Introduction
This module aims to understand the relationship between linguistic (in)equality and social and educational justice. After explaining the meaning of the three basic concepts (linguistic equality, social justice, educational justice) and their relationships, this module analyses practical classroom situations of social and school justice and injustice created by linguistic inequalities. Finally, the module proposes the analysis of school intervention proposals designed to reduce injustices caused by and/or justified on the basis of linguistic criteria.
After completion of this module, the student will be able to:
- define and explain in a critical and reflective way, the concepts of linguistic equality, social justice, and educational justice;
- critically analyse concrete classroom situations and educational contexts in which linguistic inequality has caused school and social injustices;
- develop knowledge on forms of resistance against linguistic injustices at school and in the classroom, namely culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogies.
This module is aimed at all education professionals at all levels, especially those who deal with plurilingual children whose languages do not coincide with those used daily in school. It can also be a relevant module for future teachers, both in language and other subject areas.
- Definition and explanation of the key concepts of the module: what do we mean by the concepts we use?
- Reflective analysis of concrete situations of linguistic (in)equality and their impact on education: what are the real effects of linguistic (in)equality?
- Concrete culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogies for (future) teachers and educators: what can we do?
8 hours
In this module, you will be confronted with a variety of resources, from vignettes with classroom observations, videos, specific literature, and cartoons/caricatures.
- Lisa Marie Brinkmann
- Franziska Gerwers
- Neli Heidari
- Sílvia Melo-Pfeifer
- Sandra Sprenger
Unit 1: What is linguistic equality?
Linguistic equality is also addressed in terms such as linguistic justice and linguistic rights (Piller, 2016; Skutnab-Kangas & Phillipson, 1995). It defends that all languages and their speakers should be treated with equal respect, dignity, and value within a given society or context. Among other principles, it states that no language should be discriminated against or marginalised and that speakers of different languages should have equal access to opportunities (for example in the labour market), services (such as education), and resources. Promoting linguistic equality is therefore of paramount importance for supporting cultural diversity, preventing linguistic discrimination, and ensuring that all members of a society can fully participate in social, economic, and political life, including school.
In the video below, by the scholar Jan Bloomaert, the author explains what linguistic diversity is and how it connects with inequality:
Unit 1.1 Defining and explaining equality and inequality: intersectionality matters!
Intersectionality matters when discussing linguistic inequalities because it acknowledges that individuals’ experiences and challenges are constructed and shaped by the multidetermined interplay of multiple social identities and factors, including gender, race, ethnicity, class, and more.
See how K. Crenshaw, the scholar who introduced the term “intersectionality” as a metaphor, defines it:
Based on the video above, we can conclude that intersectionality increases the challenges some people and groups face due to language-related discrimination or disparities.We now present three examples of intersectionality related to linguistic inequalities:
- Case one: a woman from a linguistic and ethnic minority faces different challenges than a linguistic minority man, because linguistic inequalities intersect with other forms of discrimination and disadvantage, such as gender.
- Case two: a person from racial or ethnic minority speaking a minority language faces “cumulative discrimination” (Piller, 2016): this discrimination crisscrosses language and race, creating diverse (and even more severe!) challenges.
- Case three: a hard-of-hearing child can suffer discrimination by not having specific support in sign languages at school or specific tuition in this particular L1. In this case, linguistic discrimination is coupled with ableism.
These three cases show that incorporating an intersectional perspective in the analysis of linguistic inequalities, including issues of gender (case 1), racial and ethnic background (case two) and ableism (case three), can provide us with a more complex and complete understanding of linguistic discrimination issues. If we consider how linguistic inequalities intersect with other aspects of identity (such as ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, etc), we can develop more inclusive and equitable strategies to promote linguistic justice and address the specific needs of individuals who suffer from multiple forms of discrimination.
Unit 1.2 You know linguistic inequality is happening when…
Picture 1.2.1 An example of LL in Germany (picture by Silvia Melo-Pfeifer).
This sign in five languages accompanies a video surveillance camera in a commercial area of the city. The sign is intended as a warning that abnormal occurrences will be recorded, with the sign having a regulatory value for social order. The languages selected were German, prominently displayed in a larger font and in first place, followed by English (British flag), French (French flag), Russian (Russian flag) and Arabic, represented by a flag from Saudi Arabia. While German, as a national and majority language, is an understandable choice, along with English as an international lingua franca, the other three options are more problematic. One can argue that French and Russian are languages learnt at school in Germany (with Russian being very residual) and the choice of Saudi Arabia is simply puzzling.
Let’s now consider the following situation, reported by Baugh (2017), describing how linguistic discrimination is used to limit access to housing because of accent. In this specific case, linguistic discrimination is not based on written signs in public spaces, but in perceived accent perception, affecting specific individuals:
“Despite the existence of diverse forms of discrimination based on language usage, and their long-standing continuations, the most common forms of linguistic profiling typically occur when someone who is offering goods or services receives a telephone call from an unknown person whom they deem unworthy (…). Linguistic profiling was detected during many of these telephone calls when minority callers, who were usually African Americans or Latinos, were told that the apartment they were seeking was not available, yet white callers requesting the availability of the very same apartment were subsequently told that the unit was available for rent. (…) Advocates for fair housing were able to demonstrate that some unscrupulous renters were actively engaged in discriminatory behaviour, despite the fact that they had never seen the prospective tenant in person” (Baugh, 2017, p. 350).
