Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development

Introduction

Education in Latin America has been permeated by relationships based on power, economy, and access. In the Colombian context, bilingualism has predominantly been instrumentalized through a monolingual perspective centered on English and Spanish (Cárdenas, 2006). This perspective primarily values the tangible and utilitarian benefits of English regarding economic development, global competitiveness, and social mobility. Since the implementation of the National Bilingualism Program (PNB, for its acronym in Spanish), the notion of bilingualism has been perpetuated as a synonym for English proficiency, presenting a monolithic and homogeneous concept (Guerrero, 2008). This limited perspective excludes the consideration of minority languages, which reflects a lack of recognition by the National Ministry of Education (MEN, for its acronym in Spanish). Hence, it appears that Colombian peculiarities were not fully considered when formulating bilingualism policies, suggesting a need to reassess multilingualism, culture, and identity to achieve more positive outcomes in foreign language education. In this regard, the MEN’s goal of bilingualism may seem more like a utopia than a feasible plan (Gómez Sará, 2017; Sánchez Solarte & Obando Guerrero, 2008).

Against this backdrop, the implementation of Colombian bilingual education has suffered apathy in urban and, even worse, in rural settings. Bilingualism, particularly concerning English and Spanish, is often perceived as an unattainable goal due to various obstacles. These challenges encompass limited access to schools, inadequate infrastructure, isolation, and high attrition among teachers who face difficulties commuting to remote locations (Fandiño-Parra et al., 2012; Ramos Holguín & Aguirre Morales, 2016). In addition, educators in these contexts often feel demotivated as they encounter obstacles in accessing materials necessary for introducing children to the target language and culture, as well as the struggle of working in multi-level classes (Bonilla & Cruz-Arcila, 2014; Ramos Holguín & Aguirre Morales, 2016).

Moreover, rural areas and schools have suffered, particularly in Colombia, the consequences of the armed conflict (Bolaños Sáenz et al., 2018; Comisión de la Verdad, 2022; Monroy Ramírez & Barros Bastidas, 2023; Ramos Holguín & Aguirre Morales, 2016). This reality makes bilingual education in rural scenarios even harder. Burgos Calderón (2019), Cruz-Arcila (2018a, 2018b), and Moulton (2001, as cited in Ramos Holguín & Aguirre Morales, 2016) argue that the content and curriculum have been proposed for urban areas and have not been adapted to rural students’ necessities; for this reason, teaching strategies employed in urban areas have not demonstrated the same effectiveness when applied in rural environments.

Considering the aforementioned information, Monroy Ramírez and Barros Bastidas (2023) and Trillos Amaya (2018) propose bilingual education as an approach that values and embraces the use of two or more languages for teaching and learning, fostering language proficiency and cultural competence. In the rural context, bilingual education refers to an educational model where individuals sharing a common culture, ancestry, or heritage in recognized rural areas are exposed to two or more languages apart from their mother tongue (Ramos Holguín & Aguirre Morales, 2016). Bilingualism implies an opportunity to value, respect, and preserve cultural and linguistic diversity (Gómez Sará, 2017).

Interculturality plays a vital role in bilingual education, especially in rural Latin American settings due to their multicultural nature. It fosters inclusive education by promoting understanding and unity among diverse cultural backgrounds (Williamson et al., 2012). Interculturality serves as a cornerstone in creating a pluralistic environment that promotes understanding, knowledge exchange, empathy, and integration among individuals. While interculturality is often linked to Indigenous communities, Valdivia and Medina (2014) stress the importance of extending its application to mestizo and other minority language communities in Latin American rural areas. Thus, there is an urgent need to preserve culture and language through bilingual education that respects and values all the languages and cultures inside the classrooms. Viewing bilingual education as an intercultural process is essential for liberating individuals and challenging oppressive circumstances through critical theories (García León & García León, 2014).

