Trilingual Education in Friesland: Challenges & Developments Alex M.J. Riemersma & Reitze J.

Transcript Trilingual Education in Friesland: Challenges & Developments Alex M.J. Riemersma & Reitze J.

Trilingual Education in Friesland: Challenges & Developments

Alex M.J. Riemersma & Reitze J. Jonkman Lector Frisian & Multilingualism in Education ICLASP, 23th JUNE, 2012

Frisian in Fryslân (Netherlands)

• Autochthonous minority language • Western Germanic language • Spoken in one province (of 12) of the Netherlands: Fryslân • Fryslân has 640,000 inhabitants • 55% has Frisian as mother tongue (= 350.000 speakers) • BUT: Frisian is successful as a second language: • 65% can read Frisian; 74% can speak Frisian; • 94% comprehends Frisian.

Multilingual

Primary

in Fryslân Education

• Main stream primary education (500 schools): (a) 400 schools: limited multilingual education: mainly Dutch + English as a subject; limited use of Frisian as a medium; (b) 100 schools: semi-multilingual education: mainly Dutch + English as a subject; Frisian medium for (half) school day • Trilingual primary education (about 45 schools): - Dutch, Frisian and English as subject and medium - aiming at integrated language learning Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

Trilingual education in Fryslân



Model: Frisian, Dutch and English as subject & medium of instruction

- Grade 1-6: 50 % Frisian, 50 % Dutch - Grade 7-8: 40 % Frisian, 40 % Dutch, 20% English  

Early start English Consciously separated use of languages: person / time / themes

Trilingual education in Fryslân

 Developments: 2012 > 50 primary schools (= 10%)  Continuity to secondary education: 2012: 3 pilot schools with the concept of multilingual clil (= medium of instruction)  Teacher training: 2011: Trilingual stream 2011: Minor (30 ECTS)

Multilingual

Secondary

in Fryslân Education

• Main stream secondary education: - Dutch dominant - English and Frisian as a subject only - limited use of Frisian as a medium in oral use only • Experiments in progress: • 3 CLIL-schools: Dutch (obligatory for exams!); English medium (30%-50%); Frisian as a subject only • 3 Trilingual schools: Dutch, English and Frisian both as a subject and a medium Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

Common Underlying Proficiency

Bilingualism

(Cummins)

languages to make sense of their world (Cummins, e.g. 2005). the waterline, and parts of it visible, above the waterline. Underneath the waterline, the learners have experiences and knowledge of the world, as well as an understanding of how language is used to express their thoughts; all of which is independent of the language they use to express this - this is what Cummins calls Common Underlying Profi ciency. Above the waterline, there are the two or more languages bilingual learners can use to express or interpret ideas. Activating in CLIL is important because it shows us what the learners already know in terms of both language and content, i.e. it makes part of their Common Underlying Profi ciency visible to the teacher, themselves and others. Some of what learners know may be visible in their fi rst language (L1 # ); in other words, they know both the words and the concepts in their fi rst language. For example, they may know the concept of ‘metamorphosis’ and the word

metamorfose

in Dutch. This knowledge may not be visible in the second language (L2 # ), as they do not know the pronunciation (where the stress falls) and spelling of the English word

meta’ morphosis

(the ’ comes before the stressed syllable # ). What they need to add, is not the understanding of the concept, but just the label (the word

metamorphosis

and how to pronounce and spell it) in the second language. If they know neither the concept of ‘metamorphosis’ nor the language used to describe it, they will need to develop both the concept and the language at the same time.

Second language acquisition theories

Four language acquisition theories are key to understanding how we learn languages and why activating is important. These are: input theories, intake theories, interactionist theories # and output theories # . The following paragraphs brieﬂ y explain these theories. (For more information, see Lightbown & Spada, 2006).

Synergy of trilingual education through Common Underlying Proficiency

Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en Opvoeding

Synergy of multilingual education?

On base of the CUP-model / ice mountain (Cummins) students are expected to acquire more languages in relationship with each other: constructs / significants; and simultaneously. Problem 1: in school practice the watershed is persistent.

Problem 2: comparability of different target languages with regard to levels of command and the measurement. Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en Opvoeding

Conflicting policies

• Ideal: EU- & CoE-policy: mother tongue + 2 languages – multilingualism as an asset • National: stress on national language + foreign languages – discouraging regional and migrant languages • School level: reflects those conflicting policies • Solution: Concept of Multilingual Education (ME) fits better to EU- & CoE-policy  CLIL Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

School & class room

• CLIL should be reflected in didactics: • Teamwork is conditio sine qua non: - teachers of subjects and medium of instruction aiming at integral approach - common target levels of language command in the target languages • Learning strategies of pupils based on translanguaging and language use Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

Task/ambition of lector

• • Continuity of ME from primary to secondary education; adequate teacher training • Didactic approach for teacher training: - effective & integrated learning - aiming at results

Development of measurement tool for comparable results of language command; Reference levels: CEFR and Anglia (and the Dutch levels)

Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

Comparison of CEFR and Anglia levels

Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en opvoeding

Comparison CEFR-Anglia levels of language proficiency CEFR

C2 C1 B2 B1 A2 A1

Anglia

Masters Accept proficiency Advanced Intermediate Pre-intermediate Elementary Preliminary Primary Junior First step Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

for Example of CEFR levels

verb

in English (Van Dale)

Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en opvoeding

Achievable goals

• What is the most important goal for the learner?

Communicative language use

• But what can be measured on base of the CEFR and Anglia levels?

Vocabulary, syntax, morphology , …..

Uptil now multiple choice vocabulary

1. What is the translation of

paard

ko hynder peerd fôle

Example of English test

•

I _____________ the paper at the moment.

read am reading to read have read

Example of related Frisian test

•

Ik bin de krante _____________ .

te lêzen oan it lêzen lêzende lêze

Synergy of ME and the comparable measurement of target languages

To what extent can different testing systems show validated results concernig reference levels in the target languages?

To what extent can the common practice in didactics be applied towards integrated language learning?

Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en opvoeding

Conclusion

• Comparability of achievable levels of language command is related to: (a) the mother tongue of the student (b) complexity of target language (c) language rich input / quality of education • Registration of progress of language command: (a) language portfolio of student (b) student monitoring system (c) language portfolio of teacher & school (d) class / school monitoring system Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

Conclusion

• Teacher and pupil want to see progress in their results of language learning • Schools need to show “hard” comparable results of teaching • Validated tests necessary / Synergy of several tests