Language shift in urban spaces and its impact on language pedagogy: Case of Sherpa, Maithili, Newar and Tamang communities in Kathmandu Valley of Nepal

Rick Kern's (2024, this issue) critical engagement with the implications of technological advancements such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine translation in the postpandemic era should prompt many to reflect on the so-called "existential crisis" we face, both as language teachers and as human beings. Language teachers, like many other professionals (e.g., accountants and lawyers), may fear that they will be replaced by AI (e.g., Felix, 2020) while modern language education programs already face funding cuts in many contexts such as the United States and Australia (e.g., Gao & Zheng, 2019; Lanvers et al., 2018). For this reason, I completely agree with the premise that there is a need for language educators to identify the affordances and constraints presented by technological tools in language education. It is also critical to ascertain how we can draw on intellectual sources to help language teachers make informed use of technological tools to provide the best possible learning experience for language learners. At the same time, however, I wonder if the challenges that technological advancements present for language teachers may require more in-depth elaboration. Such an elaboration might help us better "articulate and communicate the value of language study" (Kern, 2024, this issue, p. XX) for the public and implement the pathways in language (teacher) education advanced by Kern. It should be noted that technological developments such as the rise of generative AI pose challenges for most professions. Generative AI tools have already been tested for their ability to replace humans in the fields of accountancy and law (e.g., Choi et al., 2021; Vasarhelyi et al., 2023), and language teachers may also feel their profession is at risk. A counterargument against "fearmongering" discourses about this technological development is the assertion that AI can replace human beings for the completion of individual tasks but cannot replace their jobs altogether. Indeed, professions such as teaching involve complex orchestration of multiple tasks (e.g., delivering content, facilitating thinking, and guiding and supporting learning), which is beyond the current capacity of generative AI tools. As an increasing number of tasks can be executed by these new technological means, however, the ways in which human beings are needed in these jobs are also likely to change. In the context of language learning and use, technologies such as machine translation may generate inaccurate texts, but they are sufficient for communication tasks that do not require high levels of precision. For instance, as a journal editor, I may need to look up a colleague in a Turkish university to find out whether their research background and expertise match a manuscript that needs to be reviewed. I would not be able to understand the content of this colleague's webpage on their university's staff directory, which would be in Turkish, if I did not use Google Translate in my Chrome browser. While it is possible that Google Translate would not accurately translate the entire website from Turkish into English, it would be adequate to help me to decide whether this colleague had sufficient expertise to review the manuscript. In a similar way, I imagine that hundreds of such day-to-day professional tasks do not require translations that are 100% accurate. For example, generative AI tools can help people to create texts such as letters of complaint or appreciation in different languages. Machine translation and generative AI tools can help people overcome language barriers without necessarily needing to learn new languages to complete these tasks. Most of these tasks involve the transactional use of language (i.e., the communication of information for exchange), a form of language use that has motivated many learners to learn languages in traditional classrooms. It should also be noted that machine translation and generative AI tools are undergoing further development and refinement. Kern's (2024, this issue, p. X) article suggests that generative AI tools such as ChatGPT are "harmful to a social understanding of knowledge and learning" because they do not make the sources of knowledge explicit, have "no notion of empirical truth," and "no conception of a theoretical frame" (Peters et al., 2023, pp. 14−15), and cannot apply ethical principles in the course of reasoning. Moreover, generative AI tools tend to appear to be "uncritically affirmative" (Peters et al., 2023, pp. 14−15). In my view, these issues cannot be fixed through continuous technological developments, but it is likely that generative AI tools will function as if they have appropriate understandings of empirical truth and use theoretical frameworks when presenting views on particular issues. They may also appear to have balanced views on different topics and to use ethical principles when elaborating upon these views. As an applied linguist, I cannot evaluate how well generative AI tools are "learning" and what they are capable of in terms of functionality in the future. However, it is very likely that the community of language teachers faces a crisis, as the rise of generative AI tools will lead to a worldwide diminishing of the scale of language education. Opportunities to learn languages will likely be reserved for those aiming for an expert level of proficiency and competence that enables them to outperform and manage machine translation and generative AI tools in language use; or those who are intrinsically motivated to learn languages. Will this create a world in which people are categorized into those who have the resources and expertise to manage technological tools, and those who depend on such tools? The growing inequity as a result of this knowledge gap is beyond the scope of this response, but the crisis engulfing language education has important ramifications for language teachers, which I shall now rely on Chinese cultural wisdom to discuss. The dialectical idea of "crisis" in the Chinese language "危机 wei ji" means both "danger [危 wei]" and "opportunity [机 ji]" (Wang, 2014). In the spirit of Kern's (2024, this issue) article, the crisis here presents an opportunity for language educators to rethink the values involved in the study of language and how these values can be articulated and realized. Such critical reflections and conversations will help reenergize language education with new understandings and commitments. It is my contention that the changes that must take place in language education have been well presented in Kern's (2024) article. For this reason, I will focus on the critical question of how we can "articulate and communicate the value of language study" to the public to develop a clear agenda for language teacher education moving forward. My first response regarding the value of language study against the backdrop of technological developments is that language learning needs to be promoted as a fundamentally humanistic endeavor. Many tasks involving the transactional use of language can be performed with improved functionality by rapidly evolving machine translation and generative AI tools. Although generative AI tools may appear to be increasingly humanlike when interacting with us, our deep, intrinsic needs—such as a sense of belonging, identity aspirations, and desirable attributes associated with speaking languages other than our own (such as "coolness," creativity, etc.)—cannot be satisfied by these tools. The value of language study lies in the human life journeys that language teachers undertake together with learners. I recall what my English language teacher used to say many years ago: You can live multiple lives if you learn to speak multiple languages. Nevertheless, I understand that we must develop a much more persuasive message if we are to persuade the public to value language studies. Let us shift our attention to other professions where automation can replace human beings, but human beings still play a critical role. For example, autopilot technology is already quite well developed in the aviation industry. We now have the technology to pilot a plane from takeoff to landing, yet we still rely on human pilots to operate planes. The obvious reason is that we do not want human beings to lose the essential skills and capacity required to operate increasingly sophisticated modern aircraft in complex situations. If we fully rely on automatic instruments to fly the plane, pilots may not have the opportunity to operate these planes themselves. Reliance on human pilots for the operation of aircraft helps ensure that the world still has reliable pilots if technology fails. We also want to remain the "masters" of technological tools. The same reasoning can be applied in defense of language study: It can be argued that language makes us human, and language use is an essential characteristic of our humanity. If we rely on technological tools for human interaction, we will have fewer opportunities to develop critical skills, competence, and practices for cross-cultural communication and mutual understanding. Which tasks can be replaced by technological tools that can perform them more efficiently than human beings? Which tasks can be replaced by technological tools but should be retained by human beings as essential skills? Which tasks cannot be performed entirely with technological tools but can be approached by using these tools to facilitate the growth of our skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions? A lack of rigorous answers to these questions will undermine the efforts of language educators to respond to the challenges posed by technological developments. Robust responses to these questions will help language teachers identify where they