Professional Reading

Bics & Calp: Fluency is not Necessarily Proficiency for Second Language Speakers

by Zana Bell: MA in Second Language Teaching; ESOL Tutor Northland Polytechnic

Do you have this international student in your class? She (or he) has been in New Zealand for a few years now and seems settled into the school. She chats easily with classmates and enjoys your jokes. This wouldn't have been so when she first arrived. In fact, her acquisition of English was reasonably quick and distinctly measurable. But now a plateau seems to have been reached. Despite her fluency she misses the point, doesn't see the underlying arguments, the implications. Her own arguments are convoluted and hard to follow or too simplistic. She is a co-operative, hard-working student who somehow doesn't make the grade and baffles your best efforts to help, maybe leading you to wonder if perhaps she isn't as bright as you first thought...

If you do recognize this type of student, take heart. Students exhibiting good, fluent, socially appropriate language proficiency while experiencing failure in the academic arena have been a constant source of research, especially over the past thirty years. However, despite considerable research into the relationship between bilingualism, cognitive development and academic achievement, there are still no obviously easy explanations as to why so many bilingual children fail in school or why, indeed, some others succeed.

BICS and CALP

In Sweden in 1973, an Education Curriculum Supplement stated:

Experience has shown that the facility with which many immigrant pupils speak idiomatic Swedish can represent a superficial knowledge of the language, a façade which hides great deficiencies of vocabulary, reading, comprehension and concept formation, while the home language is also characterized by the same deficiencies. (Kerr 1984)

This reflected an awareness of the problem which has beset so many teachers around the world. Researchers looking at language proficiency in social and academic contexts attempted to identify features which differentiated language usage in these separate arenas. This turned out to be a subtle and complex task which generated a plethora of articles and terms. For the sake of this article I will use the acronyms coined by Jim Cummins (1984b) of BICS and CALP. BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) is the "manifestation of language proficiency in everyday contexts" (Cummins 1992, p. 17). That is, everyday conversations and interactions. CALP (Cognitive and Academic Language Proficiency) is the formal, more complex language found in academic discourse.

What defines these terms? Well, to begin with, everyday conversations are generally clearly contextualized with participants working together in (it is hoped) mutual interest. When talking, we generally opt for common (high frequency) words, our grammar is considerably looser and littered with - you know, um ... redundancies and er...repetitions, that is, mmm, pauses and um saying the same thing again - which slows the pace of delivery and gives the second-language person time to process the language. There are also paralinguistic cues such as tone, gestures and facial expressions. These all help second language speakers to follow what is going on and when misunderstandings do occur, they are usually identified immediately when one of the participants suddenly looks blank or the conversation takes a strange turn. The situation can then be quickly clarified with a question or two.

Where the language is decontextualized, as in academic situations, the meaning is reliant upon linguistic cues that are independent of the immediate communication context. Academic texts have usually undergone considerable editing and thus the lexical content is highly explicit. Lower frequency words and complex, embedded grammatical structures are often employed to ensure greater accuracy and conciseness. There is little interaction, feedback or personal involvement - if any - for the receiver of the information. These distinctions between contextualized and decontexualized situations show then how second language students in a classroom can communicate extremely competently with the teacher and fellow students in conversation and discussion but can be completely mystified when moving onto the reading matter. Similarly, while conversation with a teacher can be well-maintained, a lecture-style lesson itself might be impossible to follow.

The terms BICS and CALP have been criticized on a number of levels. Spolsky (1984) objected to the implied value judgements that CALP was in some way superior to BICS, pointing out that while the words proficiency and skills might be aligned, certainly cognitive and academic are far more valued than basic. Genesee (1984) continued the challenge in a similar vein, feeling that Cummins was too simplistic in his definitions and that it was erroneous to suggest that high cognitive skills are required solely at school or that students only encountered context-reduced language in the classroom. Social psychology stresses the complexity of social cognition and Genesee pointed out that there is no reason to suppose that all social interaction is undemanding - quite the opposite in fact, especially if the person is acting in an unfamiliar social milieu. This is a valid point for many bilingual students are highly fluent and skilful in interpersonal communication, demonstrating a sensitivity to nuance and appropriateness in different social situations. Immediate feedback when they do not employ appropriate language no doubt aids acquisition of these skills!

So, to summarize all this 'CALP-icity' in a 'BICS-ish' way - academic texts and lectures give new information using unfamiliar words and difficult grammar and a dictionary might be the students' only source of help. Conversations, however, are usually within a familiar context, using familiar words, looser grammar and have other props such as tone, intonation and gestures a second-language person can use to work out what's going on and when all else fails, a question or two can put matters to right.

