This article lends the wisdom from research to spotlight 21 tips on how we can maximise the impact of a PARENT TEACHER PARTNERSHIP to drive effective language learning for our learners.
Table of Contents
- 1. Building a Strong Parent Teacher Relationship
- 1.1 Setting explicit expectations for the partnership
- 1.2 Establishing a regular channel of communication
- 1.3 Building trust and maintaining mutual respect
- 2. Setting Language Learning Goals for the Student Together
- 2.1 Linking to the out-of-school environment and background of the child
- 2.2 Adopting the SMART framework
- 2.3 Remembering and embracing the child’s voice
- 2.4 Consolidating accountability measures
- 3. Creating a Language-Rich Environment at Home
- 3.1 Maintain an immersive environment for the target language
- 3.2 Manipulation of the linguistic landscape in the home
- 3.3 Utilisation of Input Enhancement Techniques within the home
- 4. Supporting Language Development through Structured and Unstructured Activities
- 4.1 Carrying out structured language learning activities
- 4.2 Putting in place unstructured activities that support language development
- 4.3 Invite parents into our language classrooms
- 5. Collaborative Assessment and Progress Monitoring
- 5.1 Identifying shared assessment objectives
- 5.2 Documenting language development through a portfolio
- 5.3 Holding joint assessment discussions
- 6. Bridging Cultural Differences
- 6.1 Expressing the commitment to be culturally responsive
- 6.2 Understanding the unique cultural challenges of the child
- 6.3 Uplifting the whole class in cultural literacy
- 7. Strengthening the Resource Awareness
- 7.1 Recommending avenues of comprehensive resources
- 7.2 Increasing awareness of resources in the daily mundane
- Conclusion: Empowering the Parent as a Language Educator in the Family
- Recommended Readings
- References
Many of us will be familiar with the African proverb “it takes a village to raise a child”. The concept encapsulated by the adage serves as a powerful metaphor conveying the notion that the collective effort from numerous individuals, symbolised by the “village”, is essential in nurturing every individual child within a conducive environment. This environment ensures their well-being, fosters their growth and potential, and enables the fulfilment of their aspirations and ambitions.
From the perspective of language education, this phrase underscores the significance of recognising the collaborative responsibility of various stakeholders in providing optimal conditions for a child’s linguistic and overall development. Parents and teachers are regarded as the two most influential groups of figures in the lives of children, as they represent the primary caregivers within the familial and schooling contexts where the children spend the bulk of their time. The synergistic potential of a strong PARENT TEACHER PARTNERSHIP stems from the unique insights and perspectives provided by each party, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the child’s strengths, weaknesses, interests, and challenges.
Numerous studies have highlighted the significance of a parent’s role in bolstering (or hindering) the language acquisition process, across the various tenets of the child’s language learning ecosystem (Anderson, Moffatt, McTavish & Shapiro, 2013; Cavallaro, Tay & Ng, 2021; Cekaite, 2018; Curdt-Christiansen & Wang, 2018; Hollebeke, Struys & Agirdag, 2020; Levickis, Conway, Smith & Bennetts, 2022; Pinter, 2011; Schüpbach, 2009; Spolsky, 2012; Whitehead, 2007). Other studies have also pointed out how productive parent-teacher partnerships can lead to optimal educational outcomes (Deng, Zhou, Nie, Jin, Yang & Fang, 2018; Janssen-Vos & Weijers, 2022; Ragnarsdóttir, 2022; Reynolds, Lee, Eales, Varshney & Smerillo, 2022; Sheridan, Knoche & Boise, 2022).
It is evident that when parents and educators join forces, the likelihood of successful language learning outcomes for the students increases manifold. This article thus lends the wisdom from research to spotlight 7 important areas we can work on to maximise the impact of a PARENT TEACHER PARTNERSHIP to drive effective language learning for the learners.
Depending on the context in which we are teaching, we might already by working with parents extensively; or we may have yet to embark on any specific structured or planned partnerships. This is where this article can be helpful, whether to review the areas in where we are investing our time or enhancing our approach to increase its efficacy. Also, I would like to put in a caveat here: not all families are made identical. Some families function where the primary caregiver(s) of a child is not the parents; some other families experience adversities beyond our imagination such that their circumstances may not exactly lend well to what is suggested here. As we proceed, do remember to contextualise for our own specific situation.
Get real-time updates and BE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS by joining LEA’s online communities on your favourite platforms! Connect with like-minded language educators and get inspired for your next language lesson.
1. Building a Strong Parent Teacher Relationship
The commencement of any partnership, be it professional or personal, has to be anchored on a human-human relationship. Establishing a robust parent teacher relationship is paramount in fostering a supportive environment for language learning. A close collaboration between parents and educators not only enhances the student’s educational experience but also boost their language acquisition in a sustainable manner. This section delves into the importance of this relationship and provides practical suggestions for nurturing it effectively. Note that the suggestions are not meant to be sequential, and some should be considered as concurrent actions.
1.1 Setting explicit expectations for the partnership
In establishing the partnership between parents and teachers, the first is to prepare our mindsets and set the expectations for such a partnership. This has to be articulated explicitly, either through the institution or by the teacher as an individual. Both parties in a partnership has to recognise their position and roles – we are not sparring against one another in a zero-sum game, but complementing and enhancing each other’s capacity in levelling up the child’s capabilities.
