“This one word in Turkish can be very important”: Functional multilingual learning in Dutch-language elementary schools Sven Sierens Ghent University, Centre for Diversity & Learning Jahrestagung des Mercator Instituts, Köln, 17. Märs 2015, Symposium ‘Mehrsprachigkeit im Fachunterricht’
Outline 1. Landscapes (trends) a) Sociolinguistic landscape b) Ideological landscape c) Scientific landscape 2. Case study: evaluation study of the local ‘Home Language in Education’ project in a multilingual city (Ghent, Belgium) Objectives Theoretical background (Study design) Results with a focus on classroom practice 3. Reflection
2
1a. Sociolinguistic landscape A number of trends (Shifts? Transformation?) Context (past 20 years) Late capitalist society in Western Europe: migration / globalisation / the rise of ICT Emergence of ‘super-diversity’ (Vertovec, 2007) Migration patterns: dynamic, fluid, temporary, transnational flows Identity patterns: complex, multiple, dynamic, diversity ≠ multi-ethnicity ‘Linguistic super-diversity’ (Blommaert et al., 2011)
Growth in number of languages (future maintenance & vitality?) Extension from the metropolis to smaller cities & non-urban areas Diverse and fluid migration flows -> mobile students -> new & temporary languages Increase of multilingual speakers: multilingual identities & competences Real-life language practices: more complex individual language repertoires 3
1b. Ideological landscape Double ideological standard / discourse concerning multilingualism Positive climate for multilingualism and bi-/multilingual education Societal & policy levels: - Supranational (European institutions) - National - Regional / local Discourse & practice: multilingual competence = enrichment in terms of linguistic, social, cultural and economical capital (additive multilingualism) Bi/multilingual education becomes acceptable, fashionable => mainstream in the future (?) BUT exclusively for prestige and ‘national’ languages CLIL / Immersion / Two-way bilingual education = improved foreign language education Multilingualism = cognition+ -> cognitive-academic benefits (good for the brain) (Official recognition of the value of regional, indigenous languages; e.g., Frisian, Basque, Gaelic, Welsh, Sami) 4
1b. Ideological landscape (cont.) Negative climate for multilingualism and bi-/multilingual education Languages of immigrant groups (non-European, low prestige) Discourse & practice: multilingual competence = handicap Dominant theme in education: the use of immigrant L1’s at school hinders L2 learning, school achievement and social integration (subtractive bilingualism, language competition for time and cognitive resources) Intermezzo (1970s-1980s): limited official support multilingual initiatives (bilingual education, mother tongue education) at European and local levels Late 1990s-: ‘multiculturalism backlash’ (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010) National integration policies: return to cultural and linguistic assimilation Stronger emphasis on monolingual education = hardcore L2-submersion , maximum exposure to L2 is most effective (the more L2 the better: “every second the L2 is not used is a second lost for learning it”) Bi/multilingual education incl. migrant languages is unacceptable -> marginalised, close to extinction (exception: TBE in Germany) Restrictive school policies: L2-ony regimes; L1’s = ignored or forbidden 5
1c. Scientific landscape Emerging paradigm shift in research on ‘language’
Sources: • Educational practice (local) • Sociolinguistics • Neuroscience (brain activity in mono-/bilinguals) => Implications for language development & for language learning & teaching 6
1c. Scientific landscape: ‘language’ paradigms Traditional
Poststructuralist
• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • •
System Autonomous Separate / isolated Stable Bounded Competence = possess Monoglossic Multilingualism = parallel monolingualisms • …
Social practice Interdependent Mixed / hybrid Dynamic Fluid Performance = use Heteroglossic Multilingualism = translanguaging, etc. • …
7
1c. Scientific landscape: approaches to bi/multilingualism-in-education Traditional • Spatially apart • Temporarily apart • Separation of learners • Separation of languages • Parallel monolingualisms • Multilingualism = instruction by bilingual teachers “Two solitudes assumption” (Cummins, 2008)
Emerging • • • •
Spatially integrated Simultaneous Mixed groups Repertoire (varieties, codes, registers, etc.) • Flexible multilingualism • Multilingualism = classroom translanguaging, all learners can make strategic use of their language repertoire as resource for learning 8
3. Case study: evaluation study of the Home Language in Education project (2008-2013) Ghent, Flanders (Belgium)
9
Objectives Objective A: Furthering positive language attitudes, well-being and cognitive learning through – language awareness raising (LAR) & – functional use of home languages (L1’s) • Funded by the City of Ghent (local authorities!) • 4 elementary inner-city schools in Ghent, Flanders • Linguistically mixed, low SES, immigrant pupils [Objective B: Academic literacy: learning to read & write in L1 (Turkish) and L2 (Dutch)] • 2 of the 4 schools • Transitional bilingual education (PS3 -> G2) • Bilingual (Turkish/Dutch) teachers 10
