It may seem a little strange to be
writing about a topic like English Medium Instruction when schools and
universities have been closed to contain the spread of COVID-19 in our country.
However, during a time like this it can also be helpful to pause and reflect on
some of the ideas that seem to have become widely accepted as ideal and
practical. One such idea relates to the belief among many, including those who
have the power to influence policy, that a high-quality education and relevant
education is an education in the English medium.
In a now largely forgotten incident
relegated to infamy a student of a leading school in Colombo who was studying
in the then newly implemented "English medium", called her school
mate in the parallel mother tongue medium class, (during a fight) "You
Sinhala medium bitch". This was in 2002, almost two decades ago, but it is
still relevant in terms of how it mirrors the enormous linguistic
discrimination that characterizes the Sri Lankan polity, and how it invokes the
politics of language in the country.
Indeed the medium of instruction
debate is beleaguered by a number of tensions both at conceptual and policy
level as well as at ground level, in its implementation. One of these policy
level tensions is the one between an Education for All (EFA) goal and the need
to be proficient in a global high-currency language such as English. Another is
the tension between the necessity of preserving local languages/identities and
the need to accommodate to the pressures of learning an internationally valued
lingua franca. Many countries struggle with this tension and a brief look at
their language policies would confirm this. The other tension is the one
between policy and its implementation in the classroom due to various
structural challenges.
Even as I write this I am aware that
the expressing of my opinion may be viewed as being fraudulent and
hypocritical, since I already have, and had, throughout my childhood, access to
the linguistic capital that is the English language. There is a common (and
sometimes justified) suspicion and a perception among many, that certain
academics advocate local languages, or "sub-standard" English for the
"masses" while they, themselves have access to both
"standard" as well as "sub-standard" varieties which they
can use interchangeably, manipulating language politics in a way that only
those who possess this capital can. However, I take the risk of being labeled
thus, because I have been keenly observing the developments and debate
surrounding this subject since the time of my postgraduate research, and feel
the need to comment on the widespread belief that English medium instruction will
solve all problems related to language competence
Many policy makers, teachers, parents,
and academics often think of English Medium as a magic wand, the panacea for
everything wrong in our education system and the one-fits all solution for
unemployment. In addition, English is often popularly perceived and
Constitutionally affirmed as a "link" language in the hope that it
would "link" the communities which were/are embroiled in the ethnic
conflict. In this sense, there is a rather naive assumption that English can be
a "tool" which can be objectively used for material success, removed
from all ideological underpinnings or complications. But as I hope to show,
these views often ignore a number of significant considerations that have a
direct impact on the successful implementation of a language-based education
policy.
Some years ago, when researching the
English medium policy (it was later labeled "bilingual education")
and its implementation for my doctoral thesis I asked some of the pioneers of
the most recent English medium initiative what the rationale was, and I was
told that it was because the English teaching project of the past half century
was "a total and utter failure". The implications of this are that
the English medium initiative was meant to replace the inefficient English
language teaching one.
However, its replacement, the model of
bilingual education on which the rationale of the current English
medium/bilingual education programme is based on, originated in Canada in what
was termed "Immersion" education. This form of education emerged out
of demands by Anglophone parents who wanted their children to be fluent in
French and thus have access to the linguistic capital of being bilingual in
Canada. The immersion model is where parents of linguistic majority children
with a high-status mother tongue (i.e English speakers in Ontario, Canada)
choose voluntarily to enroll their children in a programme in which instruction
is conducted through the medium of a foreign/minority language (i.e. French).
A number of significant differences
between the linguistic and educational context in Ontario and the educational
context of Sri Lanka must be highlighted. Firstly, most of the children who
were learning in a bilingual educational stream in Ontario were children with
the same mother tongue (e.g. English). In addition, English was also the
language of the majority in the country. In Sri Lanka however, while we may
find students who have the same mother (i.e. Sinhala or Tamil), it is
significant that English is not the language of the majority in the country.
