnic groups experience racism. The representation of language surveys as objective and reliable quantitative research underplays 'weaknesses' in methodology and accuracy of measurements from a strictly quantitative point of view. These surveys are more properly represented as the results of interview, and other qualitative research, guided by a questionnaire. The information supplied is subject to the qualities of teachers co-opted as interviewers. In the case of two of the major surveys, the work of Rosen & Burgess and the ILEA Language

< previous page

page_125

next page >

< previous page

page_126

next page > Page 126

Censuses, assessment of the pupils' competence in English was included in the questionnaires. The methodology used in the college language survey reported here, and the data gathered, show that anonymous, written questionnaires have a number of advantages in the use of social survey methods to measure linguistic diversity. They avoid the problems of using teachers without special training as interviewers, and are thus less likely to result in under-reporting and the withholding of information. There is a growing body of evidence from teachers and researchers, including myself, of students whom they know to be plurilingual, or a user of a particular language variety, denying that they can use another language in surveying contexts. Alladina (1985a) has published research among young Gujerati speakers showing they withheld their bilingual identity in interviews. Carol Tomlin has also provided evidence which points to the conclusion that Patois is underreported in formal situations (1981). The case study of the college language survey and interviews presented in Chapters 3-5 provide further evidence that under-reporting is a major factor in language surveys. The size of the response in the college language survey is related to the use of an anonymous, written questionnaire unmediated by interview with a teacher. Even so, there were certain shortcomings: teachers administering the survey did give accounts of under-reporting, particularly of English-based Creoles. There was also reporting from the interview research and participant observation, of attitudes from teachers which affected their suitability as interviewers and the quality of the data gathered. Some teachers who participated did so as if under duress, and made their attitude that it was all a 'waste of time' clear to students and researchers. This study has implications for the interpretation of language survey data. One strong conclusion of this investigation is that survey research into the use of languages other than English in education must be interpreted carefully, and with scrutiny directed to the context of the discourse in which such information is gathered. The interested reader of language survey reports should always pay close attention to the methods used in collecting and processing the data (see following section). Are Creoles, Patois and/or West Indian dialect included? Rosen & Burgess are the only researchers, of the three major language survey projects reviewed, who include specific questions about these areas of language use, which are introduced under the heading of 'overseas dialects of English'. Rosen & Burgess found in their sample almost as many speakers of 'overseas dialects' of English as speakers of other languages:

< previous page

page_126

next page >

< previous page

page_127

next page > Page 127

15% of the sample in both cases. The LMP include data about Creoles in their results, but such information was volunteered by the respondent in the context of a general question about the use of another language at home. The ILEA census did not elicit any information on Creoles at all. In the college language survey reported here English-based Creole is the most commonly reported language variety. Its inclusion raises the proportion of students classified as plurilingual in the college sample from 56% of the student population (excluding English-based Creoles) to 66.4% (including English-based Creoles). Even so, there was evidence of under-reporting by respondents known or likely to use Creoles, from feedback by teachers and other members of the survey team, and also from observation during follow up work with some respondents. The experience of the college language survey strongly suggests that if Creoles are not explicitly elicited in language surveys, with care given to an effective form of elicitation, then the picture of linguistic diversity given is misleading. There was no questioning from the audience of college teachers of the value of this information for their practice, and some welcomed it. Are 'low status', or 'labelled as dialect' languages, or any other languages, mysteriously absent or low in number? Research into the functioning of public opinion surveys (Noelle Neumann, 1984) indicates the ways in which a social survey can elicit answers guided by the respondents' perception of the social environment, and discourage volunteering 'unusual' information. Language survey research has connived with the pressures of silence on the reporting of 'unusual' languages, since 'majority' languages are foregrounded in the data. The LMP in The Other Languages of England only give a table of the 'main languages reported' in the schools language surveys (1985: 330). Rosen & Burgess from a sample of 4,600 Inner London schoolchildren in 1978 reported the use of 55 different languages (excluding Englishbased Creoles) of which 21 were 'European', a diversity which they found remarkable; however, 131 different languages were reported in the ILEA Language Census of 1981. The reporting of European languages in these surveys is robust by contrast with non-European languages. The unidentified languages in the ILEA Language Census reports are almost always of nonEuropean origin. Seven out of the twelve most reported languages in the Rosen & Burgess survey are European languages. European languages in the 1981 ILEA Language Census are spoken by 53% of those pupils reported as using a home language other than English (1982: 25).

< previous page

page_127

next page >

< previous page

page_128

next page > Page 128

Is the competence in English of plurilingual respondents measured or assessed in any way? Language diversity surveys which include assessments of respondents' competence in English are likely to be perceived as surveys of 'English as a Second Language' pupils or students. Thus, it is probable that the Rosen & Burgess, ILEA and other such surveys will have excluded many plurilingual pupils with native, or near native, speaker competence in English. How is plurilingualism represented and measured? In the use of the concept of a 'first language', or 'home language', language surveys place plurilingualism in a monolingual context of first and second languages. The adherence of language surveys to concepts such as first language, and the specification of one other language in reporting 'bilingualism', support or increase the suspicion that such surveys are a covert form of ethnic monitoring. Many plurilingual respondents will represent English as their first language in a school setting. As is well documented, multilingual respondents will often represent the highest status language used as their first language. This increases the underrepresentation of certain minority languages referred to above. If multilingualism is not included in a survey then the measurements of language diversity given will necessarily be incomplete. In the college language survey reported here 43% of those respondents identifying themselves as using other languages, reported more than one language in addition to English. In other words 43% of the plurilingual population in the sample saw themselves not as bilingual, but multilingual. This figure compares with Rosen & Burgess's findings where only one in sixty pupils surveyed was identified as speaking two or more languages as well as English. From sociolinguistic and educational points of view, the major language surveys to date have misrepresented language diversity by marginalising multilingual language use. What participation do plurilingual people and members of the speech communities surveyed have in the survey? Alladina (1986) has commented forcefully on the domination of white and monolingual researchers in surveys on the use of languages in black communities. The control of, and participation in, language diversity surveys by bilingual and multilingual researchers from the speech communities under study, are essential criteria in gauging the accuracy and effectiveness of such surveys. This is a cogent criticism of, and limitation on, the research to date.

< previous page

page_128

next page >

< previous page

page_129

next page > Page 129

In the college language survey studied here staff and students were widely consulted and their collaboration achieved. The classroom study in Chapter 5 shows ways forward in which the participation and involvement of all students, plurilingual and monolingual, can be achieved. The College Language Survey The survey recorded here provides tools for the investigation of language diversity in Further Education and other areas (or examples from which to construct such tools). It also supplies data about the use of languages in addition to English in one Further Education College in 1986/87, and evidence for the potential of such surveys as agents of change. This contribution is summarised below: firstly, the methods and materials; secondly, the statistical data gathered; and thirdly evidence of the potential of college surveying activity as an agent of change. The methods and materials for this survey were developed in consultation with the college staff. Opportunities for positive awareness raising in the survey process were maximised. The questionnaire was the result of long consultations with teachers and students, and more than one pilot exercise. One of the teachers from the survey team summarised the advantages of the questionnaire thus: it is anonymous, and confidentiality can be preserved; it is easy to complete and takes a short time to administer; and it can be used as a basis for further work on language. In addition, the questionnaire is designed to be completed by all students, including those thought to be monolingual; it foregrounds a separate question on the use of Creoles; it distinguishes understanding, speaking and literacy; and explicitly recognises and records a measure of multilingualism. The teachers' notes (see Appendix) demonstrate the potential of the questionnaire itself as an educative, or awareness raising, document. They reinforce the possibility of stimulating a classroom dialogue about language diversity in a positive context. The data gathered from the questionnaire survey is significant in a number of ways. Even by the most conservative measures the data indicates a proportion of plurilingual students, attending Hammersmith and West London College in 1986/87, greater than that recorded in any other college language survey in Britain. The survey is also innovative in that it measures multilingual as well as bilingual language use, and the proportions indicate that functional multilingualism is almost as common as bilingualism in the college plurilingual population. The figure of 66.4% of the judgement sample, or even 47% through the most conservative measures, is the highest plurilingual response rate for any college language survey in Inner London.

< previous page

page_129

next page >

< previous page

page_130

next page > Page 130

The comparable figures for the other Inner London Further Education colleges which have administered surveys are Westminster 10%, Woolwich 30%, South East London 38.6%. The methods and materials employed, and the data gathered from the questionnaire survey, were exploited in order to reinforce opportunities for using the survey as an agent of change in the college institution. The setting up of the language survey and the form of the materials used were agreed through consultation with both college management and teachers through the deliberative structures of college government, including such mechanisms as Faculty Assemblies, college committees, and course teams. In these first meetings, the consent of the teachers in their Faculties and course teams to the administration of a language survey was gained. The purpose and utility of such a survey, and the expenditure of class time and effort, was debated and had to be justified. In addition, a significant number of teachers across the college collaborated in the survey, from the team of three other teachers who set up the survey in their own Faculties and Departments, to the 80 plus teachers who administered the survey in their classes. The dissemination of the survey results took place through similar routes, as well as meetings specifically for that purpose. The publication of the final report stimulated discussion and demands which were followed up in the recommendations subsequently put forward. The form of the survey and the way it developed are, to a large degree, the result of this dialogue between researcher and teacher, within the survey team, and between the survey team and other teachers. This research has thus further developed on indications in previous research, in particular that of Rosen & Burgess, of the potential of language surveying as a collaborative awareness raising exercise. As a result of the follow up to the college language survey, in the form of the dissemination and discussion of the findings, the following issues emerged and were documented. (1) Community language teaching provision. (2) Recruitment: e.g. the recognition of the use of other languages as being of value in recruitment documentation and procedures. (3) Staff development, including training all staff in the significance of language diversity for their subjects. (4) Curriculum: e.g. consideration of the use of language diversity as a resource on different courses. (5) College environment and ethos: e.g. the display of multilingual signs using diverse scripts. (6) College publicity. (7) The college library.

