International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism

ISSN: 1367-0050 (Print) 1747-7522 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Bilingual Curriculum Construction and

Empowerment in Colombia

Anne-Marie de Mejía & Harvey Tejada

To cite this article: Anne-Marie de Mejía & Harvey Tejada (2003) Bilingual Curriculum
Construction and Empowerment in Colombia, International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 6:1, 37-51, DOI: 10.1080/13670050308667771

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050308667771

Published online: 26 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 75

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbeb20

Download by: [Universidad Del Norte] Date: 27 August 2016, At: 10:14
Bilingual Curriculum Construction and
Empowerment in Colombia
Anne-Marie de Mejía and Harvey Tejada
Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia

This paper is based on a recent researchstudy set up to trace the development of a bilin-
gual curriculum in a monolingual private school in Cali, Colombia, with particular
reference to two aspects:the creation of a curricular proposal in accord with the philoso-
phy and expectations of the school community, and the process of participant empow-
erment generated throughout the research project. The methodological perspective
adopted was microethnography, involving the analysis of interactive sessions, partici-
pant observation, research diaries, and reflective questionnaires. The results indicate
that an Alternate Day proposal, based on flexible curricular guidelines was the most
appropriate alternative for the particular context of implementation. Furthermore, the
process of participant empowerment was positively evaluated.

Introduction
In spite of its key geographical position as gateway between South and
Central America, with coastlines bordering two oceans, the Atlantic and the
Pacific, Colombia has been, until very recently, almost unknown in international
educational and linguistic circles. The purpose of this article is thus to discuss
developments in the field of the bilingual education of majority language speak-
ers in the country with special reference to the development of empowerment in
the process of bilingual curricular construction.
Initially, developments will be situated in relation to the sociolinguistic
context of language use in the country, followed by a brief categorisation of its
different types of bilingual schools. In the second part of the article, results of a
recent collaborative study in the area of bilingual curricular construction will be
discussed in terms of an empowering perspective on research, aimed at working
‘on, for and with’ the participants (Cameron et al., 1992: 22).

The Colombian Context

Colombia is the fourth largest country in South America and has an estimated
population of over 36 million people, according to figures produced in 1995.
Some of these are descendants of the European, mostly Spanish, colonisers who
first arrived in the country in the 16th century, while others are of Amerindian or
Black origin, The majority of the population, however, are of mixed blood as a
result of intermarriage among these three groups.
From a sociolinguistic point of view, Colombia may be divided into two main
sectors: majority language contexts which include the teaching and learning of
English, French, German, Italian and Hebrew as foreign languages to Spanish
first language speakers; and minority situations, which involve the use of Span-
ish as a second language and minority community first languages, such as native

1367-0050/03/01 0037-15 $20.00/0 ©2003 A.M. de Mejía & H. Tejada

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Vol. 6, No. 1, 2003

37

Bilingual Education in Columbia

38 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Amerindian languages, English and Spanish-based Creoles, and Colombian

Sign Language.
In the case of majority language contexts, English is the foreign language
which enjoys the highest status in the country, particularly in the domains of
education, business and tourism (Zuluaga, 1996). North American English is
generally the most favoured variety due to the ‘overwhelming attraction of the
USA by dint of historical connections, family and teacher connection, proximity
and of sheer glamour image’ (British Council, 1989: 10).1 Except for its use as a
means of communication in small expatriate communities, mainly found in the
capital, Santafé de Bogotá, neither English, nor any of the other foreign
languages referred to above, is generally used as a means of communication
within the country. One notable exception is foreign films, either shown in cine-
mas or increasingly hired out from video shops, where the original dialogue is
kept and Spanish subtitles are added.

Present situation of bilingual education programmes

Bilingual education in Colombia is associated principally with private bilin-
gual schools set up to cater for the middle and upper-middle classes. These are
found mainly in urban areas, particularly in the cities of Santafé de Bogotá,
Medellin, Cali, Cartagena, and Barranquilla and have increased greatly in
demand over the last decade. There are around 40–50 bilingual schools currently
in existence in the country, most of them providing English–Spanish bilingual-
ism. The longest-established institutions were founded in the 1910s and 1920s in
order to provide the sons and daughters of the representatives of multinational
companies stationed in Colombia and members of the expatriate communities
with access to suitable bilingual and bicultural programmes.
Since then, this type of educational provision has been extended to cater for
Colombian nationals and today many of the students in bilingual schools come
from monolingual Colombian families who wish to do postgraduate study
abroad (de Mejía, 1994). According to preliminary results from this study, the
majority of parents surveyed wanted a bilingual education for their children to
enable them to study abroad at university level and to have better job opportuni-
ties when they returned.
Although the legislation referring to the development of private bilingual
education programmes in Colombia is extremely general, present-day bilingual
schools can be divided roughly into two groups. The first group consists of those
private schools that have a strong foreign connection, such as The German School,
with branches in Bogotá, Medellin, Cali and Barranquilla, and the Colombo
Británico School in Cali. This type of school has close contacts with foreign govern-
ments and often receives direct financial support, or the appointment of foreign
teachers to work in the schools. The headteachers are usually foreign nationals
and many of the materials and books used are imported from abroad. Students
often have the opportunity to have direct contact with the foreign country
through exchanges or supervised visits organised by the schools, and interna-
tional exams like the German Sprachdiplom or the International Baccalaureate are
offered as well as the Colombian High School Diploma.
The expressed aims of some of these institutions are ‘to offer a…bilingual and
bicultural education which will allow the best use of the Spanish and English
Bilingual Education in Columbia 39

