Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Contexts: Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives 9781783091263

Citation preview

Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Contexts

BILINGUAL EDUCATION & BILINGUALISM Series Editors: Nancy H. Hornberger (University of Pennsylvania, USA) and Colin Baker (Bangor University, Wales, UK) Bilingual Education and Bilingualism is an international, multidisciplinary series publishing research on the philosophy, politics, policy, provision and practice of language planning, global English, indigenous and minority language education, multilingualism, multiculturalism, biliteracy, bilingualism and bilingual education. The series aims to mirror current debates and discussions. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Contexts Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives

Edited by Agnieszka Otwinowska and Gessica De Angelis

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Buffalo • Toronto

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Contexts: Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives / Edited by Agnieszka Otwinowska and Gessica De Angelis. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism: 96 Includes bibliographical references. 1. Multilingual education. I. Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, Agnieszka, editor of compilation. II. De Angelis, Gessica - editor of compilation. III. Series: Bilingual education and bilingualism; 96. LC3715.T45 2014 370.117–dc23 2013032428 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-125-6 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-124-9 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA. Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada. Copyright © 2014 Agnieszka Otwinowska, Gessica De Angelis and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Techset Composition India (P) Ltd., Bangalore and Chennai, India. Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe.

Contents

Contributors Introduction: Towards Education for Multilingualism Agnieszka Otwinowska and Gessica De Angelis

vii xi

Part 1: Multilingualism in Education: Conceptual Issues and Sociolinguistic Perspectives 1 Problems in Defining the Concepts of L1, L2 and L3 Björn Hammarberg 2 Analyzing Linguistic Landscapes. A Diachronic Study of Multilingualism in Poland Hanna Komorowska 3 Rethinking Multilingualism: Complex Identities, Representations and Practices of Multilingual Student Teachers Moving through Plurilingual Times in University French Language Teacher Education Programs Julie S. Byrd Clark and Sylvie A. Lamoureux 4 Analysing Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes towards Three Languages in Two Different Sociolinguistic and Educational Settings Laura Portolés Falomir

3

19

32

50

5 EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goals of Multilingualism and Plurilingualism. A Survey of Attitudes in Poland and Croatia Katarzyna Cybulska and Višnja Kabalin Borenic´

75

6 Rethinking Urban Schools – A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Multilingualism in Frankfurt/M, Germany Tatjana Leichsering

98

v

vi

Teaching and Lear ning in Mult ilingual Conte x t s

Part 2: Students and Teachers in the Multilingual Classroom 7 The Role of Age on the Development of Written Competence in L4 English: Evidence From a Spanish/German CLIL Context Laura Sanchez 8 The Role of External Consultancy in Supporting Multilingual CLIL Teams and in Shaping School Pedagogical Culture: The Case of S. Giacomo di Laives/St Jakob Leifers (Italy) Sandra Lucietto 9 Discourse on Multilingualism, Language Competence, Use and Attitudes in German–English Bilingual Vocational Schools in Switzerland Claudine Brohy, Philippe A. Genoud and Jean-Luc Gurtner 10 Developing Metalinguistic Awareness in L3 German Classrooms Irena Horvatić Čajko 11 L3, L1 or L0? Heritage-Language Students as Third-Language Learners Márta Csire and Johanna Laakso Epilogue Education for Multilingualism: From Political Discourse to Classroom Applications Agnieszka Otwinowska and Gessica De Angelis

125

145

167 199

215 232

Contributors

Višnja Kabalin Borenić (PhD) is Head of the Department of Business Foreign Languages at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, Croatia. Besides language teaching, she has worked as a translator and language editor in several scientific journals. Her research interests include multilingualism, European language policy, ELF, L2 attitudes and motivation, languages for specific purposes and language instruction in higher education. Claudine Brohy (PhD) is a sociolinguist and Lecturer in Linguistics and German as a Foreign Language at the University of Fribourg/Freiburg, Switzerland. Her areas of interest and research include multilingualism in education, minorities and language contacts in multilingual settings, language policies and language rights, and linguistic landscape. She conducted evaluations of immersion and bilingual school programs, and is the Swiss member of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of the Council of Europe. Julie S. Byrd Clark (PhD) is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and French Language Pedagogy at the Faculty of Education at Western University, Canada. She specializes in critical applied linguistics, social approaches to bi/multilingualism and identity, language and intercultural education, politics of identity and multicultural education, and processes of social identity construction. Byrd Clark is the author of Multilingualism, Citizenship, and Identity: Voices of Youth and Symbolic Investments in an Urban, Globalized World (2009, Continuum) and has published extensively on the study of multilingualism and identity; language pedagogy; and language policy and planning. She has recently been appointed the Associate Editor for the Education for Diversities journal. Irena Horvatić Čajko (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Department of Foreign Languages, University of Zagreb, Croatia. She holds a doctoral degree from the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Zagreb. vii

viii

Teaching and Lear ning in Mult ilingual Conte x t s

She has been teaching English and German courses for special purposes to students of law and to students of public administration since 2006. Her research interest is in the area of multilingualism, especially third language acquisition in educational context. Márta Csire is Senior Lecturer of the Hungarian language at the Department for Finno-Ugric language studies at the University of Vienna, Austria. She graduated from the University of Pécs (Hungary) with an MA in Hungarian philology, Russian philology and Finno-Ugric linguistics. She worked as assistant lecturer at the Dániel Berzsenyi Teacher Training College in Szombathely, Hungary, and as Visiting Lecturer at the University of Vienna. Her main research interests include bilingualism and the teaching of Hungarian as foreign and heritage language. Katarzyna Cybulska is a PhD student in the Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw, and a Teaching Practice Coordinator at University of Social Sciences and Humanities (SWPS, Warsaw), where she teaches EFL methodology, Practical English and Business English. She also conducts EFL courses at the University of Warsaw, provides in-company language training for managers and worked as a translator for the US Embassy in Vienna. Her research interests revolve around multilingualism, language policy, language teacher education and language instruction in higher education. Gessica De Angelis (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. She received her PhD in Applied Linguistics in 2002 from Birkbeck College, University of London. Her research interests lie in the fields of third or additional language acquisition, crosslinguistic influence, multilingualism and language education. She is the author of Third or Additional Language Acquisition (2007, Multilingual Matters) and co-editor with JeanMarc Dewaele of New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research (2011, Multilingual Matters). She is Vice-President of the International Association of Multilingualism (2009-2011; 2011-2014). Laura Portolés Falomir is an Assistant Professor and member of the LAELA (Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of the English Language) research group at the Universitat Jaume I, Spain. She specialises in English learning and teaching in multilingual contexts. Her research interests include third language acquisition, affective factors, pragmatic development and multilingual education. Philippe A. Genoud (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer in Education and Psychology at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. His main areas of research are: (1) interpersonal relations and affective processes in the classroom (e.g. burnout,

Contr ibutors

ix

student motivation, social environment of classroom, emotional openness, sociometry); (2) development and validation of questionnaires with psychometric approaches. Jean-Luc Gurtner (PhD) is Professor of Educational Psychology at the Department of Education, University of Fribourg, Switzerland. His main research interests are in the domain of bilingual education, vocational training and the evolution of students’ motivation towards learning, especially during adolescence. Björn Hammarberg (PhD) is Professor Emeritus of General Linguistics at Stockholm University, Sweden. He works on second and third language theory with a focus on processes of acquisition and development in adult language learners. Recent publications include Processes in Third Language Acquisition (2009, Edinburgh University Press). Another contribution is the construction of a longitudinal corpus of spoken and written learner Swedish, available for researchers: the ASU Corpus. Hanna Komorowska (PhD), Professor of Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching, is based at the University of Warsaw and the University of Sciences and Humanities, Poland. After the fall of communism she was heading the Expert Committee for foreign language teaching and teacher education reform in Poland. Former vice-President of Warsaw University, the Polish delegate for the Modern Languages Project Group of the Council of Europe, and member of the EU High Level Group on Multilingualism in Brussels, she is now a consultant to the European Centre for Modern Languages in Graz and co-author of the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages. She publishes widely in the field of FLT methodology and teacher education. Johanna Laakso (PhD) holds the Chair of Finno-Ugric language studies at the University of Vienna, Austria. She studied Finnic languages, Finno-Ugric and general linguistics at the University of Helsinki. Her main research interests include historical and comparative Finno-Ugric linguistics, morphology (in particular, word formation), contact linguistics and multilingualism, and gender linguistics. Sylvie A. Lamoureux (PhD) is an Associate Professor at the Institut des langues officielles et du bilinguisme, University of Ottawa, Canada. Her areas of expertise are language planning and policy, curriculum foundations and analysis, teaching and learning in minority language and bilingual settings, higher education and leadership in minority language settings. She has recently co-edited two special themed issues in the Canadian Journal of Education (2010) as well as the International Journal of Language, Identity, and Education (2011).

x

Teaching and Lear ning in Mult ilingual Conte x t s

Tatjana Leichsering is a PhD candidate and a member of the research group ‘Multilingualism and Migration’ at the Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Institut für Romanische Sprachen und Literaturen (IRLL, Prof. Dr. Juergen Erfurt), Germany. She has an MA in Linguistics and Ethnology from Goethe-University. She teaches at the Linguistics department of the IRLL, with a focus on Sociolinguistics. Her research interests are situated in multilingualism and diversity management at schools, linguistic ethnography and discourse analysis as well as in identity negotiation in multilingual settings. Sandra Lucietto (PhD) is a CLIL researcher and consultant. She also is a practicing head teacher in Trento, Italy. Her research interests focus on continuous professional development (CPD), bilingual education, cognitive and linguistic scaffolding and task appropriateness in CLIL. She is Contract Professor of Didactics of L3 – Language analysis and acquisition at the Free University of Bolzano/Bozen, Italy. She is the editor and main author of . . . . e allora . . . CLIL! (2008), and has published widely in the fields of CLIL and teacher education, both in Italian and in English. Agnieszka Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (PhD) is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw, Poland. Her professional interests focus on the area of crosslinguistic influences and individual differences in bilingual and multilingual language acquisition, and on language teaching, including bilingual education. As an active teacher and teacher trainer, she co-edited a volume on CLIL in the Polish educational context and co-authored four series of ELT course books used in Polish primary and secondary schools. She also acts as an external expert for the Educational Research Institute, Poland. Laura Sanchez (PhD) is a Lecturer at the University of Barcelona English and German Philology Department, Spain, where she teaches courses on English descriptive grammar, ESL writing, and bi/multilingualism. Her main research concerns are crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third or additional language, and the roles that the factors proficiency, age, and input play on such influence from the L2 and the L1. She is also interested in the investigation of writing development, especially in the non-native acquisition of English and German by child and adult learners.

Introduction Towards Education for Multilingualism Agnieszka Otwinowska and Gessica De Angelis

Recognising the multilingual nature of societies and the multilingualism of individual citizens as commonplace is a long and challenging process. The social, political and economic differences between regions of the world make comprehensive solutions hard to propose and to implement across the board. In most Western societies, including European countries, policy makers emphasise the need to develop individual multilingualism and recognise a growing need to teach multilingual students more effectively within mainstream education. In countries and regions that are linguistically more homogeneous, educators are mostly concerned with the teaching of foreign and minority languages. The situation is different in the countries that deal with multilingualism in society and in the school context, where teaching largely depends on local histories and needs. Here the variation of practice often results from a trial-and-error approach to teaching students and training teachers who are either bi/multilingual or live in bi/multilingual environments. Sometimes, it seems that educators are reinventing the wheel every time they implement strategies for bi/multilingualism within the school contexts. A closer look at local realities, however, shows a number of common themes and practices, shared aims and preoccupations, and often similar solutions. The present volume was conceived with the intention to capture how such shared aims and concerns are dealt with and resolved in different contexts with respect to teachers and students in mainstream education. An essential feature of the volume is therefore its broad geographical representation. We included chapters that represent research conducted in various countries where multilingualism is present in the school contexts. These countries are Canada, Poland, Spain, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and Austria. Our objective is to show what learning and teaching in

xi

xii

Teaching and Lear ning in Mult ilingual Conte x t s

multilingual contexts involve and how teachers and students are gradually moving from a monolingual to a multilingual conception of society and education. The volume, however, does not aspire to present a holistic view of education around the world, so it may be disappointing to those readers who are seeking global recipes for fostering individual multilingualism and for teaching in multilingual settings. Instead, the chapters point to problems and solutions that are defined by particular sociolinguistic contexts. The importance of the issues discussed lies in the fact that they may be extended to similar contexts in other countries. The volume is unique because it introduces a strong element of conceptual matters that deserve to be taken into account in the practical application. It also draws attention to how these conceptual aspects of defining multilingualism are ‘translated’ into social contexts and into working with multilingual individuals of varied language biographies. The theoretical debates concerning the status of multiple languages acquired point to the need for conceptualising multiple language acquisition alternatively to the traditional L1, L2, L3 model. Attention is drawn to the fundamental distinction between native languages and non-native languages, which helps to better grasp and understand the nature of multilingualism. The chapters of the volume present the issues of multilingual education through the prism of all the five types of social settings where L2/ L3–Ln is acquired (extended to multilingual contexts from Siegel, 2003). The dominant L2/L3 setting (often called the majority language context) means that the language acquired is the dominant language of the majority of population and is used in all domains of everyday life. The people learning/using the majority language are predominantly immigrants, for instance as in the case of Africans in Germany (Chapter 6). Here, education may result in subtractive bi/multilingualism, that is the attrition of the native language competence, mostly for social reasons and due to the negative attitudes towards the minority languages. The minority L2 setting is when the speakers of the dominant language learn the minority language, which is rare and usually happens in naturalistic rather than classroom context (e.g. Poles learning Kashubian, or Lithuanian, Chapter 2). A very special case described in the volume is that of speakers of heritage languages, whose competences in their native language are very limited, relative to their competence in the majority language. This is the case of Hungarians in Austria (Chapter 11), whose knowledge of German is much better than of Hungarian, but they make a conscious decision to study their home/heritage language. In the three settings described below, learning and acquiring languages usually results in additive bi/multilingualism, if attitudes and motivation for learning are positive. In the external setting, the speakers of a language dominant in the region are learning a foreign language, or a lingua franca (e.g. Swiss students learning French in Switzerland, Chapter 9, or Croats learning English and German in Croatia, Chapter 10). The coexisting L2 settings are

Introduc t ion

xiii

multilingual environments where users of languages are of similar status and the languages are used in similar domains (e.g. Italian and German in South Tyrol, Chapter 8, or English and French in Canada, Chapter 3). The last type is the institutional L2 setting (sometimes called the official language context), when L2 is widely used in some domains and institutions, but for most of the population it is the additional language (e.g. Spanish in Catalonia, Chapter 4). Each of these settings triggers different problems to individual multilingual learners/users and to the institutionalised education. The reader will find that the questions asked in different sociolinguistic settings are often strikingly similar, which uncovers an underlying shift in thinking on how we conceptualise multilingualism in education. At the societal level, several chapters discuss individual multilingualism in relation to language policy development and identify a general need to adopt a plurilingual approach to educational policies (Chapters 2, 4 and 9). At the individual level, we see a general trend to have students and teachers reflect on who they are, and what multilingualism means to them. Authors ask how teachers view themselves as bi/multilinguals, how they find their own space and dimension in a multilingual society and educational context (Chapters 3 and 8) and what affects their views about language learning (Chapters 9 and 5). Questions related to finding one’s space and dimension in a multilingual context are also asked to students and about students: how they see themselves (Chapter 6) and what affects their learning progress (Chapter 7, 10 and 11). A multilingual identity search seems to be present in all of the contexts represented in this volume. Multilingualism is widely perceived to be a positive phenomenon. Indeed, there is evidence that having knowledge of two or more languages positively affects cognitive development (Adescope et al., 2010; Bialystok, 1987, 2001, 2011; Bialystok et al., 2004) and the process of acquiring additional languages (Cenoz, 2001, 2003; Cenoz & Hoffmann, 2003; Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; De Angelis & Jessner, 2012; Lasagabaster, 2000; Sanz, 2000). In the volume, some chapters discuss the general expectation that multilingualism in school equals positive results (Chapters 7 and 9). Sanchez, in particular, discusses how parents expect children in CLIL programmes to succeed, as if teaching for multilingualism automatically meant success. She then provides interesting evidence on the age factor, suggesting that multiple language learning may turn into an asset only after a certain age is reached. We are also aware that in the school context immigrants, who are often bi/multilingual, do not perform as well as their monolingual peers (Miller & Warren, 2011). How do we then reconcile positive and negative expectations and outcomes of multilingualism in the school context? It is clear to most of us that individual and societal multilingualism cannot be dealt with uniformly. We must be prepared to move away from a monolingual to a multilingual conceptualisation of language knowledge, language policy and individual multilingualism, and this is precisely what is happening in the educational

xiv

Teaching and Lear ning in Mult ilingual Conte x t s

contexts discussed in the various contributions to this volume. The linguistic plurality and diversity that one finds in all of the countries examined stand in strong opposition to the one country–one language policy, which used to be promoted in the Western civilisation for over two centuries (Hornberger, 2002; Mesthrie, 2010). Thanks to the introduction of the Bologna Process in the education field and the European language policy devised by the Council of Europe, the European Union has focused on promoting individual multilingualism (Council of Europe, 2001; European Commission, 2005) and intercomprehension (Council of Europe, 2007; Doyé, 2005; European Commission, 2005, 2007). Two key competences for lifelong learning involve communication in the mother tongue, which is the ability to interact linguistically in an appropriate and creative manner in a full range of societal and cultural contexts (express and interpret concepts, thoughts, feelings, facts and opinions in both oral and written form), as well as communication in foreign languages, which also involves mediation and intercultural understanding. What is emphasised is the development of partial competences, which denotes a limited ability of some kind within a given language, as well as transversal competences: transferable knowledge or skills across languages which may be used for varied purposes (Council of Europe, 2001). One of the essential aims of multilingual education is the development of plurilingual competence through ‘a manner of teaching, not necessarily restricted to language teaching, which aims to raise awareness of each individual’s language repertoire, to emphasise its worth and to extend this repertoire by teaching lesser used or unfamiliar languages’ (Council of Europe, 2007: 116). Idealistic picture aside, the Council of Europe admits that even in rich European societies a significant number of people, including children and young people in formal education, have only a limited command of the language of the region or country where they reside. At the same time, young multilingual people who have two or even three first languages, are not necessarily fully literate in both or all of them. This is due to the fact that apart from the official EU languages, several hundred languages are spoken and used across Europe, including other official European languages, regional languages and non-European languages, often referred to as migrant languages (Mackiewicz, 2011). If these interact with the five social settings defined above, the educational puzzle to solve becomes rather complex. Canada shares a similar situation due to the massive migrations to the country that took place in the past and which continues, although to a much lesser extent, to the present day. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which was passed in 1988, made Canada ‘the first country to adopt an official multiculturalism policy, reaffirming multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian Society’ (Kiernan, 2011: 18). In addition to being an officially bilingual nation, Canada went through substantial demographic changes within a few decades and the number of people who do not speak either official language in the home has grown as a result. It is estimated that

Introduc t ion

xv

in areas like Toronto and Vancouver, about 40% of the population now comprises foreign-born immigrants (Duff, 2007). Multilingualism is certainly a tangible and visible reality in schools and society at large and this is why we included a discussion about policy development in Canada in this volume. It exemplifies the identity issues that Canada has been dealing with through its language and education policies, as well as the experience of multilingual individuals with mixed linguistic identities. It is worth remembering that education does not take place in a vacuum, but in a well-specified linguistic landscape marking the relative power and status of the linguistic communities inhabiting the territory (Landry & Bourhis, 1997). Admittedly, the language most widely spoken and taught across Europe and the rest of the world is English. Thus, a lot of language education means teaching English. No matter how much has been said about the dominant role of English and linguistic imperialism (cf. Byram & Feng, 2004; Cummins & Davison, 2007; Phillipson, 1992, 2007), the primacy of English has numerous consequences for the users of the less widely spoken languages. Breidbach (2003) addresses the delicate question of the role of English within a framework of multilingualism, with reference to participation in various public fori. Whereas at the national level proficiency and literacy in the national and minority languages do suffice, at the international level it is English that is the predominant means of communication and comprehension. It is the linguistic means to give speakers, especially speakers of lesser-used languages, their voice within public discourse; thus, individual multilingualism should entail very good knowledge of English. This remains in accordance with Aronin and Singleton (2012), who see contemporary multilingualism in terms of Dominant Language Constellations rather than individual languages known to the speaker. We view multilingualism as both a societal and individual phenomenon (Aronin, 2006; Aronin & Hufeisen, 2009) and these two aspects underlie the volume organisation. The first section relates to the sociolinguistics of multilingualism and education. The goal of the chapters is to explore the issues associated with terminology, linguistic landscapes, teacher beliefs, identity formation, immigration and attitudes. The second section focuses on the learning process and students and teachers in the multilingual classroom. The section explores CLIL teaching and issues associated with raising language awareness and metalinguistic awareness in multilingual learners. It also draws attention to the methods of enhancing the effectiveness of teaching in multilingual settings. The entire collection of chapters makes use of qualitative as well as quantitative approaches to the study of multilingualism in education ranging from questionnaires to semi-structured interviews, focus groups, e-mail exchanges, observations, picture-story telling tasks, analysis of official documents and language competence tests. The volume opens with the present Introduction. The first part, which focuses on conceptual and sociolinguistic issues, begins with Chapter 1 by

xvi

Teaching and Lear ning in Mult ilingual Conte x t s

Björn Hammarberg that we believe to be fundamental for educational research in multilingualism. Hammarberg’s contribution deals with the conceptualisation of the terms L1, L2 and L3 in the literature, which turns out to be particularly problematic with the increased interest in multilingualism and third language acquisition. The chapter aims to elucidate the inconsistent term usage in this area, identify its various defining criteria and discuss the basis for adopting a coherent and adequate terminology. The various conceptions of L1, L2 and L3 found in the literature are analysed and discussed in terms of six current models of the acquisitional hierarchy that underlie the ranking of the languages. On the one hand, purely chronologically based models are presented, and on the other models based on a cognitive criterion. As the author points out, the terms L1, L2 and L3 are being used in two different functions: (1) describing the gradual expansion and size of the speaker’s linguistic repertoire, and (2) characterising the status of the speaker’s languages in relation to specific situations. Hammarberg proposes using separate sets of terms for these two functions as a way of sorting out the concepts, thus contributing to a clearer terminology. The following five chapters in the section focus on sociolinguistic perspectives and illustrate the association between society and the individual in relation to education. Chapter 2 by Hanna Komorowska examines the past, the present and the future of mono-, pluri- and multilingualism in Poland. She presents a shift in the linguistic landscape of Poland, from multilingualism and multiculturalism open to otherness, through the long-term effects of the partitioning and Poland’s disappearance from the map in the 19th century, to the post-war frontier forced monolingualism of the population. She discusses the present-day situation of ethnic, regional and non-territorial languages, as well as the Polish educational policy striving to increase the social mobility of Poles through promoting language learning. The next three chapters in the section focus the attitudes and beliefs of teacher trainees in four different regions. Chapter 3 by Julie S. Byrd Clark and Sylvie Lamoureux offers a non-European perspective. It examines the significance of multilingualism in Canada through the voices and discursive practices of multilingual teacher trainees participating in French as a second language (FSL) programme in the multicultural landscapes of Toronto and Windsor, Ontario. The official educational policies have not expanded to include societal multilingualism despite the emergence of youth with increasingly complex linguistic repertoires. Drawing upon a reflexive ethnographic approach and discourse analysis of audio/video-recorded interviews and focus groups, they put forth a call to reconceptualise multilingualism. They propose to rethink the notion of language learning as investment. They explore how and why people engage with languages and language learning in the ways that they do, and what they actually do with language(s) at different times, places and within multiple spaces. This contribution has

Introduc t ion

xvii

implications for all those involved in language education and bears implications far beyond Canadian classrooms. The following two chapters on teachers’ attitudes towards multilingualism show how teacher trainees understand multilingualism in three very different corners of Europe, within completely different linguistic landscapes: a bilingual Spanish province, Poland – an EU country from the former soviet bloc – and Croatia. Chapter 4 by Laura Portolés Falomir provides an analysis of prospective teachers’ attitudes towards three languages in two different sociolinguistic settings in Spain. The study examines the role of the mother tongue and the linguistic educational model on teachers’ attitudes towards three languages used in the Valencian community: the minority language (Catalan), the majority language (Spanish) and a foreign language (English). The prospective teachers were being trained in two different universities with quite dissimilar linguistic policies: a public university and a private Catholic university. Results from the analysis seem to confirm previous findings on the overruling effect of the mother tongue, pointing to the linguistic educational model as having a role in forming language attitudes towards the minority, majority and third language in multilingual communities. Chapter 5 by Katarzyna Cybulska and Višnja Kabalin Borenić offers a comparison of EFL teacher trainee attitudes in two contexts: Poland and Croatia. The authors argue that language instructors have a strategic role in enhancing learners’ plurilingual competence and maintaining linguistic diversity in Europe. They offer an interesting picture of differences in attitude between EFL teacher trainees in Poland and Croatia and also point to differences arising from being multilingual. The last chapter in the section, Chapter 6 by Tatjana Leichsering, provides a sociolinguistic analysis of multilingual environments in Germany, with special reference to urban schools in Frankfurt. Despite the reality of the constantly increasing migrant population, it turns out that the schools in the study, as well as teachers working in those institutions, are not prepared to adequately handle multilingualism and cultural plurality. Thus, pupils with a migration background often fail in their educational careers and end up with lower qualifications than their non-migrant peers. Through a qualitative study, the chapter shows that in public as well as in scientific discourse, the question of how to deal with cultural and linguistic heterogeneity is highly controversial. Drawing on ethnographic research carried out in multilingual school settings, the chapter focuses on the links between language(s) and the dynamics of social categorisation and social interaction. It points out how ethnic, cultural or linguistic properties are ascribed to individuals or groups on the basis of language proficiency in German and prestigious foreign languages. This chapter provides a transition into the next thematic section which includes five chapters on students and teachers in the multilingual classroom and the language learning process.

