1 Writing Frisian on computer: an experiment on ...

Writing Frisian on computer: an experiment on bilingual word processing in primary education Jehannes Ytsma and Durk Gorter Fryske Akademy, The Netherlands Published as: Ytsma, J., & Gorter, D. (1991). Writing Frisian on the Computer: an Experiment in Bilingual Word Processing in Primary Education, EMI (Education Media International), 28, 3, 124-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0952398910280304 [NB the current document contains the pre-final, uncorrected version] Abstract In this paper, an outline is given of a project on bilingual Frisian-Dutch word processing in primary schools. Jehannes Ytsma and Durk Gorter, both researchers in the sociology of language at the Fryske Akademy, present a brief description of an ongoing experiment, where the word processor is effectively used to teach writing skills in Frisian, the only indigenous minority language in the north of the Netherlands. They also highlight the research possibilities that the project offers. Introduction In general the position of European language minorities in primary education is not strong. Just in few cases, such as Catalan in Spain, the provisions for these so-called 'lesser used languages' can be characterized as relatively strong. A reflection of their weak position is in the lack of modern technological teaching aids. A recent inventory shows that only less than half of the 34 European language communities surveyed had a reasonable amount of audio-visual materials available, and just a handful of communities could use specific school radio or television programmes (Sikma and Gorter, 1991). There are some exceptions where new technology does foster minority language education. A fine example was the - by now outdated - use in the province of Friesland of the so-called Teleboard (Gorter, 1984). Another current example is a Welsh language course on television, broadcasted by RadioTéleLuxembourg (RTL), which is transmitted all over Europe by satellite. Finally, we refer to the so-called DEARC project, in which Gaelic educational computer programmes were developed (Macleod, 1989). In the following sections, we will give a brief outline of a recent experimental project on bilingual word processing in Friesland. Before we begin our description of the project itself, we will first make some general remarks on the influence of new technology followed by some introductory information on the language context. Threats and opportunities It goes without saying that technological innovations do as such form a general threat for the development of the minority language itself. The new accompanying terminology is almost completely in English, which are easily accepted and widely used. Introducing an equivalent

1

lexical item in the minority language is often quite problematic, because minority language speakers frequently evaluate neologisms in their own language as overdone. Next to this purely linguistic threat, modern technology can also have endangering social consequences for the use of the minorities as common language of the community. Often further access to and language contact with dominant world languages is increased. For example, satellite broadcasts transmitted by cable-television in the Netherlands, encourage frequent and direct language contact in the home with at least three world languages, in particular English, but also French and German. It is not so much that Frisian speakers will begin to speak, for instance, English to their children, but it most certainly does further push back the perceived importance of the mother tongue in the speaker's minds. In the case of primary education such a process can also be deduced by comparing the easy and swift way in which English was recently introduced as an obligatory subject in all schools to the hard and long struggle over Frisian (Meestringa, 1987). Not only minority languages such as Frisian have to worry over these influences, but even Dutch, the dominant language in the Netherlands may become 'minorised' to a certain extent. Today it is possible for an English speaking monoglot to lead a full and complete social life in the larger urban centers of the Netherlands, with English language TV, radio, newspapers, music, film, theatre, parties, social gatherings, schools, etc. Most Dutch speakers this person meets will do his/her utmost to speak English, and there is no social pressure at all to learn even the minimum of Dutch. Yet, new technology also offers opportunities for (language) learning. If we just limit ourselves to using computers for teaching, educationalists have just begun to realize the tremendous possibilities in this field. The computer is a recent phenomenon in primary schooling. The implementation of this type of new technology in primary schools can also in case of a dominant language, where circumstances are more optimal, be rather problematic. We can illustrate this with the state of affairs in The Netherlands, which is, of course, a technologically highly developed country. It has been observed that the role of the computer in primary schools is still quite modest. Hardware is not yet widely available at this level. A large scale national project to promote the use of computers in primary schooling has recently started. This so-called Comenius project currently includes 9,250 schools and 27,000 (MS-DOS) computers (Janssen, 1991:16). Within the framework of this project 584, that is nearly all, primary schools in Friesland will get a total of 1153 computers during the period between 1991 and 1994 (Horst, 1990). One of the major problems with the Comenius project is the unfavorable computer-pupil ratio, which is about 1 to 60. In relation herewith, the project's prudent policy is primarily focussed on the use of the computer by the teacher, where word processing is left open as a possibility for pupilsi. The crux of using computers in the primary school is how to make optimal use of the pedagogical and didactic opportunities which the machinery offers to the pupils. The best known use of the computer, both for lesser used languages and for dominant languages, probably is Computer Aided Instruction (CAI). Applied to language teaching it is also called CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning).

