DATOS ADICIONALES QUE DEBEN DECLARAR LAS ENTIDADES DE CRÉDITO

Bidialectal education attracted important research interest during the last decades. A number of studies have been conducted in Canada, Australia, USA and Europe regarding bidialectal education (Yiakoumetti & Esch, 2010). The efforts to educate Indigenous children to add second English dialect rather than replacing their home dialect has been significant in countries such as Canada, Australia and United States. In Europe, countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Cyprus, have been exploring regional bidialectism as regards to “the differences between the standard and non- standard varieties, identification of attitudes towards dialects, proposals for bidialectal language programmes and suggestions for teacher-training programmes” (Yiakoumetti & Esch, 2010, p.292). These efforts are explored below.

 Canada

The existence of Aboriginal English dialects in Canada is an important factor that policy approaches needed to consider in order to improve learning attainment of Aboriginal children (Ball, 2009). Ball & Bernhardt (2012) argued that language-in-

children bring with them when entering formal education. In Canada for a long period of time educational policies have excluded Indigenous histories, cultures and language forms from public school pedagogy and curriculum (Ball & Bernhardt, 2012). Ball et al. (2005) argued that research has to distinguish between language differences and language deficits in order to enable the creation and development of suitable training, policies and practices for educators and speech language pathologists. Ball and Bernhardt (2012) called for the urgent need to create new approaches in education that will recognise, support and assess Indigenous children’s oral language. School- based Standard English as a Second Language (SESD) programmes are funded in a lot of provinces in Canada. Little research information is provided regarding the effects of these programmes except from British Columbia where some research has been conducted (Ball and Bernhardt 2012). In this province schools are offered additional funding to support students who speak variations of English that differ greatly from the standard English used in Canadian educational and social context (Ball and Bernhardt 2012). A study for examining the learning benefits of such programmes indicated that,

“...strategies included specific pedagogical strategies for vocabulary development, specialised oral language instruction on a weekly basis, acquiring reading materials for Aboriginal content and integrating strategies for oral language development into regular literacy programmes” (Ball and Bernhardt 2012, p. 213).

Such programmes seemed to benefit Aboriginal students’ reading skills. Also due to the fact that First Nation children could be misdiagnosed as having speech and language impairments because of their use of an English dialect, a specialised SESD program was created which:

- helped the child to be aware of the situations for appropriate use of the dialect, rather than identifying one dialect as ‘correct’

- provided opportunities for the child to learn the grammar and phonology of the standard dialect (Ball, 2005, p.12).

These findings suggest the beginning of important initiatives for Aboriginal students’ language skills and stress attention to the need for recognising the possible effectiveness of using student’s oral language in education (Ball, 2005). Further, Ball & Bernhardt (2012) stated that there is a need for providing culturally safe and sensitive educational programmes that view dialects under the spectrum of equality of dialects in an effort to develop tolerance and recognition of the positive implications of bidialectal education. Culturally safe programmes in Canada encourage students to express themselves using their nonstandard dialect and introduce the standard later and once they have acclimatised to school environment (Ball & Bernhardt, 2012).However these programmes need for culturally self-aware educators that acknowledge the different forms of interactions as appropriate and worthy for consideration (Ball & Bernhardt 2012). Ball (2004) argued that a mainstream, standardised, one-size-fits-all curriculum results in a homogenising, monocultural approach that is inappropriate for the different social ecologies of Indigenous students and families. Education should be compatible with the worldview of the community exploring the unique dynamics of relationships of its members (Ball, 2004). In such context community members can actively participate and collectively create, share and develop the emergent worldview promoting high levels of students’ involvement during the learning. Cyprus’ curriculum

students’ bidialectism but still follows a one-size-fits-all curriculum ideology since approaches as to how to use CD are not being used in the classroom neither teachers’ have attended any kind of training to use a bidialectal approach.