xviii

Teaching and Lear ning in Mult ilingual Conte x t s

The first chapter of this section, Chapter 7 by Laura Sanchez, opens the discussion on CLIL. It examines the roles of CLIL instruction and age in the development of written competence in L4 English in addition to L3 German. More specifically, her quantitative study examines whether instructional time and biological age affects the acquisition process and the rate of learning. Spanish/Catalan bilingual learners of L4 English were asked to complete a story-telling task in English. Students’ output was then assessed on measures of fluency, grammatical complexity and accuracy. The author presents evidence of age affecting the rate of learning and discusses the broader implication of the overall findings of her study. The next two chapters show how cooperation between university scholars and schools may provide a smooth development of multilingual teaching. In Chapter 8, Sandra Lucietto reports on a consultancy project carried out in a province of Bolzano/Bozen, which is a highly complex multilingual territory in the North of Italy characterised by the presence of three linguistic/ cultural communities (Italian, German and Ladin). For several years, schools, local communities and teacher training/research institutions have worked on small-scale projects to explore the ways of teaching the L2 which best lead to effective individual multilingualism. The chapter highlights the characteristics of one of these projects (institutional, organisational, pedagogical and methodological), its main results, strengths and weaknesses, success conditions and elements transferable for a future provincial language policy. It focuses on the teacher development mentoring programme which has supported the teaching team, the integrated pedagogical approach applied in class and the use of a range of strategies/tools which aim to develop pluriliteracy. Chapter 9 by Claudine Brohy, Philippe A. Genoud and Jean-Luc Gurtner deals with the context of officially quadrilingual Switzerland, where students learn a second national language and English during compulsory education, while additional languages are offered on an optional basis, which is the overt educational language policy. However, the language situation is much more complex since a strong diglossic situation between Swiss– German and standard German prevails in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, and, to a lesser extent, in the Italian-speaking areas. In addition, in all schools and workplaces, many migrant languages are used. The authors focus on the development of multilingualism in 10 vocational schools in the canton of Zurich, offering bilingual modules, mostly in English. These CLIL modules called bili have been implemented to bridge the language gap between the learning of several languages during compulsory schooling and the increasingly multilingual workplace. Many apprentices in vocational schools receive instruction for one or two days a week then work the rest of the week in companies (the dual vocational system), but do not learn foreign languages at school any longer, so bili replaces foreign language classes in many schools. The authors focus on an evaluation of the CLIL programmes, regarding the acceptance of the English modules by students, teachers and

Introduc t ion

xix

headmasters, and the development of competencies in English as well as the participants’ perceptions of multilingualism. Chapter 10 by Irena Horvatić Čajko discusses developing metalinguistic awareness in L3 German classrooms in Croatia. The chapter focuses on an experiment which showed that systematic input with the purpose of establishing cross-linguistics relations among the students’ L1 Croatian, L2 English and L3 German may influence the level of L3 mastering and support the development of students’ metalinguistic awareness. The experiment included four classes at the secondary school level. The students taking part in the experiment received input divided into five modules, each consisting of exercises that required cross-linguistic inferencing at the lexical, morphological, syntactic and textual level. The exercises were accompanied by questions supporting the development of metalinguistic awareness. Her data suggest that there is a potential and ability on the part of students to reflect on and communicate about language and language learning processes. However, space in language curricula and in the class work is needed in order to support students in their multilingual discovery of languages. In the last chapter in the volume, Chapter 11 by Márta Csire and Johanna Laakso introduce yet a different perspective on adult foreign language classrooms. What their students lack is precisely metalinguistic awareness that would help them develop their home language. The authors discuss problems of heritage-language students as third-language learners on the basis of the situation of Hungarian speakers in Austria who are second- or even thirdgeneration speakers of Hungarian in the Austrian education system. Some of them explicitly wish to study their heritage language, which is in most cases taught as a foreign language. Heritage-language speakers, with their diverse skills in Hungarian, are treated on par with those students who are learning it as L3/L4 and so on. Learning the heritage language as L3/L4 means a new challenge for the students, while it seems that their bilingual background does not support the learning process. The chapter illustrates the problems of heritagelanguage learners and discusses why a less dominant, less prestigious and less confidently used heritage language (‘L0’) is different from L1/L2 of bilinguals. The volume closes with an Epilogue by the editors where we offer a review of the key points of discussion developed within the volume and highlight how each chapter has contributed to current debates by providing fresh empirical data and novel perspectives on multilingualism and education. We sincerely hope that the present volume, unique in bringing together conceptual, sociolinguistic and educational perspectives on learning and teaching in various multilingual contexts, will show readers how education for multilingualism can be dealt with, and how it is understood by both students and teachers. We believe that the volume will be of interest to all those involved in educational research, as well as those interested in second and multilingual language acquisition. It should also appeal to teacher educators, graduate and doctoral students in language education.

xx

Teaching and Lear ning in Mult ilingual Conte x t s

References Adescope, O.O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T. and Ungerleider, C. (2010) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research 80 (2), 207–245. Aronin, L. (2006) Dominant language constellations: An approach to multilingualism studies. In M. Ó Laoire (ed.) Multilingualism in Educational Settings (pp. 140–159). Hohengehren: Schneider Verlag. Aronin, L. and Singleton, D. (2012) Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Aronin, L. and Hufeisen, B. (2009) The Exploration of Multilingualism. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bialystok, E. (1987) Influences of bilingualism on metalinguistic development. Second Language Research 3, 154–166. Bialystok, E. (2001) Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E. (2011) Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 65, 229–235. Bialystok, E., Craik F., Klein R. and Viswanathan W. (2004) Bilingualism, aging and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging 19, 290–303. Breidbach, S. (2003) Plurilingualism, Democratic Citizenship in Europe and the Role of English. University of Bremen Language Policy Division. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Byram, M. and Feng, A.W. (2004) Culture and language learning: Teaching, research and scholarship. Language Teaching 37, 149–168. Cenoz, J. (2001) The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen and U. Jessner (eds) Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 8–20). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2003) The additive effect of bilingualism in third language acquisition: A review. International Journal of Bilingualism 7 (1), 71–87. Cenoz, J. and Hoffmann, C. (2003) Acquiring a third language: What role does bilingualism play? International Journal of Bilingualism 7 (1), 1–6. Cenoz, J. and Valencia, J.F. (1994) Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics 15, 195–207. Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/Framework_ EN.pdf (accessed 1 August 2012). Council of Europe (2007) From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for the Development of Language Policies in Europe. Main version. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Guide_Main_Beacco2007_ EN.doc (accessed 2 August 2011). Cummins, J. and Davison, C. (2007) The global scope and politics of ELT: Critiquing current policies and programs. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds) International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 3–11). New York: Springer. De Angelis, G. and Jessner, U. (2012) Writing across languages in a bilingual context: A dynamic systems theory approach. In R.M. Manchòn (ed.) L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 47–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Doyé, P. (2005) Intercomprehension. Guide for the Development of Language Policies in Europe: From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. www. coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Doye%20EN.pdf (accessed 1 August 2012). Duff, P. (2007) Multilingualism in Canadian schools: Myths, realities and possibilities. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 (2), 149–163.

Introduc t ion

xxi

European Commission (2005) A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism. COM (2005) 596. http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/archive/doc/com596_en.pdf (accessed 12 June 2010). European Commission (2007) Final Report. High Level Group on Multilingualism. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. http:// ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf (accessed 6 August 2012). Hornberger, N.H. (2002) Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy 1, 27–51. Kiernan, J.E. (2011) The Canadian context: Monolingual education in an ‘officially’ multilingual country. The Reading Matrix 11 (1), 16–33. Landry, R. and Bourhis, R.Y. (1997) Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16, 23–49. Lasagabaster, D. (2000) Language learning and the development of metalinguistic awareness. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 1/00, 103–116. Mackiewicz, W. (2011) Linguistic competences and the development of modern European society. Inauguration lecture. Conference multilingual competences for professional and social success in Europe, Warsaw, 28–29 September 2011. http://konferencje.frse. org.pl/img/Mfile/290/file.pdf (accessed 6 August 2012). Mesthrie, R. (2010) Sociolinguistics and sociology of language. In B. Spolsky and F.M. Hult (eds) The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell. Miller, D.C. and Warren, L.K. (2011) Comparative indicators of education in the United States and other G-8 countries: 2011. National Center for Education Statistics. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2007) English, no longer a foreign language in Europe? In J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds) International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 123–137). New York: Springer. Sanz, C. (2000) Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics 21, 23–44. Siegel, J. (2003) Social context. In C. Doughty and M. Long (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 178–223). Oxford: Blackwell.

Part 1 Multilingualism in Education: Conceptual Issues and Sociolinguistic Perspectives

1

Problems in Defining the Concepts of L1, L2 and L3 Björn Hammarberg

Introduction With the increased interest in multilingualism and third language acquisition (TLA) in recent years, and the rapidly expanding research in the area, several authors have felt the need to review and reflect on parts of the terminology used in this field (Aronin et al., 2011; De Angelis, 2007; Franceschini, 2009; Hammarberg, 2010; Kemp, 2009). When the research perspective is shifted from a bilateral view, which has prevailed in language learning theory (bilingualism; L1/L2; second language acquisition) to situations that explicitly involve more complex language settings and new areas of inquiry, the use of established terms may in some cases lead to complications. This is true even of very basic terms, such as first language (L1), second language (L2) and, not least, third language (L3), which will be at the centre of the following discussion. The use of the terms L1, L2 and L3 in the literature is quite disparate. Thus, for example, in the area of second language acquisition (SLA) research, the term ‘second language’ or ‘L2’ usually refers to (a) any non-native language in a speaker’s repertoire, whereas in third language acquisition (TLA) studies, it is often used for (b) the chronologically second language acquired by a speaker. In the field of TLA, or language acquisition in a multilingual context, ‘third language’ or ‘L3’ may stand for (a) the chronologically third language (a frequent conception), or (b) the next language encountered after the simultaneous acquisition of two languages in early infancy (Cenoz, 2000), or (c) any non-native language currently being acquired by a speaker who is already familiar with one or more other non-native languages (e.g. Williams & Hammarberg, 2009 [1998]). In addition (d), the notion ‘third or additional language’ is used instead of ‘third language’ (De Angelis, 2007). The purpose of the following considerations is to try to elucidate this rather inconsistent usage of the term, identify its various defining criteria 3

4

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

and discuss the basis for adopting a coherent and adequate terminology in this area of research. In the first place, this is a matter of identifying the concepts for which there is need and how these are related to each other, and in the second place to consider how they can best be named by terms. It appears timely to discuss this issue while TLA studies are still a fairly new branch of research, in the process of becoming more firmly established. We can observe an increasing focus today on language acquisition in a multilingual context.1 It is being taken into account that people’s acquisition and alternate use of several languages is a natural and extremely widespread phenomenon. Many researchers assume bi- or multilingualism to be as frequent or more frequent in the world than monolingualism (see e.g. Aronin & Singleton, 2008: 2, 2012: 41; Cook, 1992: 578; de Bot, 1992: 2; Grosjean, 1982: vii; Hakuta, 1986: 4–6; Kecskes, 2010: 93; Tucker, 1998: 4). It is a fact that all humans have the capacity to acquire and use several languages. Speakers tend to develop bi- and multilingual competence in the course of their lives, in some cases starting in early infancy. It can be argued that the multilingual potential is an integral part of the human language faculty, and that multilingualism, rather than monolingualism, should be seen as the normal form of (mature) linguistic competence. In this perspective, the developing multilingual competence is a key area of research. Some of the fundamental aspects of this competence are mentioned as follows: One is its holistic nature, the way a speaker’s competence in various languages forms a unique and coherent whole, a multicompetence (Cook, 1991, 1992, 1993; cf. Grosjean, 1985), rather than constituting separated monolingual competences. The speaker’s languages are assumed to form subsets within the same cognitive system (Paradis, 1981, 2004). They get simultaneously activated to varying degrees during comprehension and production (Green, 1986), which forms a basis for crosslinguistic influence (CLI). Depending on various factors in the speech situation, a speaker may adopt different language modes: a monolingual mode, striving to adhere to the use of one language, or a bi- or multilingual mode, allowing transfer and codeswitching more freely (Grosjean, 2001). Another aspect concerns the hierarchical relations between the languages in the speaker’s mind, relations which have motivated the use of rank designations such as primary versus secondary system (Weinreich, 1953: 14), tertiary language (Hufeisen & Lindemann, 1998) or the common ordering of speakers’ languages as first, second, third and so on (L1, L2, L3…). A crucial question then is, what is the nature of this hierarchy? It is essential to clarify this question in order to understand the concepts that are commonly called L1, L2 and L3. The following section will deal with identifying the hierarchical relations between a learner’s languages on which current research in the area is based, starting with the basic distinction between a native and a nonnative language, and continuing with more complex situations involving

Problems in Def ining the Concept s of L1, L2 and L 3

5

more languages. This will result in identifying several alternative models that underlie current conceptions of an acquisitional hierarchy. In the subsequent section, the properties and problems connected with these models will be discussed, as well as implications for the use of terms. The concluding section will comment on the rise of a terminology which is no longer quite adequate, and ways of handling the current terminological situation.

Identifying a Hierarchy for the Acquisition of Languages L1 and L2 in the SLA tradition An individual acquires languages during different periods of life, be it simultaneously, successively or in reciprocal alternation. Various factors in the acquisitional history (age, chronology, amount of exposition and use, context and manner of acquisition, affective factors, etc.) contribute to differences in how the speaker processes, acquires and masters the different languages. In the SLA tradition, a simple division is made between L1 and L2. A basic question then is, what is the fundamental difference between an L1 and an L2? Among the various aspects in which a person’s languages may differ (such as time of acquisition, level of proficiency, amount and domains of use, subjective identification; cf. discussion in Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981: 12–16), the type of criterion taken to define the concepts of L1 and L2 is usually one of time-relation. Since the alternative rank orderings of a person’s languages according to time, proficiency, use or identification often do not yield the same result, it is important to keep these criteria apart so that it is possible to profile them against each other. The current discussion of criteria for defining L1 and L2 will thus focus on the time dimension. Two major timerelated criteria can be discerned in the SLA literature: (1) Chronological order of acquisition. This means that L1 and L2 are defined through the priority/posteriority distinction. L1, being encountered first, develops as the original system, and L2 is subsequently added to the already established L1. (2) Cognitive maturity. This criterion is based on the cognitive development that comes with age during early childhood. The crucial distinction is the one between a language encountered and acquired up to a certain level during infancy, the period in which the child’s linguistic categories, patterns and rules of use are first shaped, and a language encountered at a later age. This is not just a chronological division, but it

6

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

reflects a difference in the individual’s stages of maturational, social and intellectual development. The distinction is the one between a native language (NL) and a non-native language (NNL). In a simple case with one language acquired from birth and another added after early childhood, the terms L1 and L2 can be interpreted according to either of the two criteria. But when these terms are also applied to more complex cases where a speaker has multiple NLs and/or NNLs, so that L1 comes to be used for one or more NLs and L2 for one or more NNLs, as has become customary in SLA research, this implies that the distinction is made according to the cognitive maturity criterion: any NL is designated as an L1 and any NNL as an L2. This has in effect become the standard conception of L1 and L2 in the field of SLA. The validity of the NL/NNL distinction is evident when a language acquired from birth is compared to a language added in adolescence or adulthood. Thus, in contrast to an NL, we can observe that an NNL is usually subject to fossilisation, and that crosslinguistic influence tends to affect NNLs in regular ways, symptoms that bear witness to cognitively based differences between NL and NNL. In a neurolinguistic context, Paradis (2004, 2008, 2009) distinguishes between implicit linguistic competence in L1 and explicit metalinguistic knowledge of L2. His use of L1 and L2 here corresponds to NL and NNL. To summarise, the former is acquired incidentally, stored implicitly, used automatically, sustained by procedural memory, and involves different parts of the brain than the latter, which is learned consciously, stored explicitly, consciously controlled when used, and sustained by declarative memory (Paradis, 2008: 343). Paradis emphasises that the two mechanisms are distinct, but he allows for gradual replacement of explicit knowledge by implicit competence in L2 users through practice. ‘As a skill becomes more proficient, processing shifts from the use of one mechanism (controlled, declarative) to another (automatic, procedural). […] Practice leads to the replacement of controlled processes by automatic processes, thus improving automaticity’ (Paradis, 2004: 36, italics in original). A process of shift of mechanisms also seems to take place when an infant grows older and the NL type of acquiring and storing a new language is gradually replaced by an NNL type. For a period, the young child is thus likely to undergo a transition process during which a new language shows both NL and NNL characteristics. Different researchers vary somewhat as to how this process should be located in time. Paradis (2008) sets the endpoint for L1-type acquisition at about age five. McLaughlin (1984) posits age three as a practical cutoff point between FLA and SLA. Meisel (2011), reviewing research on neural maturation and age, finds that changes in the direction from L1-type to L2-type acquisition seem to take place at least up to age seven, with some crucial changes around age four. Hyltenstam

Problems in Def ining the Concept s of L1, L2 and L 3

7

and Abrahamsson (2003), investigating age of onset of acquisition and ultimate attainment, report effects that appear to indicate that the child’s capacity for L1-type acquisition starts decreasing successively already shortly after birth. What is constant in these findings is that the transition from NL to NNL acquisition proceeds with a temporal overlap, which, however, does not rule out the relevance of the NL/NNL distinction.

Beyond a two-level distinction The exploration of TLA, or more generally, language acquisition by previously bi- or multilingual persons, means that the complexity of the learner’s language background is being taken into account. A basic finding is that being already bi- or multilingual creates a different basis for acquiring a further language as compared to acquiring an NNL for the first time. There is evidence for various positive effects of bilingualism on cognitive development, metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills, as well as on attaining proficiency in a further language; cf. Cenoz (2003) for a review of research. An open question which still needs closer study and clarification is whether it makes a difference in these respects if the speaker’s bilingualism is of a successive or a simultaneous type. In other words, does it matter whether the learner’s bilingual background when acquiring a further language has the form of NL + NNL or NL + NL (in Cenoz’ terms, L1 → L2 → L3 or Lx/ Ly → L3)? For the time being, I will deal with situations in which multilingual learners have prior experience of NNL acquisition, that is cases in which the learner possesses one or more prior NNLs as well as one or more NLs. Reasons for this focus are the role of a prior NNL as proposed in Hufeisen’s (1998, 2005) Factor-Model, and also findings regarding the effect of L2 status, to which I shall return below. In Hufeisen’s Factor-Model, the conditions for successively acquiring L1, L2 and L3 are compared (Hufeisen, 2005: 37f.). These three consecutive situations are captured as bundles of factors of increasing complexity. Factors already present in L1 acquisition are the following: • •

Neurophysiological factors: for example, general language acquisition capability, age. Learner external factors: for example, learning environment, type and amount of input.

L2 learning involves in addition •

Affective factors: for example, motivation, anxiety, assessment of own language proficiency, perceived closeness/distance between the languages, attitudes, individual life experiences.

8

• •

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Cognitive factors: for example, language awareness, metalinguistic awareness, learning awareness, learner type awareness, learning strategies, individual learning experiences. Prior knowledge of L1.

L3 learning is further shaped by • •

Foreign language specific factors: individual foreign language learning experiences and strategies, previous language interlanguages, interlanguage of target language. The added prior knowledge of L2.

Hufeisen views L2 and L3 in the context of instructed foreign language learning, but it is hardly likely that the conditions for naturalistic NNL language acquisition should be decisively different in the respects that she mentions. If this model, extended to also include non-instructed acquisition, correctly captures the factors at work, there are qualitatively distinct sets of conditions for acquiring L1, L2 and L3. By contrast, the set of factors that shape L3 acquisition does not change in any decisive qualitative way if the learner goes on to acquire further languages, according to Hufeisen (although a quantitative increase in e.g. knowledge of language facts, language awareness and skill in using strategies does arise; cf. e.g. Mißler, 1999, 2000). This means that the two-level distinction usually made in research on bilingualism and SLA is replaced by a three-level distinction for multilingual learners. Hufeisen assumes a chronological sequence of one L1, one L2, one L3 and so forth. If instead the NL/NNL division is applied, extending usual SLA practice, the three levels will be NL–First NNL–Non-first NNL. (The principal modification of Hufeisen’s model in this case will be that possible multiple NLs will entail the acquisition of multiple language knowledge and crosslinguistic awareness already at the NL level, which will affect the starting position for the following levels.). Hufeisen identifies prior L2 knowledge and L2-specific learning experiences as the crucial factors which make L3 learning different from L2 learning. This suggests a specific role for a prior NNL in the multilingual learner’s linguistic background. TLA research in the recent decades has amply attested that not only NLs, but also prior NNLs may become activated in further NNL acquisition, contrary to a common earlier belief. Various interacting factors, such as crosslinguistic similarity, language proficiency, recency of use, and certain other factors, are known to contribute to lowering the activation threshold for a particular background language and thus favour crosslinguistic influence from that language on the acquisition of the current target language (see Falk & Bardel, 2010, for a recent state-of-the-art account). A particular indication that there is an additional cause for a prior L2 to become activated, as compared to an L1, are the recent findings regarding an

Problems in Def ining the Concept s of L1, L2 and L 3

9

L2 status effect, that is, the observation that the status of being a non-native language furthers CLI from that language. The notion that L2 status constitutes a factor that interacts on a regular basis with the other CLI-promoting factors mentioned above was proposed by Williams and Hammarberg (1998, reissued 2009). Several authors have documented and discussed L2 status effects in various language constellations and in various areas of language: lexis (Bono, 2011; De Angelis, 2005; Williams & Hammarberg, 2009); syntax (Bardel & Falk, 2007, 2012; Falk, 2010; Falk & Bardel, 2010, 2011; Sanchez, 2011); phonetics and phonology (Hammarberg & Hammarberg, 2009; Llama et al., 2010; Wrembel, 2010). Suggested explanations for the L2 status factor in L3 acquisition are (a) a different acquisition mechanism for L2s as opposed to L1s, and hence a reactivation of the L2-type mechanism, and (b) a desire to suppress L1 so as not to sound like a speaker of that language (Williams & Hammarberg, 2009: 63). The former is in line with Paradis’ distinction of two separate neurolinguistic mechanisms for L1 and L2 (see above) and points to an affinity between NNLs in this respect, which is not shared with NLs. The latter explanation relates to the learner’s perception that L1 is alien to the target language and hence inappropriate to make use of, which gives rise to a tendency rather to draw on another non-native language; cf. De Angelis’ (2005: 11) discussion of such learner perceptions in terms of ‘perception of correctness’ and ‘association of foreignness’.

Current models of the acquisitional hierarchy A look at the ways in which the terms first, second and third language (L1, L2 and L3) have been used in the literature shows that they reflect a variety of conceptions of how the speaker’s languages are related to each other in a hierarchy of acquisition. This can be formulated in a set of different models which are summarised in Table 1.1. Before discussing these models in the following section, I will here provide a few instructions on how to interpret the table. The models differ in the number of levels, that is, whether the terminology categorises the speaker’s languages in a two-order, three-order or n-order hierarchy. The terms can further be applied to different sizes of what I here call language settings, that is, situations involving different numbers of languages: two, three, three or more or any number of languages. The setting includes the speaker’s already acquired language(s) as well as the current target language. For each of these cases, the table briefly states the usually occurring terms and their (explicit or implicit) definitions. These are based on a type of defining criterion, which may either consist of a linear chronological ordering of the languages, usually according to the time of first encounter, or rest primarily on the cognitive distinction between native and non-native language. Applying these various distinctions results in six models, which are here designated by letters A to F.

10

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Table 1.1 Current models of an acquisitional hierarchy underlying definitions of L1, L2 and L3 Levels

Setting

Terms and definitions

Criterion

Model

2-level models: L1/L2

Bilingual

L1 = first acquired L2 = second acquired

Chronological

A

Any size

L1 = any NL L2 = any NNL

Cognitive

B

Trilingual

L1/L2/L3 = first/second/ third acquired

Chronological

C

≥Trilingual

L1/L2/‘third or additional’

Chronological, with cognitive implications

D

≥Trilingual

L1/Prior L2/L3, whereby L1 = any NL, Prior L2 = any prior NNL, L3 = current NNL

Cognitive

E

Any size

Chronological numbering according to first encounter

Chronological

F

3-level models: L1/L2/L3

n-level model: L1/L2/L3/L4 /. . ./ Ln

Discussion The principal differences between the models in Table 1.1 relate to the criteria by which the terms are defined, and the number of levels in the acquisitional hierarchy that are adopted.