stand in relation to technological developments and the need for effective pedagogy. For example, generative AI tools may help us remove grammatical infelicities in our written language and improve the quality of our writing as users of English as an additional language. It is perfectly reasonable for us to use these tools to help us write texts in languages other than our own. However, this does not mean that learners should also give up learning the skills needed to notice and appropriate target language forms. Another example involves the use of technologies that may help learners to spend less time drilling and practicing their linguistic knowledge. This does not mean that learners do not need to develop the capacity and disposition needed to monitor and reflect upon their language development, either. In this way, language education researchers may now need to identify a repertoire of essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that human beings should retain as language users, regardless of whether technological tools can replace human beings in the completion of many tasks connected to language use. For instance, language learners want to be heard and listened to, while language teachers also want to promote language learners' acquisition of linguistic knowledge and skills, as well as fostering their personal growth in teaching. In order to achieve such aspirations, language teachers and learners need to work together to find the most effective ways to develop language learners into agentic and lifelong learners who are capable of creating learning opportunities for themselves—learners who are resilient, persevering, and highly motivated; who can regulate their learning processes, and believe in their own capacity to take control of language learning (Larsen-Freeman et al., 2021). Indeed, the use of technological tools such as generative AI can give language teachers the time and opportunity to focus on the development of the list of essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that may otherwise receive insufficient attention. The effort to identify this list of qualities addresses the critical question language educators must answer to the public regarding the value of language study. Further research is required to demonstrate the value of the essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions language learners can develop through their learning process. For instance, language learners' perception of self-efficacy, which relates to their beliefs about what they can learn and how they can manage their learning process, is essential for their development through learning both subject content and languages. While learners may develop a positive perception of self-efficacy through language learning, this can also be promoted in other arenas, such as learning mathematics or participating in sports. For this reason, I suggest that language teachers focus on the variety of skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that are unique to the learning of languages, rather than more generic counterparts. As an example, intercultural communicative competence is a highly desirable attribute that language learners can develop through learning languages. At this point, it is not clear whether future technological tools will be capable of detecting and appropriately responding to subtle cultural nuances in the context of intercultural communication, but this is a valuable, essential skill for human beings to retain (e.g., Gao & Yang, 2023). When language teachers possess a list of what can be best learned through language education, we can achieve a clear articulation of the value of language study for the public. Language teachers also need this list to clarify the roles that they must perform in this brave new world. In my perspective, the shifting responses to the roles of language teachers by generative AI tools presented in Kern's (2024, this issue) article are at once deeply comforting and concerning. The article indicates that generative AI tools are learning how to respond based on the available language data at their disposal, which suggests that we are still refining our thoughts on this critical question. I can imagine that their responses will become increasingly sophisticated as language educators' engagement with this critical question deepens. At present, these responses highlight the role that teachers have in providing emotional support to language learners in terms of motivation, confidence, and engagement. Additionally, human teachers are responsive to individual language learners' needs, preferences, and styles when monitoring, regulating, and facilitating language learners' learning processes. Human teachers promote language learners' critical reflections on values and norms to develop a better sense of self and belonging toward community building. Human teachers are also believed to facilitate language learners' development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions for adaptive and creative responses in real-world environments. However, these represent patterns of responses that human beings have been producing to the question as captured and identified by the AI tools. As such, they likely reflect our limited understanding of what technological tools are capable of at present, and how they may evolve into in the future. While these responses are valuable, I also wonder if they partly reflect the wishful thinking of language educators. As generative AI tools are further refined in terms of their functionality, I imagine that these tools can perform the aforementioned tasks that have been ascribed to human teachers so far. These tools may appear to behave as if they were language teachers who attempt to provide emotional and human support to language learners; offer feedback responsive to language learners' needs, preferences, and styles; facilitate their critical skills of reflection and reflexion; and enable language learners with knowledge and skills to promote their adaptability and creativity. The fundamental difference between generative AI tools and human teachers is found at the fact that these are not essential qualities of AI tools but rather represent their behavioral functions. Importantly, these are qualities that human teachers cannot afford to lose. As a result, language teacher education programs should reorient themselves to focus on the development of these essential qualities that language teachers must offer as human teachers (Gao, 2019). While the changes induced by technological developments do not fundamentally change the roles that language teachers play in education, they do indicate that language teachers must prepare for the shifting priorities in their professional practice. Consequently, language teacher education programs must also adjust their pedagogical priorities so that they can better prepare language teachers for the need to adapt their teaching practice to the new world to come. Language teacher education programs help language teachers to develop a critical awareness of technological affordances and constraints so that they can be clear about the mission they undertake as human teachers: They need to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are essential for human beings to maintain. Without these essential attributes, humans may be unable to claim ourselves as human agents in control of our own life and existence. The humanistic aspects of language education should become more prominent as human language teachers focus on the satisfaction of language learners' intrinsic and integrative needs, while technological tools address the instrumental needs of language learners. Language teacher education programs may need to focus on developing language teachers' adequate understandings of technological tools so that they use these tools effectively in collaboration with language learners to facilitate their personal growth (Tao & Gao, 2022). Effective use of these tools will create time and space for the development of the skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that have not been well addressed in traditional language classrooms, in which the main tasks of learning and teaching relate to linguistic knowledge. Language teacher education programs prepare preservice language teachers who need to teach languages other than their own for using technological tools to help develop and refine their knowledge of these languages. Pedagogical priorities will shift toward the learning and teaching of language-related outcomes, including intercultural communication, as well as nonlinguistic outcomes such as perseverance, adaptability, and creativity. Teaching can also focus on the growth of inner resources such as agency, so that learners have opportunities to develop these crucial inner resources (Larsen-Freeman, 2019). For example, teachers might use learner-oriented feedback to allow language learners to choose the aspects of their learning that they would like to receive feedback on and how they would like feedback to be given to them. As technology increasingly replaces human beings in the performance of a variety of tasks, it is critical for language educators to reorient our focus toward developing the essential skills, knowledge, competencies, attributes, and dispositions that make us human through learning languages. For me, the crisis brought about by technological developments presents an opportunity for language educators to revive the fundamentally humanistic cause of language education—that is, to promote critical cultural and human understandings and to bring people together so that we can respond to the existential crises facing the human race, such as climate change and war. Open access publishing facilitated by University of New South Wales, as part of the Wiley - University of New South Wales agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

