Internationalizing Education

byDr. RD Hobbs

dr.rdhobbs@gmail.comAdapted from Hobbs, RD (2011) Chapter 4 The Refractive Thinker Press, Volume 6 [www.refractivethinkerpress.com]

Part 1: RationaleThroughout the ages of HUMAN GLOBAL MIGRATION -Human communication has perpetrated:MULTILINGUALISM; (Wei cited in Hobbs, 2011)

Migrating people have taken their languages to new locations while acquiring new languages on their journey

21st Century ResearchNEURO COGNITIVE STUDIES

HAVE REVEALED BRAIN BENEFITS

OF BILINGUALISM & MULTILINGUALISM

– Bialystok cited in Hobbs (2011)

GLOBALIZATIONRequires MULTIPLE LANGUAGES for:

Commerce, Diplomacy, Economics, Financial Growth, Media, Science, Tourism

– Oleksak cited in Hobbs (2011)

Asians & EuropeansOUTPERFORM AMERICANSinOECD PISA [standardized] Testing&Multiple Language Communication

• Schleicher cited in Hobbs (2011)• Jeynes (2008)

CONSIDER:Each year added to national average educationINCREASESNational Output by 3% to 6%Schleicher cited in Hobbs (2011)Hence, growth in China, India, & Brazil OUTPACES growth in the USA• CONCLUSION: Keep Kids in School Longer!

Learning L3 improves L2 & L1

Learning 3rd languages improves 2nd & 1st languagesEXAMPLES -SPAIN: Basque, Spanish, English (Cenoz, 2009)

DENMARK: Faros, Danish, English (Riemersma, 2009)

HONG KONG: Cantonese, English, Mandarin (Leung in Jessner, 2006)

HIGHER EDUCATION38 Studiesin20 Countries:

MULTI LINGUAL STUDENTS outperform other students

– Jessner cited in Hobbs (2011, 2012)

Support for 1st LanguageIMPORTANT FOR:2ND LANGUAGE (L2)3RD LANGUAGE (L3)4TH LANGUAGE (L4)Subsequent LANGUAGE

DEVELOPMENT

Longitudinal Studies

(Walter, 2008)

IMPORTANT FOR:Identity Development

Cognitive Development

Communicative Development

HOBBS (2011, 2012)

L2 & L3 IMPORTANT for:CommerceJob SecurityNegotiations internationalSafetyUnderstandingComplex analysis

Barenfanger & Tschirner (2009)

Oleksak (2007)

Lasagabaster & Huguet (2007)

Where do Americans go?8.1 Million Americans travel internationally on business every year31 Million Americans travel as international tourists every year

Inflight Survey cited in Hobbs (2011)Over 1 Million Soldiers & Diplomats deployed every yearNearly 2 MILLION Americans file income tax from abroad (IRS Research cited in Hobbs, 2011)

THIRD LANGUAGE LEARNINGL3 Reinforces L2 & L1L3 Reinforces skills better than L2L3 causes SUPERIOR cognitive flexibilityL3 results in GREATER repertoires in L1 & L2L3 brings GREATER phonetic & phonological abilities & pronunciationL3 brings MORE strategies for L4, L5, L6

– Hobbs (2011, 2012)

Part 2: Concepts, Factors, & Issues

Implementation of INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION3 Language Acquisition (at least)Fluency in L2 & L3L2 & L3 Maintenance easier after fluencySTART LANGUAGES EARLY (Hobbs, 2011)

GOAL: FLUENCYMULTI - LANGUAGE investigationRelationships studied:

1)Correlation - word class & retrieved response

2)Word class response proportions

3)MEANING relationships4)Response by AGE groups

(Navricsis, 2007)

LANGUAGES TESTED:Arabic, Chinese, Croation, CzechEnglish, French, German, GreekItalian, Latvian, Polish, RomanianRussian, Serbian, Slovak, SwahiliSwedish, Vietnamese

– Navricsis (2007)

[Word types & relationships]

Word TYPES Monitored :Nouns, Verbs, Infinitives, Adverbs

Adjectives, Modifiers, Pronouns

Cardinal numbers [1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc]

– Navricsis (2007)

Word Relationships StudiedSynonymsWord FormationHyponyms (hierarchies)AntonymsMeronyms (part as whole)Phrases

Derivations:Semantic derivationsInfinitive derivations

CollocationsSyntax (word order)Protocols• Navricsis (2007)

MEMORY: Function & StoragePrevious to FluencyDualLanguageMemory Search

CAUSES

ParallelMemory SearchIN L1 & L2

Fluency in L1 & L2FluencyIn EveryLanguage CAUSESDeclarative (or Explicit) Memory &Procedural Memory to be:

SAME IN L1 & L2(Hobbs, 2011)

PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONPSYCHO-LINGUISTICControls

IntonationMeaning Acquisition

FACILITATED BY:

Pervasive Electrochemical Circuitry

(Navricsis, 2007; Nelson, See FOER, 2007 for visual

NEURO-LINGUISTICGrowth of:

NeuronsAxonsSynapses

FACILITATED BY:

Pervasive Electrochemical Circuitry

De Haan, & Thomas, 2006)example.

