Read Simon Murison-Bowie's editorial from Naldic Quarterly 5.1 on the NALDIC research agenda

What is NALDIC's agenda for research?

• To promote research (doing) that can inform practice and influence policies
• To promote using research to inform practice and to challenge policies and assumptions
• To foster research as a way of thinking amongst practitioners
• To make research responsive to policies and to questions from practitioners

NALDIC is particularly keen to take the research agenda forward through the commissioning of research projects and through the development of a NALDIC database of UK based research.  Our 'themes' have been selected as covering some of the most urgent, and currently most topical issues with regard to the education of EAL pupils and include Assessment, Bilingualism in the mainstream schooling context, Effectiveness of mainstreaming, Literacy, Training and Professional Development, and the interface between SEN and Bilingualism/EAL.

How does NALDIC promote the research agenda?

• Make links with other countries
• Make links with research departments
• Disseminate information through the Quarterly, workshops, seminars, and the NALDIC website
• Identify research topics in order to be proactive instead of reactive in terms of setting the agenda and in terms of responding to the needs of practitioners.

Language Development of Bilingual Pupils in the UK: Six Themes for a Research Agenda

Introduction

Our purpose in this statement is to highlight some of the most urgent or salient research issues, which may have a day-to-day impact on EAL specialists, and other teachers who work with linguistic minority pupils.

It is hoped that such a statement, published by a professional association, may help to form a more visible research agenda, and that it will be used as a starting point for a range of developments. One of the first is to ask NALDIC members to respond with their concerns on these issues.

Literacy

Research is needed on the literacy development of linguistic minority pupils, particularly in the context of the current focus on school literacy.

Theory and research around "literacy" include a range of definitions and approaches. Some proceed from the basis of spoken language, e.g. the vernacular literacy approach; others bracket out speech (or just assume its prior development) and focus on reading and writing the standard variety, e.g. the more traditional 'learn to read and write properly' approach. We need to ask how each of the different positions relates to first and additional language development. Since we are concerned with language and literacy development in particular social groups, we need to develop an integrated socio-cultural and cognitive / psycholinguistic perspective from which to ask and answer research questions. Such a perspective needs to include not just first language and EAL but to be also capable of framing research around language varieties, particularly language and literacy issues involving English L1 groups which are vernacular / dialectal e.g. African Caribbean groups.

Particular questions can be asked about school literacy, and how the current National Literacy Project approach relates, or not, to EAL development:

• What are the explicit and underlying assumptions of Literacy Hour activities and materials in respect of EAL development?
• What happens in practice in Literacy Hour classes with large proportions of EAL pupils, or indeed in classes with the isolated EAL pupil?
• What is the relation between what pupils bring to learning to read and the process of learning to read - how do EAL pupils use their English and first language in learning to read?
• Does a focus on the phonemic and morphemic levels have anything to contribute to EAL development? If so, how and what?

At a more macro-level, we need to explore policy issues:

•  What does international literacy research have to say about issues of concern here?
• What are other people's experiences in running literacy campaigns?
• How do social context, economic circumstances, ethnic relations and political agenda impact on the shaping of literacy policies, criteria of success and the way/s they are delivered?

Assessment

Research is needed on practice in assessment and to help construct useful ways of measuring EAL development.The current official insistence on a unitary English National Curriculum scale has led to a debate within the EAL profession on how to assess EAL development. There is some empirical evidence about current practice and how teachers who see the need for an additional scale or extension of the NC 'feel' their way forward in the classroom by stretching and interpreting the NC descriptors liberally. The case for additionality (an EAL scale in addition to the NC) needs to be further investigated. We need a systematic account of how and where the NC descriptors and levels do and do not work in respect of different groups of EAL pupils. A systematic account would also provide some clues as to the construct and content validity of the current NC scale, and to the continuing development of an empirically-derived theoretical model of EAL development to underpin assessment.

The relation between assessment, teaching and learning

The separation between formative and summative assessment is very hazy, even in the original TGAT 1988 document. In relation to EAL, a key question seems to be:

• how does the so-called formative Teacher Assessment feed into teacher decision as to stages of 'EALness' (where they use additional scales)/or English language development (where they don't use separate scales) and pedagogic action?

In the light of current arguments that 'teaching and assessment should be the same' (e.g. Gipps 1994), research needs to investigate how far this may merely perpetuate the current lack of clarity, confounding process and outcome, or whether more precise and helpful procedures can be identified.