By delineating responsibilities and realistic expectations, we can work together to create a conducive language learning environment. We would also have to recognise each other as humans, that we have our individual strengths in influencing the child in the different domains; and yet we have our limitations due to our circumstances which are sometimes beyond our control. On one hand, the teacher is attending to more than a class of students which can easily add up to over a hundred and where every one (and their parent) may be seeking some form of individual attention; on the other hand, the school and usually the teacher might be the only access of educated expert that the parent has in hoping to address the immediate educational needs. Any communication, as a structure or as an individual event, should be premised on these expectations.
1.2 Establishing a regular channel of communication
This can also be part of the earlier setting of expectations. Usually, the institution as represented by the teacher should have structured this in place. Otherwise both parties should agree mutually on the preferred mode of communication, such as email, phone calls, messaging applications or EdTech platforms which facilitate such communications (e.g. ClassDojo). EdTech platforms are preferred in the sense that they keep these conversations on a separate professional space.
By establishing a regular channel of communication where information and feedback can be exchanged, parents and teachers can design and implement tailored strategies and interventions to maximise the effectiveness of language education, especially when some of such are time-sensitive.
A smooth channel of communication serves to bridge the gap between a child’s home and school experiences, allowing for the seamless integration of language learning opportunities in both settings, thus reinforcing and enriching the learning process. It can also be an informal feedback channel for the teacher to plan out subsequent lessons.
With a regular channel, of course, there is the concern of frequency and intensity. These are also points that should be factored in as part of the earlier expectations. One tip for teachers though, is that the first contact with a parent be preferably centred on a positive observation of the child. Usually that might open up more constructive conversations, than if the first contact with the parent is a complaint about the child.
1.3 Building trust and maintaining mutual respect
Trust building is another essential aspect of a strong parent-teacher relationship. Parents need to trust that teachers have the students’ best interests at heart and are working towards their success. Teachers, on the other hand, must trust that parents will support their efforts to promote their students’ language learning. Trust can be built by actively involving parents in the learning process and ensuring that they feel valued and respected.
Previously, demonstrating any form of vulnerability on either side seems to be perceived as a form of weakness and inadequacy. However, psychologists have come to realise that expressing vulnerability may be associated with trust and has the potential to build trust. As such, we can consider how to use this in calibration and in a professional manner (e.g. reflecting on our approach in educating for language learning and seeking suggestions from the parent).
On a related note, to maintain a strong parent teacher relationship, mutual respect should be cultivated. Both parties should acknowledge each other’s expertise, knowledge, and experiences. Effective feedback should also be provided on the student’s progress, with both parties providing constructive feedback that is focused on helping the student improve (e.g. less emphasis on possible attribution to lapses from either side). This helps to keep the relationship professional and productive.
2. Setting Language Learning Goals for the Student Together
Goal-setting has well been established in psychology to have an effect on motivation and performance, albeit influenced by many variables that can shape the direction of the relationship. For this reason, capitalising on the measure to propel the child on a trajectory conducive for improvement can be transformative in nature. Furthermore, there is an added advantage when parents and teachers join forces in this endeavour – there is a shared vision commonly understood by all parties and the positive outcomes can be fortified further for the young learner(s). This section thus explores the various strategies to supercharge the goal-setting process in the context of the PARENT TEACHER PARTNERSHIP.
2.1 Linking to the out-of-school environment and background of the child
The process of goal-setting is a golden opportunity of conversation to unpack the ecosystem of language learning for child. The parent has an opportunity to elucidate the perceived threats and opportunities of the learner in his/her organic out-of-school environment on which the teacher can provide guidance and constructive suggestions; and the teacher may also better understand the assumptions and background knowledge of the learner to calibrate the pedagogy and instructional materials.
Moreover, our institutions may be promoting or mandating the use of a specific language teaching approach, but we can adjust and adapt to the circumstances of individual learners, or at least provide some form of scaffolding support for a certain group of learners. Such is possible only when we have a good representation of the linguistic environment of our learners through the goal-setting process.
2.2 Adopting the SMART framework
“SMART” is an acronym for “Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound”, with the details as follows:
- Specific: the language learning goals should be clear and specific, with well-defined outcomes (e.g. able to read the level 1 graded readers independently);
- Measurable: the language learning goals should be measurable, with a way to track progress and determine success (e.g. specific instruments to assess whether the child can indeed read independently with a timeline of milestones);
- Attainable: the language learning goals can be ambitious but achievable, taking into account the information shared in 2.1 as well as available resources that can be provided by the institution or other accessible avenues (e.g. do not expect a 7-yr old child to read an academic paper), so that the learner can be engaged in productive struggles and push personal boundaries without feeling helpless;
- Relevant: the language learning goals should be relevant to the child’s values, interests, and priorities; and
- Time-bound: the language learning goals should have a deadline or timeline for completion, providing a sense of urgency and motivation (e.g. able to read the level 1 graded readers independently by end of term 1).
This framework was proposed initially to direct goal-setting in more professional work environments (Doran, 1981). Over time, it became a useful framework that is widely adopted and can be used to ground the process in our context.
2.3 Remembering and embracing the child’s voice
This tip sorts of reiterates the point of “relevance” from the SMART framework. We may exhibit the tendencies to plan everything for the child and overlooked the child’s agency in this process. We need to involve the child in the goal-setting process. After all, it is the child that will be learning, and his/her personal recognition of those goals is important to ensure that they take ownership of their own learning.