Despite objections to these terms, BICS and CALP are still often employed in describing two sets of linguistic proficiencies and they do serve to underline the major problems faced by teachers and their bilingual students. The fact is, much of language teaching concentrates on equipping students with BICS proficiency at the expense of CALP and to the detriment of their academic success. As Cummins explains:

Some heretofore neglected aspects of language proficiency are considerably more relevant for students' cognitive and academic progress than are the surface manifestations of proficiency frequently focused on by education, and that the educators' failure to appreciate these differences can have particularly unfortunate consequences for language minority students. (1992, p. 17)

Cummins' research indicates that while it takes one and a half to two years to achieve BICS, it can take upwards of five years to gain CALP equivalent to that of a native speaker.

Interdependence

Having made the distinction between the two types of language proficiencies, researchers have tried to account for why CALP is so difficult to assimilate in comparison to BICS and to identify significant contributing factors to achieving it.

Age on arrival (AOA) and length of residence (LOR) are two of the most obvious variables to be considered. In Sweden, research into the relationship between first language proficiency and literacy, and second language acquisition have uncovered some interesting and sometimes unexpected data. Kerr (1984) when discussing the Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukamaa (1976) study of Finnish children in Sweden, notes that those students who moved to Sweden within a year of starting school, had "poorer chances of learning Swedish that children older or younger at the time of moving, and were weaker than many children who had not been in the country as long" (p.177). This suggests that mother tongue preservation is more important for those who move country before starting school, or who were born in Sweden of Finnish parents. As Kerr states, "Children who start school in Finland first have less risk of becoming semilingual, because they already have a basis on which to build" (p. 178).

Collier (1987) based her research on language minority students on the East Coast of the United States and her studies revealed that students arriving between the ages of eight and twelve, with at least two years of L1 (first language) learning, take from five to seven years to achieve native-like proficiency in subjects such as Social Studies and Science, while Mathematics and the language arts (spelling, grammar etc.) may be achieved in two to four years. Adolescents may take a similar length of time but often run out of school years before they can gain peer-appropriate levels. Many drop out of school or leave with results showing them to be on the 50th percentile, even when they come from good educational and social backgrounds. The most interesting data, however, is that relating to young arrivals who come to school with little or no previous schooling in their first language. It can take them from seven to ten years to reach average proficiency in reading, Social Studies and Science. In fact, some never reach this at all. These results suggest a strong link between a firm foundation of learning in the first language and later success in learning in the medium of a second language.

While these results obviously indicate a strong link between proficiency, AOA and LOR, it is not as straightforward and as self-evident as it might appear. Collier (1989) refers to studies made by Cummins in 1981 showing that LOR particularly affects oral and written skills but, perhaps more importantly, it also affects both teacher and student perceptions of proficiency. Teachers rated students who had been in the country a long time as proficient users of the language although objective analysis of the students' reading and writing did not support these views. It was thus found that teachers are inclined to judge student competence on such factors as fluency and pronunciation. The students also perceive themselves to be very proficient which is a further complicating factor as they do not see the need for extra help linguistically but then are left with no other explanation for failure except lack of intelligence, a trap into which many teachers, and indeed the society at large, likewise fall.

AOA, then, is significant in that older students can initially pick up the new language more quickly but younger students, after a slower start, can achieve higher levels of native-like proficiency, especially in such areas as pronunciation. LOR is important as obviously the longer a student is exposed to the target language, the better the resulting competency will be. However, Cummins (1991) cautions against attaching too much weight to these variables as he found the effects for both AOA and LOR considerably diminished after the first five years.

In order to further explain the link between proficiency in the first language and proficiency in the second, Cummins (1991) posits the notion that this link is a manifestation of an underlying general proficiency. He terms this underlying proficiency interdependence and provides the following definition:

To the extent that instruction in Lx is effective in promoting proficiency in Lx, transfer of this proficiency to Ly will occur provided there is adequate exposure to Ly (either in schools or environment) and adequate motivation to learn Ly. (1991, p.166)

He cites a number of studies which support this principle (Hukuta & Diaz 1984, Kemp 1984, Ramirez 1985, Treger & Wong 1984). Cummins believes "a transfer of cognitive-academic or literacy-related skills across languages" (p.167) can and does occur. Hence, if a child is literate in a first language, the learning to read and write in a second language will be that much easier.

This has important implications for the acquisition of CALP. It strongly indicates that students should gain and maintain literacy in their first language as this will benefit their literacy in their second language. Collier supports this notion as she found that the five-year-old arrivals did not achieve at the same level expected for their length of residence and felt this finding supported Cummins' notions of thresholds and interdependence. Her data indicates that a minimum of two years L1 schooling is required for students to make most rapid progress in CALP development in L2.

