• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Multilingual education model construction based on superior cognitive skills of multilingual students

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2011
Dissertation
Author: Robert Dean Hobbs
Abstract:
The purpose of this qualitative grounded theory study was to assess multilingual models of education by investigating how and when to incorporate second and third languages into the curriculum to improve language acquisition. Research indicates that L3 enhances and reinforces L2 and L1. The stratified systematic grounded theory study explored the perspectives of neurolinguists, psycholinguists, sociolinguists, and interdisciplinary multilingual education researchers to derive variables for constructing a multilingual model of education. The outcome of the Internet survey revealed that 100% of the participants agreed that multilingual education must change and that teacher training must improve. Variables from the cross-disciplinary data contributed to the construction of an integrated model of multilingual education consisting of four models. The first model emerged from the data to offer the principles of multilingual education. The other three models are macro, meso, and micro models. The macro model represents schools, instruction, and the curriculum cycle. The meso model depicts the developmental domains of the individual learner and includes a cyclical equation. The micro model delineates multilingual processing in the brain based on neurolinguistic research and variables from the current study. For educational leaders and investigators, the integrated multilingual model of education includes tools for contextual evaluation and future research using notional-functional aesthetic-pragmatic concepts.

Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES……………………….……………………………………………....xx LIST OF FIGURES………………………….…….…………………………….……..xxii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………….………………………………….……..1 Background of the Problem……………………….………………………………..……..2 Statement of the Problem…………………………….…………………………..……….5 Statement of the Purpose……………………………….………………………..………..7 Significance of the Study………………………………….…………………..………….9 Significance to Learners……………………………….………………………….9 Significance to Leaders……………………………………..……………………..9 Nature of the Study…………………………………………………….……..………….10 Overview of the Research Method……………………………….……………...10 Overview of the Design Appropriateness…………………………….………….11 Research Questions……………………………………………………..……….……….13 General Research Question…………………………………...…………….……13 Research Question 1………………………………………..…………………....13 Research Question 2……………………………………...……………………...14 Conceptual and Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………14 Overview of the Theoretical Area of Multilingualism……...……………………….......15 Definitions………………………………………...…………………………………......17 Multilingual Terminology Defined……………..…………………………………..……18 Assumptions....………………………………..…………………………………..……...20 Scope………..………………………………..…………………………………………..22

viii

Limitations…..………………………………..…………………………………………23 Delimitations………………………………………………………………………….....24 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………25 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE………………………………………28 Overview of the Chapter…………………………………………………………………33 Premise: Multilingual Cognitive Superiority………………………………………….....33 Bilingual Research……………………………………………………………….33 Trilingual Research……………………………………………………………....34 Higher Education Multilingual Superiority Performance Evidence……………..35 Analysis of evidence……………………………………………….…….35 Significance of evidence………………………………………….……...36 Theoretical Basis: The Dynamic Model of Multilingualism…………………….………38 DMM Processing and Storage………………………………………….………..38 Syntagmatic Memory Precedes Dual Language Memory……………..………...38 Memory Storage Differentiation…………………………………………………39 Neurological investigation into 18 languages……………………………39 Bilingual memory storage………………………………………………..40 Multilingual Speech Production Model………………………………………………….40 Previous Learned Language Influence Model…………………………………………...45 Interface of Models, Theories, and Research……………………………………………46 Syntax Correlation with Synaptic Electrochemical Activation…………………46 Recommendations for Education in the Literature………………………………47 Evidence for Supporting First Languages……………………………………….47

ix

Multiple Domain Factors: Bilingual and Multilingual Research………………………..49 Supporting Research: The Human Development Domains……………………………..49 Language Acquisition……………………………………………………………50 Infant Studies………………………………………………………………….....50 Trilingual Tot Language Accuracy Study……………………………………….51 Developmental Language Intervention Studies………………………………….51 Voice Modulation Signaling Word Order……………………………………….52 Age of Ideal L2 Acquisition……………………………………………………..52 Early L2 Acquisition Recommendations………………………………………..53 The Cognitive Domain…………………………………………………………………..54 Neurolinguistics…………………………………………………………………54 Sublexical modal routing………………………………………………..54 Reciprocal modalities…………………………………………………...55 Psycholinguistics………………………………………………………………..55 Priming and timing study…………………………………….…………55 Cognitive linguistic research……………………………….…………...56 Psychomotor Domain……………………………………………………………………57 Pragmatics……………………………………………………………………….58 Controversy of Automaticity……………………………………………………58 Neural Recruitment Facilitates Complex Processing……………………………59 Affective and Motivation Domains………………………………………………….......60 Identity Integration………………………………………………………………60 Affiliation and Proficiency………………………………………………………60

