Search For My Tongue:

Empowering multilingual students as a

school and as an English teacher in East
Africa
I ask you, what would you do
if you had two tongues in your mouth,
and lost the first one, the mother tongue,
and could not really know the other,
the foreign tongue.
(Sujata Bhatt, Search For My Tongue)

In Africas post-colonial setting, language is inherently politicized. The

multilingual history of Tanzania itself shows how language has been used to
unify the country with one common language (Kiswahili), but also to separate
the neo-colonial elite from the masses through their knowledge of and level
of proficiency in English (Alexander, 2001, p.11). This history is reflected in the
countrys language policies, which Brock-Utne and Holmarsdottir describe as
being confusing, contradictory and ambiguous (2004, p. 68).
International schools have been largely sheltered from this policy, which
requires English to be taught in government schools as a compulsory subject
in primary and then become the medium of instruction thereafter (Ibid, p. 69).
However, international schools are still implicated; the act of sending ones
children to a private school is a political one. It is made in the hopes of
maintaining the childs and, by extension, the familys elite status as one of the
privileged few who speak the colonial and now global language of power:
English (Ibid, p.68). The researcher has listened to parents voice their
concerns about their childrens future in an increasingly globalised world
where their ability to speak English determines their future prospects in and
outside of their country of origin (Kaltantzis et al, 1989, citied in Cummins,
2000, p.104). The researcher feels that it is deplorable that many international
schools seem to be guilty of promulgating the linguistic hierarchy built into the
colonial system (Alexander, p.11), strengthening English at the expense of

their students mother tongues. In the years to come, international schools in

East Africa will be defined by their ability to not only cope with but to capitalise
on their students increasingly multicultural and multilingual backgrounds.
Schools are already beginning to experience an influx of children from across
the continent, compelled to relocate because of disease, war or famine as
well as seeking relative safety and better job opportunities. It is therefore
surprising that little research has been carried out on the subject of
multilingualism in East African international schools. The majority of research
relating to EAL learners language and learning needs applies to teaching
contexts in the UK and US where EAL students [enter] a new school where
they must acquire the language of the majority student population, English
(Collier, 1995, p.2). As Birgit Brock-Utne points out, even the terms L1 and L2
have been developed in a setting dealing with immigrants and minority
cultures in Europe and the US and do not often fit the scene in Africa where
most children are born into multilingual settings (2007, p. 488). However, the
researcher seems to think that from this body of research, international
schools in multilingual contexts can extract principles that to inform school
policy and the educational practices of its staff members. This essay therefore
seeks to establish the role of the school and the educator in empowering its
multilingual students, evaluating the researchers schools current approach
as well as envisioning the ideal classroom environment, according to current
EAL research.

The role of the school

And if you lived in a place you had to
speak a foreign tongue,
your mother tongue would rot,
rot and die in your mouth
until you had to spit it out.
(Sujata Bhatt, Search For My Tongue)

Much like the country in which it operates, the researchers school language
policy can best be described as confusing, contradictory and ambiguous
(Brock-Utne et al., p.68). In the staff handbook, it states that an Academic

Support Withdrawal Programme would be implemented this academic year.

This would have involved students being excused from lessons to receive
intensive learning support.
This in line with language policies adopted by international schools in the
1970s and early 1980s, where EAL students were withdrawn from class for
additional language support (Carder, 2014, p. 86)
The justification given in the staff handbook for this traditional approach is:
Historically, a significant number of our students need [such a
programme], for a variety of reasons, includingpoorly developed
English language skills, poor study habits, limited learning disabilities
[sic]

Although this model was not implemented, it is concerning that this is the one
that the school would choose to adopt for several reasons. Firstly, the schools
policy seems to make no clear distinction between language needs and
special education needs. EAL and SEN are not the same, as reflected in the
SEN code of practice, which asserts that a lack of competence in English
must not be equated with learning difficulties (Rosamond, S. et al., 2003,
p.10). It is fortunate then that documentation relating to EAL withdrawal
support in the primary school differentiates between language and learning
difficulties (Appendix 1) and is reflected in its implementation and delivery.
However, even that partial implementation of this programme of language
support, shows an outdated approach to EAL learning. As Carder (2014, p.
87) points out:
ESL teachers were seen largely as an adjunct to English departments,
and peripheral to the traditional subjects taught by the main
departments: maths, science, humanities, English, foreign languages,
arts, and PE.