The situation describes an issue known as linguistic profiling, i.e., a form of discrimination based on (perceived) language use. Baugh describes a situation od discrimination in the housing market, especially when individuals inquire about apartments orally, over the phone, making the accent particularly salient. He emphasizes the need for continued efforts to raise awareness, advocate for fair housing, and enact policies that address and eliminate such discriminatory practices based on accentism (see definition later in this section). This could be an issue for social activism related to multilingualism.
Another occurrence of language-based discrimination is displayed in picture 1.2.2., a job advertisement:
Picture 1.2.2. Job advertisement (https://awocspace.com/blog/why-native-english-speakers-only-is-an-act-of-covert-racism).
As explained in the article above, the native-speaker criterion “is discrimination because many non-native speakers can and do master the English language just as well as, or even better than, native speakers. To deny someone an opportunity because they do not come from a preferred location or household where a language is spoken is discrimination. And discrimination is a large part of both covert and overt racism” (Shaikh, 2022). This job advertisement overtly prefers candidates from countries where English is the first language (attached indirectly to whiteness). And this despite the fact that scholars have been proving that being a native speaker says nothing about pedagogical and teaching abilities or even linguistic abilities (Kramsch, 1997). According to the author, this is an instance of covert racism, a form of racism that might not be challenged and even considered acceptable, because it is based on mainstream ideologies about languages and language ownership.
This form of linguistic inequality, which is not exclusive to English nativespeakers, is called “nativespeakerism”. Nativespeakerism refers to a form of discrimination, prejudice, or bias that favors native speakers of a language over non-native speakers, particularly in English language teaching and related employment contexts (Holliday, 2015). Check the following video if you need more information on nativespeakerism, mainly when attached to language and teacher education and professionalism:
Other particular aspects of linguistic inequality include:
- accentism – a form of discrimination or bias based on a person’s accent or the way they speak. It involves making judgments, assumptions, or negative evaluations about individuals or groups of people solely because of the way they pronounce words or the regional, foreign, or non-native accent they may have when speaking a particular language. It can lead to “accent bullying” (Dochin, 2023; also Dryden, Wang & Dovchin, forthcoming).
- linguistic racism – a form of discrimination or bias based on a person’s language or linguistic background. It involves making prejudiced judgments, assumptions, or negative evaluations about individuals or groups of people solely because of the language they speak, their accent, dialect, or linguistic heritage (Flores & Rosa, 2015). Linguistic racism often intersects with other forms of discrimination, such as racial or ethnic discrimination, as it is closely tied to one’s cultural and linguistic background (see 1.1).
- ageism – the World Health Organisation defines ageism as “ the stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel) and discrimination (how we act) towards others or oneself based on age”. It can target elderly as well as youth. For example, ageism may affect older individuals seeking language education. They might face discrimination or stereotyping that assumes they are less capable of learning a new language. This can hinder their access to language education opportunities and contribute to linguistic inequalities. According to the same agency, ageism is everywhere and can affect everybody: “from our institutions and relationships to ourselves. For example, ageism is in policies that support healthcare rationing by age [as reported practices related to selection of who was entitled to receive Covid treatment, during the pandemic, our adding], practices that limit younger people’s opportunities to contribute to decision-making in the workplace, patronizing behavior used in interactions with older and younger people, and in self-limiting behavior, which can stem from internalized stereotypes about what a person of a given age can be or do”.
As we saw, linguistic discriminatory practices based on linguistic prejudices include language-based employment discrimination, unequal access to public services, schooling, and housing, or negative stereotypes about certain languages or language communities, displayed in public spaces. It has a direct impact on income, education, employment opportunities, and housing based on language. In extreme cases, it can additionally negatively impact individuals’ own security and well-being. Identifying linguistic inequality is thus an ongoing process requiring a multifaceted approach, including direct observation of linguistic choices in public spaces (such as the linguistic landscapes), big data analysis, (educational) policy examinations, and community engagement. It is important to recognise that linguistic inequality can be both overt (explicit) and subtle (implicit or covert), and it often intersects with other forms of discrimination, as we saw in 1.1).
Unit 1 Self-Assessment
Unit 2: What is social and educational justice and how do they relate to linguistic inequalities?
In Unit 1, we presented the definition of linguistic inequalities and how it is visible and constructed in different contexts. In this unit, we aim to understand how promoting linguistic equalities positively impacts social and educational justice. We will particularly acknowledge how the prevalent monolingual mindset in education, a particular form of linguistic inequality in the school context, might be detrimental to social and educational justice.