2

Developing high quality CAI software according to professional standards is a costly and time-consuming job. Many lesser used languages have limited resources and often a modest potential of talented developers of educational materials. These languages do not make up an attractive market for commercial software houses. Macleod (1989:4) mentions for example that the market for Gaelic computer programmes was so small that no commercial organization would take on the loss-making task of developing Gaelic programmes. In relation herewith, we observe that CAI programmes are almost exclusively in the dominant language. Baker (1985:162), for instance, reported that 55% of the 'Welsh language' primary schools (then) used the computer solely in English. The same phenomenon is observable in Friesland, where Dutch language CAI programmes dominate in those schools where computers are used. The only Frisian spelling programme, at present utilized by some 35 primary schools, was programmed by a teacher on a non-commercial basis. In contrast, primary schools in the province of Friesland can choose among a number of commercial Dutch spelling programmes, which often are an integrated part of a more traditional Dutch language method. Basically, most CAI or CALL software is of the drill and practice type. The idea is that the computer programme replaces the teacher. Often 'CAI-didactic', based on principles of programmed instruction, appears outdated, because in that way the computer 'programmes the child', instead of the other way around. Application of the computer just as a word processor in the language classroom has several advantages. In contrast to traditional CAI methods, the use of the word processor is much more child-oriented. It is easy to learn the basics. Thereafter it is the student that determines the actions of the computer instead of the other way around. The child writes the text, corrects it, designs the lay out, chooses to save and print the text, and so on. Another important advantage of word processing in connection with (minority) language education is that, combined with modern computer communication facilities, its use can promote various kinds of interactive writing exchanges between students of a group or a school, or even between students of two or more schools. Word processing also can be a dynamic resource for cooperative learning activities (DeVillar, 1990). In particular for minority language education an important advantage of word processing is that its application is more or less 'language-free'. The word processor programmes' screen-texts easily can be translated into the lesser used language. Thus, the majority-version of an existing programme can be applied, without high additional costs. Word processing applications for teaching a minority language can of course also be used for research purposes. The children's texts can, as we will below, be efficiently exploited for linguistic research purposes. In this way, school practice and research go hand in hand.

The Frisian context Friesland is a province in the northwestern part of the Netherlands where two officially recognized languages are spoken. Next to Dutch, the dominant language, Frisian is the autochthonous minority language spoken. Both are Germanic languages and thus related to each other. Frisian is a fully standardized language, for which a number of grammars (e.g. Tiersma, 1985) and dictionaries have been published (e.g. Zantema, 1984; Visser, 1985).

3

On the basis of surveys it is estimated that there are some 400,000 speakers of Frisian on a total of 600,000 inhabitants of the province. Frisian is the first language of just over half the population and another 20 percent have learned to speak the language to a certain degree. Less than 5 percent claim not to understand Frisian. From these figures it is clear that Frisian has a relatively strong position as a spoken language. The position is dramatically different in regard as to Frisian as a written language. Written Frisian has a fairly minimal position in society. Of the population, about 65 percent are able to read Frisian, and many of them regularly do so. However, only 11 percent can write the language, varying from 'reasonably' to 'well' (Gorter et al., 1988). The weak position of Frisian as written medium of communication can also be deduced from the fact that Friesland has no newspapers in the Frisian language. In the two provincial daily newspapers some reports are in Frisian, but of all the text less than 5 percent is Frisian. There is just one weekly magazine, a number of literary and cultural journals and an annual production of a fair number of books (± 100 new titles). In primary education Frisian has a modest place (Ytsma 1986). Efforts to introduce Frisian into the primary school date from the beginning of this century (Zondag, 1982), but only since 1980 the language is an obligatory subject in all primary schools for all, Frisian and Dutch children. The time spent on Frisian as a subject is quite minimal. There is a strong tendency that the vast majority of the ± 570 primary schools spend just one lesson per week on teaching Frisian in each grade (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 1989). Learning to read Frisian is a common goal in the primary schools, but learning to write in the language is just aimed at by a very small part of the primary schools. The fact that such a limited number of schools teaches how to write Frisian is a reflection of the aforementioned poor position of written Frisian in society at large. School reflects society in this respect. Furthermore, the systematic teaching of how to write Frisian is also hampered considerably by the lack of a well-structured Frisian language method for the primary schools. Experimenting with Bilingual word processing During the school-year 1988-89 three primary schools in one municipality started with a project on bilingual word processing. The project was developed in cooperation between the Fryske Akademy and the provincial Centre for Educational Advice, and was financially supported by the municipality of Tytjerksteradiel. The aims of the project are first, to encourage the children to write, in Dutch and especially in Frisian, and second, to make possible educational and applied linguistic research on their writing in both languages. The project lasts a three years it concerns all Dutch and Frisian speaking pupils from grades 6, 7 and 8 (9-12 year old). During this period, one time a week, every pupil writes, alternating between Frisian and Dutch a so-called 'free text', basically following the Freinet-method. Free texts imply compositions without a fixed length. The topic is freely chosen by the pupils themselves. The underlying pedagogical model of the Freinet-method is 'interactive/experiential'. According to this model, the pupils are encouraged to use language, without an explicit focus of the teacher on correctness (Cummins, 1988:4).

