Abstract: This systematic literature review examines the panorama of interculturality in rural contexts of bilingual education in Latin America. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge in Latin America and identify key themes, challenges, and gaps in the field. The review highlights the importance of recognizing and valuing linguistic and cultural diversity, particularly in marginalized rural communities. It also discusses the lack of adequate resources and educational policies as significant challenges to promoting intercultural bilingual education in these contexts. The findings underscore the need for further research and the development of effective strategies to enhance intercultural understanding and bilingual education in Latin American rural areas.
Keywords: Bilingual rural education, interculturality, Latin America, literature review, rural contexts.
Resumen: En esta revisión sistemática de literatura se examina el panorama de la interculturalidad en contextos rurales de educación bilingüe en América Latina. Su objetivo es proporcionar una visión general completa del estado actual del conocimiento en la región e identificar temas clave, desafíos y brechas en el campo. La revisión destaca la importancia de reconocer y valorar la diversidad lingüística y cultural, particularmente en las comunidades rurales marginadas. También se discute la falta de recursos adecuados y de políticas educativas como desafíos significativos para promover la educación intercultural bilingüe en estos contextos. Los hallazgos subrayan la necesidad de más investigación y el desarrollo de estrategias efectivas para mejorar la comprensión intercultural y la educación bilingüe en las áreas rurales de América Latina.
Palabras clave: Contextos rurales, educación rural bilingüe, interculturalidad, Latinoamérica, revisión de literatura.
Issues Based on Reflections and Innovations
Interculturality in Latin American Rural Bilingual Education: A Systematic Literature Review
Interculturalidad en la educación rural bilingüe latinoamericana: una revisión sistemática de la literatura
Diana Marcela Duque Salazar dianam.duques@uqvirtual.edu.co
María Alejandra Tangarife Loaiza atangarifel@iensrvillamaria.edu.co
Ángela Patricia Velásquez Hoyos angela.velasquez@ucaldas.edu.co
Received: 30 June 2023
Accepted: 11 April 2024
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?
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.
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.
Interculturality highlights the crucial link between cultures and languages. In this context, bilingualism, intercultural bilingual education, and ethno-education are fundamental concepts that help us understand this intricate relationship. While there is no universally accepted definition of bilingualism, it is widely acknowledged as a complex human phenomenon requiring thorough analysis (Hamers & Blanc, 2000). Its multifaceted nature makes it challenging to pin down, as it varies significantly across different societies and cultures. Signoret Dorcasberro (2003) underscores the role of educational institutions in promoting bilingualism, emphasizing the need for schools to create opportunities for exploring bilingualism at both individual and social levels within the framework of bilingual education. According to Monroy Ramírez and Barros Bastidas (2023), a comprehensive definition of bilingualism should be considered from a sociolinguistic perspective. Bilingualism is viewed as the capacity of a person or community to engage with two or more languages and cultures in line with their respective social norms (Galindo Martínez et al., 2013). Moreover, it is influenced by contextual, sociocultural, and political factors.
It is important to highlight that in Colombia, bilingualism focuses on teaching and learning English as a foreign language (L2), while Spanish is considered the mother tongue (L1). This hegemonic definition has led educational institutions in the country to prioritize English and, at times, neglect the importance of the mother tongue (Roux & Soler Millán, 2023) and even Indigenous languages like Emberá Chamí, which are endangered (Monroy Ramírez & Barros Bastidas, 2023) and serve as the first or mother languages for many students in rural contexts. Therefore, it is evident that in Colombia, we cannot refer to bilingualism but rather a monolingualism centered on English to comply with state policies and exams.
In response to this dynamic, some national studies focus on analyzing the gap between English in Colombia and its comparison on a global scale, using results from national and international tests, given the importance of this language in the country’s competitiveness. Some studies (García, 2009; Manresa, 2020; Mejía-Mejía, 2016; Monroy Ramírez & Barros Bastidas, 2023; Monroy Ramírez & Patiño-Agudelo, 2022) address this gap in terms of bilingualism between Spanish and English and also allude to the gap between rural and urban areas in terms of the Saber 112 and PISA tests.