This editorial sketches the conceptual foundations for this special issue on media literacy in language (teacher) education. It contextualises this special issue’s focus on language (teacher) education with critical media literacy theory, highlighting the special role of language education in media literacy development both in terms of the subject’s methodology and goals. With its inherent focus on texts and media, language education pursues the goal of empowering learners to become active participants in global – oftentimes digital – discourses. Providing a frame for the contributions to this special issue, this introduction echoes calls for an already observable shift in language (teacher) education, moving beyond technologically-enhanced or computerassisted language learning and towards critical approaches to media literacy in the language classroom. Increasingly, scholars and practitioners are exploring ways to conceptualize and practice (foreign) language learning within digitality rather than about or with digital media, including the contributions to this special issue.

The study of language acquisition and instruction is not new to academics, but it never fails to excite linguists and teachers. The goal of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is to help students develop their communication skills so that they can effectively communicate in a target language. Since its start in the 1970s, when the need for language learners to improve their communication skills was rising, this approach has received worldwide reputation. But since many educators still reject this method, many worries remain. According to Chomsky (1957), the four main aspects of language acquisition lexis, syntax, phonology, and morphology are focused on linguistic competence. Hymes (1971) argues that pragmatic, sociolinguistic, semantic, and grammatical considerations are more important. When it comes to teaching second languages, the theories put forward by researchers, have been game-changers for communicative language instruction. The communicative language teaching (CLT) technique places an emphasis on students' active participation in second language classroom activities and provides more opportunities for students to improve their communication skills compared to the grammar-translation method. Other traditional methods of instruction do not typically use this component. In the context of ESL instruction, this article delves deeply into the ideas and methods of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In particular, it compares and contrasts conventional methods of instruction with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and gives a brief summary of its advantages and disadvantages. In addition, the article delves into the latest advancements in CLT and the difficulties encountered while applying CLT in an academic environment. After that, the post helps educators understand Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) better. Furthermore, it suggests possible outcomes, such as creating classroom activities and encouraging student motivation, of utilizing CLT to teach English in a university context. References Abahussain, M. O. (2016). Implementing Communicative Language Teaching Method in Saudi Arabia: Challenges Faced by Formative Year Teachers in State Schools. (PhD). University of Stirling, Scotland. Abrejo, B., Sartaj, S., & Memon, S. (2019). English Language Teaching through Communicative Approach: A Qualitative Study of Public Sector Colleges of Hyderabad, Sindh. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(5), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.5p.43 Ahn, S. Y., & Kang, H.-S. (2017). South Korean university students’ perceptions of different English varieties and their contribution to the learning of English as a foreign language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(8), 712-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1242595. Al-Nasser, A. S. (2015). Problems of English language acquisition in Saudi Arabia: An exploratory-cum-remedial study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1612- 1619. Alsalmi, A. A. (2014). Challenges confronting teachers of English language. (Master). Taif University, Taif. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Batawi, G. H. (2007). Exploring the use of CLT in Saudi Arabia. (Master). American University of Sharjah, Sharjah. Borg, S. (2017). Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. In The Routledge handbook of language awareness, (pp. 93-109): Routledge. Brandl, K. (2019). Communicative Language Teaching in Action: Putting Principles to Work. Pearson Education, Inc. Brandl, K., & Bauer, G. (2002). Students’ Perceptions of Novice Teaching Assistants’ Use of the Target Language in Beginning Foreign Language Classes: Preliminary Investigation. In W. Davis, J. Smith, & R. Smith (Eds), Ready To Teach: Graduate Teaching Assistants Prepare for Today and for Tomorrow (pp.128-138). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (6th ed.). White Plains, NY Pearson Education. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistic, 1(1), 1-47. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton. Courtney, D. (2020). Activities to Activate and Maintain a Communicative Classroom. English Teaching Forum, 58(1), 10-21. Dey, M. (2021). Psychological processes in language learning and teaching: Scoping review and future research directions. Journal of Psychological Perspective, 3(2), 105-110. Dey, M. (2023). The primary characteristics of English pragmatics in Applied Linguistics: Exploring the Key Features of English Pragmatics in Applied Linguistics. Inverge Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1022/ijss.v2i2.25 Dey, M., Amelia, R., & Herawati, Y. W. (2023). Challenging the'Native Speaker'Ideal: The Impact of Native Speakerism on Language Education. Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa, 17(2), 232-245. Dos Santos, L. M. (2016). Foreign language teachers' professional development through peer observation programme. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 39-46. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n10p39. Dos Santos, L. M. (2017). How do teachers make sense of peer observation professional development in an Urban School. International Education Studies, 10(1), 255-265. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n1p255. Dos Santos., L. M. (2019). Science lessons for non-science university undergraduate students: An application of visual-only video teaching strategy. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 14(1), 308–311. https://doi.org/10.36478/jeasci.2019.308.311. Dos Santos, L. M. (2020). The Discussion of Communicative Language Teaching Approach in Language Classrooms, Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 2020. Journal of Education and E-Learning, 7(2), 104-109. Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Blackwell Publishing. Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion and its implications for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291-311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Huang, S.-H., & Yang, L.-C. (2018). Teachers’ Needs in the Advancement of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Taiwan. TESOL International Journal, 13(1), 100-117. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. (1971). Pidginization and creolization of languages. London, UK: Cambridge University Press. Iwashita, N., & Ngoc, K. M. (2012). A comparison of learners’ and teachers’ attitudes toward communicative language teaching at two universities in Vietnam. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 7, 25-49. Jung, S. K., & Norton, B. (2002). Language planning in Korea: the new elementary English program. In Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 245-265). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Kachru, B. (1992). World Englishes: approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1–14. Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(5), 430-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370210156745. Kiato, S. K., & Kiato, K. (1996). Testing Communicative Competence. The TESOL Internet Journal, 2(5). Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Lee, J. S., & Lee, K. (2019). Perceptions of English as an international language by Korean English-major and non-English-major students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(1), 76-89. Li, D. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/19. 10.1017/S0272263197001034. Natividad, M. R. A., & Batang, B. L. (2018). Students’ Perceptual Learning Styles and Attitudes toward Communicative Language Teaching. TESOL International Journal, 13(4), 104-120. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 279–295. Ozsevik, Z. (2010). The use of communicative language teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers’ perceived difficulties in implementing CLT in Turkey. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illiois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman. Pham, H. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Riggenbach, H., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). Promoting Oral Communication Skills. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 125-136). Los Angeles: University of California. Richards, J. C. (2006), Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd ed.). Sydney, NSW: McGraw-Hill. Saengboon, S. (2002). Beliefs of Thai EFL teachers about communicative language teaching. (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University Bloomington, USA. Schulz, R.A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Learners’ and teachers’ view on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 333-364. Sawalmeh, M. H., & Dey, M. (2023). Globalization and the increasing demand for spoken English teachers. Research Journal in Advanced Humanities, 4(2). Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1989). Intensive ESL programs in Quebec primary schools. TESL Canada Journal, 7, 11-32. Souriyavongsa, T., Rany, S., Abidin, M. J. Z., & Mei, L. L. (2013). Factors causes students low English language learning: A case study in the National University of Laos. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 179-192. Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50(1), 9–15. Tomlinson, B. (2001). Humanising the Coursebook. Humanising Language Teaching, 3(5). Walia, D. N. (2012). Traditional teaching methods vs. CLT: A study. Frontiers of language and teaching, 3(1), 125-131. Weiner, L. (2012). The future of our schools: Teachers unions and social justice. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books. Weiner, L., & Jerome, D. (2016). Urban teaching: The essentials (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. West, A. J. (2016). Adaptation of Communicative Language Teaching Methodology to an English Textbook for English Language Learning of NIDA Students. PASAA, 52, 25-52 Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zhang, J. L. (2006, November 11-13). The ecology of communicative language teaching: Reflecting on the Singapore experience [Paper presentation]. Annual CELEA International Conference: Innovating English Teaching: Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Other Approaches, China English Language Education Association (CELEA) and Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China.

Reviewed by: Between Two Grammars, Research and Practice for Language Learning and Teaching in a Creole-speaking Environment by Beverley Bryan Don E. Walicek Beverley Bryan. 2010. Between Two Grammars, Research and Practice for Language Learning and Teaching in a Creole-speaking Environment. Kingston: Ian Randle. 194pp. ISBN: 978-976-637-352-8. This book—which consists of an introduction, eight chapters, and a detailed index—offers a multidisciplinary perspective on language learning and teaching, in particular the teaching of English in Jamaica. Its author, Beverley Bryan, indicates that the work has five main aims: (i) to present an enriched view of the multiple meanings of language and English in teaching in the Caribbean; (ii) to provide tools necessary to navigate the language arena, allowing teachers to interrogate their responses to language; (iii) to generate a set of principles appropriate for teaching English in Creole-speaking environments; (iv) to review specific language teaching methodologies; and (v) to empower teachers to develop a critical perspective on their practice. The author makes a direct appeal to those who work in education, but the volume will certainly be appreciated a variety of readers, including those with interests in sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and pedagogy. Chapter 1, ‘Characterising the Language Situation in Jamaica,’ engages literature from Caribbean linguistics, citing the work of influential researchers in the field, including Mervyn Alleyne, Derek Bickerton, and Hubert Devonish. It includes an informative overview of the grammatical features of the island’s Creole (hereafter referred to as Jamaican) and discusses shifts in public discourse about the status of the language. Exploring the latter, Bryan examines discourse about Jamaican that have appeared in letters to the editor and notes a diachronic shift in these newspaper debates. She points out that while language issues remain contentious, today such letters tend to assume that the Creole is a full-fledged language. While the chapter does provide details about Jamaican, it does not squarely address questions how to define and distinguish the languages spoken on the island. Of course some readers are likely to already be knowledgeable of Jamaica’s linguistic history and sociolinguistic dynamics. The second chapter, which begins with an interesting section on the emergence of formal education in Jamaica, deals with the school environment. The author indicates that language teaching on the island [End Page 236] began with the establishment of a system of elementary education “under the aegis of the abolition arm of the church” and with the aid of the Negro Education Grant 1835–1845 (p. 24). Tensions exist between Bryan’s account of the establishment of an educational system and assertions made by Dunkley (2012). Dunkley views the Negro Educational Grant as an “additional enhancement” to a venture already in place; furthermore, he charges that to conclude that no real system was in place prior to abolition undermines the agency of the enslaved and forfeits the opportunity to “analyze one of the most important ways in which enslaved people demonstrated slave freedom” (p. 70). Readers unfamiliar with the history of the system may be surprised to learn that “payment by results,” an arrangement by which student achievement translated into money for schools, dates back to the first half of the nineteenth century. Keeping this in mind, Bryan describes competency in English during this period as a commodity, reminding us, “each mark gained was a pound for the school” (pp. 24–25). Chapter 2’s discussion extends into the twentieth century, addressing curriculum development, access to education, and patterns of classroom interaction. In a section highlighting recent research, Bryan underscores the existence of varying degrees of bilingualism, analyzes several examples of classroom discourse, and emphasizes the importance of the teacher as a bridge between languages. The next chapter considers how English is taught in secondary schools. It begins with an overview of relevant theories of English as an international language and a survey of scholarship on “the New Englishes.” Bryan also addresses the debate about the use of Jamaican as a language of classroom instruction. She makes a distinction between efforts to promote Jamaican as an official language and language of instruction (research by H. Devonish and projects at UWI’s Jamaican Language Unit) and opposition to such...

