Practice Insights > Notes on Strategy

Multilinguality and Inclusion of Adivasi Languages: Session Report

Report by: A. Giridhar Rao

The University-Practice Connect Initiative of the Azim Premji University has been engaging with practitioners, organizations, government officials and academics working in the area of tribal education. Taking this association further to collectively arrive at a better understanding of a variety of issues, a knowledge-sharing workshop on ‘Elementary Education of Adivasi Children in India’ was organised at the University on March1-2, 2019. This report documents one of the panel discussions among a group of participants and a reflective conclusion on the same.

You can read more about the Workshop on Adivasi Education here.

1. Background

Mother-tongue based instruction in the early years of schooling is widely accepted to be in the best interest of the child for pedagogical reasons. It also plays a role in the psychological development of the Adivasi child who is often characterized as ‘backward’ in policy and popular discourses. At the same time, fluency with local language and English are critical to access economic and political opportunities in the future. Mother tongue-based, multilingual education (MT-MLE) balances these competing needs by using mother tongue (MT) as a medium of instruction in early grades and transitioning to the local language in subsequent years. There are indications that the use of the language of the Adivasis as the medium of instruction in primary grades has enhanced the comfort level of their children in schools. This is evident from the experience in Odisha.

The MT-MLE programs for schools catering to students from the Adivasi communities need careful design. If the transition from their home language to that of the state or national language happens at an early grade (say, grade III), it may not help in deriving the full benefits of using the Adivasi language in schools. At the same time, there is a need to enable the Adivasi students to acquire proficiency in multiple languages (of the state, the nation and also, English), which is the underlying idea behind the bilingual or multilingual approach as part of inter-cultural education. In some schools, the diversity of home languages of the students further complicates matters.

The implementation of MT-MLE in classrooms presents multiple challenges. The availability of teaching and learning materials (TLMs), teacher capacities, and policy contexts that enable MT-MLE in schools with children from Adivasi communities are often lacking. Furthermore, sections of the Adivasi parents and their community leaders are opposed to the use of their mother tongue as the medium of instruction.

2. Perspectives and discussions

Discussions first focussed on the agenda for the session. The organizers suggested a set of issues, namely, the first four bulleted above. The group elaborated the list to include the last.

2.1. Modes of MT-MLE in India
The group noted that the acronym, ‘MLE’ is often used in multiple ways—sometimes, simply the use of another language is termed, ‘MLE’! The group, however, discussed only those models in which MT is considered the starting point and the other languages are introduced only after reaching a certain competence in MT. Several aspects of MT education were discussed. The possibility of multiple MTs was also discussed. It was pointed out that multiple MTs can help children to develop linguistic meta-awareness.

Multilinguality in the classroom is often seen by teachers and schools as a problem. How to get the system to consider it as an asset was discussed. It was noted that MT-MLE models that transition learners from their MT to a dominant, regional language, in fact, reinforce linguistic hierarchies by emphasizing the greater value of the regional language.

The discussion also threw up the question of whether MLE was meant only for Adivasi children. Do non-Adivasi children not need it? The perception and allegation that educationists speak of MT to keep Adivasi communities from accessing English education were discussed. That is, while members of the mainstream society prefer enrolling their children into English-medium schools, MT education excludes Adivasi communities from these.

2.2. Developing scripts and readers
Given the importance of script as a marker for the status as a language, the group discussed the alternative between developing a separate script for the Adivasi language versus adapting the state script. Since the group had agreed upon the existence of multiple languages, why not multiple scripts? The educational challenges of such a choice were discussed. Challenges discussed included:

• developing an agreed-upon script;
• producing textbooks and other TLMs in that script;
• teacher training in that script; and,
• evolving literacy practices within the classroom in that script.

A strong alternative discussed was to adapt the state script to suit the phonology and morphosyntax of the Adivasi language. The technological implications of such a move were also discussed, for example, that of developing a Unicode standard for the language.

The group discussed the content of the TLMs produced in this adapted script of the Adivasi language and the concerns regarding the quantity and quality of these TLMs. The discussion also dwelt upon what the relationship should be between such textbooks and other TLMs, and the curricular objectives of the state.

The participation of the community in the development of TLMs was discussed and stressed. A larger question that arose was regarding the purpose of MLE – was it to ‘preserve’ the Adivasi language, or to enhance the learning of the child.

2.3. Teacher capacities
The group reflected that while discussing teacher capacity building, it is necessary to think at multiple levels. Along with imparting the essential skills, space and resources have to be invested to facilitate attitudinal changes in the teachers to both accommodate and implement these skills.

The language barrier remains a major obstacle and challenge when it comes to the classroom teaching of Adivasi children. The teacher is either not familiar with the language spoken by the students or is hesitant to use it. In both cases, the teacher’s willingness is essential for effective teaching.