Chronologically based models The models A, C and F rest on a pure chronological numbering of the speaker’s languages, in principle ordered according to the time of the speaker’s first encounter with the language. The definitions do not depend on a cognitive maturity factor as manifested in the infancy/post-infancy and NL/NNL distinction. (This does not mean that the researchers who work with chronological definitions are not aware of cognitive differences between L1, L2 and L3, only that this aspect is not taken into account in the definitions of the terms.) Model D is also basically chronologically based, although it constitutes a special case to which I shall return below. A, C and F are basically the same type of model, applied to different sizes of settings: true bilingual, trilingual, quadrilingual and so on. In this respect, A (bilingual) and C (trilingual) are special cases of the wider model F (any size of setting). The questions of having two or three levels, or assuming a

Problems in Def ining the Concept s of L1, L2 and L 3

11

maximum of three levels, are not inherent in the definitions of L1, L2 and L3 here. There can be only one each of L1, L2, L3. This more general model has been characterised as the linear model, since it assumes a linear order of acquisition (Hammarberg, 2010). Such a model in its strict form presupposes successive acquisition of languages and clarity about how many languages the speaker knows so far. From a practical point of view, this is uncomplicated in cases of simple successive bi- and trilingual settings, L1–L2 and L1–L2–L3. But problems arise in more complex cases which involve simultaneous or intermittent acquisition, where the languages are difficult to order sequentially, or in cases of limited or functionally restricted knowledge of some languages, which leads to uncertainty about which (and thus how many) languages to count. For example, it is not a priori obvious how to judge elementary knowledge, fragmentary knowledge, just comprehension, mere reading knowledge, metalinguistic knowledge or ‘bonus’ knowledge of closely related languages (as e.g. comprehension of Norwegian and Danish by persons who master Swedish). These problems tend to worsen with increasing number of languages in the speaker’s repertoire. Multilingual persons often do not acquire languages in one linear order, and it is oversimplifying to judge languages as either ‘known’ or not. A serious limitation with the linear model in its strict form is therefore that it cannot be applied to all multilingual speakers. In complex cases, it may not be feasible to identify a full linear chronology of acquisition. A partial, or weaker, form of model F seems to occur more often in actual practice. It is possible, of course, to state that a certain language is, say, the fifth language that a person is acquiring, without ordering or even naming the prior languages. One may, for example, describe a learner as ‘a German L1 speaker who is acquiring Russian as L5’. This identifies the first and the current target language, while leaving the other languages unspecified. If relevant, those languages may be mentioned in addition, and their chronology may be dealt with without necessarily giving them sequential numbers. In such a partial form of the linear model, the number given to the target language (in our example, ‘L5’) becomes a means of indicating the size of the learner’s repertoire of languages. This version of the model allows for cases of simultaneous acquisition of languages, but does not solve problems of determining which languages to count as ‘known’. Hufeisen’s (1998, 2005) Factor-Model is based on a linear acquisition order, but since it proposes different sets of cognitive factors that determine the conditions for acquiring L1, L2 and L3 and limits the acquisitional hierarchy to three levels even when a learner acquires more languages, it has a built-in cognitive content. Model D in Table 1.1 is a formulation of De Angelis’ (2007) conception of the acquisitional hierarchy. It is in line with Hufeisen’s model in that it is chronologically based but treats the languages from L3 on as one level in the hierarchy, subsumed under the label ‘third or additional language acquisition’; ‘it refers to all languages

12

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

beyond the L2 without giving preference to any particular language’ (De Angelis, 2007: 11). One question arises in connection with the terms L1, L2, L3 and so on: do we need designations of the speaker’s languages that specify the acquisitional sequence per se, or do we need concepts that are related to a given or potential situation of performance? In the former case, L1, L2, L3, L4 and so on indicate steps in the successive expansion of the speaker’s repertoire of languages, and the highest number indicates the current size of the repertoire. However, much research on multilingual speakers deals with what takes place in acquisition and with the linguistic products resulting from this process. Here, the main point of reference is located in the situation of performance or the resulting state, and the languages have their characteristic roles in this connection. Relevant phenomena are the target (or selected) language, the already familiar (or background) languages, cases of CLI (or background language activation), processes of comprehension, production and learning, coping strategies, language mode options, teaching methods adapted to the multilingual learner’s conditions and so forth. A common practice is to use the labels L1, L2 and L3 in these contexts. When the terms are used according to a purely chronological model, they primarily define steps in the acquisitional sequence. With trilingual settings, this entails no practical problems. L1 and L2 are automatically identified with the native and the non-native background language, and L3 with the target language. However, with larger settings that are no longer limited to one L1, one L2 and a target language L3, the difference between describing an acquisitional sequence and relating languages to the current situation becomes obvious. It is less clear how relevant ordinal designations such as L2, L3, L4 are when related to a concrete performance situation. The problem is due to the fact that the number terminology is being used in different contexts, serving two distinct functions: describing an acquisitional sequence per se and characterising the languages in relation to the current situation of performance – a problem that does not surface with trilingual settings.

Cognitively based models The models B and E in Table 1.1 are based on the difference between the infant’s and the older learner’s stages of maturity during language acquisition and the corresponding NL/NNL distinction, allowing for one or more L1s and one or more L2s. Thereby, a cognitive element is inherent in the term definitions in these models. Model B represents the standard use of the terms L1 and L2 in the SLA tradition, where only the categories NL (L1) and NNL (L2) are distinguished. Model E differs from B in adopting three levels in the acquisition hierarchy. By differentiating the concept of NNL in the speaker’s repertoire, distinguishing prior NNLs from the currently selected target language, model E is

Problems in Def ining the Concept s of L1, L2 and L 3

13

an extension and elaboration of model B which applies to trilingual and larger settings. Where model E is applied, the current target NNL is labelled L3, as it constitutes the third level after the NLs (L1s) and prior NNLs (prior L2s). Since L3 and prior L2s share the property of being NNLs, L3 is to be seen as a special case of the more general category of L2. One and the same term, L3, will serve to refer to the learner’s current target language both in trilingual cases (with one L1, one L2 and one L3) and in cases involving more languages. This is a noteworthy practical aspect because we may get to deal with groups of learners with a varying number of background languages. The relevant levels to take into account according to model E are the following: NL(s)/Prior NNL(s)/Current NNL, or expressed with digits: L1(s)/Prior L2(s)/L3. It is characteristic of model E that it is by definition situation-related. Whereas L1 and L2 as general concepts apply to the speaker’s languages on a permanent basis, the concepts prior L2 and L3 are defined in relation to a given situation of performance. The two-level model B and the three-level model E are distinct but compatible, and complement each other as a less and a more elaborate model. They can, in principle, be adopted alternatively depending on research objective. Obviously, many topics in the wider field of SLA do not crucially deal with the complex composition of the learner’s language background. In these cases, the distinction NL/NNL (L1/L2) may well be sufficient, and there is no need to make use of the concept of L3. Model E is available when multilingualism is in focus and the topic of research requires the three levels. Otherwise, staying with the conventional L1/L2 dichotomy will be simpler for many purposes. Therefore, even multilingual language learners may in some contexts be referred to as ‘L2 learners’ (according to model B) and in some contexts as ‘L3 learners’ (according to model E). A definition of L3 in the framework of model E is the following: In dealing with the linguistic situation of a multilingual, the term third language (L3) refers to a non-native language which is currently being used or acquired in a situation where the person already has knowledge of one or more L2s in addition to one or more L1s. (Hammarberg, 2010: 97, italics in original) Whereas many writers, particularly when dealing with learners in a trilingual setting, define the languages in accordance with the chronological model C, or seem to have definitions corresponding to model C in mind, or else do not define L1, L2 and L3 at all, model E has been applied by several researchers in recent years (e.g. Bardel, 2006; Bardel & Lindqvist, 2007; Falk & Bardel, 2010; Hammarberg, 2001; Lindqvist, 2006; Rast, 2010; Williams & Hammarberg, 2009 [1998]).

14

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Concepts and names Ideally, terms should express needed and well-defined concepts in a clear way. We have seen that the number terminology that we have discussed involves some problems in this respect. The terms L1, L2, L3 and so on are obviously modelled on a purely chronological conception of language acquisition, assuming a linear sequence of adding languages over time. In a simple bilingual setting in which the first and the second language (L1 and L2) are distinguished on the basis of temporal priority/posteriority (model A), the terms describe this in a direct way, pertinent to this particular group of speakers. But as soon as the existence of multilingual competence is acknowledged and the term definitions become based on the NL/NNL distinction (model B), the terms L1 and L2 take on a different meaning, and the numbers 1 and 2 (first and second) become metaphorical and not so transparent. When this is elaborated, and concepts such as First NNL, Prior NNL and L3 in the sense of Target NNL become parts of the picture, the labels L1, L2 and L3 become even less self-explanatory. A further complication with the number terminology is that it is implicitly being used for two different purposes, as mentioned above in section ‘Chronologically based models’: indicating the growth and size of the language repertoire, and relating the languages to the performance situation. These considerations raise the issue as to whether it would be wise – and feasible – to abandon the expressions first, second and third language, particularly in the situation-related function, and replace them with some other designations. Hammarberg (2010) discusses the possible alternatives primary and secondary languages (following Weinreich, 1953: 14) and tertiary languages (as used by Hufeisen & Lindemann, 1998, and associated writers in Germany). Possibly, the short forms L1/L2/L3 could then, when used in the situation-related function, be replaced with PL/SL/TL, and primary/secondary/ tertiary language acquisition (PLA/SLA/TLA) would be the terms for the related types of acquisition. Such a terminology would be in line with the cognitive models B and E and be compatible with the NL/NNL distinction. How well chosen these particular terms are, and how realistic it would be to try to get a revised terminology established on a larger scale, are matters open for debate and try-out. In any case, this naming issue is well worth serious discussion.

Conclusion This review of concepts and terms has shown that the use of the terms first, second and third language (L1, L2, L3) is a complex matter which entails several problems. These conceptual problems have become more evident with the extension of the field of SLA research in recent years to exploring

Problems in Def ining the Concept s of L1, L2 and L 3

15

language acquisition in multilinguals, and particularly cases that go beyond settings of one L1 – one L2 – one L3. One cause of confusion is the ad hoc way in which the terminology in this area has developed. When the terms first and second language (L1, L2) were originally introduced, there was obviously no consideration of the normality and widespread occurrence of multilingualism and the more complex set of aspects involved in language acquisition by multilinguals; apparently one had no sense of the simplistic nature of this term dichotomy. The extension of these terms went separately in two directions. One was to redefine L1 and L2 in practice so as to correspond to NL and NNL (model B above). The other was to add the category of a third language (L3) (model C above). Both these term extensions were steps towards taking multilingual contexts into account. The latter terminology was connected with a focus on L3 acquisition in its own right and the rejection of a mere L1/L2 dichotomy for multilinguals. By these two separate extensions of the first/second distinction, the term L2 came to acquire a dual meaning. In neither case was a terminology envisaged which would capture the status of the multilingual’s languages in various complex settings of acquisition. The literature on language acquisition in multilinguals has been greatly dominated by a concern with trilingual settings. This may surely have practical reasons. When dealing with the differences between the acquisition of the first NNL and subsequent ones, it seems natural to focus on the next NNL, that is, the third language in sequence. In educational contexts, this applies both to the second foreign language at school for monolingually raised students and to the first foreign language for bilingual students from linguistic minorities. Similarly, in empirical research, trilingual settings will often be simpler and methodologically more attractive to study than larger settings. However, this concentration on trilingualism seems to have resulted in what we may call a conceptual trilingual bias in dealing with language acquisition in multilinguals. Third language, mostly conceived as language number three, has become the standard concept in connection with acquisition (the process), whereas the wider term multilingualism is commonly used in connection with competence (the state): multilingualism and TLA are often mentioned as a conceptual pair, despite the asymmetry of terms that this involves. The examination of the models A to F in the foregoing sections speaks in favour of adopting a cognitive basis for the definition of the multilingual speaker’s languages, particularly when they are viewed in connection with their status in acquisitional situations. This means treating the NL/NNL distinction as fundamental and defining the languages alternatively according to the two-level model B or the three-level model E, depending on what the purpose requires. The difference between describing the gradual expansion and size of a linguistic repertoire and characterising the status of a speaker’s languages

16

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

in situations of performance was indicated earlier. Today, the terms L1, L2 and L3 figure in both functions. Ideally, this distinction would need to be reflected clearly in the terminology, preferably by different sets of terms for the two purposes. Before this issue has found a solution, one should be explicit about the function in which the terms L1, L2 and L3 are being used.

Note (1) Some terminological preliminaries: In accordance with a widespread usage, I will here distinguish between mono-, bi- and multilingualism as the knowledge of one, two and three or more languages, respectively, at some significant level of proficiency, thereby not treating bi- and multilingualism as synonyms. The current discussion will deal primarily with individual multilingualism (elsewhere also called plurilingualism), rather than societal multilingualism. In contexts in which acquisition and learning are not separated, acquisition will be used as including both. Similarly, second, third (etc.) language (L2, L3 etc.) will also cover the notion of foreign language in contexts in which second and foreign are not separated. (Note that generally only second language is used in the literature in a sense distinct from foreign language.) These terminological choices may certainly be subject to discussion, but this is beyond the scope of the present considerations.

References Aronin, L. and Singleton, D. (2008) Multilingualism as a new linguistic dispensation. International Journal of Multilingualism 5, 1–16. Aronin, L. and Singleton, D. (2012) Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aronin, L., Ó Laoire, M. and Singleton, D. (2011) The multiple faces of multilingualism: Language nominations. Applied Linguistics Review 2, 169–190. Bardel, C. (2006) La connaissance d’une langue étrangère romane favorise-t-elle l’acquisition d’une autre langue romane? Influences translinguistiques dans la syntaxe en L3 [Does the knowledge of a foreign Romance language favour the acquisition of another Romance language? Crosslinguistic influences in L3 syntax]. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère (AILE) 24, 149–180. Bardel, C. and Falk, Y. (2007) The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research 23, 459–484. Bardel, C. and Falk, Y. (2012) The L2 status factor and the declarative/procedural distinction. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, S. Flynn and J. Rothman (eds) Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood (pp. 61–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bardel, C. and Lindqvist, C. (2007) The role of proficiency and psychotypology in lexical cross-linguistic influence: A study of a multilingual learner of Italian L3. In M. Chini, P. Desideri, M.E. Favilla and G. Pallotti (eds) Atti del VI Congresso di Studi dell‘ Assoziatione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, Napoli 9–10 February 2006 (pp. 123–145). Perugia: Guerra Editore. Bono, M. (2011) Crosslinguistic interaction and metalinguistic awareness in third language acquisition. In G. De Angelis and J-M. Dewaele (eds) New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research (pp. 25–52). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2000) Research on multilingual acquisition. In J. Cenoz and U. Jessner (eds) English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language (pp. 39–53). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2003) The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. International Journal of Bilingualism 7, 71–87.

Problems in Def ining the Concept s of L1, L2 and L 3

17

Cook, V.J. (1991) The poverty of the stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research 7, 103–117. Cook, V.J. (1992) Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning 42, 557–591. Cook, V.J. (1993) Wholistic multi-competence – jeu d’esprit or paradigm shift? In B. Kettemann and W. Wieden (eds) Current Issues in European Second Language Acquisition Research. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. De Angelis, G. (2005) Multilingualism and non-native lexical transfer: An identification problem. International Journal of Multilingualism 2, 1–25. De Angelis, G. (2007) Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. De Bot, K. (1992) A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics 13, 1–24. Falk, Y. (2010) Gingerly studied transfer phenomena in L3 Germanic syntax: The role of the second language in third language acquisition. PhD thesis, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics, Utrecht. Falk, Y. and Bardel, C. (2010) The study of the role of the background languages in third language acquisition. The state of the art. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48, 185–220. Falk, Y. and Bardel, C. (2011) Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research 27, 59–82. Franceschini, R. (2009) The genesis and development of research in multilingualism: Perspectives for future research. In L. Aronin and B. Hufeisen (eds) The Exploration of Multilingualism (pp. 27–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Green, D.W. (1986) Control, activation and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language 27, 210–223. Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grosjean, F. (1985) The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, 467–477. Grosjean, F. (2001) The bilingual’s language modes. In J.L. Nicol (ed.) One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing. Oxford: Blackwell. Hakuta, K. (1986) Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Hammarberg, B. (2001) Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen and U. Jessner (eds) Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 21–41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hammarberg, B. (2010) The languages of the multilingual: Some conceptual and terminological issues. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48, 91–104. Hammarberg, Bj. and Hammarberg, Br. (2009) Re-setting the basis of articulation in the acquisition of new languages: A third language case study. In B. Hammarberg (ed.) Processes in Third Language Acquisition (pp. 74–85). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hufeisen, B. (1998) L3 – Stand der Forschung – Was bleibt zu tun? In B. Hufeisen and B. Lindemann (eds) Tertiärsprachen: Theorien, Modelle, Methoden. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Hufeisen, B. (2005) Multilingualism: Linguistic models and related issues. In B. Hufeisen and R.J. Fouser (eds) Introductory Readings in L3 (pp. 31–45). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Hufeisen, B. and Lindemann, B. (eds) (1998) Tertiärsprachen: Theorien, Modelle, Methoden. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Hyltenstam, K. and Abrahamsson, N. (2003) Maturational constraints in SLA. In C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 539–588). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

18

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Kecskes, I. (2010) Dual and multilingual systems. International Journal of Multilingualism 7, 91–109. Kemp, C. (2009) Defining multilingualism. In L. Aronin and B. Hufeisen (eds) The Exploration of Multilingualism (pp. 11–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lindqvist, C. (2006) L’influence translinguistique dans l’interlangue français. Étude de la production orale d’apprenants plurilingues [Crosslinguistic influence in French interlanguage. A study of the oral production of plurilingual learners]. PhD thesis, Stockholm University. Llama, R., Cardoso, W. and Collins, L. (2010) The influence of language distance and language status on the acquisition of L3 phonology. International Journal of Multilingualism 7, 39–57. McLaughlin, B. (1984) Second-Language Acquisition in Childhood. Volume 1. Preschool Children (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Meisel, J.M. (2011) First and Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mißler, B. (1999) Fremdsprachenlernerfahrungen und Lernstrategien. Eine empirische Untersuchung [Learning experiences and learning strategies in foreign languages. An empirical investigation]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Mißler, B. (2000) Previous experience of foreign language learning and its contribution to the development of learning strategies. In S. Dentler, B. Hufeisen and B. Lindemann (eds) Tertiär- und Drittsprachen: Projekte und empirische Untersuchungen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Paradis, M. (1981) Neurolinguistic organization of a bilingual’s two languages. In J.E. Copeland and P.W. Davis (eds) The Seventh LACUS Forum (pp. 486–494). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press. Paradis, M. (2004) A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Paradis, M. (2008) Language and communication disorders in multilinguals. In B. Stemmer and H. Whitaker (eds) Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language (pp. 341– 350). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Paradis, M. (2009) Declarative and Procedural Determinants of Second Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rast, R. (2010) The use of prior linguistic knowledge in the early stages of L3 acquisition. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48, 159–183. Sanchez, L. (2011) ‘Luisa and Pedrito’s dog will the breakfast eat’: Interlanguage transfer and the role of the second language factor. In G. De Angelis and J-M. Dewaele (eds) New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research (pp. 86–104). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981) Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Tucker, G.R. (1998) A global perspective on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds) Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education (pp. 3–15). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton. Williams, S. and Hammarberg, B. (2009) Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model. In B. Hammarberg (ed.) Processes in Third Language Acquisition (pp. 28–73). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. (Originally in Applied Linguistics 19, 295–333, 1998.) Wrembel, M. (2010) L2-accented speech in L3 production. International Journal of Multilingualism 7, 75–90.

2

Analyzing Linguistic Landscapes. A Diachronic Study of Multilingualism in Poland Hanna Komorowska

Introduction In Paris on December 9, 1896 Alfred Jarry gave a speech in Théâtre de l’Oeuvre at the first night of his famous play Ubu Roi ou Les Polonais, an event described by William Butler Yeats in his autobiography (Yeats, 1935/1986). In this speech he gave the audience the following information L’action se passe en Pologne, c’est-á-dire nulle part – The action takes place in Poland, that is to say: Nowhere. Yet, it is always somewhere, though in this part of the world borders have not been particularly stable. The frequency of those changes during the last millennium, the number and type of ethnic groups in contact, a vast spectrum of languages and religious beliefs produced a series of pendulum swings of attitudes toward multilingualism from extremely favorable to radically intolerant and even today continue to influence the Polish political scene. The impact of history on the present day seems much stronger than in other European countries and at the same time patterns of this influence seem clearer than elsewhere. In an attempt to analyze what it means for languages in Poland’s past and present, this text aims • •

to look at the roots of multilingualism in Poland and the role of ethnolinguistic factors in the shaping of the Polish identity; to present multilingualism in Poland today with emphasis on the status of minority, ethnic and regional languages as well as on the type and amount of support they receive; 19

20

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

•

to discuss steps taken in the educational policy in the promotion of individual multilingualism/plurilingualism; to look at implications of the above for the future of language policy and language education in Poland.

•

Language and Ethnicity in Poland: Past to Present Thinking of languages is connected with thinking of ethnicity and – whether we like it or not – about nations. As Walker Connor and Anthony Smith put it – not only about ‘What is a nation?’, but also about ‘When is the nation?’ (Connor, 1990; Smith, 2008). Although Hans Kohn’s idea of civic western and ethnic eastern nations introduced almost 70 years ago (Kohn, 1944) does not necessarily have to make us happy (Aner, 2000; Kuzio, 2002), the main factors he was interested in still seem to be useful in thinking about approaches to identity, ethnicity, language and culture. If looking at Poland we concentrate on both criteria, that is, identity understood in ethnic–linguistic or ethnocultural categories ˙ elazny, as well as identity understood in civic categories (Smith, 2000, 2008; Z 2006), a clear pattern of changes in time will emerge showing a passage from identity based on language and religion, through identity based on civil rights, to a frequently re-emerging conflict between the two. The rule of the Piast Dynasty (10th–14th centuries) can only be analyzed in ethnic–linguistic categories connected with kinship, territory and language. Self-categorization, was, therefore, often negative and connected with hostile attacks of Germanic or even Tartar warriors. Toward the end of the 14th century, Poland of the Jagiellonian Dynasty (1385–1572) moved the concept of Polishness from ethnic–linguistic to political categories. Evolution of this kind is possible, as Kuzio puts it, ‘after the core ethnic group is self-confident enough within its own bounded territory to open itself to “outsiders” from other ethnic groups’ (Kuzio, 2002: 36). Openness to the settlement of Jews and Germans, busy trade and important political alliances required peaceful coexistence and called for tolerance. A need of political unity within ethnic variety was generally felt. This paved the way for the formation of multiple identities. Stanisław Orzechowski (1513–1566), who came from the eastern parts of Poland, used to describe himself as gente Ruthenus, natione Polonus, a way of self-presentation formerly unknown here (Z˙elazny, 2006). This tendency grew much stronger after the Polish– Lithuanian Union of 1569. It is understandable as a degree of administrative integration was urgently needed after huge Lithuanian and Ukrainian regions with languages other than Polish and religions other than Roman Catholic became part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. This integration made, however, important allowances for cultural differences. The Jewish Parliament, often referred to as the Council of Four Lands and located in the city of Lublin

Analyz ing Linguist ic L andscapes

21

illustrated this flexibility as did a large number of high-quality rabbinical universities called yeshibot – yeshivas (Doktór, 2004; Tollet, 1999). Multilingualism at that time became a status symbol in international policy. Jagiellonian Poland followed the pattern started in Europe much earlier. Let us look at a characteristic example. At the Council of Constance (1414–1418) the English delegation used multilingualism as an argument in claiming a status of a natio which was at that time granted to four administrative units of the Church only, namely those of Italy, Germany, Spain and France. The argument of the English delegation manifesting their importance was that in their territories there were five languages which were mutually incomprehensible Nation tamen inclyta Anglicana, alias Britannica, inde & sub se quinque linguae habet, videlicet nationes, quarum unam alia non intelligent – The famous English nation, otherwise called British, encompasses and has under its rule five languages (nations) which are mutually unintelligible (Mundy & Woody, 1961: 344; Smith, 2006: 148). The same thinking process characterized Jagiellonian Poland. Multilingualism was an asset, the knowledge of Latin, an obligatory part of the elitist education of the Polish and Lithuanian nobility, was considered a status symbol, while sons of aristocratic families traveled to Padova, Rome and Paris to enrich their education, thus adding French and Italian to their repertoire. Lower social strata treated intercomprehension as a survival strategy in a multiethnic nation. Yet, the situation changed dramatically with the fall of the Commonwealth. Cossack and Turkish wars brought Roman Catholic religion into the forefront of identity formation. Partitions of Poland by Russia, Prussia and Austria in the years 1772, 1793, 1795 wiped Poland off the map for almost 150 years, that is, until the end of World War I in 1918. German and Russian became languages of the oppressors, often imposed as the languages of schooling. English was not popular in the German and Russian partitions and was straightforwardly discouraged in the Austrian one where Maria Theresia, considered it dangerous for her Roman Catholic empire (Eder, 2004, 2006). With no opportunity to use Polish in politics and very little opportunity to use it in the educational system – at least in certain periods of time and in certain parts of divided Poland – home language became a manifestation of ethnicity. Yet, individual multilingualism flourished not only among aristocratic families who regularly employed English, French and German nannies, but also among émigré intelligentsia trying to make a living in France or England (Schramm, 2008). Faced with the protestant religion of the Prussian partition and the Russian Orthodox religion of the Russian one, the Polish population at home needed a strong move back to Roman Catholicism combined with the use of their home language as an index of self-perception as a community. This gave strength to language and religion as symbols of belonging and these became bastions of Polishness. At the same time, however, that is, in the 18th and the 19th centuries, civic rather than ethnic factors were growing stronger in many other countries.

22

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

After World War I when Poland regained independence, identity issues came to the forefront. The popular anecdote circulating around south-eastern Poland where Polish–Ukrainian language conflicts were quite frequent serves as an interesting example of this phenomenon: two brothers – Stanislaw Szeptycki, general of the Polish army, and Archbishop Andrij Szeptycki, Head of Greek Catholic Church, could not agree on the language of their official meeting: one insisted on Polish, the other on Ukrainian. Finally their secretaries agreed that conversation would be held in French! This shows that in this part of the world the concept of a lingua franca has a lot of positive connotations; it is after all here that at the end of the 19th century Ludwik Zamenhof (1859–1917) created Esperanto. The choice of French by Szeptycki brothers was also a sign of an extremely positive attitude toward French and a hostile attitude toward Russian and German in the inter-war period. Polish independence at the same time also revived the idea of civil rights as the basis of political categories. Yet, oppressive influences of German and Russian occupation during World War II and, immediately afterwards, almost 50 years of atheism-imposing communism triggered a predictable response. First, attitudes toward language changed dramatically, with Russian strongly opposed as the language hitherto imposed as obligatory, German rationally considered pragmatically useful and English treated enthusiastically as a language embodying a dream of freedom, democracy and wealth. Second, a move back could be noticed to self-perception based on language and religion – a kind of ethnohistory based on founding myths and common heroes, on the sacrifice of martyrs, important dates and symbols. To put it briefly – on what is sometimes referred to as political religion of the people (Smith, 2008). Today parties employ civic and ethnic factors – or manipulate their proportions – as elements of their political logos. The friction between civicoriented and language and religion only, ethnicity-oriented categories in identity formation is still alive in the political life of Poland today. The role of history, memory and tradition is probably generally stronger here than in many other countries.

Multilingualism Today Multilingualism in numbers The National and Ethnic Minorities and Regional Languages Act of 6 January 2005 confirms that •

the status of a national minority is granted to groups of Polish citizens of Byelorussian, Czech, Lithuanian, German, Armenian, Russian, Slovak, Ukrainian and Jewish origin;

Analyz ing Linguist ic L andscapes

• •

23

the status of ethnic minority is granted to groups of Karaim, Lemko, Romany and Tatarian origin; and the status of a regional language is granted to Kashubian.