We investigated how the knowledge and usage of two languages relate to sociocultural adjustment in bilingual adolescent samples from three ethnic groups in Indonesia (214 Javanese, 108 Toraja, and 195 Chinese adolescents; 272 females; M age = 14.33 years). We tested a model specifying that the vocabulary knowledge of each language mediates the relation between language usage and sociocultural adjustment (here combining strongly correlated measures of adjustment to the ethnic and national culture). The results revealed the same partial mediation model in all groups; bilingualism is important for sociocultural adjustment in all ethnic groups. There were substantial group differences in ethnic language vocabulary scores, but the correlations between ethnic language usage with sociocultural adjustment were the same across groups. Results also showed that ethnic language usage matters more than ethnic language knowledge, and national language knowledge matters more than ethnic language knowledge for sociocultural adjustment. Moreover, our findings confirm that there is a language shift going on in Indonesia because Bahasa Indonesia as national language, which was the second language in the past, has become the dominant language across ethnic groups in Indonesia.

Although China has a clearly delineated policy on the dominant Han language and ethnic languages and has achieved successes in both status and corpus planning, there has never been a consistent well-designed plan for foreign language education. Policy shifts were often motivated by the political agenda at the time. My argument is that when the political agenda prevails over the educational, foreign language education suffers and that when the political agenda converges with the educational, foreign language education gains.In the early and mid-1950s because of China’s political alliance and economic construction Russian was promoted at the expense of English. Many Russian institutes and departments were set up and Russian soon became the preferred foreign language in the country. The Ministry of Education closed down most departments of English in normal universities and replaced English with Russian at secondary schools. This led to lop-sided development of FL education and a sharp decline of English language teaching. This is a clear case of the political agenda prevailing over the educational. Although efforts were made after 1956 to tackle the existing problems, the situation as a whole did not improve quickly.In the early and mid-1960s because of strained relations with the Soviet Union and increased contact with countries in other parts of the world China needed translators and interpreters of other languages than Russian. Two measures were taken to improve and speed up the training of foreign language graduates. One was the setting up of special foreign language schools and the other was the drawing up of a seven-year plan for developing foreign language education. This time the political agenda coincided with the educational needs of the country and the outcome turned out to be a very positive one.This brief review of past events in the history of China’s FL teaching throws light on the need for a consistent language education policy in which there is a good balance between the political and the educational agenda. This plan should take into full account China’s needs both at the present and in future years and the language use situation in the world. English now holds a predominant position in foreign language teaching in China and there seems to be an insatiable need in China for graduates from English departments. We should fully recognize the increased importance of English as an international language in the world today and give it the place it deserves. But at the same time we should not lose sight of language diversity and the need for other languages than English.

This paper details major and significant developments in the teaching of English to pupils aged 5-16 years in the school system in England, the years of compulsory education. To begin with definitions of terms. There are four aspects of language education provision that pertain in England: 1. the teaching of English as the mother tongue; 2. the teaching of English as an Additional Language (EAL); 3. the teaching of other languages: community (CL) and 4. modem foreign languages (MFL). This paper addresses 1, 2 and 3. Throughout the nomenclature reflects that of the public documents that have outlined the details of provision. It is hoped this reflects changing attitudes, policy and provision of the teaching of EMT, EAL and CLs within mainstream education in England. There is no formal policy for language education in England (PLEE). Official views on the type and nature of language education, including which languages are to be taught, and by implication, the opposite, which are to be omitted from the official curriculum, are gleaned from a range of curriculum policy documents (listed in Appendix A). The absence of a formal language policy statement can be understood as a statement by omission. This paper will explore the implications of this absence and pose the question: does less policy lead to more language education?