x

Sociolinguistics………………………………………………………………….61 Codeswitching………………………………………………………...... 61 Role of language typology……………………………………………….62 Translation for identification…………………………………………….63 Intergenerational study…………………………………………………..63 Multilingual family typology……………………………………………63 Hispanic-American study……………………………………………….64 Hong Kong study………………………………………………….……..64 Australian study………………………………………………….………65 The School Domain: Curriculum, Instruction, and Materials…………………….……..66 Deficit Model of Education……………………………………………….……..66 ZPD, Assessment, and Self-management……………………………….………67 Self-efficacy Study with Arabic-English Students…………………….………..68 Dual Coding Theory Adapted for Education…………………………………….68 Digital Video Effectiveness Study…………………………………….………...69 Benefit of Ambiguity in Cognitive Stimulation…………………………………70 Multilingual Education Models………………………………………………….71 Variety of European models of education ……………………………....71 Saturday schools…………………………………………………………73 Asian models of education………………………………………………74 Educational Models: Rights, Capability, and Human Capital…………………..75 Education Policy…………………………………………………………………………76 Policy Alignment: Human Rights and Language Development…...……………77

xi

Application of the Expand Empowerment Education Models…………………..78 Meta Literature Review……………………………………………………………….....79 Feasibility Study Impact…………………………………………………………80 Consent Forms and Bilingual Studies……………………………………………81 Proficiency Bias Study…………………………………………………………...82 Prominent Research Themes……………………………………………………..83 Narrow Margin Analysis Impact………………………………………………...83 Policy Implications of Neurological Research…………………………………..84 Convergent Model Implications for Policy Makers……………………………..85 Chapter 2 Summary……………………………………………………………….……..86 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………….....87 Brief Overview of the Chapter…………………………………………………………..88 Research Method and Design Appropriateness………………………………………....88 Qualitative Method Rationale…………..………………………………………..89 Grounded Theory Design………………………………………………………..90 Core Category……………………………………………………………………90 Process Approach………………………………………………………………..91 Research Design Elaboration……………………………………………………92 Assessing Models………………………………………………………………..92 Internet Distribution and Piloting……………………………………………….93 Sampling, Data Collection, Procedures, Rationale………………………………………94 Population………………………………………………………………………..94 Reputational Sampling…………………………………………………………..95

xii

Saturation………………………………………………………………………...95 Confidentiality……………………………………….…………………………..96 Review of Research Questions………………………..…………………………96 Pilot Study Data Collection Instrument.………………..………………………..96 Pilot interview question 1………………………..……………………....97 Pilot interview question 2……..………………………………………....97 Pilot interview question 3………………...……………………………...97 Pilot interview question 4...……………………………………………...98 Pilot interview question 5…...…………………………………………...98 Reliability of Instrument…..…………………………………………………….99 Validity: Internal, External, Reliability...……….……………...……………………….99 Data Analysis…………...……………………………………………………………....101 Summary of Chapter 3..………………………………………………………………...102 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS………………………………………....104 General Research Question……………………………………………………………..105 Research Question One………………………………………………………....105 Research Question Two………………………………………………………...105 Results…………………………………………………………………………………..105 Pilot Study……………………………………………………………………....105 The Instrument………………………………………………………………….106 Interview questions……………………………………………………..106 Follow-up questions……………………………………………………107 Acquisition of the Research Sample……………………………………………107

xiii

Sample Selection Rationale…………………………………………………….108 Sample Demographics………………………………………………………….109 Main Interview Study…………………………………………………………………..112 Data Collection Process………………………………………………………..112 Data Analysis, Procedures, and Presentation of Findings……………...............114 Initial code phase……………………………………………………….114 Focused code phase……………………………………………………..114 Axial code phase…..……………………………………………….…...115 First Interview Question Summary of Answers………………………………..115 Second Interview Question Summary of Answers…………………………….117 Theme 1: Need for changes………………………………………….…118 Sub-theme 1a: More funds for teacher training……..………………....118 Sub-theme 1b: Mitigation of constraints to education is necessary……118 Sub-theme 1c: Better communication of research outcomes……...........118 Sub-theme 1d: Attitude change is necessary to support minority languages .................……………………………………………………………… 118 Sub-theme 1e: Increased funding is necessary to support education reforms.……………………………………………………………........119 Sub-theme 1f: Funds for teaching, not testing..………………………..119 Theme 2: Teacher training needs improvement……………………….120 Sub-theme 2a: Teachers must use L2 and L3 methodologies……….….120 Sub-theme 2b: Learning languages must be fun for young learners…...120 Sub-theme 2c: Link languages………….………………………...……120

