BICS and CALP

The distinction between basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) was introduced by Prof. Jim Cummins of the University of Toronto in 1979 in order to draw educators’ attention to the timelines and challenges that second language learners encounter as they attempt to catch up to their peers in academic aspects of the school language. BICS refers to conversational fluency in a language while CALP refers to students’ ability to understand and express, in both oral and written modes, concepts and ideas that are relevant to success in school.

The original version of the BICS/CALP distinction has been criticized by several scholars over the years for various reasons. For example, Prof. Rudy Troike of the University of Arizona, then of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote a critique with a somewhat satirical title, "SCALP - Socio-Cultural Aspects of Language Proficiency." In it, Prof. Troike argues that sociolinguistic factors, which are missing from Prof. Cummins' theory, may play an important role in academic achievement.

In his latest 14-page article, titled "BICS and CALP: Empirical and Theoretical Status of the Distinction" and published in Street, B. & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.). (2008). Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Volume 2: Literacy, Prof. Cummins addresses many critiques of the BICS/CALP distinction but insists that "the BICS/CALP distinction was not proposed as an overall theory of language proficiency but as a very specific conceptual distinction that has important implications for policy and practice. It has drawn attention to specific ways in which educators’ assumptions about the nature of language proficiency and the development of L2 proficiency have prejudiced the academic development of bilingual students."

One such specific example cited by Cummins comes from a study done in 1996 which shows that a couple of years after a group of second generation Salvadorean children started school in Washington, D.C., they acquired native-like spoken English. Because of the lack of one-on-one interactions between the teachers and the pupils, a sample of fluent student speech (BICS) was often mistaken for proof of full language fluency, which should have included both conversational and academic English (CALP).

Here and now, with the number of Generation 1.5 students entering our classrooms on the rise, we have noticed the common feature these students share: stronger BICS and weaker CALP.

Knowing the distinction is one thing. Knowing how to close the gap in our classrooms is quite another. Cummins suggests the following ways:

1. extensive engaged reading because academic language is primarily found in written texts
2. collaborative learning and talk about text because this helps students more fully comprehend the academic language found in their extensive reading
3. writing about issues that matter to bilingual students because this enables them to express their identities through language
4. opportunities for teachers and others to provide feedback on writing because this further develops the students' expression of self.

What other ways would you suggest? Do you see any use of the distinction between BICS and CALP for yourself?