< previous page

page_130

next page >

< previous page

page_131

next page > Page 131

(8) Data collection: e.g. further surveying activity. (9) The response to the use of Creoles and Patois. (10) Language support. (11) Community links: e.g. the importance of promoting the value of bilingualism and skills in non European languages, in links with outside companies and organisations. Positive recommendations on the first eight issues were put forward, and passed through the college deliberative structure, as detailed in Chapter 4. These recommendations were also adopted into the college language policy. This aspect of the follow up to the college language survey, gives practical evidence of the potential of such activity to enter into the utilisation, as well as the dissemination of findings. When taken in conjunction with the interview data in Chapter 5, it provides confirmation from more than one source of the potential of a language survey as an agent of change. These sources provide qualitative and documentary evidence that surveys can originate and support practical recommendations for change. They reinforce the importance of a follow up stage after the dissemination of data, in pursuing recommendations for change. Together they show that activity arising out of a language survey can raise the issue of responses to language diversity outside the straitjacket of existing responses such as ESL or language support. They also show the potential of such surveys to raise language diversity as an issue across the range of college provision. The Classroom and Staff Studies The perspective provided by the student case study and staff interviews in Chapter 5 goes beyond the records of the progress of the survey and its recommendations. It shows what a class of students and a representative group of staff perceived to be the qualitative effects of the survey. The student case study The case study observations discussed in Chapter 5 support the value of involving students in survey work in education. They show that language surveying activity can bring students from different backgrounds together, and foster a sense of a linguistically diverse community about which both monolingual and bilingual members can exercise curiosity, and in which the diversity of languages used is not perceived as alien, but something of interest and value to all. There is strong evidence in the interviews with students in Chapter 5 that this activity is of positive value to students in terms of language awareness and equal opportunities issues, and that follow up work with monolingual as well as plurilingual students is important. The main conclusion, however, is of the value of taking student

< previous page

page_131

next page >

< previous page

page_132

next page > Page 132

involvement much further than reported to date. Positive results are shown from guiding students to a greater sense of subjective involvement in surveys, one means of which is for them to construct surveys 'owned' by themselves. The group of students in question had followed an assignment based on the survey: reading the final report, carrying out their own class survey and writing up their own language histories. This assignment followed current educational practice in Further Education: it was 'student centred', and integrated a number of different skills, including reading, listening, writing, numeracy and problem solving. The interviews show that the students were aware of issues arising out of the survey findings, and that they also made links between the survey data and the college provision, bringing up issues such as the lack of access to mother tongue qualifications. Of particular interest is the response of one bilingual student in the interviews, who talks about his withholding of his use of Spanish from his teachers, and his experience of, and observations on, the negative labelling of bilingual students by monolingual teachers. The feedback from the teacher who conducted this assignment provided a number of insights. She confirmed the evidence from the students' work of a beneficial effect on plurilingual students' esteem, and the development of a positive awareness of linguistic diversity among monolingual students. She also reported a corresponding increase in her own confidence in dealing with bilingual students and corresponding language issues. The lessons learnt from this small case study, in terms of future research, underline the importance of students becoming actively involved in survey work. The students response to the survey as evident in their written work and the interviews shows the value of including and consulting students/respondents in formulating recommendations and pursuing survey follow up. In hindsight, this could have been better achieved following the survey by including extra meetings exclusively for student participation in the focusing of issues and recommendations. In addition, the study indicates the potential for beneficial effects for both students' and teachers' awareness in allowing students to design, develop and analyse the results of their own surveys. The Linguistic Minorities Project has shown the value of classroom surveys as part of the sharing of languages in the class. One of the most impressive pieces of material for language awareness in the classroom developed by the LMP is their detailed sociolinguistic survey, 'The Secondary Pupils' Survey' (1983: 59; 1985: 347-57). This survey is user friendly, but it is presented 'ready made' and is not 'owned' by the students; it comes from 'expert' writers and will be seen as coming from somewhere outside

< previous page

page_132

next page >

< previous page

page_133

next page > Page 133

the pupils' experience. Some of the most interesting evidence of the potential of pupils sharing knowledge about their language use is to be found in the video of a classroom at North Westminster Community School produced with the ILEA TV Centre (LMP, 1983: 87; 1985: 374). However, this video only shows the value of monolingual and plurilingual students asking one another about their language use. The classroom study reported here suggests that such work, with older students in particular, can go much further, and that there is a value in not imposing questionnaires and survey materials designed by teachers and other 'experts' from outside, but involving students in the methodology of the investigation of language use. Research into language use tends to involve methodologies designed and piloted by the 'experts'. There is potential for further Action Research, where the interest is in the effects upon the student population, in consulting and involving students in designing methods and materials for investigating and measuring aspects of their own language use, and that of their peers. The staff interview data The transcripts from the staff interviews reveal the perceptions of teachers regarding responses to language diversity in Further Education and the effect of the college survey upon themselves, their colleagues and students, and the college as an institution. When the data and the reporting of the questionnaire survey is compared with the interview data, there is confirmation of the impact of the quantitative data upon a wide range of concerns, and indications of a range of survey effects. For example, there is strong confirmation of the positive effects of language diversity surveying activity on bilingual and multilingual students' esteem, also supported by the data from the classroom study above, and as reported from many surveys, including Rosen & Burgess and the Linguistic Minorities Project. There are indications too, of a less positive, or more contentious nature, including the presence of significant resistance to the processes of change identified. The respondents report the strength of 'resistance', which in the case of the 'Lime Grove' section appears to have greatly limited the potential positive effects of the language survey. There are also perceptions of divisions revealed by such work between individual teachers open to 'awareness raising' or change, and those seen to disregard or resist the impact of the survey and other pressures towards curriculum change. There are reports of the division between 'subject' teachers and communications and language specialists, and the observation that recognition of bilingualism tends to be seen as the province of the latter, rather than a cross curricular issue. There is the observation, particularly remarked by two

< previous page

page_133

next page >

< previous page

page_134

next page > Page 134

respondents, that teachers who are not aware of students' bilingualism and the later stages of language acquisition, label the language use of bilingual students, and their deviations from standard English as the result of poor learning, 'stupidity' or 'laziness'. This leads on to observations on the inappropriate nature of the language content of certain learning materials. The low status of non-European languages in mainstream English education, and the corresponding perception of their lack of importance by speakers of these languages was remarked in one case. The widely documented difficulties in avoiding under-reporting of Creoles (Edwards, 1986) are further confirmed. The picture of conditions in one Further Education college in the late eighties which the interviews provide raises less well reported issues of general significance. The topics of language diversity and bilingualism are seen as having been sidelined in antiracist and English as a Second Language initiatives. The interviews also raise questions about the perception of bilingual students among teachers, and the representation of bilingual students as being the source of 'problems'. There was strong evidence of low expectations of bilingual students even among liberal minded teachers; these teachers expressed surprise at the unexpectedly high proportions of plurilingual students revealed in the survey. The perceptions of the effects of the survey as an agent of awareness raising and change varied. Most respondents felt that the survey had provided them with information and an awareness they had not previously possessed. Three teachers of the five responding (the three other respondents had management roles) reported the survey as having influenced their practice. Two of these were continuing to develop responses in their teaching as a result of the survey. Surveying activity and language diversity issues were reported as being a useful way of introducing, or leading on to, other issues relevant to racism and cultural diversity, i.e. as a resource for multiethnic education. There was a widespread perception that the survey had had an agenda-setting effect in putting language diversity issues 'on the table'. The interview data shows that the positive effects of language diversity surveying activity function on different levels: among students as respondents, audience and even as active participants, among teachers as individuals in terms of their attitudes and practice, and at an institutional level in terms of a potential to bring certain issues 'on to the agenda'. The staff interviews give the perspective of a sample of Further Education teachers and other staff upon language diversity and a survey. Such work is important in investigating the responses of ordinary teachers, not least because it stresses the relevance of their views to the value of language

< previous page

page_134

next page >

< previous page

page_135

next page > Page 135

use surveys, rather than allowing the interpretation of language surveys to be solely the ownership of academic researchers and linguistic experts. The feedback from teachers reported here indicates a need for more development of the follow-up stage of language surveys. The whole emphasis of this research on the processes of awareness raising and change that can arise out of surveys is supported in the strong conclusion that what is done with the language survey process in follow up is more important than what can be seen from the quantitative data alone. This could include close monitoring and recording of how and why those teachers who incorporate innovations and lesson material from survey work develop such a response. If done in an Action Research context, such work could develop materials and promote such teacher-led follow up. There are various opportunities for further work on teachers' perceptions of, and reactions to, language surveying and its effects. The methodology used here of recording teachers' opinions could be extended. There is potential for a multi-method approach in gathering information on the staff perspective, to include, for example, the detailed recording of group discussions and formal meetings, as well as individual interviews. The time scale of this study, interviewing teachers three months after the publication of the report, is biased towards short term perception of effects. It would be possible to study the teachers' perspective before, and at two different points following reporting, one short term, and one at a point appropriate to tracking long term effects. There may be problems in identifying effects among the many other variables which would come into play in any such longer term study, however. In the light of reports from the teacher in the classroom case study that assignment work based on the language survey increased her confidence in dealing with language issues, and changed her role with bilingual students, it would also be useful to have a study of classroom interaction during such work. The Spiral of Debate Model, and the Implications of Viewing Language Surveys as Forms of Discourse As a result of my own observations from participation in the survey, and the interview research reported in Chapter 5, a model was put forward to describe the workings of the survey process in generating effects, in the form of 'awareness raising' and change. This model and its relation to other models of institutional change (Havelock, 1971) and models from communication research (McQuail & Windhall, 1981) has been very fully described in Chapter 6. I shall not repeat this description here. What I shall attempt to do is put forward the implications of this model not only for language