language (and) which will strengthen the values and traditions of the students’
own culture and respect for…other nations and cultures leading to better under-
standing’ (Colombo Británico School, Cali, 1998); and ‘to educate the student to
be open to the world and (to work) for international understanding in the spirit of
peace’ (The German School, Medellin, 1995). These schools generally promote a
high level of bilingual proficiency in the majority of their students, as witnessed
by the high scores gained in international examinations, such as the Test of
English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), the International General Certificate of
Secondary Education (IGCSE), and the International Baccalaureate (IB).
The second group of bilingual schools are private institutions which aim at a
high level of student proficiency in at least one foreign language, usually English,
in addition to the first language, Spanish. Most of these establishments were
founded by individuals or small groups of people, generally Colombians
(Araújo & Corominas, 1996). Some examples of these schools are The Montessori
School in Medellin and Los Nogales School in Bogotá. Some of these schools may be
classified as bilingual institutions, in the sense that they have a high degree of
contact with the foreign language, foreign teachers and use two languages as
media of instruction, yet they do not class themselves openly as such, because
they wish to emphasise not only proficiency in the foreign language but also their
role as educators of Colombian citizens. The headteachers are generally
Colombian.
Some of these schools express their aims in the following manner: ‘to educate
in freedom’ and ‘to reach a high level of proficiency in the foreign language’
(Colegio Montessori, Medellin, 1997); and ‘to educate Colombians who seek
personal excellence by means of service to others’ and ‘to prepare students for the
realities of international communication and the changing demands on emerg-
ing professionals’ (Colegio Los Nogales, Bogotá, 1997). Many of the students in
these schools reach a high degree of proficiency in the foreign language, espe-
cially in reading and writing academic discourse, although there is not always an
international examination requirement to demonstrate this in their learning.

Evaluation of the current state of bilingual education programmes in

Colombia
In an analysis of the current state of bilingual education in schools surveyed in
the three main cities of Colombia, Bogotá, Medellin and Cali (de Mejía & Tejada,
2001) as part of the study which will be referred to in the next section, the follow-
ing general conclusions were arrived at.
There exists a variety of conceptions in Colombian bilingual schools about
what is, or what should be, the characteristics of bilingual education
programmes, which to a certain extent reflect the circumstances of the founda-
tion of individual establishments. Those schools which have an international
orientation encourage their students to pursue higher education abroad, while
schools which have a more nationalistic outlook concentrate on educating their
students to work within the country.
Furthermore, it was found that many bilingual schools in Colombia are not
aware of current developments in the theory and practice of bilingual education.
Most bilingual teachers have only an empirical knowledge of this type of educa-
tional provision and therefore have no firm basis on which to press for changes in
40 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

school policy or practice. Thus, advances in curriculum development frequently

rely on general advances in the theory and practice of English Language
Teaching which do not take into account specifically bilingual issues, such as the
interrelations of two languages across the curriculum and the status and relative
importance of each.
Another conclusion arrived at in this same study is that the importance of
cultural aspects of bilingual school programmes, although acknowledged in a
generalised fashion, does not often form an integral part of school policy and
practice. In some cases, foreign cultural influence is seen as a threat to national
identity. In others, cultural aspects are treated superficially, leading to a celebra-
tion of difference without a deeper reflection as to causes and implications.

The Study: A Collaborative Research Project

Bearing in mind the current state of bilingual education programmes in
Colombia, as outlined above, in this section the results of a collaborative research
project carried out during the school year 1997–1998 will be discussed. This
project was aimed at the construction of a curriculum for a particular school in
Cali, Colombia, which was interested in becoming bilingual. Two aspects will be
foregrounded: the development of the bilingual curricular proposal (the prod-
uct), and the empowerment generated among the participants in the project (the
process).
In Colombia and elsewhere in the world, this type of approach is relatively
new in the area of immersion education and while interest has been expressed in
the idea of empowerment, there have been few research initiatives which have
been specifically set up to study the process. A brief description of the school
where the research was carried out will be given, in order to contextualise the
study appropriately.

