Bilingual education programs are a complex phenomenon that involves not only linguistic, sociocultural and psychological factors but also educational and political issues (Miranda, 2012). In this regards, Cruz (2012) argues for an understanding of the multidimensionality of bilingualism, which implies conducting close monitoring of the effectiveness bilingual programs in local realities. In this light, this paper presentation socializes the results of the first part of an exploratory-descriptive project sponsored by La Salle University. The main objectives of this initial stage sought to approach the situation in situ and to identify commonalities among five different bilingual schools, searching for views on their implementation of the national bilingualism plan. Within the framework of survey studies (Arnau, 1995; Baker, 1997), the researchers gathered and analyzed data about three main aspects of bilingual programs: Background, resources and external support and outcome expectations. Findings suggest a tension between language education policies based on globalization and standardization and classroom realities influenced by teachers and learners’ dynamics. These results agree with previous studies done in Colombia in similar contexts (Sánchez & Obando, 2008; Miranda & Echeverry, 2011). Finally, this presentation offers pedagogical and methodological recommendations aimed at helping overcome or alleviate some of the weaknesses and lacks found.

1. English teaching in BilingualEnglish teaching in Bilingual
Public Schools:Public Schools:
Between education policyBetween education policy
and classroom realityand classroom reality
M.A. Yamith Fandiño – M.A. Elena UrrutiM.A. Yamith Fandiño – M.A. Elena Urrutiaa

2. CONTENTSCONTENTS
• Introduction
• Context and Participants
• Background
• Literature framework
• Methodology
• Data collection
• Results
• Conclusions
• References
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

3. INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
“…se debe ver al bilingüismo no solo como una manera de
preparar a los individuos para las exigencias y necesidades
socioeconómicas de un mundo globalizado, sino como la
posibilidad de promover hombres y mujeres conscientes de
la variedad lingüística y cultural del mundo, ciudadanos
respetuosos del otro e interesados en reconocer y proteger
las diferencias y las particularidades de las lenguas y sus
culturas.” (Fandiño, Bermudez, & Lugo, 2012, p. 377).
Bilingualism: Beyond socioeconomic needs and globalization.
Closer to awareness and respect of linguistic and
cultural variety.
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

4. INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
“Una vez asumida esta concepción, el MEN y las secretarias de
educación, en compañía de la comunidad educativa
colombiana, deben precisar y articular acciones que permitan
trascender la instrumentalización, la estandarización y la
certificación de la enseñanza-aprendizaje de lenguas
extranjeras para explorar y estudiar planes y proyectos que
apuesten por el desarrollo integral de una competencia no
solo comunicativa sino intercultural y multilingüe.” (Fandiño,
Bermudez, & Lugo, 2012, p. 377).
Bilingual plan: Beyond instrumentalization, standardization and
certification.
Closer to all-round formation and multilingual and
multimodal competence. UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

5. CONTEXT AND PARTICIPANTSCONTEXT AND PARTICIPANTS
“Proyecto Piloto Bogotá Bilingüe”
• IED José Manuel Restrepo
• IED Cundinamarca
• IED La Candelaria
• IED Saludcoop Norte
• Liceo Femenino Mercedes Nariño
• Primer ciclo
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

6. CONTEXT AND PARTICIPANTSCONTEXT AND PARTICIPANTS
1. School principals, coordinators, and teachers
2. Students:
• CEFR level (A1-)
• Affective filter
3. Other factors:
• Location & Socio-economical issues
• Capital: economic, social, symbolic, and cultural (Bordieu, 1986)
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

7. BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

8. BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND
• The National Bilingual Program: a path to language
standardization and economical competitiveness (MEN,
2006).
• Design: Ideological concern (Fandiño, Bermúdez, & Lugo,
2012; Mufwene, 2010)
• Implementation: Country’s conditions (Cardenas, 2006)
• Criticism to education and language policies (Usma, 2009)
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