< previous page

page_135

next page >

< previous page

page_136

next page > Page 136

diversity surveys, but also for the use of questionnaire language surveys in research in general. The basic premise of the spiral of debate model, is that questionnaire surveys are a form of discourse. Questionnaire surveys must work through a form of discourse within which the subject responds to elicitation. This response depends upon the subjects' perception of that elicitation, and each subject can misunderstand, or withhold or distort information. The greatest methodological problems of language diversity surveys arise out of the difficulties of measuring subjects' use of different languages accurately through a discourse in which the respondent is asked to report their use of other languages, or language varieties. When this discourse is conducted in the language of the monolingual majority in the wider society further problems arise. The methodology of questionnaire surveys, sampling and the presentation of the data collected emphasises the quantitative aspects of survey research. An attempt is made to predict and control the discourse aspects of the methodology. The response of the subject to the questionnaire is measured through careful piloting of the methods and materials. However, this study has shown that any language survey is dependent on the context and nature of the discourse within which information was elicited. Thus, it is argued here, a questionnaire language survey is better understood as a sum of a large number of discourses, which replicate certain discourse conditions and features, and to which quantitative analysis can be applied (Hamilton et al., 1977). Awareness of the fact that questionnaire surveys are the sum of many verbal interactions, which will be subject to certain variations, leads to the proposition that language survey methodology is better understood as a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods. Furthermore, the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented here are that the qualitative aspects of questionnaire surveys are more important, especially where language use surveys relying on self reports are concerned. In understanding the results, however, as underlined at the beginning of this chapter, critical attention must be paid to the discourse conditions: how far they can be expected to have replicated a similar discourse, and the likely degree of distortion or withholding of information. This critical attention must then be extended to the interpretation of results coming out of measures which may be biased towards certain replies and against others in the first place. The examination of questionnaire survey methodology in Chapter 2 explores the conditions of the various discourses within which the major British educational language surveys took place. The criticisms mounted there are mainly directed to an understanding of various factors

< previous page

page_136

next page >

< previous page

page_137

next page > Page 137

bearing upon the discourses within which the data was elicited. Some of these discourse factors are listed below. (1) Social context: the influence of social attitudes to bilingualism, the influence of peers. (2) Discourse context: the other discourses within which the survey discourse arises, or to which it refers. (3) Codes and their status: the effects of the use of English for eliciting information about the use of other languages and Creoles, the effect of the status of different languages upon reporting. (4) Participants and Roles: e.g. the problems of using of teachers as interviewers, the effects of the age of pupilrespondents. (5) Setting: e.g. the effect of the school/classroom setting. (6) Channels: e.g. the effects of mediating a written questionnaire through verbal interaction. (7) Wording: as we have seen there is difficulty in attaining a wording of questions which avoids any possibility of ambiguity. (8) Information content: the sensitive and linguistically complex nature of the information elicited. The use of questionnaires and/or interviews as a form of discourse for the elicitation of information about language use has problems on three levels, as discussed in Chapter 2 and the beginning of this chapter. The application of social survey techniques to investigation of the use of languages, or dialects, other than English, in the context of various social pressures, compounds the problems of extrapolating reliable quantitative measures from questionnaires. This view of the language diversity survey as a form of discourse to which quantitative methods are applied can, of course, be applied to all surveys which gather information through questionnaires or interviews. The survey questionnaire or interview discourse is qualitative, and in addition to the discourse factors elaborated above, such discourses cannot be said to be 'neutral' or without consequences. Noelle Neumann (1984) has shown that the response to surveys can be influenced by the respondents' perception of their environment and what they know of 'public opinion', and the dissemination of information from surveys can have consequences upon people's willingness to speak out. This research is thus a reinterpretation of the 'spiral of silence' hypothesis, and its extension to language diversity surveying. The particular problems of using questionnaire surveys to research language use expose the weaknesses of basing quantitative measures upon qualitative discourse, but this research also has implications for social survey research in general. It could, for example, point to opportunities for further investigation into the discourse factors which affect the reliability of quantitative survey data.

< previous page

page_137

next page >

< previous page

page_138

next page > Page 138

The argument so far may be said to have put forward the critical, or negative, aspects of a recognition of survey methodology as a form of discourse with a qualitative aspect to which quantitative measures are applied. The spiral of debate model also carries within it a recognition of the positive aspects of such a recognition. If a language survey simply begins with a large number of discourses containing replicated questions or prompts, then this may help explain the potential of a language survey to have the large effects claimed within this study. In addition, as explained in Chapter 6, the various other aspects, or stages, of the process of survey administrationconsultation, administration, reporting and the presentation of recommendationsengage an institution and staff, in particular, in a whole variety of much less predictable and defined discourses. The respondents themselves, as shown by many of the extracts quoted in Chapter 5, refer to the potential of the language survey to effect change by getting people to talk about issues previously ignored. In the stages of the survey process up to reporting, the fact that the conversation and discussion which is provoked is unstructured and free ranging provides opportunities for what has been termed here 'ventilation'. Resistance, previous assumptions and, in some cases, the surprise of new knowledge or discoveries are evident during this period. Even the somewhat cynical Respondent 6 admitted a stage of reassessing his previous knowledge in response to the reporting of the data. The potential of survey work to promote change was enhanced by the fact that teachers and other staff at the college perceived the value of such work as more than simply the collection of data. Indeed, as explained in Chapter 4, staff responded to the reporting and dissemination stages with a positive interest in, and demand for, practical recommendations. This is reflected in the questioning from staff about outcomes reported by Respondent 3 in Chapter 5. The survey process, moving from collection and analysis of data to report and discussion stages, thus supported and encouraged a move from discourse of the 'ventilation' kind to the emergence of issues, and concrete proposals for change. I have termed this change to a stage of a more purposeful discourse 'focusing'. In terms of future research, the findings of this study indicates the importance of allowing, and even encouraging, a free discussion, and exchange of information and views (in other words, space for a 'ventilation' stage) before defining issues and forming recommendations. This view of the relationship between the survey process and a 'ventilation' stage may be compared with the comments of the Linguistic Minorities Project that findings can only be made use of by teachers when they have been thoroughly briefed and actively informed at the outset (LMP, 1985: 339).

< previous page

page_138

next page >

< previous page

page_139

next page > Page 139

The main difference between the LMP view referred to, and that provided by the spiral of debate model is that the LMP tend to see 'awareness raising' as more of a one way process, involving the dissemination of the objectives and the methodology of the survey, and the dissemination of the findings. The conclusions from this research, as embodied in the model put forward, are that an interactive dissemination is beneficial. Where it is possible for interaction or negotiation to take place between researchers and participants within education, change is more likely to follow. 'Ventilation' around the processes of consultation and survey administration, as well as 'focusing' upon issues and recommendations, can be valuable sources of information about the attitudes and teaching practices of teachers, and a useful source of feedback for both parties, which can illuminate the ways in which positive developments can take place. 'Ventilation' and 'focusing' reflect processes of change through discourse. The further insights of the spiral of debate model are expressed through the categories: 'resistance', 'the institutional agenda' and 'effecting'. These categories are more limited in their reference. 'Resistance' reflects antagonism to and questioning of change. In discourse terms, it is a blocking response to survey propositions, and possibilities of change. 'The institutional agenda' is a set of priorities for change within an institution which reflect pressure from outside, as well as policies and powerful individuals inside the institution. This is a discourse of institutional response and power. 'Effecting' refers to the active consequences of survey discourse, and is manifest in changes of attitude and practice. These three categories provide a framework for understanding surveys as a discourse with the potential for resisting or promoting awareness raising and change. 'Resistance' from monolingual teachers to the survey was found, on investigation, to yield interesting data. There has been a tendency in research to date, to represent such monolingual and monocultural views negatively and simplistically. As a result of the investigations here, there is evidence that further research into the thinking behind, and articulation of, such resistance would be of value in gaining a deeper understanding of, and changing, teachers' attitudes to bilingualism and language diversity in their classrooms. Issues about the perception of resistance to change within institutions themselves were also raised. The perception of a 'converted/unconverted' divide which the senior manager in the interviews articulates can be problematic. It tends to label individuals, rather than accommodating the recognition that resistance is a reaction which can also be part of change. The notion of the converted and the unconverted should be modified in the light of my own experience of participating in the survey, and observing the behaviour of both enthusiastic individuals, and those who expressed resistance. A 'resistant' individual may still

