EAL/D learners are plurilingual
EAL/D students come to school with a complex set of language skills for learning, and English is a developing part of this repertoire (Busch, 2012). Their knowledge of their multiple languages is interconnected and integrated, even if they have different degrees of proficiency and literacy in Standard Australian English and their home languages or English dialect varieties (Stroud & Heugh, 2011).
The term ‘multilingual’ is often used to describe different languages. In current literature, ‘multilingual’ refers to communities or texts in which more than one language is used, while ‘plurilingual’ describes the integrated set of different linguistic skills that one person can use in order to learn or communicate (Ollerhead, Choi & French, 2018).
For example, a multilingual newspaper might contain the community language and English. An EAL/D learner who is plurilingual ‘is able to integrate their knowledge of multiple languages in a way that enriches their communication and learning in all languages’ (VCAA, 2019). A plurilingual approach towards teaching EAL/D students recognises that language learners use more than one language in many aspects of life.
Using a plurilingual approach, EAL/D students learn by understanding and analysing content and language. A plurilingual approach connects to EAL/D students’ entire repertoire of meaning making. This includes:
Functional and plurilingual approaches complement each other to support EAL/D students’ learning
Students use language to achieve a range of personal, social and academic functions, for example, telling a story, retelling what they did on their holidays, or persuading an audience of a particular point of view. It is important for EAL/D students to learn explicitly about the functions of different types of texts that they will encounter in different learning areas such as English, Science, History or Mathematics.
Model texts are used to teach students about:
the context of culture
the purpose and audience of a text
language choices in expressing ideas, interacting with others and structuring texts
language features at the levels of text, paragraph, sentence, group, word and sub-word (Derewianka & Jones, 2016).
The focus on the functions of different text types can be enhanced through a parallel approach that connects with students’ multicultural experiences and their ability to use all their languages to communicate and learn.
EAL/D students can use their shared linguistic resources to negotiate meaning with others (Heugh, 2018), for example, when the students use their shared language to clarify meanings in a text that they read. This supports classroom learning and strengthens the personal, social and academic benefits for the students. Both the functional and plurilingual dimensions “are necessary in education and most particularly for learning” (Heugh, 2018, p. 360). Teaching practices that combine functional and plurilingual approaches are effective in building on students’ existing capabilities and developing powerful skills in English.
Some plurilingual skills and knowledge that EAL/D students develop through formal and informal education include:
knowledge of text structures, grammar, vocabulary, and phonology of different languages
the ability to compare linguistic features of different languages
cross-cultural and cross-linguistic interpreting and translating skills
conceptual knowledge learnt through different languages
understanding multiple ways of learning and being a student (Cummins, 2009; Saxena & Martin-Jones, 2013, p. 287).
EAL/D students can transfer knowledge of their home languages to learn the English language and develop their literacy across different subject areas in the Victorian Curriculum. Teachers assist students to do this by:
formalising the use of skills in different languages for learning
supporting students to learn through explicit instruction in different genres (French & Armitage, forthcoming).
Home languages support content learning
Research shows that newly arrived EAL/D students can take two years to develop English for social interaction. EAL/D learners who have received age-equivalent schooling in their first language take at least five years to develop the language to engage with age appropriate curriculum. Students with disrupted or limited prior schooling take an average of seven to ten years (Cummins, 1996; Cummins, 2008). EAL/D students’ home languages can support them to learn new language and content.
Students engage positively and learn effectively when they see themselves reflected in the content of the curriculum (Cummins, 1996, p. 147; Adam & Harper, 2016). Using plurilingual practices in the classroom helps teachers to understand the range of skills their students bring to learning, and subsequently to raise the complexity of tasks for EAL/D learners (D’warte, 2015).
Purposeful use of plurilingual strategies activates the prior knowledge and experience that is encoded in students’ home languages (Cummins et al., 2005), so that students can be encouraged to transfer content, linguistic knowledge and academic skills between their languages. Home languages are valuable for brainstorming in oral and written activities (Cummins, 1998, de Jong & Freeman Field, 2010, García, Flores & Woodley, 2012 & Liu, 2010).
Teachers do not need to speak their students’ languages to use plurilingual teaching strategies. They can support concept and vocabulary development by facilitating students to ask and answer questions in multiple languages (Hardman, 1999), to label vocabulary in home language (Schwinge, 2003), and to discuss instructions and ideas in same language groups (de Jong & Freeman Field, 2010; Hardman, 1999).
Teachers can also:
learn aspects of students’ languages
display vocabulary charts with multiple languages in the classroom
acquire plurilingual resources such as bilingual dictionaries or home language books (de Jong & Freeman Field, 2010)
encourage the use of multiple languages alongside English in classroom activities by strategically grouping students for collaborative tasks (Goldstein, 2003; Mohanty, Panda, & Pal, 2010). For example, grouping students with shared languages (Chau, 2007; Goldstein, 2003; Liu, 2010) for a group writing task so that they can brainstorm ideas in their shared language and discuss how to communicate the ideas to the class in English
encourage students to generate ideas or discuss work in home languages (Goldstein, 2003) and English as appropriate for the purpose of the task.
Home languages support English language and literacy development
Together with functional approaches, plurilingual pedagogies support EAL/D students to learn English and communicate effectively. Students translate new words, check comprehension (Chau, 2007; de Jong & Freeman Field, 2010) and formulate English sentences (Chau, 2007).