The Nilgiri Hills are home to several tribal communities, each with their distinct culture and language. Effective communication is crucial for their social, economic, and cultural well-being. However, the region's remote and rugged terrain, limited infrastructure, and socio-economic constraints pose significant challenges to communication. Language plays a vital role in shaping their identity, culture, and daily life. However, the region's linguistic diversity faces challenges due to urbanization, migration, and globalization.This study investigates the communication networks and challenges faced by tribal communities in the Nilgiri Hills. We conducted interviews and surveys among three tribal groups, examining their access to and utilization of communication channels. Our findings highlight limited access to modern communication technologies, reliance on traditional modes, and significant barriers to effective communication. We discuss the implications for social inclusion, economic development, and cultural preservation, and propose strategies for improving communication infrastructure and addressing the unique needs of these communities. This study delves into the linguistic behavior and problems faced by tribal communities in the Nilgiris Hills, a region renowned for its linguistic diversity. Through a mixed-methods approach, we investigated language use, language attitudes, and language challenges among three tribal groups: Toda, Kota, and Irula. Our findings reveal a complex linguistic landscape, with language shift, language loss, and language maintenance efforts. We discuss the implications for language preservation, education, and social inclusion, and propose strategies for supporting linguistic diversity and addressing linguistic problems in these communities.Methodology: We conducted interviews with 100 participants from three tribal groups (Toda, Kota, and Irula) and surveyed 50 households. We examined access to and usage of communication channels, including mobile phones, internet, radio, and traditional modes. We employed a mixed-methods approach, combining surveys, interviews, and focus groups with 300 participants from the three tribal groups. We examined language use, language attitudes, language proficiency, and language challenges.Conclusion: Enhancing communication networks and addressing the unique challenges faced by tribal communities in the Nilgiri Hills is crucial for their social inclusion, economic development, and cultural preservation. By bridging the communication gap, we can empower these communities to access information, resources, and opportunities, ultimately improving their overall well-being. The linguistic diversity of the Nilgiri Hills' tribal communities is a valuable asset, but faces significant challenges. By understanding the linguistic behavior and problems, we can develop targeted strategies to support language preservation, education, and social inclusion. Empowering these communities to maintain and promote their languages will enrich India's linguistic heritage and foster a more inclusive society.In total this study examines multilingualism among tribal communities in the Nilgiri Hills, a region known for its linguistic diversity. Through a mixed-methods approach, we investigated language use, language proficiency, and language attitudes among three tribal groups: Toda, Kota, and Irula. Our findings reveal a complex multilingual landscape, with tribal languages, dominant languages (Tamil, Malayalam), and bilingualism/multilingualism. We discuss the implications for language preservation, education, and social inclusion, and propose strategies for supporting multilingualism and linguistic diversity in these communities.

Despite the increased acknowledgment of multilingualism in the United States, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) teacher education courses remain non-inclusive of many languages spoken by multilingual learners (MLs). Instead, they focus mainly on the study of the English language system. Neglecting to support MLs’ heritage languages (HLs) inadvertently reinforces prevalent monolingual ideologies and marginalizes MLs in classrooms (Barros et al., Journal of Language, Identity & Education 20:239–254, 2020; Flores, N., & Aneja, G. (2017). “Why needs hiding?” Translingual (re)orientations in TESOL teacher education. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(4), 441–463. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44821275 ; Tian, Z. (2020). Faculty first: Promoting translanguaging in TESOL teacher education. In S. M. C. Lau & S. Van Viegen (Eds.), Plurilingual pedagogies: Critical and creative endeavors for equitable language in education (pp. 215–236). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36983-5_10). Translanguaging pedagogy with its heteroglossic approach creates a language ecology in which all students enrich teaching and learning experiences with more democratic approaches (Deroo and Ponzio, Bilingual Research Journal 42:214–231, 2019; Khote and Tian, Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 5:5–28, 2019); however, both teachers and teacher educators know little about how to integrate translanguaging pedagogy into their coursework. In this case study, drawing upon (Bakhtin, M. (1981). Dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.) heteroglossia, we explore how pre-service teachers (PSTs) responded to translanguaging pedagogy in a TESOL education course. Data were collected through course assignments and interviews with 11 PSTs. Findings showed that PSTs embraced translanguaging in multiple ways that reflected heteroglossic perspectives in education. First, PSTs operationalized translanguaging as translations used to teach language and content lessons. Second, they took an active role in preparing lessons. Third, they understood translanguaging as a classroom ecology. While PSTs recognized the benefits of translanguaging for MLs, they also struggled with the translanguaging pedagogy because they could not imagine the full potential of translanguaging for themselves and their students. This study has implications for teacher educators, curriculum developers, and language teachers who grapple with bringing multilingualism to the center of TESOL that has traditionally privileged English-only.