Gimnasio La Colina
Gimnasio La Colina is a small private school situated in the northern part of the
city of Cali, founded in 1975. It caters for students from families of higher
socio-economic status, from the ages of two and a half to eighteen years at three
levels: preschool, primary and high school (bachillerato). At the time of this study,
there were approximately 535 students and 63 teachers in the institution.
The school philosophy is based on promoting an integrated vision of educa-
tion. It does not see itself only in terms of academic achievement, but aims at facil-
itating the development of ‘all the personal, spiritual, social and cultural aspects
of the students which will help them to live in harmony with themselves and
with others in a constant search for happiness’ (taken from school prospectus,
1996).
In recent times (1986–1996), the school implemented a policy of ‘foreign
language intensification’, which meant that contact with the foreign language
offered (English) was increased from two or three hours a week to five hours a
week at preschool level, eleven hours in primary, and five hours in high school.
However, the focus was on teaching language, rather than using English as a
medium of instruction in different subject or content areas.
Towards the end of 1996, the school authorities decided that they wished to
Bilingual Education in Columbia 41

implement a programme of bilingual education, which would reflect the philos-

ophy and educational approach of the institution, and at the same time allow the
students to achieve a high level of proficiency in English. To this end they
approached the School of Language Sciences at Universidad del Valle to request a
consultancy (asesoría). In this way, two university researchers became involved
in a novel participatory research project in the area of bilingual curricular
construction.

Bilingual curricular construction and empowerment

Recently there have been signs of a reaction among educational theorists and
practitioners against the traditional vertical concept of curricular development
which leaves power for determining elements of content and methodology in the
hands of so-called ‘experts’, as noted by Auerbach (1995: 14), who criticises the
‘ends-means’ model as ‘a mechanism of social control, disempowering for both
students and teachers’. Mauri et al. (1993: 27) affirm that it is important that teach-
ers themselves take on the task of developing curricular proposals as they are
‘more representative of social interests and…possess a greater capacity for a real
connection with the interests and needs of students in specific educational situa-
tions’. Ricento and Hornberger (1996: 417), for their part, recommend placing
‘the classroom practitioner at the heart’ of pedagogical investigation, thereby
facilitating processes of educational and social change and institutional transfor-
mations from the grass roots, a ‘bottom-up’ perspective.
As noted by Cameron et al. (1992) the term ‘empowerment’ is often used as if
its meaning were self-evident. According to León (1997) the term itself dates
from the second half of the 17th century; however, it is only in the last 15–20 years
that its use has become widespread in the fields of sociology, education and busi-
ness administration.
Cameron et al. (1992), following Foucault (1980), see power as a multiple rela-
tion, connected both with knowledge and with the possibility of resistance. As
power is not monolithic but ‘net-like’, empowerment does not simply mean
transferring power from ‘the powerful’ to ‘the powerless’ but getting to grips
with ‘the complex positionings of real individuals’ (Cameron et al., 1992: 21). In
their reflections on the work of these authors, Gieve and Magalhães (1994: 131)
propose a general definition of empowerment as ‘the ability to value one’s
knowledge and meanings through a process of critical reflection on the meanings
and knowledge of others’, thus acknowledging that empowerment involves a
process of critical consciousness raising.
Within the field of language studies, empowering research has been charac-
terised as research ‘on, for and with’ the participants (Cameron et al., 1992: 22)
and the use of interactive or dialogic research methodologies which take into
account the agendas of all the participants in the research project, as well as the
importance of sharing the knowledge generated with the community. This
conception implies the redistribution of knowledge from academia to the
community and vice versa. These researchers suggested certain provisional
guidelines to help those interested in carrying out empowering research projects,
which may be summarised in the following manner:
(a) Persons are not objects and should not be treated as objects; (b) Subjects
42 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

have their own agendas and research should try to address them; (and) (c)
If knowledge is worth having, it is worth sharing. (Cameron et al., 1992:
23–24)