Unit 2.1 Defining and explaining social and educational justice
Social justice is one of these concepts being used in different contexts but rarely defined thoroughly or even consistently. Kalaja and Melo-Pfeifer (forthcoming) acknowledge that “it is not easy to find a straightforward definition of social justice, and it is perhaps even harder to find definitions that bring issues of social justice and language diversity together”. Piller explains that discourses on social injustice are about “disadvantage and discrimination related to gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and age. It is extremely rare for “language” to feature as a basis on which individuals, communities, or nations may be excluded” (2016, p. 5). Social justice, seen both as an objective and an ongoing effort, has been linked to achieving equal participation in various aspects of society, including cultural, economic, and political realms. This encompasses the recognition of diverse cultures, fair distribution of economic resources, and proper representation in political systems, as outlined by Fraser (1995).
To understand the variety of definitions of social justice, take a look at the following video:
To promote social justice in education, or educational justice, it’s important to fully recognise the diverse linguistic and communicative abilities of both students and teachers. This recognition may encompass the uniqueness and diversity of their linguistic and semiotic skills, as well as their potential for creative expression. It’s important to acknowledge that not all individuals have the same physical or linguistic capabilities for communication, at the same time. Some students are “emergent bilinguals”, in the process of developing their language skills in the language of instruction, while others might be working to maintain their native language(s). Others may face challenges in listening, while others might have visual or mobility special needs. To address these variations in linguistic and cultural repertoires within the classroom, several authors have advocated for the development of teaching practices that are responsive to linguistic and cultural differences. These practices would aim to recognise, validate, and leverage the diverse skills and backgrounds that students bring to the classroom, including those inherited from their families. Such inclusive practices should be applicable not only to language-related subjects (such as the traditional modern language school subjects) but also to subjects traditionally considered “non-linguistic” (such as mathematics and other school subjects).
To wrap up, this subsection shows that advancing social justice in education is based on embracing linguistic and cultural diversity, accommodating differences in communication abilities, and implementing teaching strategies that empower all students (and teachers), regardless of their linguistic or cultural backgrounds. Those strategies answer the call for linguistic and culturally responsive practices (Herrera, 2026; see 4.1 for more information on these practices).
Unit 2.2 The monolingual mindset in education
The monolingual mindset in education is known in the German context under the concept “monolingual habitus” (Gogolin, 1994). It refers to the fact that despite the school setting being recognised as a context where students from very different linguistic backgrounds meet and use different resources to communicate, its structural organisation (and the transition from one school level to the next), pedagogical traditions, interaction formats and evaluation culture remain monolingual and based on monolingual practices.
In terms of linguistic (in)justice, the monolingual mindset in institutional settings potentially limits the opportunities for students to develop proficiency in their home languages or maintain a strong identity connection to their cultural heritage. Additionally, it potentially limits students’ ability to express their full content expertise in different school subjects and their ability to use all their full linguistic repertoires to learn, leading to cognitive injustice. Cognitive injustice lies on the premise that languages are not just an instrument to apprehend knowledge, but an instrument of (co)creating and transferring it to new situations. Cognitive injustice linked to linguistic inequality at school happens when students are deprived of their linguistic resources to understand, create and transfer meaning in different school subjects.
Unit 2.3 The monolingual mindset in education and cognitive injustice
As seen in previous sections, linguistic inequality and the prevalent monolingual mindset in education can negatively impact cognitive justice and impact the individuals through their lifetime. Cognitive justice, as the counterpart of “cognitive injustice” presented in the previous section, refers to the fair and equitable distribution of opportunities and resources for cognitive development, including the right to quality education and the ability to develop one’s intellectual capabilities. Linguistic inequalities, on the contrary, can limit access to quality education for individuals who speak non-dominant languages, varieties or dialects, which is potentially more pernicious within an intersectional framework (see 1.1). Furthermore, when education is delivered in a language that is not the students’ L1, it can create a barrier to learning, leading to cognitive injustices. Students may struggle to understand and engage with the curriculum due to language-related challenges. Also important: education that does not incorporate the linguistic and cultural diversity of students and of their communities may be (perceived as) less relevant and engaging, hindering cognitive development. It may fail to connect with students’ and communities’ experiences and perspectives, leading to student’s alienation and to loss of community funds of knowledge.
Addressing the monolingual habitus of multilingual schools (to paraphrase Gogolin, 1994) involves recognizing and valuing linguistic and cultural diversity, implementing inclusive language policies, and providing support for students to develop proficiency in multiple languages, including their heritage language(s), the language(s) of schooling and the modern language(s) present in the school curriculum. This might include cooperating more closely with families, like bringing them to the classroom, acknowledging their funds of linguistic, cultural and epistemic knowledge, and engaging in activism and social action to support newly arrived families.
A monolingual mindset prioritises or idealises the use of a single dominant language while disregarding or devaluing other languages (see 2.2), which significantly influences cognitive injustice by perpetuating the linguistic and cultural privilege of majority languages’ speakers. Students coping with linguistic issues might face issues participating in group discussions in the classroom, filling forms and answering the questions in a test (even if they know the content!), to give but three examples. In the domain of knowledge creation, that monolingual mindset can lead to a homogenisation of thought and ideas (epistemic reduction), as it prioritises a single language and perspective. This might limit the potential for cognitive diversity and innovative thinking that is allowed by the confrontation of different languages, concepts, epistemological traditions, and academic cultures (Berthoud & Gajo, 2020).