Another resource to help in dealing with the language barrier is to invite participation from the community. The community has to be treated as a stakeholder in Adivasi education. Policy implementation is often top-down, which needs to change.

2.4. Children as resources
The group recognized that children themselves may bring valuable language resources to the classroom and discussed how these resources could be used. The opportunities and challenges this might pose to the classroom pedagogy were also considered.

2.5. Policy and administrative issues in implementing MLE
While the group recognized the necessity for a policy at the state level, it also stressed that the policy cannot be an end in itself. Further, the group stressed that considerable groundwork is needed before a policy is put into place. Among factors to keep in mind would be:

• What other smaller initiatives already exist?
• Do the policy-makers and other stakeholders have the required evidence-based information?
• What are the costs involved?
• How can the implementation be scaled up?

3. Recommendations

3.1. Modes of MT education in India

• Clarity is needed on the definition of MLE at the policy level.
• ML needs to be treated as an asset, not a problem. This needs to be communicated to the multiple levels of the education hierarchy.
• The education of non-Adivasi learners too needs to include awareness of India’s multilingual landscape. Thus, Teacher Professional Development (TPD) courses need modules on linguistic diversity and its implication on education.
• Similarly, TPD courses need clarity on the role of the non-MT (including English) as a livelihood language rather than as a medium of instruction.

3.2. Developing scripts and readers

•  The script of the state language cannot be ignored or done away with. Adivasi languages have to be learnt in the script of the state language.
• However, perhaps the state script can be adapted to reflect the phonological and morphosyntactic features of the Adivasi language.
• It is easier, educationally, to manage a single script—both in producing learning materials, as well as in literacy practices.
• However, the education system must document the efforts made for developing new scripts for Adivasi languages.
•  Technology must be used meaningfully for material development.
•  Art, culture and folklore should be considered as learning materials.
•  The community should be enabled to play an active role in developing TLMs.
•  Textbooks do need to be contextualized for the Adivasi learner, but the state’s curricular objectives in terms of competencies to be acquired need to be conserved.

3.3. Teacher capacities

• Training for all the stakeholders (parents, teachers, and the education bureaucracy) so that teachers do not hesitate to use the Adivasi language.
• This has to be a continuous process and not a one-time arrangement. Hence, induction training starting with attitudinal training would help.
•  The community as an equal stakeholder in the process of resource development and parents as a resource for teaching language.
•  The implementation approach should be bottom-up.
•  Formal training in Adivasi language; possible immersion in the community both for classroom pedagogy, as well as being able to use bilingual TLMs.

3.4. Children as resources

• Children’s experiences and testimonies need to be brought into the learning materials as well as the pedagogy.
•  This has implications for building teacher capacities, as well.

3.5. Policy and administrative issues in implementing MLE

• With respect to policy and administrative issues, the following were pointed to as required:
•  Strong advocacy for implementing the policy sensibly.
•  Documentation of existing smaller initiatives.
•  Availability of crisp policy briefs in regional languages, so that they reach every stakeholder.
•  Cost-implications for any intervention.
•  To develop an outreach strategy that uses both conventional and new media.
•  Understanding of MLE in the context of Indian setting.
•  A resource team with conceptual clarity on global trends in MLE and the needs of the Indian context.
•  Documentation of existing good practices with regard to the MLE model.
•  Documentation of success stories.

4. Reflective notes

Giridhar: The discussion was rich and varied. The time given was enough for every participant to articulate their thoughts and each participant contributed to the discussions. While we did have a discussion framework, we did not hold to it rigidly. Group members often returned to an earlier point to elaborate what they had said. The lunch break proved to be a useful pause in the discussion. Returning to the discussion thereafter was refreshing and enriching. The recommendations emerging from the discussion offer many avenues to take forward the theme of MTB-MLE. In the final learnings-sharing session, in the national group, many of our discussions dovetailed well with the deliberations of the other groups.

Ruchi: There is a need for caution while considering the MLE model in education with an objective to facilitate the transition to the second language so that it does not establish a hierarchy between the first and second language. That is, the second (and third) languages should not be given more importance so that the first language becomes just a tool to facilitate the transition.

An ethical question that came up in the discussion was what if the community does not want to learn about its own culture, language and values and wishes to learn the curriculum followed elsewhere. The group had useful discussions on the inclusion of literature of Adivasi languages in the state board’s language textbooks.

Facilitator: A. Giridhar Rao, Faculty, Azim Premji University

Rapporteurs: Nilesh Nimkar, Director, Quest, Maharashtra
Ruchi Milind Shevade, student volunteer

Participants: Ajit Kumar Mohanty, Binay Pattanayak, Kashinath V. Barhate, Madhuri Yadwadkar, Mahendra Kumar Mishra, Panchanan Munda, Rahul Bose, Ravi Pratap Singh, Stanly V John, Vengatesh K. Sundaram