The Complexity of International Student Identity

Wei Liu, University of Alberta

Andy Rathbone, University of Alberta

Abstract: Complexity Theory is a revolutionary research paradigm that emphasizes holism, uncertainty and nonlinearity, and de-emphasizes reductionism, predictability and linearity (Grobman, 2005). This critical literature review applies Complexity Theory to the area of student development, arguing that Complexity Theory is a fruitful theoretical lens to examine the complex issue of cross-cultural identity construction of international students. From this theoretical lens, international student identity should be seen as an open system that is fluid and emergent in nature, and educators should contribute to an additive international student identity that embraces multiple languages and cultures. A perpetual state of discomfort due to the development of a narrative identity should be encouraged as a cross-cultural strategy conducive to international students’ continuous learning.

Résumé: La théorie de la complexité a été un paradigme de recherche révolutionnaire qui souligne l’holisme, l’incertitude et la non-linéarité et désaccentue le réductionnisme, la prévisibilité et la linéarité (Grobman, 2005). Cet examen critique de la littérature applique la théorie de la complexité au domaine du développement des étudiants, en faisant valoir que la théorie de la complexité est un point de vue théorique fructueuse pour examiner la question complexe de la construction de l’identité interculturelle des étudiants internationaux (EIs). Dans ce point de vue théorique, l’identité du EI doit être vue comme un système ouvert qui est fluide et de nature émergente, et les éducateurs doivent contribuer à une identité additive de les EI qui englobe plusieurs langues et cultures. Un état d’inconfort perpétuel dû au développement d’une identité narrative doit être encouragé comme une stratégie interculturelle approprié pour l’apprentissage continu des EI.

Keywords: Complexity Theory, international students, identity, narrative identity, care.

Introduction

There were over 5.3 million international students around the world as of 2017, up from 2 million in 2000 (UNESCO, 2020). Away from home, international students face many common challenges, such as language barriers, financial difficulties, cultural adjustment, and an uncertain future (Khanal & Gaulee, 2019). They need to adjust to new social and learning environments that pose difficulties related to different learning expectations, a sense of non-belonging, and even mental health issues (Hale et al., 2020). At a deeper level, the intercultural learning experience of international students is both transitional and transformational, and necessitates identity change to a greater or lesser extent (Gu, et al., 2010). The ability to successfully manage one’s identity reconstruction in the international education context is a necessary cross-cultural competence for international students and scholars (Deardoff, 2006). Helping international students successfully navigate the cross-cultural identity reconstruction process is an important dimension of international student education in host universities and countries.

What is the role of international educators in this regard? What attitudes should educators adopt and what approaches should they take in order to contribute in a constructive way to identity reconstruction for international students? In this critical review paper, we first discuss different definitions of identity in the context of international education from diverse perspectives, which serve to show that cross-cultural identity reconstruction is a potentially challenging and even painful process. We then critique the unidirectional, ethnocentric, and acculturational discourse commonly found in international student education practices as part of a harmful postcolonial paradigm that works to perpetuate the current inequitable world structure. Based on a review of the highly complex nature of international student identity, we endeavor to develop a new philosophy of international student education and development, drawing on insights from Complexity Theory as it relates to narrative identity.

An effective critical review presents, analyses, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature from diverse sources with the goal of generating new knowledge about a topic in the form of a new model, a new framework, or a new perspective (Grant & Bootht, 2009; Torraco, 2005). We cast a wide net in this review of the theoretical literature on identity in the context of international student education by including both older, classical works and more recent publications. The collaboration of an international educator and an educational philosopher with a common interest in Complexity Theory allowed us each to tap relevantly into the literature in our respective fields. Without claiming to aggregate and synthesize all available literature in an explicitly structured way, a critical review focuses on the conceptual values of relevant literature to provide new insights on the chosen topic (Grant & Bootht, 2009). In other words, it is supposed to purposefully and critically select the most relevant works in relation to the topic. We decided to include the works in this study based on their contribution to the construction of the three pillars of Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology as they evolve around Complexity Theory as a new philosophical paradigm for understanding international student identity. Pedagogy is added as a pillar to demonstrate how the new paradigm applies to international student education on the ground. The paper does not claim to be an endpoint in the discussion of the issue of international student identity. Instead, it hopes to start a new phase of conceptual understanding of international student development informed by a radically different philosophical perspective from the dated one still prevalently used today.

Identity Reconstruction For International Students

In the area of student development, identity is often understood as students’ secure and comfortable conception of who they are as autonomous, independent individuals (Checkering, 1969). Words like “autonomous” and “independent” emphasize the agency students have over their own identity choices, agency which is advocated for in this paper. Words like “secure” and “comfortable” signify stagnation in student learning and development, a concept which is questioned in this paper. One’s identity can also be defined as a person’s personally held beliefs about self in relation to social groups and the ways one expresses that relationship (Torres et al., 2009). We prefer this definition, as it does not suggest an end state of “secure and comfortable” self. Instead, defining identity as personal beliefs of self suggests its potentially fluid nature. It also suggests the relational nature of self, including the position of group membership in one’s identity construction.

From a poststructuralist perspective, identity has been seen in the light of “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future” (Norton, 2000, p.5). This definition further strengthens the complex, subjective, fluid, and relational nature of our identity, which resonates strongly with the theme of this paper. From a psychological perspective, identity reconstruction is typically seen as the result of perceived disequilibrium or dissonance between the current self and a possible self (see Marcia, 2002). Environmental changes, such as international traveling and sojourning, create opportunities and conditions for identity reconstruction (see e.g. Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The intercultural learning experience has the potential to bring about profound changes in overseas students’ self-perception, transforming their understanding of the learning experience, self-knowledge, awareness of the other, values, and worldview (Gill, 2007). Cross-cultural identity reconstruction can be said to be an important aspect of intercultural learning for international students as they have to ask deep questions about who they are in new cross-cultural contexts.

The reconstruction of self-identity coincides with a process of leaving the comfortable world of self and encountering and interacting with the cultural other (Gill, 2007), and within such an intersubjective space, it is an imperative for international students to re-examine self in relation to new cultural and social groups (Bruner, 1996). Psychological disequilibrium in cross-cultural identity shift can be understood as the psychological discomfort experienced by people who have moved out of their cultural comfort zone. Such discomfort can be small to some individuals, but can be nerve-breaking to others. As the phrase “culture shock”, a phrase commonly used to characterize the cross-cultural experience, indicates, identity change is a potentially confusing, challenging, and even painful journey—so much so that research from the 1950s to 1980s often saw it as a mental health issue (see Ward et al., 2001). A better understanding of the nature of international student identity change and reconstruction is needed to better assist them in this challenging aspect of their international learning journey.

Acculturation As An Approach To International Student Education

International student mobility is influenced by “push and pull” factors (Altbach, 1998). International students are “pushed” by unfavourable conditions at home, and “pulled” by more favourable conditions host countries offer. As a result, the direction of movement of the world’s international students tends to be away from developing countries towards industrialized western countries (Altbach, 1998). Asian students represent 53% of all international students enrolled worldwide, mostly from China and India; of that, 83% study in G20 countries and 77% in OECD countries (OECD, 2020). Similar to the direction of mobility, the cross-cultural transition of international students has been historically conceptualized as a unidirectional and unidimensional journey. As they acquire the values, beliefs, and cultural behaviors of the host country, they are expected to discard those of their home country (Schwartz et al., 2010). It is this acculturational approach to international student education and development that we take issue with in this paper.

The most dominant paradigm in work with international students today is still an ethnocentric one (Davis, 2011). It positions the host country language and culture as the superior centre, and the acquisition of the host language and culture is believed to hold the potential to elevate international students into first-class world citizenship (Lin & Liu, 2019). Under the influence of this unidimensional discourse,

It is fair to say that the international student education/service in most English-speaking countries still focuses on students’ acculturation, adjustment, adaptation, and integration into the host university, changing their previous habits in learning or living to fit into the new academic environment. (Liu & Lin, 2016, p. 357)

The acculturation perspective reinforces the marginalization of non-western national identities and cultures. The path of international students has been seen as a one-way path. But what alternative theoretical paradigm can take the place of such a postcolonialist stance on international education and better serve the cross-cultural development of international students? This paper is an attempt to address this question.

The complexity of international student identity

In the 1980s, a dual dimensional approach was introduced in cross-cultural research, upon the realization that the newcomers’ acquisition of host country culture does not necessarily require the abandonment of their home culture (Berry, 1980; Schwartz, et.al, 2010). In Berry’s (1980) multicultural model, host culture acquisition and heritage culture retention are seen as two independent dimensions. The two dimensions intersect to create four cross-cultural strategies for new immigrants: assimilation (adopting the receiving culture and discarding the heritage culture), separation (rejecting the receiving culture and retaining the heritage culture), integration (adopting the receiving culture and retaining the heritage culture), and marginalization (rejecting both the heritage and receiving cultures). Of Berry’s four categories, integration is thought to be the most beneficial strategy in securing the newcomers’ social and psychological wellbeing. Though it is an improvement on the unidimensional model, Berry’s dual-dimensional model has been criticized.

One important limitation is that it adopts a “one size fits all” approach, and thus has failed to consider many other contextual factors–such as type of migrant, the countries of origin and settlement, the socioeconomic status and resources, the ethnic group in question—and their fluency in the language of the country of settlement (Rudmin, 2003). Such factors are highly individualized and their combinations are potentially impossible to exhaust in studies that hope to pin down the patterns of change for all international students as a uniform group. Recognizing this complexity, Schwartz et.al (2010) believe that, although it has been clear that something is assumed to change as newcomers adapt to life in the host cultural context, “exactly what that something is has been difficult to pin down” (p. 240). The experience of each newcomer is so diverse and complex that it can be seen as a cross-cultural black box. Any attempt to simplify or reduce such diversity and complexity to a few finite options is futile. Any attempt to conceptualize international student identity development in fixed, linear, and temporal phases (e.g., Eunyoung, 2012) is limiting and potentially harmful. A broader theoretical lens is needed to allow international educators to understand the complexity of the identity development processes of international students.

International student identity as a complex open system: The ontology

To replace the dated acculturational approach to international student identity development, this paper proposes the adoption of Complexity Theory as an alternative philosophical framework on this issue. Complexity Theory is a breakaway from the Newtonian view of the “clockwork universe”, in which the society is seen as a rational, closed, controllable, and deterministic system (Morrison, 2008). Instead, Complexity Theory emphasizes holism, uncertainty, and nonlinearity, and de-emphasizes reductionism, predictability, and linearity (Grobman, 2005). It acknowledges life as a complex system. “Life is complicated. It is simplifying but dangerous to have one overriding concern that makes others unimportant.” (Bateson, 1994, p.106) Complexity Theory embraces the irrational, open, uncontrollable, and fluid nature of the human condition, as “(f)luidity and discontinuity are central to the reality in which we live” (Bateson, 1989, p. 13). The theory sounds complex and even messy, but it is at the same time liberating and empowering, as there are multiple paths for one to follow.

Relating complexity to identity, Hall (1992) believes that there are three competing conceptions of self: the enlightened self, the social self, and the postmodern self. The enlightened self is the innate, core self-identity, which moves along a linear trajectory of development. We can see that the enlightened self does not honour the complex and fluid nature of identity. Different from the enlightened self, the social self is seen as the result of interaction and mediation between self and social context. One’s social self identity is defined by group membership, and positive self-esteem relies on a sense of belonging to a community. The third, postmodern self is an identity that is not fixed but fluid, dynamic, evolving, and performative in nature (Josselson, 1996). The social self and the postmodern self interact to make identity construction a highly complex process. According to Carr (1986),

[…] the social world consists of pre-established social roles and ongoing stories not of my making […]. Human existence is to be understood as a matter of assuming and acting out the parts determined by the already existing repertoire of roles, finding oneself caught up in already ongoing stories—including one’s own life story. (p.84).

One is born into a family and a society not of their choosing. In this sense, one is assigned social roles and a set of social relationships, and there is a certain expectation that one lives up to these roles and maintains these relationships. When students travel to another country to study, they get in touch with new social groups in the host country. In other words, their lives become more intersectional (Dill & Zambrana, 2009), assuming more memberships and playing an increasing number of roles in addition to the roles they have had before. Such increased intersectionality of roles in different cultural settings creates social identity complexity (Roccas & Brewer, 2002), the effect of people holding memberships in multiple social groups whose values are not fully convergent or overlapping. In this sense, social interaction choices are central to the formation of the mind and the self, as “(i)t is through our varying degrees of involvement with different social groups that we are able to carve out a sense of individual identity” (Grimshaw & Sears, 2008, p. 265). One international student from India is quoted by Gu et. al. (2010) as saying,

[…] when you go to another country and study and you meet people from other countries, then it opens up your perspective and you realise that everything in the world is not the same … You are so torn between being yourself and what they want you to do—what others want you to do. (p. 19)

What the student is experiencing here is something we often call an “identity crisis,” and that crisis results from identity options, particularly when there are tensions between these options. We need to stress here the issue of language in the international student identity reconstruction process. In the social turn of second language research (Block, 2003), language learning is seen as a social practice and a socialization process. One who is short of native-like proficiency in the language of the host society, which is often the case for international students, tends to suffer from a “reduced personality” and the identity of “being a half-wit” (Harder, 1980). According to Bourdieu (1977), language has symbolic power, and such power is distributed unevenly. In Liu’s (2014) autobiographical account of his ESL learning experience, he recalls:

The high status of English in China turned into my inner motive to acquire an identity as someone who speaks English well. However, at a more advanced competency level, I experienced a crisis of identity split between my English identity and my native Chinese identity, especially after becoming aware of an unequivocal postcolonial linguistic discourse that positions the two languages differently. (p. 264)

Due to the close connection between national language and national identity, one may experience tension between their native language and the target language they are acquiring, as different languages carry different value systems and representational powers.

The poststructural perspective views identity as a site of struggle influenced by unequal power relations (Norton, 2000). Some identity options are more valued than others in the dominant discourse. For international students, integration by acculturating to the host country standard and speaking the host country language at the level of first language proficiency is often held above all other identity options. However, international students are not totally at the mercy of external structure and conditions. According to Weedon (1987), one has agency to negotiate a relationship with the social community. Similarly, Norton (1997) believes that one can exert agency by making different levels of investment in acquiring a new language and thus the new cultural identity that is tied to the new language. Along the same line of thinking, Ricoeur (1992) suggests that we are like characters in a story, aiming towards a better life through change in words and action. The identity negotiation and reconstruction process is the process of “self-organization” (Montuori, 2003), self-adjusting and evolving in response to disequilibrium presented by changing environments.

There is a tension here between social determinism and human agency. This is the tension between the postcolonial condition that perpetuates unfair power structures and the postmodern condition that supports individual agency in identity choice. The social self and the postmodern self intersect dynamically to make an international student’s identity extremely complex. It is an intercultural imperative to see international student identity in cross-cultural transition as a complex system due to the increased layers of challenges in their experiences, such as cross-cultural transition and second language acquisition. The system is subject to structure-agency dialectic tension and the different levels of involvement with different social groups as a result of exerted self-agency and choice. For complexity theorists, each learner is a non-linear, organic, open, and emergent system that involves constant change, evolution, adaptation, and development. According to Osberg (2005),

[i]f we want to shape human subjectivity in a way that is not linear or deterministic, then we cannot assume we know (once and for all) what or who we are dealing with at the outset, and we cannot have a pre-set goal (an idea of what this person should become) […]. From this perspective, if we try to shape human subjectivity in a predetermined way, we obstruct the emergence of human subjectivity. (p. 82)

One important note we need to add here is that students should have their own personal goals, and educators should play a role in showing them the options and encouraging them to pursue higher ones, but educators are not in a position to impose on their students a goal of their determination, no matter how good the intention is.

International student narratives as identities to live by: The epistemology

If the ontology of international identity is an open, fluid, and complex system that emerges through self-organization and self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2001) in response to dynamic social conditions, how do we go about studying it? Ricoeur (1992) points out that our identity is narrative in nature, and thus our identity is our narrative identity. Ricoeur describes narrative identity as the ability to recognize that our story is changing and that we have some control over that change through our interpretations and actions. Different from the grand narrative (see Lyotard, 1976), which is considered fixed and consistent in nature, Ricoeur’s narrative identity views identity as self-interpretation and stresses “self-hood” over “sameness” within its potential for change. “It is through our own narratives that we principally construct a version of ourselves in the world, and it is through its narrative that a culture provides models of identity and agency to its members” (Bruner, 1996, p. xiv). According to Bruner (2004), our narratives are a continuing interpretation and reinterpretation of our experience. In this sense, identity is a self-constructive entity and should be studied as such.