xiv

Sub-theme 2d: Immersion works……………………………….………121 Sub-theme 2e: Language learners should correct own errors..………..121 Sub-theme 2f: Sleep induces neuroplasticity necessary for learning......121 Sub-theme 2g: Focus-on-form is preferable to grammar method.......…121 Sub-theme 2h: Accuracy is important for beginners……….…………..121 Theme 3: Dismay………………………………………………………122 Theme 4: Constraints…………………………………………………..123 Theme 5: Advantages…………………………………………………..123 (Follow-up notional-functional aesthetic-pragmatic question) Theme 1: Too Difficult to Answer……………………………………...125 Theme 2: Advantageous………………………………………………..126 Third Interview Question Summary of Answers………………………………126 Fourth Interview Question Summary of Answers……………………………...129 Invariant Themes……………………………………………………………….131 Variables Important for the Theoretical Model………………………………...132 Triangulating Thematic Relationships………………………………………………….133 Repetitive Themes……………………………………………………………...133 Multilingual concepts for teaching L2…………………………………134 Teacher skills and fluency..…………………………………………….134 Pedagogy and pragmatics………………………………………………134 Sociolinguistic input………..……..……………………………………134 Early L2, L3 introduction…………...………………………………….135 Subordinate themes of early introduction……….….………………….135

xv

Teaching Ln group receptivity and Ln similarity………………………135 Teaching of common cognates...………………….……………………135 Contextuality of L2, L3 as medium of instruction……………………..136 Subordinate constituents of L2, L3 as Ln medium……………………..136 Notional-functionalism aesthetic-pragmatism………………………….137 Dismay………………………………………………………………….138 Lack of communication of research outcomes to teachers……………..138 Emerging Themes………………………………………………………………138 Formal Teaching Should not be Applied to Young Children…………..139 Unrealistic Expectations of Learners…………………………………...139 Lack of Application of L3 Principles…………………………………..140 Hypocrisy of support for multilingualism while discriminating against.140 Accuracy-based versus communicative approaches……………………140 Form-on-form technique versus grammar approaches…………………141 Self-error correction versus teacher correction…………………………141 Linking Languages versus isolating languages…………………………141 Mandates without funding……………………………………………...141 Ill-informed testing companies drive education………………………..142 Too many teachers are unaware of multilingual education…………….143 Chapter 4 Summary……………………………………………………………….…....143 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS…144 Overview………………………………………………………………………………..145 Summary of Findings……………………………………………………………...……146

xvi

Conclusions and Implications……………………………………………………….….149 When to Introduce L2 and L3…………………………………………………..150 Context dependency……………………………………………………150 Needs of immigrant children…………………………………………..150 L2 and L3 as medium of instruction…………………………………………...151 Contextual considerations…………………………………………..….151 Contingencies……………………………………………………….….151 Greatest Impact of Research……………………………………………………152 Constructivism………………………………………………………….152 Lack of Communication of Outcomes………………………………….153 Need for Codeswitching………………………………………………..153 Using L2 and L3 Principles…………………………………………….153 Linking Languages……………………………………………………..154 Communicative Approach……………………………………………..154 Dismay over Lack of Impact and Other Issues…………………………………154 Constraints……………………………………………………………...155 Discrimination against immigrants………………………………….….155 Inappropriate methodology…………………………………………..…155 Advantages of Multilingual Education…………………………………………156 Notional-Functional Aesthetic-Pragmatism……………………………………156 What All Teachers Should Know………………………………………………157 Sociolinguistic Impact………………………………………………………….159 Language Group Receptivity…………………………………………………..163