Encouraging the learner to articulate his/her own objectives and aspirations can also help bring the individual assumptions and beliefs about language learning, and attitudes to the target language to salience. Should the learner be holding very positive attitudes, both the parent and teacher can be confident in directing more energy to creating opportunities for further exploration. Otherwise, if the learner is resistant to learn or use the target language, both the parent and teacher will need to exercise mindfulness to remove or lower barriers for learning (e.g. factoring personal preferences of content).
2.4 Consolidating accountability measures
This is a reminder to the “M” of the SMART framework. Accountability measures are important when setting language learning goals. When these measures are put in place at strategic milestones, we can help identify areas where the student may need additional support, as well as provide feedback on their progress. The data that forms the basis for such identification can come from both parents and teachers, as well as from the learners if the design is set as such.
Join our mailing list!
Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!
3. Creating a Language-Rich Environment at Home
Not all of us have the privilege of an external linguistic environment favourable to the target language that we are teaching. The linguistic environment for minority languages, or any language that is not the dominant language in society, can be narrow to the extent that the only planned exposure to the target language is the classroom.
With a supportive PARENT TEACHER PARTNERSHIP, this so-called gap can be addressed to a certain degree. The parents that we worked with may or may not be well equipped to deal with these challenges. However, we can exercise our agency and leverage the partnership we have to support them in creating a rich environment for our target language in their home.
3.1 Maintain an immersive environment for the target language
This tip addresses the realm of the family language policy, which is generally defined as “explicit and overt planning in relation to language use within the home and among family members” (King & Fogle, 2017). Family language policy has a profound impact on intergenerational language transmission (Spolsky, 2012), and we will probably want to have our parents’ support in the “transmission” of the target language we are teaching.
Despite the gap in accuracy, the immersion approach to language education has been recognised to be one of the most effective approaches to fluency in the target language. While this does not mean the “exclusive use of the target language” as proposed in the “direct method”, it does imply the provision of a large quantity of comprehensible input for the learners, especially the younger ones, to be able to acquire the target language naturally through exposure.
This is why, layering with the caveat of the circumstances of the family and the proficiency of family members in the target language, we should try our best to work with parents in maintaining an immersive environment for the target language at home for the continuity of language learning from school. Where possible, the parents (alongside other members of the family) should try to use the target language in various forms of “languaging”.
Of course, we are not naïve to assume that all parents and their families are predisposed to share our attitudes towards the target language or perform at the same level in terms of proficiency and confidence. However, it is thus vital that we build the common understanding through our earlier strategies (e.g. trust and mutual respect, open channel of communication) that we try to expand the space for target language use. I am not advocating an environment where only the target language is spoken at home, but it is not entirely impractical to incorporate dedicated structured sessions or regular periods of exclusive language use.
If our parents are not confident in using the target language in this manner, we should be cognisant of the alternative ways that this can happen, via the use of technology (e.g. interactive apps, online communities), publicly accessible resources (e.g. public libraries) and media (e.g. podcasts, TV programs).
Even if our parents are highly proficient in the target language, as the adage goes, “variety is the spice of life”, and so too should it be in the realm of language learning. To this end, parents can diversify their children’s linguistic exposure by incorporating these multiple sources of input. Furthermore, by establishing connections with speakers of the target language, parents can provide our learners with more authentic opportunities to practise their burgeoning skills and immerse themselves in the richness of the language.
3.2 Manipulation of the linguistic landscape in the home
The notion of the “linguistic landscape” (Shohamy & Gorter, 2009) relates more to the presence of physical elements (e.g. public signs, posters, information labels) displaying texts in a target language within a physical scope (e.g. a city, a school). Research on linguistic landscape purpose to examine the patterns of these elements and how certain power relations, social messages, and attitudes are espoused or exemplified; and their corresponding effects on different facets of humanity (e.g. education, socio-political identities, language attitudes).
I believe some of us are teachers of students at the pre-school or primary levels. In our home room (or form classroom), we will decorate walls, shelves and boards (and whatever we can occupy) with posters and banners that are educational in nature – some which will be relevant (I hope!) to learning of the target language(s) of which we are in charge. That is the example of the manipulation of the linguistic landscape in our classroom.
We can communicate these design principles to parents from two perspectives: firstly, to maximise opportunities for incidental language learning; and secondly, to complement the establishment of an immersive environment for the target language. By aligning with classroom instruction, we enhance the chances of reinforcing targeted skills and knowledge at home, reducing instances where children express surprise about not having prior learning of previously taught content.
3.3 Utilisation of Input Enhancement Techniques within the home
This point is very much related to the previous one. I have written in another article on various key input enhancement techniques to draw attention of our learners to the targeted linguistic forms that we hope for them to acquire. The understanding here is that learners may not necessarily notice essential linguistic features in a presented input, as their attention is usually focused on meaning extraction. These techniques make those linguistic features more salient, so that the linguistic forms can be processed and enter the potential space for acquisition by our learners.
With the setting up of the linguistic landscape at home, imagine all the posters with additional enhanced input and learners pick up all those features in their attention. Without further instruction or intervention, they may not be able to acquire them. However, we have the added advantage that it has already entered their cognitive space so that when we attend to those forms in explicit instruction within the classrooms, they have a higher chance of hitting the “eureka” moments more quickly. We can be more confident of such assumptions if we have worked with our parents through the partnership to implement such affordances.
4. Supporting Language Development through Structured and Unstructured Activities
The earlier section talks about enriching the linguistic environment in which the learner experiences the “language bath” without a very deliberate active role by the parents, in the sense that we sensitise parents in altering the external environment to make the use of the target language more embedded in the daily mundane activities or experiences within the home. The role of the parents, in this case, is to make favourable the conditions for incidental language learning.