Based on the above, to bridge the gap in English language proficiency, authors such as Cruz-Arcila (2018a, 2018b) and Monroy Ramírez and Barros Bastidas (2023) advocate for a reevaluation of the understanding of bilingualism that considers not only English but also minority languages. They propose an approach highlighting how speakers use their linguistic resources, supported by empirical research reflecting the complex and diverse reality of language use (Manresa, 2020). In rural contexts, where speakers of minority languages are found, adopting translanguaging3 as a pedagogical approach is crucial, as this approach recognizes the mutual support between languages in learning and comprehension, ultimately enhancing educational outcomes (Monroy Ramírez & Barros Bastidas, 2023). The importance of translanguaging in rural contexts becomes evident when considering the languages that emerge in the classrooms, the transcultural aspect, and the prior knowledge that everyone brings to the classroom. Therefore, this approach promotes interculturality, contributing to a better understanding of bilingualism.
In the Latin American context, the concept of bilingualism is primarily addressed from a sociolinguistic perspective, highlighting factors such as sociocultural elements, public policies, different contexts, and languages in contact (Briceño Alcaraz et al., 2018; Manresa, 2020; Montes Serrano & Tineo Quispe, 2023; Oyarce-Cruz et al., 2022).
On the other hand, a psycholinguistic perspective emphasizes language acquisition and recognizes that bilingualism should prioritize the native language throughout education. Authors like Moreno Herrera and Wedin (2010) argue that support for L1 is crucial for children’s success in bilingual education. In this sense, it has been demonstrated conclusively over the past decade and a half that native speakers of Mayan languages can succeed in Guatemalan schools if they receive support and development in their first language while learning the second.
This vision of bilingualism in Latin America is also reflected in the approach that texts take to intercultural bilingual education (IBE), which is considered a policy-backed approach to teaching minority communities, often found in rural contexts (Esteban Rivera et al., 2013; López, 2021; Oviedo & Wildemeersch, 2008; Unamuno & Nussbaum, 2017). IBE has been a cornerstone in Latin America for almost half a century, especially in the context of minority communities with native languages that are often considered inferior and marginalized. In Colombia, there is more discussion about ethno-education (Hernández Cassiani, 2019; Roux & Soler Millán, 2023; Trillos Amaya, 2020) as an approach to revitalizing minority native languages.
Countries such as Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, and Brazil have implemented policies establishing IBE programs. While these policies have been well-crafted and consistent for urban areas, they often fail to consider crucial factors such as contextual circumstances, resource limitations, social aspects, economy, and prevalent attitudes in rural communities (Roldán & Peláez-Henao, 2017). As a result, the effectiveness of language learning is affected (Balarin & Benavidez, 2010; Cruz-Arcila, 2018a, 2018b; Fandiño-Parra et al., 2012; Herazo Rivera et al., 2012; McGovern et al., 2019; Roldán & Peláez-Henao, 2017).
Fontana (2019) emphasizes that policies addressing ethno-cultural educational differences have gained popularity in countries such as Mexico, Ecuador, and Peru. She shows that these countries have developed identity-based educational policies that have made positive strides in acknowledging Indigenous rights and creating bilingual educational models. However, these have primarily catered to homogeneous communities, disregarding inter-ethnic relationships, particular contexts, and social conflicts among communities (Fontana, 2019; Melendez et al., 2023).
In the case of Colombia, several language policies and programs related to English have been implemented since 2004. Some examples are the National Bilingualism Program (PNB, 2004-2019), Foreign Language Skills Strengthening Program: English (PFDCLE, 2010-2014),4Colombia Bilingüe (2015-2018),5National English Program (2015-2025),6English Suggested Curriculum (MEN, 2016a, 2016b),7 and the ECO program (MEN, 2011).8 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has also been adapted as the guiding reference for English language teaching (ELT) policy in Colombia (MEN, 2006a, 2006b) to achieve specific proficiency levels measured by the Saber 11 examination (Cruz-Arcila, 2018a, 2018b). While these policies foster communicative competence, they often lack contextual relevance. The CEFR and the PNB, for instance, were standardized in Colombia without considering the sociocultural, economic, and political aspects necessary for preserving the culture of various towns (Ayala Zárate & Álvarez, 2005; Fandiño-Parra et al., 2012).
