Search

Bilingual preschool education is under researched compared with bilingual school education. There is also a lack of research on bilingual preschool teachers' agency and how they negotiate between two languages in the classroom. We examined the language practices of five bilingual preschool teachers working within three different socio-linguistic settings, in Finland (Finnish-Swedish and Russian-Finnish contexts) and Israel (an Arabic-Hebrew context) and interviewed the teachers about their use of languages in the classroom. We found that in each context the teachers reported modifications to an initial bilingual education model over time: from a strict separation of languages, to flexible bilingual practices. A thematic analysis of the contents of the teacher reflections as they emerged through interviews revealed five shared categories: (a) the flexible use of two languages; (b) responsible code-switching; (c) contextual and linguistic supports; (d) adjustments for individual children; and (e) role-modelling. Despite the different settings and socio-linguistic conditions, the similarities in teachers' practices and the rationale they gave for applying flexible bilingual practices were significant. The shared practices across contexts may have important implications for bilingual education.

During the transitional period from being part of the Soviet Union, with Russian as the official state language, to an independent state within the European Union, with special language policies supporting minority languages, Latvia has developed reasonable principles of bilingual education. Nevertheless, a lot of work still needs to be done to improve teaching methods, to develop effective programmes, and to assess the multifaceted process of language use at school, including sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic analysis of educational discourse and spontaneous bilingual communication. The quality of bilingual education depends upon different factors, which are subject to various influences. Some of these are not mentioned in the models being proposed by the government, such as the pedagogical relevance of a child-centered approach, the progression in language and cultural competence of participants, mixing/overlapping/avoidance strategies of language use, attitudes of families, children and teachers, etc. The challenge for teachers of both Latvian as a second and Russian as a first language is enormous. In the future, other bilingual situations will present themselves in Latvia as well. Because of this, Latvian society must consider their entire policy towards bilingualism in the educational system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]