The implementation of a multilingual focus

Holistic views of multilingualism in education are gaining currency in different

contexts but their implementation is not yet widespread. The ideas are being
discussed in the literature but they do not easily reach their implementation
through language education policies. This can be illustrated by the example of
the Common European Framework of Reference, CEFR (Council of
Europe 2001Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of
reference for languages: Learning, teaching,
assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved
fromwww.coe.int/t/dg4/Linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf [Google Scholar]).).
The aim of the CEFR is to give a basis for language syllabuses and curriculum
guidelines, the development of teaching and learning materials, and the
assessment of language proficiency. The CEFR endorses a multilingual focus as
can be seen in the following quote:
It is no longer seen as simply to achieve ‘mastery’ of one or two, or even three
languages, each taken in isolation, with the ‘ideal native speaker’ as the ultimate
model. Instead, the aim is to develop a linguistic repertory, in which all linguistic
abilities have a place. (Council of Europe 2001Council of Europe. 2001. Common
European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching,
assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved
fromwww.coe.int/t/dg4/Linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf [Google Scholar], 5)

The CEFR is widely used in many education systems as a tool for language
policy and language assessment. Today, the CEFR is not only used in Europe
but in countries around the world and versions of the CEFR are available in some
40 languages. However, in most cases its use remains limited to the definition of
goals and the assessment of competences for separate languages that are
treated as isolated entities.

The implementation of a holistic multilingual pedagogy seems to imply almost

insurmountable challenges because of the strength of language separation
ideologies. Nevertheless, there are some interesting examples of projects that
bring together the resources multilingual speakers possess. It is important to
consider that the implementation of holistic pedagogies takes different forms
because it is necessarily linked to the sociolinguistic and educational context
where each is developed.

One way of working across languages in education can be seen in Welsh

translanguaging (Lewis, Jones and Baker 2012aLewis, G., B. Jones,
and C. Baker. 2012a. “Translanguaging: Origins and Development from School
to Street and Beyond.” Educational Research and Evaluation: An International
Journal on Theory and Practice 18 (7): 641–654.
 doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.718488.[Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google
Scholar], 2012bLewis, G., B. Jones, and C. Baker. 2012b. “Translanguaging:
Developing its Conceptualisation and Contextualization.” Educational Research
and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice 18 (7): 655–670.
doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.718490.[Taylor & Francis Online], , [Google
Scholar]). In this context Welsh and English alternate for different parts of the
same pedagogical activity. One of the languages is used for input and the other
for output; it is bi-directional. For example, students watch a video in English and
discuss its content and write a summary in Welsh. According to Baker
(2011Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 5th
ed. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]), translanguaging has many
advantages because it can promote understanding of the subject matter and it
may help the development of the weaker language. Taking into account the
situation of Welsh as a minority language, Jones and Lewis (2014Jones, B.,
and G. Lewis. 2014. “Language Arrangements within Bilingual Education.”
In Advances in the Study of Bilingualism, edited by E. M. Thomas,
and I. Mennen, 141–170. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]) consider
that it is necessary to systematically control the use of translanguaging so that it
does not trigger the use of English as the majority language.

Another example of a multilingual approach is explained by Lin (2015Lin, A. M.

Y. 2015. “Conceptualising the Potential Role of L1 in CLIL.” Language, Culture
and Curriculum28 (1): 74–89. doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.1000926.[Taylor &
Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]). She proposes the
‘Multimodalities/Entextualization Cycle’ to use the L1 as a scaffold when teaching
content through the medium of the second language. When teaching science in
English in Hong Kong to students with Cantonese as the first language, she
identified three stages of the process:

 Stage 1: A rich experiential context is created by using multimodal resources

(videos, images, etc) so that students can think, discuss, read, and write
explanatory texts in the L1 or the L2 using everyday language and academic
language.

 Stage 2: Students are asked to read an academic text in the L2 on the topic
introduced in stage 1 and to represent the L2 textual meaning by using notes
or mapping tasks. The idea is to unpack the L2 academic text by using L1/L2
everyday language and multimodalities.