Further, from an educational perspective, the teachers in the immersion
programmes offered by schools in Ontario are bilingual which means that
children can initially at least, use their own language and still be
understood. In contrast, the situation for teachers working in the English
medium in Sri Lanka are very different. In studies that I have done, both as a
doctoral student as well as later, for the National Education Commission, it
has been found that there is a shortage of adequately qualified teachers to
teach in English and this is a significant barrier to the success of an English
medium instruction policy. Even in some leading schools in Colombo where I
conducted my research, I found that there was a tendency towards rote learning
and choral responses in classrooms I observed, because of the teacher's lack of
confidence in using English. Given the differences between the linguistic and
educational contexts in Canada and Sri Lanka, it is not surprising that the
implementation of an English medium instruction has proven to be a significant
challenge for both students and teachers.
In countries such as Canada, English
medium instruction policies are implemented in additive language learning contexts in which children’s mother tongue
is not in danger of being replaced by the language of instruction. However,
the uncritical implementation of the same policies in Sri Lanka, with its
unique linguistic and social context, is likely to result in a situation of subtractive
bilingualism and language learning. In these learning environments,
students are likely to gain proficiency in one language but lose competence in
their mother tongue. Students are likely to be “submerged” in an English medium
education, also known as "the sink or swim" model, forced to accept
instruction through a foreign majority/official/dominant language, in classes
in which the teacher does not understand the minoritised mother tongue. They are
also likely to be aware that the language of instruction constitutes a threat
to their dominant language, which runs the risk of being replaced. What this
means in practice is that since Sinhala and Tamil are both diglossic languages
(which mean there are "high" and "low" varieties of the
same language, depending on the function, and also differences in written and
spoken varieties), competence in the more formal versions of Sinhala and Tamil
will vanish and students will only be able to mainly utilize the language for
colloquial communication with family and friends for activities such as
gossiping or shopping. Thus the value of the two national languages in the
field of academic and intellectual inquiry will decrease, and often this is the
first step towards long term language loss. These tensions are also further
exacerbated in Sri Lanka because of the historical association of the English
language with class privilege and exclusion of most of the country. Sri Lanka
is not alone in this situation as many countries around the world have been
grappling with the tension between the necessity of preserving local
languages/identities and the need to accommodate to the pressures of learning
an internationally valued lingua franca such as English.
How then are we to move forward in
implementing a medium of instruction that is both sensitive to these tensions
while at the same time cognizant of the demands of an increasingly globalized
economic system? We can start by realizing the need to critically examine the cliché that
equates a quality education with English medium education. The UNESCO advocates
Mother tongue-based bilingual programs which use the learner’s first language,
to teach beginning reading and writing skills along with academic content. It
points out that the second or foreign language, should be taught systematically
so that learners can gradually transfer skills from the familiar language to
the unfamiliar one. Bilingual models and practices vary as do their results,
but what they have in common is their use of the mother tongue at least in the
early years so that students can acquire and develop literacy skills in
addition to understanding and participating in the classroom. Additionally, we
also need to find a way to improve students' spoken as well as written English,
both the skills of Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills and Cognitive
Academic Language Proficiency. Generally, cognitive academic language
proficiency is transferable from one language to another. Furthermore, careful
planning and implementation of teaching a few selected subjects in the English
medium in addition to strengthening the teaching of English language using
either a Content Based Instruction or CLIL (Content and language integrated
learning) model, where, at both university and school level, subject/content
teachers and language teachers work collaboratively to optimize language
learning among students must also be explored, instead of a wholesale overhaul
of the medium of instruction and changing it to English medium.
Resolving the tensions over the medium
of instruction in state schools lies in creating less hierarchical learning
environments and student centred learning cultures where students are
encouraged to think critically and engage in questioning so that they can
actually use the language in an active and productive way. Most importantly, we
need to keep in mind that a one-size-fits-all solution of teaching every
subject at every level in English medium will not effectively help our young
people to become fluent in English. Instead we must begin by recognizing the
ground realities of the bilingual classroom and second language acquisition
issues that are rampant in countries with complex linguistic and educational
contexts like Sri Lanka. The implementation of a medium of instruction policy
without taking into account these realities will only serve to further
complicate an already tense linguistic and educational landscape and make it
even more difficult to effectively improve the teaching and learning of English
in Sri Lanka today.
This article was published in the Daily Financial Times and The Island.
(Dr Vivimarie Medawattegedera is a
Senior Lecturer attached to the Language Studies Department of the Open
University of Sri Lanka.)