This seems to be true of the school, in which the ESL department in primary
and the English department in secondary are delegated the task of developing
students levels of proficiency and literacy in English (Dooley, 2014).
Secondly, the approach does not take into account that research has

demonstrated immersion programmes are better suited to meet the language

needs of EAL students than withdrawal programmes (Cummins 1981; Collier
& Thomas 1989; Franson, 2011).
A lecturer has described immersion as throwing [children] in the deep end
and helping them to swim (English as an additional language, 2008). But
what if the school does not have anything in place to help its EAL students to
swim? In response to a request for all EAL documentation, a senior
administrator stated:
We do not have an Equality and Diversity policy at the school. In
practice EAL students do not have a specific programme and are taught
with other students in class. Most of our students are not Native English
speakers and could easily be classified as EAL learners, though they
have been taught using English from reception and that leaves a very
small group of students that would be considered in this category.

It is interesting that the administrator does not regard EAL as a homogenous

group, which is a typical misconception (Davies, 2012). However, his
understanding also seems to be flawed; what he says suggests that as there
are only a handful of true EAL students, the school has not designed and
does not need to design a specific programme, resorting instead to an
immersion model by default. His definition of an EAL student is at odds with
research (British council, 2014) and he has possibly mistaken developed
BICS for fluency in CALP (Cummins, 1999; 2000; 2003).
It seems the school is guilty of the worst mistakes it could make in serving
ELLs: denying the needs of all their EAL learners, delegating the tasks to the
EAL and English department and indicating they would remediate the problem
if they had the chance (Crawford & Krashen, 2007, cited in Carder, 2014, p.5).
I would therefore like to compare and contrast the schools model (or lack
thereof) with Maurice Carders three-programme model for international
schools to show three key areas the school must build on in order to create a
highly effective learning environments for its students, who are all EAL.
Maurice Carders research primarily focuses on international schools in the
USA, Canada, Australia and England. In Bilingualism in International Schools,

he presents a three-programme model, which involves mother tongue

instruction, cultural and linguistic training for staff and Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) (Carder, 2007). Although his justification of the
proposed three-programme model to improve second language acquisition is
drawn from bilingual schools in an European context, it is still of relevance to
the multilingual school, which occupies an international space (Carder, 2010)
The researchers school has expressed great concern regarding the poor
levels of English proficiency and literacy. At the beginning of the year, staff
were reminded that all teachers are language teachers and a literacy week
was set up with a view to raising students reading and writing levels across
the curriculum (Dooley, 2014). A small minority felt that they did not have time
to do the English departments job, which shows a limited understanding of
how students learn language and learn through language (Gibbons, 1993). As
Mohan states, the integration of language and subject is relevant to all
teachers whether they teach language or subject matter (Mohan, 1986, p.iv).
It is, however, promising that the majority wished to help, but felt ill equipped
to tackle the task of explicitly teaching language. This is evident in the
observations the researcher has carried out, which seem to indicate that
teachers do not know how to take into account the language needs of their
students when planning their lessons. This serves to highlight the need to
plan for language across the curriculum and to train staff to be culturally and
linguistically aware and fulfil their role as language teachers (Carder, 2007).
Cummins states in the foreword to Bilingualism in International schools that
research on the benefit of mother tongue development is so unequivocal that
every effort should be made to enable students to attain literacy skills in the
language(s) of their parents as well as the languages of the school (Ibid,
2007). Gibbons is one of the researchers who also advocates this approach,
believing the cognitive development of mother tongue is inextricably linked to
developing proficiency in English: "if there is a gap in a learner's language
resources, then the thinking processes that are dependent on them will also
be restricted" (Gibbons, 1993, p. 17). A programme, which does not recognise
the crucial role of the mother tongue in second language acquisition, denies