Languages are not simply tools for passing on knowledge, but resources for structuring thought. In this sense, not supporting the use of different languages in the classroom, censoring the use of students’ languages, silencing students who speak different L1s, or trying to prevent access to knowledge produced in different languages are ways of promoting cognitive injustice. Other forms of cognitive injustice include assessing newcomers exclusively in the language of the school, not giving them the opportunity to demonstrate the knowledge and skills they have acquired in their previous school trajectories (Melo-Pfeifer & Ollivier, 2023). Some ways to counter these injustices are presented and discussed in Unit 4.
Unit 2 Self-Assessment
Unit 3: How do linguistic inequalities reflect in educational practices? Some case studies
We already mentioned that, in order to counter linguistic inequalities and injustices in education, linguistic and culturally responsive practices could be adopted. But what do these practices refer to? According to Herrera, such practices “place the biographies of their students at the center” (2016, p. 1). By adopting such practices, teachers “are able to use students’ knowledge, skills, and words as entry points to learning” (idem). Nevertheless, linguistic inequalities are reflected not only in the classroom, because of the practices adopted by teachers, but are also reflected at the institutional level. In this section, we present and discuss instances of linguistic inequalities as they are present at the macro, meso and micro level of schools.
Unit 3.1 Case study 1 (macro level: institutional discrimination in the school system: focus on transitions)
Linguistic inequalities can manifest and evolve during transitions between educational contexts, such as the transition from primary to secondary school. Several factors contribute to these inequalities, impacting students’ language experiences and shaping their educational trajectories. For example, in Germany, it has been shown that children speaking German as a second language are more often sent to generalistic schools leading to professional education (“Stadtteilschule”) instead of to academic careers (“Gymnasium”). Picture 3.1.1 shows the disparities of children with (“mit Migrationshintergrund”) and without a migrant background (“ohne Migrationshintergrund”) in schools in Hamburg, a German city:
Picture 3.1.1. Comparing the presence of children with and without a migrant background in schools in Hamburg.
This issue has been called “institutional discrimination” based on language. Mechthild Gomolla (2008) explains the concept of institutional discrimination and how this affects transition recommendations at transition thresholds in the school system. With a particular focus on the UK, she shows how selection is exacerbated by the trend towards autonomisation and the introduction of market principles:
Unit 3.2 Case study 2 (meso level: evaluation of content knowledge in specific school subjects)
If we agree that students should be accepted in their linguistic diversity and acknowledged by their fluid linguistic practices, then monolingual assessment is not coherent with a multilingual approach to education (Melo-Pfeifer & Ollivier, 2023). From this perspective, multilingual assessment practices are better able to mirror the linguistic reality of an interconnected world where individuals often navigate and use multiple languages in various contexts (see sub-unit 4.6).
Analyse the pedagogical proposal of the BINOGI platform and try to understand how it might help overcome the monolingual bias in assessment.
Multilingual assessment practices ensure that evaluation in schools aligns with the linguistic diversity of students, fostering inclusivity, equity, cognitive justice, and the development of valuable language and subject skills for real-world contexts. It promotes a positive and empowering approach to (language and content) learning and assessment. This is possible through BINOGI because the App allows the students to get familiar with the context in different languages, translanguage at written and oral contact with the academic content, and engage in self-assessment through the use of the language they feel more familiar with.
Unit 3.3 Case study 3 (micro/meso level: introducing linguistic and cultural diversity in the classroom)
Including linguistic diversity in the classroom is not just important to build up a fairer learning environment. In the video below, students and teachers reflect on how the integration of tasks related to linguistic and cultural diversity in the classroom offers numerous added values that contribute to a rich and inclusive educational environment, while at the same time opening children’s minds about other languages and ways of life:
From the video below, the following benefits from integrating linguistic and cultural diversity in education can be inferred:
- exposure to diverse languages and cultures enhances the overall learning experience, providing students with a broader and more comprehensive education.
- students develop global competence by engaging with different languages and cultures, preparing them to navigate an interconnected and multicultural world.
- Interacting with peers from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds fosters children’s awareness of different viewpoints and their curiosity towards Otherness.
- exposure to diverse languages and cultures leads children to develop their own language projects related to language learning.
- students develop critical language awareness, leading them to relativise the global hegemony of English and understande the values attached to learning other languages.
- Students are educated to advocate for linguistic and cultural diversity.
Unit 3 Self-Assessment
Unit 4: Linguistically and culturally responsive practices and why they matter: becoming a language activist at school
In a world characterised by increasing cultural diversity and interconnectedness, the importance of fostering linguistic and cultural responsiveness within educational settings cannot be overstated. This unit aims to explore the significance of adopting practices that recognise, respect, and celebrate linguistic and cultural diversity in schools. Moreover, it encourages you to become a proactive language activist within your educational community.
Unit 4.1 What are linguistically and culturally responsive practices at school?