It is through stories that people create coherence of meaning in life; identity is thus people’s stories to live by (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). As Husserl suggested (in Keybe, 1991), life is linked through a continuous series of temporal pretentions (projections of a future) and retentions (consciousness of the immediate past), which add density and cohesion to the ongoing present. Thus, identity has both the quality of change and continuity, and it connects the past, the present, and the social context into a narrative that makes sense (Josselson, 1996). Ultimately, identity is the result of a personal meaning-making process, and the best way to look into an international students’ identity and its process of transformation is nothing other than sitting down and hearing their stories about their own lives. Authenticity is thus a personal entity, as the ontology is not what actually happened, but the meaning one makes out of their lived experiences and the self-identity constructed based on such an ongoing personal sense-making process.

Kegan (1994) proposes four types of knowing, and the four types of knowing can be understood as four strategies to deal with the complexity of modern life: (1) Absolute knowing, where facts are information that are right or wrong, and knowing is having information; (2) Transitional knowing, where students begin to see uncertainty in some areas of knowing; (3) Independent knowing, which is understanding as relative to the individual; and (4) Contextual knowing, which becomes self-authorship, where students combine various points of view into their own, using their knowledge to test its validity. Transitional knowing, independent knowing, and contextual knowing are important strategies to recommend to international students in interpreting and reinterpreting their life experiences as stories. A narrative approach needs to fully respect the uniqueness of each student’s life experiences, which are under the influence of a unique set of multiple and nuanced contextual factors, such as source country culture, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic background, target language proficiency, and prior cross-cultural experiences. A narrative approach should also respect the agency and subjectivity of the individual student in the perception of their life contexts, their chosen course(s) of action, and their future aspirations.

Stories have educative potential for identity development and action (Sarbin, 2004). Human experience is moulded by narratives; the stories we tell shape the way we experience the world (Crities, 1971). “Just as art imitates life […], life imitates art. Narrative imitates life, life imitates narrative” (Bruner, 2004, p. 692). For this reason, the exercise of having international students tell and retell their cross-cultural stories contributes to their transformational identity construction/reconstruction. As an epistemological approach, narratology best suits that complex, open, and fluid nature of international student identity construction and transformation. International students’ cross-cultural identity is a result of their constant reflections on their cross-cultural experiences as stories. And yet narrative identity is an identity with perpetual disequilibrium (Osberg, 2005), and thus, in helping students develop a narrative cross-cultural identity through reflection, we will need to prepare them for a perpetual state of discomfort.

Encouraging a perpetual optimal distance: The pedagogy

Successful reconfiguration of international student identity requires the successful management of diverse issues— surrounding language learning, social interaction, personal development, and academic outcomes—and the availability of differentiated and timely support in the process (Gu et al., 2010). Guidance in identity evolution management should be an important part of educators’ job to mediate the international education journey. What advice from the educators would be most beneficial in relation to international students’ identity negotiation and reconstruction? As students are open systems—fluid and evolving with open-ended outcomes—what educators can do is build an encouraging, warm, and interactive learning environment, rich in learning resources and support—an environment referred to by Osberg (2005) as “a space of emergence.” In this sense, educators need to participate in and contribute to the shaping of students’ narrative identity in an extremely flexible and responsive way, in accordance with the current moment and current space; teaching and learning are products of the emerging situation. In other words, education should be seen as generative (Jorg, 2011). Each student in this space of radical contingency is a completely unique and singular individual, and the educators’ job is to give support to the emergence of individual identities of their own choosing (Kumaravadivelu, 2008; Osberg, 2005). Educators should strive to create opportunities/spaces for students to see the potential of their learning within the complex and open systems in which they exist.

Earlier language learning research has shown that when learners perceive themselves to be too close or too distant from either their home country culture or host country culture, they tend to be poor language learners (Acton, 1979), and when language learners are very advanced in their language learning and too assimilated into the target culture, they tend to experience anomie, a feeling of social uncertainty, or even alienation (Lambert, 1967). Liu (2014) describes it as an intercultural identity split. For the above reasons, Brown (1980) believes that there should be an optimal distance that learners keep from the target culture. That is to say, to maximize one’s potential, a student has to stay in an eternal state of discomfort and uncertainty. Feeling uncomfortable is fundamental for improving performance, enhancing creativity, and deepening learning (Dennis, 2022). One does not learn much in a comfort zone. One also stops learning when they settle into a new comfort zone. Patterns in complex systems emerge, change, and re-emerge constantly. If one wants to embrace complexity and maximize learning opportunities, they need to acquire the skills of an action researcher, constantly collecting evidence, reflecting on actions, and revising the course of action. This is not to say that international students are doomed to live in cultural limbo. Instead, what is stressed here is that educators should encourage a balanced bilingual, bicultural identity—an identity that retains one’s home culture while acquiring the new language and culture. Such an additive identity, which includes newly-acquired cross-lingual and cross-cultural competences, empowers learners with the desired fluidity to survive and thrive in both cultures and in-between.

Embracing an additive, fluid identity allows international students to move between different cultural spaces and not be stuck in any one. It offers the freedom and competence to function in their home culture, their host culture, and any “Third Space” hybrid culture (Bhabha, 2004) between the two. The acquisition of such cross-cultural competence within an additive, fluid identity makes an individual’s international education experience a truly liberating, empowering, and transformative one. In essence, the educational goal of identity reconstruction for international students is not to settle into a new, secure, and comfortable self. Research in Applied Linguistics has shown that there is no end state in second language learning and becoming too comfortable with the target language results in language acquisition fossilization (see Ellis, 1994). Similarly, there should be no end state in second cultural learning, and becoming too comfortable within the host culture likely results in a cultural learning plateau. International students should be made aware of this and be encouraged to benefit from such a perpetual state of discomfort and tension. To maximize the learning outcome of cross-cultural experiences for international students, we, as educators, must recognize the open, emergent, fluid, additive and, most of all, narrative nature of their cultural identity, and we must create space and encourage students to constantly reflect on their evolving experiences as new stories to live by. Helping them get comfortable is not an ideal goal.

Altruistic care in pragmatic identity expression: The ethical consideration

One’s behaviour is not informed by one singular identity alone, but by multiple identities intersected (e.g., Jones, 1997). We all possess multifaceted personalities, and we reveal different facets, depending on the context (Goffman, 1990). As discussed above, the desired goal for cross-cultural identity (re-)construction is not one singular assimilated identity, but additive intersectional identities that are emergent and fluid. According to Holliday et al. (2004), culture should be viewed as a resource, and multicultural individuals can selectively draw on a collection of symbols and behaviours in order to achieve a particular purpose in a particular setting, like playing a pack of different identity cards to manage their impression on different interlocutors. In a similar fashion, Molinsky (2013) believes that one needs to develop competence in “cross-cultural code switching,” the ability to modify behaviour in specific situations to accommodate varying cultural norms. By learning to “switch” behaviours, they can adapt more successfully to another country’s value system in international business endeavours.

According to the above liberal and pragmatic view, international students’ narrative identity can be expressed through multiple selves, pragmatically foregrounded as social capital when interacting with different interlocutors in different social and cultural contexts. That is to say, one of an individual’s multiple cultural identities may become salient in a response to a given cultural context. But this may create an ethical dilemma. Molinsky (2013) points out that one may experience the authenticity challenge while adapting behaviour across cultures, including anxiety, distress, and even guilt as a result of the disingenuous feeling that the new behaviour is in conflict with their internalized system of cultural values and beliefs. How does one stay true to themself when engaged in behavioural code switching in order to navigate the “culture map” (Meyer, 2014)? Does such pragmatism threaten one’s ethical integrity? What are the rules of this card game of identity (Holliday et al, 2004), as all card games need to follow rules? Noddings (1984) believes that care should be the foundation for ethical decision making in education. According to Ricoeur (1998), care is the most important driving force in the formation of narrative identity. Thus, the pragmatic fluidity of narrative identities should be employed with utmost altruistic care. The ethics of care should be the foundation of international students’ pragmatic identity expression.

Why should we care for others? Do we have the duty and obligation to care for others? There have been many philosophical discussions on the rationale for the ethical practice of care. Based on Goodin’s (1985) vulnerability theory, we have moral obligations to help fellow strangers in the same way we would our family and friends, as they are just as vulnerable to our actions. Baier’s (1985) dependency theory suggests that the normative grounds of care ethics come from the fact that we have been, are, and will be dependent on others, and thus we have the duty to care. Baier’s (1997) fairness principle posits that all of us have the responsibility to contribute our fair share to the maintenance of a cooperative society that we all benefit from. According to Gewirth’s (1978) generic consistency principle, if we aspire for individual freedom and well-being, we must logically recognize the right of others to freedom and well-being. Engster (2005) synthesized all the above perspectives and proposed the principle of consistent dependency. Since we depend upon the caring of others to sustain not only our own lives but also human life, we must logically recognize the rights of others to care and endeavour to provide it.

In Durkheim’s (1947) concept of Organic Solidarity, social bonds function in two ways: either through a valuing of difference, or through a valuing of similarity. Organic solidarity is based upon the valuing of difference, believing in the power of difference and the empowerment of altruism. We only have power in concert with others. As we regulate ourselves, others give us more freedom, thereby allowing us to take on greater responsibility. Thus, the valuing of difference and the altruist empowerment of others should be instilled in students as an ethical bottomline of self-regulatory behaviour in their strategic expression of a fluid identity. According to Ricoeur (1998), it is through caring for self as well as for others that people realize their imagined potential and good life. Through organic solidarity, the students’ aspiration for self personal improvement and the societal need for good global citizenship are united and achieved together. Altruistic care should be the base line and the fundamental principle in international students’ pragmatic use of their multicultural competences and identities.

What is the role of educators in fostering a sense of altruistic care in international students? The goal would be to have them uphold the moral standard of utmost altruist care for others when pragmatically playing their multiple identity cards and refrain from purposeful deception or manipulation. In other words, the ethic of care should be part of their narrative identity constructed so as to help bring a psychological and ethical peace to the multiple selves. Ethical internationalization in higher education should not simply capitalize on the opportunities of worldwide student mobility brought by the globalized world; instead it should take the responsibility to resist the ill effects of neoliberalism by constructing a truly fair and sensible international community in the world and by educating truly globally aware and globally responsible students as future global citizens. Social justice and equality is the most fundamental principle in global education in the sense that the betterment of our lives should not come at the price of others’ worsening (Wringe, 1999). It is the educators’ responsibility to help students develop the knowledge, values, attitudes and skills to aspire and fight for a better and more equitable world for everyone (Ibrahim, 2005). An ethical connection evolves as they come to reflect upon how others are implicated by their actions and how others are a part of their narrative identity (Ricoeur, 1998). In this context, the self becomes self-organizing and at the same time connected to the world. Care for others, in addition to self-care, should be scaffolded into students’ narrative construction of their cross-cultural identity.

Conclusion

Personal change and perspective transformation are key components of international students’ intercultural experiences. Conceptualizing the development of international student identity construction within a finite number of options and directions fails to credit the complexity of the phenomenon and the agency students have in life choices. Thus, international student identity is best taken as a complex open system that is fluid and narrative in nature. Only when an international student’s identity is perceived as a fluid open process can educators recognize their potential to imagine a better life, a desired cultural self, and a transformative cross-cultural learning experience. In a multicultural social context, a student is given the agency and thus has to take the responsibility for her own identity transformation and reconstruction. Complexity Theory is a broader theoretical lens through which to study the identity of international students; it allows recognition of the complexity of cross-cultural learning contexts and the agency that individuals have in negotiating their multiple identities.

Educators can help international students recognize the emerging patterns of self-development in relation to others in the ever-changing world. They can instil in students a willingness and resilience to live in and learn from a perpetual state of discomfort and change in order to maximize their cross-cultural learning experiences. But of course, doing so does not mean that educators shall leave students unsupported, nor shall it create another one-way street of expectations for international students. As was argued above, the educators’ role is to create a generative environment and to contribute to students’ additive identity development. Valuing students’ individuality, educators’ caring engagement in students’ narrative identity reconstruction could offset some degree of the discomfort and messiness of being in a complex world. In coming to know themselves better as intercultural persons, students can become stronger and less uncertain. Educators are also welcome to engage in their own narrative reflections on their experiences working with international students as an approach to professional development (Lin & Liu, 2019). International educators are also an open system, and should consider and be encouraged to constantly reflect on their practices in order to continually learn and grow as devoted, mindful, and caring professionals in international education.

On a larger scale, the transition from Acculturation to Complexity as a theoretical lens in the discussion of international student identity development and transformation should be seen as a purposeful ideological shift in our understanding of the kind of world we hope to live in. Underlying the Acculturation stance is the postcolonialist world structure with a Western centre and non-Western periphery. The Acculturation approach to international student development also serves to encourage and perpetuate the advantages of the centre and the disadvantage of the periphery. As the above analysis demonstrates, the acculturation approach is reductive and unidirectional, and is thus an unhelpful approach both at the personal and societal levels. By applying Complexity Theory to international student identity, we are imagining a different world structure embedded in postmodernist conditions. With the new conditions, international students who move from the non-Western periphery to the Western centre for better-quality higher education opportunities are seen as embarking on the path to becoming, not new members of the elite Western centre, but global citizens with global experience, global awareness, and global competence. Equipped with cross-cultural fluidity and multiple cultural identities, they have the potential to be sensible world leaders with an ethical sense of duty and altruistic care, working to build a fairer and more equitable world. In this sense, international education would not be a process of the diffusion of Western values, but a process of diffusion of universal values of care, justice, freedom, and peace.

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge the strong support we received during the peer mentoring process. We appreciate Dr. Alison Crump’s decision to enter the paper into the peer mentoring process; we appreciate Dr. Roswita Dressler’s rigorous mentoring which served to consolidate and refine every idea; we appreciate Ms Lauren Strachan’s strong editing skills and her detail-oriented copy editing which helped strengthen every word, phrase and sentence.

References

Acton, W. (1979). Second language learning and perception of difference in attitude. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

Altbach, P. G. (1998). Comparative higher education: Knowledge, the university, and development. Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.

Baier, A. (1985). Postures of the mind: Essays on mind and morals. University of Minnesota Press.

Baier, A. (1997). The commons of the mind. Open Court.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Stylus Publishing.

Bateson, M.C. (1989). Composing a life. The Atlantic Monthly Press.

Bateson, M.C. (1994). Peripheral visions: Learning along the way. Harper Collins Publishers.

Berry, J. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A.M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Westview.

Bhabha, H. K. (2004). The location of culture. Routledge.

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16, 645–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847701600601

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Brown, H.D. (1980). The optimal distance model of second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586310

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (2004). Life as narrative. Social Research, 71(3), 691–710. www.jstor.org/stable/40970444

Carr, D. (1986). Time, narrative and history. Indiana University Press

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. Jossey-Bass.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass.

Crites, S. (1971). The narrative quality of experience. Journal of the American academy of religion, 39(3), 291–311. www.jstor.org/stable/1461066.

Davis, J. (2011). Intercultural sensitivity in foreign student advising: A quantitative analysis of ethnocentrism within the profession in the post-9/11 era. VDM Verlag.

Deardorff, D. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002

Dennis, J. (2022). The importance of feeling uncomfortable. Harper Collins Publishers.

Dill, B. T. & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice. Rutgers University Press.

Durkheim, E. (1947). The division of labor in society. Free Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Engster, D. (2005). Rethinking care theory: The practice of caring and the obligation to care. A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 20(3), 50–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2005.tb00486.

Eunyoung, K. (2012). An alternative theoretical model: examining psychosocial identity development of international students in the United States. College Student Journal, 46(1), 99–113. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ991173

Gewirth, A. (1978). Reason and morality. University of Chicago Press.