As bilingual educators, recognizing the significance of second language acquisition in teaching and learning, we undertook this review to examine the existing state of interculturality within Latin American rural contexts. We aimed to gain insights into the current landscape and better understand how cultural diversity is addressed in these educational settings. In this manner, we meticulously examined 54 articles, delving into their contents to uncover prevailing trends, identify existing gaps, and gain insights into the ongoing efforts in this field. This exploration gave us a holistic view of the current situation and paved the way for informed analysis and evaluation. Hence, we proposed the following questions formulated before starting this systematic literature review: Is there bilingual education in rural areas? Is bilingual education a concern just for urban areas? Are bilingual education and interculturality in rural contexts interconnected? Are language policies specifically adapted to each country and population?

Method

This research was framed in a qualitative research approach following the ideas of Hernández Sampieri et al. (2014). This systematic literature review (SLR) aims to synthesize studies on bilingual education and interculturality in Latin American rural settings. The research builds upon the methodologies of García Peñalvo (2017) and Siddaway et al. (2019), who outline three key stages of the research process. For the planning stage, we started defining the review protocol, research questions, objectives, and data-sourcing strategy. In the review stage, we designed criteria for selecting literature, quality assessment, and research exploration. Finally, in the reporting stage, we systematically presented the data from selected studies (García Peñalvo, 2017; Siddaway et al., 2019).

After formulating research questions and primary objectives, we conducted the SLR. Our search targeted research articles published in Colombia and other Latin American countries. Consequently, we employed the following key terms to guide our search: intercultural bilingual education, bilingual rural education, interculturality in rural contexts, and the teaching of English in rural areas.

To guide our search, we selected 12 databases (Taylor and Francis, Research Gate, Science Direct, Academic Search Ultimate, Scopus, Springer Link, Sage Journals, Dialnet, SciELO, Academic Google, EBSCO, and Oxford Academics) and 34 journals using the Open Journals System (OJS), among which the most important are: Profile, Cuadernos Lingüística Hispánica, A Journal of Comparative and International Education, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Journal for the Study of Education and Development, International Review of Education, Diaspora Indigenous and Minority Education, Lingüística y Literatura, Educación y Pedagogía, Íkala, Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, Educación y Educadores, Revista Inclusiones, and How Journal. We chose these journals based on specific criteria, primarily focusing on the subject matter and indexation Categories A and B following the guidelines provided by the Colombian Ministry of Science (Minciencias).

Additionally, we established inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine if these articles were qualified to be considered in this SLR (see Table 1).

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we utilized the PRISMA 2020 diagram (Page et al., 2021; see Figure 1) to collect and summarize the research findings (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018). Furthermore, we utilized a synthesis matrix strategy inspired by Whitemore and Knalf (2005, as cited in Efron & Ravid, 2019) to efficiently identify patterns in the articles.¹ After analyzing the search results, we compiled 54 research articles.

Figure 1: PRISMA Synthesis of Data

Results

We first discuss the most important tendencies of the review, followed by the emerging categories of the SLR. We synthesized the number of articles found that were relevant for our SLR, as shown in Table 2.

Through a rigorous examination of the SLR, we achieved a comprehensive understanding of interculturality in the rural context, leading to the identification of four categories: (a) A portrait of Bilingualism in Latin American Rural Settings, (b) Language Policies in Rural Contexts Related to Interculturality, (c) Interculturality and Intercultural Bilingual Education in Rural Settings, and (d) Bilingual Rural Education Challenges.

Discussion

Bilingual education has become a matter of concern in both rural and urban areas. We have witnessed the emergence of various initiatives and projects to provide students with greater access to bilingual education. However, it is within the realm of bilingual education that we encounter a significant issue, as highlighted by Monroy Ramírez and Barros Bastidas (2023). This issue is particularly evident in Colombia, where an excessive emphasis on teaching English and Spanish has resulted in neglecting minority languages. Even worse, this fixation on English and Spanish perpetuates the marginalization of rural communities due to language policies that reinforce dominant languages (Cruz-Arcila, 2017; Ramos Holguín & Aguirre Morales, 2016). In other words, bilingual education in rural areas continues to use language policies mainly designed for urban scenarios, denying the possibility of creating or adapting methodologies and materials sensitive to rural contexts (Balarin & Benavidez, 2010).