<p>There has been a surprising dearth of research on language maintenance and shift in New Zealand over the last decade. This thesis addresses this gap by examining incipient patterns of language maintenance and shift in families in two refugee communities in Wellington. Earlier research suggests that immigrants may maintain their ethnic languages in spite of societal factors pressuring language shift for up to three generations. By then, however, language shift is often completed, with the third generation using the majority language only (Fishman 1991). In a largely monolingual country such as New Zealand, this shift may be accomplished in only two generations (Holmes et al. 1993). Understanding the language dynamics at the micro level that eventually lead to language maintenance or shift requires more research into actual language use among family members than traditional methods provide. This investigation therefore uses ethnographic observations, semi-structured interviews and recordings of naturally-occurring interactions between mothers and their children to highlight the challenges involved in transmitting a minority language. Using Spolsky’s (2004) tripartite model of language policy, I investigate family language beliefs, practices, and management in the refugee-background Ethiopian and Colombian communities. The Amharic-speaking Ethiopian community consists mostly of first and second generation members. They first settled in New Zealand in the 1990s and now display awareness of the challenges of maintaining their language. Most Ethiopian parents consider it their responsibility to teach their children Amharic in the home and many have introduced explicit language policies to promote Amharic use. These families exhibit an ‘impact belief’ (De Houwer 1999) which links their positive beliefs about Amharic with their management of family language practices. Nevertheless, in some cases children subvert and contest explicit language management and become primary agents of language shift. Supporting the parents’ efforts, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church provides a social space where Amharic may be used backed by an explicit policy which requires all members to use the language when at church. This policy provides valuable institutional support and cultural capital for Amharic and contributes to the vitality of the language in Wellington. The Colombian community has had a relatively shorter stay in Wellington, with the first members arriving as recently as 2008. Colombian mothers want to transmit Spanish and many seem confident that their children will maintain the language. In particular, they consider the Colombian variety of Spanish to be a source of pride and a core value (Smolicz 1992), as many participants closely link this variety to their Colombian identity. They further capitalise on the prestige of Spanish as a world language that motivates them to use it even outside their ethnic community. However, few families have put in place explicit language policies to use Spanish in the home; instead, many regard it as a more urgent concern that their children learn English. Overall, despite the community members’ positive attitudes towards their ethnic languages, their efforts to transmit these languages appear to be constrained by the fact that English is invested with considerable cultural capital (Bourdieu 1977) in New Zealand. English acquisition often takes priority, particularly for many newly arrived Colombian families. The participants’ refugee experiences, length of residence in New Zealand and the societal status of their ethnic languages seem influential factors on the degree of control they assume over their children’s language practices. Families also dynamically adapt their language policies to the circumstances, for example by introducing an explicit minority language policy after their children have acquired what they consider to be enough English. Despite a strong desire for their children to continue speaking the ethnic language, the parents have many other (non-linguistic) responsibilities and they frequently lack knowledge about “success strategies” for minority language transmission. Moreover, the children often take significant agency by introducing English into the home domain, in some cases even influencing other family members to use it, and thus initiating language shift. The detailed interactional data in this research provides insight into the different ways parents have instantiated their varying language policies and negotiated home language choice with their children. In sum, this research provides insight into language transmission efforts at the family level, and, using data from observations, interviews and recordings of mother-child interaction, describes in detail the unfolding of language maintenance dynamics. The thesis presents valuable insight into the underlying beliefs about Amharic and Spanish, the role of explicit language management strategies, parental socialisation and discourse styles and children’s agency. As the first such research covering two recent refugee communities it will hopefully assist the individual families to socialise their children in a way that enables them to become proficient minority language speakers. This will ensure a linguistically rich future for New Zealand.</p>

<p>There has been a surprising dearth of research on language maintenance and shift in New Zealand over the last decade. This thesis addresses this gap by examining incipient patterns of language maintenance and shift in families in two refugee communities in Wellington. Earlier research suggests that immigrants may maintain their ethnic languages in spite of societal factors pressuring language shift for up to three generations. By then, however, language shift is often completed, with the third generation using the majority language only (Fishman 1991). In a largely monolingual country such as New Zealand, this shift may be accomplished in only two generations (Holmes et al. 1993). Understanding the language dynamics at the micro level that eventually lead to language maintenance or shift requires more research into actual language use among family members than traditional methods provide. This investigation therefore uses ethnographic observations, semi-structured interviews and recordings of naturally-occurring interactions between mothers and their children to highlight the challenges involved in transmitting a minority language. Using Spolsky’s (2004) tripartite model of language policy, I investigate family language beliefs, practices, and management in the refugee-background Ethiopian and Colombian communities. The Amharic-speaking Ethiopian community consists mostly of first and second generation members. They first settled in New Zealand in the 1990s and now display awareness of the challenges of maintaining their language. Most Ethiopian parents consider it their responsibility to teach their children Amharic in the home and many have introduced explicit language policies to promote Amharic use. These families exhibit an ‘impact belief’ (De Houwer 1999) which links their positive beliefs about Amharic with their management of family language practices. Nevertheless, in some cases children subvert and contest explicit language management and become primary agents of language shift. Supporting the parents’ efforts, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church provides a social space where Amharic may be used backed by an explicit policy which requires all members to use the language when at church. This policy provides valuable institutional support and cultural capital for Amharic and contributes to the vitality of the language in Wellington. The Colombian community has had a relatively shorter stay in Wellington, with the first members arriving as recently as 2008. Colombian mothers want to transmit Spanish and many seem confident that their children will maintain the language. In particular, they consider the Colombian variety of Spanish to be a source of pride and a core value (Smolicz 1992), as many participants closely link this variety to their Colombian identity. They further capitalise on the prestige of Spanish as a world language that motivates them to use it even outside their ethnic community. However, few families have put in place explicit language policies to use Spanish in the home; instead, many regard it as a more urgent concern that their children learn English. Overall, despite the community members’ positive attitudes towards their ethnic languages, their efforts to transmit these languages appear to be constrained by the fact that English is invested with considerable cultural capital (Bourdieu 1977) in New Zealand. English acquisition often takes priority, particularly for many newly arrived Colombian families. The participants’ refugee experiences, length of residence in New Zealand and the societal status of their ethnic languages seem influential factors on the degree of control they assume over their children’s language practices. Families also dynamically adapt their language policies to the circumstances, for example by introducing an explicit minority language policy after their children have acquired what they consider to be enough English. Despite a strong desire for their children to continue speaking the ethnic language, the parents have many other (non-linguistic) responsibilities and they frequently lack knowledge about “success strategies” for minority language transmission. Moreover, the children often take significant agency by introducing English into the home domain, in some cases even influencing other family members to use it, and thus initiating language shift. The detailed interactional data in this research provides insight into the different ways parents have instantiated their varying language policies and negotiated home language choice with their children. In sum, this research provides insight into language transmission efforts at the family level, and, using data from observations, interviews and recordings of mother-child interaction, describes in detail the unfolding of language maintenance dynamics. The thesis presents valuable insight into the underlying beliefs about Amharic and Spanish, the role of explicit language management strategies, parental socialisation and discourse styles and children’s agency. As the first such research covering two recent refugee communities it will hopefully assist the individual families to socialise their children in a way that enables them to become proficient minority language speakers. This will ensure a linguistically rich future for New Zealand.</p>