Gill, S. (2007). Overseas students’ intercultural adaptation as intercultural learning: A transformative framework. Compare, 37(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920601165512

Grobman, G. M. (2005). Complexity theory: A new way to look at organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 29(3), 350–382. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41288239

Goffman, E. (1990). The presentation of self in everyday life. Polity Press.

Goodin, R. (1985). Protecting the vulnerable: A reanalysis of our social responsibilities. The University of Chicago Press.

Grant, M. & Bootht, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Grimshaw, T. & Sears, C. (2008). ‘Where am I from?’ ‘Where do I belong?’ The negotiation and maintenance of identity by international school students. Journal of Research in International Education, 7(3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240908096483

Gu, Q., Schweisfurth, M., & Day, C. (2010). Learning and growing in a ‘foreign’ context: intercultural experiences of international students, Compare, 40(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920903115983

Hale K., Rivas J., Burke M.G. (2020) International students’ sense of belonging and connectedness with US students: A qualitative inquiry. In U. Gaulee, S. Sharma, & K. Bista(Eds.), Rethinking education across borders (pp. 317–330). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2399-1_19

Hall, S. (1992). The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall, D. Held, & T. McGrew (Eds.), Modernity and its futures (pp. 273–315). Policy Press.

Harder, P. (1980). Discourse as self-expression: On the reduced personality of the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.3.262

Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J . (2004) Intercultural communication: An advanced resource book. Routledge.

Ibrahim,T. (2005) Global citizenship education: mainstreaming the curriculum? Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640500146823

Jorg, T. (2011). New thinking in complexity for the social sciences and humanities: A generative, transdisciplinary approach. Springer.

Jones, S. R. (1997). Voices of identity and difference: A qualitative exploration of the multiple dimensions of identity development in women college students. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 376–386. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ555268

Josselson, R. E. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to midlife. Oxford University Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University Press

Kerby, A. P. (1991). Narrative and the Self. Indiana University Press

Khanal, J. & Gaulee, U. (2019). Challenges of international students from pre-departure to post-Study: A literature review. Journal of International Students, 9(2): 560-581. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i2.673

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. Yale University Press

Lambert, W. (1967) A social psychology of bilingualism. The Journal of Social Issues, 23, 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00578.x

Liu, W. (2014). Living with a foreign tongue: An autobiographical narrative inquiry into identity in a foreign language. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60(2), 264–278. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/view/55803

Lin, X. & Liu, W. (2019). Intercultural advising for Chinese international students: A reflective inquiry. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17(2), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1583092

Liu, W. & Lin, X. (2016). Meeting the needs of Chinese international students: Is there anything we can learn from their home system? Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(4), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316656456

Lyotard, J. F. (1976). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.

Marcia, J. (2002). Identity and psychosocial development in adulthood. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 2(1), 7–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532706XID0201_02

Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. Public Affairs.

Molinsky, A. (2013). Global dexterity: How to adapt your behavior across cultures without losing yourself in the process. Harvard Business School Press

Montuori, A. (2003). The complexity of improvisation and the improvisation of complexity: Social science, art and creativity. Human Relations, 56(2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056002893

Morrison, K. (2008). Education philosophy and the challenge of Complexity theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 19–34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00394.x

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics & moral education. University of California Press.

Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL QUARTERLY, 31(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587831

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Longman/Pearson.

OECD. (2020, December 15). How many students study abroad and where do they go? Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/

Osberg, D. (2005). Redescribing ‘education’ in complex terms. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 2(1), 81–83. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct8731

Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another (K. Blamey, Trans.). The University of Chicago Press.

Ricoeur, P. (1998). Critique and conviction: Conversations with François Azouvi and Marc de Launay (K. Blamey, trans.). Columbia University Press.

Roccas, S. & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01

Rudmin, F.W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7, 3–37. DOI:10.1037/1089-2680.7.3.250

Sarbin, T. R. (2004). The role of imagination in narrative construction. In C. Daiute and C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Narrative analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society (pp. 5–20). Sage Publication.

Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65, 237–251. doi:10.1037/a0019330.

Torres, V., Jones, V.R., & Renn, K.A. (2009). Identity development theories in student affairs: Origins, current status, and new approaches. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 577–596. DOI: 10.1353/csd.0.0102

Torraco, R. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. DOI: 10.1177/1534484305278283

UNESCO. (2020, December 15). Global flow of tertiary-level students. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow

Ward, C., Bockner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Blackwell.

Wringe, C. (1999). Issues in education for citizenship at national, local and global levels. The Development Education Journal, 6(1), 4–6.

July 2, 2021July 2, 2021

Persianate Selves: Memories of Place and Origin before Nationalism

Irena Grigoryan, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey

Kia, M. (2020). [Review of the book Persianate Selves: Memories of Place and Origin before Nationalism, by Mana Kia]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 336.

Mana Kia’s (2020) book, Persianate Selves: Memories of Place and Origin before Nationalism, is a fascinating historical journey into the Persianate world, spanning across geographies of West, Central, and South Asia. It explores the Persianate selfhood before the rise of nationalism by historicising and redefining the meaning of place and origin, expressed in a broader range of possibilities of collective affiliation than modern nationalist frames allow. Addressing the period just before the rise of modern nationalism in Iran and Hindustan, the book’s temporal span lies between the fall of the Safavid Empire in 1722 and the British policy abolishing Persian as the language of instruction in the Indian subcontinent in 1835.

During the High Persianate period (14 to 19th centuries), Persian was the transregional language of power and learning that produced “shared literary tropes, interpretive paradigms and representational forms” (Kia, 2000, p. 9). Mana Kia explores her subject through a major signifier of being Persian – adab – a proper aesthetic and ethical form of thinking, speaking, and acting, and thus of perceiving, desiring, and experiencing. Adab is acquired or “accrued” (Kia, 2000, p. 102) through education in a corpus of Persian language texts – poetry, storytelling, philosophy, religious instruction, commemoration, etc. As Persians were from many lands, religions, occupations and social classes, the proper form of adab enabled them to cohere with their selves and collectivities, place and origin in a limitless, indeterminate, permeable way. Mana Kia calls this relation aporetic, suggesting historicization and reassessment of the mutually exclusive categories of place, origin, and selfhood, that are reinforced by “impoverished conceptual means” (Kia, 2000, p. 25) of modern scholarship. Counter positioning to a certain scholarly outlook, she suggests thinking of geographical place, identity, and language not as excluding and self-contained categories, but as outward-looking and porous ones.

The book has seven chapters divided into two sections. The central premise of the first section is the modes of Persianate place-making. It starts with lexicographic discussions on a range of meanings that define the place in the Persianate world, from objective understandings of geographical place to more subjective, affective renderings. The second chapter discusses how remembering the past constitutes both character of the place and morally justified hierarchy between places. It reflects upon the attribution of affective meanings to places, such as paradisical qualities or expressing exilic longing (ghurbat) or nostalgia about the place. The third chapter looks at the illustrative effects of meaning-making (topographic, representational accounts). It explores certain recognised features of a place that act as indicators of legibility and cast morally justified hierarchy among places. Some of such features explored in the commemorative texts are urbanity, ornaments, educated men, and just rule in the places.

The second section of the book examines the meaning and function of origin among Persians between Iran and India. What was considered an origin for the Persianate is unintelligible through the categories of modernity: Persianate origin was gradual, accrued and transmitted through lineages “that were transregionally constituted, circulating and intelligible” (Kia, 2000, p. 25). Chapter 4 argues that the form of Persianate origin was lineage, where geographic place constituted an itinerary along the diversity of meaningful connections and where homelands were just one (not always dominant) element of origin. The 5th chapter is about kinship without ethnicity, which takes on a question of social collective or collective lineage, arguing that “modern notions of identity are not epistemologically equipped to contain certain historical logics” (Kia, 2000, p. 126) of adab and socially regulated relationships. Building upon the notion of kinship, the following chapter considers how affiliations were marked through naming practises. The final segment of the book turns to practises of commemoration – particularly tazkirih writing – their proliferation and possibilities to articulate selves and collectives of Persianate adab.

The intertextual method in which Mana Kia walks into the subject is the remarkable strength of the book: she brings together various texts of separate genres under a constellation of, what she calls, commemorative texts. Those are transregionally circulated well-known and lesser-known texts written in Iran and India – memoirs, poetry, histories, travel narrative, tazkirihs (biographical compendia), autobiographies, chronicles. These texts are intertextually related and share similar modes of meaning-making about selfhood, place and origin. Through close and comparative readings – a method that Mana Kia calls critical philological engagement – she brings to life these historical texts as outcomes of Persianate mobility and testimonies of a shared cultural symbiosis. By allowing the commemorative texts to speak for themselves, she carefully breaks beyond the core of the established vocabulary when describing phenomena relevant to modern theoretical discussions on nationality, identity, belonging and related subjects. For instance, she avoids using the word “ethnicity” in favour of social collective or collective lineage; or uses the term “geographically transplanted” for persons we would nowadays call migrants. Through this, the book successfully opens a space and prepares a ground for some useful concepts, such as cultural continuum, graduation, accrued identifications, geocultural landscapes, etc. By this contribution of an indirect effort, the book advances the importance of thinking in more expansive terms when it comes to the scholarship on places, subjectivities, belonging, diversity and, indeed, human mobility. It also invites the reader’s attention to historical, literary texts as sources to explore intricate relationships between identity, language, and space in the contemporary world. Simultaneously, the book features many untranslated terms (e,g, madaniyat or tamaddun) whenever it is important to keep the original context.

One of the conceptual threads that started in the book but got abandoned in the context was the connection of the Persianate self with the modern Iranian identity or vice versa. Picking up on the Iranianness in the opening paragraphs, the author presents an intimate familial scene of the celebration of a Persian new year with the readings of Hafiz’s poems as an “enduring remnant” (Kia, 2000, p. 2) of Persian identity. Being an immigrant in the US, the author remembers choosing to be identified as Persian – an identity described as pride-inducing, but at the same time distancing, separating, superior from Iranianness. It would be valuable to see the continuity, connection, or mutual exclusion, of Iranianness and Persianness more elaborated throughout the book. Such an attempt would aptly contribute to the book’s argument by providing more insight about the urge of (dis)identification with a certain self and the process of (un)belonging to a certain identity as experienced by the author.

Perhaps the book or its future renderings could also address the limitations or exclusions of being Persianate. Though the author briefly addresses “modest men” (Kia, 2000, p. 114), women, and other identities parochial to the Persianate, the main corpus of the evidence represents educated men of upper to middle class and their form of adab. This distinction means that certain forms of collectivities are more celebrated in the hierarchy of the Persianate world than the others, but the latter are not quite addressed in the book.

Mana Kia’s book is a rich and multilayered contribution to the scholarship that addresses questions of cosmopolitanism and hybridity, the possibilities of selves and collectives, the relevance of place and origin in the language ideologies, and the cultural and linguistic meanings people endow to physical spaces. The book could be of particular interest to scholars broadly engaged in the study of cultural and social history, but also in the study of human and object mobility and cultural exchange. The book’s methodological implications go far beyond the history of the early modern period and the Iranian/Middle Eastern studies, as well as far beyond the nationalist narratives. It seeks to methodologically extend beyond the old time-space-language compression and embrace the idea of non-ethnocentric, non-placeable, continuous cultural selves. The book itself is a beautiful ode to symbiosis, lineage and learning in the making of a cultural self.

July 2, 2021July 2, 2021

Student Identity in the Indian University: Language and Educational Stereotypes in Higher Education

Jessica Sujata Chandras, Wake Forest University

Abstract: This article explores how language ideologies and the use of different languages in colleges and universities in Pune, a city in the western Indian state of Maharashtra, create ways to categorize and stereotype student identities based on language proficiency, caste, rurality, and religious background. Through ethnographic and sociolinguistic methods of participant observations and interviews at two prestigious Pune higher education institutions, I describe multilingual classroom discourse along with perceptions and reflections on language use. The analysis is as much about identity formation in higher education as it is about the education system’s orientation towards Anglo-centric scholarship in India. In Pune’s higher education, formal recognition of ways Marathi and Hindi assist students in English medium education are largely overlooked and unstandardized. In conclusion, this article demonstrates how multilingual education addresses diversity and inclusion in theory, but in practice, many students confront additional obstacles through language policies that impede their educational aspirations.

Résumé: Cet article explore la manière dont les idéologies linguistiques et l’utilisation de différentes langues dans les collèges et universités de Pune, une ville de l’État du Maharashtra, dans l’ouest de l’Inde, conduisent à la catégorisation et à la stéréotypisation des identités des étudiants en fonction de leurs compétences linguistiques, de leur caste, de leur origine rurale et de leur appartenance religieuse. En m’appuyant sur des méthodes ethnographiques et sociolinguistiques d’observation et d’interview d’étudiants et d’enseignants de deux prestigieuses institutions d’enseignement supérieur de Pune, je décris l’ensemble des discours tels qu’ils se manifestent dans des salles de classe plurilingues ainsi que les perceptions et les réflexions de ces mêmes étudiants et enseignants sur l’usage linguistique. L’analyse porte autant sur la formation identitaire dans les milieux d’enseignement supérieur que sur une orientation du système éducatif en Inde qui privilégie une approche centrée sur l’anglais. Actuellement, dans les milieux d’enseignement supérieur à Pune, la reconnaissance formelle des façons dont le recours au marathi et à l’hindi par certains étudiants dans des institutions de langue anglaise est largement négligée et non standardisée. En conclusion, cet article montre bien que, même si elle aborde en théorie la diversité et l’inclusion, l’éducation plurilingue continue de faire en sorte que de nombreux étudiants sont confrontés à davantage d’obstacles découlant des politiques linguistiques mises en place.

Keywords: identity, language ideology, multilingualism, higher education.

Introduction

This article explores how language ideologies and the use of different languages in higher education classrooms in Pune, the second-largest city in the western Indian state of Maharashtra, creates ways to categorize and stereotype student identities based on language proficiency, caste, and socioeconomic backgrounds. I use theories of language ideologies (Gal, 2005; Woolard, 1992; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994) and identity formation (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Gal & Irvine, 2019; Kroskrity, 2000) to contextualize language use in Indian higher education as critical for the production of linguistic identities. My goal is to illuminate the ways these languages are currently used and associated with student identities. In doing so, this article is as much about identity formation at work, through classroom discourse in higher education, as it is about the higher education systems’ orientation towards Anglo-centric scholarship.

Language In The Indian University

In the current education system in Pune, formal recognition of ways that Marathi and Hindi assist students in English medium higher education, or classroom settings where English is the language of instruction, are largely overlooked and unstandardized. As demonstrated in this article, there is a disconnect in the ways that multilingual education addresses diversity and inclusion in theory but not in practice. Many students confront additional obstacles through language policies that have negative impacts on their ability to succeed academically. The evidence thus suggests a need for formalizing the productive roles of students’ multilingual language practices in college and university classrooms and a recognition of ways the current educational structures categorize and produce stereotypes of student identities.

Historical Context of Language in Education in India

The British colonial period provided fertile ground for English language educational pedagogies due to opportunities for Indians to work and study, providing they could confirm to British ideals in education and occupation. However, during the late colonial period, Mohandas K. Gandhi addressed audiences from 1916-1928 over English linguistic colonization in education. He called for education in vernacular languages stating, “The question of vernaculars as media of instruction is of national importance,” by criticizing how “English educated Indians are the sole custodians of public and patriotic work [and the] neglect of the vernaculars means national suicide” (1922, p. 307). Nevertheless, English remains an important language in the subcontinent and current policies about language.Higher education in India has adapted to contemporary situations and conditions but are no less extensions of a deeply ingrained British colonial educational ethos where the English language remains key (Bhattacharya, 2017; Kachru, 1983; LaDousa, 2010; 2014).

While current trends in English medium education stem from a colonial precedent, liberalization of India’s economy in the 1990s made way for education in English to be part of India’s stake in a competitive global market (Lukose, 2009; Pennycook, 2006; Proctor, 2014). As the state-run university education system grew and more subsets of Indian society had access to higher education, issues around the instructional languages in these institutions grew as well. It is common to hear opinions that an English language higher education provides a linguistic common ground for students across the country and a window to globally positioned scholarship and occupations. Today, English in India is a language of globalization, a lingua franca connecting the country, and an Indian language among other regional languages (Chandras, 2020; Kachru et al., 2009; Pattanayak, 1981). Despite the long history of the English language in India, a great divide in opinion and policy remains over how different languages are used or sanctioned in higher education. The exploration of language in higher education outlined here shows that student identities are pigeonholed along a singular language, while almost all students are multilingual with multifaceted identities and various definitions of academic success. Moreover, this stereotyping along linguistic identities occurs within a hierarchy of languages in higher education and through ideologies held about language and educational success.