 Stage 3: Students use L1/L2 to ‘entextualize’ academic genres after being

provided with language scaffolds such as key vocabulary or sentence
frames.
Arteagoitia and Howard (2015Arteagoitia, I., and E. R. Howard. 2015. The Role
of the Native Language in the Literacy Development of Latino Students in the
U.S. In Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and
Translanguaging, edited by J. Cenoz, and D. Gorter, 89–
115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) reported a
cross-linguistic intervention aimed at the development of academic vocabulary
and reading skills in the USA. In the cross-linguistic intervention there is a focus
on English-Spanish cognates such as implement-implementar, conform-
conformar, incentive-incentivo or compensation-compensación. By analysing
cognates, the comparison between English and Spanish is also useful to identify
morphemes (prefixes, suffixes) such as formal-formal versus formality-
formalidad (see www.cal.org/vias/subproject4/wmc/index.html). Arteagoitia and
Howard (2015Arteagoitia, I., and E. R. Howard. 2015. The Role of the Native
Language in the Literacy Development of Latino Students in the
U.S. In Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and
Translanguaging, edited by J. Cenoz, and D. Gorter, 89–
115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]) found that the
cross-linguistic intervention resulted in improved vocabulary and reading
comprehension in English when they tested 230 middle school students.

García and Li (2014García, O., and W. Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language,

Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.[Crossref], , [Google Scholar], 95) also give examples of how both
English and Spanish can be used for pedagogical purposes in US bilingual
classrooms. One of the examples looks at a math class where students read in
English but also translate what they read into Spanish and identify new words
using their metalinguistic skills. The teacher uses both languages. Another
example is a class on the history of the USA which includes a writing activity
where students can choose to write either in English or Spanish.

Lyster, Quiroga and Ballinger (2013Lyster, R., J. Quiroga, and S.Ballinger. 2013.
“The Effects of Biliteracy Instruction on Morphological Awareness.” Journal of
Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1: 169–197.
doi:10.1075/jicb.1.2.02lys.[Crossref], , [Google Scholar]) report a pedagogical
intervention in the context of Canadian French immersion. The intervention is
based on the collaboration of English and French language teachers and uses
the same stories in English and French. The focus is on derivational morphology
so that students develop their awareness about the relationship between different
words: poison-poisonous, danger-dangerous or in French acceptable-accepter,
aimable-aimer. The target language is used for communication most of the time
but some teachers alternate reading the English and French texts and both
languages are also used for the completion of tasks. The results of the evaluation
of this intervention indicate that there can be some advantages in promoting
literacy skills across languages.

Another project is a pedagogical intervention based on ‘Focus on Multilingualism’

(Cenoz and Gorter 2011Cenoz, J. and D. Gorter. 2011. “Focus on
Multilingualism: A Study of Trilingual Writing.” Modern Language
Journal 95: 356–369. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01206.x[Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], , [Google Scholar]) which emphasizes the development of language
awareness and metalinguistic awareness in a trilingual school in the Basque
Country. It concerns an intervention in the Basque, Spanish and English
language classes and combines several of the strategies used in previous
studies. The emphasis is on the awareness of cognates, prefixes, suffixes and
compounds in the three languages. It also looks at language awareness in
regard to multilingualism and about Basque as a minority language. Another
focus of the project is teaching writing skills in the three languages so as to
reinforce the commonalities in many aspects of content and organization (Cenoz
and Gorter forthcomingCenoz, J., and D. Gorter. Forthcoming. “Sustainable
translanguaging and minority languages: threat or opportunity?”Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development. [Google Scholar]; Leonet, Cenoz and
Gorter forthcomingLeonet, O., J. Cenoz, and D. Gorter. forthcoming.
“Challenging Minority Language Isolation: Translanguaging in A Trilingual School
in the Basque Country.” Journal of Language, Identity and Education. [Google
Scholar]; see also Ó Duibhir and Cummins 2012Ó Duibhir, P.,
and J. Cummins 2012. Towards an Integrated Language Curriculum in Early
Childhood and Primary Education (3–12 years). Research report number
16. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. [Google Scholar]).

These examples and others not included here, show that the multilingual focus is
providing education that aims at developing multilingual competence with
creative new ways of acquiring cross-lingual skills. The following step is to use a
multilingual approach in assessment, as we will see in the next section.