students the natural benefits of their multilingualism and effectively disables

them academically (Cummins, 2000; Gibbons, 1993; 2002).
However, it is important to note that many of the researchers schools
students mother tongues are indigenous languages with no written form. This
makes providing a mother tongue programme like the one developed at the
International School of Vienna more difficult. It would be nearly impossible to
provide a mother tongue programme for all students, but it would be possible
to provide one for the majority of EAL students in the school, the students who
speak Kiswahili. The school already has in place the rudiments of a mother
tongue programme, teaching Kiswahili in both the primary and secondary
schools. It doesnt appear to be as academically rigorous as it could be, as
the programme itself does not differ between L1 and L2 learners.
Consequently, it does not challenge L1 learners to higher levels of proficiency.
The Kiswahili teachers are also paid substantially less than other subject
teachers, which suggests that even though the language is included in the
curriculum as an academic subject, it is not highly valued (Carder, 2007). The
mechanism for mother tongue instruction for the majority of EAL users is in
place, but it is not capitalised on and developed. Researchers emphasise the
importance of students mother tongue for developing proficiency in English,
and if the school cannot provide a mother tongue programme for all students,
it should at least inform students parents how crucial it is to maintain and
develop their childs mother tongue (Carder, 2007; Cummins, 2000). Parents
are often misinformed and insist on speaking English at home in a misguided
attempt to help their child; a myth often sadly perpetuated by the school
(Carder, 2007; Cummins, 2000).
In conclusion, the lack of a policy to guide planning and practice is inherently
problematic. It leaves too much to chance and too much up to the individual
teacher who feels untrained to meet the language needs of the students. To
ensure progress and to help students realise their potential, the researchers
school needs to set itself apart and become one of the few international
schools that see its multicultural and multilingual student body for what it is,
an incredible asset (Carder, 2007, ix)

The role of the educator

(Sujata Bhatt, Search For My Tongue)

Educators in East Africa must challenge the long-term coercive relations of

power in schools and in society, raising awareness and combating
misinformation of a system which excels in self-deprecation (Cummins, 2000,
p. 105; Okonwko, 1983, p.377). However, if they cannot overturn a coercive
education system they must counteract its effects as best they can. As
Cummins asserts, it is their right but also their responsibility as an educator
to do so (Cummins, 2001a). The remainder of the essay will focus on how a
teacher of English can create a classroom environment and lessons that
nurture the spirit of multilingual children (Cummins, 2001b).
The Classroom
The classroom environment should celebrate and value the multicultural and
multilingual backgrounds of its students (Karaoglu, 2008). This helps to create
a safe and secure environment in which students feel valued and respected,
increasing motivation and in turn, developing language proficiency (Makewa
et al., 2013). This could be done through language projects where students
share different aspects of their languages and cultures. Students should also
be encouraged to write in their mother tongue. This work can then be

displayed in the classroom, which helps to personalise the learning space

(Karaoglu, 2008).
Planning and Teaching
Although literature relating to multiple cultures should be readily available,
carefully planned teaching should make European literature, the mainstay of
the British National curriculum, accessible to all students. The lesson plan
and language frameworks provided in the appendices demonstrate the
importance of planning that takes into account what the learner brings to the
task, what demands are being placed on the learner and what support
needs to be in place (Gravelle, 2000, p.8). For instance, teachers can make
deliberate reference to students L1, thus accessing their prior knowledge;
MacGahern and Boaten assert this is a way of maintaining motivation and
development in the classroom (Gravelle, 2000, p. 122).
However, this all depends on teachers knowing the language and learning
needs of their students, which is vital for effective planning (Makewa et al.,
2013). The lesson plan shows awareness of all the language needs of the
class, catering for both the advanced EAL learners who form the majority of
the class and the two new arrivals that have only been learning in English for
a year. The range of EAL strategies were used in the lesson evidences this
awareness: key visuals, oral scaffolding, teacher and peer modelling.
Moreover, the inclusion of paired and small group work was particularly
beneficial to EAL students. It engendered a sense of community, in which
students were fully engaged and challenged by the tasks set. This is arguably
the ideal Vygotskian classroom environment for EAL students, in which
students work together autonomously, as evidenced by the research gathered
by Makewa et al (2013, pp. 38-42)
During the course of a lesson, teachers must correct students mistakes in
order to help them learn. Directly correcting students, especially verbally, can
induce anxiety, which has been shown to interfere with second language
acquisition (Makewa et al., 2013). The following correction techniques,
provided by Cumbria Country Council (2015, p.14) should be used to avoid
this:

Additionally, when correcting written work, especially for advanced EAL

learners, teachers could highlight their mistakes, giving the students the
responsibility to figure out their mistake (Gunette, 2012). However, it is
important to note that this should only be used for corrections that are within
an individual students competence. Anything beyond a students reach could
result in anxiety (Krashen, 1995, cited in Makewa et al., 2013, pp.38-39).