The development of empowerment through a process of curricular

construction
When schools and university departments work together in the area of
language education in Colombia, it is generally through a process of consul-
tancy. In these cases, university professors are usually seen as outside experts,
who are brought in to carry out an analysis. They observe, interview key person-
nel and write a report, detailing the results and recommendations for future
implementation. They then leave and often have no further contact with the insti-
tution. The findings and recommendations contained in the report may be diffi-
cult to interpret without expert knowledge, and power and control are kept
firmly in the hands of the consultants. Thus, there is an intervention, which may
bring about some positive results, but there is generally little opportunity for
learning on the part of the participants.
Right from the start, the bilingual curriculum project requested by Gimnasio la
Colina was conceived by the university researchers as having a different empha-
sis. It was decided to investigate how far it was possible to develop a collabora-
tive approach to the process of curricular construction, in line with ideas on
empowering research proposed by Cameron et al. (1992). In line with the postu-
lates of these researchers it was considered important to explicitly recognise that
all participants in the project, teachers, administrators, psychologists and
university researchers, had different expertise, which would form the basis for
the joint construction of the curriculum. Through a series of interactive sessions
the participants in the bilingual project would work together to draft, comment
on, suggest and criticise the emergent proposals. No one person would be
responsible for the final proposal; it would be a collaborative effort.
In the circumstances, it was felt necessary to create a working definition of
empowerment which would reflect this approach. The following formulation
was proposed:
Empowerment is the process through which the participants in the
research become conscious of their capacities, potential, knowledge and
experiences in the area, so that they can assume responsibilities in the
development of autonomy and full participation in decision-making, not
only during the research process, but also in the following phases of assess-
ment and modification of the proposals in the light of the changes and new
advances in national educational policies.
As can be seen, the emphasis in this definition is on process rather than product
and therefore implies a longer time-scale than is often considered in consultan-
cies. The process of consciousness-raising was seen as leading to a greater degree
of responsibility and participation in decision-making both during the research
and afterwards. Furthermore, everyone taking part in the project was to be
considered a participant. There was to be no division into researchers, on one
hand, and their subjects, on the other, in the process of curricular construction.
This new approach had repercussions on the way in which the project was
Bilingual Education in Columbia 43

carried out and how the university researchers acted in the meetings. For exam-
ple, we refused to respond to demands on us as ‘the experts’, which were
common, particularly at the beginning of the project. At times, we decided to
keep silent and not give our opinions, in an attempt to help others to take the
floor. We also encouraged presentations and discussions of different aspects of
bilingualism and bilingual education by members of the group. The written
reports on each of the sessions were analysed, modified and approved by all
participants.
In order to document the processes of curricular construction, diagnostic
studies were first carried out by the university researchers to ascertain the
current situation in the institution particularly in relation to the expectations of
both teachers and parents towards the bilingual education project. A total of 67
parents and 32 teachers responded. (A summary of the questions asked in both
cases is provided in the Appendix). Reports of the meetings of the Bilingualism
Committee (consisting of members of the academic and administrative staff of
the school and the university researchers which were held on a weekly basis
throughout the school year) were also analysed to ascertain the topics discussed
and the decisions taken.
In order to document the process of empowerment, three different types of
data were collected. First of all, the interactive sessions of the Bilingualism
Committee were again examined, this time with a view to carrying out an analy-
sis of how the process developed over time. Particular emphasis was paid to the
relative contributions of the university researchers and the school participants,
and the ways in which different areas of expertise were socialised and used in the
taking of curricular decisions. The university researchers also recorded their
observations on the process of empowerment in an ongoing research diary. In
addition, all participants were asked to reflect on their experiences in the project
every three months, by means of a reflective questionnaire (guía de reflexión)
asking them how they felt about the process and mode of working as well as
trying to find out how they felt they were contributing to the ongoing process of
curricular construction.

Results: The bilingual curriculum proposal

Our first aim in the project was to create a curricular proposal to convert a
monolingual into a bilingual school programme, appropriate to the needs and
wishes of the school community and in line with the educational philosophy of
the institution. To this end, the two attitude surveys carried out (one directed at
parents in the preschool and primary sections of the school, and the other at
school staff) were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively to ascertain the
perceptions of both sectors towards the initiative.
Parent survey
According to the results, only 10% of the parents surveyed had actually stud-
ied in a bilingual school. Nevertheless, almost all (94%) thought that it was very
important for their children to study in a bilingual programme. There were four
main reasons given for this:
• Enhancement of economic/work-related opportunities.
• Increased possibility of international communication in a world language.
44 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

• Increased intercultural understanding.