In this section, we will be moving into the more active role of parents directly involved into the planning and (even) implementation of intentional language learning activities. No doubt, this is a privilege that not all families can afford – some parents have to work for long hours and may have little luxury to provide for such experiences. In such partnerships, I see it as our duty to calibrate our involvement in the classroom or other contexts accordingly. However, if our parent-partner can afford this, let us not impede the provision of additional language learning opportunities for our students due to a lack of awareness regarding these strategies in their parents.
4.1 Carrying out structured language learning activities
Structured activities are those that have specific learning goal(s) and are designed deliberately with concrete steps or processes to attain the goal(s). One example of such an activity is a teacher-led dialogic storytelling session, in which learners can become actively involved in discussions about the story as it unfolds (e.g. reflecting on details, predicting the plot development). Other examples include parent-child shared book reading, labelling quests, and theme-based inquiry. I must highlight the power of literature in enabling rich learning for such purposes.
We can guide our parents in replicating similar structured activities at home. For instance, we can provide parents with a list of age-appropriate books and suggest discussion questions related to the stories. By doing so, we can empower parents with the tools and strategies to support their child’s language development beyond the classroom.
4.2 Putting in place unstructured activities that support language development
Unstructured activities, on the other hand, involve spontaneous interactions that naturally foster language development. This is akin to the earlier suggestion of maintaining an immersive environment, though it is more structured (I know that sounds oxymoron) in the sense that we guide parents in planning for such activities – in contrast to the relatively unplanned immersion earlier.
One common example of an unstructured activity is free play, during which children communicate with their peers and adults using language to express their thoughts, feelings, and ideas. In a planned free play though, we can imbue opportunities for learning in specific thematic contexts: providing certain toys or manipulatives that direct learners to complete certain communicative tasks or acquire specific vocabulary. Other examples of unstructured activities include language games (e.g. Scrabble, Boggle), open-ended art projects, outdoor exploration, meal preparation.
We can also provide parents with resources and strategies to structure the environment that direct learners to engage in unstructured language learning activities naturally. This may include advice on setting up a dedicated reading corner or the display of children’s artwork and writing. By strengthening the home-school connection in this manner, teachers can ensure that children receive consistent language support for sustained learning of the target language.
4.3 Invite parents into our language classrooms
I understand that not all institutions might allow such an initiative. Yet, what makes it more impactful than to let our parents also experience the language classrooms as a participating learner? Through opening up our language classrooms to parents, they have the opportunity to observe and learn from us in the implementation of some of the strategies that we may be guiding them on as seen in 4.1 and 4.2 (or even earlier).
Parents can also be involved by encouraging their children to practise the targeted language skills at home, providing access to recommended language resources, and attending future events purposed for language learning (e.g. language fiestas). For parents who are less proficient in the target language to be learned, we invite them to become participating active learners and become the models of learning for their children – a significant other who is also striving can be highly inspirational.
Of course, we do not need to open up every lesson – parents probably will not really benefit from lessons where we have to mainly settle certain administrative stuff. We can target lessons where we hope to see more continuity within the realm of the family, such as extended reading skills or thematic conversations.
Let us also not expect our parents to simply learn through observation. Untrained observers may not be able to tease out the educational elements in every decision we make and every action that we take in the classroom. As such, a facilitated conversation after the lesson will be integral to draw attention of our parents to the targeted learning points – just like what we want to achieve through input enhancement for our learners. Additionally, we will also have the opportunity for parents to provide their feedback to our lesson as well as seek further clarification on things that they may be interested in.
Get real-time updates and BE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS by joining LEA’s online communities on your favourite platforms! Connect with like-minded language educators and get inspired for your next language lesson.
5. Collaborative Assessment and Progress Monitoring
Envision the following scenario: a young learner is striving to grasp the nuances of vocabulary and syntax in a foreign language. In a traditional setting, the teacher might solely rely on classroom assessments and in-school evaluations to gauge the student’s progress. However, when parents are actively involved, they too can provide valuable insights into the child’s linguistic development and contribute to the formulation of tailored strategies to address specific areas of difficulty. A more comprehensive and accurate representation of the child’s abilities and potential is then achieved. This section thus provides suggestions on how the PARENT TEACHER PARTNERSHIP can be leveraged for assessment and provide more insightful feedback to the teaching and learning.
5.1 Identifying shared assessment objectives
We should formulate a shared understanding of the assessment objectives and the specific targeted language skills with the parents. In this process, parents will also be sensitised to the success criteria of those skills and be more able to identify evidence of success (or lack thereof) based on commonly understood benchmarks. Furthermore, alignment of objectives also helps avoid confusion and ensures that everyone is working consistently towards the same goals, creating a cohesive and focused approach to assessment.
Shared assessment objectives also provides a common language and framework for discussing the child’s progress, strengths, and areas for improvement. This shared understanding enables more meaningful conversations and ensures that both parties are on the same page when discussing the child’s language development.
5.2 Documenting language development through a portfolio
We can create a portfolio or collection of work artefacts with the parents that demonstrate the child’s language development over time. These artefacts may include written assignments, recorded conversations, presentations, or projects. The co-construction of the portfolio with parents helps them understand their child’s progress and contributes to the holistic assessment of the child’s language development.