xvii

When to Introduce Similar Languages or Language Group Receptivity………165 Proposal of an Integrated Model……………………………………………………….166 Principles of Third Language Learning………………………………………..167 Macro Layer of Multilingual Education……………………………………….168 Changes to the Macro Model per the Participant Data…………………170 Meso Layer of Multilingual Education…………………………………………172 Changes to the Meso Model per the Participant Data………………….173 Micro Layer of Multilingual Education………………………………………...175 Changes to the Micro Model per the Participant Data……………….....176 Tools for the Integrated Model of Multilingualism…………………………….178 Macro Theoretical Tools………………………………………………..178 Macro Layer Pragmatic Tool for Professional Development…………..180 Macro Layer Tool for Constraint Evaluation…………………………..182 Meso and Micro Student Self-Evaluations……………………………..183 Address of the Problem and Other Issues………………………………………………188 Addressing the Components of the Specific Problem………………………….188 The Meaning of Context………………………………………………………..189 Addressing the Research Questions…………………………………………….189 Recommendations for Educational Leaders……………………………………………190 Recommendations at the Macro Layer…………………………………………191 Recommendations at the Meso Layer……………………….………………….192 Recommendations at the Micro Layer………………………………………….193 Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………………………193

xviii

Lack of Communication of Research Outcomes…………………………….193 Fun Activities for Children Learning Languages……………………………194 Accuracy versus Communicative Approaches………………………………194 Grammar versus Form-on-Form……………………………………………..194 Notional-Functional Aesthetic-Pragmatism………………………………….195 Realistic Learner Goals………………………………………………………195 Creative Aspect of Language Production…………………………………….196 Suggestions for using the Model of Multilingual Education…………………………196 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….…………198 Significance to Leaders, Learners, and Literature…………………………….199 Significance to Learners……………………………………………….199 Contribution to the Field of Multilingualism………………………….199 Gap in the Literature……………………………………………………200 Limitations……………………………………………………………………..201 Transferability of the Oucomes………………………………………………...203 Chapter 5 Summary……………………………………………………………………203 References……………………………………………………………………………..206 Appendix A: Comprehensive Table of Higher Education Studies...…………………..247 Appendix B: Permission……………………..…………………………………………250 Appendix C: Invitation to Pilot Research.……………………………………………...254 Appendix D: Professional Research Affiliation.……………………………………….255 Appendix E: Participant Demographics Form………….………………………………256 Appendix F: Confidentiality Statement………………………………………………...259

xix

Appendix G: Pilot Instrument.………………………………………………………….260 Appendix H: Main Study Instrument…………………………………………………...282 Appendix I: Invitation to Participate in Research………………………………………283 Appendix J: Mid-Study Change for Greater Efficiency………………………………..284 Appendix K: Main Study Data Analysis……………………………………………….286 Appendix L: Notional-Functional Aesthetic-Pragmatic History……………………….298 Appendix M: Index of Authors …………………………….…………………………..302

xx

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Multilingual and Monolingual System Comparison of Successful School Completion Rates in Selected Countries……...……….………………………….3

Table 2 Most Recent Comparative Studies of Multilingual and Non-multilingual Student Performance in Higher Education…………………………...37

Table 3 Participant Linguistic and Professional Demographics………………………… …….111

Table 4 Invariant Constituents from Theme of Timing for L2 and L3 Introduction into Curriculum……………………………………………………………………………...116

Table 5 Invariant Constituents of Theme of Timing for L2 or L3 as Medium for Instruction………………………………………………………………………………117

Table 6 Invariant Constituents of Theme of Needed Changes in Multilingual Education….……………………………………………………………………………119

Table 7 Invariant Constituents of the Needs in Teacher Training………………………………122

Table 8 Invariant Themes and Constituents of Greatest Research Impact Deemed by Participant Researchers.…………………………………………………………………………….124

Table 9 Common Variables Emerging from Two or Three Themes…………………………….125

Table 10 Invariant Constituents from Theme of Required Teacher Knowledge in Multilingual Education……………………………………………………………………………….127

Table 11 Invariant Constituents from Theme of Impact of Sociolinguistic Literature…………...129

Table 12 Invariant Constituents of the Theme of Teaching Language Methodology…………….130

xxi

Table 13 Invariant Constituents of Theme of Timeframe for Language Group Receptivity Teaching……………………………………………………………………………….131

Table 14 Macro Layer of Multilingual Education Professional Development Tool; Hobbs Explicit- Implicit Active-Passive Encoding-Decoding Learning Analysis………………………181

Table 15 Macro Layer Questionnaire Tool for Evaluating Contextual Contingencies; Teacher and School Readiness to Teach L1, L2, L3 and Deliver Course Content in L1, L2, L3.....................................................................................................................................184