Intervention • Pedagogical intervention: teachers were trained, coached and supported by school advisers of the local authority’s education department + the educational networks. School-based interventions: – pedagogical seminars incl. lectures & workshops – in-service training sessions – working groups (sharing ideas, developing strategies, searching & developing materials) – exchange school visits – participation of advisers in school-based activities (staff meetings, coaching of school managers, etc.) • Input: tailored to each individual school (different expectations) • Whole-school approach: multi-tiered (multiple levels and actors involved) Project participants: all teachers, school management, parents, school advisers 11
Theoretical background ‘Functional multilingual learning‘ (Sierens & Van Avermaet, 2014) => Pedagogical translanguaging => accommodation / integrative approach to bilingual education (Siegel, 2010) => Language Awareness approach (Hawkins, 1984) (affective, social, cognitive and linguistic goals) Multilingual space: pupils’ didactic use of L1’s is accepted and enabled by the teacher => activates bilingual learning (language, cognition, content understanding) Setting: Mainstream classroom Linguistically diverse Pupils from socio-economically disadvantaged and ethnic minority backgrounds (= ‘immigrants’) Learning environment: L2 = dominant language of instruction & communication L1 is not medium of instruction Teacher does not necessarily speak all the L1’s in classroom 12
2. Theoretical background (cont.) Underlying theoretical insights Psycholinguistic: linguistic interdependence and positive cross-language transfer (Cummins, 1979) competition between languages Sociolinguistic: language repertoire, which is used in a flexible and strategic way; translanguaging (García, 2009), crossing, polylanguaging, heteroglossia, metrolingualism, … separation between languages Educational/learning sciences => ‘powerful learning environment’ – Social-constructivist/socio-cultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978) – Co-construction of knowledge situated in social interactions that are shaped by socio-historical context -> language learning is a social process (active, interactive, individual, situated, social-emotional) – Pre-existing knowledge: embedded in the child’s home language and culture, foundation for further development ‘zero language’ – Strategies: scaffolding, tutoring, collaborative learning, task-based learning, working in corners, etc.
13
Scheme: Powerful multilingual learning environment (Verhelst, 2006) Safe and positive classroom environment: L1 to comfort, open climate, children are appreciated, selfconfident
Functional and meaningful activities with L1 as a means to reach a real-life goal
Interactional support by peers (or teachers) in L1 14
Powerful multilingual learning environment 1) Safe and positive classroom climate – Agreement concerning the use of languages (L1/L2) – Making L1’s visible in classroom decoration & resources (e.g., posters, books, audiovisual materials) – Allowing use of L1’s in informal situaties (e.g., free play, breaks, playground) – Allowing use of L1’s in learning activities (e.g., group work) – Showing interest in L1’s (e.g., reacting positively to spontaneous utterances in L1) 2) Use of L1’s in functional and meaningful tasks – Stimulating input/output of L1’s in task performance (group work) – Language awareness raising (LAR) activities – Involving parents actively as source of L1’s (e.g., telling stories) 3) Interactional support: L1’s for facilitating learning – Use of L1’s in support by classmate/peer – Use of L1’s in support by regular teacher/parent 15
The study design • Evaluation study (external) • Longitudinal: 2008-2012 • Pre-test/post-test quasi-experimental design – 4 experimental schools + comparison group of 6 schools • Multi-method: quantitative & qualitative methods – Language tests (2 cohorts of pupils; N = 359) – Psycho-social assessment (indirectly through the teachers) – Post-intervention survey (117 teachers in 6 schools) – Classroom observations, video recording, interviews 30 -> 20 teachers in 5 schools, PS2 -> 3G, 2-3 times) – Interviews school management, school advisers & parents (repeated) 16
Results (cont.) • (1) Safe and positive classroom climate – Presence of resources in L1’s and references to home cultures: disappointing; little change. – The use of L1’s was allowed in all classes with a view to the children’s well-being. – The use of L1’s on the playground was broadly accepted. – Nearly all teachers showed interest in the children’s L1’s (at least occasionaly) – Primary teachers expressed the need for more explicit ‘rules’. – Compared to baseline: primary school teachers made more progress; preschool teachers: little change 17
Results (cont.) • (2) L1’s in functional and meaningful tasks – Teachers rarely stimulated task performance in L1’s, in particular for input/output in cooperative tasks. – Some teachers asked the children to bring books, films or songs with them from the home. If materials in L1’s were present in the classroom, most teachers did not explicitly stimulate children to use them during activities.