< previous page

page_139

next page >

< previous page

page_140

next page > Page 140

reassess his or her previous assumptions, and change. The Head of Department (Respondent 6 in the interview data) who expresses resistance to the concept of a response to mother tongue in the mainstream curriculum, nevertheless says that as a result of the follow up to the language survey he was persuaded to 'plough resources' into offering mother tongue teaching in his department. The proposition that resistance is part of change may require further investigation. In the case of Lime Grove, it was found that resistance had the capacity to limit, or even arrest, the positive effects of language surveying activity. On the other hand, in the rest of the college it was found to be inevitable that ventilation, focusing and effecting would all involve resistance as part of the debate. Are there therefore critical proportions, or different categories, of resistance? The concept of an existing institutional agenda for change provides various opportunities for further investigation. How are institutional agenda altered? There is evidence in the more recent outcome tracked by this study, of the college language policy, published in July 1990, of some of the aims and objectives of the college language survey moving onto the institutional agenda of the college. There is a commitment to most of the survey recommendations in this document. The category of an institutional agenda is a dynamic concept, and further investigation is needed to investigate its susceptibility to change under the influence of Action Research. These and other questions might be answered by studies of the effects of language surveys more from a management point of view. How is such an agenda perceived by management? What are its relations to policies and pressures from outside the institution? What is its relationship to pressures from the staff and students? How do the priorities within such an agenda arise? The language surveying activity within Further Education which is described here undoubtedly could not have taken place without the support for such activity within colleges and the Education Authority, in this case the ILEA. Nevertheless, there is evidence from the LMP work (1985: 314) that Local Education Authorities cannot predict or control the needs which are revealed and the pressures for change which language surveying can set in train, and indeed this realisation sometimes caused education officers to withdraw the involvement of their Authorities. The final category in the classification offered by the spiral of debate model is that of change itself, or 'effecting'. This, of all the categories mentioned, probably remains the area in which further research and clarification is most needed. The conclusion of this research has been that language surveys mainly promote changes at an institutional level, for which lobbies already exist, and which already have a place on the institutional agenda. This type of change was termed a 'shaping effect' and the most evident example was the way in which the language survey played a

< previous page

page_140

next page >

< previous page

page_141

next page > Page 141

role in changing English support from the business of a specialist section, to a cross college responsibility. The conclusion with regard to 'innovative change', which refers to changes from outside the institutional agenda, or 'reshaping effects', was that (in the short term at least) these were most evident in changes on an individual level. There were some exceptions. For example, the placing of multilingual, multi-script signs around the college was a direct response to the language survey. Reshaping effects were also observed to be prominent in the response of certain individuals who said that the survey had changed their own attitudes and teaching. Nevertheless, the main reshaping effects attributable uniquely to the intervention of the survey were 'awareness raising' ones. It should be emphasised that the spiral of debate model of language surveys developed in Chapter 6 links the basic stages of the survey process with the categories of survey effects described above. Thus, ventilation begins with the initial survey stages of consultation and survey design. Focusing links strongly with the stages of reporting, disseminating data, and presenting recommendations. Effects are linked with survey followup. The model reflects the use in this study of a combination of methodologies, both quantitative and qualitative. The four stages at the 'core' of the model of consultation, administration, reporting and recommendations reflect the methodology of a quantitative survey. The categories of ventilation, resistance, focusing, effecting and the institutional agenda have emerged from my qualitative research. The model thus reflects the attempt in the study to bring together and compare data from different methodological approaches. Finally, the spiral of debate model has implications for further research on language diversity surveys, particularly where the activity is also concerned with possible effects. The model can be applied to a wide range of survey situations, from a simple classroom survey to something as large scale as the LMP. The model emphasises the importance of the language and discourse in which language diversity is considered in an institution, and the potential for language surveying activity as action research, where there is a 'silence' on such matters. The model describes the awareness raising and change promoting potential of surveying as a whole process: resistance and agenda setting pressures from vested interests are part of the process. Both the resistance and the institutional agenda components emphasise that new ideas and change are not taken up in a vacuum. They imply that for the action researcher understanding and documenting 'resistance' and existing priorities for change are important in understanding and predicting the likely outcomes or effects of the intervention of the research in the institution.

< previous page

page_141

next page >

< previous page

page_142

next page > Page 142

The Application of the Action Research Concept to Language Diversity Surveys The aim of this part of the conclusion is to summarise the lessons learnt from applying an action research model to language surveys. What are the consequences of overturning the established priorities of such surveys, where quantitative data collection has traditionally come first? In particular, I wish to consider the consequences of placing the monitoring and promotion of qualitative effects, such as awareness raising, as the main priority of survey activity. As we have seen in the previous chapter, it is instructive to look at the use of questionnaire surveys on language use in education as a form of action research. The researchers guiding 'The Survey of Linguistic Diversity in London Schools' and the schools language surveys of the Linguistic Minorities Project made it clear that they saw these activities as having a role in the in-service education of teachers about language diversity, and in placing the education of bilingual pupils higher on institutional agenda (Rosen & Burgess, 1980: 3; LMP, 1985: 314). However, these surveys were not pursued explicitly as action research. Their qualitative aims were viewed as secondary, and awareness raising seen as a by-product of the process of quantitative research. The college language survey reported here followed an action research model. It aimed to promote awareness raising and change for the better in the education of bilingual students in the institution, and to disseminate information, and positive approaches to linguistic diversity, to teachers. These were primary aims, and the process of the research was at least as important as the 'product' in the form of quantitative data. At the same time, I set out to discover and monitor to what degree, and by what means, a language survey would or could fulfil such aims. As has been shown, there is more than one possible definition of language diversity surveying aims, methods and outcomes in education. In one definition, such surveys are a form of empirical social survey research using quantitative methods to measure the use of different language varieties in a given population. Any qualitative effects are a result of the dissemination and utilisation of the research and its findings. In another, contrasting definition, language diversity surveys promote positive awareness and the reconsideration of policies and responses towards language diversity through various processes including consultation with teachers and others, surveying activity in the classroom, the dissemination and discussion of results, and the promotion of negotiated changes through recommendations and other outcomes. It can be seen that the second definition makes the assumption that a survey will involve respondents,

< previous page

page_142

next page >

< previous page

page_143

next page > Page 143

teachers and audiences actively in the processes by which effects and outcomes emerge, whereas the first implies a view of those affected by the research as 'passive consumers' (Havelock, 1971). The argument and evidence of this study has tended to undermine the quantitative definition of survey research. In Chapter 2, for instance, the scientific objectivity and accuracy of previous language diversity surveys in Britain was questioned. The reliance of schools language surveys upon teachers as elicitors and pupils' self reports, it was argued, tends to result in under-reporting and corresponding under-estimates in the statistical data. It is important to emphasise such questions since the data of these surveys are widely quoted as measures of linguistic diversity. It might also be possible to argue that if language diversity surveys were to aspire to the letter of the first definition above then the use of trained interviewers, from the minority speech communities, would be essential. Alternative methods of observation and follow up might be used to gain a measure of the likely scale of inaccuracies in the data. My argument here proceeds to the proposition that what is needed is not necessarily surveys which are more accurate in quantitative terms, but a recognition that language diversity surveys in education are a form of qualitative research. The situation to date seems to have been that these surveys are represented as primarily quantitative data collection exercises with secondary qualitative effects and outcomes of a beneficial nature as 'side effects'. My argument would reverse the order of priority in such a description. The conclusion of this research is that language surveys based on questionnaires, self-reports and the use of teachers as interviewers or administrators are essentially qualitative research which yields quantitative data. As explained at the beginning of this chapter the interpretation of such data should take into account the qualitative context of data collection. Language diversity surveys which attempted to remedy the problems of quantitative accuracy would be of interest, but they would no longer follow the complex brief which language surveys in education to date have fulfilled. Language diversity surveys are part of the wider context of what they study and are not immune from political pressures (LMP, 1985: 16). The need for reliable quantitative data on which to base policy making and planning provided a strong case for the surveying activities of researchers such as Rosen & Burgess and the LMP. They might have found it more difficult to gain support from local education authorities and access to schools if qualitative aims of promoting awareness and change had been represented as their primary purpose. In some cases, it may have been necessary to emphasise different aspects of research, in terms of the aims

< previous page

page_143

next page >

< previous page

page_144

next page > Page 144

and outcome, according to the priorities of the sponsor whose support was needed. A major factor in the impetus of language diversity surveying has been the lack of authoritative quantitative data, but so also has been a belief in the power of such activities to put language diversity on various agenda. Some of the LEAs who considered working with the LMP to collect data withdrew when it was realised that the findings would have implications in terms of provision (1985: 314). It is also useful to consider the research of Rosen & Burgess in an action research context. Rosen & Burgess elaborate upon the qualitative aspects of their research at a number of points. They used selectively a range of ethnographic methods to collect and cross check the quantitative data: school records, teachers' knowledge and experience of their pupils, observation, group interviews, discussion with individual pupils, listening to tape, plus a questionnaire for the teacher to complete. They sought to promote a school/research collaboration which they believed would be helpful to both researchers and teachers (Rosen & Burgess, 1980: 44). The research aimed at and achieved a number of active outcomes in materials and conferences, and concludes with a range of recommendations for action. By contrast, the LMP Schools Language Surveys, appear to have concentrated more upon the gathering of quantitative data on a large scale, to be utilised by the DES and LEAs (LMP, 1985:315). There is a strong probability that large LEA surveys of this kind were not developed in the ideal context for developing the potential of language surveys as a change agent at teacher level. The LMP did not collect detailed evidence about how the survey was in fact conducted in different schools and, by their own admission presumed that some teachers had to relegate the survey to a low priority within their overall workload (LMP, 1985: 327). Although the LMP surveys were collaborative at LEA level, rather than teacher level, the process of involving the teachers as elicitors had a 'highly educative' purpose (LMP, 1985: 329). Schools often argued that a better response would be elicited from bilingual pupils by using the better trained ESL and other language specialists available, but the LMP prescribed the use of the classroom teacher on awareness raising grounds. The Linguistic Minorities Project set up a related project, The Languages Information Network Coordination Project, in order to follow up the survey and disseminate their aims, methods, and findings, and assess its impact, beyond the limited audience of establishment academic research (1985: 16). They also as referred to in the previous chapter took up a consultant role with their 'client' LEAs for the SLS, whereby the LEAs themselves followed the processes of working out the implications of the survey findings.

