Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching Article

Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching Article Content of the Article The article â€Å"Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A pedagogy for Learning and Teaching† by Creese Angela and Blackledge Adrian discusses bilingual pedagogy based on the assumptions on Gujarati and Chinese language schools within the United Kingdom by Cummins.Advertising We will write a custom article sample on Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching Article specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The authors are comprehensive in the aspects of language ecology and how complementary schools balance bilingual pedagogy. Among the key issues identified in the article is a smart division of the languages into two way education. The process should involve translation and rapid separation between the fist language and the second language which should be treated as independent. As it is a research article, quantitative methodology provides a reliable and quantifiable result on the position of flexible translanguaging as part of bilingual pedagogy. The study consists of five parts which yield same results. Among the benefits of flexible pedagogy and flexible bilingualism identified by the authors are ease of communication and preservation of culture, indiscrimination of second language and simultaneous ‘literacies’ endorsement as students participating in bilingual translanguaging are assured of preserved identity in the process of acquiring education. As a result, the authors recommend assimilating of translanguaging in the curriculum to promote appreciation of world culture and making the learning process more accommodative to minority cultures. The article proposes a complete bilingual education as a form of instructional education where information is presented to learners in more than one language. Any system of education applying two or more languages in educational physiology can be termed as a bilingual presentational system. Advertising Looking for article on languages? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Relevance of the Article Based on the connation presented above, it can be stated that most programs in modern schools are bilingual at the least literal sense. The only difference in use lies in the degree and multitude under which it is applied and actively recognized by policy makers and reformers in the education system in their proactive reorganization for relevance and non discriminative reforms. Bilingualism is a strong policy for resistance to assimilation and cultural extinction. Though young minority group members face a difficulty relating to fluent English speaking majority, they have a chance to present a lot in terms of diverse and preserved cultural background associated with unique pride which can be maintained, while at the same time, they have a chance to learn English effortlessly as a tool for interaction with the mainst ream culture. This article supports bilingual education system because the world is becoming a global village. It is desirable for United Kingdom to be counted as part of this talent pool. Perceived threat to the mainstream English language is just a speculative opinion as natural language changes if well integrated in modern communication tendencies. This article dwells on flexible translanguaging which touches on identity, culture, appreciation of diversity, and simplification of the learning process. The issues identified in this article are critical in balancing mainstream language with second language in a bilingual education environment. Reflection on the Article Translanguaging policy guarantees that minority students participate in meaningful learning process irrespective of the different language backgrounds.Advertising We will write a custom article sample on Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching Article specifically for y ou for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Minority language speaking groups are also put in a fair position to access education curriculum made available to English speaking peers, through affirmative action steps consisting of a complete bilingual instructional manual and English teaching methods limited to optional modules. All forms of bilingual education should be concurrently applied in the system to benefit both the native speaking minority students, often referred to as English Language Learners, and their peers who, in the end, will both grasp the educational curriculum concepts while acquiring another language for future creative multilingual use. To understand cultural orientation of the increasing Chinese and Gujarati speaking minority, most high schools in the United Kingdom have developed formal requirements for all student to grasp at least a secondary language offered in courses running for almost two years taught in flex. Besides, while it is a reality that operating bilingual classrooms is very expensive, it is the best alternative for effective methodology to relate curriculum to students with limited English proficiency. This is an inverse of an immersion system which discriminates students with poor understanding of single English language. Therefore, the article is accurate in recommending accommodative and inclusive education system that supports policy based on bilingual pedagogy. Conclusively, the authors have identified several benefits of integrating translanguaging among the young learners in the minority communities of the United Kingdom. However, the main challenge remains the unbalanced and informal integration of bilingual pedagogy in formal learning institutions in areas that are occupied by minority communities speaking English as a second language.Advertising Looking for article on languages? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More