In Colombia, there are rural schools where both Indigenous and mestizo students coexist. However, this review sheds light on a significant disparity in research focus. Out of the examined articles, eight studies (Bolaños Saenz et al., 2018; Bonilla & Cruz-Arcila, 2014; Burgos Calderón, 2019; Coronado-Rodríguez et al., 2022; Cruz-Arcila, 2017; García Botero & Reyes Galeano, 2022; Monroy Ramírez & Patiño-Agudelo, 2022; Roldán & Peláez-Henao, 2017) primarily concentrated on bilingual rural education catering to mestizo students. In contrast, only three studies (Chamorro Mejía, 2021; Jaraba Ramírez & Arrieta Carrascal, 2012; Monroy Ramírez & Barros Bastidas, 2023) addressed bilingual rural education within Indigenous communities. This disparity highlights an imbalance in Colombia’s approach to bilingual rural education and underscores the need for a more inclusive, multilingual perspective that promotes equitable language practices among Indigenous, afro-descendants, raizales,⁹palenqueros,¹⁰ Romanis,¹¹ Venezuelan refugees, deaf people, and mestizo students. Another aspect to highlight is that these Colombian studies address ELT rural teachers’ perspectives and not rural students’ experiences with ELT, which leads us to point out that research studies have not adequately encompassed ELT rural agents, particularly rural children.

Opposite to what we found in Colombia, Latin American countries such as Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, and Chile are a step forward in implementing a multilingual approach for teaching languages in rural settings. Twenty-seven articles (Aikman, 2012; Balarin & Benavides, 2010; Becerra-Lubies et al., 2019; Bondarenko Pisemskaya, 2009; Briceño Alcaraz et al., 2018; De La Piedra, 2006; Esteban Rivera et al., 2013; Fontana, 2019; M. E. García, 2004; García & Velasco, 2012; Linares, 2017; Manresa, 2020; Melendez et al., 2023; Montes Serrano & Tineo Quispe, 2023; Moreno Herrera & Wedin, 2010; Oñate & Cañas, 2021; Oviedo & Wildemeersch, 2008; Oyarce-Cruz et al., 2022; Pineda et al., 2020; Santibáñez, 2016; Veintie et al., 2022; Unamuno & Nussbaum, 2017; Valdivia & Medina, 2014; Valdiviezo, 2009; Valiente Catter, 2011; Williamson, 2012; Williamson et al., 2012) address bilingual rural education with Indigenous students, with Mexico, Ecuador, and Peru standing out. These studies describe how bilingual rural education is meant to serve the diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the student population. Even though these studies mention challenges, it is evident that, compared to Colombia, these countries have made greater efforts to encompass Spanish, English, and Indigenous languages to ensure that students have access to quality education.

We can discern a strong interconnection between interculturality and bilingual education in rural areas. However, the case of Colombia highlights the pressing need for substantial efforts to reshape the language instruction paradigm in rural settings, where a multilingual approach should be adopted, encompassing minority languages, Spanish, and English. This approach should preserve culture, promote cultural exchange, and improve language skills for all students, tailored to each region’s unique characteristics and actively involving the community. Hence, community engagement enhances social cohesion, breaks language and cultural barriers, encourages cross-cultural communication, and strengthens bonds (Montes Serrano & Tineo Quispe, 2023; Unamuno & Nussbaum, 2017; Valdiviezo, 2009).

Additionally, this SLR confirms that language policies are tailored to each country and its population. Latin American studies by Balarin and Benavidez (2010), Fontana (2019), M. E. García (2004), García and Velasco (2012), McGovern et al. (2019), Melendez et al. (2023), Montes Serrano and Tineo Quispe (2023), and Santibáñez (2016) exemplify divergent language policies in Peru, Argentina, and Mexico. These variations concern curriculum integration of ancestral knowledge, linguistic diversity, historical contexts, cultural considerations, and goals set by educational and governmental institutions. Notably, Fontana’s study emphasizes Indigenous language preservation in Peru, while Melendez’s research highlights tensions between federal and state governments in Argentina, particularly regarding IBE in rural areas, stemming from differing approaches to linguistic diversity.

In contrast, the studies by García and Velasco (2012) and Santibáñez (2016), conducted in Mexico, reveal a similar tension but with a distinctive outcome. In Mexico, IBE education is not only integrated into academic settings but also extends its reach into public offices and health centers, signifying a coordinated effort to include Indigenous languages in some Mexican states that needs to be expanded to the entire country. Consequently, among the Latin American countries studied, Mexico emerges as the most proactive in implementing IBE policies in both urban and rural communities.