• Is it possible to ascertain which aspects of the teaching / learning process are fit or suitable for assessment? How does that assessment inform teaching, and thus help learning?

Other assessment issues:

• What is the effect of the language demands of SATs and GCSE on EAL pupils' achievement?
•  Measuring language development past the initial stages - establishing the need to do so, finding out the variables that matter.

Bilingualism in the mainstream schooling context

Empirical data is needed to map and profile the development of pupils' languages in the context of UK mainstream education.

Bilingualism in practice in the UK still means, on the whole, minority L1 pupils learning English. The main advance in the last 10 years or so has been an acceptance, if not understanding, of the time it takes to develop English in school settings. There is also a vague sense that L1 - L2 transfer is possible but most teachers and researchers have little evidence of this in the classroom. We tend to see 'bright' children succeeding well in both languages but have no real knowledge of the transfer process, if it takes place at all.

• What do the language profiles of bilingual pupils look like?
• Are there identifiable types or configurations of bilingual repertoires?

Answers to these questions will also throw some light on the question of language shift in this country.

Another research issue concerns the links between the English language development of monolingual and of bilingual pupils. It is sometimes claimed that bilingual pupils do not learn and use English differently, it's just that they are still learning it. This is superficially a plausible line of argument, but discounts the impact of developing spoken English in the very different psycholinguistic and social conditions of the home and those faced by many EAL pupils in (pre)school. From the research point of view we need to ask what the criteria are, and whether there is a continuum of 'native-likeness'. One way to do this efficiently would be to study the English language use of those pupils who are not doing well in school and focus particularly on spoken classroom discourse and the uses of academic materials in reading and writing activities.

Where other forms of bilingual education are provided, we need to research the impact on language and cognitive development, in relation to the type of support provided for L1 and L2 development.

A particular case would be the experiences and achievements of bilingual pupils studying their heritage languages as Modern Foreign Languages to GCSE level.

Effectiveness of the mainstream

Research is needed into the effectiveness of mainstream learning on EAL and cognitive development in order to continue improving provision.

There is often a presupposition in OFSTED/HMI talk that something like 'good practice' exists 'out there', and that, once identified, it can be replicated to the benefit of other pupils. Many research questions arise:

• What does this 'good practice' look like?
• How do we know it's 'good'? (e.g. do pupils / teachers say so? do results prove it?)
• What might be better, that isn't current practice?
• Is there a universal 'good practice', i.e. that is good for all sorts of EAL learners at all stages of development?
• Is it, as is increasingly claimed, also transferable as good practice for L1 learners too?
• Can this 'good practice' (when identified) be set against an explicit model of EAL development or models of communicative competence?

A database of teachers' accounts of actual practice is needed, both as background to the above, and to establish the extent and nature of informal language support e.g. in homework clubs.

Professional training for teachers working with linguistic and ethnic minority pupils and their families

Research is needed on the amount, nature and effectiveness of initial and in-service teacher education.

The current situation in initial teacher training is reasonably well documented. What is needed is more information on LEA or school-based INSET activities in school-home liaison, language policies, working with teaching assistants or community workers etc, covering both Section 11 and mainstream activities in these areas.

Training effectiveness can be explored by building up a picture of teachers' accounts of what they think to be useful and inadequate in their own training in relation to EAL, bilingualism and bilingual education.

International comparisons of qualification requirements, training opportunities and programme types available in other broadly similar societies would be helpful, together with evaluations of effectiveness.

SEN/bilingualism

Research is needed on the relation between bilingualism and special educational needs.

There is very little research in the cross-over field, and it may be helpful to proceed from an EAL perspective.

The publications at the teacher manual level tend to be about how to separate the lack of English from SEN; they don't say much about what a teacher needs to do if actually presented with SEN and EAL together in the same pupil. A useful way to proceed might be

• to develop accurate descriptions of the various kinds of 'SENness' for EAL practitioners
• to develop a practicable framework or steps for eliminating the potentially confounding effect of 'EALness' or bilingualism.

On a less developmental mode, we need to know

• How does the current SEN Code of Practice actually work on the ground?
• Who draws up the IEP?
• Where does the specialist assistance for bilingual pupils with SEN come from, if it is at all available?

Again, UK research needs to be much more informed by international research and practice.

1998