Despite the number of languages listed above, Poland today is extremely homogeneous linguistically. The total population of Poland equals 38,920,000 (GUS Report, 2011). The total number of national and ethnic minority citizens is officially estimated at around 270,000, unofficial estimates go up to 600,000, which places the result in the margin of 0.8–2%. This is a small percentage in a country where before World War II minorities constituted one-third of the population. Figures depicting national minority languages show relatively small numbers of minority citizens in Poland: German minority with almost 153,000 citizens, Byelorussian with almost 49,000, Ukrainian above 30,000, Slovak with 2000, Lithuanian and Russian with 6000 each, Jewish and Armenian with 1000 each. For ethnic languages figures are also relatively small: Roma 13,000, Lemko 6000, Tartar 450 citizens and Karaim only 200 citizens (Country Report – Poland, 2005–2006). For regional languages, the census of the Main Bureau of Statistics for the year 2002 gave the number of 52,000 Kashubian speakers and 56,000 Silesian speakers, but 220,000 and 415,000 joint Polish-Kashubian and Polish-German identity declarations in 2012 (GUS Report, 2002, 2012). The above data are often contested by authors presenting much higher numbers, for example, 300,000 German, 250,000 Byelorussian speakers, 300,000 Ukrainian (Brunner, 1996: 165), 300,000 Kashubian speakers (Majewicz, 1996: 39) or 200,000 Byelorussian, and Ukrainians (www. mercator-research.eu) both in external sources and in the internal ones such as self-presentations often given in informal conversations, in press releases and on websites of social and cultural institutions. What is especially interesting is that the difference between official statistics and informal estimates sometimes yields a ratio of 1:2 or 1:3 and in the case of the Ukrainians goes up to 10. Such differences are due to two groups of factors. The first is a group of individual factors. These have to do with identity feelings of particular citizens who are not ready to officially present their affiliation, obviously either fearing stigmatization or believing that majority affiliation and majority language will bring them better career prospects, a phenomenon not unknown in other parts of the world (see also Byrd Clark & Lamoureux, Chapter 3 in this volume). This could be particularly true for the Byelorussian and Ukrainian minorities. Multiple identities presented differently in different contexts might also be at play here, a phenomenon of which Slovaks and Kashubians could serve as examples. The second group embraces policy factors. It is not infrequent that states have a tendency to downplay numbers of national minorities for social, educational and political reasons, while minority groups are interested in

24

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

presenting themselves as very large and strongly oppressed. A combination of these strategies is, of course, an obstacle to arrive at precise statistics.

Support for minority languages Some degree of support for minority languages existed in the communist times. Lithuanian, Slovak, Ukrainian, Byelorussian and even German because of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) – were languages of the same political block, therefore it was a politically determined task to support them. Schools with those languages as languages of instruction or with the added home language functioned without obstacles, curricula were centralized, and course books were printed as well as distributed by the state. The communists considered a gesture toward national needs was one of the ways to silence the opposition. After the transformation new legal solutions were introduced in line with international agreements. Educational rights were confirmed in 1993 in the Educational System Act, and again in the new Constitution of 1997, Articles 25 and 37 of which, speaking about national minorities, stressed ‘freedom to maintain and develop their own language and culture’. In 1999, the Polish Language Act made a provision to introduce two language versions of local names. Recommendations of the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages have been followed since the days of the preparation for it was undertaken, that is from the beginning of the Polish transformation process, but the Charter was officially signed in 2003 and ratified even later, namely in 2009. In 2005, the National and Ethnic Minorities and Regional Languages Act was passed. The document offers important legal foundations for the linguistic functioning of ethnic minorities in Poland. It states that national and ethnic minorities as well as communities using regional languages are obliged to learn Polish in the school system, but they may also participate in activities aiming to maintain their sense of language and culture. A minority language can be used in local administration when more than 20% of the inhabitants speak it. Minority – national and ethnic or regional – language teaching is organized in schools based on the request of parents – or students, provided that the students are at least 16 years old. A minority language may become a language of instruction, a second language of instruction (in bilingual education) or a non-compulsory subject. Inter-class groups may be established for seven pupils, whereas for dispersed minorities inter-school groups of 3–20 pupils are organized and financed by the state. There are, however, some interesting, but also controversial issues connected with the organization of schooling for minorities. First, it is easy to notice varied unequal engagement of particular ethnic minorities in making use of educational benefits which are available to them. For example Kashubians, who under communism had no schools teaching

Analyz ing Linguist ic L andscapes

25

through the medium of their language, have fully used the chance offered by the transformation and today have a network of 183 schools. For that reason, they are perceived as far more active in this respect than Byelorussians, who had 48 schools at the beginning of the 1990s and have only 22 today, though no demographic causes or administrative decisions seem to explain this reduction. Second, attitudes and motivations to attend school vary depending on the educational level. Statistics show 601 primaries for ethnic minorities staffed by 70% of all ethnic minority teachers. Yet, the number of lower secondaries is almost three times smaller – 218 – with no more than 25% of all ethnic minority teachers. The number of upper secondaries for all minorities is just 27, with only 5% of all ethnic minority teachers. This phenomenon can be called an educational pyramid in ethnic minorities schooling, a tendency typical of regions where first language is a strong manifestation of identity and as such elicits strongly favorable attitudes on the part of its speakers (see also Portolés Falomir, Chapter 4 in this volume), while the language of schooling has a strong impact on career prospects. The activeness of the Kashubian minority during the five-year period between 2005 and 2010 shows both the growth of the school network and the strength of the pyramid phenomenon described above. In 2005, Kashubians had 100 primary, 27 lower and 3 upper secondary schools, while in 2010 the number of primaries increased to 183, of lower secondaries – to 50 and or upper secondary schools to 5. The numbers of students are even more informative – 8000, 1000 and 200 pupils, respectively (Country Report – Poland, 2005–2006).

Individual Multilingualism/Plurilingualism. Language Education Today Language education has always been considered very important in Poland – an understandable phenomenon, considering the fact that Polish does not enjoy the status as an international language. Before the transformation, Russian was obligatory for all pupils from the age of 11 onwards. A second foreign language (English, German, French or Latin) was introduced in the lycée for students aged 15 years, but under communism only 14% of teenagers aged 15–19 years attended such schools. Blind alleys of non-full secondary vocational schools grouped more than half of the school population, while the remaining 30% attended full secondary technical schools, where a second foreign language was rarely taught. In consequence, when communism fell, Poland had 18,000 Russian teachers, but no more than 1200 teachers of English (Fisiak, 1992; Komorowska, 1991). The main educational reforms of the first decade of democracy (1990 and 1999) promoted full secondary education, now embracing more than 80% of

26

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

students against the former 14%, decentralized school curricula and granted equal status to all the foreign languages taught in the school system. The starting age for languages was lowered by one year, that is, to 10 and a second foreign language was introduced as an option in the lower secondary school and as a mandatory subject in the lycée. The reform made it possible to broaden the language offer by introducing Italian and Spanish in secondary education and allowing for less widely used languages, for example, Swedish, Hungarian or Japanese to enter the curriculum. The teacher education reform was carried out in order to face the challenge of educating teachers of English, German, French, Spanish and Italian to replace Russian teachers. A new system of three-year teacher training colleges was established under the supervision of big universities, a solution now compatible with the Bologna process, in consequence of which after 25 years of independent functioning colleges will be fully integrated with the system of higher education. An optional teacher training component was introduced into the curricula of philological departments and extramural studies were opened at universities to enable unqualified teachers to work toward qualifications to teach a modern language. The reform also enabled teachers of other subjects with certified language skills to obtain language teaching qualifications at courses for graduates from non-language departments. The organization of school language teaching today planned in line with the recommendations of the Council of Europe (Recommendation No R (98) 6; Recommendation 1539 (2001) and the European Union (2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2003, 2005) are the following: the first foreign language, a nonnative language (NNL–see Hammarberg, Chapter 1 in this volume) enters the curriculum in Grade I of the primary (age 6/7), the second foreign language becomes mandatory in grade I of the lower secondary (age 13), English has to be one of the languages selected, though not necessarily the first one, core curriculum as a set of guidelines forms the basis for a variety of authoring teacher-made syllabuses and a free choice of FLT materials is guaranteed, supported by a ministry-issued long list of recommended materials (Komorowska, 2005). The popularity of particular foreign languages in the school system in the year 2009/2010 was as follows: English was learned by 90.0% of the pupils in the whole school system (4,150,000); German by 42.5% (1,746,000); Russian by 7.2% (264,000); French by 3.5% (148,000); Spanish by 0.4% (16,000); Italian by 0.2% (11,000) and other languages (Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, etc.) by 0.1% (7000) (Zare˛bska, 2009). A clear pattern is evident here, not unknown in many other parts of Europe, language constellations are formed in consequence of the extremely high popularity of English and of the usefulness of a language of the neighboring country. The same pattern has been observed in the research on the Polish teacher trainees’ attitudes (Cybulska & Kabalin Borenić, Chapter 5 in this volume).

Analyz ing Linguist ic L andscapes

27

This means that the most common language constellations for a school graduate comprise English: English + German, Russian, or French with Spanish and Italian often learned out of school as FL3. Ethnic minority languages form part of constellations almost only as the students’ first language due to minimal interest in learning them as FL2 or FL3. Restricted types of constellations result from students’ choices and parental expectations. They are also due to a narrow offer of languages in the school system. The offer broadens considerably at the tertiary level, though only at large universities. Moreover, present constellations are due to the constant growth of English with a high percentage of students learning German (38.5%). Until 2005 stable growth of German took place by ca. 2.5% a year, but after a plateau of two years from 2007 onward a slight fall (by 2%) could be noted. French remains at a stable level of 3–4%, Italian at a stable level of 0.2%. Slow and systematic growth of Spanish (0.5%) can be seen, although mainly in private language schools. What could be expected is a constantly lowering interest in Russian from 100% in 1989 through ca. 34% in 1992 to ca. 4.5% today (Zare˛bska, 2009; Braunek, 2013). This tendency is confirmed by language education in more than 7000 private language schools functioning in Poland. The numbers of their students – due to the policy of private language schools – is never officially given, but on the basis of observation can be estimated at around 1 million learners. It is interesting that in personal communication school directors note that more than 80% of the learners are female and almost 90% are younger than 30 years, more than half of those – secondary and tertiary education students. This confirms a common belief that success of private language schools is a consequence of inefficient language education in state schools, mainly due to shortcomings in teaching methodology, but also to large class size and to the insufficient number of contact hours per week. These factors as well as teacher-centered methodologies often used in state schools and the resulting lack of individualization are the various reasons for the constantly growing market for private, one-to-one coaching.

Looking Ahead. Into the Future Alice: The Cat:

Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.

General aims Poland would like to achieve – as presented in the Country Report – Poland 2005–2006 prepared for the Language Policy Division of the Council of Europe in 2006 and coordinated by Dr Paweł Poszytek – are as follows: (a) a greater variety of language constellations, (b) higher proficiency levels and (c) a higher quality of teaching, especially in state schools. Tasks for the future indispensable to achieve those aims – as presented in the documents of the Council of Europe (Beacco & Byram, 2002), of the

28

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

European Union (2007, 2008a) and of the OECD (Dumont et al., 2010; OECD, 2007a, 2007b, 2008) – include promoting the value of languages, that is, demonstrating how languages support learner development (attention, memory, critical thinking, problem-solving, self-expression), demonstrating how languages support other subject areas (promoting cross-curricular topics and projects) and integrating languages with non-language education (promoting bilingual education, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), educational exchanges). For practical activity of decision-makers and language educators working along the lines presented in the documents of the Council of Europe (2000, 2001, 2003; Kelly & Grenfell, 2004; Little & Perclová, 2001; Newby et al., 2007) and the European Union (2008b; Moore & Hagen, 2006) this means first of all changes in school philosophy. A need arises to design varied curriculum scenarios according to the CEFR framework and to promote whole school language education in line with the recommendations of the Council of Europe. Implementation of new curricula calls for new approaches to language education: making use of modular approaches to language proficiency and partial competences, developing transversal competences, such as reading comprehension and designing and promoting strategies for intercomprehension. This can only be achieved through high-quality teacher education and through the promotion of pedagogical exchanges, educational mobility and European programs (Komorowska, 2007). There are, however, certain controversial issues to be decided and some basic questions to be answered, for example: • • • • •

• •

Should English be mandatory or optional? Is it realistic to expect the development of intercultural competence in the school system? What to do about painful incidents of racism and xenophobia which still tend to take place? Should the state create language needs among less active ethnic minorities or just satisfy the existing ones? Is there a way to support ethnic languages above the lower secondary school level? Should we work out uniform didactic guidelines for all languages taught in the school system or modify methodology according to the function of the language taught (language taught as a lingua franca vs. language taught as a foreign tongue)? Is there a way to motivate students to learn less widely used languages and/or languages of ethnic minorities? Is dual qualification with no modularity as recommended by the EU the best solution for teacher education?

The above controversies are present in most of the European educational systems, yet the level of interest in intercultural competence and the

Analyz ing Linguist ic L andscapes

29

degree of support for ethnic minorities compared with the relatively small percentage of minorities make Poland special among central and eastern European countries (Komorowska & Aleksandrowicz-Pe˛dich, 2010; Komorowska, 2011). It could only be hoped that discussions in the field of language education will take a more peaceful course than did the first night of Jarry’s Ubu Roi, which ended in a scandal (Yeats, 1935/1986), though obviously not because Poland was declared there a form of nowhere; commotion broke out due to the surreal type of imagery and language. Yet, applied linguistics can learn a lot from surreal plays. Eugène Ionesco’s La leçon (The Lesson), with its famous quote L’arithmetic mène au philology et la philology mène au crime (Arithmetic leads to philology and philology leads to crime) (Ionesco, 1954: 146) makes us remember that in our – always somewhat surreal – life l’arithmetic might signify looking at the quantity only rather than at the quality of education, while la philology may easily commit a crime of omission by neglecting the role of language teaching and teacher education. The future will show whether academic circles manage to avoid those pitfalls.

References Aner, S. (2000) Nationalism in central Europe. A chance or a threat for the emerging liberal democratic order? East European Politics and Society 24 (2), 213–245. Beacco, J.C. and Byram, M. (2002) Guide for the Development of Language Educational Policies in Europe. From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Braunek, A. (2013) Powszechnos´ć nauczania jezyków obcych w roku szkolnym 2011/2012 [The Range of Foreign Language Teaching in the School Year 2011/12]. Warszawa: CODN. Brunner, G. (1996) Nationality Problems and Minority Conflicts in Eastern Europe. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers. Connor, W. (1990) When is a nation? Ethnic and Racial Studies 13 (1), 92–103. Council of Europe (2000) European Language Portfolio (ELP: Principles and Guidelines. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. (Document DGIV/EDU/LANG (2000)33). Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (2003) Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEF). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Country Report. Poland. 2005–2006 (2006) Warsaw: Ministry of Education. Doktór, J. (2004) Pocza˛tki chasydyzmu polskiego [The Roots of Polish Hasidism]. Wrocław: Fundacja na Rzecz Nauki Polskiej. Dumont, H., Istance, D. and Benavides, F. (eds) (2010) The Nature of Learning. Using Research to Inspire Practice. Paris: OECD Publishing. ˝ sterreich 1740–1790 [German Eder, U. (2004) Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache in O as a foreign and second language in Austria]. Dissertation, Wien University, Wein. Eder, U. (2006) Auf die mehrere Ausbreitung der teutschen Sprache soll fürgedacht werden. Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache im Unterrichtssystem der Donaumonarchie zur Regierungszeit Maria Theresias und Josephs II [More Reflection Needed on Further Promotion of the German Language. In: German as a Foreign and Second Language of the Danube Monarchy during the Reign of Maria Theresa and Joseph II]. Innsbruck: Studien-Verlag.

30

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

European Council (2002a) Education and Training in Europe: Diverse Systems, Shared Goals for 2010. Brussels: European Commission. European Council (2002b) Stockholm European Council. Presidency Conclusions. Press Release 100/01/01. European Council (2002c) Barcelona European Council. Presidency Conclusions. Press Release 100/1/02. European Commission (2003) Plan 2004–2006. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels. European Commission (2005) A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism. Communication from the Commission to the Council the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels. European Commission (2007) Report. High Level Group on Multilingualism. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2008a) Report. Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue. A Rewarding Challenge. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission (2008b) An Inventory of Community Actions in the Field of Multilingualism and Results of the Online Public Consultation. Commission Staff Working Document. Accompanying Document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Multilingualism: An Asset for Europe and a Shared Commitment. Brussels. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992) Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Fisiak, J. (1992) English language teacher training in Poland: Past legacy and present challenge, English – A world language. Journal of the English Speaking Union 2, 6–14. GUS Report (2002) Wyniki spisu powszechnego ludnos´ci za rok 2002 (Census Data 2002). Warszawa: Główny Urza˛d Statystyczny (Main Bureau of Statistics). GUS Report (2011) Powierzchnia i ludnos´ć w przekroju terytorialnym 2011 (Area and Population in the Territorial Profile in 2011). Warszawa: Główny Urza˛d Statystyczny (Main Bureau of Statistics). GUS Report (2012) Wyniki spisu powszechnego ludnos´ci za rok 2002 (Census Data 2012). Warszawa: Główny Urza˛d Statystyczny (Main Bureau of Statistics). Ionesco, E. (1954) Cantatrice chauve suivi de La leçon [The Bald Soprano followed by The Lesson]. Paris: Gallimard. Jarry, A. (1972) Ubu Roi. Paris: Gallimard. Kelly, M. and Grenfell, M. (2004) European Profile for Language Teacher Education – A Frame of Reference. Southampton: University of Southampton. Kohn, H. (1944) The Idea of Nationalism. New York: Macmillan. Komorowska, H. (1991) Second language teaching in Poland prior to the reform of 1990. In J.E. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (pp. 501–509). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Komorowska, H. (2005) Linguistic policy effects of the European Union enlargement. In R. Faistauer, I. Cullin, Ch. Cali and K. Chester (eds) Mehrsprachigkeit und Kommunikation in der Diplomatie. Diplomatische Akademie. Wien: Favorita Papers 4, 35–51. Komorowska, H. (2007) Metodyka nauczania je˛zyków obcych w Polsce 1957–2007 (Foreign Language Teaching Methodology in Poland 1957–2007). Warsaw: Wydawnictwa CODN. Komorowska, H. (ed.) (2011) Issues in Promoting Multilingualism. Teaching-LearningAssessment. Warsaw: FRSE. Komorowska, H. and Aleksandrowicz-Pe˛dich, L. (eds) (2010). Coping with Diversity. Language and Culture Education. Warsaw: ACADEMICA.

Analyz ing Linguist ic L andscapes

31

Kuzio, T. (2002) The myth of the civic state. A critical survey of Hans Kohn’s framework for understanding nationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies 25 (1), 20–39. Little, D. and Perclová, R. (2001) European Language Portfolio. Guide for Teachers and Teacher Trainers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Majewicz, A.E. (1996) Kashubian choices, Kashubian prospects: a minority language situation in northern Poland. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 120 (1), 39–54 Mercator on-line www.mercator-research.eu/minority-languages/Language-Factsheets/ minority-languages-in-education-in-Poland (accessed September 2011). Moore, I. and Hagen, S. (2006) The impact of languages on the European economy. Paper for the High Level Group on Multilingualism. November 2006. Brussels: The European Union. Mundy, J. and Woody, K. (eds) (1961) The Council of Constance. The Unification of the Church. New York: Columbia University Press. Newby, D., Allan, R., Fenner, A.B., Komorowska, H., Jones, B. and Soghikyan, K. (2007) European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages. European Centre for Modern Languages, Graz: Council of Europe Publishing. OECD (2007a) Evidence in Education. Linking Research and Policy. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (2007b) Educating Teachers for Diversity. Meeting the Challenge. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (2008) Trends Shaping Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Recommendation No R (98) 6 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning Modern Languages (1998) Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Recommendation 1539 (2001) – European Year of Languages (2001) Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Schramm, E. (2008) Dzieje nauki je˛zyka angielskiego i innych je˛zyków nowoz˙ytnych w Polsce w okresie zaborów. Warszawa: Fraszka Edukacyjna. Smith, A.D. (2000) The Nation in History. Historiographial Debates about Ethnicity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Smith, A.D. (2006) Kulturowe podstawy narodów [The Cultural Foundations of Nations]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon ´skiego. Smith, A.D. (2008) The Cultural Foundations of Nations. Hierarchy, Covenant and Republic. London: Blackwell. ˙ydów polskich od XVI wieków do rozbiorów [History of Polish Jews Tollet, D. (1999) Historia Z from the 16th until Partitions]. Warszawa: PWN. Yeats, W.B. (1935/1986) The Autobiography of William Butler Yeats. Dramatis Personae 1896– 1902. London: MacMillan Publishing Company. Zamenhof, L. (pseudonym Dr Espernato) (1887) Meždunarodny’ jazyk. Predislovije i polnyj učebnik (por Rusoj) [International Language: Foreword and Complete Textbook (for Russian Speakers)]. Warsaw: Chaim Kelter. Zare˛bska, J. (2009) Powszechnos´ć nauczania je˛zyków obcych w roku szkolnym 2008/2009 [The Range of Foreign Language Teaching in the School Year 2008/2009]. Warszawa: CODN. Z˙ elazny, W. (2006) Etnicznos´ć. Ład – konflikt – sprawiedliwos´ć [Ethnicity. Order – Conflict – Justice]. Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Poznan ´skie.

3

Rethinking Multilingualism: Complex Identities, Representations and Practices of Multilingual Student Teachers Moving through Plurilingual Times in University French Language Teacher Education Programs Julie S. Byrd Clark and Sylvie A. Lamoureux

Introduction Drawing upon a sociolinguistic multisited ethnography and an interdisciplinary approach (Byrd Clark, 2009, 2010, 2011), we examine the impact of globalization and Official language policies on the construction of identity and the development of linguistic repertoires as an essential component of language education, by looking at the significance of multilingualism through the experiences and symbolic investments1 of multilingual youth participating in university French language teacher education programs in the multicultural landscapes of Toronto and Windsor, Ontario, Canada (two cities where immigration accounts for approximately two-thirds of the population). In reconceptualizing Norton’s (2000) notion of investment, Byrd Clark (2008a, 2009, 32

Rethink ing Mult ilingualism

33

2010, 2011) has built upon this term to include a symbolic and reflexive component. Byrd Clark’s conceptualization of a symbolic investment with a reflexive component permits the possibility for the teacher (as well as the researcher and learner) to become reflexive of their (own) investments in representations of languages, identities and knowledge (e.g. competence, effective or appropriate teaching skills). It can help reveal the ways in which social processes, such as social categorization operate through our linguistic practices and in the ways in which we come to value and invest in the meanings of such categories. In this chapter, we argue for a multidimensional conceptualization of multilingualism particularly by signifying that individuals’ investments in representations of languages and identities are much more symbolic, complex and ideological. As such, the participants’ symbolic investments demonstrate how some of their real everyday social and linguistic practices challenge social categories through the complex and (sometimes) simultaneous ways in which they manage, negotiate and resist discourses of language and power.

Literature Review: Between Linguistic Duality in Complex, Plural Realities What does it mean to be and become a French language teacher in Canada in today’s plurilingual times? The response is not a simple one, nor is it singular or straightforward. Increasingly complex linguistic repertoires and youth with multiple identities are some of the changing faces of Canada (e.g. see Byrd Clark, 2009, 2010; Lamarre & Lamarre, 2009). Generally speaking, French language teaching has tended to be dominated by cognitive psycholinguistic approaches in second language acquisition (SLA) (e.g. Chomsky, 1965; Hatch, 1978; Krashen, 1976; Lightbown, 1985; Pica, 1997; Spada, 2006) as well as Official language discourses emanating from the Canadian federal government in regards to French/English bilingualism (as will be further discussed in the next section), which continue to reproduce models of seeing language learners as ‘essentialized interlocutors with essentialized identities, who speak essentialized language’ (Block, 2003: 4). To date, the field is still being referred to as FSL (French as a second language) education (e.g. see Lapkin et al., 2006; Mady, 2010; Salvatori, 2007, 2009; Vielleux & Bournot-Trites, 2005). Although there has been some impact of sociolinguistics (primarily as regards variation) during the past 30 years with the rise of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which focuses on the development of communicative competence (see Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1971; Richards, 1998) in second and foreign languages, languages are still viewed as autonomous, separate systems. In our own research (as demonstrated in the upcoming data sections), we find that young adults developing new, complex linguistic repertoires and identities, pose an implicit challenge to the employment of mainstream SLA theories in French language teaching. This heterogeneity also challenges

34

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

political legislative solutions adopted from the 1970s in Canada, rendering them no longer tenable as the ‘second’ in French as a second language cannot adequately capture the experiences of youth with complex, transnational identities (who claim membership to multiple ethnolinguistic communities) in a postmodern world (see Byrd Clark, 2012). Canada is one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse countries in the world with immigration accounting for two-thirds of the population growth. Renowned for its federal policies, the Official Languages Act (1968, 1988) and Canadian Multicultural Act (1971, 1985), Canada has been represented as a bilingual and pluralistic country. Despite immigration, increased mobility and the emergence of transglobal identities, official educational policies and curriculum have not expanded to include the explicit development of multilingual repertoires or societal multilingualism in classrooms (Byrd Clark, 2011). In 2008, through its initiative, Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality, the federal government invested $1.1 billion in ways to support official French/English bilingualism in both the public and private sectors. The Roadmap views bilingualism as a major asset for the economy and for the building of better integration and stronger links with international partners (2008) and is much like the recent developments with European language policies by the Council of Europe as regards language education (see Cybulska & Kabalin Borenić, Chapter 5 in this volume; Portolés Falomir, Chapter 4 in this volume; Komorowska, Chapter 2 in this volume). This initiative, however, has neither accounted for nor capitalized on the resources of the growing number of multilingual immigrant youth (Byrd Clark, 2008a, 2010; Lamarre & Lamarre, 2009). Prior to this, in 2003, The Action Plan for Official Languages was set out to double the number of Canadian secondary school graduates with functional proficiency in their second official language by the year 2013. This would require an increase in the number of professionally trained French language specialists. In Canada, federal initiatives (such as the Action Plan and Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality) are often directed at language teachers to contribute to producing effective human capital (Byram, 2010); in other words, well-developed, ‘cosmopolitan’ citizens of the world in this new knowledge economy. Nevertheless, official language policies in Canada (such as Official French/English bilingualism) continue to reproduce solutions based on the language-nation-state ideology (Hobsbawm, 1990; Lamarre, 2010) reminiscent of the 1960s and 1970s (e.g. one language, one people). By implementing these policies, the Canadian government is trying to balance maintaining individual rights (universalistic) at the same time setting up a pluralist framework to give recognition to both multicultural groups and English and French minority communities (particularistic), thereby recognizing the specificity of the cultural and linguistic community to which individuals belong. However, the notion of community is becoming blurred (Byrd Clark, 2010; Lamoureux & Labrie, 2010). Recognizing difference can become problematic

Rethink ing Mult ilingualism

35

because an individual may belong to several cultural and linguistic communities (Quell, 2000) and more importantly, not all groups (or languages for that matter) are perfectly homogeneous (Marcellesi, 1979; Rampton, 2006). This is particularly evident, when one poses the question, who or what constitutes an Anglophone, a Francophone, an Italian Canadian, for example? The responses are not so clear-cut or straightforward. A person may self-represent as all three of these identities (Byrd Clark, 2009); however, they may encounter struggles in different spaces over how this particular person is seen and/ or heard by others in different contexts juxtaposed with how the person wishes to be seen and/or heard in such contexts. The struggles have to do with notions of legitimacy, representation and authenticity, and they are very much tied to the construction of the Canadian nation-state (for further reading, see Heller, 1999). This imagined representation of the Canadian nation-state has facilitated the perpetuation of several different ideological conceptualizations (and discourses) about languages and identities; two that have preoccupied and framed FSL education have had to do with bilingualism and competence, as our upcoming findings will reveal.