In this sub-unit, linguistically and culturally responsive practices in the curriculum and in the classroom are presented. Linguistically and culturally responsive practices in schools aim to promote the inclusion and achievement of students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds and avoid disadvantages. The associated approaches recognise and respect the different languages, cultures and identities represented in the school community. In order to implement linguistically and culturally responsive practices, they should be implemented in the school at the three different dimensions distinguished by Keeves (1997): the prescribed, implemented and learned curriculum (infographic 4.1.1).
Infographic 4.1.1. Linguistically and culturally responsive practices in different dimensions of the curriculum (Own illustration based on Keeves 1992)
Prescribed curriculum: A culturally inclusive curriculum (in the national curriculum or in the school’s internal curriculum) should be developed that takes into account the linguistic and cultural diversity of students´ backgrounds. This includes the integration of different languages and cultural elements into the compulsory curriculum of different subjects.
Implemented curriculum: When planning and conducting lessons, the teacher should use inclusive materials and consider the following aspects (specific examples are given in Unit 4.2):
- Speaking multiple languages in the classroom: possible examples include welcoming in all languages of the children in the class or singing songs in other languages. Knowledge of the first language should be incorporated into lessons in a meaningful way.
- Using textbooks, teaching materials and resources that are linguistically culturally relevant and inclusive. This can be done, for example, through the use of multilingual picture books, children’s books and school books. Texts (e.g. stories or fairy tales) in other languages can also be introduced into lessons.
- Reflect stereotypes.
- Involvement of families: Promoting communication and exchange between the school and the students’ families. This helps to build trust and understanding between all parties.
- Identity affirmation: Designing a learning environment where students can express their cultural identities. This may include discussing or celebrating cultural holidays and events. Students should be encouraged to share their traditions and experiences.
Learned Curriculum: Use assessment methods in evaluating student achievement that take into account the diverse backgrounds of students. Avoiding assessments that may disadvantage certain groups of students.
Unit 4.2 Acknowledging and capitalising on linguistic and cultural diversity across the curriculum
The integration of linguistic diversity into the language curriculum not only contributes to education but also leads to an appreciation of cultural diversity and strengthens intercultural understanding through intercultural learning (Barrett, 2018). In addition to the development of multilingualism in the language subjects, cultural perspectives can be addressed in other subjects (e.g. geography, history, music, natural sciences, religion). Possible examples of this are
- Literature from different cultures: in literature lessons or literature courses, stories and narratives from different cultures could be included in the curriculum. Students could read these stories, analyse them and see the diversity of cultural backgrounds.
- Global perspectives in geography and science: In geography and science lessons, global challenges (Fensham 2012) such as environmental protection, climate change and sustainability (Yaar-Waisel et al. 2023) can be addressed and considered from the perspective of different cultures and countries. Unit 4.3 provides an example of this.
- Music from different cultures: Various global instruments and songs can be used in the music curriculum.
Infographic 4.2.1: Linguistically and culturally responsive diversity across the curriculum
The above examples should serve as inspiration. The following is a task that involves analyzing existing curricula in individual countries (see Infographic 4.2.1.).
✎ Task 4.2.1: Analysing and reflecting diversity across the curriculum
If you want to connect what you have just learnt to your specific context, you can examine the curriculum of your respective subject and type of school (e.g. foreign language teaching, geography or sciences).
- To what extent do diversity topics appear there and how are they presented? In this way, determine the contribution of your own subject.
- Which topics (e.g. climate change, migration, global food security) are these linked to?
- What development options for the further development of a diversity-sensitive curriculum arise from your perspective for your subject and your type of school?
4.3 Promoting the development of plurilingual and intercultural competence in the language classroom
In the following section, there are three suggestions on how to use linguistic and cultural diversity in the classroom. These are to be understood as small learning modules that can be used flexibly. Depending on the type of school (e.g. elementary school or secondary school), they can be varied in complexity.
Learning modules 1: Noticing languages in the classroom and making them visible
Title:
Noticing languages in the classroom and making them visible
Aim and description:
The different languages spoken in the classroom can be collected on a digital world map. Thus, linguistic and spatial diversity are closely linked and displayed on the interactive map. To enable an understanding for this diversity, the same sentence can be used in different languages. In the example shown, this is: “Hello, I’m Charlotte from Hamburg. At home we speak German and French, as my mother comes from France. I speak both languages” The pin can either be placed at a location on the map or you can mark possible locations and countries where the language is spoken (see example). If a child is bilingual or multilingual, it can set several pins, e.g. in the same color. Through the connection to the name, linguistic as well as spatial background, the diversity within a classroom becomes evident on the interactive map.Padlet is recommended for beginners, as the map program is very easy to use. A coherent coloring scheme contributes to the visual representation of the extent of diversity within a classroom. Alternatively, an analogue world map including pins in different colors can also be used.
Infographic 4.3.1.: Map with different languages spoken in a classroom
Working form:
The map can be developed collaboratively in real time in the classroom by sharing the link or QR code. However, this requires the presence of digital devices. Alternatively, this can also be done as homework.