In relation to teachers applying language policies, they must effectively incorporate them into their instructional practices, considering the specific contexts in which they teach. In rural areas, studies conducted by Cruz-Arcila (2018a, 2018b), Fandiño-Parra et al. (2012), and García Botero and Reyes Galeano (2022) indicate that teachers and communities in general frequently criticize MEN policies. They exhibit limited familiarity with English programs and lack the same resources available to urban schools (Cruz-Arcila, 2017; Ramos Holguín & Aguirre Morales, 2016). The studies reveal that language policies are imperative external pressure teachers inescapably must deal with (Fandiño-Parra et al., 2012; Herazo Rivera et al., 2012; Roldán & Peláez-Henao, 2017). Teachers feel that policies in rural contexts fail to acknowledge their reality and challenges, for instance, the lack of technological resources (García Botero & Reyes Galeano, 2022; Oyarce-Cruz et al., 2022).
Regarding language policies related to ethno-education in Colombia, Hernández Cassiani (2019) states that Colombian language policies require a comprehensive examination. Colombian ethno-education has been appraised for its role in preserving and promoting the cultural heritage and knowledge within Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities and boosting Indigenous participation throughout the nation. This author points out that language policies need to reflect community participation, own education, interculturality, and ancestral knowledge.
A study that reveals the difficulty Colombian language policies have concerning bilingual education and Indigenous languages was conducted by Roux and Soler-Millán (2023). After a critical discourse analysis of the Colombian language policy and planning, the authors found that these policies still perpetuate “Spanish-English bilingualism,” which fosters a unilingualism and unibilingualism ideology that highlights the dominant role of these languages over Indigenous languages, leading them to their extinction.
Are bilingual education and interculturality in rural contexts interconnected? After the exploration of databases, the studies of Álvarez Escobar (2018), Becerra-Lubies et al. (2019), Bondarenko Pisemskaya (2009), Briceño Alcaraz et al. (2018), De la Piedra (2006), Jaraba Ramírez and Arrieta Carrascal (2012), Oyarce-Cruz et al. (2022), Pineda et al. (2020), Trillos Amaya (2009), and Valdivia and Medina (2014) corroborate that there is a strong connection between bilingual education and interculturality in rural contexts since interculturality values the recognition and understanding of both cultures: students’ own culture and the target culture. Nonetheless, Valdivia and Medina state that it is possible to observe that even though interculturality is present in rural contexts, it is mainly associated with Indigenous communities and not with mestizo communities that also live in rural areas; both Indigenous and mestizo students should be exposed to interculturality (Valdivia & Medina, 2014).
The study of Álvarez Escobar (2018) is oriented to the literacy process of students of an Indigenous group in Ecuador. She states that it is pivotal to implement collaborative, participatory, and contextualized strategies that relate students’ real-life experiences with learning experiences at the school and the whole community to address cultural issues and topics. Likewise, the research conducted by De la Piedra (2006) portrays teaching practices involving oral Quechua stories in Peru, illustrating their prevalence in the daily life of this community. In the same line, the studies of Becerra-Lubies et al. (2019), Briceño Alcaraz et al. (2018), Linares (2017), Pineda et al. (2020), Trillos Amaya (2009), and Valdivia and Medina (2014) claim that to have better intercultural educational practices in rural contexts, it is necessary that “language teaching should be focused on the community and not on the individual” (Becerra-Lubies et al., 2019, p. 37). Without the community, interculturality cannot be achieved (Briceño Alcaraz et al., 2018). Lastly, in the study of Valdivia and Medina (2014), the community’s involvement was noticeable in developing media projects that helped students improve their language performance.