Theoretical Framework

Socializing Language Ideologies

In multilingual settings, language indexes various aspects of identities (Schieffelin et al., 1998; Woolard, 1998) and language ideologies play a role in the indexical process (Blommaert, 1999; Lee & Su, 2019). Speakers attribute meaning to languages and individuals, to connect identities to speakers through “language ideologies” which reveal motivations and behavioral organization as a “mediating link between social forms and forms of talk” (Woolard, 1998, p. 3). Additionally, language ideologies reflect politically charged, purposeful, and directed ways of using language as well as representing shared beliefs about language (Blommaert, 1999). Therefore, viewing identity as a social construction and as part of belonging to social groups indicates that individual’s awareness of themselves and their authorship of social contexts and conditions are “contextually situated and ideologically informed” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 605). Identity as located in the social aspects of community belonging indicates that one’s identity is less “a matter of innate characteristics and more […] a process involving socialization in early childhood into socially-constructed ways of being, or learned ‘roles’” (Preece, 2009, p. 28). People hold and act upon these attitudes about languages, or language ideologies, which produce and perpetuate inequalities in society constructed around how language use relates and maps onto other categories of identities (Vivanco, 2018).

Multilingual Classroom Discourse Defining Linguistic Identities

Studies of multilingual classrooms and discourse management explore how language ideologies and language use affects an overall view of students and a construction of student identities (De Costa, 2016; Paris, 2013). A “linguistic identity” then contributes to student identity in how well a student meets the expectations of education as set by the academic institution and, in this case, language is a major factor in academic success (Bartlett, 2007; Bartlett & Garcia, 2011; De Costa, 2016). A structure of success is defined by the institution rather than by students or individual teachers and is a process of standardization of education and educational institutions. The institutional model at these colleges and universities in Pune favors students with high English fluency. Therefore, academic identities of successful students are ones that also claim high English fluency as part of their linguistic identities.

A linguistic identity defines the ways teachers interact and treat students based on their linguistic backgrounds in the higher educational setting (De Costa, 2016; De Kock et al, 2018; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). While De Kock et al (2018) define linguistic identities as creating cohesive social groups, I extend this notion to explore dissonances of social cohesion in pedagogy that stereotypes student identities. Language ideologies that emerge through discourse in multilingual classrooms define not only the linguistic identities of students but also shape avenues for academic success. Therefore, the following questions guide this analysis: How are classroom interactions in higher education organized around student linguistic identities and what defines student linguistic identities in these interactional spaces?

Methodology

Research Sites

Data for this article comes from ethnographic research through participant interviews and observations in 90-minute, multilingual lectures (Hindi, Marathi, and English) at one state university and one college in Pune, Maharashtra (see Table 1 below). Savitribai Phule Pune University, referred to from here on as Pune University, was established in 1949 and is the city’s largest and most prestigious university. The university has forty-six departments and roughly 14,500 students spread across Bachelors, Masters, and PhD degree programs. Affiliated with Pune University, Fergusson College was founded in 1885. Both a junior and a senior college where students earn Bachelor degrees, Fergusson College has about 4,500 students across 29 disciplines. Like Pune University, Fergusson College is ranked highly for the arts and science education it offers. These two higher education institutions have policies that exams and assignments can be completed in either Marathi or English.

Institution	Pune University	Fergusson College
Hours Observed	Three hours/week for 2016-2017 academic year and two months in 2018	Three hours/week for six months in 2016-2017
Locations Observed	90-minute lectures in Anthropology, English, Sociology, Physics departments	90-minute lectures in Sociology and Political Science departments, Sociology student club, 60-minute club meetings
Interview Sample	25 hours of interviews, six professors and ten students, recruited through snowball sampling with written and verbal informed consent	15 hours of interviews, three professors and five students, recruited through snowball sampling with written and verbal informed consent

Table 1: Data Collected

Data Collected

Participant observations and interviews are the primary data sources for this study. Interviews I conducted and lectures in which I collected observational data required a high level of comprehension, attention, and active participation and took place in both English and Marathi. The native Marathi-speaking students in classes at Pune University who come from rural Maharashtra have low English proficiency as well as some of the students at the university from European and Middle Eastern countries. Indian students from urban centers in Maharashtra and those from outside the state at Fergusson College and Pune University have high levels of English fluency and most have also attended English-medium schools. All the Indian students speak and understand at least a colloquial level of Hindi. Upon arriving at these institutions, students expect their classes to be in English, especially since almost all written material at the university is in English.

Data Analysis Procedures

In terms of data analysis, I searched my observational notes and interview transcripts for topics relating to language ideology and identity, and coded instances in the collection of data where teachers and students classified behavior by belonging to a linguistic community and practices where translation was used and explicitly noted. Then, I organized these results according to teacher interventions and student experiences to define language connected to socioeconomic class and identity assumptions as stereotypes. These categories include instances of language negotiation interactions in classrooms that defined students by their language proficiency levels in English and Marathi and statements about student identities in relation to their linguistic upbringings and educational backgrounds. Based on the coding of my observation notes, I read the interview transcripts for common themes. These included attitudes about students that grouped them according to their linguistic strengths in English or Marathi, and in terms of the linguistic ideologies driving pedagogy and teachers’ interactions with students. Key themes that emerged were teacher interventions, perceptions, and student reflections of the impacts of classroom interactions on language ideologies to define linguistic identities and identity stereotypes by language.

Results

Teachers

Professors across departments at both Fergusson College and Pune University are astutely aware of students’ linguistic and educational backgrounds and use different languages when addressing students with different language backgrounds. Of the nine professors I spoke with across the two schools, all could give me detailed accounts of where each of their students were from, the language medium of their educational backgrounds, and what languages they were most comfortable using. Elaborated below, teachers’ attitudes towards the Marathi-speaking student populations, framed in part to the professor’s language ideologies about Marathi, politicize rural student identities.

Perceptions

Professor Pandhe (all names are pseudonyms), the head of the sociology department at Pune University, explained the classroom as a political space where, “Students who speak Marathi sometimes insist upon using it rather than using it out of necessity.” In her experience, “The village students are very militant about their use of Marathi and how they demand an education in Marathi. They demand to pass just for showing up in Marathi, like they should be treated specially for representing a Marathi-speaking population.” Similarly, another professor in the sociology department, Professor Chanda-Apte, noted that, “Marathi is an identity issue and some students feel targeted because they are rural Maharashtrian,” and went on to explain that in her experience, students may feel that they have been given a bad grade or are asked to work with another student because of their mother tongue.

Interventions

As my interviews with professors revealed instances of changing classroom practices allowing for more inclusive multilingual interaction in classrooms, each professor made allowances for Marathi in different ways. Professor Chanda-Apte explains how she incorporates multilingual educational policies in her teaching:

Depending on their language strengths, some students will ask questions in Marathi and some do so in English. I am often at a loss for how to grade exams and assignments when they are submitted in Marathi and in different levels of English. Students’ low English levels can obscure the fact that they may be uncertain of exam material where the quality of work differs greatly among students who have a strong command of English, the students who do not, and the students who write in Marathi even though most of their materials and sources are in English. As a result, most students attempt exams in English. This offers students a chance to gauge their level of English and some students with poor English also feel that professors will be lenient with their grades and favor their attempt at using English over the quality of their English. Also, due to the differences between Roman and Devanagari scripts used for English and Marathi, it is a challenge to standardize page or word limits on assignments because the scripts drastically change the amount of information that can be provided.

Professor Chanda-Apte detailed to me how she implements multilingual pedagogy in her lectures to motivate and evaluate students’ academic attitudes and performance. Professors feel they must teach in ways that build rapport with groups of students based on their linguistic backgrounds, which signal and index other aspects of their identities such as rurality, caste, and socioeconomic class. Linguistic practices therefore layer and indicate differences between identity categories as connected to politics, histories, and social positions (Gal & Irvine, 2019). Classroom cohesion, therefore, is divided along differentiations among linguistic identities, as also explored by De Kock et al (2018). While rules that allow students to complete exams and assignments in Marathi are intended to make evaluation processes easier for students with limited English skills, it often adds an extra challenge for students to mediate the language of material and the classroom to the language of exams. The efforts to provide access to information in different languages bring into question the purpose of translating materials and lectures into Marathi in the first place as the burden is then put on students to re-translate material into English for their evaluations and for teachers to develop two systems of evaluation.

Another mode of intervention used by professors was to adapt language norms to foster inclusivity. In an interview with sociology students, Mayank, Naina, and their teacher, Professor Majumdar at Fergusson College, explained how their language proficiencies and extracurricular activities are a bridge for the academic success of students who share their Marathi medium educational backgrounds without their added high proficiency in English. The two students organize sociology club events and are both Brahmins from semi-urban Marathi medium schools.

Naina: A year earlier we used to only use English at these events as students thought of them as extensions of lectures.
Professor Majumdar: Soon after, some Marathi-speaking students complained to me saying that they felt excluded and while they could not feel fully comfortable participating in classes due to a language barrier, they did not want to remain excluded from these extracurricular events as well. They felt their classmates who spoke English were also getting extra help and there was no extra help for the Marathi speakers, and they had a good point we had not considered. So I officially relaxed the English-only rule outside of class so that there was a conscious effort to use Marathi and Hindi at these meetings.
Mayank: More students began to come to meetings and participate.

While the purpose of the sociology club meetings at Fergusson College are to elaborate on and debate topics from lectures, participation falls along linguistic lines. These meetings are meant for linguistic inclusivity, the social rules that guide participation reproduce student identities within linguistic categories. Students take it upon themselves to organize extracurricular events outside the classroom such as discussions and film viewings that focus on classroom material.

Since the club is student-led and meetings take place outside classroom hours, students are explicitly encouraged to speak in any language they feel most comfortable using. Some students are extremely comfortable in English and due to learning class material in English or a desire to help improve other students’ English, these students continue a discussion of class topics outside of class in English. However, the club is intended for conversational involvement unlike a classroom lecture so most students use conversational Hindi. Hindi becomes the inclusive language at these events used to bring together the Maharashtrian and non-Maharashtrian Indian students in a more colloquial atmosphere. It is also important to note that all students (excluding foreign exchange students) are expected to know Hindi fluently, so teachers who make accommodations for Marathi to be used in their classrooms do not make similar allowances for Hindi. In these ways, Marathi use along with English is not smoothly integrated into the educational models and classroom discourse at the two prestigious institutions. The process Professor Chanda-Apte and Professor Majumdar describe above, divides students within single classrooms based on language and brings to the surface linguistic identity as the main identifying category for students.

Inadvertent Consequences and New Expectations

Professor Chanda-Apte’s attention to the linguistic abilities of her students created a norm for translation in her classes from English to Marathi. With the intention of all her students comprehending classroom material equally, she once spent an entire class organizing students into groups for presentations based on language proficiencies, to create groups with mixed linguistic abilities. The resulting presentations all started with students using English, followed by the second students who translated the English material into Marathi. The students joked with each other before presentations to, “Get ready to understand nothing but nod your head to pretend like you do!” The constant mixing and changing of languages takes a significant amount of class time and often requires great attention for students not proficient in all three languages to follow the lectures, often resulting in resigned frustration.

Despite Professor Chanda-Apte’s planning, students paid attention to the language that they understood best. The expectation for translation was demonstrated on various occasions. In one example, a student, who previously stated that she never pays attention when the teacher or her classmates speak in Marathi, mimed to me during one of the presentations by nudging the classmate sitting next her and saying, “Translation! Translation!” while snapping her fingers. These attitudes towards the multilingual policies in classrooms map onto an intersection of student identities who speak, or are known by their professors and peers by their linguistic identities, which contribute to language ideologies that index interactions categorizing identities (Blommaert, 1999; Lee & Su, 2019).

Student Reflections

Marathi in higher education is defined in discussions with professors as associated with students from non-Brahmin, low socioeconomic statuses and disadvantaged educational backgrounds, often from rural areas who generally struggle when adjusting to the urban academic culture in Pune. Associating Marathi proficiency with non-Brahmin students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds becomes a powerfully motivating ideology placed upon students who speak better Marathi than English.

Rakhee’s Caste and Urban Social Class

In an interview soon after my interview with Professor Majumdar and her students, I met with Rakhee, an alumna from Fergusson College. Rakhee is Brahmin and she attended a prestigious Marathi school in Pune, so while she has a Marathi medium education, she has a socially privileged urban Brahmin caste background, and a prestigious and comprehensive education similar to the pedagogical rigor she found at Fergusson. When I asked about her participation in college clubs before her graduation she described to me her thoughts on language use:

I remember feeling that those moments are important for me and other students from Marathi medium schools. When explicitly offered by other students and the teachers, I think a space to respond in Marathi makes us feel like we can participate as equals with the content of the discussions in our most comfortable language rather than preoccupying ourselves with what language to use and trying to use a language we are not as comfortable using.

These events reinscribe linguistic identities upon students based on the conscious effort to encourage the use of languages other than English. These extracurricular opportunities become spaces that extend the classroom whereby students fall into linguistically labeled categories, though with more freedom to converse. Rahkee continued in our conversation, detailing her thoughts on transitioning from a Marathi medium school to an English medium college:

I had a difficult transition to the school when I first started my studies at Fergusson. I felt like I did not have a lot of English vocabulary, even though I knew I had strong study skills and could understand concepts in class. But people seemed to give so much importance to English and not to understanding the concepts. When I could use Marathi I made sure to try and show I understood the ideas really well. Even when there is a small Marathi-speaking group, I feel it is necessary that the professor slips into Marathi now and then. Given the class-caste-rural/urban disparity reflected through the linguistic component, I feel that Marathi-speaking students should be treated as a group that needs special attention. So, using Marathi is double-edged.

Such moments create specific spaces for students to speak based on the language they feel most comfortable, while so doing clearly marks them with a Marathi linguistic identity and the assumptions or stereotypes that come along with being non-Brahmin, poor, and educationally disadvantaged. Her urban and caste privilege allowed her to adapt from a Marathi medium education more easily than some of her classmates to the English medium educational norms and structures, such as the use of translations explained earlier.

Balu’s Rural, Non-Brahmin Educational Challenges

Balu, a non-Brahmin sociology student at Fergusson College, is new to English-medium education and comes from an agricultural village east of Pune. He had stopped by the classroom to ask Professor Majumdar a question and joined our interview. The professor had just explained how students who previously study in Marathi choose the English medium stream at Fergusson because they want to learn English and this is the first opportunity for them to do so. Balu, being one of these students, explained the pressure he felt to learn English:

Balu: I study at least six hours a day to keep up because I am from a rural and Marathi-speaking background but I wanted to study in English. My whole first year [the level of] my English was so low. I was going to pay for a spoken English class. Instead, my friends helped me improve my English.
Professor Majumdar: These classes are exorbitantly priced and offered through many private institutions around the college here. They are intended for students like Balu who struggle with their English curricula.
Naina: Just a week before, I edited and made Balu re-write a Sociology paper about twelve times! I did it to help improve his English writing.

In this conversation about revisions, the focus was entirely on producing an essay in English, regardless of how well Balu grasped the content or could communicate it in Marathi. It was more an evaluation on English proficiency than about an understanding of sociological concepts. While Balu was getting help through the kindness of his classmates and professors, his language abilities were an insurmountable hindrance that was compounded with financial challenges, family obligations, and employment insecurity in his hometown. Balu left this program of study before completing his degree at the end of the 2017 academic year.