A portfolio also provides concrete evidence of learning (or lack thereof) which we can guide the parents in analysing. In talking about benchmarks in the earlier section, it may be challenging if we leave things in abstraction. Over time, with the child’s portfolio enriched with a range of artefacts, the parents can also build up the assessment literacy with our guidance.
I have heard of examples of parents misinterpreting their child’s language abilities due to a myopic representation of language learning according to abstract assessment standards. A portfolio containing actual artefacts generated by the child himself/herself provides direct examples to which we can allude to make a point on an unbiased assessment.
From another perspective, parents might also have other sources of evidence which are not formally elicited by us. Parents are able to observe their child in a more organic environment and are thus able to provide alternative sources of information that may help us represent the abilities of the child. We might just want to think a little bit more on how to capture those evidence. With technology-enabled solutions (e.g. Learning Management Systems) these days, e-portfolio might just be the repository where such evidence can be deposited.
5.3 Holding joint assessment discussions
Periodic meetings or conferences between us and parents provide an opportunity to discuss assessment evidence and progress. These are the occasions where we can explain the assessment criteria, model the analysis of artefacts, and provide recommendations for further language development. We should also invite parents to share their perspectives, ask questions, and actively engage in the assessment discussion.
An assessment discussion is not just about identifying gaps and establishing the next target; it is also about the celebration of milestones and progress which is important for motivation and self-esteem (note: both for the parents and the child). Teachers and parents can acknowledge achievements, whether big or small, to encourage and inspire the child to continue their language learning journey with enthusiasm.
Notwithstanding such, we need to be mindful of the educational culture that we are dealing with, and aim to be as balanced as possible. One major misconception in feedback practice is to be overly positive – and that can be misleading. Yet, we also do not want to come across as nitpicking, and give credit to the learner(s) where credit is due. For parents who have been pivotal or at least been providing support actively, we should also acknowledge their contributions to the progress.
6. Bridging Cultural Differences
With higher levels of migration and social mixing, many language classrooms today have become more diverse in terms of learner backgrounds and cultures, so much so that some classrooms are not only characterised by “diversity” but by “superdiversity” (Vertovec, 2023). In such cases, we need to recognise that students of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds may experience varied degrees of accessibility to our curriculum and pedagogies.
Bridging cultural differences is a crucial aspect of supporting the diverse needs of language learners and promoting equitable development in the target language. Culturally responsive teaching creates a supportive and inclusive learning environment where students feel valued, respected, and understood. When students see their cultures reflected in the curriculum and instructional materials, they develop a sense of belonging and motivation to engage in language learning. This positive learning environment creates a foundation for effective language acquisition. This section provides tips on the integration of culturally responsive strategies through a PARENT TEACHER PARTNERSHIP.
6.1 Expressing the commitment to be culturally responsive
It can be very assuring when a representative of an institution with some sort authority makes the commitment to you that your child will be taken care of in the institution, and the various processes put in place to support that. I had the blessing to experience such an expression of commitment from my eldest daughter’s pre-school when I was pursuing my postgraduate studies in Edinburgh. She was enrolled in the Liberton Nursery School where she still fondly remembers 5 years after she left.
I remembered one of the main teachers making a clear statement that they will make sure to provide her spaces for her to express her voice and her identity (my daughter was and is still rather shy), and that there will also be opportunities for us to come in to support her transition while also sharing some of our cultural intricacies that the school staff should be made aware of.
Do not underestimate the importance and impact of an explicit declaration of commitment. All things equal, no one is obliged to make any of such commitment. In this way, if we make one in representation of our institution – one that our learners are in or are joining – can be affirming to the parents. It is like a showcase of vulnerability as mentioned in 1.3 to build trust, somewhat akin to saying the line “I am making myself responsible for this promise and you can hold me accountable if I did not keep it”.
6.2 Understanding the unique cultural challenges of the child
One important hallmark about being culturally responsive is to suspend assumptions based on broad categories (e.g. someone from XX country is bound to be YY, that person of XX race is sure to like YY). Culture is less a categorical static construct and is more a dynamically changing context-adapting entity that can exist on spectrums across its 5 elements (one of which is language!). As we seek to understand our learners and integrate them into our unique classroom culture and the culture associated with the target language, we should keep our minds open and to seek to understand our learners’ cultures through different channels.
Parents can play a pivotal role in helping us bridge the initial gap between the child’s culture and the classroom environment. By inviting parents to share insights on the child’s previous experiences, we can be equipped with the knowledge necessary to create a more inclusive and supportive learning space. For example, parents can inform us about cultural customs and practices that may be relevant to the classroom in their culture(s), such as specific greetings, teacher-student dynamics, or peer relations. This information can assist us in establishing rapport with the child and design of means to incorporate his/her cultural identity into the learning process (e.g. a lesson centred on greetings from all over the world for different communicative contexts).
Also, parents can provide valuable support in overcoming cultural differences that may impede the child’s representation of the target language. For instance, if a student is struggling to comprehend certain concepts or vocabulary in the target language in our classrooms, we can seek clarification from parents to get clues whether that struggle has a cultural source (such that we need to couch it with an additional cultural explanation for clarity). One classic example of such difficulty is the association of colours with certain concepts in a language which can differ across cultures.
The effort to discover and understand cultural differences among our learners is important even if the target language appears to be similar to the child’s L1 or previously learned language (e.g. learning English in the UK when the child has already acquired English in Singapore) as different varieties do represent different mental models of using the “same” language.