Time:
20 Minutes, homework is also possible
✎ Task 4.3.1: Noticing languages in the environment: Create a digital map with one of the tools mentioned and make the languages visible in your environment (family, friends) to familiarise yourself with the way you work.
Learning modules 2: Show me your breakfast
Title:
Show me your breakfast
Aim and description:
With a digital survey and/or on a map, individual consumption and waste habits are identified, reflected and visualised: The region/city of the relevant location where the photo was taken (in the example, breakfast) is marked on a map and the photo is inserted. In this way, the consumption habits of students or people with different cultural backgrounds are collected. A spatial representation of cultural consumption habits provides the basis for discourse. Viewers can then look at the results as part of the lesson, learn to understand them and critically reflect on their own consumption habits.
Infographic 4.3.2.: Example of breakfast (in Germany)
Working form:
The different breakfasts are best collected individually in advance of a lesson as homework.
Time:
1 hour, collection of photos in advance
Learning modules 3: Water – from an intercultural perspective
Title:
Water – from an intercultural perspective
Aim and description:
Collaborative methods give students the opportunity to learn from others about the water situation in their respective countries and cultures, the challenges they face and the solutions that exist. As an example, the illustration shows the different reactions of the students to rain. While student A did not appreciate it and preferred to stay at home, others (student C from a region with less water) welcomed it with enthusiasm or were neutral about it (student B). This easily accessible topic sparks an intercultural exchange and fosters a more profound understanding regarding various cultural perceptions of rain based on its prevalence. The online seminar can be held as part of a regular face-to-face course and in working group activities.
Infographic 4.3.3.: Variation in the perception of rain by students from different cultural backgrounds
Working form:
Collaborative work with students from schools in different cultural backgrounds
Time:
1 hour preparation of local group, 1 hour asynchronous or synchronous of presentation, 1 hour of reflection
Related Publication:
Yaar-Waisel, T., Sprenger, S., & Leininger-Frézal, C. (2023). Education for Sustainable Development in Teacher Training Through Multinational Cooperation: Goals, Opportunities, and Challenges. In A. Klonari, M. L. De Lázaro y Torres, & A. Kizos (Eds.), Re-visioning Geography: Supporting the SDGs in the post-COVID era (pp. 75-92). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40747-5_5.
4.4 Translanguaging as a pedagogy across the curriculum
Translanguaging, according to Vogel & García (2027), is a “theoretical lens that offers a different view of bilingualism and multilingualism. The theory posits that rather than possessing two or more autonomous language systems, as has been traditionally thought, bilinguals, multilinguals, and indeed, all users of language, select and deploy particular features from a unitary linguistic repertoire to make meaning and to negotiate particular communicative contexts. Translanguaging also represents an approach to language pedagogy that affirms and leverages students’ diverse and dynamic language practices in teaching and learning”. Check the video where Ofelia Garcia answers Prof. Lysings’s questions on translanguaging:
Translanguaging can be understood as a theory of language and a framework to actively build on students’ repertoires in the classroom, to learn languages or other school subjects. Cenoz and Gorter (2021) define this second strand as “pedagogical translanguaging”, meaning “a theoretical and instructional approach that aims at improving language and content competences in school contexts by using resources from the learner’s whole linguistic repertoire. Pedagogical translanguaging is about activating multilingual speakers’ resources so as to expand language and content learning” (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021, p. 1).
There are already several resources on translanguaging in the classroom:
- Online guides and resources to support translanguaging pedagogy from the City of New York: New York State Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals.
- Video web series on translanguaging pedagogy: Teaching Bilinguals (Even If You’re Not One)
- The best resources to learn about translanguaging: https://larryferlazzo.edublogs.org/2022/07/17/the-best-resources-for-learning-about-translanguaging/
4.5 Pluralistic approaches across the curriculum
Pluralistic approaches to teaching and learning are based on activities that include several linguistic and cultural varieties. They develop a concrete concept of the multilingual and multicultural competence promoted by the Common European Framework of Reference for languages. As explained on the website of the European project FREPA, “the term “pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures” refers to didactic approaches which use teaching / learning activities involving several (i.e. more than one) varieties of languages or cultures. This is to be contrasted with approaches which could be called “singular” in which the didactic approach takes account of only one language or a particular culture, considered in isolation. Singular approaches of this kind were particularly valued when structural and later “communicative” methods were developed and all translation and all resort to the first language was banished from the teaching process.” (https://carap.ecml.at/Pluralisticapproaches/tabid/2681/language/en-GB/Default.aspx). In the following video, M. Candelier explains the principles related to the pluralistic approaches:
There are four pluralistic approaches for teaching and learning (Candelier et al, 2012):
- Intercomprehension across languages within the same linguistic family, which involves promoting the simultaneous acquisition of multiple languages from the same language group or learning a language based on prior knowledge of another language within that linguistic family, whether it be the individual’s first language or another language acquired through formal or informal means. This inclusive approach is grounded in several key principles: firstly, it recognises the significance of receptive skills in multiple languages as integral components of an individual’s plurilingual competence; secondly, it acknowledges the possibility of separating the teaching and learning of languages from the development of receptive and productive skills; thirdly, it underscores the importance of linguistic similarities as a significant source of transfer when acquiring a new language.