Context and Background The province of Ontario welcomes the greatest percentage of immigrants to Canada and is home to Canada’s largest Francophone minority community outside the province of Quebec (Government of Ontario, 2011). Southeastern and Southwestern Ontario are particularly diverse, thriving communities. This is also true of the Francophone communities in this region (Lamoureux, 2007). Recent analysis by the Ministry of Education of Ontario reveals that French-language school boards in this area of the province are experiencing growth, whereas the province’s K-12 student body as a whole, including the French first-language education parallel system is seeing declining enrolment (Ministry of Education of Ontario, 2011). In 2005, the Rae report (2005), commissioned by the province of Ontario, confirmed that Francophones remained one of five underrepresented groups of Ontarians in higher education access. In regards to becoming a French language teacher in Ontario, there are 18 Teacher Education programs, however only 30% of the province’s publically funded higher education programs are in fact available in French, mostly at the Cité Collégiale and the Université d’Ottawa in Ottawa, and at the Collège Boréal and l’Université Laurentienne in Sudbury, with some programs at York University’s Glendon College in Toronto, the Collège Dominicain and the Université St-Paul in Ottawa, Guelph’s Collège Alfred in Eastern Ontario and the Collège Universitaire de Hearst in Northeastern Ontario. For being and becoming bilingual in Ontario, there are three main program options for acquiring French/English bilingualism (of course, there are always

36

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

options within the options). We have listed the programs in Table 3.1 to show the distinctions between the different French language learning options. It is important to note that in some cases, Core French may start before Grade 4 as individual school boards have the authority to adapt the provincial expectations to their own needs (see Lapkin, 1998), and can therefore offer this FSL program at the junior and senior kindergarten levels. The goal of Core French is to develop students’ functional communication skills in French (Ministry of Education and Training, 1998, 1999). However, the second FSL program option, called French immersion, is a more intensive program as students are immersed in French for at least half (50%) of the school day, thereby having half their school subjects taught exclusively in French. There are several types of immersion programs (early, middle, late as well as full or partial). The third option in the chart, established under Charter 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1982, is l’école de langue française (Labrie & Lamoureux, 2003), or a francophone school (also referred to as French as a first language), which constitutionally guarantees minority language educational rights to French-speaking communities outside Québec, where all subjects are taught in French. English is offered as a core subject for approximately 50 minutes a day (this can vary). Each option produces its own possibilities and constraints, although each program’s goal is to teach French in a universal, objective, standardized way. Nevertheless, the distribution of resources (in this case, access to a certain kind of French instruction) is unequal across and among the programs throughout different school boards and regions. All this to say that many studies have looked at how language teachers’ work has been changed by increases in the number of multilingual students from diverse backgrounds (e.g. Cenoz & Genesee, 1998; Dagenais, 2008; Lapkin et al., 2006). However, there is little research on the increasing numbers of multilingual teachers from diverse social backgrounds, and especially on those who have invested in being and becoming teachers of French (Byrd Clark, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010). Table 3.1 Three main program options for acquiring French/English bilingualism in Ontario Program

Core French

French Immersion

École de langue française

Mandatory

Yes. From Grade 4 to Grade 8 (Some school boards can offer Core French in Grade 1)] 600 hours of French instruction

No. Intensive program, and a choice by parents

No. A linguistic choice and right.

A minimum of 1260 hours of French

All instructions are in French.

Hours

Rethink ing Mult ilingualism

37

Research Design Rationale for conceptual approach Our research design is therefore situated within a reflexive sociolinguistic ethnographic poststructuralist framework (Bakhtin, 1981; Bourdieu, 1991; Byrd Clark, 2007) of the politics of identity and language (Giddens, 1991; Hall, 1990; Quell, 2000), and within discourses of language and ethnicity (Byrd Clark, 2007, 2008a; Heller & Labrie, 2003; Lamoureux, 2007), which have a social and political history. Because of the complexity of the data (demonstrated in the upcoming sections) and to complement our reflexive discourse analysis methodology (e.g. Aull Davies, 2010; Fairclough, 1995), we needed to draw up an interdisciplinary framework; a theoretical bricolage comprising social theory, linguistic anthropology, social psychology, post colonial studies, poststructuralism, cultural studies, French feminist studies and critical applied linguistics. For the data discussed in this article, we have drawn upon a few theorists in particular: Bourdieu (1982) and his concepts of habitus, langue légitime, symbolic capital; Giddens (1984) and his theory of structuration, especially the notion of agency; Gumperz (1982) and his notion of ‘dual monolingualisms’; Hall (1992) and his conceptualizations of the ‘Self’ and the ‘Other’ as always in relation to one another; Goffman (1963) and his representation of stigma in relation to social categorization; and Byrd Clark’s (2008, 2009, 2010) construct of symbolic investments investigating the investing of the investment; and lastly, Pennycook’s (2010) language as a local practice approach. At the same time, we needed a research design that would complement both this interdisciplinary framework and complex data to coherently locate the essence of poststructural, fluid, multi-voiced and shifting positions. By combining three methodological approaches (critical sociolinguistic ethnography, reflexivity and discourse analysis) in dialectics with an interdisciplinary theoretical framework (see Byrd Clark, 2009), permits us to see the overlapping of macro and micro, contradictory discourses (operating at both the institutional and local, everyday levels), negotiated identities and symbolic investments. Data were collected through semistructured interviews, special themed interviews, focus groups, e-mail exchanges and observations. It is important to highlight that the data samples selected for this chapter come from two different ethnographic studies (Byrd Clark, 2008, 2011), which focus on multilingual student-teachers from different French language programs. Research questions: Thus, we focus our discussion in this chapter on three main questions: (1) How and why are teacher-learners invested in becoming teachers of French? In other words, what place does French hold in their lives?

38

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

(2) How do they envision teaching and learning as well as representations of French? (3) What are their experiences of gaining access to French, and how are they heard, seen and represented by others (in class, practicum . . .)?

Participants There were originally 25 students in Byrd Clark’s 2008 ethnographic study, and eight in Byrd Clark’s 2011 pilot study. However, we have selected certain participants’ discourse samples from each study (and indicated as such) that best reflect some of the complexity in the diverse experiences for those who wish to become French language teachers in the 21st century. We have chosen five participants’ (Anna Maria, Fiora, Lucia, Maverick and Vanessa) discursive samples here (all pseudonyms). The participants’ ages range between 19 and 25 years, and they have different life trajectories as well as French language learning experiences. Interestingly, some of the participants self-identified as bilinguals, Franco-Ontarians, Italian Canadians (in varied ways), Canadians, yet coming from diverse social, linguistic and geographical backgrounds. Nonetheless, their symbolic investments in French were multidimensional and meaningful (have purpose). We focus our analysis on two overlapping themes from the two sets of ethnographic data specifically from semistructured interview and focus groups. The two themes are (1) symbolic investments and notions of proficiency and accent and ILegitimacy (IL) (2) legitimacy in practicum experiences. The discursive samples reflect our research questions as regards how the participants position French as well as how they envision the teaching and learning of French, and the varied ways in which they are seen, heard and represented in their practicum (student teaching) experiences.

Research Results Symbolic investments and notions of proficiency, competence and accent This first discursive sample comes from Vanessa. For Vanessa, a firstgeneration (self-identified) Italian Canadian, French appears to be represented as more than a commodity (in this case, employment). The investment is complex as French represents a socioaffective resonance and an emotional attachment for Vanessa. At the same time, the investment in French represents a way to be seen, and perhaps heard as something other, in this case as ‘more than just to be seen as an Italian from Woodbridge’. In this excerpt, she claims and positions herself as ‘a Canadian of Italian origin who speaks French’ and yet at the same time, she rejects wanting to be identified as an

Rethink ing Mult ilingualism

39

Italian, particularly an Italian from Woodbridge, 2 in this case. Being an Italian from Woodbridge does not appear to be a valued representation for Vanessa at this particular moment, as she appears to accord French a higher value. French in this sample, represents a way to be seen as legitimate, as an imagined world which will render Vanessa more legitimacy and ‘symbolic’ power in her ideological claims of being and becoming Canadian. Vanessa:

I love Italian, like of course, it’s part of who I am, it’s my mother tongue (gah) but I don’t know, I mean, I’ve always had this thing for French, I love it, I . . . I always wanted to be part of that world . . . it was like something went off in my head. I love learning it, hearing it . . . I actually love it more than Italian . . . you know I didn’t just want to be like you know . . . I didn’t want to be, I wanted something more than just to be seen as an Italian from Woodbridge . . . like I’m a Canadian of Italian origin who speaks French, yep that’s me.

In this next upcoming sample, Lucia, a second-generation Italian Canadian, invested in school as a strategic site to attain the competence she deemed necessary to become a ‘perfect’ speaker of French. From this sample, we can observe how investments are ideological in the ways that the participants invested in what they conceived of as legitimate and authentic competence through the kinds of messages they received. More importantly, we discuss how these messages have had an impact on how they saw themselves and their linguistic practices. Many participants (Lucia, in this case) positioned school/university as a ‘strategic site’ (Marcus, 1986), an imagined, neutral, cognitively enriching place where they could gain the tools and competency needed to acquire ‘native-like’ pronunciation. However, the upcoming examples will demonstrate that language learning is far from being neutral, and that language educators need to become more aware and reflexive of their own investments. Lucia:

I don’t want to sound like I have an accent, I want people to think you know that I just speak French, that I speak it perfectly, that is my goal. And I think after fours years of studying it at university, I will have the competence and proficiency that I need to master that.

In this next section, we see two different samples from Maverick, a second-generation Canadian, who self-identifies as ‘half Italian’ bilingual, and Francophone. He expresses a particular affinity for his Francophone identity. Maverick comes from an upper-middle-class social background. His father, a director of a school board, immigrated to Canada when he was five years old from Northern Italy and settled with his family in Sudbury in Northern

40

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Ontario where there was a large Francophone community. Maverick’s mother is from Nova Scotia, and while she doesn’t speak in French, her reception in French is exceptional. In this initial excerpt, Maverick distinguishes his accent, and then describes himself as a ‘chameleon’. This is reflective of the appearance of his ease and fluidity in being able to cross and blur different social boundaries with his multiple identities and linguistic practices. He mentions that he can ‘blend in’ and that no one ‘ever places me in categories’. Maverick: I remember when I went to Québec for summer camp, well I certainly don’t have a Québec accent – mine is more, if I had to categorize, Eastern Ontarian, from the city of Ottawa – but I remember there, I was kind of like the English guy, but it wasn’t anything terrible . . . I don’t think anyone ever thinks anything when they see me . . . I don’t think anyone ever places me in categories, yeah I mean, I’m like a chameleon I can blend in (laughs) I dunno (laughing) . . . In the next passage, we see that Maverick’s heterogeneous positioning has shifted, and reflects a collective experience of linguistic discrimination that many Franco-Ontarians, growing up in a minority context, have experienced. In this particular sample, Maverick’s position has shifted from one of privilege to one of marginalization. He is at home with his parents when he recounts this experience. We are discussing the World Cup 2006 where the Italian team beat the French team, and the incident that happened with one of the French team’s players, Zidane. Maverick asks where these acts of violence really come from, and then states that while attending primary school, he and his friends were always the victims of verbal attacks because of speaking in French. They were ostracized and called names, such as ‘French fags, French frogs’. Interestingly, Maverick code-switches to English when he recounts the name-calling, and this signifies not only the memory of being called these words in English (as opposed to French) but also the social significance of such words in the construction of difference. Maverick: D’où, d’où venait les/son acte de violence vraiment (en parlant de Zidane, joueur de foot), mais moi-même, quand j’étais en école primaire, on a été toujours victimes d’attaques verb, des attaques verbaux uh, quant on a – langue, on s’entendait même like ‘French fags, French frogs’on les entendait toujours ça, mais on a habituellement presse controller, mais d’autre fois, euh neuf fois– Julie: ça devient trop difficile, oui. Maverick: Oui. (English)

Rethink ing Mult ilingualism

41

Maverick: Where does, where do these acts of violence really come from (talking about Zidane, the soccer player), but for myself, when I was in elementary school, we were always victims of verbal attacks, verbal attacks um, when we have – language, we even heard like ‘French frogs, French fags’ we heard always heard this, but we tried to control ourselves, but another time, um nine times – Julie: It becomes too difficult, yes. Maverick: Yes.

(IL)Legitimacy in the practicum In this second overlapping theme, we witness the ways in which four participants, Fiora, Vanessa, Maverick and Anna Maria are seen, heard and represented in their practicum experiences as well as their university teacher education courses. Through these discursive samples, we can see the upholding as well as the contesting of certain homogeneous representations and ideologies about languages (including accents and competence) and identities in the different settings. Some of the students are aware of how they are being positioned or having ‘difference’ pointed out to them, while one of the participants (Maverick, in this sample) interprets this difference as a compliment. The first sample focuses on Fiora, a first-generation Italian Canadian from Windsor, Ontario, who describes her experiences during student teaching. The reference to ‘proper’ French in Fiora’s sample elucidates this imagining (and at the same time, dominating discourse being [re]produced in schools) of one legitimate variety of spoken French as a homogeneous, static entity. Fiora:

(in teacher education class): I didn’t know what to do, my Associate teacher was like correcting my French, she sat at the back of the room, writing down every mistake . . . it made me so nervous, and then she told me that I really need to lose my Italian accent when I speak French, she said that I would be transferring it onto the kids, and that would not be good. I didn’t know I had an Italian accent when I speak French?!? (pause) and well, maybe I do, but what’s – is there anything wrong with that? I guess I don’t speak ‘proper’ French [. . .] I went to French Immersion, go figure?

In the second discursive sample, Vanessa recounts a French professor telling her that she speaks well for someone coming from Core French, which represents a ‘left-handed’ compliment. In this case, discourses and representations about Core French have produced a certain stigma for students coming from Core French programs: that students do not usually attain a high degree of linguistic proficiency as French Immersion students do.

42

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Vanessa (in class): ‘You speak well for someone coming from Core French.’ In the last two samples, Maverick is talking about his experiences in Lyon, France, where he was able to complete part of his teaching practicum, and Anna Maria, who claims she does not know how to self-identify as her mother is of East Indian origin, and her father is from Calabria in Southern Italy, describes her experiences while student teaching and the way that she was positioned by the students. In both examples, we see that there are dominant ways of thinking about how people should sound, behave and look. While Maverick, who is a Francophone does not appear insulted with what the French principal says to him at the end of his stay in Lyon, Anna Maria does use her agency to challenge the students’ preconceived notions and hegemonic discourse of what a Canadian ‘looks like’. Maverick (in Lyon): They thought my French was cute and funny . . . they kept asking us if we were from Québec, and I said ‘No, I’m Franco-Ontarian’ and it was like French outside Québec didn’t exist, you know? [. . .] At the end, Le proviseur met us again and said, ‘now you’re more tanned and your French is a lot better!’ Anna Maria: (reflecting on classroom) ‘The students were like ‘Miss, Miss, are you from–’ and I said, ‘Non, je suis canadienne’ and they were like ‘No you can’t be Canadian, you don’t look Canadian!’ And I said, ‘What looks Canadian?’

Discussion In the Canadian context, a monolingual view of languages (whereby bi/ multilingualism is actually conceived of as the mastery of two (or three) separate monolingual systems, in this case, monolingual English and monolingual French) (see Gumperz, 1982) pervades into schooling as many studies have focused on two homogeneous, essentialized groupings of learners in FSL education: Anglophones (speakers of English) and Francophones (speakers of French). Most of the research in FSL has historically been established for middle-class Anglophone (English-speaking) students (see Heller, 1990; Roy 2008) and has centered on their learning in French Immersion education contexts – French Immersion being represented and renowned worldwide as Canada’s bilingual education program (e.g. Genesee, 1987; Harley, 1979; Johnson & Swain, 1997; Krashen, 1984; Lyster, 2007; Nadasdi et al., 2005; Swain & Lapkin, 1982; Tarone & Swain, 1995). While this morass of research has helped contribute

Rethink ing Mult ilingualism

43

to our understanding of language development, the majority of these studies have focused on cognitive, psycholinguistic and social psychological conceptualizations of language; seeing language more as a rational, organized system (with a separately established L1 and L2 working in parallel) rather than viewing language as a social practice. The studies also tend to be more Anglodominant in their conceptualizations of bilingualism and have not addressed some of the sociopolitical realities of French Immersion (e.g. the importance of job prospects for French/English bilinguals and the sums of money invested in it as an educational option; the experiences of immigrant youth participating in these programs as well as working-class children participating in these programs). Heller (1990) argued that bilingualism, produced by immersion, should not only be interpreted in terms of how it is perceived by the majority (Anglophones), for whom it was designed to benefit, but also in terms of the minorities (Francophones) ‘on whom it inevitably has an impact’ (Heller, 1990: 17). This is significant particularly when considering the social and economic dimensions of bilingualism and how knowledge gets constructed as ‘normal’ and ‘legitimate’. However, as stated earlier, languages are not bounded wholes, and neither are the people who are part of a language community uniquely homogeneous (Pennycook, 2010; Rampton, 1995). However, critical approaches to language learning and identity in FSL/FLP (as presented in the Research Design section) are still just emerging (e.g. within the last 5–10 years, see Byrd Clark, 2008b, 2009; Roy, 2008). This monolingual view of languages, often referred to as the Chomskyian conception of language that is, ‘the mystic need for separate, perfect, wellbalanced mastery of languages’ (Moore & Gajo, 2009) and the ultimate goal of becoming, speaking, and feeling like an idealized native speaker are still being reproduced and promoted in language-learning classrooms across the country and worldwide (see Castellotti, 2008; Davies, 2003; Mahboob, 2005). As such, many FSL university and teacher education programs struggle with the tensions between finding ways to promote diversity and having to operate under an ideological competence-skills-based model of language (Chomsky, 1965). This universalist model views language learning as the mastery of ‘unitary, determinate practices that people can be trained in’ (Fairclough, 1992: 44), rather than viewing linguistic repertoires as plural and multidimensional, shifting in different social contexts. ‘What is valued is a mastery of a standard language, shared across boundaries, and a marker of social status’ (Heller, 1999: 5). Heller argues that setting up bilingualism as two separate monolingualisms, where each variety conforms to certain prescriptive norms places some students at an advantage over others in terms of their ease of access of learning to be bilingual that way. Nevertheless, because of the intersections between nation and an idealized (common) language(s) in the form of a standard variety, language teachers (in particular) have an enormous amount of pressure from society to ‘fit within the norm’ regarding their language proficiency and linguistic competence. They are often

44

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

critiqued and under scrutiny by other teachers (parents and students) if they happen to speak another linguistic variety of French or speak French with a ‘different’ accent other than what is ideologically deemed the standard linguistic variety and legitimized accent (see Byrd Clark, 2008c, 2009). Kramsch (2006) has argued that the competence of the language teacher shouldn’t be based on the capacity of one’s performance in one language in a specific context, but rather ‘as the ability to translate, transpose, and critically reflect on social, cultural, and historical meanings conveyed by the grammar and the lexicon’ (p. 103, cited in Pennycook, 2010: 141). It is often this diversity of meanings (how things get embodied, lived out) and the capacity to demonstrate the diversity of meanings, especially the historical and political dimensions of meanings, or the ones that get covered up, as Kramsch would attest (2011) that get overlooked in language pedagogy.

Conclusion As a critical part of the discussion and before concluding, we return and revisit our research questions: (1) How and why are teacher learners invested in becoming teachers of French? In other words, what place does French hold in their lives? In the studies presented in this chapter, we can see that French holds significance for the youth, as they tend to view French as symbolic capital. Yet, this significant and symbolic capital represent a multidimensional purpose that shifts in different contexts. For example, at varied moments, some of the participants claim French as an identity (heritage, historical trajectory), whereas others see French as a treasure, as something that renders them special or unique. For some, French is the ‘next best thing’ as many of the youth cannot be guaranteed success at finding teaching positions in Italian. Finally, for many, French gets positioned as an identity marker of what counts or constitutes a real (or legitimate) Canadian citizen (e.g. bilingual), and as a means to access upward social and economic mobility. However, as future teachers, whether aware or not, French appears to become significant as a tool or creative space in which the youth can challenge traditional, and unrealistic conceptualizations of national (homogeneous) identities and ‘idealized native speaker bilingualism’. (2) How do they envision teaching and learning as well as representations of French? Interestingly, the participants’ representations of teaching and learning are intricately linked to and informed by their experiences and interactions.

Rethink ing Mult ilingualism

45

In their discursive samples, many of the participants conveyed traditional representations of languages and identities, particularly language as something to master or perfect, and at the same time, they conveyed expressions of inadequacy; not feeling ‘good enough’ or viewed ‘worthy’ as speakers of French. Some of the participants detailed their experiences of linguistic discrimination and the devaluing of their ways of speaking (including accents). At other moments, the participants’ heterogeneous positionings counter and problematize traditional conceptions of French language learning and teaching. While they receive messages from different interlocutors about ways of being, doing and thinking, they continue to persist with their desires of becoming teachers of French. (3) What are their experiences of gaining access to French, and how are they heard, seen and represented by others (in class, practicum . . .)? As one can see, the participants received various messages from parents, Associate teachers, principals and professors from different contexts about French (whether it be in relation to their own linguistic varieties of French, their accent or their engagement with French). We see a monolingual view of bilingualism perpetuated in their samples and the impact of nationalist discourses. Additionally, we are permitted to see the multiple ways the participants’ self-represent in different contexts and during particular interactions as well as their recollections of experiencing marginalization, stigmatization, discrimination and at the same time, recognition, pride and feeling valued. It would be interesting to come back to the participants in a few years’ time and talk with them about these representations, and see what we would both have to say. The research findings we have presented here in this chapter provide one way for us to understand how and why (future) language teachers do the things that they do, how they see themselves, how they are seen by others in certain contexts, and how certain representations become meaningful or symbolic (Kramsch, 2009; Moscovici, 1984). The creation of new policies means more than taking account of unequal power relationships, more than an oppressor/oppressed deficit model, it means creatively finding ways to support diversity and more opportunities for equal access to education. New policies on heterogeneity could support not only challenging, but engaging people to think differently about languages, identities and cultures with a deeper understanding of what it means to be and become multilingual and multicultural Canadian. From the discursive samples here, we can see not only who is learning French in the 21st century but also who is teaching French, and what this means for language education in Canada and elsewhere. To recapitulate then, sociolinguistic reflexive ethnographic research creates potential spaces for us to become reflexive of our linguistic practices, of

46

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

our own ideological investments and of our own identifications as well as others’ interpretations of us in different spaces, times and places. We can become more aware of how and why we think, speak, and act in the ways that we do in particular settings with particular people. This is important, as we can no longer look, categorize or treat learners/citizens/individuals as homogeneous, static, sedentary or unidimensional entities. We look much more at how individuals construct their humanity, their ways of being, doing and thinking through discourse (or their social and linguistic practices), and how these shift in contexts, interactions and moments. We need to think about the ways in which we have been labeled or categorized, and get in touch with our own ideological attachments and investments, so that we can take action and create new public policies, to imagine a social reality that offers more opportunities and less constraints. More importantly, with sociocultural research (insofar as what we have presented here) we can see how socialization has an impact on our own investments, and how we come to think about things; how we internalize such things. This can not only lead to an understanding of how complex social processes and relations operate, demonstrating that languages and identities cannot be categorized into neat, separate compartments with delineated boundaries in the brain (Block, 2003; Firth & Wagner, 1997), but can lead us to think differently about language, education and teaching; to a reconceptualization of multilingualism where heterogeneity (and difference) is valued.

Notes (1) We use the term investment, rather than attitudes (see Cybulska & Kabalin Borenić, Chapter 5 in this volume; Portolés Falomir, Chapter 4 in this volume), to capture the social dimension, as well as the ways in which individuals’ positionings change depending on with whom they speak, the context in which they find themselves and their varied interactions. (2) Woodbridge is a chic quartier located North of the city of Toronto that is recognized as a space where many Italian Canadians settled in the early 1980s. It is positioned as a particular geographical space and associated with many stereotypical images of Italians.