6.3 Uplifting the whole class in cultural literacy
In addition to measures that are directed at the family realm, we can also foster a sense of cultural awareness and appreciation within our classrooms by engaging the parents’ assistance to actively share or provide content related to their culture to be shared. By organising activities centred on cultural sharing or the celebration of diverse traditions, the learners in our classroom have a wonderful opportunity to develop an understanding and respect for cultures that may be less familiar to them. This also helps the class, as well as the child(ren) from the targeted culture, to do languaging about the culture in the target language we are teaching.
The strength of the community will always be larger than the power of a few individuals. When a child sees that his/her culture of uniqueness is accepted or even sparks interest in his/her peers, his/her sense of belonging and identity may become stronger and reinforces the motivation to maintain those elements of culture (including the language) within her life.
Join our mailing list!
Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!
7. Strengthening the Resource Awareness
We have reiterated the importance of parents in supporting the language learning of their children. However, not all parents are well-equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills. While we can be their resource person as we worked with them on the areas in the last 6 sections, we should also be realistic that we are working with classes and classes of learners – and thus their parents.
An awareness of accessible language learning resources can then empower parents to actively participate in their child’s language learning process on a longer term, without having us to intervene regularly. Yes, we cannot take ourselves out of the equation completely and we still need to do check-ins with the parents periodically, but enhancing parents’ resourcefulness as our partnering “language teacher” can empower them to extend language learning beyond the school setting and provide additional opportunities for practice and enrichment. This section offers guidance on developing resource awareness in parents within a PARENT TEACHER PARTNERSHIP.
7.1 Recommending avenues of comprehensive resources
Even as we prepare our lessons (or do our work as a language educator), we do refer to many sources for inspiration. I believe that is also the reason why many of us are coming to Language Educators Assemble. If our parents can also know and frequently access resources from a range of publicly available (or resources that they can afford), they can extend their space of influence within the language learning of their children. This is especially so for parents in immigrant families.
Immigrant families have an additional challenge of heritage language maintenance. This is also where we can actively provide research-informed practices to support such families in the decisions and implementation of their family language policy. As much as possible (I hope we are on the same page), we want to promote a model of additive bilingualism/multilingualism, where the learning of any additional language is not done at the expense of another (usually the L1s of the child) in the case of subtractive bilingualism/multilingualism.
As mentioned in 3.1, parents may not necessarily subscribe to the same ideals we hold, or may not be cognisant of practices that can support additive bilingualism. Especially for immigrant families that are with us by circumstances (e.g. refugees) and not by choice, they may not be prepared to deal with issues that come with language attrition and language shift. This is where we can work with them in managing their mindsets, facilitate a more scientific understanding of bilingualism/multilingualism and provide them with or point them to resources for long-term support.
So, what are such avenues of accessible resources? I will be biased but I do really recommend Language Educators Assemble as one since I am committed to write and produce content to support language educators, including parents that are determined to support their children in this endeavour.
Beyond this, there are also many useful information websites with good resources, such as Bilingualism Matters, Multilingual Parenting, and Bilingual Kidspot. In addition, many open-education resource websites (e.g. OER Commons, Gutenberg, Khan Academy, Open Culture can also be useful in finding resources that are specific to language learning.
If we have good confidence of certain language learning apps that can be motivating and engaging, we can also recommend them to our parents with additional information on the affordances and limitations of those apps – the value proposition needs to be clear and how those apps supplement what is learned in real life and our classrooms.
I believe every community that we stay might have certain resources that are specially dedicated to language learning. Places like community centres and libraries are general avenues where such resources may be made available. Access to books in the target language and the affordances of literature to support extended language learning are extensive and important as an insulant against language attrition for families seeking heritage language maintenance. As access to physical books belong to localised support, we will need to find out more about them in our neighbourhood to make the necessary recommendations.
7.2 Increasing awareness of resources in the daily mundane
While there is a tendency to frame “resources” as materials designed only for a certain purpose, such as language learning in our context, most of the materials that can be useful as a “resource” to be added to the repertoire are simply part and parcel of our daily mundane life. If a language is a living one, its presence can be engineered with deliberation by parents.
Remember the notion of the linguistic landscape as mentioned in 3.2? If the target language is at least a second language in the community such that there is physical presence of the language in public domains (e.g. posters, signs, product labels), we can show our parents venues that display them as possible locations of unstructured language learning (or structured if we guide our parents on designed processes).
However, should the target language be a minority language or heritage language with little or no presence, more effort will be required by the parents though we can still work with them on this (as with all other tips earlier). In engineering the “immersive environment” as mentioned in 3.1, the physical objects around the child has to be provided the linguistic labels to support the child in building his/her repertoire to express relations with those objects (e.g. knowing that a “playground” is named as such so that the child can express the intent to go to the playground). These linguistic labels have to be provided by the parents beyond school, though our lessons can also complement that (if not directing that).
Last but not least, if we ever feel stuck for ideas in relation to resources, always look to the affordances of technology – what is there within accessible multimedia to which the child is exposed generally on a daily basis? Films, television shows, and podcasts in the target language can immerse the child in our targeted linguistic symphony, where their ears become attuned to the melody of the target language.
Conclusion: Empowering the Parent as a Language Educator in the Family
I started this journey of tips in leveraging PARENT TEACHER PARTNERSHIP to power charge the language learning experience of our learners by relating to the influence of the “village”. Because the “village” matters, and because we cannot take a partnership to be successful for granted, it is something that we need to actively reflect and work on to ensure that it works for our learners.