 Australia

In Australia two varieties of English exist such as Standard Australian English (SAE) and Aboriginal English (Malcolm & Truscott, 2012; Malcolm, 2011). Sociolinguistic studies focused in ethnic varieties leading to the official recognition of the validity of English varieties spoken by minority indigenous groups (Yiakoumetti & Esch, 2010). SAE is the language of administration and education while Aboriginal English is not recognised as “a dialect in its own terms but as a corrupt form of their own English” (Malcolm & Truscott, 2012, p.231). Malcolm (2011) argued that Aboriginal English is comprehensible with SAE but passing through generations in indigenous contexts, it has obtained an indigenous character in many of its features. Educators and official authorities have wrongly believed that speakers of Aboriginal English are able to learn and learn through SAE without the support of a bidialectal programme (Malcolm, 2011). Furthermore, many teachers ‘correct’ the English of Aboriginal students and thus exclude its use from the classroom promoting monocultural outcomes (Malcolm & Truscott, 2012). Hence, in order to recognise the bidialectal nature of Australian educational contexts a pioneering work has been undertaken on ‘English as a Second Dialect’ for supporting the transition of children to school and prepare them to succeed in education (Ball, 2009).

Efforts have been made for raising and cultivating bidialectal awareness among all members of society and not just Indigenous people. Such efforts included the development of programmes to teach Australian students about dialect diversity (Siegel, 1999). Two-way bidialectal education in Australia tried to reduce feelings of embarrassment if/when Aboriginal English is used for classroom communication and learning (Malcolm & Truscott, 2012). Siegel (2006) noted that this ‘Two-way’ English program recognises the cultural and linguistic differences as a significant empowering educational opportunity for both students and teachers. Malcolm & Truscott (2012) argued that it is ‘two-way” because firstly it engages both Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal teachers, principals, students and Aboriginal staff members, and secondly it foresees that both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students will learn from one another through equal and respectful use of their dialects. The implementation of two-way bidialectal education took place in three different schools: fringe metropolitan, fringe rural and rural/remote.

I will now provide a short description of this programme. The framework of the two- way bidialectal program is following four dimensions: relationship building, mutual comprehension building, repertoire building and skill building. Data showed that relationship building that is the first dimension can create effective outcomes in schools with large number of Aboriginal enrolment. The active engagement of Aboriginal and non Aboriginal staff in the programme created an inclusive educational environment of Aboriginal culture. Aboriginal students were able to communicate without shame while teachers’ entrusted role enabled the creation of cross-cultural communication which

“mutual comprehension building”- evidence showed that students were able to use their Aboriginal English when learning while Aboriginal staff served as cross-dialectal interpreters and non-Aboriginal showed a receptive attitude. Repertoire building which was the third aim of the programme enabled students to use their home language in the classroom while teachers did not consider dialect features as ‘errors’. Resources had been developed to raise awareness of home talk/ school talk differences. Finally, the fourth dimension of the two-way bidialectal programme involved skill building and was being pursued in lower grades where Aboriginal English literacy was used as the first step towards literacy in SAE. SAE learning resources were used selectively and were modified for advanced bidialectal learners (Malcolm and Truscott, 2012).

Such bidialectal programmes clearly introduce positive conceptualisations regarding non-standard varieties and their powerful use in education. Linguistic equality is definitely promoted while communication is motivated creating positive learning environment. Education should be sensitive to the bidialectal situation in countries around the world leading students to the acquisition of literacy skills in standard varieties through the medium of non-standard varieties.

 United States

In the USA research focused its attention on the use of African American Vernacular English (AAVE). AAVE is a stigmatised and marginalised variety which is considered as inappropriate for using it in the classroom and has been characterised as ‘bad English’ (Siegel, 2006; Howard, 1996). Efforts have been made to acknowledge AAVE and to teach it as a separate language. However such efforts resulted in great failure,

initiating the ‘Ebonics debate’ (Ball & Bernhardt, 2012). Siegel (2006) argued that the curriculum ignores the language known by students and does not follow the primary educational approach that is moving from the known to the unknown. Rickford (1999) refers to the failure of education to support the academic progress of African American learners since evidence supports those educational efforts that do not recognise AAVE have been unsuccessful as strategies for teaching standard English to AAVE- speaking children.

Rickford (1999) provided examples of a “linguistic informed” approach in which language arts programmes recognise and include the use of AAVE in the classroom. Teachers following such an approach were trained to identify between errors that are due to dialect interference or because of reading difficulties. Rickford (1999) sets examples of another beneficial approach called “using the vernacular to teach the standard” by which African-American students are taught to read and write in AAVE using dialect readers and then gradually transitioning to standard American English. Finally, it was argued that a contrastive analysis can be considered as another successful method focusing on raising students’ awareness of dialect differences and code-switching (Rickford, 1999).