Vinay Resists a Rural, Non-Brahmin, Linguistic Identity

Vinay is a recent graduate of the Environmental Science MS degree program at Pune University. He was a strong student and top of his classes throughout his schooling in his rural hometown in central Maharashtra, until he began higher education. Like Balu, Vinay’s caste is non-Brahmin, he is also from a rural Maharashtrian background, and dropped out of his course of study and went home after his first year largely due to language pressures. Vinay recalled his emotional distress while making the decision to drop out of his classes:

I cried on the phone with my father after my first semester. In my classes students spoke Hindi and Marathi with each other but in my degree, the professor and materials were too challenging (in English). The only future I could see for myself was to return home to begin a career as a farmer like my father when I saw I failed three out of my four classes in my first semester, something I had never done before! It was too difficult to keep up in classes that were already conceptually challenging with the added pressure to use only English. In my hometown, Marathi is so prevalent that I also had to learn Hindi as an adult. The mix of English, Marathi, and Hindi in my classes at Pune University, and moving away from home with other social pressures were overwhelming!

Unlike Balu, Vinay eventually returned and completed his degree but not without securing support for learning English through friends and classmates. These efforts are ones Vinay decided to take on his own to ensure he improved his English. He, like many students, undertakes actions that go above and beyond the assistance provided institutionally, to not only learn English, but also to succeed educationally. Vinay’s improvement in English ultimately facilitated his educational success and completion of his degree. Vinay and Balu represent only two of the many students who are marginalized by their rural and non-Brahmin identities, which becomes a synonym for Marathi-speaking in higher education. This is due in part to the reserved admission spots for students from rural schools that make rural students’ identities more visible and politicized. This mix of rural and urban student backgrounds is unique to higher education in Pune as the city is a large hub for higher education in Maharashtra.

Mina’s Social Class Background

Mina is a Sociology Masters student at Pune University who said she has never felt marginalized at the university in Pune due to her Marathi medium background nor her non-Brahmin caste. She made friends easily with the foreign students and spoke English exclusively in class. Unlike Balu and Vinay, she attended schools in the urban center of Mumbai, about 300 kilometers west of Pune. She explained her transition to English medium education:

I think it was that my urban, middle-class upbringing prepared me to move to Pune for university. It is not too different from Mumbai. In terms of language, mixing languages in education is familiar to the style of speaking in many public spaces in Mumbai that I visited as a student anyways. I can speak with everyone, even the foreign students due to the English classes we had in my Marathi schooling. I also watch a lot of English television and films.

Her socialization and upbringing in middle-class urban settings, though non-Brahmin, are key factors that contribute to her comfort level at Pune University. Mina and her teachers do not tie her identity as closely to Marathi, because she grew up in Mumbai and quickly learned to speak English fluently. Although she attended Marathi-medium schools through her educational career until her MA at Pune University, Mina found that she easily adapted to using English for conversing and academics with the non-Marathi speakers in her classes. She is therefore able to position her identity among the English-medium educated students from urban backgrounds, rather than the students who typically identify by their Marathi-medium education from rural areas or non-Brahmin castes. Mina’s position as an English-speaking student allowed her more access to resources and cultural capital in her education and the more she used English over Marathi, the more she became identified based on her English-speaking ability and association to other students with English-speaking linguistic identities.

Unintended Consequences of Multilingual Practices

It becomes clear that students engage with material differently in different languages. In one example from a sociology club meeting with about fifteen students in attendance, students had taken turns presenting their views on a debate topic in English. Finally, the student leader during that meeting paused and said, in Marathi, “Now let’s hear from the Marathi students” who were all sitting to one side as a group, granting them space to speak based on language proficiency. The group of four Marathi students sat quietly, listening to the other students speak some Hindi and English, with no intention of contributing to the discussion prior to the student leader calling upon them to participate. When explicitly told to contribute to the discussion based on their language background, which had become their linguistic identities in class, two students provided their opinions on the topic in Marathi. Linguistic identities are therefore internalized by students as well. Statements from students and alumni who participated in this study show an acknowledgement that their student identities solidify around language use in educational interactions such as this one, which in turn affects the course of their studies.

Discussion

Language ideologies reflect politically charged, purposeful, and directed ways of using language, as well, as representing shared beliefs about language. In the examples provided above, language ideologies about Marathi shape professors’ views of students and their students’ identities.

Impact on Language Practices on Linguistic Identity

Key statements from interviews with teachers reveal how teachers structure class activities to balance the language strengths of students in addition to their overall thoughts and attitudes towards students with stronger Marathi language proficiency than English. In classrooms, teachers unofficially divide students into two categories based on their educational linguistic backgrounds: Marathi or English speakers. Analyzing language ideologies provides a key method of linking these micro-level observations of practices to macro-level systems and doing this allows for stronger consideration of political economic structures, power, social inequality, and constraints on language behavior (Woolard, 1998). Marathi speakers are assumed to be from rural, educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, which in turn reinforces Marathi use in classrooms to be conflated with educationally disadvantaged student identities. English, therefore, is associated with educational advancement (De Costa, 2016; Paris, 2013).

The examples here show how language ideologies are created and perpetuated around the use of Marathi, English, and Hindi in higher education classrooms. In addition, this study shows how these ideologies play into identity construction on behalf of professors ascribing identities onto students (De Costa, 2016). Some non-Marathi speaking students showed a resigned frustration, as evidenced by student comments indicating an attitude of derision for the need to accommodate multiple languages in the classroom.

The structure of the multilingual educational policy alienates students and socializes translation rather than normalizing multilingual comprehension (Bartlett, 2007; Bartlett & Garcia, 2011). The non-Marathi speakers interpret the regular and expected translations from English into Marathi as an accommodation for Marathi-speakings students which squanders valuable class time. However, this can be juxtaposed with Marathi-speakers who disengage from the English portion of lectures and presentations as well. Studies have shown students attend to ways different languages signal different functions in classroom discourse (Probyn, 2009; Proctor, 2014). Therefore not all of the Marathi-speaking students remain attentive throughout English instruction, which is always the first language used in formal lectures and presentations. Only some of the students with limited English and strong Marathi attend to the English used in class due to socialization to English instruction or personal interest. However, the students without Marathi fluency do not approach the Marathi portions of lecture or presentations in the same way as a means to learn Marathi. The effect is that there appears to be two classes held simultaneously based on language— one in English and one in Marathi.

Linguistic Identities and Learner Experiences

Students coming to universities in Pune from rural backgrounds are often assumed to have an education that inadequately prepares them for the rigor of urban higher education. This persists as a stereotype of rural education and a pressure of liberalization and globalization in India (Kachru et al., 2009; Lukose, 2009; Proctor, 2014). A linguistically inclusive approach presents comprehension challenges to all students, requiring professors to identify students’ needs based on their language proficiencies, so they can teach towards students’ strengths for greater equality of information dissemination. Students’ attitudes and interactions show that during Marathi instruction, students comfortably fluent in English disengage. The result is often a stereotype conflating students from Marathi medium educational backgrounds with socioeconomic, non-Brahmin caste forms, and educational disadvantage (Pattanayak, 1981; Proctor, 2014). In multilingual settings where values are attributed to speakers’ different linguistic strengths, languages index inequalities between identity categories (Schieffelin et al., 1998; Woolard, 1998).

This study showed that teachers negotiate language strengths in the classroom, and how student identities become categorized based on dichotomies of urban versus rural, Brahmin versus non-Brahmin caste, and Marathi-speaking backgrounds. The three non-Brahmin students included in this study present a dynamic sample set of Marathi speaking student identities in higher education. Where Balu and Vinay are both from non-Brahmin rural backgrounds, they faced challenges in their abilities to adapt to the medium of English in higher education in an urban setting. The attitude about access, exposure, and socioeconomic status related to English relates to LaDousa’s (2010) and Lukose’s (2009) studies where rural backgrounds are often conflated with regional languages and relative rural poverty. The intersection of rurality and socioeconomic class contextually situated in urban higher education institutions produces and perpetuates the language ideology attached to Marathi-speaking students in these settings (Bucholtz and Hall, 2005). These connotations display an ideology of Marathi as a sort of deficiency or disability where speakers need special attention from a professor who can use the language when they feel a need to do so (Bartlett & Garcia, 2011).

Student attitudes of respecting allowances made for Marathi and students who prefer to speak Marathi in classrooms, demonstrates that higher education is not only for higher degrees and specialization, but for students like Balu and Vinay, it was the first time in their educational careers where they branched out of familiar settings— socially and linguistically. Mina found that it was a time to shape her identity along English medium educational forms, and she did this through aligning herself with the English-speaking foreign students and by using only English in her classes and assignments to excel in her studies (Bartlett, 2007). Coming from Mumbai, the large, urban state capital, Mina never faced the difficulties that Vinay and Balu faced as students from rural backgrounds. Her socioeconomic class from an urban setting intersected differently with her Marathi educational background. She effectively distanced herself from her Marathi medium background and differentiated herself from her classmates from rural backgrounds who speak primarily Marathi in class. Semi-urban and urban, Brahmin, Marathi-speaking students like Naina and Rakhee at Fergusson College, express that for higher education to be more inclusive and egalitarian, it should be necessary and accepted to appreciate and use Marathi in higher education. Although teachers and students in various departments in the two higher educational institutions know that they are to only use English, they “smuggle the vernacular into the classroom,” as there are institutional and ideological barriers to allowing for complete English medium classrooms (Probyn, 2009).

Implications

This study explores language ideologies based on language use in relation to pedagogy, identities, and power-structures in education. Ideologies surrounding Marathi in higher education organize students into hierarchical categories based on who the education works best for— those who can speak English as an academic and global language, and those who speak Marathi who need linguistic concessions to be made for their inclusion and participation in higher education. On top of the social adjustment students make from secondary school to colleges and universities, English is seen to be an academic language necessary for success in higher education. Students who can conform to expected and accepted academic speech styles are then viewed as good and successful students. The structure of education set up by Maharashtra’s higher education system, and the informal roles Hindi, Marathi, and English play within the system, assign meanings to the languages and the assumptions tied to those languages, labeling students based on their language proficiencies. Since university students pay attention to moments when the professor speaks different languages or translates parts of the lectures, as a sign that the professor is speaking either to them or to another linguistic group, students and teachers have internalized which language applies to them, which shapes or pigeonholes student identities.

Having multilingual structures and well-intention teachers as educational policy is not enough. Inclusive language strategies benefit some students who are able to conform their identities in ways that intersect through class, caste, and language to the institutionalized spaces for Marathi in an English medium higher education system. Impacts of social class and caste as mediators of multilingualism in higher education categorizes student linguistic identities monolinguistically where a “Marathi” identity is stereotyped as a Hindu, rural, non-Brahmin, and educationally disenfranchised. This takes into consideration that the socially stratified caste systems in India place Brahmins at a position of privilege within education and other social spheres. Therefore, implementing multilingual policies for diversity and inclusion of educationally and linguistically marginalized students are more complicated when viewed in practice. Language becomes a contentious divider marking students based on caste and opportunities, facilitated through urban, middle-class backgrounds when teachers identify and categorize students by linguistic abilities and teach towards those abilities. Teachers need to be aware of how their perceptions of student linguistic identities affect pedagogy that impacts various groups of students differently, and be more critical of the power-structures aligned with intersections of identity categories that shape the backgrounds of their students.

References

Bartlett, L. (2007). Bilingual literacies, social identification, and educational trajectories. Linguistics and Education, 18(3–4), 215–31.

Bartlett, L, & Garcia, O. (2011). Additive schooling in subtractive times: Bilingual education and Dominican immigrant youth in the heights. Vanderbilt University Press.

Bhattacharya, U. (2017). Colonization and English ideologies in India: A language policy perspective. Language Policy, 16(1), 1–21.

Blommaert, J. (1999). Language ideological debates. De Gruyter, Inc.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.

Chandras, J. (2020). Multilingualism in India. Education about Asia, 25(3), 38–45.

De Costa, P. I. (2016). The power of identity and ideology in language learning: Designer immigrants learning English in Singapore. Springer.

De Kock, T., Sayed, Y., & Badroodien, A. (2018). ‘Narratives of social cohesion’: Bridging the link between school culture, linguistic identity and the English language. Education as Change, 22(1), 1–29.

Gal, S. (2005). Language ideologies compared. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 23–37.

Gal, S. & Irvine, J. T. (2019). Signs of difference: Language and ideology in social life. Cambridge University Press.

Gandhi, M. K. (1922). Speeches and writings of M.K. Gandhi. (3rd Ed.). G. A. Natesan and Co.

Kachru, B. (1983). The indianization of English: The English language in India. Oxford University Press India.

Kachru, B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. (Eds.) (2009). The handbook of world Englishes. Wiley-Blackwell.

Kroskrity, P. (2000). Regimes of language: Ideologies, politics, and identities. School of American Research Press.

LaDousa, C. (2010). On mother and other tongues: Sociolinguistics, schools, and language ideology in northern India. Language Sciences, 32(6), 602–14.

Lee, W. H. & Su, H. Y. (2019). ‘You are in Taiwan, speak Chinese’: Identity, language ideology, and sociolinguistic scales in online interaction. Discourse, Context & Media, 32, 1–11.

Lukose, R. (2009). Liberalization’s children: Gender, youth, and consumer citizenship in globalizing India. Duke University Press.

Paris, D. (2013). Language across difference: Ethnicity, communication, and youth identities in changing urban schools. Cambridge University Press.

Pattanayak, D. P. (1981). Multilingualism and mother tongue education. Oxford University Press India.

Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Channel View Publications.

Preece, S. (2009). Posh talk: Language and identity in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.

Probyn, M. (2009). ‘Smuggling the vernacular into the classroom’: Conflicts and tensions in classroom codeswitching in township/rural schools in South Africa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2), 123–36.

Pennycook, A. (2006). Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. Routledge.

Proctor, L. M. (2014). English and globalization in India: The fractal nature of discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology24(3), 294–314.

Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K. A., & Kroskrity, P. eds. (1998). Language ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford University Press.

Vivanco, L. (2018). Language ideology. In A Dictionary of Cultural Anthropology. Oxford University Press.

Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 55–82.

Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–50). Cambridge University Press.

July 2, 2021July 2, 2021

Promoting Inclusive Plurilingual Practices in Ontario’s Francophone Elementary Schools: The Views and Practices of Principals and Teachers

Francis Bangou, University of Ottawa

Carole Fleuret, University of Ottawa

Marie-Philip Mathieu, University of Ottawa

Bianca Jeanveaux, University of Ottawa

ABSTRACT

This article presents the results of a study that documented the ways principals and teachers in Ontario’s Francophone elementary schools viewed and addressed the linguistic diversity of students enrolled in the Actualisation linguistique en français (ALF) program. The ALF program was created in Ontario to support students with limited knowledge of French in acquiring the necessary linguistic and cultural knowledge to function successfully in mainstream classrooms. Although this program has been implemented with good intentions, one element of concern remains the overall space accorded to students’ first languages within the program. Using data from semi-structured interviews conducted with five principals and 11 teachers affiliated with the ALF program, it is shown that allophone students’ first languages remain relatively marginal within the participating schools.

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude qui avait pour objectif de documenter comment les directions d’école et les membres du corps enseignant des écoles élémentaires francophones de l’Ontario percevaient et prenaient en compte la diversité linguistique des élèves inscrits au programme d’Actualisation linguistique en Français (ALF). Le programme ALF a été créé en Ontario pour aider les élèves ayant une connaissance limitée du français à acquérir les connaissances culturelles et linguistiques nécessaires à leur succès dans les classes régulières. Bien que ce programme ait été mis en œuvre avec de bonnes intentions, un élément préoccupant demeure l’espace accordé aux langues premières des élèves au sein de ce programme. À l’aide des données d’entrevues semi-dirigées menées auprès de cinq directions d’école et de 11 enseignants affiliés au programme ALF, il sera démontré que les langues premières des élèves allophones demeurent relativement marginales dans les écoles participantes.

Keywords: Allophone learners, actualisation linguistique, plurilingualism.

Introduction

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Canada has one of the largest populations of immigrant students in the world (OECD, 2019). It is not surprising, then, that linguistic diversity is also rising in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2017). In 2016, 2.4% of Canadians reported more than one first language (L1), compared to 1.9% in 2011, which is a growth of 13.2%. Moreover, 19.4% of Canadians speak more than one language at home and seven in 10 people speak a language other than French or English at home (Statistics Canada, 2017). As such, an increasing number of students in Canada are considered allophone speakers, meaning they report an L1 other than French, English, or an Indigenous language (Cavanagh et al., 2016). This nationwide demographic and linguistic shift can be seen within francophone schools in Ontario, which forces school officials to clarify their directives and strategies pertaining to allophone students’ education and inclusion.