Towards multilingual assessment

The holistic perspectives on multilingualism in education are becoming quite

widespread at the theoretical level but as we have already seen in the previous
section, they are less widespread in their implementation. With a few exceptions,
such as the Heziberri policy plan of the Basque government (2015Basque
Government 2015. Heziberri2020 - Marco del Modelo Educativo
Pedagógico Online at:http://www.hezkuntza.ejgv.euskadi.eus/r43-
573/es/contenidos/informacion/heziberri_2020/es_heziberr/adjuntos/Heziberri_20
20_c.pdf [Google Scholar]), language education policy looks at one language at
a time. This can be understood because of the difficulties in breaking the
boundaries between different school subjects and in coordinating and integrating
curricula. Assessment is even more complex because it often depends on
external agencies that with a few exceptions follow the tradition of language
separation. Furthermore, the washback effect of testing implies that teaching is
guided by the tests, the principle of ‘teaching the test’
(Shohamy 2001Shohamy, E. 2001. The Power of Tests: A Critical Perspective on
the Uses of Language Tests. Harlow: Pearson Educational. [Google
Scholar], 2006Shohamy, E. 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New
Approaches. London: Longman.[Crossref], , [Google Scholar]). This is a further
hindrance to a holistic approach in assessment. Research that looks at
multilingual proficiency also tends to focus on one language at a time (see for
example Tedick and Wesely 2015Tedick, D. J., and P. M. Wesely. 2015. “A
Review of Research on Content Based Foreign/Second Language Education in
U. K.12 Contexts.” Language, Culture and Curriculum28 (1): 25–40.
doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.1000923.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science
®], , [Google Scholar]).

In spite of these difficulties, there are some trends that point in the direction of a
multilingual focus and a holistic approach. These trends can be divided into three
categories that we can refer to as a multilingualism approach towards
comprehension, a multilingualism approach towards multilingual scoring and a
translanguaging approach in assessment.

A multilingual approach towards comprehension in assessment

This approach is based on the idea that in some cases multilingual speakers may
have problems when they are assessed through the dominant language, which
may be their weaker language. This idea has a long tradition. In fact, up to the
1960s it was believed that bilingualism had detrimental effects on cognition
because monolinguals scored higher than bilinguals on IQ tests, particularly on
verbal IQ tests (see Baker 2011Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism. 5th ed. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [Google
Scholar], chapter 7). One of the methodological problems in many of these early
studies was that participants were tested in the dominant language and not in the
bilingual participants’ first language. Many years later, a large number of
multilingual students continue taking tests in a language that is not their
strongest. De Backer, Van Avermaet and Slembrouck (this special issue)
highlight the problems of assessing content with tests that have been designed
for native speakers in a language that migrants are learning (see also Menken
and Shohamy 2015Menken, K., and E. Shohamy. 2015. “Invited Colloquium on
Negotiating the Complexities of Multilingual Assessment, AAAL Conference
2014.” Language Teaching 48 (3): 421–425.[Crossref], , [Google Scholar]).
Shohamy (2011Shohamy, E. 2011. “Assessing Multilingual Competencies:
Adopting Construct Valid Assessment Policies.” The Modern Language
Journal 95 (3): 418–429. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01210.x.[Crossref], [Web
of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]) reports a study in which she compared the
results of a mathematics test in an experimental and control group. Participants
were students from the former USSR who had immigrated to Israel. Students in
the control group received monolingual instructions in Hebrew and students in
the experimental group bilingual instructions in Russian and Hebrew. Shohamy
found significant differences between the two groups showing the students who
had had bilingual instructions obtained higher scores in mathematics. When
participants in the experimental group were asked about the use of the Russian
and Hebrew versions they reported they had used both versions. These results
have important implications for many contexts.

The importance of using the mother tongue for assessment was also confirmed
in a study conducted in the Basque Country, The Basque Institute for Research
and Evaluation in Education, ISEI-IVEI (2012ISEI-IVEI. 2012. PISA-L
Investigación sobre la influencia de la lengua de la prueba en las evaluaciones
internacionales.” Resultado del alumnado de programas de educación bilingüe.
Modelo Dhttp://www.isei-ivei.net/cast/pub/PISA-L/PISA-L-final.pdf [Google
Scholar]) examined results in different types of tests including PISA tests, when
tested through the medium of their first or second language. In this case the
languages involved were Basque and Spanish, and Spanish L1 students were
taking part in a total immersion program in Basque. Therefore, Spanish L1
students were taught all their school subjects, except their Spanish and English
language classes, through the medium of Basque. The results of the study
confirm that when students took the mathematics, reading and science tests in
their L1, their results were higher than when they took the tests in the language
of instruction.
A multilingualism approach towards multilingual scoring

Another way to advance in a multilingual direction in terms of assessment is to

view the learners who are taking a test as multilingual learners when computing
their test scores. This has been carried out with language tests and takes into
consideration the idea that multilinguals are not the sum of two or more
monolinguals.

One such approach is reported by Gathercole et al. (2013Gathercole, V. C.