9. LITERATURE FRAMEWORKLITERATURE FRAMEWORK
• Bilingualism and CLIL: Suárez (2005)
• Dynamism and polysemy in the concept: Fandiño and
Bermúdez (2012)
• Multiple perspective and directions: Martínez (2006)
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

10. LITERATURE FRAMEWORKLITERATURE FRAMEWORK
Manifold perspectives on bilingualism: Fandiño and Bermudez (2012)
Multilinguism Plurilingualism Biculturalism Interculturality Biliteracy
El multilingüismo es
el conocimiento de
varias lenguas o la
coexistencia de
distintas lenguas en
una sociedad
determinada (De Deus,
2008).
El enfoque
plurilingüe enfatiza la
expansión
lingüística
de un individuo en
entornos culturales
con presencia de
más de una lengua
en pro del
desarrollo .de una
competencia
comunicativa a la
que contribuyen
todos los
conocimientos y las
experiencias
lingüísticas y en la
que las lenguas se
relacionan entre sí
(De Deus, 2008).
La competencia o
habilidad del
individuo para actuar
en dos contextos de
acuerdo con los
requisitos y las
reglas de cada
cultura (Oksaar, 1983).
La interculturalidad
es comprendida
como reconocimiento
y aceptación de la
diversidad cultural en
un contexto de
permanente
comunicación y
negociación
Social (Reyes, 2011)
La “bialfabetización”
se entiende como la
capacidad de leer y
escribir en dos
lenguas, lo cual
permite la
comprensión de los
matices culturales
subyacentes a las
lenguas, y entender
los
marcos para
organizar y expresar
pensamientos
efectivamente
(Carlson, 2011).

11. METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY
• Type of research:
Three-stage educational research (Arnal, Rincón & Latorre, 1994)
• Purpose of research:
Descriptive and explanatory studies (Dankhe, 1989)
• Research method:
First stage- Survey research (Arnau, 1995; León & Montero, 1993)
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

12. METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013
STEPS OFTHE RESEARCH PROCESS

13. DATA COLLECTIONDATA COLLECTION
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013
SURVEY
Purpose: Exploration
Temporal dimension: Cross-sectional (many subjects at one point in time)
Information sense: Retrospective and prospective
Type of survey: Personal
Sample: Non-probability = Convenience sample.
Types of questions: Open-ended and closed-ended.
Design : 3 sections
Response format: - Dichotomous (the respondent has two options)
- Nominal polytomous (the respondent has more than two
unordered options)
- Ordinal polytomous (the respondent has more than two
ordered options)

14. SURVEY ANALYSISSURVEY ANALYSIS
Gerlinger & Lee (2002)
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013
Open-ended questions Closed-ended questions
-Listing all questions
-Observing frequencies
-Noting patterns or trends
-Classifying patterns or trends
-Naming / creating themes
- Assigning a code to each theme
- Coding
- Creating matrixes creating
- Filling out matrixes
- Applying descriptive statistics

15. RESULTSRESULTS
• Generalities:
- 87% of school staff claims to know the “PNB” objectives
(improve L2, communicative competence, socio-cultural skills,
and better future opportunities).
- Stage: ‘implementation’ (15%) against words like ‘initial’,
‘intermediate’, ‘training’, ‘piloting’, ‘syllabus and material
design’ (85%).
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

16. RESULTSRESULTS
• School strategies and effectiveness (according to participants) :
- ‘Excellent’ teaching hours and immersions;
- ‘Very Good’ training from universities;
- ‘Good’ L2 training (courses and tests);
- ‘Acceptable’ resources for TESL and SED follow-up;
- ‘Unacceptable’ conversation clubs in L2
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

17. RESULTSRESULTS
• Difficulties of implementation:
- Skepticism and lack of interest
- Teachers’ low English level
- Lack of continuous training and teaching resources
- Lack of articulation of project to research phase
- Little motivation from school administrators
- Lack of support form parents
- Lack of resources (human, technological, physical)
- Students drop-out
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

18. CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS
Section 1- Antecedents (according to participants):
• Constant teacher training (didactic strategies and L2)
• Constant monitoring and follow-up plans by SED and
unviersities
• Unification of implementation criteria by SED
• Connection to other subjects and areas of knowledge
• Higher motivation and better resources for teachers
• Connection of all the academic community to the project
• Establishment of inter-institutional relations
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

19. CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS
Section 2- Resources and support :
• “SED has assigned some budget to every school” (68%)
• “There is some budget for the project” (73%)
• “There have been informative sessions about the
administration of budget” (44%)
- ‘Good’ support from SED and universities (resources and
teacher training)
- ‘Acceptable’ support from MEN, embassies, governmental
and private institutions
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

20. CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS
Section 2 - Resources and support :
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013
Recorders, TV sets, DVD's
CRI, Internet, Video
beams
Textbooks, libraries,
materials,smartboards

21. CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS
Section 3 - Expectations :
- 90% hope for improvement in Students’ English level, the
quality of classes, and the atmosphere at their schools,
whereas the teachers’ level would remain unchanged
- 92% doubt English classes can be taught in L2, since
teacher’s L2 level is poor
- 92% point out level in public school vs. private schools
(students and teachers)
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

22. RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013
Secretariats for
education
- Make serious diagnoses
- Assume a concise position in regards to L1 in bilingual
education
- Strengthen interdisciplinary work and cross-curricular projects
- Extend coverage and scope of training programs
Schools and teachers - Regard bilingualism as a transverse axis in the curriculum
- Design and implement strategies to boost students’ interest and
motivation
- Work on communicative and academic language
- Use activities that integrate all the community
- Implement ongoing formative assessment
- Favor the use or authentic and meaningful resources
Universities and training
institutions
- Take into account intercultural and interlinguistic competences
- Promote writing and reading based on communication and
biliteracy
- Create and implement multilingual policies and practices

23. CHALLENGESCHALLENGES
• Accurate methodological and theoretical foundations and
strategies in bilingual plans
• Specific teacher training in terms of bilingual education
• Interdisciplinary projects in and out-of the classroom
• Systematic and articulate teacher work
• Acknowledgement of L1 in bilingual education
• Bilingual process:
 First cycle – ludic activities and L1/L2 awareness and strengthening
 Second cycle and up – reading and writing in both language together
with use of L2 in one or two content classes
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013