Table A1 Adaptation of Jessner (2008, p. 46) Overview of Higher Education L3 Studies…………………………………………………………………………………..246

Table D1 Professional Research Affiliation Attachment………………………………………….254

Table E1 Explanation of Terminology and Language Acquisition Categories…………………...255

Table E2 Participant Demographic Analysis……………………………………………………..256

Table G1 Implicit-Explicit Passive-Active Learning Analysis…………………………………….275

xxii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Hobbs Curriculum Instruction Human Development Interface Model………………….32

Figure 2. Hobbs Speech Production Model for Multilingualism…………………….…………….43

Figure 3. Flowchart of the Multilingual Education Study………………………………………..146

Figure 4. The Principles of Third Language Acquisition…………………………………………167

Figure 5. Macro Layer of the Integrated Multilingual Education Model…………………………171

Figure 6. Meso Layer of the Integrated Model for Multilingual Education………………………174

Figure 7. Micro Layer of the Integrated Model for Multilingual Education……………………...177

Figure 8. Macro Layer of Multilingual Education Theoretical Tool for Future Research; Intentional Paradigm of X Y Interface: Continuum of Notional Functionalism traverses Pragmatic Aesthetic Continuum…………………………………………………………………...179

Figure 9. Macro Layer of Multilingual Education Methodological Tool for Future Research; Hobbs Balance Model of Curriculum Enhancement…………………………………………..180

Figure 10. Macro Layer Tool for Analyzing Learner Language Demographics…………………..185

Figure 11. Meso Tool: Personal Heritage Student Self-Evaluation………………………………..186

Figure 12. Micro Tool: Self-Evaluation of Language Ability and Mental Storage………………..187

Figure G1. Hobbs Multilingual Curriculum Cycle Framework Model…………..………………...260

xxiii

Figure G2. Curriculum and Instruction Human Development Interface Model……………………263

Figure G3. Hobbs Intentional Paradigm of X Y Axis Interface: Continuum of Notional Functionalism traverses Pragmatic Aesthetic Continuum……………………………...266

Figure G4. Hobbs Balance Model of Curriculum Enhancement…….……………………………..269

Figure G5. Hobbs Multilingual Speech Production Model…….…………………………………..272

1

Chapter 1: Introduction Multilingual skills have existed as long as transmigration of humans on earth, but only recently have researchers begun to reveal the significant cognitive benefits of learning languages (Wei, 2008). Globalization has increased the need for improved communication in diplomacy, world trade, and international jobs in commerce, law, media, medicine, technology, and tourism at a time of diminishing natural resources (Oleksak, 2007). A major shortcoming of higher education and teaching is the lack of internationalization (Sanderson, 2008). Multiculturalism in education offers immeasurable potential. Previous research reports that learners of three languages outperform other students in primary school (Cenoz, 2009; De Angelis, 2007; Riemersma, 2009; Safont, 2005) and perform better in higher education (Jessner, 2008). Based on the impetus of 38 studies cited in Jessner (2008) and the greater success of European versus American platforms of education (Schleicher, 2006), the goal for this study includes the exploration of contributions from multilingual researchers with the aim of constructing a multilingual model of education. Chapter 1 includes problem and purpose statements with research questions for the study. The theoretical framework for the multilingual education model is presented and stems from current brain-based learning research. Definitions offer clarification of specific terminology and acronyms found in the multilingual literature. The chapter also includes basic assumptions and a discussion of the scope, limitations, and delimitations.

2

Background of the Problem Worldwide competition has increased. China graduates three times as many engineers as the United States (Gerstner, 2006). High-tech businesses have emerged in Latin America, China, and India where multilingualism is the norm (Arias, 2006; Barrett, 2006; Lewis & Trudell, 2008; Liu, 2006; Nilekani, 2006). Communicative competence is vital in every sector. Knowing when and how to mix languages in marketing can make millions of dollars, but not knowing can cause great losses (Bhatia & Ritchie, 2008). Reich (2006) reported “15% of manufacturing jobs in China vanished between 1995 and 2002 compared with 11% in the United States” (p. 44). Reich (2006) indicated the global need has greatly increased for symbolic analysts, such as engineers, lawyers, and other knowledge workers. Table 1 reveals that only 63% of American students graduate from high school. Schleicher (2006) indicated a large number of students who drop out of school are immigrant and minority students who do not possess the language skills necessary for success in secondary education. An implication from Table 1 is that more students matriculating in multilingual education systems offered in other countries achieve the necessary communication skills to successfully complete secondary school with tertiary education readiness. Longitudinal research (Taylor, 2009) demonstrated a strong link between second language successfulness with proficiency in the first language.