Conclusion
Every time I think Ive forgotten,
I think Ive lost the mother tongue,
it blossoms out of my mouth.
(Sujata Bhatt, Search For My Tongue)
This essay has sought to establish that East African international schools,
initially set up to meet the needs of expatriates, need to evolve and adapt to
meet the language and learning needs of their new clientele, one which is
much more culturally and linguistically diverse. If they do not rise to the
challenge of ushering in a transformative pedagogy that would empower both
students and teachers, individual educators must ensure mother tongues
blossom in the safety of their classrooms (Cummins, 2000, p. 104). This
essay gave a snapshot of what this might look like in an English classroom
during a single lesson.

Bibliography
Abji, H., Cable, C. and Safford, K. (2005). Language and curriculum. [Online].
Available from: http://www.naldic.org.uk [Accessed 18 April 2015].
Abji, H. (2005). Supporting Language and Cognitive Development [Online].
Available from: http://www.naldic.org.uk [Accessed 18 April 2015].
Abji, H and Cable, C. (2008) Language and literacy in EAL learning. . [Online].
Available from: http://www.naldic.org.uk [Accessed 18 April 2015].
Alexander, N. (2000). English Unassailable but Unattainable: The dilemma of
Language policy in South African Education. PRAESA Occasional Papers,
No. 3. Cape Town: PRAESA.
Arnot, M., Schenieder, C., Evans, M., Liu, Y., Welply, O. and Davies-Tutt, D.
(2004). Schools Approaches to the Education of EAL students. [Online].
Available from: www.educ.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/ealead/Fullreport.pdf
[Accessed 30 April 2015].
Bhatt, S. (1988) Search for My Tongue [Online] Available from:
www.johndclare.net/English/Bhatt-revision-notes.doc [Accessed 8 May 2015].
British Council. (2014). Advanced Learners. Available from:
https://eal.britishcouncil.org/teachers/advanced-learners [Accessed 8 May
2015].
Brock-Utne, B. and Holmarsdottire, H.B. (2004). Language policies and
practices in Tanzania and South Africa: problems and challenges.
International Journal of Educational development. 24. pp. 67-83.
Brock-Utne, B. (2007). Learning through a familiar language versus learning
through aforeign languageA look into some secondary school classrooms in
Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Development. 27. pp. 487-498.
Burns, A. (2013). Is English a form of lingustic imperialism? Available from:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/blog/english-form-linguistic-imperialism
[Accessed 22 April 2015].
Cable, C. (2005). The social and cultural context. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.naldic.org.uk [Accessed 17 April 2015].
Carder, M. (2007). Bilingualism in International Schools: a model for enriching
language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Carder, M. (2010). Developing Second Language Learners language
trajectories: nurturing bilinguals. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.mauricecarder.net/ [Accessed 15 April 2015]
Carder, M. (2011). ESL in International Schools in the IBMYP: the elephant
under the table. Maurice Carder International Schools Journal. XXXI (1). pp.
50-58.

Carder, M. (2014). Historical Vignette: Tracing the path of ESL provision in

international schools over the last four decades, Part 1. Maurice Carder
International Schools Journal. XXXIV (1). pp. 85-96.
CoBaLTT (2014). Writing Objectives. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/curriculum/obj_write.html
[Accessed 10 April 2015].
Collier, V.P., and Thomas, W.P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become
proficient in school English? Educational Issues of Language Minority
Students. 5. pp.26-38.
Collier, V. (1995). Acquiring a Second Language for School. Directions in
Language & Education. 1 (4). pp. 3-14.
Collins, F. and Safford, K. (2009) EAL and English. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.naldic.org.uk [Accessed 18 April 2015].
Cumbria Country Council. (2005). Working with advanced EAL learners.
[Online]. Available from: www.cumbria.gov.uk. [Accessed 4 May 2015].
Cummins, J. (1999). Bilingual Children's Mother Tongue: Why Is It Important
for Education? [Online]. Available from:
http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/index.htm [Accessed 3 April 2015].
Cummins, J. (1999). Biliteracy, Empowerment, and Transformative
Pedagogy. [Online]. Available from: http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/index.htm
[Accessed 3 April 2015].
Cummins, J. (1999). Educational Research in Bilingual Education. [Online].
Available from: http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/index.htm [Accessed 3 April
2015].
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.
Cummins, J. (2001a). Rights and Responsibilities of Educators of BilingualBicultural Children. [Online]. Available from:
http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/index.htm [Accessed 3 April 2015].
Cummins, J. (2001b). This Place Nurtures My Spirit: Creating Contexts of
Empowerment in Linguistically-Diverse Schools. [Online]. Available from:
http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/index.htm [Accessed 3 April 2015].
Cummins, J. (2002). Immersion Education for the Millennium: What We Have
Learned from 30 Years of Research on Second Language Immersion.
[Online]. Available from: http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/index.htm [Accessed
3 April 2015].
Cummins, J. (2003). BICS and CALPs. [Online]. Available from:
http://iteachilearn.org/cummins/index.htm [Accessed 3 April 2015].