M., E. M. Thomas, E. Roberts, C. Hughes, E. Hughes2013. “Why Assessment
Needs to Take Exposure into Account: Vocabulary and Grammatical Abilities in
Bilingual Children.” In Issues in the assessment of bilinguals, edited by V. C.
M.Gathercole, 20–55. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]). They tested
knowledge of vocabulary in English and Welsh in Wales, taking into account the
level of exposure to each language at home and at school when norming the
tests. Gathercole et al. (2013Gathercole, V. C. M., E.
M. Thomas, E. Roberts, C. Hughes, E. Hughes2013. “Why Assessment Needs to
Take Exposure into Account: Vocabulary and Grammatical Abilities in Bilingual
Children.” In Issues in the assessment of bilinguals, edited by V. C.
M.Gathercole, 20–55. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]) grouped
children into three categories according to their home language: mostly Welsh-
speaking, mostly English-speaking and those with both Welsh and English at
home. Each pupil gets two scores for vocabulary in each of the two languages.
One is a normed score as compared to the performance of his/her age group and
the other is a normed score as compared to the children who belong to the same
category for family language. In this study, the languages are kept separate and
there is no intention of looking at the whole linguistic repertoire from a holistic
perspective as

a child's abilities in one language have no necessary relationship with his/her

abilities in the other language, and, therefore, that one cannot examine children's
performance in one language to gain insight into their performance in the other,
nor into their overall linguistic abilities. (Gathercole et al. 2013Gathercole, V. C.
M., E. M. Thomas, E. Roberts, C. Hughes, E. Hughes2013. “Why Assessment
Needs to Take Exposure into Account: Vocabulary and Grammatical Abilities in
Bilingual Children.” In Issues in the assessment of bilinguals, edited by V. C.
M.Gathercole, 20–55. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar], 51)

Even if there is this separation of languages and not a multilingual focus, the
importance of this study lies in the fact that participants are assessed differently
according to their linguistic background and not as deficient speakers of their
second languages.

One example that goes further in applying/employing/exploring the multilingual

focus is the study reported by Cenoz, Arocena and Gorter
(2013Cenoz, J., E. Arocena, and D. Gorter. 2013. “Multilingual Students and
Their Writing Skills in Basque, Spanish and English.” In Bilingual Assessment:
Issues, edited by Ver.Gathercole, 186–205. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [Google
Scholar]). In this study, writing skills in Basque, Spanish and English are
assessed separately using a rubric based on Jacobs et al (1981Jacobs, H. L., S.
A. Zinkgraf, D. R.Wormuth, V. F. Hartfiel, J. B.Hughey. 1981. Testing ESL
composition: A practical Approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. [Google
Scholar]) which measures content, organization, use of the language, vocabulary
and the mechanics of writing. After scoring the three languages, they created two
indexes, one for bilingualism and another for multilingualism. The bilingualism
index was the result of adding up the global scores of Basque and Spanish, while
the multilingualism index was the sum of the Basque, Spanish and English
scores. The idea is to go beyond looking at the level of individual languages by
combining the scores of two or three languages. The results indicated that there
were no significant differences in the bilingualism and multilingualism global
scores between Basque L1 and Spanish L1 speakers even if there were
significant differences in some of the languages when scored separately. This
means that we can obtain a different outcome when assessment looks at one
language at a time instead of the whole linguistic repertoire.

One type of assessment that takes different languages into consideration is the
Language Passport that forms part of European Language Portfolio. This is a tool
developed by the Council of Europe for citizens to self-assess their own
language skills (Council of Europe 2011Council of Europe. 2011. The Language
Passporthttp://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/elp-
reg/ELP_passport_EN.asp [Google Scholar]). The assessment is based on the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) skills:
Listening, Reading, Spoken Interaction, Spoken Production and Writing and the
related common reference levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2). The Language
Passport also records diplomas of different languages and intercultural learning
experiences. Even though the languages are self-assessed individually, the
passport provides an overview of the individual's proficiency in different
languages in one document. It is a tool that includes all the languages in the
multilingual speaker's linguistic repertoire rather than individual languages as is
the case with diplomas for separate languages.
approach in assessment

A translanguaging approach goes further than allowing for the use of the first
language or using a multilingual approach when scoring separate competences.
A translanguaging approach in assessment mirrors the multilingual focus of
looking at the learner as a multilingual person who uses resources from their
whole multilingual repertoire.