< previous page

page_144

next page >

< previous page

page_145

next page > Page 145

In practice, the language diversity surveying undertaken in Britain has combined the two 'contrasting' definitions given above. All the schools surveys have combined the methods of quantitative and qualitative research. The gathering of quantitative data has involved the use of qualitative methods, and has had qualitative implications and effects. We now move on to the lessons learnt from the college language survey of how a language survey collecting quantitative data can be pursued as a qualitative exercise, maximising opportunities for awareness raising and the promotion of change. The evidence from the college language survey indicates certain implications for surveys conducted in an action research mode: (1) The whole survey process from setting up through to follow up has an awareness raising function in promoting discussion, or 'ventilation', of language issues, and putting language diversity 'on the agenda'. (2) There are opportunities for communication with and feedback from participants and the rest of the survey audience not only during the dissemination phase, but throughout the survey process, through consultations, briefings, materials used and survey administration. The success of the survey as a change agent will depend to a great degree upon the quality of this communication. (3) It is important to allow time and space for the discussion and re-examination of attitudes towards language diversity which have been 'taken for granted', before considering issues and recommendations. (4) There is a need for more monitoring and investigation of the effects of surveying activity and dissemination. Language diversity surveys are prone to pursuing data collection as an end in itself, or to short term effects. The follow up to such surveys is crucial if 'awareness raising' and other changes are to are to have lasting effects. One means of ensuring this is to link a survey, as in the college survey here, to a comprehensive language policy tied to plans for change. (5) There is a need for more information on, and investigation of, the context in which surveys take place, in particular of the background to 'resistance' and the way in which the qualitative effects of surveys interact with interest groups and pre-existing priorities for change. (6) There is a need for more investigation of the effects of such activity on all participants, including the respondents. As explained above, there is potential for more investigation of English monolingual attitudes and responses to language diversity.

< previous page

page_145

next page >

< previous page

page_146

next page > Page 146

Suggestions for Further Research This concluding section will review the main lessons from this study, looking both at ways in which, with the value of hindsight and adequate resources, the methodology might be improved, and at various directions which future research in the area of language diversity surveying might take. I shall begin with a critical examination of the methodology of this study. One of the findings of this research has been that there is a stage after the presentation of recommendations, here termed 'follow up', which requires development and study. There are gaps in the follow up to this survey, as, for example, in the eventual fate of the college survey recommendations. The circumstances of this research resulted in a concentration upon responses at institutional and teacher levels. The impact of language survey effects upon the wider context of educational policy requires further exploration. There is a need for more information on how the surveys and their institutional contexts fit into local educational authority priorities, and national educational policy. Four methodologies were used in this research to investigate language diversity surveying: the survey methodology itself, the methodology of an in-depth case study collecting written records, interviews and participant observation. The first three are well developed and documented here. Although participant observation has underpinned observations and conclusions at a number of points in the dissertation, it is not as well developed as the other data sources. In particular, my reliance upon diary keeping and the collection of documents would have been enhanced by other ethnographic methods of recording the progress of the survey. It was also found difficult to play the roles of coordinator and principal advocate of the survey, whilst at the same time playing the role of 'neutral observer'. In hindsight it would have been useful to extend the qualitative aspects of this research in a number of ways. A longitudinal study establishing wider evidence for the initial situation, or baseline, from which change was to have been measured would have given more authority to the evidence marshalled following the survey. Multi-method qualitative approaches involving extensive observation of staff behaviour following the survey, in addition to interviewing establishing their perceptions of change, would further enhance the methodology. Larger samples from the students and staff for qualitative investigations would have been desirable if more resources had been available for the study. The previous five sections have presented a reinterpretation of language diversity surveys in education, mainly in qualitative terms. The interview data has implications for further research as indicated at various points.

< previous page

page_146

next page >

< previous page

page_147

next page > Page 147

The student interviews show that there is potential for more in-depth case study and follow up of student involvement in and response to language surveying activity. Both the student and the staff interviews indicate that attitudes and perceptions, including those of monolinguals, are promising territory for further study. Most research on language diversity surveys has emphasised the effects on the esteem of plurilingual subjects, but the effects on monolingual participants appear also to be of interest and relevance. There is an awareness in the literature of the importance of communicating with a largely monolingual English speaking audience, but the attitudes of monolingual English teachers and students caught up in linguistic diversity, and the effects of surveys on monolingual participants require further investigation. In language surveys which involve both plurilinguals and monolinguals it is important to understand the potential effects on both monolingual and plurilingual language users. The interview data indicates that ethnographic investigation in conjunction with a survey can reveal much about monolingual attitudes and responses to plurilingualism and language diversity. There is a danger of blocking understanding, and thus change, in ascribing all aspects of English monolingual views which express resistance or scepticism in relation to supporting language diversity to racism or prejudice. It is argued here on the evidence of the interviews that change is more likely to be possible where the range of monolingual responses is understood. This research indicates the potential for further research on the attitudes and rationale behind monolingual responses to language diversity. This study has concentrated upon monitoring a range of language survey effects, but there is also a need for practical teaching materials which back up and extend the positive effects of language diversity surveying in the classroom. Examples of such materials are those discussed in Chapter 9 of The Other Languages of England (LMP, 1985), or in David Houlton's book All Our Languages (1985). A version of the LMP 'Secondary Pupils Survey' appropriate to students in Further Education was developed during the college survey, and so also was an assignment using language diversity in the classroom. There is evidence for the potential of such material in the student case study in Chapter 5 of this thesis. It confirms the positive links between language awareness work and the use of student administered classroom language surveys. At one point a chapter on the use of action research to develop such materials was considered, but it was not felt to be sufficiently relevant to the main argument of this book. This might be an interesting opportunity for other researchers to take up. The college which has been the subject of the case study presented in this book has to reconcile the educational needs of students from a very wide range of linguistic backgrounds. Although this study has a critical aspect,

< previous page

page_147

next page >

< previous page

page_148

next page > Page 148

it should also provide some evidence of the progressive aspects of linguistic diversity in education for both monolingual English speakers and plurilingual speakers working together. Linguistic research often tends to concentrate on narrowly classified speech communities for perfectly good methodological reasons. However, I hope that this research indicates value, and a number of possibilities, in studying linguistically diverse educational communities, and of listening to the views and perspectives of all members of those communities on language diversity. This research is a challenge to the tendency, inside and outside education, to represent language diversity negatively, as a problematic 'Babel'. British education would benefit from further research providing practical indications and outcomes showing ways and means by which teachers and students can use linguistic diversity as a classroom resource rather than a set of 'problems'. The ethos of this research study is positive, even optimistic. The evidence given here indicates that language diversity surveys are more than providers of quantitative data. A language diversity survey, as shown here, can function as a major agent of change, opening up the various discourses about language within institutions and communities, and changing the environment and the way things are done, for the better.

< previous page

page_148

next page >

< previous page

page_149

next page > Page 149

References Alladina S. (1985a) Research methodology for language use surveys in Britain. In P.H. Nelde (ed.) Methoden der Kontaktlinguistik (pp. 233-40). Dummler: Bonn. (1985b) South Asian languages in Britain: Criteria for description and definition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6 (6), 449-66. (1985c) Positive Interaction between the Languages of Early Cognition and the Acquisition of the Language of Education. London: Institute of Education. (1986) Black people's languages in Britain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7 (5), 349-59. Alladina, S. and Edwards, V. (1990) Multilingualism in the British Isles (2 vols). London: Longman. Balakrishnan, Y., Coston, C. and Garnett C. (1985) Report on the language survey undertaken at Westminster College. Unpublished report. London: Westminster College Library. Barry, M. and Trushell, L. (1985) Bilingualism: The ESL/library survey (Report). London: Woolwich College Library. (1986) Bilingualism at Woolwich College. Multi-ethnic Education Review 5 (1), 25-7. Bell, C. and Roberts, H. (1984) Social Researching: Politics, Problems, Practice. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul. Bhanot, R. (1989) English rules OK? Language Issues 3 (1), 2-5. Blanc, M. and Hamers, J. (1989) Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bolster, A. (1983) Towards a more effective model of research on teaching. Harvard Educational Review 53 (3), 294308. Bullock, Sir A. (1975) A Languagefor Life. Department of Education and Science report. London: HMSO. Chatwin, R. (1985) Can English teaching be racist? In C. Brumfit, R. Ellis, and J. Levine (eds) ESL in the UK (pp. 1816). Oxford: Pergamon. Cheshire, J. (1984) Non standard varieties. In P. Trudgill (ed.) Language in the British Isles (pp. 546-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheshire, J., Edwards, V., Munstermann, H. and Wellens, P. (1989) Dialect and Education: Some European Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Clark, R., Fairclough, N., Ivanic, R. and Martin Jones, M. (in press) Critical language awareness. Language and Education. Cohen, L. and Manyon, L. (1986) Research Methods in Education. New York: Croom Helm.