3

Table 1

Multilingual and Monolingual System Comparison of Successful School Completion Rates in Selected Countries

Nation

Percentage

System of education

U.S.A.

63%

Monolingual

Norway

68%

Multilingual

Poland

70%

Multilingual

Finland

73%

Multilingual

Sweden

80%

Multilingual

Iceland

83%

Multilingual

Note. Compiled from information presented in text from “Divided Europe; A Classless Act,” by A. Schleicher, February 2006, Newsweek Special Edition, pp. 96-97.

Disdain for government language preference policies and general lack of understanding of language acquisition and multicultural issues emanate throughout multilingual literature (Berthele, 2008; Canagarajah, 2006; Doran, 2006; Jessner, 2008; Safont, 2005; Wei, 2008). Sociolinguistic research has shown that monolingual policies in government and education damage the progress of minority and immigrant students (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2006). Diversification of language learning and cultural awareness offer potential economic benefits (Edwards, 2010) because American minorities consume $2 trillion of products and services every year (Anderson, 2006); $2 trillion would rank 8 th in the world

4

economy according to The World Bank (GDP Ranking, 2010). Large companies recognize the benefits of incorporating minorities into their business strategies (Moylan, 2010). Sargent (2009) wrote, “limited-English-proficient or non-English proficient consumers are 4.8 times more likely to buy products offered and documented in their own languages” (p. 8). Directors of successful companies realize attention to diversity in hiring and selling of products and services contributes to their robustness (Shea, 2008). According to Brinkbaumer (2006), nearly 200 million people migrated to other countries and continents between 2000 and 2005; North America received almost 45 million immigrants, Asia received 53 million, and Europe received 64 million. Schools around the world must cope with new students who have minimal knowledge of the language medium of instruction in recipient school systems (Reyes & Moll, 2008). Research indicates these newcomers need to be taught their mother tongues in addition to the local language (Carder, 2007). Longitudinal studies over a 20-year period studying 42,000 children demonstrated the relationship between academic success and first language support (Thomas & Collier cited in Walter, 2008). Immigrants competent in their first languages will demonstrate positive results in foreign language learning due to the metalinguistic skills acquired (Bjorklund, 2009). Third language learning helps improve competency in the first two languages (Cenoz, 2009; De Angelis, 2007; Jessner, 2006, 2009; Riemersma, 2009). Yet, immigrant children in the USA do not typically study third languages because educational leaders are unaware of the benefits indicated by research. Each language studied serves to reinforce the concepts, skills, and intuitions assimilated in previous language learning cultivation.

5

Another problem of monolingual bias confronted by educational leaders includes minority dialects appearing as errors on national standardized tests (Reaser & Adger, 2008). Statistics of higher immigrant dropout rates indicate students feel demoralized by such interpretation of their abilities (Chung, 2006). Regression analysis in Bang, Suarez- Orozco, Pakes, and O’Conner (2009) demonstrated that teachers in English-only curricula scored students higher due to greater proficiency in English regardless of homework completion; teachers awarded lower grades to less proficient children even if they completed homework. Some learners may have lost incentive for doing homework. Students need to be assessed in their first languages as well as in English to receive accurate evaluations of progress. Foreign language learning mitigates ethnocentrism, racism, and xenophobia (Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007). Multilingualism offers students larger interaction repertoires (Biseth, 2009). Multilingual opportunities contribute to important democratic values of equality, tolerance, and mutual respect. Hinton, Miyamoto, and Della-Chiesa (2008) demonstrated by brain-informed research outcomes that policies should support students’ early-learning of foreign languages. This discussion turns to elaborating on the problem. Statement of the Problem The general problem is that a predominance of monolingual English-speaking citizens compromises American competitiveness and educational progress (Demont- Heinrich, 2009; Tochon, 2009). Pressure to “internationalize has dramatically intensified in all aspects of education” (Dolby & Rahman, 2008, p. 676), but education in the United States does not offer adequate opportunities or support for efficient language learning