4

The pupils use a rather simple word processor programme called TASWORD, The programme is easy to learn and to operate because it is menu structured. On the whole, the impression of the teachers was that the pupils learned remarkably fast (and well) how to work with the programme. It was also observed that fast learners often helped slower learners in the initial phase. Immediately after the beginning of the project, video recordings have been made of writing sessions of 19 children in grade 6 from one of the participating schools. The video recording was made from a second screen, that was hooked up to the computer on which the pupils worked. This second monitor was located in an adjacent room. The recordings revealed that several children still had some difficulties with the key-board (specially the punctuation marks) and with the word processing programme itself (notably the insert function and moving the cursor). Moreover, the text revisions which the children made during the writing sessions were also analyzed. The 19 texts contained 255 revisions in total. Scrutinizing these revisions revealed that 84 percent of these were 'low-level' revisions. That is to say, the vast majority of the revisions were of a letter (n=152), a word (n=60) or a word-group (n=1). The remaining 16 percent of the revisions were at a high(er) level, thus at revising a sentence (n=24) or longer parts of the texts (n=18). These findings imply that this group of children from grade 6 did not (yet) see the need to, or were not (yet) able to make use of higher order revision strategies, such as pasting blocks or search and replace, which experienced 'word processors' regularly use. Right after the beginning of the project, in October 1988, all children which participated in the project were given a short questionnaire on what they thought of using the computer to write. Eight months later, in June 1989, the same questionnaire was repeated. One of the questions was "Do you enjoy writing on computer?". The first questionnaire revealed that 32 children enjoyed writing on computer, whereas only 1 student did not. A number of pupils wrote on the question form that the writing process was slowed down, because they had difficulties in finding the right keys. The main advantages mentioned by the children were, not surprising, the revision facilities, and the neatness of the output. The second questionnaire showed that the children's motivation was somewhat weakened: 29 children enjoyed it, 4 scored "indifferent", and again 1 did not enjoy writing on computer. Teachers' impressions were in accordance with the children's indications about their motivation. They also mentioned a high motivation among the pupils at the start of the project, which was maintained, but somewhat weakened after a while. It was also mentioned that some pupils wrote considerably longer texts on computer compared to their previous hand-written compositions. This was perhaps specially true for those pupils with a poor hand writing. One of the main problems encountered by the teachers was organizational. The participating schools have relatively small groups. The largest single group contains only 19 pupils, who could make use of two computers and one printer. Still, this relatively small number of pupils per computer was perceived by the teachers as problematic in giving each child a turn and sufficient time executing the task. Another problem was the need for assistance in the schools. Guidance was needed in relation to the hardware, but particularly on the software used. Before the beginning of the project the