Furthermore, Siegel (2010) argued that the proficiency in a second language or a second dialect is multidimensional. It partly depends upon conscious learning and partly through gradual progress through communicative use (Siegel, 2010). Siegel (2012) describes three approaches as to using pidgin and creoles in education. Firstly in

in the classroom. Students are allowed to communicate using their non-standard variety and even to write in any variety (Siegel, 1999; Siegel, 2012). Studies of this approach were conducted in Hawai’i where Hawai’i creole was accepted as a valid linguistic variety (Siegel, 2012). Secondly in awareness approaches/ programmes the stigmatised variety is used as a resource that can be used for learning the standard. Such programs may utilise a contrastive approach trying to make students aware of the grammatical and pragmatic differences between their own varieties and the standard (Siegel, 1999; Siegel, 2012). Siegel (2012) argues that this approach is similar with ‘language awareness’ that is well known in Britain and also has a lot of common with ‘dialect awareness’ in the US although an awareness approach is more focused on acquisition. Finally the third suggested approach is the instrumental approach where the less powerful variety is used as a tool for teaching initial literacy and content subjects such as mathematics, science and health (Siegel, 1999).

 Europe: The case of Cyprus

In Cyprus the language issue has been in the centre of discussions both in the national press and in the international academic field (Papapavlou & Yiakoumetti, 2000). Literature around this issue has already been discussed and so now I will focus on studies that have been undertaken to explore the Greek-Cypriot bidialectal community of Cyprus. Yiakoumetti (2007) stated that efforts have been made to explore how having a regional dialect (CD) as a home variety influences the performance of students in the standard variety (SMG). SMG is treated as the native language while CD is considered to have less power in academic and administration contexts. A common concern was that dialect speakers underachieve at school, especially in the language

lesson, due to their bidialectism (Yiakoumetti, 2007). Yiakoumetti (2006; 2007) created a bidialectal programme which taught Cypriot students in rural and urban schools of Cyprus through their local dialect. Her study aimed to provide information regarding the relationship between use of CD in the classroom and school language achievement. This programme developed students’ awareness of the differences between SMG and CD and benefited language performance primarily in productive skills. The study revealed that the use of CD alongside SMG does not result in dialectal interference but on the contrary dialectal interference is decreased enabling students to separate the two codes (Yiakoumetti, 2006; 2007). This occurred once children were made aware of the differences between CD and SMG and “applied their knowledge to increase the appropriateness of their usage” (Yiakoumetti, 2007, p.62). Furthermore, Yiacoumetti (2007) argued that the use of a bidialectal programme in formal education can only have positive results on all learners but especially to rural speakers.

More research about the phenomenon of bidialectism in Cyprus has shown that teaching students bidialectally enables them to perform as well as students who are taught in the standard variety only (Yiakoumetti, 2012). Dialectal interference can be considered as a negative feature for learning when students are not taught about the linguistic and sociolinguistic differences between the varieties used in their academic setting (Yiakoumetti, 2012).

A substantial amount of research is undertaken in Cyprus regarding bidialectism in education. Some of this research is discussed in the introductory section of chapter 1 of

situation in classroom settings, the occasions of communication when CD and SMG are used (Ioannidou, 2009), examined the written performance of speakers of a non- standard variety in Cyprus’ primary education bidialectal settings (Papapavlou & Yiakoumetti, 2000), discussed attitudes around bidialectism as well as the positive outcomes for learning native language when the two codes are used alongside each other (Papapavlou 2000; Pavlou & Papapavlou, 2004, Yiakoumetti et al., 2005), examined the performance of bidialectal speakers in a foreign language (Yiakoumetti & Mina, 2011) and also called for legitimacy for using Cypriot Greek (CD) in the Cypriot curriculum (Hadjioannou et al. 2011).

My research could be characterised as providing an example of how CD could be accomodated in Greek Cypriot bidialectal classrooms since CD is accepted in various ways as described in my data analysis chapters. To be more precise, using an ecological accommodation approach for learning, students were engaged in conversations around texts written in SMG. Students were able to use any linguistic variety available when negotiating meanings of the texts, and were constructing knowledge through types of talk such as the exploratory talk. Further, students’ own interactional patterns and stories for teaching the standard were utilised. A long time involvement in such approaches may reveal interesting findings regarding students’ performance in the language lesson in Cyprus educational context.