24. REFERENCESREFERENCES
Arnal, J., Rincón D., & Latorre A. (1994). Investigación educativa. Fundamentos y metodologías.
Barcelona: Editorial Labor.
Arnau, J. (1995). Fundamentos del método. Metodología de investigación en psicología. En M.T.
Anguera, J. Arnau, M. Ato, R. Martínez, J. Pascual y G. Vallejo. (Eds.), Métodos de
investigación en psicología (pp. 45-66). Madrid: Síntesis.
Baker, T. L. (1997). Doing Social Research (2nd edition). USA: McGraw-Hill.
Bermúdez, J., & Fandiño, Y. (2012). El fenómeno bilingüe: perspectivas y tendencias en
bilingüismo. Revista de la universidad de La Salle, 59, 99-124.
Buendía. L. (1998) La investigación por encuesta. En L. Buendía, P. Colás y F. Hernández,
Métodos de investigación en Psicopedagogía (pp. 119-155) Madrid: McGrawHill.
Cárdenas, M. (2006). Bilingual Colombia: Are we ready for it? What is needed? [en línea].
Ponencia presentada en la 19th EA Annual Education Conference. Disponible en:
http://www.englishaustralia.com.au/ea_conference2006/proceedings/pdf/Cardenas.pdf.
Carlson, A. (2011, April 23). Issues in Adding Biliteracy to Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Paper
presented at Nagoya conference on multiculturalism. Nagoya international school,
Nagoya, Japan.
Cowman, S. (1993). Triangulation: a means of reconciliation in nursing research. Journal of
advanced nursing, 18, 788-792.
Cruz, F. (2012). La multidimensionalidad del bilingüismo: consideraciones conceptuales e
implicaciones en torno al Plan Nacional de Bilingüismo. Revista de la universidad de La
Salle, 59, 125-141.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingual Education and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and
Pedagogy. San Diego: College Hill
Danhke, G.L. (1989). Investigación y comunicación. En C. Fernández-Collado y G.L. Danhke
(Eds.), La comunicación humana: ciencia social (385-454). México, D.F.: McGrawHill.
Oksaar, E. (1983). Multilingualism and multiculturalism from the linguist’s point of view. In: T. Husén
& S. Opper (Eds.), Multicultural and multilingual education in immigrant countries (pp. 17-
36). Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press.
De Deus, J. (2008). El perfil del multilingüismo en la Unión Europea (UE) y la promoción del
plurilingüismo. Revista de Humanidades, 23 (1), 47-56.
Fandiño, Y., Bermúdez, J., & Lugo, V. (2013). Retos del Programa Nacional de Bilingüismo.
Colombia Bilingüe. Educación Y Educadores, 15(3), 363-382. Retrieved from
http://educacionyeducadores.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/eye/article/view/2172
Garza, A. (1988). Manual de Técnicas de Investigación para Estudiantes de Ciencias Sociales.
México: Harla, Colegio de México.
UNIVERSIDAD DEL TOLIMA, IBAGUE, COLOMBIA,
JUNE 7, 2013
Kerlinger, F. y Lee, H. (2002). Investigación del comportamiento: métodos de investigación en
Ciencias Sociales. México: McGraw-Hill.
León, O., &y Montero, I. (1993). Diseño de investigaciones. Introducción a la lógica de la
investigación en Psicología y Educación. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
López, B., De Mejía, A., Mejía, A., Fonseca, L., & Guzmán, M. (2009). Necesidades y políticas para
la implementación de un programa bilingüe en colegios distritales. En J. V. Montoya
(Ed.), Educación para el siglo XXI: Aportes del Centro de Investigación y Formación en
Educación, 2001-2008 (pp. 409 - 466). Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes.
Méndez, A. (2007). Metodologías y técnicas de investigación aplicadas a la comunicación.
Venezuela: Universidad del Zulia.
Martínez, G. (2006). Mexican Americans and language. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Miranda, I. R. (2012). Insights on bilingualism and bilingual education: A sociolinguistic perspective.
ÍKALA, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 17(3) 263-272. Recovered from
http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=255025411004
Miranda, N. y Echeverry, A. (2011). La gestión escolar en la implementación del Programa
Nacional de Bilingüismo en instituciones educativas privadas de Cali (Colombia).
ÍKALA revista de lenguaje y cultura, 16 (29), 67-125.
Mufwene, S. (2010). Globalization, global English and world English(es): Myths and facts. En N.
Coupland (ed.), The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 31-55). Malden:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Oksaar, E. (1983). Multilingualism and multiculturalism from the linguist’s point of view. In: T.
Husén & S. Opper (Eds.), Multicultural and multilingual education in immigrant countries
(pp. 17-36). Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press.
Pimiento, R. (2000). Encuestas probabilísticas vs. no probabilísticas. Política y cultura, (13), 236-
276.
Reyes, J. (2011). Las estrategias discursivas de grupos sociales en la Universidad nacional de
Colombia en relación con la Escritura académica en situaciones de bilingüismo e
Interculturalidad (tesis). Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.
Sánchez, A. and Obando, G. (2008). Is Colombia Ready for “Bilingualism”? PROFILE Issues in
teachers’ professional development, 9, 181-195.
Suárez, M. (2005, 27 de julio). Claves del éxito del aprendizaje integrado de contenidos y lengua
extranjera (AICLE). Charla presentada en la 5ta Jornada sobre Aprendizaje
Cooperativo del grupo GIAC. Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao.
Usma, W. (2009). Education and language policy in Colombia: exploring processes of inclusion,
exclusion, and stratification in times of global reform. PROFILE Issues in teachers’
professional development, 11, 123-141.

25. Thank you !Thank you !
M.A. Yamith Fandiño – M.A. Elena UrrutiM.A. Yamith Fandiño – M.A. Elena Urrutiaa