5

teachers were trained by a computer specialist of the Centre for Educational Advice. Attention was given to the disk operating system (MS-DOS), and to the word processing programme itself. During the project, teachers were also instructed about the use of the modem. Notwithstanding these instructional moments, it turned out that there remained an ongoing need for technical assistance within the schools. Research opportunities All texts produced are sent by modem to the Fryske Akademy's linguistic database (Stellingsma, 1986), where they are centrally stored. At the end of the data gathering phase (July 1991), the database of the project of bilingual word processing contains over 3,000 texts. All these texts constitute a rich source for pedagogical and applied linguistic research. The project includes a longitudinal scope as, at the final stage of the project, writing products will be available from (a number of) pupils in grade 6 to 8. Comparisons of the writing products over the years can give useful insights into developmental aspects of the children's writing. A preliminary analysis of a part of the texts (a few hundred) has already been started by the first author and one of his colleagues of the linguistics department of the Fryske Akademy. This first analysis is aimed at simple frequency counts of Dutch and Frisian words. These counts can be relevant for didactic purposes, as highly frequent words may deserve special attention in the language lessons or may be systematically included in language methods. To undertake those frequency counts, it was necessary to correct the texts under consideration and to code the texts. Correction is performed by marking the wrongly written word, and repeating the correct form behind its original version. This way of correcting the texts also enables the second aim of the first analysis: to establish lexical error analyses for both the Frisian and Dutch texts. A specific error type which is to be foreseen, is the lexical interference of Dutch in Frisian, and probably less, vice versa. It goes without saying that these error analyses may be relevant for school practice. Most frequently occurring types of errors give an empirical indication about the sort of problems which pupils typically encounter during the writing process. The above mentioned lexical analyses can later on also be followed by morphological and syntactical analyses, depending on the particular research questions on the data. In fact, the complete data set can be exploited by different researchers with varying research interests. Conclusion It is clear that the computer in the classroom, as an example of modern technology, does have an impact on lesser used language communities. Whether this impact will be detrimental or will also offer important opportunities as well, will largely depend on whether these communities are able, and are given the opportunity, to positively integrate such technological innovations for their own purposes. It is also clear we hope from the example we have given that the computer in the classroom does not have to be just a gadget, but can become an important tool in fostering the teaching of a minority language that is generally not well taught in the schools thus far. The possible threat that computers and other technology may seem to pose, can thus be turned into a benefit, where children enjoy using a modern instrument in learning to write in their mother tongue.

6

References: Baker, C. (1985). Aspects of Bilingualism in Wales. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (1988). From the inner city to the global village: the microcomputer as a catalyst for collaborative learning and cultural interchange. In: Language, Culture and Curriculum, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1-13. DeVillar, R. A. (1990). Second language use within the non-traditional classroom: Computers, cooperative learning, and bilingualism. In: Jacobson, R. and C. Faltis (eds.). Language Distribution Issues in Bilingual Schooling. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon. 133-159. Gorter, D. (1984). The Use of Teleboard for Language Teaching in Friesland. In: International Journal for the Sociology of Language. 48. 99-113. Gorter, D., G.H. Jelsma, P.H. van der Plank and K. de Vos (1988). Language in Friesland. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Horst, S. ter (1990). Comenius in Friesland. In: Byntwurk, Vol. 1, No. 2, 8-9. Inspectie van het Onderwijs (1989). Het onderwijs in het Fries op de basisschool: stand van zaken 1988-1989. 's-Gravenhage: Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen. Janssen, K. (1991). Het Comenius-project (1). In: IT&Taal-blad, Vol. 4, No. 1, 16-19. Macleod, D.W. (1989). Lesser Used Languages and Computers - DEARC Software Project. In: Contact Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 1, 4-5. Meestringa, Th. (1987). English as a foreign language in Frisian bilingual primary schools. In: International Journal for the Sociology of Language, 64, 59-71. Sikma, J.A. and D.Gorter (eds.) (1991). European lesser used languages in primary education: synthesis report and proceedings of a colloquy. Ljouwert/Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. Stellingsma, H. (1986). Toward a linguistic database of Frisian. In: Snell-Hornby, M. (ed.). ZüriLEX '86 Proceedings. Tübingen: Francke Verlag. Tiersma, P.M. (1985). Frisian Reference Grammar. Foris: Dordrecht. Visser, W. (1985). Frysk Wurdboek (Nederlânsk-Frysk). Ljouwert: A.J. Osinga Uitgeverij. Ytsma, J. (1986). The Frisian language in primary education. EMU-report nr. 1. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Zantema, J.W. (1984). Frysk Wurdboek (Frysk-Nederlânsk). Ljouwert: A.J. Osinga Uitgeverij. Zondag, K. (ed.) (1982). Bilingual Education in Friesland. Frjentsjer: Wever. End-note i. The program chosen is a stripped version of Word for Windows.

7