• Opportunities for further study.
The parents’ expectations of a bilingual programme for their children were
focused on four main objectives:
• Providing them with access to the best universities (both in Colombia and
abroad).
• Ensuring that they would become ‘perfectly bilingual’.
• Helping them to attain proficiency in a foreign language without losing
sight of moral values and love for their own country.
• Offering them the opportunity to come into contact with other cultures.
Teacher survey
A questionnaire was also sent out to the staff of the school. All those who
replied said that they had positive or very positive attitudes towards Bilingual
Education (28% and 72%). Attitudes expressed towards English speaking coun-
tries were less uniform: 50% said they had very positive attitudes, 31% reported
positive attitudes, while 19% said they were neutral.
The teachers’ views on the positive consequences of the school going bilingual
included the following appreciations:
• The possibility of higher salaries and better job opportunities.
• Opportunities for learning or improving their English language
proficiency.
• Personal and professional enrichment and development.
• Opportunities for challenge and change.
However, the teachers also expressed fears about the change in the following
terms:
• That monolingual staff might lose their jobs.
• That Colombian bilingual staff might be supplanted by native
English-speaking teachers.
• That teachers might not be able to comply with institutional expectations.
• That the curriculum adopted might not be appropriate for the specific
sociocultural context of implementation.
The results of our discussions, taking into account the perceptions registered
above, led to the formulation of a proposal based on an Alternate Day’s model,
which incorporated a general ratio of 40% contact in English in First Grade
Primary to 60% Spanish, leading to a balanced level of contact with both
languages at Secondary or High School level (see Table 1). The Preschool, or
Kindergarten, programme for children from 4 to 6 years old was conceived as an
integrated curriculum, approximately 60% in Spanish and 40% in English.
The proposal thus incorporated a modality of Partial Immersion in the foreign
language, which differs from the Canadian Immersion model in that there is a
progressive increase in the contact with English in Primary, which reaches a high
point in Grades 4–6. The rationale behind the decision to have a greater emphasis
on the first language (Spanish) in Grades 1–2 lies in the fact that the children are
consolidating literacy processes in Spanish during this time and beginning to
transfer these into English. This practice is based on the principle that it is impor-
tant to work on new concepts initially in the first language (cf. the
Bilingual Education in Columbia 45

Table 1 Bilingual language distribution proposal

Grade Weekly language distribution across the curriculum Approx. %
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
1–2 Spanish English Spanish English Spanish 40% Eng. –
60% Sp.
3 English Spanish English Spanish English 60% Eng. –
40% Sp.
4–6 English Spanish English Spanish English 80% Eng. –
English English 20% Sp.
7–11 English Spanish English Spanish English 50% Eng. –
50% Sp.

Preview-Review Approach) before developing and expanding them in the

foreign or second language.
In Grades 4–6 there is greater contact with English (80%) aimed at the consoli-
dation and extension of concepts and academic content matter in the foreign
language. In Grades 7–11 an equal linguistic balance is proposed to ensure that
the first language is maintained and enriched at the same time as the foreign
language is developed and extended.
In addition, a series of parameters were drawn up, based on the results of the
diagnostic study and discussions in the Bilingualism Committee, to guide the
implementation of the bilingual proposal. These included the following:
• The school philosophy and mission would be respected.
• An intercultural approach would be adopted, aimed at expanding
students’ horizons and helping to establish respect, tolerance and appre-
ciation for both their own culture and the culture of other Anglophone
nations.
• The bilingual programme would not be the centre of the curriculum, but
an important educational and linguistic support to such aspects as the
teaching of values, and learning through project work.
• The bilingual programme would incorporate key educational elements
characteristic of the school, such as the carrying out of projects at
preschool level.
• Different areas of the curriculum would be subject to different linguistic
treatment. Thus, initially the teaching and learning of Mathematics
would be in Spanish, while Natural Science would be carried out in
English with a Preview-Review orientation.
• Initial literacy skills would be taught in the first language and then trans-
ferred to the foreign language.
• There would be emphasis not only on the notion of using two languages
as media of teaching and learning in the school, but there would also be
time scheduled for study of linguistic aspects of both languages.
• The implementation of the proposal would be closely monitored and
modifications made in the light of ongoing changes in policy and
practice.
46 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Results: The process of empowerment (participant voices)