References Aull Davies, C. (2010) Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Bayliss, D. and Vignola, M-J. (2000) Assessing language proficiency of FSL teacher candidates: What makes a successful candidate? Canadian Modern Language Review 57 (2), 217–244. Block, D. (2003) The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1982) Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard. Byram, M. (2010) Linguistic and intercultural education for Bildung and citizenship. The Modern Language Journal 94 (ii), 317–321. Byrd Clark, J. (2007) Discourse encounters through school experiences: the notion of Italianità meets the construction of la francité. In M. Mantero (ed.) Identity and Second

Rethink ing Mult ilingualism

47

Language Learning: Culture, Inquiry, and Dialogic Activity in Educational Contexts (pp. 93–117). New York: Information Age Publishing. Byrd Clark, J. (2008a) Journeys of integration in Canada’s pluralistic society: Italian Canadian youth and the symbolic investments in French as official language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Byrd Clark, J. (2008b) So, why do you want to teach French? Representations of multilingualism and language investment through a reflexive critical sociolinguistic ethnography. Education and Ethnography 3 (1), 1–16. Byrd Clark, J. (2008c) Comment definir le Francophone? Quelques réflets [How to define who is Francophone? Some reflections]. Plume Revue semestrielle de l’Association iranienne de Langue et Littérature françaises (AILLF), Troisième année, numèro 6, AutomneHiver 2006–2007, 55–75. Téhéran, Iran. Byrd Clark, J. (2009) Multilingualism, Citizenship, and Identity: Voices of Youth and Symbolic Investments in a Globalized World. London: Continuum. Byrd Clark, J. (2010) Making some ‘wiggle Room’ in French as a second language/français langue seconde: Reconfiguring identity, language, and policy. In S. Lamoureux and N. Labrie (eds) Special issue, Canadian Journal of Education 33 (2), 379–406. Byrd Clark, J. (2011) La signification du plurilinguisme et la voix de jeunes italo-canadiens [The meaning of multilingualism and the voices of Italian Canadian youth]. Cahiers d’ILOB (Institut des langues officielles et du bilinguisme) (vol. 2, pp. 1001–1021). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: University of Ottawa Press. Byrd Clark, J. (2012) Heterogeneity and a sociolinguistics of multilingualism: Reconfiguring French language pedagogy. Language and Linguistics Compass Blackwell Online Journal 6 (3), 143–161. (Invited/Commissioned submission). Byrd Clark, J. and Labrie, N. (2010) La voix de jeunes canadiens dans leur processus d’identification: Les identités imbriquées dans des espaces multiformes. In S. Osu (dir.), Construction D’identité Et Processus D’identification (pp. 435–438). Berlin: Éditions Peter Lang. Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage (2008) Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality 2008–2013: Acting for the future. Retrieved from http://www.pch.gc.ca/ pgm/slo-ols/pubs/08-13-LDL/index-eng.cfm (accessed 31 May 2008). Canada Privy Council Office (2003) Action Plan for Official Languages. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Intergovernmental Affairs. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1 (1), 1–47. Castellotti, V. (2008) Vers une école et une société plurielle: des notions en débat, des orientations à construire [Toward a pluralistic school and society: some notions to debate, some orientations to construct]. In V. Castellotti and E. Huver (dir.) Insertion scolaire et insertion sociale des nouveaux arrivants [Academic and social insertion of the newly arrived]. Glottopol 11, 2–12. Cenoz, J. and Genesee, F. (1998) Psycholinguistic perspectives on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds) Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education (pp. 16–32). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Dagenais, D. (2008) Developing a critical awareness of language diversity in immersion. In T. Fortune and D. Tedick (eds) Pathways to Bilingualism and Multilingualism: Evolving Perspectives on Immersion Education (pp. 201–220). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fairclough, N. (1992) Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman. Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (1997) On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 81 (3), 285–300.

48

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster. Gumperz, J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall. S. (1990) Cultural identity and diaspora. In J. Rutherford (ed.) Identity: Community, Culture and Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Hall, S. (1992) The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall, D. Held and T. McGrew (eds) Modernity and its Future (pp. 274–316). Cambridge: Polity Press. Heller, M. (1990) French immersion in Canada: A model for Switzerland? Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 9 (1), 67–86. Heller, M. (1999) Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. London: Longman. Heller, M. and Labrie, N. (2003) Discours et identités. Transformations de la francité canadienne [Discourse and Identity: Canadian Francité (Frenchness) between Modernity and Globalization]. Collection ‘Proximités: langages’, Fernelmont (Belgique): Éditions Modulaires Européennes. Hobsbawm, E. (1990) Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kramsch, C. (2006) From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern Language Journal 90 (2), 249–252. Kramsch, C. (2009) The Multilingual Subject. What Language Learners Say about Their Experience and Why it Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Labrie, N. and Lamoureux, S. (dir.) (2003) L’éducation de langue française en Ontario: enjeux et processus sociaux. Sudbury: Prise de parole. Lamarre, P. (2010) Living multilingualism in Canadian cities: Challenges to theory and to the political accommodation of diversity. Conference panel introduction presented at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 18 conference at the University of Southampton, Southampton, September 1–4. Lamarre, P. and Lamarre, S. (2009) Montréal ‘on the move’: Pour une approche ethnographique non-statique [Montreal on the move: For a non-static ethnographic approach]. In T. Bulot (ed.) Formes & Normes Sociolinguistiques. Ségrégations et discriminations urbaines [Sociolinguistic Forms and Norms. Urban Segregation and discrimination] (pp. 105–134). Paris: L’Harmattan. Lamoureux, S. (2007) La transition de l’école secondaire de langue française à l’université: perspectives étudiantes [The transition from French language secondary school to university: Student perspectives]. Thèse de doctorat non-publiée, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Lamoureux, S. and Labrie, N. (2010) Liminaire: Langue, identité et politiques éducatives [Introduction. Language, Identity and Educational Policies]. Revue canadienne de l’éducation [Canadian Journal of Education] 33 (3), 473–479. Lapkin, S. (ed.) (1998) French Second Language Education in Canada: Empirical Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Lapkin, S., MacFarlane, A. and Vandergrift, L. (2006) Teaching French as a Second Language in Canada: Teachers’ Perspectives. Ottawa, ON: CASLT/CTF/CAIT. Lyster, R. (2007) Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content. London: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mady, C. (2010) Motivation to study core French: Comparing recent immigrants and Canadian-born secondary school students. Canadian Journal of Education 33 (3), 564–587. Mady, C. and Turnbull, M. (2010) Learning French as a second language – Reserved for Anglophones? Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 99, 1–23.

Rethink ing Mult ilingualism

49

Marcellesi, J.B. (1979) Quelques problèmes de l’hégémonie culturelle en France: Langue nationale et langues régionales. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 21, 63–80. Marcus, G.E. (1986) Contemporary problems of ethnography in the modern world system. In J. Clifford and G.E. Marcus (eds) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (pp. 165–193). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Moore, D. and Gajo, L. (2009) French voices on plurilingualism and pluriculturalism: Theory, significance and perspectives. International Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 6 (2), 137–153. Moscovici, S. (1984) The phenomenon of social representations. In R.M. Farr and S. Moscovici (eds) Social Representations (pp. 3–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norton, B. (2000) Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Change. Essex: Pearson Educational. Pennycook, A. (2010) Language as a Local Practice. London: Routledge. Quell, C. (2000) Speaking the languages of citizenship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Rampton, B. (1995) Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman. Rampton, B. (1999) Styling the other: Introduction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3, 421–427. Rampton, B. (2006) Language in Late Modernity: Interaction in an Urban School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. (1998) The scope of second language teacher education. In J.C. Richards (ed.) Beyond Training (pp. 1–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roy, S. (2008) French immersion studies: from second-language acquisition (sla) to social issues. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 54 (4), 396–406. Spada, N. (2006) Communicative language teaching: current status and future prospects. In J. Cummins and C. Davis (eds) Kluwer Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 271–88). Amsterdam: Kluwer Publications. Veilleux, I. and Bournot-Trites, M. (2005) Standards for the language competence of French immersion teachers: is there a danger of erosion? Canadian Journal of Education 28 (3), 489–510.

4

Analysing Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes towards Three Languages in Two Different Sociolinguistic and Educational Settings Laura Portolés Falomir

Introduction Over the last decades, there has been a growing interest in the study of multilingualism due to globalisation, the growth of international trade, an increase in multiculturalism, freedom of mobility from one country to another and the heterogeneity and diversity of different languages. The European Union and the introduction of the Bologna Process in education have notably increased the necessity and importance of learning languages. In fact, the presence of two languages or more in the curriculum is a common practice in many multilingual societies in Europe, as is the case of the Valencian Community (Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007; Safont, 2007) in which three languages coexist: a minority language (Catalan), a majority language (Spanish) and a foreign language (English). In this vein, there is a need for more in-depth study of the multilingualism phenomenon and especially those bilingual communities in which the introduction of English as a third language leads towards multilingual education (Alcón & Safont, 2013; Cenoz & Jessner, 2009; Martí & Safont, 2008). The hegemony of English as the lingua franca of research and instruction is undisputable, although English alone is not enough. Language policies should guarantee an extended knowledge of other European languages as well as increase protection and respect for minority languages. Otherwise, in the educational field there is a risk of domain loss in special registers in 50

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

51

languages other than English. In order to implement coherent language policies, there is a strong need to analyse prospective teachers’ attitudes towards languages in contact. Studies show that positive attitudes towards a language lead to efficient language learning (Lasagabaster, 2003) and teachers play a paramount role in the formation of children’s language attitudes (Dooly, 2005). In this way, closely examining the attitudes of Teacher Training students may help in the development of good language-in-education policies. These undergraduates’ language attitudes may be determined by several factors, such as mother tongue and sociolinguistic context, which deserve further examination (Cenoz, 2009). The current study is intended to broaden and consolidate our knowledge of multilingual communities, in particular the Valencian Community, which despite offering an attractive investigative context due to the coexistence of three languages, has still not been thoroughly investigated within this framework (Safont, 2005, 2007). In addition, further research is needed to investigate those factors which may determine attitudes towards languages. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is to analyse prospective teachers’ attitudes towards the three languages coexisting at Valencian Universities by examining the effect of the sociolinguistic context and the mother tongue. After explaining the motivation underlying this study, we shall next present its general structure. The following section provides an overview of the theoretical framework on which our investigation is based. This section examines the notion ‘language attitudes’ and its main characteristics. In addition, results from previous research are discussed thereby focusing on the effect of the sociolinguistic context and the mother tongue on trainee teachers’ attitudes. The section titled ‘The Study’ presents the study, its research questions and hypotheses followed by a description of the participants, the questionnaire used and the procedure that was followed. The subsequent two sections show the results and discussion, respectively, on the basis of the hypotheses presented. Finally, we suggest a possible point of departure for future investigations along with some pedagogical implications, such as the need to bring intercultural competence and language awareness courses into the language classroom.

Theoretical Background The role played by affective factors in language acquisition has been widely investigated. Among these affective variables, language attitudes play a determining role in the learning process (Garrett, 2010). The definition provided by Sarnoff on language attitudes is the one which has received wide consensus. According to Sarnoff (1970: 279), an attitude is ‘a disposition to react favourably or unfavourably to a class of objects’. In this regard, language attitudes would be the favourable or unfavourable feelings attached to a

52

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

language. According to Baker (1988), the main characteristics of an attitude are the following: (a) it is not inherited; (b) it is learnt; (c) it is relatively stable and (d) it has a tendency to persist. However, other authors (Giles & Powesland, 1975; Trudgill, 1983) consider that attitudes are rarely static and change along time due to personal experience or exposure to social and political influences. In fact, the effect of external and internal factors (such as the sociolinguistic context and the mother tongue) on language attitudes have been considered strong predictors in previous research (Huguet, 2007; Lasagabaster, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007; Loredo et al., 2007; Safont, 2007). The sociolinguistic and learning situation where language acquisition takes place seems to be pivotal in the analysis of language attitudes in a bilingual community. Historical, social, political and cultural forces determine the importance given to the languages in contact. Baker (2000) indicates that the level of support for, and inhabitants’ attitudes towards, bilingualism and bilingual education in a country are essential elements that determine a country’s linguistic situation. We believe that due to this reason, language policies and planning are strong predictors in the formation of language attitudes, as also argued by Byrd and Lamoureux in this volume. Otherwise, bilingual communities without good language policies and with two different linguistic systems in contact could lead to situations of diglossia or asymmetric bilingualism (Safont, 2007). Previous research (Huguet & Llurda, 2001; Lasagabaster, 2005) indicates that attitudes can be related to the specific sociolinguistic context where the instructional centre is located and there can be important differences in the use of the majority, the minority and the foreign language. In the Valencian Community, the sociolinguistic context has been regarded as highly determinant on subjects’ language attitudes. There are notable differences on language use and attitudes in the three provinces which comprise the Valencian Community (Castelló, València and Alacant). In previous studies on language attitudes in this context (Aparici & Castelló, 2010; Safont, 2007), those students living in Spanish-speaking areas presented the most favourable attitudes towards Spanish and neutral attitudes towards Catalan, and those participants living in Catalan-speaking territories showed the most favourable attitudes towards the minority language (see Figure 4.1). Aside from that, the linguistic landscape (Daley et al., 2004; Landry & Bourhis, 1997) has also been investigated as a determining predictor in language attitudes. According to Landry and Bourhis, the term linguistic landscape refers ‘to the visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial signs in a given territory or region. It is proposed that the linguistic landscape may serve important informational and symbolic functions as a marker of the relative power and status of the linguistic communities inhabiting the territory’ (Landry & Bourhis, 1997: 23). In this sense, the linguistic landscape of a region provides valuable information about the sociolinguistic context and

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

53

Figure 4.1 Linguistic map of the Valencian community

the uses of languages in contact in a bilingual or multilingual region (see Komorowska, Chapter 2 in this volume). Furthermore, the linguistic landscape in institutional contexts may differ from public institutions and private institutions. Private institutions in this educational context are based on a religion or ideology and have more freedom when it comes to admitting students and implementing language policies. In a way, private institutions have more room to manoeuvre than public institutions which are subject to government administration. Public schools and universities tend to protect minority or endangered languages more than private schools which prefer the use of international languages. In this sense, public and private institutions may differ in language-in-education policies and consequently language attitudes among students may differ, as is the case in Lasagabaster’s (2003) study in the Basque Country. In general, we can conclude that the sociolinguistic context may exert a great influence on the formation of individuals’ language attitudes towards languages in contact. Although the region of origin and the linguistic landscape are the main predictors in determining language attitudes, we should not forget that attitudes may also be originated in the core of the family where values, norms and sense of attachment are transmitted. In this sense, individuals tend to acknowledge positive attitudes to their first language as a sign of identity and belonging. Language provides a sense of identity and belonging which is very important when it comes to attributing group membership. Previous research (Huguet, 2007; Loredo et al., 2007; Safont, 2007) has shown how the home language had an impact on language attitudes towards the majority language (Spanish) and towards the minority language (Catalan), but not towards the foreign language (English), except in the case of Lasagabaster’s (2001, 2004, 2007) studies in the Basque Country where L1 also influenced language attitudes towards English. In the context of our study, Safont (2007) indicated that students with L1 = Catalan or bilingual students showed favourable attitudes towards the minority language, whereas Spanish speakers were neutral. However, students with Spanish as mother tongue or bilingual students presented positive attitudes towards the

54

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

majority language, whereas L1 Catalan students’ attitudes were neutral. There were not statistically significant differences in attitudes towards the foreign language depending on the students’ mother tongue. Taking into consideration the results of these empirical investigations dealing with the impact of the first language on language attitudes, we may infer that individuals’ home languages are important factors in the formation of language attitudes, regardless of whether the language has majority or minority status in the region. The effect of the L1 on the foreign language is not clear-cut and requires further investigation.

The Study Research question and hypotheses Considering language attitudes as a key factor in the study of multilingualism (Baker, 2000; Cenoz, 2009; Garrett, 2010; Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007; Safont, 2007), the current study addresses the following research questions: (1) What are teaching trainer students’ attitudes towards the majority language, the minority language and the foreign language? (2) What is the effect of the sociolinguistic context and the mother tongue which may account for attitudinal differences? Considering the above research questions and the empirical evidence of the effect of language attitudes on students’ learning process in several studies, we formulate the following hypotheses guiding the current study as follows: Hypothesis 1:

The sociolinguistic context will have an impact on students’ language attitudes towards the majority language (Spanish) and the minority language (Catalan), but not towards the foreign language (English). Hypothesis 2: The home language will have an impact on language attitudes towards the majority language (Spanish) and towards the minority language (Catalan), but not towards the foreign language (English).

Method Participants The sample in this study comprised 75 students from two different universities in the Valencian Community, which were divided into two groups: 44 students from Universitat Jaume I (henceforth UJI) in Castelló and 31

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

55

students from Universidad Católica de Valencia (henceforth UCV). UJI is a public higher education centre where, since its creation, the languages of tuition have been Catalan and Spanish. In this sense, teachers have complete freedom to decide the language of instruction for their subject. However, even in this university where more Catalan is spoken as a vehicular language, there is still a predominance of Spanish in teaching. Besides, UJI offers a rich bilingual landscape, which is visible in the campus, on its webpage and in its advertising leaflets. Furthermore, the use of English in the campus is also becoming stronger year by year and this is reflected in the linguistic landscape. On the contrary, UCV is a private religious university and offers a completely different linguistic landscape. Signs and leaflets in the campus are written exclusively in Spanish and the webpage only offers versions in Spanish and English. It would seem that the Catalan language shows no signs of life at UCV. The average age of the participants in our study was 24. These Teacher Training undergraduate students were selected because as future teachers their influence on the development of children’s language attitudes is decisive. According to Dooly (2005), teachers’ attitudes, perceptions and expectations have a strong impact on the formation of students’ attitudes and identity. The participants were distributed on the basis of the variables analysed, namely those of the sociolinguistic context (UJI or UCV) and the mother tongue (Catalan, Spanish or both Catalan and Spanish), as follows (see Table 4.1).

Instrument In order to assess students’ language attitudes, we used a questionnaire (see Appendix A) on language use and language attitudes towards three languages in contact developed by Baker (1992), further modified by Lasagabaster and Huguet (2007) and translated into Catalan for our purposes. This questionnaire has been widely used in previous research on this topic and, consequently, it is replicable and valid for our purposes. This questionnaire is divided into three main sections. The first section gathers background information about the participants, such as age, gender, mother tongue and sociolinguistic context, among others. In the second section, respondents answer questions concerning the use of the two official languages with reference to (i) their relations (family, friends, classmates, Table 4.1 Students’ background information Sociolinguistic context

Mother tongue L1 = Catalan

L1 = Spanish

L1 = both

UJI

44

23

10

11

UCV

31

8

18

5

Whole Sample

75

31

28

16

56

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

teachers and neighbours) and (ii) the means of communication (television, press music and radio). Participants in the study are also invited to answer items regarding the importance attached to the minority language in daily activities such as shopping, passing examinations, getting a job, talking to teachers, writing or educating children. Finally, the third section deals with students’ attitudes towards the three compulsory languages in the Valencian curriculum – Spanish, Catalan and English. In this study we focus on the third section of the language attitudes questionnaire. Here, language attitudes are assessed by means of 10 items on a five-point Likert scale for each of the languages examined. In what follows, we present an example of the 10 items related to the Catalan language. Here are some statements about the Catalan language. Please say whether you agree or disagree with these statements. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be as honest as possible. Answer with ONE of the following: SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree NAND = Neither Agree Nor Disagree D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree

(circle SA) (circle A) (circle NAND) (circle D) (circle SD)

1. I like hearing Catalan spoken 2. Catalan should be taught to all pupils in the Valencian Community 3. I like speaking Catalan 4. Catalan is an easy language to learn 5. There are not more useful languages to learn than Catalan 6. I prefer to be taught in Catalan 7. Learning Catalan enriches my cultural knowledge 8. I would not mind marrying a Catalan speaker 9. Catalan is a language worth learning 10. If I have children, I would like them to be Catalan speakers regardless of other languages they may know

SA A NAND D SD SA A NAND D SD SA A NAND D SD SA A NAND D SD SA A NAND D SD SA A NAND D SD SA A NAND D SD SA A NAND D SD SA A NAND D SD SA A NAND D SD

Procedure The questionnaire was pilot tested with 10 students and then distributed to all participants and completed after a regular class. The time allowed for completion was 30 minutes. The questionnaires were then collected by the researcher and the answers codified for analysis with SPSS.

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

57

The section that we focused on consists of a five-point Likert-type scale, in which the minimum score for each item is 0 (very negative attitude) and the maximum is 100 (very positive attitude). The attitudes towards each of the languages in contact were codified in the following way: the option Strongly Agree (SA) was recorded as 100, the option Agree (A) as 75, Neither Agree Nor Disagree (NAND) as 50, Disagree (D) as 25 and Strongly Disagree (SD) as 0, a procedure already utilised in other studies (Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007). Once the results were codified, the average score for the 10 items related to each language was obtained, which allowed us to distinguish three categories: (1) the first included unfavourable attitudes, that is to say, those between 0.000 and 33.333; (2) the second category comprised neutral attitudes, for those whose scores were between 33.334 and 66.666; and (3) the third consisted of those students who held favourable attitudes, that is, those between 66.667 and 100.000. In this manner, we had at our disposal a quantitative variable (the average score for the 10 items) which could also be used in a qualitative way (depending on their favourable, neutral or unfavourable attitudes). Data analysis included Mann–Whitney U-test and Kruswal–Wallis tests with a significance level at 0.05. Any result ranging below 0.01 indicated a high significance in the relation of the variables. Those results were rounded to two decimal places.

Results As regards our first hypothesis, that the sociolinguistic context would have an impact on students’ language attitudes towards the majority language and the minority language, but not towards the foreign language, is not confirmed. In fact, the current study offers a new trend – the sociolinguistic context determines language attitudes towards the majority language and the foreign language, but not towards the minority language. This will be explained in depth later on. In general, the analysis of the students’ language attitudes towards the three languages in contact depending on the sociolinguistic context reported great differences. Figure 4.2 shows that students at UJI displayed the most favourable attitudes towards Catalan (M = 71.47; SD = 16.39), followed by Spanish (M = 63.97; SD = 12.20) and finally, English (M = 63.35; SD = 12.55). In contrast, students at UCV showed an inverse pattern indicating the most positive attitudes towards English (M = 82.17; SD = 7.18), followed by Spanish (M = 73.87; SD = 12.72) and the least positive attitudes towards Catalan (M = 66.85; SD = 17.13). Table 4.2 represents the attitudes (favourable, neutral or unfavourable) towards the minority language (Catalan) that appeared in the study and their percentages. The table presents the overall results obtained at UJI and

58

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Figure 4.2 Language attitudes: Means and standard deviations of each language depending on the sociolinguistic context

the overall results obtained at UCV. Tables 4.3 and 4.4 offer the same information concerning the majority language (Spanish) and the foreign language (English), respectively. As can be seen in the samples, globally favourable attitudes dominate in the three languages, although there is a notably contrasting presence of neutral language attitudes depending on the group analysed. In fact, the neutral attitudes at UJI obtained towards the majority language and the foreign language score 60% in both cases, while neutral attitudes at UCV towards these two languages are almost nonexistent; there is actually no presence of neutral attitudes towards English at UCV. Table 4.2 Attitudes towards the minority language with reference to the sociolinguistic context Favourable (%)

Neutral (%)

Unfavourable (%)

UJI

66

32

2

UCV

61

39

Table 4.3 Attitudes towards the majority language with reference to the sociolinguistic context

UJI UCV

Favourable (%)

Neutral (%)

40 81

60 19

Unfavourable (%)

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

59

Table 4.4 Attitudes towards the foreign language with reference to the sociolinguistic context

UJI UCV

Favourable (%)

Neutral (%)

40 100

60

Unfavourable (%)

In the minority language sample (see Table 4.2), there were very slight differences between the two sociolinguistic contexts under investigation. More than 60% of the sample in both universities showed favourable attitudes towards the minority language while 30% of the sample displayed neutral attitudes. Only one respondent at UJI showed unfavourable attitudes towards Catalan. With reference to the majority language (see Table 4.3), major differences were found among the sociolinguistic contexts analysed. The UCV displayed the most favourable attitudes towards Spanish; in fact 81% of the whole sample held very positive attitudes towards the majority language. In contrast, a predominance of neutral attitudes towards Spanish was found at the UJI. Specifically, 60% of the respondents denoted neutral attitudes while only 40% of them showed attitudes that were more favourable. Finally, as far as English is concerned, Table 4.4 shows that 100% of the respondents at UCV held favourable attitudes towards the foreign language, while the attitudes displayed at UJI were predominantly neutral (60%). As illustrated in Table 4.5, comparative analyses were carried out by means of Mann–Whitney tests in order to compare the two sociolinguistic contexts and the results showed no statistical differences between the sociolinguistic context variable and attitudes towards Catalan (U = 571.0, p = 0.232). Nevertheless, this variable affected their attitudes towards Spanish significantly (U = 352.5, p = 0.000) as well as towards English (U = 134.5, p = 0.000). After analysing the effect of the sociolinguistic context, we turn our attention to examine the influence of L1 on the students’ language attitudes. Statistical analyses showed significant differences in attitudes towards either language based on the home language variable, which indicates that the mother tongue determines language attitudes in the studied areas. However, Table 4.5 Mann–Whitney Test: Attitudes towards each language and the sociolinguistic context Mann–Whitney Test Spanish

English

U de Mann–Whitney

Catalan 571.0

352.5

134.5

Asymp. sig (p)

0.232

0.000

0.000

(a) Grouping variable: Sociolinguistic context

60

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

our hypothesis, which put forward that the home language would have an impact on language attitudes towards the majority language (Spanish) and towards the minority language (Catalan), but not towards the foreign language (English), is partially confirmed as this study in fact offers a new pattern; that the mother tongue variable has an effect on language attitudes towards all three languages. As observed in the results, the attitudes of our participants towards their mother tongue are highly positive. Figure 4.3 shows that students with L1 = Catalan held the most favourable attitude towards their own language (M = 78.79; SD = 12.27), then towards the international foreign language (M = 67.66; SD = 15.58) and finally towards the majority language (M = 62.33; 12.97). In the case of students with Spanish as a mother tongue, they obtained the highest mean towards the foreign language (M = 76.60; SD = 12.25), then towards Spanish (M = 74.73; SD = 13.21) and finally towards the minority language (M = 59.10; SD = 17.65). Moreover, concerning those students with both languages as L1, they scored the highest mean towards the minority language (M= 70.00; SD = 11.86), then towards English (M = 68.28; SD = 11.78) and finally towards Spanish (M = 67.50; SD = 10.95).

