Everyone thinks, dreams and understands in the language/s that they grew up with or with which they are most familiar.  Nothing anyone can do can make a person understand what is being said to them when a new or foreign language is used.  This is because words are just sounds, they do not actually carry a meaning.  Meaning is found in the ability to decode (interpret) the sound in the hearer’s brain into a concept that is similar to the meaning expressed by the speaker.  A person always understands a new word from a new language by translating the new sounds they have learnt  into words and concepts from their native language/s.  Thus, almost all the intellectual power of people to communicate, and obtain new information, is found in the way their brain uses their native language/s.  To access that power, in order to teach or communicate information clearly, one must access the language encoded in the person’s head.

If we use a new or unfamiliar language to communicate we rely solely on the hearers ability to first decode or interpret the new sounds of the language being used, and then to comprehend it with a meaning similar to that expressed by the communicator.  If the hearer does not know some of the new words, the meaning may be lost or different to that intended.  If the hearer’s interpretation of these sounds is different to the communicator’s then to the hearer the words will have little information, the incorrect information, or be completely meaningless.  Furthermore, if the communicator cannot access the native language, their ability to check that the information being provided is being understood negligible.

To be effective in communicating to an English second language Indigneous speaker one must either

1. If using only English, know all the English words that an Indigenous person understands and how they understand them (what they mean for that person),
2. Use their local language, recognising that dialogue will be required to ensure communication is being understood.

The first option forces the Indigenous person to be the learner and interpreter. The English speaking communicator is dependent on the Indigenous persons ability in English in order to achieve understanding.    If the Indigenous person has limited knowledge of English or is just learning,  it is not possible to know how a new English speaker understands intangible English words, with out knowing their native language to check that their understanding is correct in the first place.  So while it seems the easier option for the english communicator, it is near impossible to be effective in english only.  Furthermore Option 1 limits communication to the number of English words the hearer understands.  The second option is difficult for the communicator, but very possible and rewarding as the communicator grows in effectiveness over time.  Option 2 allows the communicator to become a translator (if even a poor one) who can be a source of information for Indigenous people to learn new English words and concepts with greater ease and accuracy.

Misunderstandings about literacy education on remote communities.

1. The children in remote and bilingual schools are not being taught English.
   

   Reality:The children on remote communities and in bilingual schools are taught English and grow up with the ability to speak English and write english.  The problems are that many have a limited vocabulary, poor written literacy and numeracy skills.

2. Bilingual schools are teaching in local languages
   

   Reality: Bilingual schools are unable to train, and thus do not have, specialist teachers who know the local Indigenous language. You would be forgiven for thinking it should be otherwise. They are provided with funding for only one linguist and the rest relys on the linguistic skill of locally employed indingeous teacher aids who recieve little additional training.

3. Children in remote communities are not being taught in English.
   

   Reality: English is the language spoken by almost all teachers in remote Indigenous classrooms already.  If there is any education using the local language, it is provided by Teacher Aids from the local community.  Conssequently at least 50% of education has been taught in English for the last 30 years.  Teaching in english has not help indingeous kids learn to speak or read english well.

4. Someone out there wants to stop English being taught.
   

   Reality: No one, including Indigenous groups, have argued against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders being taught English. Aboriginal people have always asked to be taught English.

5. The forcing of teachers to use English in the classrooms is new policy that has not been tried before.
   

   Reality: This is not the first time a policy like this has been introduced.  The education department introduced a policy of English only education (100% of the time)  about 4-5 years ago. It did not apply to bilingual schools, but in a number of bilingual schools new priniciples encouraged the use of english in class rooms. Schools that currently use english only models did not perform better than the bilingual schools in recent tests.

6. The current thinking in the NT and around Australia seems to be that the best way to teach a new language is to force people to listen to it as much as possible.
   

   Reality: Such an approach only works if the student is immersed in the language and removed from peer groups that speak their first language That is, for immersion to be successful at teaching English, the kids must be taken away from their families and friends – Australia has been there done that, No thanks.

   Reality: We do not use this approach when we teach foreign languages to English first language speakers. Have you ever learnt French or Indonesian at school or university.  What do we do?  We teach the new language using the student’s first language, English.  Why? Because language acquisition is fastest if it is charted in the first language -  eg. djugu = contract, guyaŋa = think… you just learnt 2 new words in a new language using your first langauge.  Untill the student has a good grasp on the langauge we must use structured programs that teach English using the language the students already know.  Why don’t we do this in Indigenous schools?

7. Indigenous languages are not powerful or accurate enough to teach difficult English concepts.
   

   Reality: Indigenous languages are highly effective, accurate and contain all the meanings necessary to teach mathematical, scientific and humanitarian subjects. I know this because I teach economic literacy, governance and germ theory using an Indigenous language

8. We have to do something. We have tried almost everything.
   

   Reality: The one policy no government has ever implimented to solve low literacy and numeracy rates in Australian remote Indingenous schools is the training of EFL teachers to use local Indigenous languages to teach english and other subjects. This would enable true bilingual education rather than what actually happens today.

Considering that mainstream support, rather than research and local community knowledge, tend to drive government policy it is possible that these misunderstandings or assumptions are driving the current push to once again force english only environments on children in remote Indigenous schools.  I hope this clarifies the issue for you and helps you to explain some of the issues to others.