It is in this context that the Actualisation linguistique en français (ALF) program was created in 1994 to address the needs of students who attend francophone schools in Ontario but who are speakers of English or another language at home or who have limited knowledge of French. Specifically, the ALF program aims to support designated students in acquiring the necessary linguistic and cultural knowledge to function successfully in mainstream classrooms in Ontario’s francophone schools (Ministry of Education of Ontario [MEO], 2010). Usually, students who are assigned an ALF designation meet every day with a support teacher inside or outside the classroom. Where there are sufficient numbers of students with the ALF designation, they can be grouped in a sheltered class. Although this program has been implemented in francophone schools across Ontario with good intentions, one element of concern remains the ways students’ L1s are integrated within the classrooms (Fleuret, 2020; Fleuret & Thibeault, 2016).

With that in mind, this article presents the results of a study that examined how principals and teachers in Ontario’s francophone elementary schools viewed and addressed the linguistic diversity of students enrolled in the ALF program. It will be shown that more remains to be done to integrate allophone students’ L1s within the participating schools.

Supporting Allophone Students In Ontario’s Francophone Schools

Ontario, a predominantly English-speaking province, has more than 13 million people (Statistics Canada, 2016), 4.7% of whom are French-speaking (Gérin-Lajoie, 2020; Gérin-Lajoie & Jacquet, 2008), which makes Ontario the province with the largest population of francophones outside of Quebec (Gérin-Lajoie, 2020). Given the predominance of English within the province, French is considered a minority language that must be protected from anglicization. Indeed, the history of Ontario’s francophone population has been marked by a tradition of strong activism to protect and develop Franco-Ontarian identity, language, and culture (Gérin-Lajoie, 2020; Welch, 1995). It is only since 1982 that francophone speakers in Ontario have had the right to an education in French, thanks to section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). This section grants the right to any Canadian to be educated in the minority language (French or English) of the province of residence, making this an important step forward in the legitimization of French-language education in English-speaking provinces. Ontario’s first francophone school board was created in 1986. In 2014-2015, Ontario had eight Catholic and four public francophone school boards, and 449 French-language schools (elementary and secondary) (Sylvestre & Lévesque, 2018). In this context, “French-only” policies within Ontario’s francophone schools could be considered as materializations of the desire to protect and promote Franco-Ontarian language and culture.

Combined with this reality is the fact that, over the past ten years, there has been an increase in the number of allophone students in French-language schools as a result of immigration (Cavanagh et al., 2016). For instance, in 2006-2007, the students enrolled in Ontario’s francophone elementary and secondary schools came from 143 countries (MEO, 2009a). Currently, 15% of Ontario’s francophone population is a visible minority (i.e., a person other than Aboriginal Peoples, who is non-Caucasian and non-white) (Commissariat aux services en français de l’Ontario, 2018, as cited in Gérin-Lajoie, 2020). As such, French-language schools can no longer be considered linguistically-, culturally-, or identity-homogeneous schools (Cavanagh, et al., 2016).

In response to the increase of allophone students in Ontario’s French-language schools, the MEO has implemented various policies to facilitate their inclusion and success. One of the most significant of these policies is the Politique d’aménagement linguistique (PAL), which was launched in 2004. The PAL confirms the dual mandate of Ontario’s francophone schools to ensure both student success and the vitality of Ontario’s French-language community (MEO, 2004). Specifically, the PAL aims to improve students’ academic performance, curb anglicization, promote bilingualism, consider young people’s views on identity, and open francophone language communities to cultural diversity. However, according to Bélanger (2007), the PAL positions Franco-Ontarians as victims of assimilation without taking into consideration the increasingly heterogeneous linguistic make-up in Ontario’s francophone schools. We are, then, witnessing the social reproduction of a dominant-dominated relationship between “born” Franco-Ontarians and allophone students (Fleuret et al., 2013). More recently, Gérin-Lajoie (2020) has argued that the PAL erroneously gives the impression that students’ francophone identities can only be developed at the expense of their bilingual, multilingual, and anglophone identities.

Another significant initiative came in 1994 with the implementation of the ALF and the Perfectionnement du français (PDF) programs. The program aims to enable allophone students to be successful in francophone schools in Ontario. The PDF program aimed to support francophone newcomer students in developing the necessary linguistic and cultural competencies to pursue studies in their new learning environments. In 2010, the PDF program became the Programme d’appui aux nouveaux arrivants (PANA). The PANA program is intended for students who recently migrated from a country where French is the language of education or administration, but who cannot immediately follow the regular curriculum for linguistic, cultural, or academic reasons (MEO, 2010). Schools have the option to adopt one of the two or both programs based on their needs. Because the ALF and PANA programs have similar and overlapping objectives, schools sometimes adopt only one of the two programs (Kamano, 2014). Moreover, Gélinas Proulx et al. (2014) have shown that, broadly speaking, educators in francophone schools in Ontario have yet to develop the intercultural competence that would enable them to properly address the ethnocultural, linguistic, and religious diversity present among the students in their schools.

Ontario’s francophone community has had to struggle against assimilation into the English-speaking population and has long resisted monolingual “English-only” policies (Bélanger, 2007; Cummins, 2000). Interestingly, similar “French-only” policies are in place in many francophone schools in Ontario, in part to protect the French language and culture within the walls of the schools (Fleuret et al., 2018). Unfortunately, within such a context, it becomes particularly challenging for teachers to acquire the skills that will enable them to embrace plurilingual and inclusive teaching practices (Fleuret et al., 2018).

Theoretical Framework

Inclusive Education

For many years, the popular belief in Ontario (and across the country) was that the best way to support students with specific needs was to place them in specialized programs segregated from mainstream classrooms (Bélanger, 2011). However, since the 1990s, a movement focused on a pedagogy of inclusion has gained popularity (Bélanger, 2011). Since that time, inclusive education aims not to ask students to adapt to the standards of the majority, but rather to encourage school stakeholders to value diversity and adapt their practices to diverse learning needs (Paré & Bélanger, 2014). The Ministry of Education of Ontario defines an inclusive educator as someone who accepts and respects all students, values diversity, and ensures that every student in Ontario is represented in the curriculum and within the school environment (MEO, 2009a). Accordingly, both principals and teachers play a critical role in establishing inclusive perspectives and practices within Ontario’s schools.

Overall, as leaders within schools, principals set the tone for implementing inclusive school culture and practices, and teachers are at the forefront of implementing inclusive teaching and learning practices within classrooms (McGhie et al., 2013; Schmidt & Venet, 2012). However, even though inclusion is officially advocated in Ontario’s schools, classroom practices do not always follow the principles of inclusive education. In that regard, Gérin-Lajoie (2020) finds that Ontario’s official discourse fails to recognize the challenges faced by allophone students, and it remains based on principles that essentialize francophone identities. For instance, the way that the PAL presents the process of identity construction suggests that this process only occurs when students develop a francophone identity (Gérin-Lajoie, 2020). This discourse, then, can be a barrier to the inclusion of students who construct an identity associated with French and other languages.

Students’ First Languages

The aforementioned struggles of Ontario’s French-speaking communities against assimilation have contributed to the emergence of the desire to protect the French language and culture and the implementation of monolingual and homogenizing discourses and practices in francophone schools in Ontario. However, these practices are detrimental to the development of allophone students’ L1. Indeed, research shows that bilingual children have an advantage over monolingual children in terms of metalinguistic consciousness, reading, and non-verbal cognitive activities (Bialystok, 2017). Further, Cummins (1979) found that literacy skills acquired in a L1 are transferable into a target language when learners’ competence in their L1 has reached a threshold level.

In addition to cognitive benefits, the legitimization of L1s in the classroom could have positive emotional effects on students because language is an important marker of identity (Fleuret & Auger, 2019). For example, when students’ L1s are used as a resource in the classroom, students feel less intimidated by the target language, and parents have a more positive view of the school. Moreover, learning a target language does not come at the expense of an L1, because both languages are valued and promoted (Castellotti & Moore, 2011). In that regard, integrating plurilingual teaching practices within Ontario’s francophone schools via the ALF program could be greatly beneficial to allophone students.

Plurilingual Approaches to Languages and Cultures

According to the Council of Europe (2001), plurilingual speakers are able to communicate and function at varying degrees in different languages and cultures. Therefore, plurilingual competence should not be perceived as the separate command of multiple distinct languages, but rather as a single and complex linguistic competence that can be used in different contexts (Lörincz & de Pietro, 2011). In that regard, a plurilingual approach to languages and cultures refers to the use of more than one language or a variety of languages when teaching a subject (European Centre for Modern Languages [ECML], 2020). In 2011, a Framework of Reference for Plurilingual Approaches to Languages and Cultures (FREPA) was created by the ECML. This framework serves as a point of reference for using plurilingual approaches to support learners’ development of plurilingual and intercultural competence. The framework identifies four main plurilingual approaches. The first is the Integrated Didactic Approach, which consists of making connections between a limited number of languages taught in the school. Second is the Intercomprehension Between Related Languages, which provides learners with the space to work with several languages from the same family. Third is the approach called Awakening to Languages, which develops learners’ awareness of languages not taught in the school. Fourth is the Intercultural Approach, which focuses on the promotion of openness to others and the development of one’s understanding of diverse languages, people, and cultures (ECML, 2020). Although over 10 years have passed since the creation of the framework, it is not clear to what extent any of these approaches have been incorporated into Ontario’s French-language schools.

In light of the above, it is clear that diversity is transforming Ontario’s French speaking schools. The policies and programs in place demonstrate a desire to make the school system more inclusive. On this point, integrating plurilingual teaching practices via the ALF program shows potential for contributing to allophone students’ inclusion within Ontario’s francophone schools. It is, then, imperative to examine the ways principals and teachers within Ontario’s French-speaking schools view and address the linguistic diversity of students affiliated with the ALF program.

Research Question

Drawing from the above theoretical framework, this article is guided by the following research question: How do principals and teachers in francophone elementary schools in Ontario view and address the linguistic diversity of students enrolled in the ALF program?

Method

Recruitment of Participants

The study focused on four francophone school boards within the Ottawa and Toronto regions; these cities were chosen because they have the largest immigrant population in Ontario (Statistics Canada, 2017). After obtaining ethics approval from the selected school boards, consent forms were distributed in elementary schools to principals and teachers affiliated with the ALF program. Five principals and eleven teachers agreed to take part in the study. Their distribution is shown in Table 1 below.

	Principals (n)	Teachers (n)
School Board 1	2	6
School Board 2	2	2
School Board 3	1	1
School Board 4	0	2
Total	5	11

Table 1: Distribution of participants according to school boards

Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants to identify their views and educational practices (See Appendix for full interview protocol). For instance, participants were asked to describe what they usually do when a student speaks a language other than French in the classroom. Participants were also asked to explain how they usually take cultural diversity into account in their educational practices. The interview protocols included 16 questions and lasted about 20 minutes each. They took place on the phone because that offered more flexibility to the participants. Audio recordings were made of interviews, which were then transcribed in their entirety by a research assistant.

Data Analysis Procedures

After collecting the data, we developed a data analysis procedure that ensured the nuances and complexity of the participants’ responses were preserved (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Hoffmann Davis, 1997). The data associated with each case was carefully reviewed, and a code list was created from our interview protocols. We then conducted an intra-content analysis (i.e., analysis within-participant but across interview questions) to highlight emerging themes. Lastly, to identify common themes, an inter-content analysis (i.e., analysis across participants) was carried out.

Results

This section presents the findings associated with the research question that guides this study. We start with the results from the analysis of the principals’ interviews, then we consider the results from the analysis of the teachers’ interviews. All quotes from participants are translations from the original French.

Principals

All participating principals believed that part of their role was to support and guide ALF teachers, as illustrated by the following quote from the principal in School Board 3: “My role is as a resource person, I would say. A contact person who will help and guide them [the teachers].” In this case, the support was described as helping and guiding ALF teachers. Of particular relevance to this article, a principal in School Board 1 indicated that their role was to promote ALF students’ bilingualism because in their school most of these students came from Anglo-dominant homes: “My role as a director is to promote bilingualism, because we know that these children come from families [who are] Anglo-dominants, so… [we] are not here to convert them; we want them to learn the language and use it.” It appears, then, that for this principal, bilingualism is primarily associated with Canada’s two official languages (English and French), and not with other languages the students may be speaking. While Anglophone students seem to be in high numbers at this school, there may nevertheless be allophone students whose L1s are not taken into account.

Overall, principals believed it was important to ensure that the ALF teachers had the means to improve students’ achievement of French. Practices of positive reinforcement were, then, implemented by the principals to encourage students to communicate in French outside of the classroom, as illustrated by the following quote from a principal in School Board 1: “We must not punish them [the students]. It is not a question of punishing them, it is a matter of encouraging them. ”The principal in School Board 3 indicated that they did not want students to develop negative relationships with either their L1s or target languages: “It’s about positive reinforcement. We don’t necessarily want to punish; we don’t want the student to hate the language, one or the other [the L1 or the target language], and say that the language is not good.”

In the same vein, three participating principals rewarded students for interacting in French. For instance, a principal in School Board 2 liked to give small rewards such as stickers. The same principal also allowed students who made the most effort to speak in French during the week to go to the park on Fridays: “The students, if they have made the effort to speak French throughout the week, will go to the park for 15 minutes on Friday afternoon.”It seems likely, then, that students who did not make an effort to speak French were not allowed to go to the park. Interestingly, the School Board 3 principal also mentioned the following policy that conveys the idea that languages other than French must be silenced: “One of the rules is: French or silence. You don’t have to speak French but you can remain silent.” The principal in School Board 3 encouraged students to speak in French by making French part of a competition and offering a reward to the winner: “Last year we did a little competition through the classrooms precisely to make a positive reinforcement of spontaneous French in the school.”

Although these reward-driven practices were implemented with well-meant intentions, they indirectly punished the students who did not get a reward. On the other hand, a principal from School Board 2 indicated that instead of rewarding or punishing students, they focused on highlighting students’ efforts:

We are trying to avoid all punitive systems. I know there were systems that were in place before that were reward systems. On the other hand, as staff, we say that we do not see much purpose in rewarding students for speaking French, because it is an expectation that we have…. Like I said, rely on the positive, and then when they make an effort, we should focus on that. Other than “Why do you speak English?” or “Stop speaking English”, [it is] “Well done, you still tried”.

Although participating principals seemed to be concerned primarily with the use and development of Canada’s two official languages (English and French), it is important to note that a principal in School Board 1 indicated that they also promoted learning Spanish: “Absolutely, we have a Spanish program at our school, because when children are young, they will learn other languages.”

One reason why the focus was largely placed on French and English might be because most participating principals (four out of five) worked in schools with large populations of students for whom English seemed to be their L1. For instance, when describing the student population in their school, a principal in School Board 2 said, “Most of them are anglophones with a great dominance of English in [their] homes, in the family environment.” Another principal in the same school board indicated that, “For the most part, they are students from immigrant families, English-speaking or francophile families. It’s not French-speaking students, that’s for sure.” In this instance, it is not clear if the immigrant families they are referring to here are francophone, francophile, anglophone, or allophone. We may assume that although some of these newcomer students are able to communicate in French or English, it is quite possible that neither of these two languages was their L1. This is even more likely considering the same principal indicated having more than 20 countries represented in their school at one point. Along the same lines, a principal in School Board 1 indicated that “We have a family that speaks Tamil, but they speak very good English… We have far fewer newcomers…it’s mostly English speakers.”

Although the focus seems to be generally placed on students’ command of English and French, participating principals also recognized or celebrated to some extent the diversity of their student populations. In that regard, three participating principals indicated that they had integrated diverse cultures into their schools’ teaching programs. For instance, a principal in School Board 2 reported: “We not only address the Canadian Francophonie, but also the world’s Francophonie. ”However, not all principals took such an approach. One principal in School Board 2 reported that recognizing diversity among the student population was not necessarily something that they were doing in a specific manner, other than cultural festivals and recurrent celebration: “We have Black History Month, we celebrate various cultural festivals, we have a cultural parade, [but] it’s really not… I would say it’s not something we do in a targeted way.”