Figure 4.3 Language attitudes means and standard deviations of each language depending on the mother tongue

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

61

Table 4.6 Attitudes towards the minority language with reference to the mother tongue Favourable (%) L1 = Catalan

Neutral (%)

35

7

L1= Spanish

15

21

L1= both

17

4

Unfavourable (%)

1

However, important differences were obtained when examining students’ attitudes towards each language. In the case of attitudes towards the minority language (see Table 4.6), 35% of 42% of those students whose mother tongue was Catalan denoted favourable attitudes towards their mother tongue and only 7% of the respondents showed neutral attitudes. In contrast, 15% of 37% of respondents whose mother tongue was Spanish held favourable attitudes towards Catalan, 21% showed neutral attitudes and 1% reported unfavourable attitudes. Similarly, those students with L1 = both showed more positive attitudes towards Catalan than their L1 Spanish counterparts. Concerning the majority language (see Table 4.7), 16% of 42% of students whose L1 was Catalan denoted favourable attitudes towards Spanish whereas 31% of 37% of the respondents with L1 = Spanish indicated the most positive attitudes towards their own language. As happened with reference to the minority language, students with L1 = Spanish showed the most favourable attitudes and the least neutral attitudes towards their own mother tongue, whereas students with L1 = Catalan held the most neutral attitudes towards Spanish and the least favourable attitudes towards Spanish. Likewise, students with L1 = both were more favourable towards the majority language than students whose mother tongue was Catalan. Finally, when examining the attitudes towards the international foreign language (see Table 4.8), surprisingly, statistically significant differences were found Table 4.7 Attitudes towards the majority language with reference to the mother tongue Favourable (%)

Neutral (%)

L1 = Catalan

16

26

L1= Spanish

31

6

L1= both

11

10

Unfavourable (%)

Table 4.8 Attitudes towards the foreign language with reference to the mother tongue

L1 = Catalan L1= Spanish L1= both

Favourable (%)

Neutral (%)

23 31 12

19 6 9

Unfavourable (%)

62

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Table 4.9 Kruswal–Wallis test: Attitudes towards each language and the mother tongue Kruswal–Wallis test Chi-square Asymp. sig (p)

Catalan

Spanish

English

19.103

13.970

5.850

0.000

0.001

0.054

(a) Grouping variable: Mother tongue

depending of the students’ home language. Those with Spanish as L1 showed more positive attitudes than those with Catalan or both languages as L1. Indeed, 31% of 37% of the L1 = Spanish sample held favourable attitudes towards English, whereas only 6% of them indicated neutral attitudes. Then, students with L1 = Catalan and L1 = both indicated similar language attitudes towards the foreign language. On the one hand, 23% of 42% and 19% of 43% of the Catalan respondents held favourable and neutral attitudes respectively. On the other hand, 12% of 21% and 9% of 21% of the L1 = both sample showed favourable and neutral attitudes, respectively. As presented in Table 4.9, the comparative analysis by means of the Kruswal–Wallis test exhibited strong significant differences between the mother tongue variable and (i) attitudes towards Catalan (χ2 = 19.103, p = 0.000); (ii) attitudes towards Spanish (χ2 = 13.970, p = 0.001) and finally; (iii) attitudes towards English (χ2 = 5.850, p = 0.054). The following section discusses and analyses the results with reference to the variables under investigation.

Discussion The important role played by the sociolinguistic context and the mother tongue in language attitudes has been suggested in the findings obtained. However, although most of the results were as expected, we have also gained new insights into the study of language attitudes in the Valencian Community. Unexpectedly, the first important consideration is that there were not statistical differences between the sociolinguistic context and language attitudes towards the minority language, although language attitudes towards Catalan were still more positive at UJI in Castelló. After performing the statistical analyses, we may confirm that the variable sociolinguistic context accounts for attitudinal differences towards the two international languages (Spanish and English), but not towards the minority language (Catalan). On the one hand, these results lead us to think that students at UCV are more open towards multilingualism as they showed favourable attitudes towards all three languages. On the other hand, students at the Universitat Jaume I tended to indicate more favourable attitudes towards the

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

63

minority language rather than towards the two international languages. The main reason for having less positive attitudes towards Spanish and English may be that students living in this Catalan-speaking area feel the need to protect the minority language against the two international languages. In addition, at UJI, due to its geographical location, the Catalan language has a stronger presence in the street and therefore, in the linguistic landscape. In fact, it is the dominant language of communication at this university. In contrast, at UCV the predominant language and the language of communication at the university is mainly Spanish. This study is partially in line with Safont’s (2007) language attitudes study in the Valencian Community in which those students living in Spanish-speaking areas presented more favourable attitudes towards Spanish and neutral attitudes towards Catalan, whereas participants living in Catalan-speaking territories showed favourable attitudes towards both languages. The sociolinguistic context variable did not affect attitudes towards the foreign language in her study. In contrast, in the current study, students at UCV mainly live in Spanish-speaking areas and presented favourable attitudes towards both official languages. In fact, there were no significant differences on language attitudes towards Catalan between both groups. However, it is true that those living in Catalan-speaking territories showed the most favourable attitudes towards the minority language and the least positive attitudes towards both international languages. Bearing in mind these results, this pattern is similar to the one found in Aparici and Castelló (2010) and Lasagabaster (2003, 2005). On the one hand, Aparici and Castelló’s (2010) report on language attitudes indicated that students from the UJI in Castelló showed the most positive attitudes towards the regional language and the less favourable attitudes towards English, whereas students from the public universities of Valencia showed the most positive attitude towards the foreign language and the majority language. On the other hand, Lasagabaster’s studies (2003, 2005) on language attitudes in the Basque country found a very similar pattern, in the sense that participants from Basque-speaking territories showed more favourable attitudes towards the minority language (Basque), whereas students from Spanish-speaking areas held more positive attitudes towards the two international languages (Spanish and Basque). Basque speakers living in a Basque-speaking community felt the need to protect their home language and culture against the international languages and this may be the reason for them having less positive attitudes towards English and Spanish. These findings seem to suggest that the sociolinguistic context has a strong impact on determining language attitudes. The asymmetric bilingualism that characterises the Valencian Community leads to the formation of different linguistic attitudes depending on the region of origin. While students in Castelló tended to be more protective with regard to the minority language, students in Valencia were generally more open towards the three

64

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

languages in contact. Further research is needed at this point to analyse the extent to which undergraduates’ language attitudes at the University of Alacant differ from the universities analysed. In fact, investigations have shown (Aparici & Castelló, 2010; Baldaquí, 2004; Casesnoves & Sankoff, 2003; Safont, 2007) that the three provinces which comprise the Valencian Community differ in their social and educational appreciation of the existing languages. Related to the second hypothesis, we have seen that the mother tongue variable also accounts for the attitudinal differences expressed by the subjects examined, in the sense that they tend to show more favourable attitudes towards a certain language according to their familiarity with it and vice versa. That is to say, if we consider the home language variable as a system of gears, our representation will be illustrated in the following way (see Figure 4.4). The above illustration represents how the mother tongue exerts an influence in the development of language attitudes. When we move towards the Catalan language pole, positive attitudes towards this regional language increase at the same pace as they decrease towards Spanish. When we move towards the Spanish language pole, attitudes towards Spanish increase as they decrease gradually towards Catalan. In this way, the gear located in the middle of the system, which stands for the group with both languages as home languages, represents those attitudes that are always in between. They are not as favourable towards Catalan as the students with L1 = Catalan and neither are they as favourable towards Spanish as the group with Spanish as the home language. These outcomes are very similar to the studies mentioned in our theoretical framework (Baldaquí, 2004; Huguet, 2007; Lasagabaster, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007; Safont, 2007). However, what effect does the home language have with regard to the international foreign language? The current study offers a new trend that

Figure 4.4 Illustration of the home language influence

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

65

contradicts previous results (Huguet, 2007; Loredo et al., 2007; Safont, 2007) in which no relationship was found between the home language and attitudes towards English. In fact, most of the participants whose mother tongue was Spanish showed highly positive attitudes towards English, which was not the case of students whose home language was Catalan or both languages. These findings are reminiscent of Lasagabaster’s (2001, 2003, 2004, 2007) studies in the Basque Country, where the home language had an impact on language attitudes towards the foreign language. In these studies, Lasagabaster found that students with Spanish as their L1 showed the most favourable attitude towards the foreign language. Lasagabaster argued that Basque L1 speakers may consider ‘English as a threat to the linguistic rights of the minority and has prompted Basque speakers to build attitudinal fences in order to stand up for their linguistic rights’ (Lasagabaster, 2004: 21). In the same way, this may also be going on in the Valencian Community; Catalanspeaker students may feel threatened by the dominant presence of both international languages and this may be the main reason for them being more unfavourable towards these languages. According to our results and those of previous empirical investigations dealing with the impact of the first language on language attitudes, we may conclude that individuals’ home language is an important factor in the formation of language attitudes, regardless of the status of the language. The effect of the L1 on the foreign language was not clear-cut in previous studies, although, in this chapter, we have clearly seen the influence of the home language in the development of language attitudes towards the foreign language. Further research is needed at this point to examine the effect of the mother tongue on language attitudes towards English.

Conclusion Since attitudes have an effect on multilingual speakers, we believe that language attitudes should be taken into consideration in designing language policies at universities provided there is an aim towards multilingualism (Byrd & Lamoureux, Chapter 3 in this volume). Thus, Valencian universities have the responsibility of promoting language awareness courses and organise conferences and round tables on the topic of multilingualism, as suggested by Cybulska and Kabalin Borenić (Chapter 5 in this volume). However, this type of event should be open to the whole society and not limited to the university community. As we have seen, language attitudes are not only developed in formal contexts, but they may also be influenced by the family unit and the sociolinguistic context. In this way, the society in general should be aware of (i) the importance of learning languages in contemporary Europe; (ii) the utmost importance of preserving and promoting our minority language and (iii) the value of respecting other languages and cultures. Sometimes, negative

66

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

attitudes may be held due to lack of information or the strong influence exerted by politicians. In this study, our participants denoted very favourable attitudes towards the three languages, although we should not forget that subjects enrolled in Teacher Training degree tend to highly value languages in general, as occurred in the study by Cybulska and Kabalin Borenić (Chapter 5 in this volume). The role of these prospective teachers may have an impact in the development of children’s language attitudes. We may expect that if these teachers have positive attitudes towards languages their future pupils are more likely to have them as well. Hence, language policies at universities play a major role in the promotion of language learning. Another point worth mentioning is that our analysis of language attitudes has been carried out from a traditional point of view, that is, focusing on each language separately. Jessner (2008) proposed a holistic view to approach multilingualism by suggesting that the parts of a whole are dynamically interrelated and they should not be studied in isolation. This view contrasts with the monolingual view in which the multilingual speaker is seen as several monolingual speakers in one person. In this sense, further research is needed to analyse language attitudes from a holistic perspective, that is, considering the three languages in contact as a whole and not as independent identities. Some studies (Lasagabaster, 2002, 2005; Lasagabaster & Safont, 2008) have already focused on language attitudes from a holistic approach and results seem to differ from those obtained from traditional approaches. In fact, it has been claimed that the effect of variables on language attitudes tend to vanish when a holistic approach is carried out. This clearly reflects the influence that the type of questionnaire (traditional or holistic) may exert on the findings. Paraphrasing Lasagabaster (2002), this is a matter that deserves further consideration in future research. In addition, we would also like to comment on some pedagogical implications that may be useful for improving the Teacher Training Degree. In this study, we have noticed that language planning in Teacher Training should avoid the isolation of language courses and put into practice language awareness courses with the introduction of intercultural competence (García & Sylvan, 2011). This fact may improve students’ interest in, and understanding of languages and diversity. In this vein, further research and consideration is needed to facilitate the implementation and the inclusion of intercultural competence in new methodologies with the aim of improving would-be teachers’ formation through aspects of intercultural competence. It is expected that these language awareness courses will increase students’ attitudes towards languages and cultures, so it would be interesting to analyse how such courses may have an effect on the attitudes of prospective teachers. We should not forget that ‘teachers need to be sensitized to the important role language plays in maintaining cultural identity and social ties’ (Byrnes et al., 1997: 642). Hence, the role to be played by future educators is therefore of utmost importance.

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

67

This study lays important ground for future investigations and comparisons in the area of language attitudes in multilingual contexts, as is the case of the Valencian Community, in which few studies have been carried out in such a context. External and internal factors are responsible for language change over the span of time on an individual level adjusting one’s language system to one’s communicative needs (Herdina & Jessner, 2002: 74). This study indicates how language attitudes are fluid in nature and change over time, as argued by Komorowska in this volume. In fact, the attitudes patterns found in this study may widely differ from those 10 years later. For this reason, this chapter may shed light in the dynamic nature of multilingualism.

Acknowledgments As member of the LAELA (Lingüística Aplicada a l’Ensenyament de la Llengua Anglesa) research group at Universitat Jaume I (Castelló, Spain), I would like to acknowledge that this study is part of a research project funded by Fundació Universitat Jaume I and Caixa Castelló-Bancaixa (P1.1B2011-15).

References Alcón, E. and Safont, P. (2013) English and multilingualism. In C. Chappelle (ed.) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 3883–3888). New York: Wiley & Sons. Aparici, A. and Castelló, R. (2010) Informe sobre els usos lingüístics a les universitats públiques valencianes 2010 [Report on the language uses of the public universities in the Valencian Community 2010]. Servei de Llengües i Terminologia: Universitat Jaume I. Baker, C. (1988) Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (1992) Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2000) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (3rd edn). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baldaquí, J.M. (2004) Competencia lingüística y actitud hacia la lengua en alumnos escolarizados en un programa educativo bilingüe [Linguistic competence and students’ attitudes towards language in an immersion bilingual programme. Bilingual Communities and Individuals: Proceedings from the First International Symposium on Bilingualism]. In Comunidades e Individuos Bilingües. Actas do I Simposio Internacional sobre o Bilingüismo (pp. 916–928). Universidad de Vigo: Servicio de Publicaciones. Byrnes, D.A., Kiger, G. and Manning, M.L. (1997) Teachers attitudes about language diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education 13 (6), 637–644. Casesnoves, R. and Sankoff, D. (2003) Identity as the primary determinant of language choice in Valencia. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 (1), 50–64. Cenoz, J. (2009) Towards Multilingual Education: Basque Educational Research from an International Perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. and Jessner, U. (2009) The study of multilingualism in educational contexts. In L. Aronin and B. Hufeisen (eds) The Exploration of Multilingualism (pp. 121–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Daley, R., Gile, H. and Jansma, L. (2004) Language attitudes in an Anglo-Hispanic context: The role of the linguistic landscape. Journal of Language and Communication 25 (1), 27–38. Dooly, M. (2005) Linguistic diversity: A qualitative analysis of foreign language teachers’ category assembly. PhD thesis, Universidad de Barcelona.

68

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

García, O. and Sylvan, C. (2011) Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms: Singularities and pluralities. The Modern Language Journal 95 (3), 385–400. Garrett, P. (2010) Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giles, H. and Powesland, P.F. (1975) Speech Style and Social Evaluation. London: Academic Press. Herdina, P. and Jessner, U. (2002) A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Huguet, A. (2007). Language use and language attitudes in Catalonia. In D. Lasagabaster and A. Huguet (eds) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts (pp. 17–40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Huguet, A. and Lurda, E. (2001) Language attitudes of school children in two Catalan/ Spanish bilingual communities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4 (4), 267–282. Jessner, U. (2008) Teaching third languages: Facts, trends and challenges. Language Teaching 41 (1), 15–56. Landry, R. and Bourhis, R.Y. (1997) Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16, 23–49. Lasagabaster, D. (2001) University students’ attitudes towards English as an L3. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufesisen and U. Jessner (eds) Looking Beyond Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Tri- and Multilingualism (pp. 43–50). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Lasagabaster, D. (2002) The role of instrumental and integrative attitudes in a multilingual context. II Simposio Internacional del Bilingüismo [Second International Symposium on Bilingualism]. Victoria-Gasteiz: Universidad del País Vasco. Lasagabaster, D. (2003) Trilingüismo en la enseñanza. Actitudes hacia la lengua minoritaria, la mayoritaria y la extranjera [Trilingualism at school. Attitudes towards the minority, the majority and the foreign language]. LLeida: Milenio. Lasagabaster, D. (2004) Attitudes towards English in the Basque autonomous community. Word Englishes 23, 211–224. Lasagabaster, D. (2005) Attitudes towards Basque, Spanish and English: An analysis of the most influential variables. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 26 (4), 296–316. Lasagabaster, D. (2007) Language use and language attitudes in the Basque country. In D. Lasagabaster and A. Huguet (eds) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts (pp. 65–90). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lasagabaster, D. and Huguet, A. (2007) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Lasagabaster, D. and Safont, M.P. (2008) Un análisis de las actitudes lingüísticas en dos comunidades bilingües. XXVI Congreso AESLA [An analysis of language attitudes in two bilingual communities. XXVI AESLA Conference]. Loredo, X., Fernández, A., Suárez, I. and Casares, H. (2007) Language use and language attitudes in Galicia. In D. Lasagabaster and A. Huguet (eds) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts (pp. 40–65). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Martí, O. and Safont, M.P. (2008) Achieving Multilingualism: Wills and Ways. Castelló de la Plana: Col⋅lecció Estudis filològics de la Universitat Jaume I. Safont, M.P. (2005) Third Language Learners. Pragmatic Awareness and Pragmatic Production. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Safont, M.P (2007) Language use and language attitudes in the Valencian community. In D. Lasagabaster and A. Huguet (eds) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Context (pp. 90–113). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Sarnoff, I. (1970) Social Attitudes and the Resolution of Motivational Conflict. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Trudgill, P. (1983) On Dialect. Oxford: Blackwell.

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

69

Appendix A Actituts envers tres llengües en contacte (Adapted from Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007) Ens agradaria que ens ajudares a respondre a les següents preguntes. No es tracta d’un test, així que no hi ha respostes correctes o ‘incorrectes’, i de fet es tracta d’un qüestionari anònim. Ens interessen les opinions personals. Per favor, respon amb sinceritat, donat que sols així es garantitza l’èxit d’aquesta recerca. Moltes gràcies per la teua col⋅laboració.

Secció 1 1. Edat (en anys i mesos): 2. Especialitat (títol al que aspires): 3. Curs: En les següents preguntes posa una ‘X’ on calga. 4. Sexe: Home Dona 5. Llengua materna: Català Castellà Català i Castellà 6. Professió dels pares PARE MARE a/ Gerent, director o propietari d’empresa amb més de 25 treballadors ▭ ▭ b/ Títol de grau superior (advocat, arquitecte, químic, enginyer, metge, professor, economista, etc.) ▭ ▭ c/ Títol de grau mitjà (mestre, enginyer tècnic, ATS, etc.) o quadre mitjà d’empresa sense titulació superior (cap comercial, cap de producció, cap administratiu, etc.) ▭ ▭ d/ Propietari d’empresa o comerç de menys de 25 treballadors, auxiliar de clínica, administratiu, representant comercial, etc. ▭ ▭ e/ Obrer especialitzat o treballador del sector serveis (mecànic, xofer, policia, obrer, llandero, cambrer, llumero, etc.), llaurador o ganader. ▭ ▭ f/ Peó, temporer, vigilant, etc. ▭ ▭ g/ Mestressa de casa ▭ ▭ h/ Altres (especificar) .................................................. ▭ ▭ 7. En aquesta secció ens agradaria que respongueres les següents preguntes simplement donant puntuacions del 1 al 4. 1 = Res,

2 = Un poc, 3 = Bé,

4 = Molt bé

70

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Per exemple, si el teu domini del xinés és ‘molt bé’, el japonès ‘bé’ i no saps àrab ‘res’ escriuries el següent:

Competència general

Xinès

Japonès

Àrab

4

3

1

Per favor, posa sols un únic número (i sols un) en cada requadre sense deixar ningun dels que apareixen sense resposta les tres primeres columnes (Català, Castellà i Anglès). Si coneixes algun altre idioma, per favor posa els números en la columna ‘Altre’ després d’especificar quin és l’ idioma en qüestió. En la teua opinió, quina és la teua competència lingüística en . . .? Català

Castellà

Anglès

Altre (Especifica:

Altre ) (Especifica:. . .. . .)

Competència general Llegir Escriure Parlar Entendre (oral)

8. Vaig començar a estudiar català als anys 9. Vaig començar a estudiar castellà als anys 10. Vaig començar a estudiar anglès als anys 11. Has estat alguna volta en un país de parla anglesa?: Sí No 12. Lloc de residència: a) Més de 100.000 habitants b) Menys de 100.000 habitants 13. Província: Castelló València Alacant 14. Al meu lloc de naixement es parla: principalment el castellà principalment el català 15. Jo he estudiat en: un centre escolar públic un centre escolar privat 16. Amb quina freqüència veus la televisió en anglès? Mai Gairebé mai Una o dues voltes per setmana De 3 a 5 voltes por setmana Diàriament 17. Mitjançant quin batxillerat has accedit a la universitat? Científic-tècnic Ciències de la salut Humanitats i ciències socials Artístic Altres (especificar): .......................................................

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

71

18. En quin model lingüístic vas completar la majoria dels teus estudis preuniversitaris? Línea Català (PEV) Línea Castellà (PIP) Altres (PIL, centre privat. especifica:.........)

Secció 2 Ara volem saber quina llengua utilitzes amb les següents persones. Per favor, posa una X dins el requadre que expressa millor la teua situació. Per exemple, si sempre parles castellà amb el teu pare, posa X en l’últim requadre: Sempre en català

Més en català que en castellà

Indistintament en català i castellà

Més en castellà que en català

Sempre en castellà

1. Pare

En quin idioma parles Tú amb les següents persones? Tria una de les respostes: Sempre en Més en català Indistintament Més en castellà Sempre en català que en castellà en català i que en català castellà castellà 1. Pare 2. Mare 3. Germans 4. Companys de classe 5. Amics fora de la universitat 6. Professors (excepte els de les llengües) 7. Veïns (prop de ma casa)

Quin idioma utilitzes Tu per realitzar les següents activitats? Sempre en Més en català Indistintament Més en castellà Sempre en català que en castellà en català i que en català castellà castellà 1. Vore la television 2. Llegir la premsa escrita 3. Escoltar música 4. Escoltar la radio

72

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

En la teua opinió, quina importància té el català per a fer les següents activitats? No hi ha respostes correctes o incorrectes. PER:

Important

Prou important

Poc important

No és important

1. Fer amics 2. Llegir 3. Escriure 4. Vore la television 5. Aconseguir un treball 6. Que els caigues bé als demés 7. Viure en la Comunitat Valenciana 8. Educar als fills 9. Anar de compres 10. Trucar per telèfon 11. Aprovar els exàmens 12. Ser acceptat al teu entorn 13. Parlar amb amics a la universitat 14. Parlar amb professors 15. Parlar amb gent fora de la universitat

Secció 3 A continuació hi ha unes afirmacions sobre el català. Per favor digues si estàs d’acord o no amb elles. No hi ha respostes correctes o incorrectes. Per favor tracta de ser el més honest/a que pugues. Contesta amb una de les següents opcions: TA = Totalment d’Acord A = d’Acord NAND = Ni d’Acord Ni en Desacord D = Desacord TD = Totalment en Desacord

(assenyala TA) (assenyala A) (assenyala NAND) (assenyala D) (assenyala TD)

1. M’agrada escoltar el català parlat ...................................TA A NAND D TD 2. El català té que impartir-se en tots els centres escolars de la Comunitat Valenciana......................... TA A NAND D TD 3. M’agrada parlar en català .............................................. TA A NAND D TD 4. El català és un idioma fàcil d’aprendre ........................ TA A NAND D TD 5. No es poden aprendre altres idiomes més útils que el català ........................................................................ TA A NAND D TD

Analysing Prospec t ive Teachers’ At t itudes towards Three L anguages

73

6. Prefereix que les classes siguen en català .................... TA A NAND D TD 7. Aprendre català enriqueix el meu bagatge cultural .............................................................................. TA A NAND D TD 8. No m’importaria casar-me amb un parlant sols de català ..................................................................... TA A NAND D TD 9. Val la pena aprendre català............................................. TA A NAND D TD 10. Si tingués fills m’agradaria que parlaren català.......... TA A NAND D TD A continuació hi ha unes afirmacions sobre el castellà. Per favor digues si estàs d’acord o no amb elles. No hi ha respostes correctes o incorrectes. Per favor tracta de ser el més honest/a que pugues. Contesta amb una de les següents opcions: TA A NAND D TD

= Totalment d’Acord = d’Acord = Ni d’Acord Ni en Desacord = Desacord = Totalment en Desacord

(assenyala TA) (assenyala A) (assenyala NAND) (assenyala D) (assenyala TD)

1. M’agrada escoltar el castellà parlat .............................TA A NAND D TD 2. El castellà té que impartir-se en tots els centres escolars de la Comunitat Valenciana ......................... TA A NAND D TD 3. M’agrada parlar en castellà ......................................... TA A NAND D TD 4. El castellà és un idioma fàcil d’aprendre .....................TA A NAND D TD 5. No es poden aprendre altres idiomes més útils que el castellà .. ............................................................ TA A NAND D TD 6. Prefereix que les classes siguen en castellà . ................TA A NAND D TD 7. Aprendre castellà enriqueix el meu bagatge cultural ..........................................................................TA A NAND D TD 8. No m’importaria casar-me amb un parlant sols de castellà ...............................................................TA A NAND D TD 9. Val la pena aprendre castellà ........................................TA A NAND D TD 10. Si tingués fills m’agradaria que parlaren castellà .......TA A NAND D TD (independentment de que sàpiguen altres idiomes) .........TA A NAND D TD A continuació hi ha unes afirmacions sobre l’anglès. Per favor digues si estàs d’acord o no amb elles. No hi ha respostes correctes o incorrectes. Per favor tracta de ser el més honest/a que pugues. Contesta amb una de les següents opcions: TA = Totalment d’Acord A = d’Acord NAND = Ni d’Acord Ni en Desacord D = Desacord TD = Totalment en Desacord

(assenyala TA) (assenyala A) (assenyala NAND) (assenyala D) (assenyala TD)

74

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

1. M’agrada escoltar l’anglès parlat ..................................TA A NAND D TD 2. L’anglès té que impartir-se en tots els centres escolars de la Comunitat Valenciana ...........................TA A NAND D TD 3. M’agrada parlar en anglès .............................................TA A NAND D TD 4. L’anglès és un idioma fàcil d’aprendre ..........................TA A NAND D TD 5. No es poden aprendre altres idiomes més útils que l’anglès ....................................................................TA A NAND D TD 6. Prefereix que les classes siguen en anglès ....................TA A NAND D TD 7. Aprendre anglès enriqueix el meu bagatge cultural ....TA A NAND D TD 8. No m’importaria casar-me amb un parlant sols d’anglès ...................................................................TA A NAND D TD 9. Val la pena aprendre anglès ..........................................TA A NAND D TD 10. Si tingués fills m’agradaria que parlaren anglès (independentment de que sàpiguen altres idiomes) ........TA A NAND D TD Per favor comprova que hagués respost a totes les afirmacions

5

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goals of Multilingualism and Plurilingualism. A Survey of Attitudes in Poland and Croatia Katarzyna Cybulska and Višnja Kabalin Borenic´

Introduction Recent developments in European language policy shaped by the Council of Europe and the European Union, as well as ongoing research in language didactics, stress the significance of the effective dissemination of multilingualism through language education (e.g. Cenoz & Genesee, 1998; Council of Europe, 2007; Hufeisen & Neuner, 2004; Jessner, 2008; Komorowska, 2008, 2009; Otwinowska, 2011; Wilczyn´ska, 2007). While language teachers are regarded as allies in achieving multilingualism for all and are expected to become experts in multilingualism (Jessner, 2008), they also exert a strong educational influence on students’ attitudes and perceptions (Bartram, 2010; Horvatić Čajko, Chapter 10 in this volume). Teachers’ language attitudes are therefore seen as crucial (Bernaus et al., 2007; Cenoz, 2009; Dooley, 2005; Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007) in developing individual multilingualism as well as in maintaining linguistic diversity in Europe. Hence, the aim of this chapter is to investigate the attitudes of EFL pre-service teachers to languages and language learning and to identify whether they reflect the EU multilingualism policy. Also, we will attempt to determine 75

76

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

whether the number of languages spoken and teaching experience could be related to willingness to use pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures (Candelier et al., 2010) and to promote other languages in the classroom. The chapter opens with a review of European language policy goals, and academic contributions to multilingualism and language attitudes. The educational contexts of Poland and Croatia are then described to provide the background for this study into the attitudes of 80 pre-service teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) in the two European countries. Following the literature review and context analysis, the research design is presented: six research questions (RQs), a detailed description of the research sample (year of study, teaching experience, number of languages spoken and selfassessed competence levels), the instrument used and the procedures that were followed. The results section of the chapter reports on the outcomes of the content analysis, descriptive statistical analysis and Pearson chi-square tests concerning the attitudes towards foreign languages and foreign language learning, willingness to promote or learn less widely used languages (LWULs), reasons for learning foreign languages other than English, motivation to promote plurilingualism and multilingualism through teaching practice, and the relation of the number of languages spoken to positive attitudes towards promulgating plurilingualism. Following the discussion section, the chapter ends with several concluding remarks. The chapter presents EFL trainees both as language learners and as (future) language teachers. The findings enhance the current understanding of language attitudes in the European context and add to the analysis of the European language policy implementation.