Saunders (1991) also supports and extends this view, feeling it enriches student self-esteem if their culture, through language, is valued. He maintains, it is

psychologically important for children to be aware that their parents' language is also, like English, a fully-fledged medium of communication, with its own literature, its own writing conventions etc. Children tend to regard a language which they can speak but not read as not being equal to the language of the school which can be used for all functions. (1991, p.108-9)

Additive and subtractive bilinguialism

When students acquire a second language with no loss to their proficiency in their mother tongue, the bilingualism is described as additive. The learning experience enhances the students' knowledge and very often there are also positive spin-offs such as increased linguistic sensitivity and greater flexibility in their cognitive development. However, for additive bilingualism to occur, the students either need to come from a majority language group whose status is assured, or they require considerable L1 support, either at home, at school or both.

Students who come from minority languages often find that they learn their second language at the expense of the first, especially if the second language enjoys dominance and prestige. Receiving no L1 support in the school and sometimes little or none in the home environment, the skills in their first language are eroded while students seek to master competence in their second language. This situation is termed subtractive bilingualism. The outcome of this scenario is that very often proficiency is not fully achieved in either language, a situation which has been referred to as semilingualism. However, there has been vigorous opposition to this term which is seen to be slighting and derogatory (Martin-Jones & Romaine 1986).

Cummins (1984) seeks to explain this phenomenon of additive and subtractive bilingualism suggesting there are thresholds of linguistic competence. The lower threshold must be achieved in the first language or subtractive bilingualism occurs. Additive bilingualism is achieved through the attainment of a higher threshold in the first language while in the gap between the two thresholds, neither positive nor negative cognitive effects as a result of bilingualism are experienced. This theory has been met with scepticism (Martin-Jones & Romaine 1986) for being too vague, with threshold levels ill-described in terms of actual skills. The general metaphor of linguistic competence being like a container which can be partially or completely full has been seen as simplistic and misleading. However, it has also met with support from such researchers as Collier (1989) and Kerr (1984).

Implications for language in education

Awareness of the implications of whether students come from minority or majority language groups and the amount of education they have received in L1 should be taken into account both when designing language education policies and when dealing with the students in the classroom.

It must never be forgotten that while bilingual students struggle to master a second language, monolingual children are progressing with their education. Thus, there is often a distance between the ground monolingual students cover and the ground bilingual students cover. Again, students who have enjoyed a number of years of L1 education can often transfer their content knowledge which can help but it is obviously far more difficult to understand new concepts in an imperfectly mastered language. Starfield (1994) outlines an interesting case of bilingual education in South Africa, focusing on the black students. English is their second or third language but the main language in educational institutions and Black students generally begin learning in English in primary school with all of their secondary schooling in English. However, on entering university, black students do not do as well academically as the 'foreign students' (for example, Germans) even though their English is far more fluent and they can often demonstrate their understanding of the subject orally but not in written discourse. This has perplexed educators, some of whom believe this indicates a linguistic problem while others believe it shows the students are cognitively unable to cope with university study.

Researchers returning to the schools to try to account for this have discovered that literacy is barely acquired, if at all, in L1 before being replaced in the fourth year by English for all academic instruction. However, given the limitation of English proficiency, teachers often fall back on rote learning as a means of transmitting content material. This means that relevant conceptual knowledge and text-based skills, integral to academic literacy, can be only partially acquired. The students themselves are aware of where they encounter difficulties, one student in the Starfield study remarking, "I was taught not to be critical" (p. 176). The foreign students already have a sound grounding in these skills in their L1 and are able to transfer them to English. The black students on the other hand, upon entering university not only need linguistic support but considerable assistance with the content itself.

This discovery may have particular implications for Pacific students who come to New Zealand from schools where English and their native languages may both be used in the school and where CALP might not be achieved in either. For these students, the wide-spread use of pidgin both in school and social situations can be a further complicating factor.

Conclusion

In order for bilingual students to succeed in school, they must acquire two sets of linguistic ability. They need to be able to communicate effectively in face-to-face situations (BICS), and this they generally manage within the first couple of years. However, they also need to be able to follow and use a more academic, decontextualized type of language (CALP) in order to do well in the academic arena. Age on arrival, length of residence and literacy in their first language are all factors which influence their mastery of CALP. Failure to do so can result in the teachers, as well as the students themselves, perceiving the problem to be a cognitive rather than a linguistic deficiency. Students also often need assistance in closing the gap in content knowledge which inevitably occurs when their time and efforts have been taken up in acquiring the second language.