< previous page

page_149

next page >

< previous page

page_150

next page > Page 150

Cummins, J. (1982) Mother Tongue Maintenance for Minority Language Children: Some Common Misconceptions. Toronto: Ontario Institute. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dalphinis, M. (1985) Caribbean and African Languages. London: Karia Press. (1990) The Afro-English creole speech community. In S. Alladina and V. Edwards (eds), pp. 33-41. Department of Education and Science (DES) (1972) The Continuing Needs of Immigrants (Education Survey No. 14). London: HMSO. (1989) English for Ages 5-16 (The Cox Report). London: DES Welsh Office. (1990) Teaching Modern Foreign Languages for Ages 11-16. London: HMSO. Derrick, J. (1966) Teaching English to Immigrants. London: Longman. (1977) The Language Needs of Minority Group Children. Windsor: National Foundation for Educational Research. Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. (1982) Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ealing, London Borough of (1985) Report of the Ealing Schools Language Survey. London: Borough of Ealing. Ebbutt, D. (1983) Educational action research (Mimeograph). Cambridge Institute of Education. Edwards V. (1981) Black British English. A bibliographical essay on the language of children of West Indian origin. Sage Race Relations Abstracts 5 (3&4), 1-26. (1983) Language in Multicultural Classrooms. London: Batsford Academic. (1986) Language in a Black Community. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Edwards, V., Fuller, M., and Redfern, A. (in press) Education in Diversity: Britain and Canada. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. European Communities (EC) (1981) Directive of the Council of the European Community on the Education of the Children of Migrant Workers (Circular 5/81). London: DES. (1984) Report on the Implementation of Directive 77/486/EEC on the Education of Children of Migrant Workers. Brussels: EC. Further Education Unit (FEU) (1987) FE in Black and White. Harlow: Longman. Garson, S. (1982) The role of the language department in a multicultural school. Paper at Conference on Inter-cultural Education, Nijenrode, Netherlands. Also in Martin Straker Welds (ed.) (1984) Education for a Multicultural Society (pp. 117-23). London: Bell and Hyman. Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Allen Lane. Gordon, P. (1987) Dewsbury: Race, education and the press. Issues in Race and Education 52, 1-4. Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with Two Languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gumperz, J., Jupp, L. and Roberts, C. (1979) Crosstalk: A Study of Cross-Cultural Communication. Southall: Centre for Industrial Language Training. Hamilton, D., Macdonald, B., King, C., Jenkins, D., Parlett, M. (eds) (1977) Beyond the Numbers Game. Berkeley: McCutchan.

< previous page

page_150

next page >

< previous page

page_151

next page > Page 151

Hammersley, M. (1986) Controversies in Classroom Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1983) Ethnography: Principles and Practice. London: Tavistock. Hammersmith and West London College (HWLC) (1985) Meeting of the Working Party for English Language Provision for Bilingual Students, Thursday 31 October 1985. Unpublished Minutes. London: HWLC. Haugen, E. (1966) Dialect, language and nation. American Anthropologist 68,922-35. (1969) The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behaviour. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Havelock, R. (1971) The utilisation of educational research and development. British Journal of Educational Technology 2 (2), 84-97. Also in T. Horton and P. Raggat (eds) (1982) Challenge and Change in the Curriculum (pp. 137-51). Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder and Stoughton. Hawkins, Eric (1984) Awareness of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) (1965) Immigration from the Commonwealth (Cmnd 2739, White Paper). London: HMSO. Hewitt, R. (1982) White adolescent creole users and the politics of friendship. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3 (3), 217-32. Hopkins, D. (1985) A Teacher's Guide to Classroom Research. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Hornby, P. (ed.) (1977) Bilingualism: Psychological Social and Educational Implications. New York: Academic Press. Houlton, D. (1985) All Our Languages. London: Edward Arnold. Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) (1977) Multi-ethnic Education. London: ILEA. (1979) Report on the 1978 Census of those ILEA Pupils for Whom English was not a First Language. London: ILEA Research and Statistics. (1982) 1981 Language Census. London: ILEA Research and Statistics. (1983) 1983 Language Census. London: ILEA Research and Statistics. (1984) Languages Spoken by ILEA School Pupils. London: ILEA Research and Statistics. (1986) 1985 Language Census. London: ILEA Research and Statistics. (1987) 1987 Language Census. London: ILEA Research and Statistics. (1989) 1989 Language Census. London: ILEA Research and Statistics. Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) Inspectorate (1986) Review of Languages Education. London: ILEA. James, A. (1979) The multicultural curriculum. New Approaches in Multicultural Education 8 (1), 1-5. James, A. and Jeffcoate, R. (eds) (1981) The School in the Multicultural Society. London: Harper and Row. Jones, A. (1989) Language awareness in British schools. In J. Cheshire et al. (eds), pp. 269-81. Kaushall, R. (1981) Mother tongue as an issue of importance. Education Journal 3 (2), 5-6 (London: CRE).

< previous page

page_151

next page >

< previous page

page_152

next page > Page 152

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart R. (1981) The Action Research Planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Labov, W. (1969) The logic of non-standard English. Georgetown Monographs on Language and Linguistics 22. Also in P. Giglioli (ed.) (1972) Language and Social Context (pp. 179-215). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Levine, J. (ed.) (1990) Bilingual Learners and the Mainstream Curriculum. Basingstoke: The Falmer Press. Lewin, K. (1946) Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2, 34. Language Information Network Co-ordination (LINC) (1981) Progress Report 1. London: University of London, Institute of Education. Language Information Network Co-ordination/Linguistic Minorities Project (LMP/LINC) (1983) The Schools Language Survey: Summary of Findings from Five LEAs (Working Paper 3). London: Institute of Education. Le Page, R. B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985) Acts of Identity: Aproaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Linguistic Minorities Project (LMP) (1983) Linguistic Minorities in England. London: Institute of Education, and Tinga Tinga: Heinemann Educational. (1984) Schools Language Survey: Manual of Use. London: University of London, Institute of Education. (1985) The Other Languages of England. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Lomas, G. (1980) Race, colour, ethnicity and the collection of data. New Community 8 (1,2), 1-2. Martin Jones, M. and Romaine, S. (1986) Semilingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics 7 (1), 26-38. McCombs, M.E. and Shaw, D.L. (1972) The agenda setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36, 17687. McQuail, D.and Windahl, S. (1981) Communication Models. Harlow: Longman. Mkilifi, M.H.A. (1978) Triglossia and Swahili-English bilingualism in Tanzania. In J. Fishman (ed.) Advances in the Study of Societal Multilingualism (pp. 129-49). The Hague: Mouton. Moser, C.A. and Kalton, G. (1971) Survey Methods in Social Investigation. London: Heinnemann. Nicholas, J. (1986) The practice of language diversity surveys in Britain 1977-86, with the report of a survey undertaken in Hammersmith and West London College 1986. Unpublished MA dissertation. London: Dept of Applied Linguistics, Birkbeck College. (1987) Short report of the Hammersmith and West London College Language Survey 1986/87. Unpublished report, Hammersmith and West London College. (1988) British language diversity surveys 1977-1987: A critical examination. Language and Education 2 (1), 15-33. (1989) Breaking the spiral of silence: An examination of the after effects of language diversity surveying in a British college of Further Education. Language and Education 3 (3), 183-208. (1991) Language diversity surveys as agents of awareness-raising and change. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Dept of Applied Linguistics, Birkbeck College, London.

< previous page

page_152

next page >

< previous page

page_153

next page > Page 153

Nicholls, S. and Hoadley Maidment, E. (1988) Teaching English as a Second Language to Adults. London: Edward Arnold. Noelle Neumann E. ( 1974) The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication 24, 43-51. (1980) Mass media and social change in developed societies. In G.C. Windhoit and H. de Bock (eds) Mass Communication Review Yearbook (pp. 657-8). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications. (1984) The Spiral of Silence. London: University of Chicago Press. Phillips, D. (1989) Which Language? Diversification and the National Curriculum. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Phillipson, R. (1988) Linguicism: Structures and ideologies in linguistic imperialism. In T. Skuttnab-Kangas and J. Cummins (eds) Minority Education (pp. 33954). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Powney, J. and Watts, M. (1987) Interviewing in Educational Research. London: Routledge. Raleigh, M. (1981) The Languages Book. London: ILEA, the English Centre. Romaine, S. (1989) Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Rosen H. (1980) Linguistic diversity in London schools. In A.K. Pugh, V.J. Lee and J. Swan (eds) Language and Language Use (pp. 46-75). London: Open University and Heinemann. Rosen H. and Burgess T. (1980) Languages and Dialects of London School Children. London: Ward Lock. Saifullah Khan ( 1983) Language dominance and discrimination in multilingual England. The Incorporated Linguist 22 (3), 114-20 (London: Institute of Linguists). Sebba, M. and Le Page, R.B. (1983) Sociolinguistics of London Jamaican English: Report on the pilot project (198182). Mimeograph. University of York, Department of Language. Shipman, M.D. (1972) The Limitations of Social Research. Harlow: Longman. Skutnabb Kangas, T. (1984) Bilingualism or Not? The Education of Minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. South East London College (1987) Library languages survey report. Unpublished report. South East London College: Breakspears Library. Siguan, M. and Mackey, W. (1987) Education and Bilingualism. London: Kegan Page in association with UNESCO. Smith, D. and Tomlinson, S. (1988) The School Effect: A Study of Multiracial Comprehensives. London: Policy Studies Institute. Stone, Maureen (1981) The Education of the Black Child in Britain: The Myth of Multicultural Education. London: Fontana. Swain, M. and Cummins, J. (1979) Bilingualism, cognitive functioning and education. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts 12, 4-18. Swann Report (1985) Education for All. London: HMSO. Tay, M.W.J. (1979) The uses, users and features of English in Singapore. In J.B. Pride (ed.) New Englishes (pp. 5170). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Tichenor, P.J, Donohue, G.A, and Olien, C.N. (1970) Mass media and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly 34, 158-70.