Nepal has never been formally colonized; however, it struggles with the intricate effects of both internal and foreign linguistic colonialism, which has resulted in the marginalization of several indigenous languages in the formal educational system. The present paper explores how language education policies are changing in Nepal, a country with a wide variety of languages. This qualitative study used phenomenology as a research method and purposively selected four government aided school teachers as participants. Tool for data collection was interview and the findings showed that English is a dominant language in education policy though the constitution of Nepal allows mother tongue or national language i. e. Nepali to be the medium of instruction in the government schools. The study explored the expanding decolonization movement in language in education policy, led by communities, educators, and grassroots activists. The goal of this movement is to establish a more fair and inclusive learning environment from supporting the acknowledgement and integration of indigenous languages in formal education. The paper explored the historical mechanisms of linguistic colonialism in the educational system, examining the prioritization of dominant languages over indigenous languages and the resultant exclusion of the latter. The study concludes by outlining the current changes being made to Nepal’s language education regulations and highlighting the importance of linguistic inclusion as a driver of social cohesion and cultural preservation. By providing insights into the problems and possibilities of incorporating indigenous languages into formal educational systems, the research adds to the larger conversation on decolonizing education.

Language of instruction practices in reference to mother tongue policy implementation in lower primary school classes; a case of nyeri county, kenya The purpose of this study was to establish the language(s) used for instruction in lower primary school and also find out to what extent various factors related to school, teachers and parents influence the language choices for instruction in the respective classes and schools. This is because in spite of language policy in Kenya stipulating that, learners in lower primary school to be instructed in the language of catchment area, studies in pre-primary school show that some schools are ignoring this rule. This comes at a time that issues have been raised concerning children being introduced to foreign languages too early before they have mastered the first language. Likewise in the recent past a debate has been ranging concerning instructing children in mother tongue at the pre-primary and lower primary schools. The available studies did not focus on language choices made at the lower primary level of education which is crucial transition stage to formal learning. Most of these studies addressed status of the language policy in general or focused on other levels. They have also been exploratory in nature and dwelt on either perceptions, attitudes, values, multilingualism or other aspects of language. The study adopted the Choice theory and Transitional language model in the theoretical framework. The study design was qualitative and adopted descriptive survey methodology which allowed for an in-depth examination of the situation. The independent variables were the factors said to influence the choice of language of instruction while the dependent variable was the language of instruction used at lower primary school. This study was carried out within Nyeri County in which Kikuyu is the dominant language. This county has experienced an outcry in academic performance particularly in languages, mathematics and sciences which has been attributed to the inability to express ideas. The target population of the study was lower primary school classes, teachers and their parents. A multistage sampling technique was adopted. Schools were randomly or purposefully selected at various stages; classes were selected through cluster sampling while teachers were randomly selected. Data was collected from private and public schools in rural and urban areas through lesson observations, interviewing teachers and focus group discussions with parents. A pilot study was conducted to pretest the instruments. Validity and reliability were established through triangulation. The qualitative data collected was analyzed using Kitwoods Qualitative Technique of Analysis to bring out the emerging patterns, themes and trends. Among other findings a variety of languages were being used in the classroom instruction with no consideration of the policy. This was seen to be influenced by choices made by the teachers, parents and schools’ management and school locality. The study recommends a close-monitoring of implementation of language of instruction policy, training of teachers and education officers, community awareness and resource mobilization so as to benefit children at lower primary.

South African National Language Education policy (South Africa, DoE 2002) enshrines multilingualism (ML) as one of its major goals. The implementation of such a policy is a slow process, however, particularly in the educational domain, where parents, teachers and students favour the dominant, ex-colonial language (English) for both historic and instrumental reasons (Dalvit & de Klerk 2005). However, results of the National Benchmarking Test (NBMT Report 2009) conducted at selected South African universities show that most non-English speaking students in higher education have underdeveloped language and numeracy skills for study at this level, one of the main barriers to access being that of language (Council on Higher Education 2007: 2). Efforts have thus intensified in South African institutions to introduce the home languages of learners into the educational domain, either as learning support alongside the main medium of instruction or as alternative languages of instruction, working towards the development of a bilingual education model. This report documents developments in research in the promotion and use of the African languages in education in South Africa in recent years, particularly since the publication of the previous report (Wildsmith-Cromarty 2009), which discussed various initiatives in the teaching, development and use of the African languages in South African education during the period 2005–2008. This report considers further developments in the use of the African languages for academic purposes in the following areas: the learning and teaching of these languages as additional languages and for professional purposes in selected disciplines for specialist programmes, and their intellectualization, which includes their use as languages of instruction, in the translation of materials and other learning resources, and development of terminology.

The study assessed class teachers’ familiarity with the official language of instruction in selected urban government primary schools in Solwezi District of Zambia. The objectives of the study were to determine class teachers’ familiarity with the official language of instruction; establish the effects of teachers’ familiarity with the official language of instruction on literacy achievement among urban Grade 3 learners; and ascertain the language instructional strategies teachers who were non-speakers of the language of instruction used to teach in class. The study was guided by The Mother Tongue Instruction Theory, and employed a mixed methods design. Data were collected through interview, lesson observation and fluency test. The study established that teachers who were non-speakers were unfamiliar with the language of classroom instruction, kiikaonde. The fluency test results showed that the teachers’ oral fluency, reading fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, linguistic performance and articulation was generally poor. Interview and observation results showed that the teachers’ unfamiliarity with the official language of instruction impended teaching, learning and learners’ understanding in those classrooms. For instance, the learners misunderstood the concepts, it was time consuming, teachers could not deliver lessons very well because of language barrier and learners did not get the best from the teachers resulting in under performance among teachers and learners. The study also established that the unfamiliar teachers with the language of instruction used variety coping language strategies in the classrooms such as translation, code-switch, group work, individual work and question and answer. The study recommends teachers should be capacity built in familiar language through training in colleges and CPD in schools. The teachers who were unfamiliar with the official familiar language of classroom instruction should not be allocated to teach lower primary classes before they learn the familiar language of instruction by MOE authorities; and the use of variety coping strategies should be encouraged.