PARENT TEACHER PARTNERSHIP is a vital component in the quest for linguistic prowess. Let us continue to work towards maintaining, if not advancing, our partnership with parents. Let us empower our parents to become the Language Educator in the family realm!
Recommended Readings
- Anderson, J., Moffatt, L., McTavish, M., & Shapiro, J. (2013). Rethinking Language Education in Early Childhood: Sociocultural Perspectives. In Saracho, O.N., & Spodek, B. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children (Third Edition) (pp. 117-134). Abingdon UK: Routledge.
- Bezcio?lu-Göktolga, ?. (2022). The Interaction Between Family Language Policy and Educators in Early Language Education. In Schwartz, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Early Language Education (pp. 545-566). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
- Cavallaro, F., Tay, Y.X.E., & Ng, B.C. (2021). “Enculturalling” Multilingualism: Family language ecology and its impact on multilingualism. International Multilingual Research Journal, 15(2), 126-157.
- Cekaite, A. (2022). Early Language Education and Language Socialization. In Schwartz, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Early Language Education (pp. 143-166). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
- Fiese, B.H. (2013). Family Context in Early Childhood Connecting Beliefs, Practices, and Ecologies. In Saracho, O.N., & Spodek, B. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children (Third Edition) (pp. 369-384). Abingdon UK: Routledge.
- Hollebeke, I., Struys, E., & Agirdag, O. (2020). Can family language policy predict linguistic, socio-emotional and cognitive child and family outcomes? A systematic review. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2020.1858302.
- King, K.A., & Fogle, L.W. (2017). Family Language Policy. In McCarthy, T.L., & May, S. (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (Third Edition) (pp. 315-328). Cham Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.
- Levickis, P., Conway, L., Smith, J., & Bennetts, S. (2022). Parent–Child Interaction and Its Impact on Language Development. In Law, J., Reilly, S., & McKean, C. (Eds.), Language Development: Individual Differences in a Social Context (pp. 166-192). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Reynolds, A.J., Lee, S., Eales, L., Varshney, N., & Smerillo, N. (2022). Parental Involvement and Engagement in Early Education Contribute to Children’s Success and Well-Being. In Bierman, K.L., & Sheridan, S.M. (Ed.), Family-School Partnerships During the Early School Years: Advancing Science to Influence Practice (pp. 91-112). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
- Schüpbach, D. (2009). Language transmission revisited: family type, linguistic environment and language attitudes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(1), 15–30.
- Sheridan, S.M., Knoche, L.L., & Boise, C. (2022). Getting Ready: A Relationship-Based Approach to Parent Engagement in Early Childhood Education Settings. In Bierman, K.L., & Sheridan, S.M. (Ed.), Family-School Partnerships During the Early School Years: Advancing Science to Influence Practice (pp. 17-32). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
- Spolsky, B. (2012). Family language policy – the critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3-11. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2011.638072.
References
Alipour, J., Khorshidi, S., & Hashemian, M. (2023). Iranian parents’ attitudes towards their children’s early additive bilingualism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2023.2197870.
Anderson, J., Moffatt, L., McTavish, M., & Shapiro, J. (2013). Rethinking Language Education in Early Childhood: Sociocultural Perspectives. In Saracho, O.N., & Spodek, B. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children (Third Edition) (pp. 117-134). Abingdon UK: Routledge.
Aw, G., Lum, C., Peng, X., Chen, Y., & Tong, Q. (2017). A Pilot Study of Singapore’s Young Chinese Parent’s Perceptions, Attitude and Behaviours Towards Bilingual Learning. Sino-US English Teaching, 14(9), 523–538.
Bartram, B. (2006). An examination of perceptions of parental influence on attitudes to language learning. Educational Research, 48(2), 211-221.
Bezcio?lu-Göktolga, ?. (2022). The Interaction Between Family Language Policy and Educators in Early Language Education. In Schwartz, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Early Language Education (pp. 545-566). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Cavallaro, F., Tay, Y.X.E., & Ng, B.C. (2021). “Enculturalling” Multilingualism: Family language ecology and its impact on multilingualism. International Multilingual Research Journal, 15(2), 126-157.
Cekaite, A. (2022). Early Language Education and Language Socialization. In Schwartz, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Early Language Education (pp. 143-166). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. (2016). Conflicting language ideologies and contradictory language practices in Singaporean multilingual families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(7), 694-709. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2015.1127926.
Curdt-Christiansen, X.L., & Wang, W. (2018). Parents as agents of multilingual education: family language planning in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 31(3), 235-254.
Deng, L., Zhou, N., Nie, R., Jin, P., Yang, M., & Fang, X. (2018). Parent-teacher partnership and high school students’ development in mainland China: the mediating role of teacher-student relationship. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(1), 15-31.
Djigunovi?, J.M., & Krevelj, S.L. (2022). From Preprimary to Primary Learning of English as a Foreign Language: Coherence and Continuity Issues. In Schwartz, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Early Language Education (pp. 613-640). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Dixon, L.Q., Zhao, J., Quiroz, B.G., & Shin, J. (2012). Home and community factors influencing bilingual children’s ethnic language vocabulary development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(4), 541-565.
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review, 70 (11), 35–36.
Fiese, B.H. (2013). Family Context in Early Childhood Connecting Beliefs, Practices, and Ecologies. In Saracho, O.N., & Spodek, B. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children (Third Edition) (pp. 369-384). Abingdon UK: Routledge.
Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. A. (2001). Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing Language Shift Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.
Guo, K., & Kilderry, A. (2018). Teacher accounts of parent involvement in children’s education in China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 95-103.