During the research, many Yolŋu people expressed the opinion that most non-Aboriginal people demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge and understanding in relation to Yolŋu people, Yolŋu law and Yolŋu ways. Consequently, the current situation was perceived by many Yolŋu as being a two-sided problem. Yolŋu conveyed distress that many Balanda did not even recognise that a Yolŋu legal system was in place, hence the title “Bäyŋu Ŋayaŋu-Dapmaranhamirr Rom ga Ŋorra” which means “no existence of deep and mutual respect”.

The report then goes on to investigate the misunderstanding Yolngu people have about the Balanda legal system. One must really read past the executive summary to get at the real value in this report as the summary fails to highlight the power of the reports content. It is an easy report to read, and is packed full of quotes from Indigenous people and short case studies. The real shock comes from page 21, where the research shows that:

Over 95% of Yolŋu surveyed were unable to correctly identify the meaning of the 30 commonly used English legal terms.

These are words that include:

Accuse/Accused, Bail, Consent, Guarantee, Obliged/Not obliged, Sentence, Alleged, Charge, Directly/Indirectly, Guilty, Offend/Breach, Summons, Appear, Commit, Fail/Failure …

What is interesting in relation to some of the things I have been arguing in relation to Indigenous eduction. For those surveyed who had access to government schools, those born after 1965, 97% of their responses indicated that they had either no understanding, or gave completely incorrect meanings to these legal terms. These Government schools did not use Balanda teachers trained in local languages. Those surveyed who were born prior to 1965 and thus had access personnel on the ‘Missions’ who spoke the local languages, still had a many misunderstandings, but where reported to have a much better understanding of the legal system and they responded with a correct or partially correct understanding of the legal terms 10-20% of the time, as against 3% of the time for those born after 1965 (see page 24).

The report includes a series of studies on how individual words were understood and how this has affected Yolngu individuals in their dealings with the legal system. Perhaps most striking was the perception by some Yolŋu that to be “bailed out” meant they were free, often resulting in them breaking their bail commitments to return to court. In 2005 there were over 5000 warrants out for the arrest of people who had breached bail in the Northern Territory, on current jailing rates 80% of these could have been for Aboriginal people. This is a striking insight to the effects of cross-cultural misunderstandings. It highlights for me the importance of minimising such confusion in my communications with Aboriginal people. I hope it also helps some of you to grasp some of the reasons why things may not work out the way we expect when working with Aboriginal people. Please have a quick read or download the report by clicking here (opens in a new window).

As an example of the difficulty of transferring the meaning of difficult English words to an ESL person. Try explaining ‘infection’ yourself in English without using other difficult words like ‘bacteria’, germs, ‘inflammation’, or ‘microscopic’. Its not easy is it? Its a little like playing the game “taboo”. Using English onlly, this is what any teacher must do to be really understood. Unfortunately, very quickly the teachers tire of this (I know I have to do it sometimes) and returns to their normal vocabulary, using English words many Indigenous people won’t understand.

So what English words can it be assumed that an ESL Aboriginal person understands? Generally speaking Indigenous Australian people understand very well words that describe objects, and actions that can be seen, heard, felt and tasted with minimal explanation to define the term, we call them tangible terms/concepts. However, ESL indigneous persons may have poor understanding of any word which might be called intangible. That is, terms which cannot be easily demonstrated, seen, heard, tasted or touched, including;

• emotions,
• descriptive words like ‘serious’, or ‘conclusively’
• conceptual terms that may relate to specialised field such as;
  • law
  • politics
  • economics
  • science
• a whole range of health related words, where things are not directly observable, because they are microscopic or internal.

We must remember that English second language speakers from other countries have access to dictionaries which explain these linguistically difficult or advanced English words in their own language. Aboriginal people in Australia do not have such resources. Furthermore, these difficulties with English may also be true for speakers of ‘Aboriginal English’ or English kriols. This occurs when the intangible terms were not transferred to first languages before the local lanugages were lost within a community. As a result such communities will not find it any easier to discover new concepts and meanings.

When working with Indigenous people who are ESL speakers (including some ‘Aboriginal English speakers”), it is important to keep these difficulties in mind. Especially if you are restricted to English. Transfer of meanings for intangible terms is possible in English only, but it is very difficult, because one must avoid the many other words your student doesn’t understand. And one must have the time to have detailed discussions around words that are new or foriegn. Whether you have learnt a local language or not, always keep a eye out for words that may be difficult and take some time to check with individuals and small groups how people in the community understand certain terms. Practice with them how you might explain the meaning successfully. Generally Aborignal people don’t mind being asked about their understanding of English words, because they generally recognise that learning another language can be very difficult.

Some of the advantages of teaching in the Aboriginal students’ native language are obvious; english words and concepts can more quickly be explained using terms locals already understand well. Some argue that by speaking english only it exposes students repeatedly to new english words, which allows Indigenous people to increase their vocabulary. This can occur in highly contextualised teaching sessions. However, contextualising in english to ESL students is difficult because of the loss of information that occurs as the student tries to understand english. When a learning a second language many of the words that a person does not know are not even heard by the brain, and if they are heard they are quickly discarded as the brain tries to decipher the meaning of the sentence using the word its does know. If you have learnt a second language yourself you would recognise this process, which leaves you hoping the words you missed were not too important. You may be able to see how this kind of word deafness can go unnoticed. This process of word loss is particularly detrimental to learning when contextualising, giving instructions, or explaining a meaning or concept, because these processes depend the most on information being transferred correctly. This is when the use of local language is most important. If local languages were used for these parts of the training process, particularly in literacy education, the learning process could be accelerated beyond what is achieved now by even the most successful english based strategies.