Davies, N. (2012). Pupils Learning EAL. [Online]. Available from:

http://www.naldic.org.uk [Accessed 18 April 2015].
Dooley, S. (2014). What progress did the student make as a result of the
English Focus programme. Case Study. University of Sunderland.
Education Effectiveness Service (2013. DARTS: Directed Activities Related to
Texts. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.swanseagfl.gov.uk/literacy/res/lang_across_curr/DARTS_Informati
on_booklet.pdf [Accessed on: 3 May 2015].
English as an additional language, 2008 (video file). Available from:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFisuk7J9SQ [Accessed on: 23 March 2015].
Franson, C. (2011). Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition. [Online].
Available from: http://www.naldic.org.uk [Accessed 18 April 2015].
Gibbons, P. (1993). Learning to Learn in a Second Language. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching
Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Gravelle, M. (ed.) (2000). Planning for Bilingual Learners: an inclusive
curriculum. London: Continuum.
Gunette, D. (2012). The Pedagogy of Error Correction: Surviving the Written
Corrective Feedback Challenge Danielle. TESL Canada Journal 30 (1). pp.
117-136.
Harklau, L. (1994). ESL Versus Mainstream Classes: Contrasting L2 Learning
Environment. TESOL Quarterly. 28 (2), pp. 10-41.
Karaoglu, S. (2008). Motivating Language Learners to Succeed. Compleat
Links. [Online]. Available from: www.tesol.org [Accessed on 2 May 2015].
Krashen, S. (1995). The input hypothesis. New York: Longman.
Makewa, L., Role, E. and Tugutu, E. (2013). Students perceived Level of
English Proficiency in Secondary Schools in Dodoma, Tanzania. International
Journal of Instruction. 6 (2), pp. 35-52.
Mohan, B. (1986) Language and Content. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Monaghan, F. (2005). Developing language in the mainstream classroom.
[Online]. Available from: http://www.naldic.org.uk [Accessed 17 April 2015].
Monaghan, F. (2008) Supporting EAL Learners. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.naldic.org.uk [Accessed 17 April 2015].

Okonkwo, C. (1983). Bilingualism in education: the Nigerian experience reexamined. Prospects. 13 (3), pp. 373-379.
Pozzi, D.C. (2004). Forms and functions in language: Morphology, syntax.
Rosamond, S., Bhatti, I., Sharieff, M. and Wilson, K. (2003). Distinguishing
the Difference between SEN or EAL. [Online]. Available from:
https://eal.britishcouncil.org/[Accessed: 29 April 2015].
Safford, K. (2005). Teaching language and curriculum. [Online]. Available
from: http://www.naldic.org.uk [Accessed 17 April 2015].
Safford, K. (2007). Learning in a second language. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.naldic.org.uk [Accessed 17 April 2015].
Shoebottom, P. (2015). Scaffolding: An Overview. [Online]. Available from:
http://esl.fis.edu/teachers/fis/scaffold/page1.htm [Accessed 20 March 2015].
Shoebottom, P. (2015). Second Language Acquisition. [Online]. Available from
http://esl.fis.edu/teachers/support/cummin.htm [Accessed 20 March 2015].
Shoebottom, P. (2015). The good language learner [Online]. Available from
http://esl.fis.edu/parents/advice/good.htm [Accessed 20 March 2015].
Somani, N. and Mobbs, M. (2007) Using Pauline Gibbons Planning
Framework: Examples of Practice. [Online]. Available from: www.naldic.org.uk
[Accessed 17 April 2015].