6

(Oleksak, 2007). Monolingual teachers are not adequately prepared for multicultural classrooms (Conteh, 2010; Pantazi, 2010; Robertson, 2010). Immigrant students suffer in one language educational systems as indicated in Alonzo (2008), Chung (2006), Goretskaya (2006), Laguerre (2008), Medina (2008), and Perea (2009). Due to English- centric policies and ethnocentric attitudes, policymakers have not perceived monolingual education as a problem (Holliday, 2008). The specific problem is that monolingual students may miss critical thinking development opportunities. Research has shown that bilingual students outperformed monolingual students on specific judgment task experiments as well as metalinguistic intuitive tasks (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2008). Multilingual students outperformed bilingual students in similar experiments (Cenoz, 2009). Bilingual students may miss opportunities because teachers are not acknowledging first languages of students, nor communicating high expectations of minority learners (Pyon, 2008). Authors in Lytra and Martin (2010) demonstrated the importance of acknowledging first languages to enhance academic performance of minority learners. The greatest disadvantage to the students based in monolingual education is the lack of skills, experience, and transferable knowledge necessary later in life for learning languages, discerning cultural cues, translating phonetic or graphemic information, or analyzing cross-linguistic cognates when reading signs or listening to foreign speech. The current qualitative study uses Internet interviews to investigate the knowledge and to explore the perceptions of language researchers around the world. The goal was to determine factors needed to construct a multilingual model of education based on recent advancements in the field of multilingual education. Educational leaders and curriculum

7

planners should be interested in the benefits of multiple language research provided by renowned experts. Ultimately, students of improved multicultural curricula are the intended beneficiaries. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this qualitative grounded theory study was to assess multilingual models of education by investigating how and when to incorporate second and third languages into the curriculum to improve language acquisition. The models should assist policy makers in understanding the cognitive benefits of increased diversity in communicative abilities so children are offered adequate foreign language learning opportunities. The most current findings in multilingual research should be used to guide curriculum for improved language learning. The qualitative aspect of this study was appropriate due to the contextual and experiential nature of the participants’ answers (Moyer, 2008). Knowledge from experts can best be expressed in qualitative data (Codo, 2008). The research variables included knowledge from researchers in neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics located in various countries around the world. The outcome of this study benefits from various perspectives of the personal observations, knowledge, and experience of these researchers. Grounded theory was the appropriate qualitative research design. In the seminal work of Glaser and Strauss (1967), classic grounded theory was discovering theory by obtaining and analyzing data systematically. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), even novice researchers can generate a usable theory by employing a systematic grounded theory research design. Charmaz (2006) explained the 21 st century grounded theory methodology of interpreting and portraying the theoretical world. Models are a

8

way of portraying the theoretical world. In the current study, the acquisition and analysis of data by systematic grounded theory design is used to assess models of multilingual education constructed for the study. Allen (2010) wrote that the motive behind Glaser and Strauss (1967) was for researchers to explore different ways of doing grounded theory research. Using Internet questionnaires with grounded theory design was accepted by universities for doing terminal degree research (Breland, 2009; Dangerfield, 2010) and explained by Charmaz (2006) as an alternative method of gathering data. For the current study, Internet questionnaire interviews were devised to stimulate written responses or conversation to garner information from themes that emerged from open-ended questions with researchers located on other continents. The questionnaire was piloted by individuals involved in theoretical and applied (multiple) linguistics. The generated questions target issues concerning when and how to incorporate languages into the curriculum and what methodologies and strategies best contribute to language acquistion. The constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) is used for the qualitative analysis of data. Systematic grounded theory is useful for discovering themes that emerge from data that may be categorized into useful components for constructing theoretical models (Charmaz, 2006). Abutalebi and Della Rosa (2008) demonstrated that grounded theory designs may be used to explore a multilingual process. In this study, the process to be explored is multiple language acquisition and maintenance. The model to construct should clarify and enhance the pedagogical process.