18
Results (cont.) – About half of the teachers organised LAR activities in the 1st observation period; this positive trend declined in the final observation period. – Teachers only sporadically invited parents to bring their L1’s into the class (preschool teachers were more active). – In sum, the step to the use of L1’s in tasks proved to be difficult, especially when regular teachers could not count on support of bilingual teachers or available didactic materials. 19
Results (cont.) • (3) Interactional support: L1’s facilitating learning – Providing mutual support in L1’s was a generally accepted and established practice as far as newcomers or underachieving pupils were concerned. – Teachers had become more aware of the possibilities that L1 use can offer to facilitate learning. – Yet practising this strategy was still limited.
20
Summary • General project impact Classroom practice and pedagogical regimes showed a positive shift. Yet tentative: frequency of L1-inclusive, multilingual activities tended to be modest (1-2 times/week). Implementation level: low on average. • Preschool teachers: Little change was observed. Focus on multilingualism as fostering well-being. Relaxed tolerant attitude => less urgency to use L1’s as support for learning: ‘let the children play’ 21
Summary (cont.) • Primary school teachers: Breakthrough: more interest in and awareness of the use of L1’s as support for learning. Attitudes towards / views of multilingualism: more positive (raised multilingual language awareness) Multilingual space was ‘contained’ in scope and time. So they activated L1-inclusive activities but with the brakes on. Explicit rules were considered crucial: no rules -> no limit -> things will go out of hand/control: = chaos = they will speak their L1’s all the time = they will use L1’s in negative, subversive ways: off task, chattering, gossiping, speaking badly about the teacher, forming cliques, excluding others, bullying, …) 22
Critical factors • Double challenge: multilingual learning + fundamental change in ‘teaching style’ (powerful learning environment) -> resistance, inertia. • Coping with feelings of loss of control and distrust (classroom management, task monitoring, playground supervision, conflict handling, etc.). • Power of dominant monolingual language ideology = common sense in mainstream society. Stamina: self-confidence, self-efficacy, agency and clear, supportive school language policy (shared vision) • Recurrent questions & concerns: Too much L1 use -> less L2 use -> negative impact on L2 acquisition? How can we balance the languages? The L1 is too poorly developed to be a tool for cognitive learning in L2: lack of language stimulation and literacy in the home (deficit) What about single L1 speakers in my classroom? 23
3. Reflection ‘Functional multilingual learning’: • Is this thé way to go? Is this a new, unique approach? One possible way to start counteracting the mainstream teacher’s “monolingual habitus“ (Gogolin, 1994) and the monolingual, L2-only regimes and policies in schools. Professional development of teachers: changes in basic attitudes towards multilingualism relate to changes in practice -> hands-on approach, on-site coaching
• Does it work? Is it powerful enough? This approach seems to serve principally the learners with relatively strong L1 skills. Learners with weak L1 skills: support by bi-/multilingual teachers remains necessary (assumption). The ‘one-size-fits-all’ model does not exist: different approaches/models for different categories of learners. Flexible, pragmatic, context-sensitive approach in policy-making. 24
Thank you Danke
[email protected]
References Blommaert, J., Rampton, B., & Spotti, M. (Eds.). (2011). Language and superdiversities. Diversities, 13(2). Available via UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/resources/periodicals/diversities/past-issues/vol-13-no-2-2011/ Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Bilingual Education Paper Series, 3, 1-69. Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In J. Cummins & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 5: Bilingual education, pp. 65-75). New York: Springer Science + Business Media LLC. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of language: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gogolin, I. (1994). Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule Münster, Germany: Waxmann. Ramaut, G., Sierens, S., Bultinck, K., Van Avermaet, P., Slembrouck, S., Van Gorp, K., & Verhelst, M. (2013). Evaluatieonderzoek van het project ‘Thuistaal in onderwijs’ (2009-2012): Eindrapport [Evaluation research of the ‘Home Language in Education’ project (2009-2012): Final report]. Ghent University & KULeuven, Belgium http://www.diversiteitenleren.be/sites/default/files/ThuistaalInOnderwijs_Evaluatieonderzoek_Eindrapport_DEF1_maart2013.pdf Sierens, S., & Ramaut, G. (2013). “Maintenant , les enfants veulent davantage apprendre le néerlandais: Langues familiales et stratégies d’étayage dans l’apprentissage du néerlandais en classes maternelles en Flandre (Belgique). In C. Hélot & M.-N. Rubio (Eds.), Développement du langage et plurilinguisme chez le jeune enfant (pp. 99-121). Toulouse, France: érès. Sierens, S., & Van Avermaet, P. (2014). Language diversity in education: Evolving from multilingual education to functional multilingual learning. In D. Little, C. Leung, & P. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Managing diversity in education: Languages, policies, pedagogies (pp. 204-222). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Siegel, J. (2010). Second dialect acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Verhelst, M. (2006). A box full of feelings: Promoting infants’ second language acquisition all day long. In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task‐based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 197-216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Vertovec, S. (2007). Superdiversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29, 1024-1054. Vertovec, S., & Wessendorf, S. (Eds.) .(2010). The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 26 Press.