Hollebeke, I., Struys, E., & Agirdag, O. (2020). Can family language policy predict linguistic, socio-emotional and cognitive child and family outcomes? A systematic review. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2020.1858302.
Hu, J., Torr, J, & Whiteman, P. (2014). Australian Chinese parents’ language attitudes and practices relating to their children’s bilingual development prior to school. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 12(2), 139-153.
Janssen-Vos, F., & Weijers, A. (2022). Fostering the Teacher-Parent Partnership. In Van Oers, B. (Ed.), Developmental Education for Young Children: Concept, Practice and Implementation (pp. 165-188). Dordrecht Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
Jones, C. (2020). Don’t forget the parents: preparing trainee teachers for family–school partnership. Practice, 2(1), 68-85.
Kalin, J., & Šteh, B. (2010). Advantages and conditions for effective teacher-parent co-operation [WCES-2010]. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 4923–4927.
Kambouri, M., Wilson, T., Pieridou, M., Quinn, S.F., & Liu, J. (2022). Making Partnerships Work: Proposing a Model to Support Parent?Practitioner Partnerships in the Early Years. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50, 639-661.
King, K.A., & Fogle, L.W. (2017). Family Language Policy. In McCarthy, T.L., & May, S. (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (Third Edition) (pp. 315-328). Cham Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.
Lau, E.Y.H., & Ng, M.L. (2019). Are they ready for home-school partnership? Perspectives of kindergarten principals, teachers and parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 99, 10-17.
Levickis, P., Conway, L., Smith, J., & Bennetts, S. (2022). Parent–Child Interaction and Its Impact on Language Development. In Law, J., Reilly, S., & McKean, C. (Eds.), Language Development: Individual Differences in a Social Context (pp. 166-192). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Liang. L., Wu, D., & Li, H. (2022). Family language policy and bilingual parenting in multilingual Singapore: latent profiles and its predictors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2022.2056190.
Macrory, G. (2022). Caregivers’ Linguistic Interaction in Early Language Learning and Education. In Schwartz, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Early Language Education (pp. 511-544). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Maseko, B, & Mutasa, D. (2018). The Influence of Kalanga Parents’ Language Ideologies on Children’s Language Practices. Language Matters, 49(3), 47–66.
Meehan, C., & Meehan, P.J. (2018). Trainee teachers’ perceptions about parent partnerships: are parents partners?. Early Child Development and Care, 188(12), 1750-1763.
Mereoiu, M., Abercrombie, S., & Murray, M. (2016). One step closer: Connecting parents and teachers for improved student outcomes. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1243079.
ÓhIfearnáin, T. (2013). Family language policy, first language Irish speaker attitudes and community-based response to language shift. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(4), 348-365.
Palviainen, Å., & Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. (2022). Language Education Policies and Early Childhood Education. In Schwartz, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Early Language Education (pp. 167-192). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Pinter, A. (2011). Children Learning Second Languages. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ragnarsdóttir, H. (2022). Educational Partnerships of Teachers, Parents, and Children in Multilingual Preschool Contexts. In Schwartz, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Early Language Education (pp. 567-584). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Reynolds, A.J., Lee, S., Eales, L., Varshney, N., & Smerillo, N. (2022). Parental Involvement and Engagement in Early Education Contribute to Children’s Success and Well-Being. In Bierman, K.L., & Sheridan, S.M. (Ed.), Family-School Partnerships During the Early School Years: Advancing Science to Influence Practice (pp. 91-112). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Schüpbach, D. (2009). Language transmission revisited: family type, linguistic environment and language attitudes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(1), 15–30.
Shen, C., & Jiang, W. (2023). Parents’ planning, children’s agency and heritage language education: Re-storying the language experiences of three Chinese immigrant families in Australia. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1083813.
Sheridan, S.M., Knoche, L.L., & Boise, C. (2022). Getting Ready: A Relationship-Based Approach to Parent Engagement in Early Childhood Education Settings. In Bierman, K.L., & Sheridan, S.M. (Ed.), Family-School Partnerships During the Early School Years: Advancing Science to Influence Practice (pp. 17-32). Cham Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (2009). Introduction. In Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Ed.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 1-10). New York USA: Routledge.
Spolsky, B. (2012). Family language policy – the critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3-11. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2011.638072.
Seo, Y. (2021). Parental Language Ideologies and Affecting Factors in Bilingual Parenting in Korea. English Teaching, 76(1), 105–124.
Tan, S.J.H., & Ng, B.C. (2010). Three generations under one roof: a study of the influence of the presence of grandparents on language shift, identity and attitudes. Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique, 52, 69–92.
Uitto, M., Jokikokko, K., Lassila, E.T., Kelchtermans, G., & Estola, E. (2021). Parent–teacher relationships in school micropolitics: beginning teachers’ stories. Teachers and Teaching, 27(6), 461-473.
Vertovec, S. (2023). Superdiversity: Migration and Social Complexity. Abingdon UK: Routledge.
Wang, W., & Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. (2021). Lost in translation: parents as medium translators in intergenerational language transmission. Current Issues in Language Planning, 22(4), 362-382. DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2020.1763022.
Whitehead, M.R. (2007). Developing Language and Literacy with Young Children (Third Edition). London UK: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Yusuf, Y.Q., Aziz, Z.A., Menalisa., & Zulfikar, T. (2022). The Dynamics of Language Attitudes of Young Parents towards the Preservation of the Mother Tongue. Language, Discourse & Society, 10(1).