Throughout this review, we observed how interculturality in rural contexts has been implemented to teach, preserve, and maintain Indigenous culture and language. Nevertheless, the study of Jaraba Ramírez and Arrieta Carrascal (2012) presents a distinct scope. The authors explain their experience teaching English to an Indigenous community in Colombia. In this study, they manifest that students of the Zenú community saw the English language as a medium to understand both cultures: theirs and the target language culture. English was taught by creating handmade products typical of the Indigenous community, so they saw the relationship between their language and culture with the new language: English.
Other pedagogical experiences that prove the connection between interculturality and bilingual education in rural contexts are the ones described in Oñate and Cañas (2021), Oyarce-Cruz et al. (2022), and Veintie et al. (2022). These studies focused on rural, remote teaching in bilingual intercultural spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors suggest that whatever the medium is—digital or face-to-face learning environments—the learning experience must be oriented toward re-signifying the Indigenous students’ own culture; thus, it is paramount to constantly train teachers in planning, executing, directing, and assessing the learning process.
Different from the perspectives of previous studies, the research of Bondarenko Pisemskaya (2009) presents problems in implementing intercultural practices with linguistic elements in Venezuela. This author explains that Indigenous languages in Venezuela have faced exclusion and abandonment, describing that the issue is not merely linguistic but social, political, and economic.
Regarding IBE, the studies of García and Velasco (2012), López (2021), Montes Serrano and Tineo Quispe (2023), and Valdiviezo (2009) provide information about the implementation of language policies in rural scenarios. These studies report that IBE is the result of Indigenous communities’ fight to incorporate their schools in a model that differs from the “privileged” schools. López’s (2021) study reports that countries like Peru, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, and Chile have adopted IBE to guide educational processes in Indigenous territories, reservations, and communities. Montes Serrano and Tineo Quispe (2023), Unamuno and Nussbaum (2017), and Valdiviezo (2009) describe the importance of including the community in policy-making processes to raise Indigenous people’s voices and improve the implementation of IBE.
Nevertheless, there are some contradictions. For instance, marginalization and discrimination of Indigenous communities impede them from actively participating in the construction of a new type of society in which they do not have to forget or “renounce” their languages, cultures, and identities. It is evident that there is still much work to do, but Aikman (2012), García and Velasco (2012), López (2021), and Oviedo and Wildemeersch (2008) claim that, in order to succeed in the implementation of IBE, students need to be connected to the sociopolitical and socioeconomic conditions of the people in their community.
Linked to the previous studies, García (2009), Santibáñez (2016), and Valiente Catter (2011) present some ideas related to IBE in Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru. The results of these articles mention the importance of contextualization, language policies, and Indigenous people’s rights as paramount elements for the success of IBE.
Research sheds light on the difficulties teachers in rural schools experience in achieving policy goals. However, it is noteworthy that teachers can develop a strong sense of professional efficacy despite these difficulties. Teachers face several challenges besides policy-related ones, such as a shortage of technical resources and inadequate financial resources (Cruz-Arcila, 2020; Oyarce-Cruz et al., 2022).
In addition to the aforementioned hurdles, it is also evident that language teachers in rural areas face a notable challenge of isolation due to the significant distances between institutions. This difficulty makes collaboration among teachers even harder, intensifying their feelings of professional isolation (Bonilla & Cruz-Arcila, 2014). Consequently, personal preparation and professional development become more challenging in such circumstances (Coronado-Rodríguez et al., 2022; Cruz-Arcila, 2020; García Botero & Reyes Galeano, 2022).
Likewise, according to Esteban Rivera et al. (2013) and Sierra Ospina (2020), when teachers are provided with opportunities to enhance their teaching practices, they are able to reinforce their bilingual competencies and engage in learning activities that respect and integrate students’ culture. This enables them to analyze and reconstruct their teaching methods critically (Coronado-Rodríguez et al., 2022).
The studies also highlight another challenge faced by teachers working in Indigenous communities situated in a bilingual diglossia setting, where Spanish serves as the dominant language of instruction (Trillos Amaya, 2009). This context gives rise to linguistic interferences between the two language systems, posing difficulties in effectively teaching Indigenous communities. The limited availability of methods and strategies further exacerbates this issue (Trillos Amaya, 2009).
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.
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.