- Integrated language didactics (ILD) refers to the coordinated teaching and learning of languages within the school curriculum, as outlined by Hufeisen in 2018. This approach, at least in theory, aims at minimising redundancies and optimising cognitive synergies in the process of language learning, which is important when considering the limited time allocated in the curriculum for language learning. ILD acknowledges that linguistic resources acquired previously, such as the first language (L1), heritage language(s), and languages learned at school, are valuable spingbords and resources for improving the learning process of additional languages. If a student has already learned the present continuous tense in English (e.g., “I am eating”), the teacher can leverage this knowledge to teach the “Presente Continuo” in Spanish (e.g., “[Yo] estoy comiendo”). This approach recognises the interconnectedness of language learning and allows for the crosslinguistic transfer, facilitating a more efficient language learning process.
- Éveil aux langues is a French term that can be translated to “Awakening to Languages”. It usually refers to activities that introduce young learners to multiple languages (including writing systems) and promote an early interest in linguistic and cultural diversity. This approach aims at creating a learning environment where children are exposed to different languages in a positive, emotional, and engaging way. «Eveil aux Langues” fosters an early curiosity about languages, laying propaedeutic foundations for language learning, and promoting a positive attitude towards linguistic diversity from early years on. The activities proposed to young learners include games, songs, stories, and interactive experiences involving exposure to and exploration of various languages, dialects, registers and varieties.
- Intercultural approaches view cultures as hybrid, dynamic, multilayered, and intersectional (Byram, 1997). This perspective rejects the notion of a monolithic cultural identity and underscores the intricate interplay of socialisation influences shaping individuals. In terms of pedagogical practices, educators design and implement activities such as discussions on critical incidents with cultural dimensions, exercises prompting students to adopt alternative viewpoints, and exposure to authentic documents from diverse contextual origins. Through such activities, students engage with the complexities of cultural diversity, challenging (usually binary) assumptions, and cultivating empathy. Moreover, experiential learning opportunities, incorporating global and local cultural elements, contribute to a lifelong learning perspective, preparing students to navigate cultural (hyper)diversity with curiosity, respect, and flexibility. Engaging in experiential learning (as also promoted by the BOLD project), prompts students to reflect on their assumptions and contributes to a collaborative learning environment.
On the website of the Council of Europe about pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures, you will find resources to explore pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures in the classroom:
4.6 The need to develop plurilingual assessment formats in education
Plurilingual assessment practices are complex to define and probably not always easy to identify/observe. They encompass evaluation methods and strategies that recognise, accommodate, and make active use of students’ multilingual repertoires in assessment. Plurilingual assessment is thus closely aligned with the principles of plurilingual education, which emphasises the development of proficiency in multiple languages and the acknowledgement of the interconnectedness of language and culture. While plurilingual education principles and strategies have been already covered by the literature and are already more or less present in teaching practices (at least in some contexts and to some extent), evaluation tends to be considered the last bastion of monolingual practices in (language) education.
Developing plurilingual assessment formats is justified by the need to create assessments that authentically reflect the linguistic diversity of learners and promote (cognitively) inclusive practices (Melo-Pfeifer & Ollivier, 2024). Assessment practices resorting to multiple languages not only align with educational goals but also contribute to the development of intercultural competence, fostering respect and openness to linguistic diversity in all domains of education. Recognising that linguistic diversity and the plurality of students’ linguistic repertoires can have an impact on assessment and, subsequently, on the way they are sent to different types of schools with different professional and academic outlets (review “Unit 3.1 Case study 1”, previously), is a way of promoting more justice in education.
Plurilingual assessment practices might include the following aspects (Melo-Pfeifer & Ollivier, 2024):
- A student may be assessed in their first language, a second language learned in school, and possibly a heritage language.
- An assessment may allow students to choose the language in which they feel most comfortable expressing their understanding of a concept.
- Instead of only written exams, assessments may include tasks like oral presentations, interviews, or projects that reflect real-world language applications.
- A student may choose to answer comprehension questions in an exam in either their first language or a language they are currently studying.
- A student might translanguage between languages to express ideas more precisely in a writing assignment.
- A student can produce a portfolio, including essays, projects, and presentations in various languages, providing a comprehensive view of his linguistic abilities and specific content understanding.
Unit 4 Self-Assessment
Unit 5: Conclusion
The module “Linguistic equality as a basis for social and educational justice” has provided clues to teachers and educators to understand the relationship between linguistic (in)equalities and social and educational justice, using an intersectionality lens. The presentation and discussion of relevant concepts such as linguistic equality, social justice, and educational justice, helps us gain a nuanced and complex understanding of how these elements intersect and influence daily life in educational settings.