< previous page

page_153

next page >

< previous page

page_154

next page > Page 154

Tomlin, C. (1981) The extent to which West Indian language differences hinder or enhance learning. Unpublished dissertation, Dudley College of Education. Tomlinson, S. (1980) The educational performance of ethnic minority children. New Community 8 (3), 213. Townsend, H.E.R. (1971) Immigrant Pupils in England: The LEA Response. Windsor: National Foundation for Educational Research. Troyna, B. and Williams, J. (1986) Racism, Education and the State. Beckenham, Kent: Croom Helm. Turner, F. (1989) Community languages: The struggle for survival. In D. Phillips. UNESCO (1982) Living in Two Cultures: The Sociocultural Situation of Migrant Workers and their Families. Gower: The Unesco Press. Walker, R. (1985) Doing Research: A Handbook for Teachers. London: Methuen. Westminster College (1985) Report on the Language survey undertaken at Westminster College. See Balakrishnan et al. Williams, A. (1989) Dialect in school written work. In J. Cheshire et al. (eds), pp. 182-99. Williams, J. (1981) Race and schooling: Some recent contributions. British Journal of the Sociology of Education 2 (2), 221-7. Wong L. (1990) The Hong Kong speech community. In S. Alladina and V. Edwards (eds), pp. 189-206. Woolwich College (1985) Bilingualism: The ESL/Library Survey. See Barry, M. and Trushell, L.. Wrangham, C. (ed.) (1987) The Bilingual Skills Certificate: An Approach to Training and Qualifications. London: Institute of Linguists Educational Trust. Wright, C. (1986) School processes: An ethnographic study. In J. Eggeston, D. Dunn and M. Anjali (eds) Education for Some: The Educational and Vocational Experiences of 15-18-year-old Young People from Ethnic Minority Groups (DES Research Report, pp. 127-79). London: Trentham Books.

< previous page

page_154

next page >

< previous page

page_155

next page > Page 155

Appendix 1: Final Version of College Language Survey Questionnaire

< previous page

page_155

next page >

< previous page

page_156

next page > Page 156

Appendix 2: Short Report of College Language Survey (Disseminated to Teachers and Within ILEA)

SHORT REPORT OF THE Hammersmith & West London College LANGUAGE SURVEY 1986/87.

< previous page

page_156

next page >

< previous page

page_157

next page > Page 157

Introduction a. Aims This condensed report presents some of the findings of a sample survey of language diversity among students attending the college. The aims of the survey include: (i) to gain a measure of the other languages in addition to English used by students, and the proportion of the student population who use or understand other languages, in the different faculties and departments of the college, and (ii) to raise issues and awareness among staff and students about the richness, variety and scale of language diversity and language use present in the college. b. Date of Survey (i) English Studies: EBS (English for Bilingual Students) section: January 1986 (ii) General and International Education (GIE): March - April 1986 (iii) Business and Professional Studies (BPS) and Office Skills and Office Technology (OSOT) March - April 1987 (iv) The School of Building at Lime Grove May - June 1987 Methods a. the Questionnaire Students' self-reports of their use of other languages in addition to English were elicited through individual, anonymous written questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed and collected by teachers; and students completed them in class time. Teachers were consulted about the survey, and those assisting provided with background information and notes to assist the survey. Creoles, Patois and West Indian dialect, including 'English-based' Creole, were elicited in a separate question. In the open question referring to the use of other languages, students were given the opportunity to record a number of languages, normally up to four. In most communities around the world, the ability to speak or understand a number of languages in everyday communication is common and unremarkable. No attempt was made in totalling reports of the use of a language to find out from students whether they considered it a first' or 'second' language. This does mean that reports of common international 'second languages' are high in number. It is to be stressed that many students who use other languages will identify English as their first language, particularly in the college environment. b. the Sample The sampling strategy was designed to cover the range and variety of courses and students in the various departments and areas of study in the college. In other words, 'a judgement sample' as opposed to a random sample was used. The sample included all areas of college work, apart from English as a Foreign Language courses (EFL) in English Studies. There were 1773 respondents in the sample, or approximately 20% of the students registered at the college, excluding EFL. 810 were full-time, or 29% of the full-time student population. 963 (19%) were part-time.

< previous page

page_157

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_158

Page 158 Summary of results 1. Students in sample 2. Number of language varieties in addition to English reported 3. Number of respondents reporting other languages 4. % of respondents reporting other languages 5. Number reporting an 'English-based' Creole 6. a) Number reporting one other language b) two other languages c) Three other d) Four other e) Five other f) Six other

< previous page

College Total % ''Lime Grove'' BPS OSOT GIE EBS 1773 19.7 332 555 415 382 89 105

-

31

68

1178

66.4

130

388 292 279 89

66.4

-

39

70

70

73

-

219

12

34

70

61

54

-

667

68

207 204 160 28

306

26

119

53

77 31

126

11

42

30

27 16

52

4

14

5

15 14

4

4

2

2

page_158

64

65 41

next page >

< previous page

page_159

next page > Page 159

"Top Ten" most reported languages, in order of number of reports (excludes French) College wide Lime Grove BPS OSOT GIE (Inc EBS) English - basedEnglish - basedEnglish - based English i) English - based Creole Creole Creole based Creole Creole African Gujerati Spanish 'Chinese' & ii) Spanish Creoles Arabic French based Punjabi Italian (2=) iii) Hindi & Urdu Creole (3=) Hindi & French based Urdu iv) Spanish (3=) Spanish Creole Yoruba German Hindi v) Arabic (4=) Gaelic Urdu Arabic Spanish vi) Punjabi Italian & French based Amharic Farsi vii) French-based Welsh Creole Creole Yoruba Polish Punjabi viii) Gujerati & (7=) Italian Ga & Punjabi Arabic Portuguese German ix) (8=) 'Chinese' 'Chinese' (9=) Gugerati x) 'Chinese'1(inc. (9=) Cantonese, Hakka, Hokkien & Mandarin)

< previous page

page_159

next page >

< previous page

page_160

next page > Page 160

Results a. Summary The extent of the use of other languages reported varied from 39% of the sample at Lime Grove to 73% in General and International Education. Across the college, 65% of the students in the sample reported the use of other languages. There was some evidence of over-reporting of academic languages, such as French, and of underreporting of Creoles. b. Over-reporting of 'academic languages' Teachers were asked to explain that academic languages, as in some reports French or German for example, should not be entered on the main questionnaire. Some respondents may have misunderstood the purpose of the survey, nevertheless especially given the status of 'modern European languages' in the college environment - and some European languages taught in school/college may be over-reported in the data as a result. If respondents reporting 'French only' are discounted to compensate for any such over-reporting of academic language learning, then the figures may be revised as follows: Respondents reporting College Lime BPS OSOT GIE other languages: Grove (i) as a % of the sample 58% 31% 62.5% 61% 64% (ii) number 1025 109 347 255 246 (iii) sample 1773 332 555 415 382 c. Creoles 219 respondents, 12% of the college sample, reported the ability to speak or understand 'English-based' Creole, making this the most commonly reported language variety in the survey (discounting 'French only'). French, African and other Creoles are also prominent. However, there is strong evidence that even these large numbers of reports of Creoles, particularly English-based Creole, are an underestimate of the number of users, both from the experience of this survey, and research elsewhere (Edwards 1986). Some students and staff found the terminology of the Creole section in the questionnaire problematic. Some students did not see their use of Creole as 'reportable' in such terms. 'English-based Creole' is perhaps particularly problematic, being neither a precise, nor widely accepted name, for the variety of English associated Creoles spoken in London and the Caribbean.

< previous page

page_160

next page >

< previous page

page_161

next page > Page 161

d. Teaching and materials In Community languages Two questions addressed to respondents reporting reading writing skills in other languages (apart from Creoles) were placed in the 1987 questionnaire used in BPS, OSOT, and at Lime Grove. Of the 566 respondents thus addressed, 374 (66%) responded that they would like to see books and magazines in the other languages in which they could read and write in the library. 403 respondents (71%) responded that they would like courses and qualifications in community languages to be available in the college. e. Conclusion The process of carrying out this survey was an illuminating experience. Many staff reported that they were surprised by the extent of language diversity in their classes revealed during the survey. There was a tendency for white students and/or students who are fluent in English language to be assumed to be monolingual. Detailed analysis of the data revealed that students using other languages were neither less common on advanced courses nor more common on basic ability courses - indeed, if anything the reverse appeared to be the case. Thanks are extended to the students, teachers and other staff of the college who cooperated in making this survey possible. The rich heritage of language and cultural diversity which it highlights has a contribution to make to education in the college for all.