On the other hand, the panorama of Colombian language policies that favor linguistic diversity in rural areas is even worse. We could see that ten studies (Ayala Zárate & Álvarez, 2005; Cruz-Arcila, 2017, 2018a, 2018b; Fandiño-Parra et al., 2012; Herazo Rivera et al., 2012; Hernández Cassiani, 2019; Roldán & Peláez-Henao, 2017; Roux & Soler Millán, 2023; Sierra Ospina, 2020; Trillos Amaya, 2020) and the language policies proposed by the MEN portray the obsession that the Colombian government has in the promotion of Spanish-English language policies without including multilingual principles that embrace Indigenous languages and Colombia’s linguistic diversity. As stated by Cruz-Arcila (2017), Roux and Soler Millán (2023), and Trillos Amaya (2020), Colombian language policies are focused on the development of English and Spanish proficiency, excluding Indigenous languages and leading them to their extinction.

These authors argue that language policies should encompass linguistic rights, including using native languages in government and education to preserve minority languages. However, in Colombia, there is a divergence in language policies (Cruz-Arcila, 2017). On one hand, some policies regulate Spanish-Indigenous language relationships, while others promote foreign languages like English (Fandiño-Parra et al., 2012), prioritizing English and Spanish over Indigenous languages. This imbalance is evident in the National Bilingual program and the Suggested Curriculum (MEN, 2016b), which provide specifications for adapting English instruction according to community needs and lack guidance on multilingual approaches for linguistically diverse rural communities.

Conclusions

Our purpose with this SLR was to examine the panorama of interculturality in rural contexts of bilingual education in Colombia and Latin America. Data from the 54 articles suggest that interculturality is interconnected to bilingual rural education. There is a sharp difference in language education approaches in Latin American countries. Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru prioritize IBE and multilingual strategies for preserving Indigenous languages and English/Spanish proficiency in rural areas. However, Colombia’s language policies seem overwhelmingly obsessed with promoting English and Spanish, often neglecting and posing a threat to Colombia’s linguistic diversity. Of ten studies, seven exclusively focus on mestizo students, while only three address Indigenous students. This disparity raises concerns about the survival of minority languages in Colombia.

Even though Latin America has a more multilingual approach in which Spanish, English, and minority languages coexist, Colombia is a step behind these initiatives. In fact, seven Colombian articles have focused on studying English language rural teachers’ perspectives on ELT, demonstrating that research studies have not yet extended their scope to encompass the viewpoints of rural children. This discrepancy underscores a need for further research that delves into the experiences and perspectives of rural students in their language learning journey. Such studies should encompass a broad spectrum of students, including all mestizos, Indigenous, deaf people, raizales, palenqueros, Romanis, afro-descendants, and Venezuelan refugees, to provide a comprehensive understanding of language education challenges and opportunities in Colombia’s rural settings. This current review only uncovered studies focusing on Spanish and Indigenous speakers. Nevertheless, there is a notable absence of research concerning other minority languages, like those mentioned in rural settings.

This SLR also recommends reviewing the inclusion of bilingual education and interculturality in school curricula to improve second language acquisition and English proficiency. Bilingualism should encompass the use of different languages within the same context, embracing linguistic diversity and the languages spoken by minority groups. One possible strategy to achieve this is adopting translanguaging as a new approach to teaching and learning a second language (O. García, 2009; Manresa, 2020; Monroy Ramírez & Barros Bastidas, 2023).

Finally, this SLR concludes that much work remains to be done. If we want to achieve interculturality in bilingual rural education, we need to decolonize language teaching; that is, designing more context-sensitive materials and methodologies aligned with students’ rural contexts and needs. In doing so, it is paramount to integrate the community to preserve students’ own culture and identity (Burgos Calderón, 2019; Cruz-Arcila, 2018b; Jaraba Ramírez & Arrieta Carrascal, 2012; Ramos Holguín & Aguirre Morales, 2016). Learning a new language, like English, must be a medium through which people can understand and value their culture and the new one.