As discussed above, the process of empowerment was documented through-
out the duration of the project (January 1997–June 1998), but particularly at three
main moments during this period marked by the completion of the reflective
questionnaires: at the beginning (April 1997); in the middle (October 1997); and
towards the end (April 1998). We will use these three moments to structure the
discussion in this section.
Initial perceptions
An analysis of the interactive sessions of the Bilingualism Committee and the
university researchers’ diaries during the first four months of the project reveal a
marked tendency to treat the university staff as consultants, as can be seen in the
following exchange. In reply to a question posed about the project methodology
by one of the university researchers the Academic Coordinator replied: ‘I like
(the way of working) but we were expecting more guidance from you (both)’
(17–3–97). Furthermore, there is evidence that members of the school community
felt the need to resolve doubts and request guidance regarding specific aspects of
bilingualism and bilingual education, as can be seen in the following question
directed at the university researchers by the school psychologist: ‘How does the
child learn? How does s/he accommodate to the bilingual part?’ (6–4–97). This
appreciation is reflected in the following extract taken from our research diary
entry on the first session: ‘Both Harvey (Tejada) and I were treated in the role of
consultants, especially by Victor (the Academic Coordinator), who asked us at
times for information about how children learn in bilingual situations’(29–1–97).
Nevertheless, the reflective questionnaire administered at the end of April
1997 revealed that many of the school staff considered that the participatory
methodology introduced had had positive results, as can be seen below.
Participants expressed satisfaction that everyone was able to participate
actively in the project. One teacher noted: ‘I think the way of working is excellent
because it has encouraged wide participation, the expression of different points
of view…and the opportunity of learning during the process of construction’.
Another commented: ‘You feel an active part of the process, and it is doesn’t seem
like something which…has been imposed on you’.
Respect for the ideas of others was a central motif running throughout the
observations of the participants. One of them observed: ‘People in the group are
very generous with their knowledge, respectful and patient’. Another recog-
nised that: ‘We have arrived at conclusions which have not been imposed
(although some of them have been suggested or recommended)’.
There was also a general feeling in the group of a sense of challenge in that this
was an initiative that would lead to the development of a new curriculum which
would reflect the specific needs and wishes of Gimnasio La Colina, and that in this
sense it would be a unique creation. As one of the teachers remarked: ‘it is not the
same to ‘make the path’ (hacer el camino) as to find the path already made’.
However, these positive comments did not blind members of the group to
certain difficulties inherent in the process of collaborative research, chief among
which was the amount of time necessary for decision-making leading to concrete
action. As one of the participants remarked: ‘Although I agree with this process,
it seems to me that it takes a long time, I mean it’s slow with regard to all the needs
Bilingual Education in Columbia 47

there are.’ Another observed, ‘I think it is really necessary to integrate what we

discuss, the depth of our reflections, with the educational policies of Gimnasio La
Colina, because I think that we are still at the level of discourse’.
A further difficulty, noted this time by the university researchers, was the
tendency of many of the school staff on the Committee to ‘pressurise the taking of
practical decisions’ and the tendency to ‘oversimplify’ or underestimate what
the university researchers perceived as the importance of theoretical consider-
ations in relation to pedagogical practice.
Ongoing views
During the following six months, there is evidence of increasing confidence of
members of the Bilingualism Committee in their ability to continue with the
process of creating and implementing a bilingual curriculum, in spite of fears
due to lack of experience. As one of the preschool teachers, new to the project,
remarked: ‘We are nervous, we are new, we don’t know each other. . .we must set
up study groups, we are not sure (but) we have to begin the process’ (23–6–97).
The university researchers also noticed a change in ideas of members of the
group towards notions of cultural relativity and intercultural approaches.
Initially, as noted in the general teacher questionnaires, there was resistance to
some of these ideas. Many of the teachers felt threatened by what they saw as the
prospect of a loss of cultural identity coupled with their fears that the implemen-
tation of a bilingual curriculum would mean dismissal for monolingual teachers.
Gradually, the discussion sessions based on readings taken from key texts on
bilingualism and bilingual education helped to lessen these fears so that partici-
pants eventually came to appreciate the value and importance of understanding
the contribution of other cultural perspectives in relation to their own. As we
recorded in our research diary: ‘it appears that the fear of ‘penetration’ by ‘the
other culture’ and the threat to national identity is diminishing’. One of the
participants also noted in her reflective questionnaire: ‘I see that everyone is far
more calm with regard to the changes’.
Another key area of change related to empowerment was that of the new bilin-
gual teachers hired for the preschool section who became involved in the bilin-
gual curriculum project halfway through the first year, when they began
teaching in the bilingual programme. At first, they asked many precise questions
about practice, such as whether classroom commands should always be associ-
ated with the same classroom routines or whether these should be varied; and
whether they should only talk in English, or when they could use Spanish
(8–9–97).
Members of the Bilingualism Committee tried to answer these questions and
in doing so made reference to what they had learnt from the readings on bilin-
gual education introduced during the first stage of the project. Thus, one teacher
backed up her reply by referring to ‘what we read before’, and the Academic
Coordinator was confident that these were ‘concepts which were now clear to the
members of the group’.
Other members reacted to these questions by recommending the teachers to
adopt an experimental approach, often associated with Action Research. They
suggested, for example: ‘Try to vary your practice as you think best after this
discussion and see how the children react’. This way of working was seen as
48 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