Teachers can teach students to transfer linguistic knowledge from one language to another (de Jong & Freeman Field, 2010) by:
comparing expression and meanings across languages
modelling experimentation with different languages (García et al., 2012)
asking students to teach and explain aspects of their language (Skilton-Sylvester, 2003)
sharing feedback and explaining corrections using English and home languages in peer conferencing activities (de Jong & Freeman Field, 2010; Hardman, 1999).
Using home language in all modes contributes to developing EAL/D students’ English language and literacy skills. Teachers can provide home language realia (i.e. objects and material from everyday life used as teaching aids) or plurilingual books to help students engage with reading (Schwinge, 2003).
Fine motor skills such as handwriting are transferable across languages, so practising home language writing is also valuable (Skilton-Sylvester, 2003). One example of using multiple languages in written tasks is the creation of home language speech bubbles and comments to accompany English language stories (Schwinge, 2003).
Speaking and listening and EAL/D learners
Reading and viewing for EAL/D learners
Writing and EAL/D learners
Multilingual multimodal texts and EAL/D learners
For more information on the benefits of developing both English and the home language, see:
Information on multilingualism.
For posters on the benefits of home languages and more information on free workshops on raising children in more than one language, see:
Speak to your child in the language you know best and
raising children in more than one language.
For additional resources and examples of using the plurilingual approach, see:
FUSE EAL and the
City University of New York website.
Adam, H. & Harper, L. (2016). Educating for Values and Diversity through Culturally Inclusive Children’s Literature. PETAA Paper 205.
Busch, B. (2012). The Linguistic Repertoire Revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503–523.
Chau, E. (2007). Learners’ use of their first language in ESL classroom interactions. TESOL in Context, 16(2), 11–18.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (1998). Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion. In M. R. Childs & R. M. Bostwick (Eds.), Learning through two languages: Research and practice. Second Katoh Gakuen International Symposium on Immersion and Bilingual Education (pp. 34–47). Japan: Katoh Gakuen.
Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Cohen, S., Giampapa, F., & Leoni, L. (2005). Timelines and Lifelines: Rethinking Literacy Instruction in Multilingual Classrooms. Orbit, 36(1), 22–26.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. street & n.H. Hornberger (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Volume 2: Literacy. (pp. 71–83). New York: Springer.
Cummins, J. (2009). Fundamental Psycholinguistic and Sociological Principles Underlying Educational Success for Linguistic Minority Students. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. K. Mohanty, & M. Panda (Eds.), Social Justice Through Multilingual Education (pp. 19–35). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
de Jong, E. J., & Freeman Field, R. (2010). Bilingual Approaches. In C. Leung & A. Creese (Eds.), English as an Additional Language: Approaches to teaching linguistic minority students (pp. 108–121). London: Sage.
Derewianka, B. & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching Language in Context (2nd Ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
D’warte, J. (2015). Building Knowledge About and With Students: Linguistic Ethnography in Two Secondary School Classrooms. English in Australia, 50(1), 39–48.
French, M. and Armitage, J. (Forthcoming), Multilingual and Translanguaging Pedagogies, Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics.
García, O., Flores, N., & Woodley, H. H. (2012). Transgressing Monolingual and Bilingual Dualities: Translanguaging Pedagogies. In A. Yiakometti (Ed.), Rethinking Education, Volume 5: Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve Education. Oxford: Peter Lang AG.
Goldstein, T. (2003). Contemporary Bilingual Life at a Canadian High School: Choices, Risks, Tensions, and Dilemmas. Sociology of Education, 76(3), 247–264.
Hardman, J. C. (1999). A community of learners: Cambodians in an adult ESL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 3(2), 145–166.
Heugh, K. (2018). Conclusion: Multilingualism, diversity and equitable learning: Towards crossing the ‘abyss.’ In P. Van Avermaet, S. Slembrouck, K. Van Gorp, S. Sierens, & K. Maryns (Eds.), The Multilingual Edge of Education (pp. 341–367). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Liu, C. (2010). Home Language: A Stigma or a Vehicle to Literacy? Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 18(1), 26–40.
Mohanty, A., Panda, M., & Pal, R. (2010). Language policy in education and classroom practices in India. Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers, 211–231.
Ollerhead, S., Choi, J. and French, M. (2018) ‘Introduction’, in Choi, J. and Ollerhead, S. (eds) Plurilingualism in Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–18.
Saxena, M., & Martin-Jones, M. (2013). Multilingual resources in classroom interaction: ethnographic and discourse analytic perspectives. Language and Education, 27(4), 285–297.
Schwinge, D. (2003). Enabling biliteracy: Using the continua of biliteracy to analyse curricular adaptations and elaborations. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings (pp. 278–295). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2003). Legal Discourse and Decisions, Teacher Policymaking and the Multilingual Classroom: Constraining and Supporting Khmer/English Biliteracy in the United States. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(3–4), 168–184.
Stroud, C., & Heugh, K. (2011). Language in education. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 413–429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA). (2019). English as an Additional Language Curriculum draft.
Victorian Department of Education and Training (VDET). (2018). English as an Additional Language in Victorian Government Schools 2017 (pdf - 1.02mb)