EdData II: Data for Education Research and Programming (derp) in Africa

Trilingual approach to instruction: Factors to consider 
In certain contexts, stakeholders may wish to provide instruction in an L1, a 
national language/lingua franca/language of wider communication, and an 
official or international language. While the goal of such an approach may 
be laudable, it is important to consider whether effective implementation is 
feasible, especially at the primary level, in the short term, and in resource-
constrained environments where reading outcomes are likely to be currently 
low. Given the instructional time, materials, and teachers proficient in all of 
these languages that are needed to successfully provide trilingual 
education, consideration should be given to deferring the introduction of 
three languages until strategies for achieving good learning outcomes in at 
least one language, or using a bilingual approach, have been developed 
and successfully implemented. Alternative approaches to be considered 
include: 
•
Defer teaching the lingua franca/national language, or the “official” or 
international language, until secondary school, when children have had 
an opportunity to learn in an L1 first and to solidify their literacy skills.
•
Teach the lingua franca and/or the “official” or international language as 
a subject (as opposed to using it as an LOI), especially if instructional 
time is limited. 
•
In multilingual environments, allow bilingual children to start learning in 
the language of wider communication, if desired and if they exhibit a 
level of proficiency in that language when they begin school.

---

33 
López, 2006); and (iv) initially making L1-based instruction optional (as in Mozambique) so as 
to provide the opportunity for L1-based instruction for communities that would like to adopt the 
approach, while allowing time for the experience and results in a small number of communities 
to generate awareness and support for scale-up.
If it is not possible due to time, logistical, or other resource constraints to teach all children in 
L1, an L2/Lx that is closely related to their L1 and/or one that is spoken widely in the larger 
community may be the best alternative. (Indeed, in some multilingual contexts, children may be 
proficient in a language not technically considered their L1, and learning in it may be a feasible 
option; see Nakamura, 2014 research from India as an example.) However, as previously noted, 
additional languages may be phased in over time as materials are developed and teacher training 
and placement eventually match language-specific instructional needs. Stakeholders should also 
be engaged in identifying regions or communities of high need, and in setting initial priorities. 
To avoid problems in identifying languages to include as an LOI, it is important is that the 
decision-making process be made as transparent as possible, with clear criteria for selecting and 
prioritizing languages to use in specific communities. All stakeholders should be consulted to 
ensure that political factors do not unfairly sway decisions.