helpful by the preschool teachers, as can be seen in their following insightful

observation,
Since September we have noticed a marked change, not only in activity but
also in our attitude. We have found a lot of professional security in being
able to share our experiences and knowledge, seeing how the group
supports, discusses and enriches (these experiences). We have felt a lot of
respect, understanding and listening to the different concerns. We feel
more relaxed, realising that this is an ongoing process.
Later considerations
In the final reflective questionnaire, several members of the Bilingualism
Committee drew up a balance of what they felt were the results of the process of
collaborative research leading to empowerment. There were many positive
aspects to this evaluation, including the following: ‘As the first stage of the
process, I consider it a success because we have been able to consolidate a plan of
work with clear guidelines. I feel that there is a ‘North’ to guide us and this
creates a feeling of security’. Another teacher felt that the design process had
been successful in that ‘different contributions had been taken into account, not
only during the main meeting of the Bilingualism Committee, but also in the
weekly meeting’ set up for the preschool teachers teaching in the project for the
first time.
The Academic Coordinator, for his part, considered that ‘the existing struc-
ture present in the School had been respected, being transformed and integrated
within the process and not simply replaced’. He also felt that ‘From an adminis-
trative point of view it has been possible to see ‘who is who’ and decide on the
first changes within the organisational structure’ and that ‘as the philosophy has
been to go slowly and respect the history of Gimnasio la Colina we have acted
cautiously’.
Another of the teachers felt that the methodology used was appropriate. She
remarked: I really feel good, as we have all contributed from our strengths. I feel I
have learnt a lot. I would like to continue participating in the process. I know I
will have a great deal of responsibility next school year, which I will take on if
there is sufficient time allowed for this project’. Another teacher said: ‘I like the
working dynamics and I think I have been able to contribute from my experience
and knowledge as a teacher, even though I don’t know much about bilingual-
ism.’
Many of the negative aspects of the process had to do with the problem of
time, referred to in a previous section, and with the need to integrate reflection
and practice in a more dynamic fashion. As the school psychologist observed:
‘We need to change to a more participatory attitude with the teachers…we have
become an excellent group for reflection and debate; our function must (now)
involve practice in a more concrete fashion’. Another added that it was important
to ‘revise the mechanics of communication between the Committee and the rest
of the teachers’.

Conclusions
With regard to the curricular proposal, it was felt preferable to develop
Bilingual Education in Columbia 49

general guidelines and recommendations as described above, based on the

results of the process of collaborative curricular construction, rather than precise
directives. This decision takes into account the notion of a curriculum in perma-
nent evolution, rather than a document based on the present institutional status
quo, and envisages the necessity of modification and adaptation after the formal
ending of the research project.
Furthermore, the curricular proposal reflected not only the particular circum-
stances of implementation such as school philosophy, mission, vision, profile of
the desirable school-leaver (graduate), and parents’ wishes, but also showed
clear evidence of an underlying theoretical orientation, based on research into
the interrelationships between language and pedagogy in the construction of
bilingual curricula (Martin-Jones, 1995), as may be evidenced in the formulation
of the parameters to guide the process of programme implementation noted
above. This thus allowed for the possibility of future modification informed by
research-based criteria.
With respect to the process of empowerment, the results indicate the impor-
tance of a collaborative approach in lowering anxiety. Initially, the participants
showed signs of nervousness and insecurity in relation to the discussion on bilin-
gualism, interculturalism and biliteracy, but gradually came to voice their opin-
ions and contribute with increasing confidence. The fact that the university
researchers felt it necessary to explicitly and deliberately reject the traditional
expectations required of outside ‘experts’ shows how deeply ingrained is the
dominant paradigm of researcher-researched based on unequal power relations
(Cameron et al., 1992). The initial resistance of members of the Bilingualism
Committee in accepting changes in pre-established role relationships points to
the difficulty of modifying established schemata and to the strength of the
processes of naturalisation (Fairclough, 1989, 1992) of the roles of implicit
dependency set up for the researched.
According to the perceptions of the university researchers, the changes
consciously introduced in the project with regard to the roles of participation,
together with the decision not to separate different sections of the school commu-
nity in the discussion, helped to weaken the established hierarchies and facilitate
a wider sphere of action and decision-making in the process of curriculum
construction.
If we take into account both the guidelines described by Cameron et al. (1992)
with regard to the facilitation of empowerment in research in relation to active
participation, relationships of equality, interests of all participants, collaborative
learning, and the sharing of results, as well as the characteristics of empower-
ment developed in the present project (consciousness-raising of participants’
capacities, potential and experience; the assuming of responsibilities in the
development of autonomy; and the full participation in decision-making) there
are certain indications that the process of empowerment has been successful in
the terms envisioned in the project. These will be outlined below.
According to the observations and perceptions registered above, the partici-
pants in this process (teachers, university researchers, coordinators, and
psychologists) were in agreement as to the high level of active participation of all
the members of the group in the discussions and in the creation of academic,
institutional and logistic proposals. Some of the reflections show that the partici-
50 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