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ISSUESAutomaticityDEPENDS ON:

Level of Proficiency

(Gut, 2010)

• LANGUAGES• INTERFACE TO ENHANCE

– Deciphering– Creativity

– (Singleton, 2007)

Cross-Linguistic TransferDEPENDS ON:

Language Dominance

NOT Length of timeNOT Exposure to a Language

(Rah, 2010)

CULTURE & LANGUAGEStudents may need to speak or write in:Their L1 to achieve L2 POWER;Their L1 or L2 to achieve L3 POWER.CULTURE INFLUENCES PERCEPTIONS!Teachers MUST tolerate 1st draft LN mixing

LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY INFLUENCES PERCEPTIONS!

WHAT IS LEXICAL PROJECTION?

LEXICAL PROJECTIONLexical Projection

MEANS

Interpretation based on L1 Perceptions due to Culture or L1 Typology

• Hobbs (2011)

FACTORS OF ACQUISITIONProcessing 2 or more LANGUAGES FORCES:

Inter-connectivity of Dual Language interface and manipulate to:• Comprehend spoken & written language

• Produce writing & speech

Factors of Language Acquisition include:

DominanceTypologyLanguage Order

• Llama, Cardoso, & Collins (2010)

Part 3: ImplementationBegin L2 in KG or Age 5Begin L3 in Grade 3 or Age 8IMPROVE TEACHER EDUCATIONAll teachers must study L2All teachers must study L3• Hobbs (2011, 2012)

Essentials of Internationalized Curriculum(Hobbs, 2011)

Qualified bilingual & trilingual teachersLevel appropriate materials for all learners and teachersResearch-based methodologyExplicit instructions for skill developmentImplicit instructions for creativity• L2 medium for core subject in Middle School

• L3 medium for core subject in High School

INNOVATIVE CHANGES (Hobbs, 2011)

Teacher Education MUST train teachers to cope with:Minority & Immigrant learnersBilingual & Trilingual studentsTEACHER TRAINING NEEDS:• Better funding to promote Skills• Improved knowledge for appropriate materials according to: AGE, LEVEL, & CULTURE.

TEACHER TRAINING NEEDS:To Communicate research outcomesTo Enhance teacher attitudesTo Motivate teachers to be creativeTo Stimulate teachers interestTo FUND Teaching, but NOT Testing

• Hobbs (2011, 2012)

TEACHERS MUST:USE L2 & L3 with studentsCREATE fun activitiesLINK languages by similaritiesIMMERSE students by using L2 in coreALLOW learners to self-correctCOMMUNICATE 8 hours sleep necessity!DEMONSTRATE Focus-on-Form DEMAND accuracy in early stages(Hobbs, 2011)

Theory: Notions & FunctionsNotional Functional TheoryImproves student meta-linguistic skillsIncreases language analytical abilitiesEnhances systematic language learningUses Esthetic PrinciplesCOMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION MODEL INCORPORATES PRAGMATISM (Hobbs, 2011)

REFERENCESBarenfanger, O., & Tschirner, E. (2008). Language education policy and language learning quality management: The common European framework of reference. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 81-102.Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education; Basque educational research from an international perspective. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Foer, J. (2007). Remember this. National Geographic, 212(5), 32-57.Gut, U. (2010). Cross-linguistic influence in L3 phonological acquisition. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(1), 19-38.Hobbs, RD (2011). Multilingual education model construction based on superior cognitive skills of multilingual students. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, UMI No. 3484309.Hobbs, RD (2012). Diverse multilingual researchers contribute language acquisition components to an integrated model of educatoin. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(3), 204-234.Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: English as a third language. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Jeynes, W. (2008). What we should and should not learn from the Japanese and other East Asian education systems. Education Policy, 22, 900-927.Lasagabaster, D. & Huguet, A. (2007). Multilingualism in European countries. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Llama,R., Cardoso, W., & Collins, L. (2010). The influence of language distance and language status on the acquisition of L3 phonology. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(1), 39-57.Navricsis, J. (2007). Word classes and the bilingual mental lexicon. In Z. Langyal & J. Navracsics (Eds.), Second language lexical processes; Applied linguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 17-35). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Nelson, C., De Haan, M., & Thomas, K. (2006). Neuroscience of cognitive development: The role of experience and the developing brain. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Oleksak, R. (2007). Ensuring America’s place in the global economy by building language capacity in the schools. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 5.Rah, A. (2010). Transfer in L3 sentence processing: Evidence from relative clause attachment ambiguities. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(2), 147-161.Riemersma, A. (2009, September). Trilingual schooling in Frysian: Results and challenges. Sixth International Conference on Third Language Acquisition and Multilingualism, Free University of Bolzano, Italy.Singleton, D. (2007). How interated is the integrated mental lexicon? [Sames as Navriscis (2007) above, pp. 3-16]Walter, S. (2008). The language of instruction issue: Framing an empirical perspective. In B. Spolsky & F. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 129-146). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.