How the Great Depression Altered US Foreign Policy

How the Great Depression Altered US Foreign Policy As Americans suffered through the Great Depression of the 1930s, the financial crisis influenced U.S. foreign policy in ways that pulled the nation even deeper into a period of isolationism. While the exact causes of the Great Depression are debated to this day, the initial factor was World War I. The bloody conflict shocked the global financial system and altered the worldwide balance of political and economic power. The nations involved in World War I had been forced to suspend their use of the gold standard, long the determining factor in setting international currency exchange rates, in order to recover from their staggering war costs. Attempts by the U.S., Japan, and the European nations to re-instate the gold standard during the early 1920s left their economies without the flexibility they would be needed to cope with the financial hard times that would come in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Along with the great U.S. stock market crash of 1929, economic difficulties in Great Britain, France, and Germany coincided to create a global â€Å"perfect storm† of financial crises. Attempts by those nations and Japan to hold on to the gold standard only worked to fuel the storm and hasten the onset of a global depression. Depression Goes Global With no coordinated international system of dealing with a worldwide depression in place, the governments and financial institutions of the individual nations turned inward. Great Britain, unable to continue in its long-held role as the mainstay and chief ​money lender of the international financial system, became the first nation to permanently abandon the gold standard in 1931. Preoccupied with its own Great Depression, the United States was unable to step in for Great Britain as the world’s â€Å"creditor of last resort,† and permanently dropped the gold standard in 1933. Determined to resolve the global depression, leaders of the world’s largest economies convened the London Economic Conference of 1933. Unfortunately, no major agreements came out of the event and the great global depression persisted for the rest of the 1930s. Depression Leads to Isolationism In struggling with its own Great Depression, the United States sank its foreign policy even deeper into post-World War I stance of isolationism. As if the Great Depression was not enough, a series of world events that would result in World War II added to Americans’ desire for isolation. Japan seized most of China in 1931. At the same time, Germany was expanding its influence in Central and Eastern Europe, Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935. The United States, however, chose not to oppose any of these conquests. To a large degree, Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt were constrained from reacting to international events, no matter how potentially dangerous, by the demands of the public to deal exclusively with domestic policy, primarily bringing an end to the Great Depression. Having witnessed the horrors of World War I, Hoover, like most Americans, hoped to never see the United States involved in another world war. Between his election November 1928 and his inauguration in March 1929, he traveled to the nations of Latin America hoping to win their trust by promising that the U.S. would always honor their rights as independent nations. Indeed, in 1930, Hoover announced that his administration’s foreign policy would recognize the legitimacy  of the governments of all Latin American countries, even those whose governments did not conform to American ideals of democracy. Hoover’s policy was a reversal of President Theodore Roosevelt’s policy of using force if necessary to influence the actions of Latin American governments. Having withdrawn American troops from Nicaragua and Haiti, Hoover proceeded to avoid U.S. intervention in some 50 Latin American revolutions, many of which resulted in the establishment of anti-American governments. As a result, America’s diplomatic relations with the Latin American warmed during the Hoover presidency. Under the 1933 Good Neighbor Policy of President Franklin Roosevelt, the United States reduced its military presence in Central and South America. The move greatly improved U.S. relations with Latin America, while making more money available for depression-fighting initiatives at home. Indeed, throughout the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations, the demand to rebuild the American economy and end rampant unemployment forced U.S. foreign policy onto the backmost burner †¦ at least for a while. The Fascist Effect While the mid-1930s saw the rise conquest of militaristic regimes in Germany, Japan, and Italy, the United States remained entrenched in isolation from foreign affairs as the federal government struggled with the Great Depression. Between 1935 and 1939, the U.S. Congress, over the objections of President Roosevelt, enacted a series of Neutrality Acts specifically intended to prevent the United States from taking any role of any nature in potential foreign wars. The lack of any significant U.S. response to the invasion of China by Japan in 1937 or the forced occupation of Czechoslovakia by Germany in 1938 encouraged the governments of Germany and Japan to expand the scope of their military conquests. Still, many U.S. leaders continued to believe the need to attend to its own domestic policy, mainly in the form of ending the Great Depression, justified a continued policy of isolationism. Other leaders, including President Roosevelt, believed that U.S. non-intervention simple allowed the theaters of war to grow ever-closer to America. As late as 1940, however, keeping the U.S. out of foreign wars had widespread support from the American people, including high-profile celebrities like record-setting aviator Charles Lindbergh. With Lindbergh as its chairman, the 800,000-member-strong America First Committee lobbied Congress to oppose President Roosevelt’s attempts to provide war materials to England, France, the Soviet Union, and the other nations fighting the spread of fascism. When France finally fell to Germany in the summer of 1940, the U.S. government slowly started increasing its participation in the war against fascism. The Lend-Lease Act of 1941, initiated by President Roosevelt, allowed the president to transfer, at no cost, arms and other war materials to any â€Å"government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.† Of course, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1942, thrust the United States fully into World War II and ended any pretense of American isolationism. Realizing that the nation’s isolationism had to some degree contributed to the horrors of World War II, U.S. policymakers once again began to emphasize the importance of foreign policy as a tool in preventing future global conflicts. Ironically, it was the positive economic impact of America’s participation in World War II, which had been long-delayed in part by the Great Depression that at last pulled the nation out of its longest economic nightmare.