pants felt on an equal level and did not feel intimidated in contributing to the
project. They also felt that the different interests of the group, pedagogical,
administrativeand research, were catered for at different moments in the project.
The members of the group also demonstrated their capacity to assume respon-
sibility for fundamental changes in the school, such as the implementing of an
intercultural approach, the reconceptualisation of the Mission and Vision of the
institution in the light of its characterisation as bilingual; and the design of bilin-
gual projects integrating different areas of the school curriculum. Furthermore,
they also felt able to contemplate the prospect of continuing the following stage
of implementation of the proposal without the direct supervision of the univer-
sity researchers.
In addition, the products of the research (the various reports detailing prog-
ress of the project) evidence joint collaboration. Ongoing reports were compiled
initially by members of school staff and later these observations were incorpo-
rated into the final project report drawn up by the university researchers which
was presented both to the university and to the school.
A further consequence of the collaborative nature of the project was noted in
the differing valuing of the time factor by the administrators and researchers in
the group. Pressured by the parents to show immediate results, and by the need
to determine questions of the hiring of new bilingual staff and the purchase of
appropriate resources, the priority of the administrative staff was a process of
rapid decision-making, in contrast to the ‘atemporal’ deliberations of the univer-
sity researchers. Through the process of working together, both groups became
more conscious that while short-term action could not be limited to the immedi-
ate sphere of influence, but had to be informed by current developments in the
field of bilingual education; on the other hand, long processes of academic debate
which did not lead to decisions which could be implemented were counterpro-
ductive. Thus, there was evidence of a dialectical movement between the institu-
tional interests of the school and the academic and theoretical considerations
introduced by the university researchers.

Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Anne-Marie de Mejía Truscott,
Escuela de Ciencias del Lenguaje, Departmento de Lingüística, Universidad del
Valle, AA 2188 CALI, Colombia (atruscot@mafalda.univalle.edu.co).

Notes
1. In this and subsequent quotations, translations from Spanish to English are provided
by the authors.

References
Araújo, M.C. and Corominas, Y. (1996) Procesos de adquisición del Inglés como segunda
lengua en niños de 5 a 6 años, de colegios bilingües de la ciudad de Cali. Unpublished
MA thesis, Universidad del Valle.
Auerbach, E. (1995) The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in pedagogical
choices. In J. Tollefson (ed.) Power and Equality in Language Education (pp. 9–33).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bilingual Education in Columbia 51

British Council (1989) A Survey of English Language Teaching and Learning in Colombia: A
Guide to the Market. English Language Promotion Unit.
Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, M.B.H. and Richardson, K. (1992)
Researching Language. Issues of Power and Method. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Gieve, S. and Magalhães, I. (eds) (1994) On empowerment. Centre for Research in Language
Education, Occasional Report 6: Power, Ethics and Validity. Lancaster: Lancaster
University.
León, M. (ed.) (1997) Poder y Empoderamiento de las Mujeres. Bogotá: T.M. Editores.
Martin-Jones, M. (1995) Code-switching in the classroom: Two decades of research. In L.
Milroy and P. Muysken (eds) One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-Disciplinary
Perspectives on Code-Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mauri, T., Solé, E., Del Carmen, L. and Zabala, A. (1993) El Curriculo en el Centro Educativo.
Barcelona: ICE/Horsori.
Mejía, A.M. de (1994) Bilingual teaching/learning events in early immersion classes: A
case study in Cali, Colombia. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.
Mejía, A.M. de and Tejada, H. (2001) Construcción de modalidades educativas bilingües en
colegios monolingües de Cali. Unpublished Report, Universidad del Valle.
Ricento, T. and Hornberger, N. (1996) Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and
policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly 30 (3), 401–427.
Zuluaga, O. (1996) La Enseñanza de Lenguas Extranjeras en Colombia en 500 Años. Popayan:
Taller Editorial, Unicauca.

Appendix
Summary of questions asked in parents’ questionnaire
• Details about parents’ knowledge of English.
• Whether parents studied in a bilingual school.
• Their opinion on the advantages/disadvantages of being bilingual.
• Aspects of foreign language learning that parents considered important.
• Parents’ attitudes towards bilingual education and English-speaking coun-
tries and their cultures.
• Reasons why parents felt it was important for their children to study in a
bilingual school.
• Advantages and disadvantages of the school going bilingual.
• Parents’ role in this process.
• Perceived characteristicsof teachers working in the bilingual programme.

Summary of questions asked in teachers’ questionnaire

• Time worked at the school.
• Teachers’ knowledge of English.
• Their opinion on the advantages/disadvantages of being bilingual.
• Their views on the need for bilingual schools in the Cali context.
• Teachers’ attitudes towards bilingual education and English-speaking
countries and their cultures.
• Predicted consequences for teachers and pupils of the school becoming
bilingual.
• Teachers’ role in this process.
• Perceived characteristicsof teachers working in the bilingual programme.