9

Significance of the Study The significance of this study resides in how the outcomes may benefit perceptions of school leaders, teachers, and (ultimately) students via educational modeling. Such benefits include tolerance for errors of minority and immigrant students thus likely to raise self-esteem. Implementation of multilingual curricula may reduce the impoverishments of all students who will benefit from the cognitive skills and metalinguistic associations inherent to learning languages. Significance to Learners Language learning may be enhanced because research has shown that abilities in all three languages improve due to the knowledge and skill transfer (Bialystok et al., 2008; Cenoz, 2009; De Angelis, 2007; Jessner, 2006, 2008; Riemersma, 2009). Sociolinguistic investigation demonstrated that language sharing by immigrant students in class offers positive establishment of their identities crucial to their development as demonstrated by authors in Dornyei and Ushioda (2009) and Lytra and Martin (2010). Significance to Leaders Educational leaders interested in professional development for teachers may utilize the outcomes for training teachers how to leverage the human capital of students while celebrating their unique skills; raising self-esteem; reducing isolation, racism, and xenophobia; and encouraging the appreciation of diversity. This practice may have extenuating positive influences on marginalized individuals and school cultures. Reciprocity by minority language students serves to de-marginalize them, allow them to demonstrate expertise, foster multiculturalism, and demonstrate appreciation for diversity.

10

Nature of the Study The research design was a stratified systematic grounded theory qualitative study design to enhance the abstract concepts of how improved curriculum can improve the learning of multiple languages by developing a new multilingual education model. A qualitative design allowed the researcher to explore the complexities of intuition, knowledge, and perceptions of multilingual researchers. Internet interviews obtained in the grounded theory design provided a way to explore the processes of language acquisition for the purpose of constructing a model of multilingual education. Grounded theory designs allow researchers to explore themes and discover variables (Merriam, 2009). Overview of Research Method This discussion reflects on how the research method accomplished the goals of the researcher in comparison to other methods. Other qualitative methods were not suitable for constructing a model. Constructing a model was the best way to offer a theoretical basis for designing curricula to deliver multilingual education. The research design followed a systematic process in three steps. The data was gathered, categorized into themes, and then selected for appropriateness. This type of grounded theory design allowed the themes to emerge. Lack of systematization would not have offered the sequential analytical nature to produce the desired results. With a qualitative systematic design, unknown variables were discovered relevant to constructing a multilingual model of education. Discovering unknown variables was impossible with a quantitative design. The quantitative method was not appropriate because thematic variables discovered were not quantifiable.

11

The integrated multilingual education model was grounded in the data that emerged from the current study. Organization in a corpus allows data to emerge (Backus, 2008). Charmaz (2006) stated that in systematic design, the data analysis uses initial coding, focused coding, and axial coding. Focused coding refers to the formation of initial categories by the researcher. These categories may consist of themes, properties, or dimensions observed in the data. After the broad categories were established, the researcher proceeded to the next step of axial coding. The axial phase of coding led to proposing an integrated model on the interrelationships of categories distinguished by the selective aspect of the axial coding phase. Overview of Design Appropriateness The qualitative design was appropriate because of the conceptual nature of the study. A quantitative design was not appropriate because there were no variables to quantify. The grounded theory approach was appropriate because theoretical themes were explored in the data to derive an integrated multilingual model of education. This grounded theory design was appropriate because the information sought comprised perceptions of strategies, methodologies, and instructional practices. A quantitative methodological approach was not appropriate for constructing this model because of insufficient knowledge about the variables to evaluate them quantitatively (see Tokowicz & Warren, 2008). The variables needed to be clarified due to the great amount of research accomplished recently that served as the rationale for this study. Perspectives on the multilingual learner changed due to vast improvements to brain imaging technology (Abutalebi & Della Rosa, 2008). Another reason quantitative methods were not appropriate was because such methods seek to quantify the strength

Full document contains 333 pages
Abstract: The purpose of this qualitative grounded theory study was to assess multilingual models of education by investigating how and when to incorporate second and third languages into the curriculum to improve language acquisition. Research indicates that L3 enhances and reinforces L2 and L1. The stratified systematic grounded theory study explored the perspectives of neurolinguists, psycholinguists, sociolinguists, and interdisciplinary multilingual education researchers to derive variables for constructing a multilingual model of education. The outcome of the Internet survey revealed that 100% of the participants agreed that multilingual education must change and that teacher training must improve. Variables from the cross-disciplinary data contributed to the construction of an integrated model of multilingual education consisting of four models. The first model emerged from the data to offer the principles of multilingual education. The other three models are macro, meso, and micro models. The macro model represents schools, instruction, and the curriculum cycle. The meso model depicts the developmental domains of the individual learner and includes a cyclical equation. The micro model delineates multilingual processing in the brain based on neurolinguistic research and variables from the current study. For educational leaders and investigators, the integrated multilingual model of education includes tools for contextual evaluation and future research using notional-functional aesthetic-pragmatic concepts.