Routinely sharing customs and traditions seemed to be some principals’ preferred way to include diverse cultures into the curriculum, as illustrated by the following quote from another principal in School Board 2: “We often have potlucks with people’s different cultures, with a typical meal of their country.” Another way participating principals addressed cultures within their school is through the promotion of l’approche culturelle. For instance, a principal from School Board 1 explained, “We try to do all cultural activities, then [take] a little bit of an approche culturelle to teaching.” Indeed, the promotion of l’approche culturelle (MEO, 2009b) was a common way that participating principals addressed cultural learning within their schools. An approche culturelle aims to promote the appropriation of the Franco-Ontarian culture by infusing it as much as possible in various teaching activities.

Unfortunately, by focusing on the construction of a Franco-Ontarian identity, this approach de facto results in excluding and delegitimizingthe other cultures of students within the schools (Gérin-Lajoie, 2020). In short, when it comes to the inclusion of other cultures within the programming of francophone elementary schools in Ontario, it appears that activities are mostly focused on the promotion of the Franco-Ontarian culture, with somewhat sporadic and superficial consideration of other cultures (e.g., potlucks, cultural parades, etc.).

This situation may partly be because most participating principals admitted to having difficulty accessing training about ALF students due to lack of time and/or lack of opportunities to do so. For instance, a principal in School Board 1 said, “But since I also teach, I don’t always have time to go to an educational support [training] related to the ALF.” We should also stress that the principal in School Board 3 reported that they did receive training about the ALF program. However, they thought that the teachers in their school who were affiliated with the ALF program should also have access to this training to better prepare them to teach ALF students:

It is training that talks about the [ALF] program precisely, because it is a separate program from the regular [mainstream] program. There should also be training at the teacher level, because yes, it is good to have the ALF teacher, but in the classroom the teacher must use the ALF curriculum to evaluate the students. So, in terms of training, these teachers have the same training for regular students as for ALF students.

It appears, then, that the available ALF training focused mostly on talking about the program. Moreover, in this case, the training available to the ALF teachers did not focus on any special considerations for teaching students in the ALF program as opposed to teaching all students at the school. Like this principal, we believe this lack of ALF-specific teacher training is problematic, considering the specific requirements of these students. Next, we consider the interviews with the teachers.

Teachers

The analysis of the interviews demonstrates that most teachers in the study believed that their role is to ensure that students are able to communicate effectively in French. In the same vein, two teachers highlighted that they were models for students. One of these teachers, who taught in School Board 1, underlined how important it was to support the development of students’ bilingualism:

I believe a lot in bilingualism… that is to say, we have the job we have because we speak both languages, we speak two languages, there are even those of us who speak three, so I think it is very important to develop oral communication with young people who need models for sentence structures and who have to communicate in French.

It should be noted that this teacher also recognized that some students do speak other languages. Other teachers from other school boards also acknowledged this linguistic multiplicity. For instance, a teacher from School Board 2 said, “Most of the students I work with even speak a language other than English at home, and so they are often all trilingual, or even more.” A teacher from School Board 4 recognized that French could be a third language for the ALF students:

So who are these students who have the challenge of learning several languages at the same time? [They speak their] mother tongue at home, they necessarily have English because it is the dominant language, and then here they find themselves learning this third language, which is French.

Similarly, when the participating teachers were asked to explain how they usually reacted when a student spoke a language other than French in the classroom, most teachers reported that punishing the student would not be a good strategy. This was in part because, at the elementary level, teachers recognized the difficulty of requiring students to speak French all the time. For instance, as a teacher from School Board 1 stated, “Certainly it is accepted at certain levels, especially kindergarten…, that we cannot demand [that they speak French] 100 percent of the time… If they are unable to say something in French, they are encouraged to use gestures.”

Apparently, then, this teacher would encourage students to use gestures instead of using English. They also said that they sometimes asked them to use other words in French to explain the missing word, or they would ask other students to provide the word:

I ask their friends in the class—there is often one among the group who knows what the word is in French—or I tell them, often I ask them to use other words [in French] to explain, if the word is in French, try to use another word that can explain that word. Then, it’s to encourage them to use as much French as possible, but it is harmful if they use the English word.

Although this teacher did not necessarily punish their students for not speaking in French, she still tried to prevent students as much as possible from using English, because in her opinion it would be harmful. In the same vein, other teachers from the same school board implemented reward systems to promote the use of French. For instance, one teacher declared using toy frogs as a reward for speaking French:

They are little white frogs, and they are given during classes [when a child speaks in French], and the child walks with the white frog, so others see the white frog and want one too, so I make them speak to me in French.

Other teachers from the same school board (School Board 1) also reported that they would sometimes try to use cognates between French and English. For instance, one teacher noted, “I just wanted to say, sometimes with English and French you can make positive transfers, orange vs. orange.” This practice of positive transfers seemed to be in place in other school boards as well. For instance, a teacher from School Board 2 noted:

There are very simple words that a student might not be certain of, so I tell them okay, but that’s a cognate, and then I explain to them what it is… for example, the word hospital. Often the student will say the word hospital in a sentence in French, and I will make them recognize that it is said almost the same way, but in French it is said this way.

The teachers from School Board 4 differed from other participants in terms of their use of plurilingual approaches to teaching French. For instance, one teacher from School Board 4 said:

They encourage us not only to teach French, but to integrate the [first] languages of the students. For example, we take an object and I say the name in French, and each student will repeat it in his native language. After that, I ask the students to repeat it in the mother tongue of others. It gives a certain appreciation to the student, and also an assurance… so we work a lot on self-esteem, and the students feel accepted in the group.

Based on the analysis of teachers’ interviews, it appears that teachers in this school board were broadly encouraged to use such plurilingual approaches. For example, another teacher from the same school board talked about the resources that were provided to teachers to help them implement such approaches:

There was a kit that was made for the teachers to get to know about students’ home countries. This year I took advantage of participating in a terrific project, ELODiL [Éveil au Langage et Ouverture à la Diversité Linguistique/Awakening to Languages and Opening to linguistic diversity], so with my advisor we embarked in plurality theatre with my newcomers. We did theatre in all languages, and what is magical is that the children will make themselves understood by others, and will use French as the common language, as soon as we show them that we are open to their [first] language. We have games that are played in all languages, [and] they are no longer terrified by teachers… So I think that yes, for my teaching colleagues, there is more and more of an openness [to integrating students’ languages].

Thus, besides appreciating these plurilingual approaches to teaching, this teacher also noticed a gradual acceptance of the use of plurilingual approaches among their colleagues and positive impacts on students.

However, interview findings indicate that adopting plurilingual approaches was challenging for many reasons. For instance, one teacher from the same school board reported that some francophone parents did not appreciate such approaches because they sent their child to a francophone school primarily to speak French and not other languages:

The current situation is that we have Canadian, French-speaking parents who are going to find their children playing Arabic in the classroom, and then for those students, we have parents who change schools because they say ‘my child is there for French.’

Another teacher from a different school board noted that it can sometimes be difficult for a teacher to help students in a language the teacher does not know:

“I think that if the child does not have a language that I know, it will be difficult to help them, but if he at least knows English, which is a language that I know, then I will be able to communicate and help them.”

Although participating teachers were not always comfortable using other languages in their classrooms, they generally tried to integrate learners’ cultures in different ways. For instance, most participating teachers invited students to share their experiences and cultural references. As one teacher from School Board 4 said, “We work a lot on cultural references, so it’s to go and get a little [information…]; how do they live or how do they celebrate certain festivals, certain things according to their culture and identity.” Another teacher from School Board 4 liked to use children’s literature to get to know students’ various cultures:

That’s what I have with my colleagues in literacy, we’re moving more and more towards children’s literature, which is open to all cultures, [literature] that speaks about Africa. With ELODiL we have acquired these books, which expose students to other languages and to children’s literature that speaks precisely about the cultural diversity of tolerance. As soon as students are curious, they ask questions about cultures, practices, they do research themselves… I think it’s part of our daily practices, since it’s now easier for students to know and introduce themselves to others, to their traditions and what they do with their culture, so there is no more shutting down.

This quote suggests that, at this school, ALF students used to be uncomfortable speaking about themselves and their cultures, but using plurilingual children’s literature helped resolve this issue. Another approach the teachers used to integrate different cultures was song. For instance, a teacher from School Board 1 talked about an activity where students were invited to sing Canada’s national anthem in Tamil:

We have a family that comes from Sri Lanka and there was a talent show, and then before we started the show, we sang the national anthem in both French and Tamil to promote their culture and the words of their country, and they were really proud.

In sum, the interview findings indicate that not all principals and ALF teachers in Ontario’s French-speaking schools shared equally the goal of integrating students’ L1s and cultures. For instance, some participants used reward-driven practices to discourage students from using other languages besides French whereas other participants used children’s literature to expose students to diverse languages and cultures.

Discussion

In response to the research question which asked how principals and teachers in francophone elementary schools in Ontario viewed and addressed the linguistic diversity of students enrolled in the ALF program, it appears that most participants considered students’ linguistic diversity primarily through the lens of their mandate to protect and promote the French language and culture. Indeed, the primary goal of both principals and teachers was to ensure that students enrolled in the ALF program were able to communicate effectively in French. When other languages were considered, it was usually in terms of their capacity to enhance or hinder the acquisition of French.

In that regard, two distinct approaches emerged from the data. The first will be referred to as a monolingual approach to language teaching and learning. Within this approach, languages and cultures are learned in silos, in other words separated from other languages and cultures (Coste et al., 2009; Piccardo, 2013). As such, translation and other crosslinguistic treatments are usually perceived as threats to the “integrity” and acquisition of the target language and culture—a belief criticised in ECML (2020). Here, we can recall the participant who stated that “you don’t have to speak French but you can remain silent.” Such a perspective is usually associated with traditional approaches to language teaching and learning. The first author’s initial training as a language teacher 25 years ago was based on these principles. They were taught that translation should be avoided at all cost, and references to students’ L1s and cultures should be allowed only to promote positive transfers from the L1s to the target language. Just like some of the participants, the first author encouraged learners to use gestures when they did not know a word as well as cognates to guess the meaning of a word. At the time, language teachers had no reason to question such monolingual approaches, particularly when learners had little opportunity to use the target language outside of the classroom. As such, teaching a language consisted, in part, of providing a space where learners would communicate as much as possible in the target language. Given the long history of such a perspective—and the limited access to French language and culture in Ontario beyond the province’s francophone schools—it is not surprising that similar principles guided the practices of most of the participants in this study. However, research shows that such monolingual approaches to language teaching and learning are not inclusive and are not beneficial to language teaching and learning within plurilingual educational contexts (Cummins, 2000; Marshall & Moore, 2018).

The second approach that emerged from the data can be referred to as a plurilingual approach to language teaching and learning (Canagarajah, 2009; Coste et al., 2009). Within this approach, languages and cultures are not learned in silos, but are seen as part of a plural, complex, and integrated competence that includes all languages known by students (Candelier & Castelotti, 2013). As such, the goal of a plurilingual approach is to implement teaching and learning practices that are conducive to the use of knowledge, skills, and mindsets within the entirety of learners’ linguistic repertoires to enhance the acquisition of the target language and culture (Candelier & Castelotti, 2013). The findings indicate that such approaches are promoted in School Board 4. However, while principals’ and teachers’ opinions seem to have evolved in some cases regarding a plurilingual approach to language teaching and learning, the interview findings introduced here demonstrate that there is still a long road ahead for the implementation of inclusive plurilingual practices within the ALF program.

In particular, data revealed that sporadic and folkloric accounts of other cultures were still being used in most participating school boards (e.g., cultural festivals, international meals, etc.). Access to appropriate training also emerged as being a challenge in most cases, although School Board 4 stood out as being proactive in that regard (e.g., ELODilL). In a sign of the numerous challenges to implementing a plurilingual approach, some teachers in School Board 4 also emphasized the role of parents’ views on the mission of francophone schools and language learning. Participants reported that some parents did not appreciate when languages other than French were used in the classroom. This obstacle demonstrates the importance of considering the larger community when implementing inclusive plurilingual practices in Ontario’s francophone schools.

Conclusion

This study aimed to explore the ways that principals and teachers in Ontario’s francophone elementary schools viewed and addressed the linguistic diversity of students enrolled in the ALF program. The findings cannot be generalized to all francophone elementary schools across the province, nevertheless they raise important issues that should be considered by any school with allophone students, especially concerning the need for ALF specific training and the adaptation of teaching practices to the wider communal context. It was also clear that allophone students’ L1s remain marginalized within Ontario’s francophone schools.

Due to Franco-Ontarians’ long history with assimilation, it is difficult to reimagine Ontario’s French-speaking world as one that embraces linguistic plurality. Thus, the protectionist practices of various stakeholders (principals, teachers, parents) tend to rely on outdated monolingual teaching practices. Even in the face of these challenges, however, some participants in this study demonstrated that they have embraced inclusive plurilingual teaching and learning practices, which shows us that things are beginning to change, albeit slowly—and this is very encouraging.

References

Bélanger, N. (2007). Une école, des langues…? L’enseignement du français en milieu minoritaire en Ontario. Le français d’aujourd’hui, 3, 49–57. https://www.cairn.info/revue-le-francais-aujourd-hui-2007-3-page-49.htm

Bélanger, N. (2011). Une éducation inclusive : étude de cas multiples. Retour sur une recherche collaborative. La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, 3, 229–240.

Bialystok, E. (2017). L’acquisition d’une deuxième langue, le bilinguisme pendant la petite enfance et leur impact sur le développement cognitif précoce. Encyclopédie sur le développement des jeunes enfants (2nd ed.). Centre d’excellence pour le développement des jeunes enfants. https://www.enfant-encyclopedie.com/sites/default/files/textes-experts/fr/61/lacquisition-dune-deuxieme-langue-le-bilinguisme-pendant-la-petite-enfance-et-leur-impact-sur-le-developpement-cognitif-precoce.pdf

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 23, Part I of the Constitution Act (1982), being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

Canagarajah, S. (2009). The plurilingual tradition and the English language in South Asia. AILA Review, 22(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.22.02can

Candelier, M., & Castelotti, V. (2013). Didactique(s) du (des) plurilinguisme(s). In J. Simonin & S. Wharton (Eds.), Sociolinguistique du contact : Dictionnaire des termes et concepts (pp. 179–221). ENS Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.enseditions.12366

Castellotti, V. & Moore, D. (2011). Répertoires plurilingues et pluriculturels. Leur valorisation pour une meilleure intégration scolaire. Babylonia, N1, 29–33.

Cavanagh, M., Cammarata, L., & Blain, S. (2016). Enseigner en milieu francophone minoritaire canadien: synthèse des connaissances sur les défis et leurs implications pour la formation des enseignants. Canadian Journal of Education, 39(4), 1–32. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/2268

Coste D., Moore D., & Zarate, G. (2009). Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle. Vers un Cadre Européen Commun de référence pour l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des langues vivantes: études préparatoires. Council of Europe Language Policy Division. https://rm.coe.int/168069d29c

Council of Europe (2001). Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. https://rm.coe.int/16802fc3a8

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. European Centre for Modern Languages (2020). A framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures. https://carap.ecml.at/Accueil/tabid/3577/language/en-GB/Default.aspx

Fleuret, C. (2020). Apprenants, langues et contextes: quelles configurations pour l’apprentissage du français de scolarisation en contexte minoritaire? In J. Thibeault, & C. Fleuret (Eds.), Didactique du français en contextes minoritaires: entre normes scolaires et plurilinguismes. Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.