All this is very well, but what then can be done about your students in your classroom? I believe an understanding of language acquisition is vital for both teachers and students. The student may not perceive the underlying ideas in a lesson because they cannot quite follow what is being said. They may miss implications because the connotation behind words may not be realized (consider the difference between calling someone slow and obtuse, single-minded and narrow-minded). Furthermore, general knowledge about the country and Kiwi mores cannot be taken for granted. What we may see as basic (for example, the highest mountain in New Zealand) or self-evident (for example, kai is te reo Maori not English) may well be completely foreign ( ! ) to them. Cultural cues that we will be alert to in texts could very well pass them by. In addition, they might not have ever been taught to consider matters at the abstract level you might be requiring of them. The following are strategies to counteract these difficulties:

• Slow down in order to give the students more time to process new information. Put key words up on the board. Simplify and rephrase what you say if you see they look blank. Do not repeat the same phrase - if they didn't understand the first time, chances are they won't understand the second time.

• Don't ask them in front of the class if they understand. Most of the international students I have spoken to shrink from being the focus of attention. Most likely they will just nod and smile whether they understand or not. Indeed, they may also think they understand. Instead, quietly go to them when the rest of the class is working and check they are approaching the task correctly. You can also move them close to your desk where it is easy to make eye-contact and a have a quick, quiet word with them. Remember that in many cultures, asking questions is not encouraged as it is a sign of ignorance so do not expect students necessarily to approach you.

• Provide structured readers (abridged copies of well-known books written in simple English) for set texts so that plot and characters can be understood. Be aware that themes, elusive for Kiwi students, will be even more so for international students to identify. Further to this, be aware of the cultural weight we give things. What we might see as deplorable materialism may be seen by more pragmatic Asians as laudable proof of ability and endeavour. One UNESCO worker in the Pacific mentioned how the humour of Witi Ihimaera's The Beginning of the Tournament was completely lost on Pacific students who saw the whole scenario as quite normal.

• Provide model essays. These can prove to be invaluable but emphasise these are not to be copied or memorized - acceptable learning practices in some cultures. Placing a mediocre essay (not theirs) and a good essay side by side can often throw up the areas needed to be worked on. Demonstration often works far better than explanation which is again language-loaded.

Most of all, let your students know what is happening with their language learning. They may well be disheartened by their seeming lack of progress. Many arrive with the expectation of acquiring native proficiency within a year. Neither the students nor their parents will have any idea of how unrealistic this expectation is. They may well have been high achievers in their own countries and will be anticipating similar success here. In addition, they will be carrying the weight of their families' aspirations for their success. When they do not achieve high grades even after a year or two, they begin to suffer terrible loss of self-esteem and confidence which further adversely affects their studies. However, if the situation is explained to them, they are more inclined to continue to make an effort, especially if buoyed by the knowledge that you know it's a language rather than an intellectual issue.

This article has focused largely on language issues with only glancing references to socio-cultural and affective factors. Teachers are growing in sensitivity to disparities between cultural customs and perceptions and are generally alert to personal factors affecting their students. Language, however, is an elusive issue. Fluency is not necessarily a measure of proficiency and the situation is further complicated by how well students have mastered their first languages. Awareness of the lengthiness and complexity of language acquisition on behalf of both teacher and student can ensure that both parties can continue to strive for future success and not become disheartened in the process.

References

Collier, V. (1987). Age and acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641.

Collier, V. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509-531.

Cummins, J. (1984a). Language proficiency and academic achievement revisited: A response. In C. Rivera (ed.), Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (1984b). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating language proficiency to academic achievement among bilingual students. In C. Rivera (ed.), Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (1991) Interdependence of first and second language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (ed.), Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (1992) Language proficiency, bilingualism, and academic achievement. In P.A. Richard-Amoto & M. A. Snow (eds), The Multicultural Classroom: Readings for Content-Area Teachers. Reading: Addison Wesley.

Genesee, F. (1984). On Cummins' theoretical framework. In C. Rivera (ed.), Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kerr, A.N. (1984). Language and the education of immigrants' children in Sweden. In C. Kennedy (ed.), Language Planning and Language Education. London, Boston: Allen and Unwin.

Martin-Jones, M. and Romaine, S. (1986). Semilingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 7, 26-38.

Saunders, G. (1991). Sociolinguistic aspects of bilingualism: Bilingualism and society. In J. Lo Bianco (ed.), Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Melbourne: NLIA.

Spolsky, B (1984). A note on the dangers of terminological innovation. In C. Rivera (ed.), Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Starfield, S. (1994). Cummins, EAP and academic literacy. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 176-179.

---

Re-published with the kind permission of NZ Association for the Teaching of English periodical, English in Aotearoa