< previous page

page_161

next page >

< previous page

page_162

next page > Page 162

LANGUAGES REPORTED This section lists the languages reported by the students in the sample. The language names are organised in linguistic families, or by affiliation. Where more than 10 reports were received, the number is given in brackets. (Sino-Tibetan) Cantonese (39), Hakka, Hokkien, Mandarin and Taiwanese (group of Chinese Languages, 13 reports simply of "Chinese" were received).. (Austronesian)

Indonesian.

(Mon Khmer)

Cambodian, Khmer, Vietnamese.

(Kam-Tai)

Lao, Thai.

(MalayoPolynesian)

Malay, Tagalog (18), Filipino, Bilocano, Bisayan, Cebuano, Kapapangano, Pangasian.

(Dravidian)

Malayalam, Tamil.

(Indo-European) i)Assamese, Bengali (14),Gujerati (69), Kutchi, Hariani, Hindi(77), Marathi, Punjabi (75), Sindhi, Urdu (77) Sinhalese. ii) Baluchi, Dari, Farsi (43), Kurdish, Pushtu. iii)Afrikaans, Armenian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, French (232), Gaelic (19), German (60), Greek (35), Italian(69), Maltese, Norwegian, Polish (29), Portuguese (37), Romanian, Serbo-Croat, Spanish (124), Gallego, Ladino, Swedish (16), Welsh, Ukranian. (Semitic/Cushitic)Amharic(30), Arabic (76), Aramaic, Hausa, Hebrew, Maymay, Oromigna, Somali, Tigrinya (19). (Niger-Congo)

i)(Kwa group) Akan, Edo, Ewe, Fanti (Nfanti), Ga, Ibo, Idoma, Malinka, Twi (12), Yoruba (41). ii) (Bantu grouping) Bakwiri, Kikuyu, Laganda, Runyankore, se-Sotho, se-tswana, Shona, SwahiliKiswahili (13). iii) (West Atlantic) Fellani, Wolof/Jolof.

(Creole/Patwa)

English-based Creole (219), French-based Creole (71), Spanish-based Creole (18), African Creoles (13),'Other' Creole (50), Patois, New Guinea Patios, Pidgin.

(Ural-Altaic)

Japanese, Korean, Turkish, Hungarian, Finnish.

< previous page

page_162

next page >

< previous page

page_163

next page > Page 163

Index A academic language use, 53 Action Research, 2, 18, 44, 46, 105, 106, 133, 135, 140-142, 145, 147 Adult Language Use Survey, 33 Afro-Caribbeans, 5, 9, 83 agenda setting, 98, 113, 116, 134 agent of change, 94, 130, 145 ambiguity, 36, 37 antiracism, 6, 17, 21, 69 Arabic, 65, 66, 70 assimilationist approaches, 3, 9 awareness raising, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 89, 91, 94, 121, 123, 130, 134, 135, 139, 141, 142, 144 B Bengali, 33, 38 bidialectal language use, 73 bilingualism, 4, 6, 13, 17, 18, 81, 86, 98 Bradford, 30, 33 Brent, 30 Bullock Report, 5 C Cantonese, 33, 38, 66 Certificate of Pre-vocational Education (CPVE), 68, 77, 81, 95 change fatigue, 116 Chinese, 33, 38, 66, 70 classroom surveys, 77,78, 99-101, 129, 132 code switching, 12 community languages, 9, 12, 21, 33, 65, 66, 67, 74, 100, 130 computer error, 33 confidentiality, 47 Coventry, 30, 33 Cox Report (1989), 7 Creoles, 22, 28, 29, 39, 51, 55, 64, 65, 71, 82, 88, 126, 129, 131, 134, 137 cross-cultural communication, 14 curriculum change, 46 D deficit models, 9, 18, 37, 79-81, 95 dictionaries, 70 discourse, 113, 117, 122, 136-139 donor role, 35 E Ealing, 30

Ebbutt's model of Action Research, 108 EEC Directive, 14 effecting, 102, 112, 120, 122, 123, 140, 141 effects, 84, 101-103, 108, 113, 133, 135 elicitors, 34 English as a Foreign Language (EFL), 8, 50, 59 English as a Second Language (ESL), 4-6, 20, 22, 28, 95, 103, 128, 131 English monolingual world view, 93 English-based Creoles, 9, 23-25, 29, 39, 51, 54, 61, 64, 71, 72, 87, 97, 126, 127 equal opportunities, 24, 88, 96, 131 eradication strategies, 72 ethnic monitoring, 37, 96, 128 F family language, 43 Farsi, 70 first language, 23, 36-38, 49, 79, 128 focusing, 102, 112, 120, 122, 123, 138, 139, 141 follow-up activities, 80, 89, 100, 115, 127, 130-132, 135, 145, 147 French, 70 French-based Creole, 64 Further Education, 8, 52, 62, 129, 132-134, 140 G Gallego, 55

< previous page

page_163

next page >

< previous page

page_164

next page > Page 164

gatekeepers, 67 Greek, 33 group interview, 25, 31 Gujerati, 33, 66 H Hakka, 38 Haringey, 30 heritage, 16, 93 Hindi, 38, 66, 70 Hokkien, 38 home language concept, 23 Hounslow, 30 hypothesis generating, 106 I ideological aspects, 14, 17, 18, 33, 34, 39, 45, 92-94, 106 Inner London Education Authority (ILEA), 5, 6, 14, 21, 36, 44, 59, 62-64, 86, 92, 95, 96, 116, 124-128, 133 information gap hypothesis, 113-115 Inner London Further Education colleges, 130 Institute of Linguists, 67 institutional agenda, 46, 122, 139-141 integration, 15 interference, 13 interviews, 85, 125 Italian, 33 K Kemmis's spiral model of Action Research, 107 Kingman Report (1988), 7 Krio, 23 L language awareness, 7, 21, 69, 72, 77, 92, 103, 131, 132 language classification, 34 language histories, 68 Language Information Network Co-ordination, 30 language names, 38, 52, 55 language policies, 12 language support, 9 language survey effects, see effects library, 11, 70, 130 Lingala, 38 linguistic imperialism, 15 Linguistic Minorities Project (LMP), 1, 10, 24, 29, 36, 38, 82, 83, 96, 103, 109-111, 114, 127, 132, 133, 138-144 literacy, 27, 49 longitudinal study, 146

M Mandarin, 38 Marathi, 25 media effects, 113 monolingualism, 10, 11, 14, 20, 37, 73, 80, 82, 104, 131, 132, 145, 147 mother tongue, 11, 37 multicultural education, 4, 6, 16, 21, 95 multilingual respondents, 65 multilingual signs, 11, 66, 69, 79, 130, 141 multilingualism, 19, 23, 48, 49, 59, 63, 128, 129 N National Curriculum, 4, 7, 40 non-standard London English dialect, 28 O opinion polls, 117 over-estimates, 32 P Panjabi, 33, 38, 39 participant observation, 47, 51, 76, 90, 105, 126 Patois, 65, 71, 126, 131 peer pressure, 32, 35 Peterborough, 30 plurilingualism, 19 Polish, 33 Portuguese, 33 problem solving model, 111-113 public opinion, 127 Punjabi, 66 R racism, 17, 33, 134, 147 Research Development and Diffusion model (RD & D model), 109, 112, 113, 120, 121 reading and writing, 27 recruitment, 67 reflexivity, 2, 106, 112 reshaping effects, 102, 103, 123, 141 resistance, 87, 91, 92, 96, 102, 103, 112, 120, 122, 123, 133, 139-141 Rosen, H. and Burgess, T., 1, 6, 20, 25, 30, 36, 73, 82, 103, 109-111, 114, 118, 119, 125-130, 133, 142-144 Royal Society of Arts, 67 S sampling strategy, 34

< previous page

page_164

next page >

< previous page

page_165

next page > Page 165

Secondary Pupils Survey, 132 self reports, 34, 35, 125 semilingualism, 15, 40, 103 setting, 137 shaping effects, 102, 123, 140 sharing language diversity in the classroom, 68 Sindhi, 25 Singapore, 37 social interaction model, 109, 110, 111, 113 South East London College, 42, 43 Spanish, 66, 70 spiral of debate model, 107, 122, 135, 138, 141 spiral of silence, 113, 116-118, 120, 122, 124, 137 standard English, 3, 6, 7, 13, 20, 73, 85, 134 standard form, 38 standard of the language spoken, 36 student centred learning, 81 student feedback, 80 survey effects, see effects Survey of Linguistic Diversity in London Schools, 25, 142 Swann Report, 40 Sylheti, 38 T teachers, 31, 35 teachers' notes, 48, 129 terminology, 18 theory generation, 2, 95 tokenism, 5, 6, 41, 88 triangulation, 76, 80, 83, 84, 90, 106 Turkish, 33 U Ukrainian, 33 under-reporting, 28, 29, 34, 40, 46, 62, 64, 87, 88, 126, 127, 134, 143 Urdu, 38, 39, 66, 70 V ventilation, 51, 98, 101-103, 112, 119-123, 138, 139, 141, 145 vernacular, 38 W Waltham Forest, 30 Welsh, 25 West Indian dialect, see Creoles Westminster College, 42, 43 withdrawal, 5, 9, 72

withholding of information, 136 Woolwich College, 42, 43, 53

< previous page

page_165

next page >