Fleuret, C. & Auger, N. (2019). Translanguaging, recours aux langues et aux cultures de la classe autour de la littérature de jeunesse pour des publics allophones d’Ottawa (Canada) et de Montpellier (France): opportunités et défis pour la classe. Cahiers de l’ILOB, 10, 107–136. https://doi.org/10.18192/olbiwp.v10i0.3789

Fleuret, C., Bangou, F. & Fournier, C. (2018). Le point sur les services d’appui en français pour les nouveaux arrivants dans les écoles francophones de l’Ontario: entre politiques, réalités et défis. In C. IsaBelle (Ed.). Système scolaire franco-ontarien: D’hier à aujourd’hui: pour le plein potentiel des élèves (pp. 285–319). Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Fleuret, C., Bangou, F., & Ibrahim, A. (2013). Langues et enjeux interculturels : une exploration au cœur d’un programme d’appui à l’apprentissage du français de scolarisation pour les nouveaux arrivants. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(4), 280–299. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/1558

Fleuret, C., & Thibeault, J. (2016). Interactions verbales d’élèves allophones en retard scolaire lors de résolutions collaboratives de problèmes orthographiques. Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures. Les cahiers de l’Acedle, 13(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4000/rdlc.881

Gélinas Proulx, A., IsaBelle, C., & Meunier, H. (2014). Compétence des nouvelles directions d’école de langue française au Canada pour la gestion inclusive de la diversité ethnoculturelle, linguistique et religieuse. Alterstice, 4(1), 73–88. https://www.journal.psy.ulaval.ca/ojs/index.php/ARIRI/article/view/G%E9linas_Alterstice4%281%29

Gérin-Lajoie, D. (2020). Les politiques scolaires et l’inclusion des élèves issus de l’immigration dans les écoles de langue française en Ontario. Éducation et francophonie, 48(1), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.7202/1070105ar

Gérin-Lajoie, D., & Jacquet, M. (2008). Regards croisés sur l’inclusion des minorités en contexte scolaire francophone minoritaire au Canada. Éducation et francophonie, 36(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.7202/018088ar

Kamano, L. (2014). Intégration des élèves nouveaux arrivants dans les écoles francophones du sud-est du Nouveau-Brunswick. Université de Moncton, Centre de recherche et de développement en éducation. https://www.umoncton.ca/crde/files/crde/wf/recension_projet_dsf-s_19dec2014.pdf

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Hoffmann Davis, J. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. Jossey-Bass Inc.

Lörincz, I. & de Pietro, J. F. (2011). Valoriser toutes les langues à l’école… par des approches plurielles : le projet CARAP. Babylonia, N1, 49–56.

Marshall, S., & Moore, D. (2018). Plurilingualism amid the panoply of lingualisms: Addressing critiques and misconceptions in education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1253699

McGhie, D., Irvine. A., Loreman, T., Cizman, J.L., & Lupart, J. (2013). Teacher perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 195–239. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/1155

Ministry of Education of Ontario (2004). Politique d’aménagement linguistique de l’Ontario pour l’éducation en langue française. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/document/policy/linguistique/linguistique.pdf

Ministry of Education of Ontario (2009a). Policy statement and guidelines on the admission, welcoming, and support of students in French-Language schools in Ontario. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/en/document/policy/Admissions.pdf

Ministry of Education of Ontario (2009b). Stratégie ontarienne d’équité et d’éducation inclusive : comment tirer parti de la diversité. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/policyfunding/equity.pdf

Ministry of Education of Ontario. (2010). Programme d’appui aux nouveaux arrivants. Le curriculum de l’Ontario de la 1re à la 8e année. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/curriculum/elementary/appui18curr.pdf.

OECD (2019). Canada. Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/88badc23-en

Paré, M., & Bélanger, N. (2014). La recherche de l’inclusion scolaire à travers les recours offerts aux familles: perspective comparative canadienne dans un contexte francophone minoritaire. Canadian Journal of Law & Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société, 29(3), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2014.2

Piccardo, E. (2013). Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Towards a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.110

Schmidt, S., & Venet, M. (2012). Principals facing inclusive schooling or integration. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(1), 217–38. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/346

Statistics Canada. (2017). Ontario [Province] et Canada [Pays] (table). Profil du recensement, Recensement de 2016, product nº 98-316-X2016001. Statistique Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016010/98-200-x2016010-eng.cfm

Sylvestre, J. F., & Lévesque, S. (2018). Historique des écoles de langue française de l’Ontario . In C. IsaBelle (Ed.)., Système scolaire franco-ontarien: D’hier à aujourd’hui : pour le plein potentiel des élèves (pp.49–83). Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Welch, D. (1995). Les Franco-Ontariens : la résistance comme mode de vie. Des pratiques à notre image : défis et ressources, 1(1), 20–42. https://doi.org/10.7202/026053ar

Appendix

Entrevues pour les directions

1. Depuis combien de temps l’ALF est-il implanté dans votre école ?

2. Depuis la mise en place de l’ALF, que diriez-vous des élèves qui y sont inscrits ?

3. Comment le conseil scolaire se mobilise-t-il pour soutenir votre école sur le plan des ressources financières et humaines pour l’ALF ?

4. Selon vous, comment votre conseil scolaire pourrait vous aider davantage dans la gestion de l’ALF?

5. Recevez-vous des formations pour mieux saisir les enjeux relatifs à l’ALF?

a. Si oui, de quel type et par qui ?
b. Sinon, lesquelles souhaiteriez-vous ?

6. Comment vous assurez-vous de l’efficacité de l’ALF en tant que direction?

7. Que diriez-vous des modalités d’évaluation :

a. des élèves inscrits à ALF ?
b. du programme en tant que tel ?
c. des personnes impliquées auprès des élèves inscrits à l’ALF ?

8. Quelles sont les pratiques pédagogiques que vous préconisez auprès de ces élèves ?

9. Comment envisagez-vous votre rôle par rapport à l’ALF?

a. auprès de la personne-ressource ?
b. auprès des enseignants ?
c. auprès des parents ?

10.Quels sont vos plus grands défis en tant que directeur par rapport à l’ALF?

a. Comment les contournez-vous ?
b. Que suggéreriez-vous comme améliorations ?

11.Comment les parents se mobilisent-ils pour vous soutenir dans votre mission ?

12. Comment prenez-vous en compte la diversité culturelle au sein de votre établissement?

13. Quelles sont les politiques si un élève parle une autre langue que le français dans l’école?

14. De quelle conception générale d’apprentissage des langues vous sentez-vous le plus proche :

a. «On apprend la langue en connaissant d’abord le code (les règles de grammaire, d’orthographe…) »
b. «On apprend le code en connaissant d’abord la langue (parler, échanger, reformuler, lire…). »

15. Sur une échelle de 1 à 5, dites-nous si vous vous sentez « éloigné » (1) ou « proche » de ces langues ?

anglais
arabe
espagnol
lingala
wolof
portugais
roumain
chinois
créole
ukrainien
farsi
autres (lesquelles ?)

16. Comment décidez-vous qu’un élève devrait faire partie du programme ALF?

Entrevues pour le personnel enseignant

1. Depuis combien de temps enseignez-vous?

2. Depuis combien de temps enseignez-vous aux élèves en ALF?

3. Qu’est-ce qui vous a conduit à travailler avec ces élèves? Pourquoi ?

4. Comment envisagez-vous votre rôle auprès des élèves ALF?

5. Quelle(s) langue(s) parlez-vous au quotidien?

6. Comment les connaissez-vous?

Exemples:

par ma famille
par mon environnement
par mes études
par mes voyages
autres langues que vous connaissez, mais que vous n’utilisez pas en ce moment?

7. Comment décidez-vous qu’un élève devrait faire partie du programme ALF

8. Comment décidez-vous qu’un élève devrait être retiré du programme ALF?

9. Comment vous assurez-vous du progrès de l’élève inscrit au programme ALF?

10. Que diriez-vous des élèves inscrits au programme ALF?

11. De quelle pratique vous sentez-vous le plus proche et expliquez votre choix?

a. « Je préfère ne pas trop faire référence aux expériences vécues en dehors de l’école. »
b. « Je suis à l’aise pour inciter l’élève à s’appuyer sur les expériences vécues à la maison. »

12. Faites-vous en classe des liens entre le français (forme d’un mot, sens d’un mot…) et d’autres langues?

13. Comment prenez-vous en compte la diversité culturelle dans vos pratiques pédagogiques?

14. Que faites-vous si un élève parle une autre langue que le français dans la salle de classe?

15. Pensez-vous que ce sera plus simple de développer des compétences en français pour un élève arrivant de Roumanie ou pour un élève arrivant de Régina, en sachant qu’aucun d’eux ne parle le français?

16. Sur une échelle de 1 à 5, dites-nous si vous vous sentez « éloigné » (1) ou « proche » de ces langues ?

anglais
arabe
espagnol
lingala
wolof
portugais
roumain
chinois
créole
ukrainien
farsi
autres (lesquelles ?)

June 29, 2021June 30, 2021

Editorial 5(2): Crossing Language Ideological Divides

ALISON CRUMP, Marianopolis College and McGill University

MELA SARKAR, McGill University

LAUREN STRACHAN, Concordia University

Introduction

Dear readers, do you remember the eve of 2021? Do you remember saying goodbye to 2020, feeling a glimmer of hope for the coming year, looking forward to brighter days, in-person connections, family gatherings, and a lot less screen time? As we pass through the first half of 2021, it seems—dare we say!—that we can finally start to look to the future with some optimism as we transition to non-pandemic life; at least in Montreal, where we are writing from.

And yet, for educators and scholars of critical sociolinguistics and applied linguistics in Montreal, the recent announcement of Bill 96, “An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec,” evokes a sense of moving back in time. This proposed legislation, if passed, will have wide-ranging impacts on almost every sector of Quebec society. With respect to language and education in Québec, Bill 96 pushes against what our scholarly community has been advocating through research, policy, and practice for decades. For instance, we take as foundational that:

the world is more multilingual than monolingual (e.g., Blackledge & Creese, 2010);
multilingualism is good for the brain (e.g., Bialystok, 2009; Grosjean, 1982);
Montreal is the city in North America with the highest rate of trilingualism (French, English, and one or more other languages) (e.g., Lamarre, 2003);
newcomer integration into a host society is best supported through additive, not subtractive, educational approaches to language (e.g., Allen, 2006; Cummins, 2009; Garcia, 2009; Genesee, 1989; Hornberger, 2003);
denying language choice can negatively impact individuals’ identity and sense of belonging (e.g., Fishman, 1972; Rampton, 1985; Schecter & Cummins, 2003).

That’s the backdrop. Against that backdrop, through decades of research and educational policies and practices, we have carved out spaces—both ideological and physical—to integrate plurilingual perspectives. Now, squarely in the foreground, those spaces stand to be narrowed by Bill 96.

Support for French in Quebec need not be either-or, but rather both-and. We can maintain French as a strong langue publique commune AND celebrate the plurilingualism that is lived in Montreal. Such perspectives on belonging, identity, language, and diversity need to be voiced in public spaces. J-BILD is one such public space; the articles in this current issue are, we feel, particularly good examples of the voices we are glad to help be heard.

The upcoming Language Policy and Planning (LPP) conference (August, 2021), hosted by McGill University with the support of the BILD Research Group, is another such space. The conference is a timely forum that enters multidisciplinary approaches to LPP in Montreal into dialogue with an international audience. The relevance, in terms of timing and location, of this year’s conference is not lost on us: Coming as it does just a few months after the announcement of Bill 96, this conference is well-poised to stimulate debate and discussion around issues of language planning and policy in this very real local context, one which many conference attendees—not to mention all its organizers—care about deeply. The next two J-BILD issues will be special issues featuring publications from the LPP conference, and will serve to ensure that discussions emerging from the conference find their way into public spaces and discourse. How else can we keep working to cross ideological divides?

We want to applaud the ongoing work of the BILD research group, a close cousin to J-BILD. BILD has been publishing weekly blog posts since 2014. Mela Sarkar’s inaugural BILD blog post (November 17, 2014) launched the blog as a public forum for sharing research that directly relates to Montréal’s complex sociolinguistic dynamic. In reference to the notion of “bilingualism as a first language” (Swain, 1972)—a notion deeply ingrained in our language ideologies, our research methodologies, and our practices as educators—Mela asked, “What will happen, what is happening, when this way of using language collides head-on with the approved and authorized boundaries schools are mandated to enforce?” This question could not be more relevant in 2021.

Before we introduce the articles in this summer issue of J-BILD, we’d like to introduce our co-author, Lauren Strachan, the newest member of the J-BILD editorial team. Lauren S. has worked with J-BILD as a dedicated copy editor since our early days. In that role, she has been a key contributor to many issues of the journal. This year, we have welcomed Lauren S. to the team as our Senior Copy Editor. With Lauren Halcomb-Smith, J-BILD’s co-founder and Managing Editor, currently on maternity leave, Lauren S. could not have taken on this role at a better time. And, this gives us the chance to shine a light on the essential, yet often underappreciated, work of copy editors in academic publishing. J-BILD copy editors, like our peer mentors, work collaboratively and directly with authors to bring their manuscripts to their final publication-ready state. This is the last stage in the publication process and comes after the peer mentor has recommended the manuscript to proceed. Copy editors have a unique skill set; they empathize with the writer while advocating for the reader; they have a deep understanding of writing and genre conventions, of coherence and cohesion, and a nit-picking attention to detail. Their work brings forward the voices of the authors, sharpens their arguments, and invites the reader into the discussion. As Senior Copy Editor, Lauren S. has grown our pool of J-BILD copy editors, aligned the journal with APA’s recent 7th edition, masterfully ensured timelines were met, and embraced J-BILD’s vision and core principles of open scholarship. Thank you, Lauren!

Article Summaries

Research Studies

Francis Bangou, Carole Fleuret, Marie-Philip Mathieu, and Bianca Jeanveaux’s article “Promoting inclusive plurilingual practices in Ontario’s francophone elementary schools: The experiences of principals and teachers,” presents the results of a study that documented the ways principals and teachers viewed and addressed the linguistic diversity of students enrolled in the Actualisation linguistique en français (ALF) program. Using data from semi-structured interviews conducted with five principals and 11 teachers affiliated with the ALF program, the authors show that allophone students’ first languages remain relatively marginal within the participating schools. While the article highlights the need for ALF-specific training and the adaptation of teaching practices, it also finds that there are signs of some change in terms of inclusion of plurilingual teaching and learning practices.

Jessica Chandras’ article “Student identity in the Indian university: Language and educational stereotypes in higher education,” explores how language ideologies and the use of different languages in colleges and universities in Pune, a city in the western Indian state of Maharashtra, create ways to categorize and stereotype student identities based on language proficiency, caste, rurality, and religious background. Through ethnographic and sociolinguistic methods of participant observations and interviews at two prestigious Pune higher education institutions, Jessica describes multilingual classroom discourse, and perceptions and reflections on language use. She demonstrates how multilingual education addresses diversity and inclusion in theory, but in practice, many students confront additional obstacles through language policies. The article concludes that teachers need to be aware of how their perceptions of student linguistic identities affect pedagogy.

Critical Literature Review

In Wei Liu and David Rathbone’s article “The complexity of international student identity,” the authors review literature on Complexity Theory and present this as a fruitful theoretical lens to examine cross-cultural identity construction of international students. From this theoretical lens, the authors argue that international student identity should be seen as an open system that is fluid and emergent in nature, and educators should contribute to an additive international student identity that embraces multiple languages and cultures. A perpetual state of discomfort due to the development of a narrative identity should be encouraged as a cross-cultural strategy conducive to international students’ continuous learning.

Book Review

Irena Grigoriyan’s review of Mana Kia’s (2020) Persianate Selves: Memories of Place and Origin before Nationalism, begins with a succinct summary of the book. She uses the lens of the core signifier of being Persian – adab – “a proper aesthetic and ethical form of thinking, speaking, and acting, and thus of perceiving, desiring, and experiencing” (Grigoriyan – this issue), to frame her assessment of the book, concluding that “The book itself is a beautiful ode to symbiosis, lineage and learning in the making of a cultural self.”

References

Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 3-11.

Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. Continuum.

Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the English-language classroom: Pedagogical considerations. Symposium: Imagining multilingual TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 317–321.

Fishman, J. (1972). The relationship between micro- and macro-sociolinguistics in the study of who speaks what language to whom and when. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 15–32). New York: Penguin Books.

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Genesee, F. (1989). Early bilingual development: One language or two? Journal of Child Language, 16(1), 161–179.

Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Harvard University Press.

Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Multilingual Matters.

Lamarre, P. (2003). Growing up trilingual in Montreal: Perceptions of college students. In R. Bayley & S. Schecter (Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 62–80). Multilingual Matters.

Oakes, L., & Warren, J. (2007). Language, citizenship and identity in Quebec. Palgrave Macmillan.

Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. Longman.

Schecter, S. & Cummins, J. (Eds.) (2003). Multilingual education in practice: Using diversity as a resource. Heinemann.

Swain, M. (1972). Bilingualism as a first language. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California at Irvine.