Our module extended beyond theoretical frameworks to identify real-world manifestations (and possible cases) of social and educational justice. It also included the analysis of practical educational situations and scenarios, which addressed the complex interplay between language, (cognitive) justice, and educational experiences. By doing this, the module has not only identified challenges but has also proposed forward-looking perspectives to overcome linguistic injustice in education. These include proposals around linguistic and culturally responsive teaching practices, (pedagogical) translanguaging, and pluralistic approaches to teaching and learning (intercomprehension, éveil aux languages, integrated language didactics, and intercultural education). Taken together, they aim to address and reduce injustices rooted in constructed linguistic criteria and deficit-oriented perspectives about multilinguals students’ linguistic and subject-specific competences.
As we conclude this module, we invite reflection on the role each participant – teachers, teacher educators, parents, communities and civil society, and students – can play in promoting linguistic equality, social justice, and educational justice within their own (educational) contexts. By considering the proposed pedagogical concepts and practices, we hope to contribute to the creation of more inclusive and just educational spaces for all learners, inside and beyond the school walls. Service learning, as promoted by the BOLD project, might be a context to explore such concepts and practices.
Thank you for having taken this module! Other BOLD modules are available 🙂
References
Barrett, M. (2018) How schools can promote the intercultural competence of young people. Eur Psychol 23(1):93–104. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000308
Baugh, J. (2017). Linguistic profiling and discrimination. In O. García, N. Flores & M. Spotti (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 349-367.
Berthoud, A.-C. & Gajo, L. (2020). The Multilingual Challenge for the Construction and Transmission of Scientific Knowledge. John Benjamins.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
Candelier, M., Camilleri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V., de Pietro, J.-F., Lörincz, I., Meißner, F.-J., Schröder-Sura, A., Noguerol, A., & Molinié, M. (2012).Le CARAP – Un Cadre de Référence pour les Approches plurielles des langues et des cultures – Compétences et ressources. Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe. Available at http://carap.ecml.at/ (accessed 28/2/2021).
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press.
Dovchin, S. (2023). Translingual discrimination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryden, S.; Wang, M., & Dovchin, S. (forthcoming). Accentism. In J. Setter, S. Dovchin & V. Ramjattan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Prejudice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fensham PJ (2012) Preparing citizens for a complex world: the grand challenge of teaching socio-scientific issues in science education. In: Zeyer A, Jyburz-Graber R (eds), Science| environment| health. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London, pp 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-90-481-3949-1
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘post socialist’ age. New Left Review, 212, 68–93.
Gogolin, I. (1994). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.
Gomola, M. (2008). Institutionelle Diskriminierung im Bildungs- und Erziehungssystem: Theorie, Forschungsergebnisse und Handlungsperspektiven. URL: https://heimatkunde.boell.de/de/2008/02/18/institutionelle-diskriminierung-im-bildungs-und-erziehungssystem-theorie
Herrera, S. (2016). Biography-driven culturally responsive teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Holliday, A. (2015). Native Speakerism: Taking the Concept Forward and Achieving Cultural Belief. In A. Swan, P. Aboshiha & A. Holliday (eds.), (En)Countering Native Speakerism: Global Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137463500
Hufeisen, B. (2018). Gesamtsprachencurricula und andere Ansätze und Konzepte sprachen-, fächer- und jahrgangsübergreifender Art. In S. Melo-Pfeifer & D. Reimann (Eds.), Plurale Ansätze im Fremdsprachenunterricht in Deutschland (pp. 227-245). Narr.
Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk, & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge University Press.
Kalaja, P. & Melo-Pfeifer, S. (forthcoming). Being Multilingual and Living Multilingually – Advancing Social Justice Agenda in Applied Language Studies. In P. Kalaja & S. Melo-Pfeifer (eds.). Visualising Language Students and Teachers as Multilinguals: Advancing Social Justice in Education. Multilingual Matters.
Keeves, J. (1992). Methodology and Measurement in International and Educational Surveys. The Hague: IEA
Kramsch, C. (1997). Guest Column: The Privilege of the Nonnative Speaker. PMLA, 112(3), 359–369. http://www.jstor.org/stable/462945
Melo-Pfeifer, S., & Ollivier, Ch. (Eds.) (2024). Assessment of plurilingual competence and plurilingual learners in educational settings: Educative issues and empirical approaches. Routledge.
Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice. Oxford.
Shaikh, M. (2022). Why ‘Native English speakers only’ is an act of covert racism. https://awocspace.com/blog/why-native-english-speakers-only-is-an-act-of-covert-racism.
Skutnab-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (eds.). Linguistic Human Rights. Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Vogel, S. & Garcia, O. (2017). Translanguaging. Oxford Research Encyclopedia. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.181.
Yaar-Waisel, T., Sprenger, S., & Leininger-Frézal, C. (2023). Education for Sustainable Development in Teacher Training Through Multinational Cooperation: Goals, Opportunities, and Challenges. In A. Klonari, M. L. De Lázaro y Torres, & A. Kizos (Eds.), Re-visioning Geography: Supporting the SDGs in the post-COVID era (pp. 75-92). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40747-5_5.
Online guides and resources to support translanguaging pedagogy from the City of New York: New York State Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals.
The best resources to learn about translanguaging: https://larryferlazzo.edublogs.org/2022/07/17/the-best-resources-for-learning-about-translanguaging/