Shohamy (2011Shohamy, E. 2011. “Assessing Multilingual Competencies:

Adopting Construct Valid Assessment Policies.” The Modern Language
Journal 95 (3): 418–429. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01210.x.[Crossref], [Web
of Science ®], , [Google Scholar]) proposes multilingual tasks in language
assessment. The idea is that learners’ use of their multilingual resources is
accepted and ‘mixing languages is a legitimate act that does not result in
penalties but rather is an effective means of expressing and communicating
ideas that cannot be transmitted in one language’
(Shohamy 2011Shohamy, E. 2011. “Assessing Multilingual Competencies:
Adopting Construct Valid Assessment Policies.” The Modern Language
Journal 95 (3): 418–429. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01210.x.[Crossref], [Web
of Science ®], , [Google Scholar], 427). Heugh et al
(2016Heugh, K., L. Xuan, F. O'Neill, A.Scarino, J. Crichton, S. Ying. 2016. Devel
oping English Language and Intercultural Learning Capabilities: An investigation
in the Division of EAS. Report. Adelaide: University of Adelaide, Research Centre
for Languages and Cultures. [Google Scholar]) also included this in their
assessment of English courses at the University of Southern Australia.

It is important to note that there are two main ideas involved in this proposal. The
first is that of the legitimization of translanguaging by including the possibility to
go across languages in language tests. The other idea is that tests should match
actual language practices and that multilinguals use resources from their whole
linguistic repertoire (see also Shohamy and
Menken 2015Shohamy, E. and K. Menken 2015. “Language Assessment: Past
to Present Misuses and Future Possibilities.” In Handbook of Bilingual and
Multilingual Education, edited by Wright, S.Boun and O. García, 253–
269. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.[Crossref], , [Google Scholar]). If teaching is
going in the direction of a multilingual focus, assessment should also follow the
same path.

Sierens and Van Avermaet (2014Sierens, S., and P. Van Avermaet2014.

“Language Diversity in Education: Evolving from Multilingual Education to
Functional Multilingual Learning.” In Managing Diversity in Education :
Languages, Policies, Pedagogies, edited by D. Little, C. Leung, and P.Van
Avermaet, 204–222. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]) advocate for
‘functional multilingual learning’ and propose using multilingual students’
repertoires as a resource. In this way, metalinguistic awareness can be
enhanced and immigrant students have a better opportunity to learn both the
majority language and academic content. They demonstrated this with examples
of how Turkish-speaking pupils could reinforce their Turkish and Dutch when
they were encouraged to use both languages. Sierens and Van Avermaet
(2014Sierens, S., and P. Van Avermaet2014. “Language Diversity in Education:
Evolving from Multilingual Education to Functional Multilingual Learning.”
In Managing Diversity in Education : Languages, Policies, Pedagogies, edited
by D. Little, C. Leung, and P.Van Avermaet, 204–222. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters. [Google Scholar]) consider that assessment should also be multilingual
and allow for interaction between students rather than teacher-directed
assessment.

Another example that leads to a translanguaging approach in assessment is the

bilingual rubric developed by Escamilla et al.
(2013Escamilla, K., S. Hopewell, S.Butvilofsky, W. Sparrow, L. Soltero-
González, O. Ruiz-Figueroa, and M.Escamilla 2013. Biliteracy from the Start:
Literacy Squared in Action. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing. [Google
Scholar]). Their ‘Literacy Squared Writing Rubric’ assesses writing skills in
English and Spanish. The approach used is holistic and implies a side-by-side
examination of writing skills in the two languages. The assessment tool proposed
has a quantitative and a qualitative component. The quantitative analysis looks at
content, structural elements and spelling in the two languages. The qualitative
analysis looks at bilingual strategies and distinguishes patterns that go across
languages and language-specific approximations. The rubric proposed by
Escamilla et al.
(2013Escamilla, K., S. Hopewell, S.Butvilofsky, W. Sparrow, L. Soltero-
González, O. Ruiz-Figueroa, and M.Escamilla 2013. Biliteracy from the Start:
Literacy Squared in Action. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing. [Google
Scholar]) is an important step in the direction of a translanguaging approach in
assessment because it looks at students’ writings side by side when assessing
their skills.

Further developments in this direction are evident in the project currently being
conducted in the Basque Country, where three languages are involved. As we
have already seen above, the project aims to developing language awareness
and metalinguistic awareness by integrating and relating Basque, Spanish and
English. The assessment, which is based on ‘Focus on Multilingualism’, is still a
work in progress and examines writing skills in Basque, Spanish and English
from a holistic perspective by looking at patterns across languages and at
learners’ metalinguistic awareness. The latter is needed so as to see to what
extent learners are aware of the way they use their whole linguistic repertoire.
For example, when students write an essay in each of the three languages, they
are assessed across the languages as multilinguals.

This section demonstrates that researchers are beginning to explore alternative

ways (to) assessing multilingual competence and academic content from a
holistic view that focuses on multilingualism. These steps are still modest but
have the potential to influence language education policy.