Literature Review Notions of multilingualism and plurilingualism have become the backbone of European language education policy, instilling a sense of reform in the member states. According to the Council of the European Union (2008), multilingualism constitutes a cross-cutting theme, for it involves not only social and cultural spheres but also economic or educational ones. The Council of Europe, in turn, distinguishes plurilingualism from multilingualism on a psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic basis, by defining the former as an ability to use languages at varying degrees of proficiency and for different purposes, while the latter is referred to as ‘the presence of different languages at the same time in a given geographical area’ (Council of Europe, 2007: 10, 67 respectively). The key priorities in the field of language education policy towards multilingualism and plurilingualism in Europe (cf. e.g. Council of Europe, 2001; Council of Europe, 2007; Council of the European Union, 2008; European Commission, 2003) encompass the provision of various languages, including LWULs, from an early age to all Europeans at all levels of

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goal s of Mult ilingualism

77

education and on a lifelong learning basis (at least two foreign languages should be mastered). Accordingly, member states are encouraged to promote high-quality plurilingual education with the aim of enhancing Europeans’ plurilingual competence, both quantitatively and qualitatively, raising their awareness of their linguistic and cultural repertoire as well as its value, and strengthening their management of learning processes (see Council of Europe, 2007). Language education policies also face the issue of major languages, such as Spanish or French and, most importantly, English. Unlike LWULs, English promotes itself (Komorowska, 2006; cf. also Phillipson, 2010) and the number of EFL speakers in Europe is constantly growing: 38% of Europeans speak it as a foreign language (European Commission, 2006) and as many as 77% believe it should be the first foreign language their children learn (European Commission, 2006). Furthermore, even if multilingualism is politically, scientifically and academically viewed as a positive phenomenon, multilingual speakers of low-prestige languages are frequently viewed as being unable to speak any language properly (Wilton, 2009). As evidenced by the dynamic model of multilingualism (DMM) (Herdina & Jessner, 2002) or the factor model (Hufeisen & Marx, 2007), multilingualism and multilingual acquisition/third or additional language acquisition (De Angelis, 2007) are intricate phenomena that involve a variety of factors shaping an individual’s lifelong linguistic development. The model of multilinguality (Aronin & Ó Laoire, 2004) gives precedence to the aspect of one’s identity, which naturally implies the formation of specific attitudes. The importance of language attitudes (Bartram, 2010; Gardner, 2010; Garrett, 2010) has been confirmed by varied strands of research, which include the investigation of attitudes towards standard/non-standard and native/non-native varieties of English speech (McKenzie, 2010); the interconnectedness of learners’ cultural background and attitudes involved in learning three different languages (Bernaus et al., 2004); relationships between linguistic attitudes and foreign language learning outcomes (Mihaljević Djigunović & Bagarić, 2007, Nikolov, 2007); attitudes towards the minority language (Catalan), the majority language (Spanish) and English (Llurda et al., 2006); attitudes towards maintaining a minority language (Gibbons & Ramírez, 2004); local and immigrant students’ language attitudes (Ibarraran et al., 2008); and finally, challenging monolingual ‘English-only’ attitudes (East, 2009). Positive attitudes, apart from being regarded as an indispensable component for language learning, are also seen as ‘one of the aims of teaching languages’ (Cenoz, 2009: 176). Moreover, teachers’ attitudes have an important effect on students’ language learning achievement (Bernaus, 2003). Hence, research has also addressed teachers’ attitudes through diverse studies, such as investigating pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards dialect and its use in the educational context (Diederen et al., 1984); teachers’ attitudes towards bilingual education (Shin & Krashen, 1996); teachers’ attitudes

78

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

towards language diversity (Byrnes et al., 1997; Dooley 2005); and pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards third language learning/multilingualism in bilingual contexts (Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007). The benefits of analysing teachers’ attitudes and raising their language awareness are captured as follows by Lasagabaster and Huguet: the analysis of teachers’ attitudes is a must, as it may shed some light on language issues, while at the same time making them reflect on their own ideas, beliefs, and knowledge (. . .) and practices. If teachers’ language awareness is raised, it seems reasonable to affirm that there is a better opportunity to spread this awareness and valorization of linguistic diversity amongst their students. (Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007: 237–238) The success of teaching languages to achieve plurilingualism is closely intertwined with teachers’ multilinguality and their awareness of the values and potential of plurilingualism (see Language Education Policy Profile. Poland, 2007: 40). Since language teachers have social responsibilities towards their students, they are expected to act in line with the European language policy and to take an active part in developing their own and their students’ plurilingual competence (cf. Bernaus, 2007: 16–17). Horvatić Čajko (Chapter 10 in this volume) also emphasises the role teachers play in developing their students’ metalinguistic awareness, a springboard to multilingual competence. On the basis of her study, Dooley (2005) suggests that the teachers’ perspective on multicultural and multilinguistic elements in a classroom can have a strong bearing on students’ educational, employment and life opportunities. Interestingly, the study shows that pre-service teachers are likely to transform their initial reservations towards linguistic diversity into more positive attitudes (Dooley, 2005).

Research Context: Educational Realities of Becoming an FL Teacher in Poland and Croatia Poland became a member of the Council of Europe in 1991, has been a full member of the Bologna Process since 1999 and a member state of the European Union since 2004. Croatia, in turn, signed its membership agreement with the Council of Europe in 1996, has been a full member of the Bologna Process since 2001 and a member state of the EU since 1 July 2013.

Poland The richness of the teacher education system in Poland may be portrayed by the number of institutions in which FL teacher training takes place (Komorowska, 2004). These include university and non-university

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goal s of Mult ilingualism

79

types of higher education institutions – public or non-public – (Eurydice, 2010) offering either a six-semester BA cycle or both a BA and a four-semester graduate (MA) degree programme with the choice of full-time and parttime options of studies in modern languages, specialisation in a given foreign language or applied linguistics within the scope of a given foreign language (Follow-up of the action plan on language learning and linguistic diversity. National report. Poland, 2006) or optional modules. Initial teacher training may be compulsory – as it is in foreign language teacher training colleges – or it may take the form of a specialisation where modern languages students enrol in necessary courses and complete teaching placement procedures. Owing to changes incorporated in line with the Bologna Process, language-oriented MA degree programmes are open to individuals with a BA/MA degree in any field of study who comply with the admission requirements specified by a given higher education institution (HEI). These requirements generally include language certification (C1) and substantive knowledge related to the BA programme in Language Studies (e.g. linguistics, British/American literature and culture).

Croatia In Croatia, there are currently no private higher education institutions that offer applied linguistics programmes, and all future FL teachers receive their education at public universities. Since the implementation of the Bologna Process in Croatia in 2005/06, departments of modern languages at faculties of humanities and social sciences have been providing single major and double major four-semester teacher education MA programmes. These programmes are open only to candidates who hold a BA degree in a modern language. On entry, the students are already highly proficient in the respective language or languages (six-semester BA programmes can be studied as a single major or double majors, that is, a student can major in two modern languages) and have already completed basic courses in linguistics, literature and culture studies. On graduation from a faculty of humanities and social sciences, graduates are entitled to teach the respective foreign language in any type of school. It is also now possible to enrol in a double major MA programme in modern languages and combine a major in FL teaching methodology in one language with a major in linguistics, translation or cultural studies in another language (EFL teaching methodology curriculum, University of Zagreb, 2010/11). Other FLT programmes are offered by faculties of teacher education as integrated ten-semester BA + MA programmes (for teachers of English and German only). These graduates are only entitled to teach in primary schools. In the two countries, initial teacher education comprises general preparation (including modern language courses) and professional training. The programmes represent a sound basis for lifelong learning.

80

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Research Design Research questions To investigate the attitudes of EFL teacher trainees to learning additional languages and developing plurilingual skills in EFL classes, the present study addresses the following RQs: (1) Do pre-service EFL teachers in Poland and Croatia have positive attitudes to foreign languages in general and to foreign language learning? We expect that pre-service EFL teachers are characterised by generally positive attitudes to learning foreign languages due to a wide array of advantages that spring from it (cf. Paradowski, 2011). Slight differences between the Polish and Croatian sub-sample might arise from their diverse educational backgrounds. Moreover, in the Polish context, as evidenced in the Country report. Poland. Language education policy profile (2005), there might be a general preference for international languages. (2) Are pre-service teachers likely to promote or LWULs? We expect that pre-service teachers could be induced to do so, since, as argued by Lasagabaster (2007: 87), ‘Linguistic tolerance does not come naturally; it has to be learned and to be worked at.’ (3) What reasons for learning foreign languages do EFL pre-service teachers quote most frequently? Since the participants are future teachers of a foreign language, we assume that they might be generally interested in languages per se. In addition, as they have taken courses in psychology or second language acquisition as part of their curricular requirements, they should be aware of the cognitive advantages attributable to foreign language learning. Finally, the economic value of language competences in the labour market (Klein, 2007) might be taken into account, for both Polish and Croatian are LWULs. (4) Are pre-service EFL teachers willing to promote plurilingualism and multilingualism through their teaching practice, and to use pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures (Candelier et al., 2010)? We expect that they would like to do so in line with the recommendations of the European language policy and academic calls for enhancing learners’ language awareness (see Jessner, 2006; Otwinowska, 2011; Horvatić Čajko, Chapter 10 in this volume). Being themselves speakers of LWULs, these future teachers might also feel the need to promote linguistic diversity in Europe. (5) Are the number of languages spoken and the amount of teaching experience related to readiness to use pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures in the classroom?

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goal s of Mult ilingualism

81

We expect that multilingual students (and those) with greater experience would have a better understanding of the beneficial effects of using pluralistic approaches. (6) Is the number of languages a pre-service EFL teacher speaks related to positive attitudes to foreign language learning and teaching? Our expectation is that more positive attitudes are related to the greater number of languages spoken (cf. Mihaljević Djigunović, 2013).

Participants Our sample comprised 80 MA students of Teaching English as a Foreign language (TEFL): 39 in Poland and 41 in Croatia. A breakdown according to the year of study for Poland was 17 in the first year (MA1) and 22 in the second year (MA2) of MA studies, while in Croatia 25 students were in MA1 and 16 in MA2 (Table 5.1). Aware that EFL students tend to give private lessons, we also collected data on their teaching experience. The Polish sample seemed more heterogeneous in this respect. The Polish trainees had more experience in teaching FLs than their Croatian counterparts, with as many as 36 of the Poles having taught English for a period of time between one and five+ years. By comparison, only 25 Croatian students had some teaching experience, with 19 having taught for up to three years. In both contexts, however, teaching experience was generally limited to private tutoring of primary and secondary school students and adults (General English, English for Specific Purposes and examination preparation). Only three participants had the experience of teaching in a foreign language school (one in Croatia and two in Poland). The Polish sample included a selection of TEFL students from various Polish HE institutions, all of which complied with the ministerial requirements concerning the core study programmes. The Croatian sample included the whole current population of students attending the TEFL programme at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of the University of Zagreb, Table 5.1 Participants’ year of study, number of languages spoken and teaching experience

MA1 MA2 BA major Total 1 FL 2 FL 3 FL 4 FL Teaching experience

Polish

Croatian

17 22 Varied 39 9 16 14 0 36

25 16 English 41 0 13 15 13 25

82

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

the oldest and leading institution of its kind in Croatia. We believe that the Croatian sample may be representative of the national population as the programme attracts students nationwide. The Polish participants might have entered their MA studies in modern languages/applied linguistics without having completed their BA programme in the same field (cf. the previous section); in contrast, all the Croatian participants in the study had completed BA studies in English prior to entering the MA programme. Moreover, many of them were majoring in one more modern language, which is a rather common practice among Croatian language students. While the majority of our participants were multilingual, with varied skills in at least one language besides their native language (NL) and English, only nine were bilingual (NL + English). A simple comparison showed that Croatian teacher trainees overall had more foreign languages (Figure 5.1) and higher self-assessed levels of competence in languages other than English (Figure 5.2). The participants were asked to list the languages they know beside English and to include competence levels (question 2 in questionnaire). All C1–C2 responses in each sample were counted and the sum is presented in the first two columns on the left. The sum of all B1–B2 responses is presented in the middle columns and A1–A2 responses in the right columns. The table does not include English competence levels (as it is assumed that all students are at C1–C2 level) but allows comparison as regards other languages spoken by future teachers in the two contexts.

Instrument and procedures This project owes its conception to three main sources: the first is Lasagabaster and Huguet’s study, which corroborates their claim that ‘the analysis of teachers’ attitudes is a must’ (2007: 237–238); the second inspiration 18 CRO PL

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 NL+Eng+L3+L4+L5

NL+Eng+L3+L4

NL+Eng+L3

Figure 5.1 Number of languages spoken by participants

NL+Eng

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goal s of Mult ilingualism

83

40 CRO PL

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

CEFR levels

Total reported C1/C2

Total reported B1/B2

Total reported A1/A2

Figure 5.2 Aggregated self-assessed competence levels in languages other than English

is Dooley’s study which shows that pre-service teachers could be induced to adopt positive attitudes towards multilingualism; the third is Cybulska’s doctoral research study investigating language policy awareness and attitudes of pre- and in-service EFL teachers in the Polish context. We used the questionnaire designed by Cybulska (Appendix) to investigate the language attitudes of EFL pre-service teachers and to establish whether the number of languages spoken and teaching experience could be related to willingness to use pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures and to promote other languages in the classroom. Unlike the studies on attitudes directed at pre-service teachers and conducted in bilingual environments by Lasagabaster and Huguet (2007), we decided to apply Cybulska’s questionnaire in two de jure monolingual countries and to limit ourselves to pre-service EFL teachers only. Next, we aimed to establish whether our participants’ language attitudes correspond with EU multilingualism policy. Hence, our research aims and context rendered it impossible to apply questionnaires used by other researchers (e.g. Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007; Mihaljević Djigunović, 2013). The first part of our questionnaire collected general data on EFL teacher trainees, including their year of study, knowledge of foreign languages other than English, and their teaching experience. The second part was designed to answer our RQs. It included yes/no questions but the participants were also requested to explain their responses. We investigated the attitudes of EFL teacher trainees to learning additional languages (RQ 1) and to encouraging their future students to take up additional languages (RQ 2). After tracing the participants’ preferences for learning international and/or less widely used languages, we investigated their reasons for taking up additional languages (RQ 3). Next, we enquired whether our participants would use their own and their students’ knowledge and skills in other languages in the classroom (RQ 4). In order to check the practical side of this, the participants were asked to select activities they deem most useful.

84

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Our research was conducted in March 2011, when Poland had been an EU member for seven years. Croatia, however, was still an EU candidate country. The questionnaire, written in English, was distributed to EFL teacher trainees during their regular classes. The responses to the openended questions were submitted to content analysis, whereas the numerical data were submitted to descriptive statistical analysis and Pearson chisquare tests.

Results of the Study The total figures for both samples show that the most widely spoken FLs other than English (Figure 5.3) were German and Spanish, which held high positions on the ranking lists in both contexts. The most widely known language among the Poles surveyed was Russian (13 of 39 speakers), which had significantly fewer speakers in Croatia (4 speakers). The Croatian participants listed 14 languages besides English, whereas the Polish list stops at 5 – the major languages seem to rule out the LWULs (see also Komorowska in Chapter 2 of this volume and her discussion on the popularity of FLs in the Polish system before and after the transformation).

Attitudes to foreign languages in general and to foreign language learning In response to our first RQ, we can conclude that our participants had generally positive attitudes to foreign languages and foreign language learning. The Croats’ interest in foreign languages was higher (Figure 5.3), and they 45 Total Cro Pl

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

G er

m an Sp an is h Ita lia n R us si an Fr en ch Sl ov en ia Sw n ed is h C ze ch Sl ov ak Po rtu gu es H e un ga ria n M an da rin C ro si Lat gn in la ng ua g

e

0

Figure 5.3 Languages other than English spoken by the participants

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goal s of Mult ilingualism

85

20 Total Cro Pl

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2

es Es e pe ra nt o Tu rk is Po h rtu gu es e Ar ab ic R us si an D an is h Fi nn is h N or w eg ia n C ze ch

an

an Ja p

n

er

m

lia G

Ita

is h an

Sp

Fr e

nc h

0

Figure 5.4 Languages the participants would like to learn

offered a greater selection of languages they would like to learn (Figure 5.4). Willingness to learn more languages was expressed by 32 of 41 Croatian students and 17 of 39 Polish students. The greatest number of trainees who were willing to learn additional languages wanted to learn just one more FL, that is, 15 of 17 Polish students and 19 of 32 Croats. Both in Poland and Croatia, French topped the list and the levels of interest in Italian and German were similar. The Croats were more interested in learning Spanish. Interest in LWULs and non-European languages, although relatively weak, was almost exclusive to the Croatian context, as the Polish participants valued the major languages (see also Laura Portolés Falomir’s analysis of prospective teachers’ attitudes towards three languages in Chapter 4 of this volume).

Willingness to promote or learn LWULs As regards the languages which teacher trainees would advise their students to learn (Figure 5.5), the list of languages mentioned closely resembles the list of the most widely spoken languages in the sample (Figure 5.3). Here, German and Spanish top both lists, whereas the positions of French and Italian are reversed. The sole exception is Russian, which sinks to sixth place and, although spoken by altogether 17 participants, only four Poles would recommend learning it. This implies the continued and rather unfavourable approach towards the language that used to be obligatory in schools in the period of communism in Poland (see Komorowska in Chapter 2 of this volume). Judging by the positions held by German and Spanish, both Croatian and Polish teacher trainees firmly believe that the two languages should be learnt, mostly for pragmatic reasons (cf. the results of our analysis below). With

86

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

40 Total Cro Pl

35 30 25 20 15 10 5

sh Fr en ch Ita lia n C hi ne se R us si an Tu rk is h La tin Sw ed is h Ar ab ic Si gn Po lang . An rtu gu y e fr se fa om m sa ily m e An y th ey lik e

ni

Sp a

G

er m

an

0

Figure 5.5 Languages the participants would recommend to their students

respect to the languages spoken by one or two participants, it is interesting to note that Croatian speakers of less widely used European languages (Slovenian, Czech, Slovak, Portuguese, Swedish and Hungarian) generally do not recommend learning them. Instead, a number of non-European languages make their appearance on the list. Croatian teacher trainees would recommend, for example, Chinese (which also appeared in the Polish sample), Turkish and Arabic. Since we were keen to establish whether our EFL pre-service teachers are likely to promote or learn LWULs, we first inquired whether they would take up learning another language from the same language family (e.g. Danish, Swedish or Dutch) and whether they believed their English competence would make it easier for them to learn another language from the same language family as English. While nearly all of the participants (CRO n = 40; PL n = 39) found their competence in English useful, 75% of them (CRO n = 30; PL n = 30) stated they would take an elective introductory course in Dutch, Danish or Swedish just to expand their current linguistic competence, even if they did not see any immediate contexts for using these languages. Although consistent with the responses obtained in the Croatian sample, these findings clash with the data on the Polish participants’ willingness to learn additional languages. As shown above, when the Poles were asked whether they would like to learn another language (without any particular languages being suggested and without any indication of how or when they could start learning them), they were more sceptical, that is, only 17 of them stated they might do so. Here, it turned out that 30 Polish students would be willing to learn a related language even if it were a language of lesser popularity, but provided that such a course were offered as part of their studies. Second, we inquired whether the participants would recommend learning any LWUL (e.g. Catalan, Turkish or Slovak) to their students. The

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goal s of Mult ilingualism

87

responses were also surprising. Although a rather small number of participants had mentioned LWULs earlier, when asked what languages they would recommend (see Figure 5.5), 36 Croats and 18 Poles responded positively.

Reasons for learning foreign languages other than English As regards the participants’ personal reasons for learning an additional foreign language, the greatest numbers stated as follows: it would be very educational/linguistically interesting – especially in terms of cross-linguistic comparisons (n = 19); they enjoyed learning foreign languages (n = 10); and they thought it would be useful for their career (n = 10). However, some participants also mentioned that ‘such an opportunity should be used’ or ‘I would take it up if such courses were offered for free.’ Students who responded negatively mostly stated that such learning would require a lot of additional time. A content analysis of the reasons for advising their students to learn another language presents a different picture. The reasons quoted can be divided into four broad categories: pragmatic, linguistic, aesthetic and political. The pragmatic reasons were found to be overwhelming. More than 50 responses to the question Why would you advise your students to learn x? revolved around the notion of usefulness. A language was desirable because it was widely spoken and used (e.g. ‘good for career’, it was a ‘language of science’); it was important for a particular branch of the economy (e.g. ‘useful if you plan to work in tourism’); speaking it would give a person unique, competitive advantage (e.g. it is a ‘rare competence and therefore useful’; ‘nobody knows this language’). Five participants stated that a language should be taken up because of its learning cost–benefit ratio: Spanish, Italian and Portuguese were singled out as easy to learn. Pragmatic reasons were quoted in relation to all languages, but predominantly to the widely spoken languages, namely German, French and Spanish, and non-European languages, such as Chinese. The reasons of a linguistic nature fell into two groups: reasons reflecting general interest in linguistics/languages (e.g. ‘broadening of one’s linguistic repertoire’) and reasons reflecting understanding of the multiple language learning process (e.g. ‘cognates’; ‘easier learning if one knows English’; ‘helpful with learning Germanic/Romance languages’; ‘good for cognitive skills’). We recorded altogether 24 comments reflecting linguistic considerations, with the majority referring to German. The aesthetic and political reasons were given by a considerably smaller number of participants. Only four would advise learning a language because it was beautiful, and this qualification was only used to refer to French and Spanish. Finally, the two participants (second-year Croatian students) who stated they would advise their students to learn any language gave reasons of a political nature: ‘Multilingualism is good for European society’; ‘small languages shouldn’t be ignored’.

88

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Table 5.2 Main categories of reasons for learning foreign languages (with examples) and the frequencies of the responses given For learning an LWUL – by their future students (survey question 7)

Reasons given by participants

For learning an LWUL – by the pre-service teachers themselves (survey question 10)

For learning any language – by their future students (survey question 6)

Linguistic/ educational

50% e.g. ‘to see how other languages work’

30% e.g. ‘easy if 19% e.g. ‘getting you know English’ an insight into linguistic variety’

Pragmatic

25% e.g. ‘it’d be useful for career’

62% e.g. ‘it’d be useful for career’

53% e.g. ‘any language is an asset’

Aesthetic/ personal

25% e.g. ‘I enjoy learning foreign languages’

5% e.g. ‘it is beautiful’

13% e.g. ‘learning is a challenge’

3% e.g. ‘small languages should not be ignored’

25% e.g. ‘to connect to other people more easily’

Political/social

–

When asked why they would encourage their students to learn an LWUL, the reasons quoted included pragmatic issues (e.g. ‘possibility to get a scholarship’; ‘any language is an asset’), linguistic ones (e.g. ‘getting an insight into linguistic variety’; ‘improving metalinguistic awareness’), political/social issues (e.g. ‘promoting linguistic diversity’; ‘as an introduction to new cultures’; ‘connecting with other people’) and personal reasons (e.g. ‘learning as challenging or developmental’). Again, the reasons of a pragmatic nature were the most frequently mentioned. The participants who stated that they would not advise their students to learn any LWUL justified their response solely by pragmatic reasons (e.g. ‘not important in the world of politics/ economics’; ‘useless effort unless one wishes to pay a visit there’; ‘not useful nowadays’; ‘what for?’). On a final note, it is important to stress that our participants were not required to provide any specific number of reasons for learning additional foreign languages. As a result, some of them provided an array of responses while others did not. A summary of responses to questions 6, 7 and 10, expressed as percentages for different reason categories, is presented in Table 5.2.

Willingness to promote plurilingualism and multilingualism through teaching practice Our analysis of the data reflecting the participants’ attitudes to promoting plurilingualism and multilingualism through their teaching practice

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goal s of Mult ilingualism

89

revealed that the majority held positive attitudes towards the issue. When asked whether they thought it necessary for an FL teacher to have skills in more than one FL, approximately equal numbers of Croatian and Polish participants responded positively, 24 and 25 respectively. Their positive responses were accompanied by explanations which included the benefits of being able to make lexical and structural comparisons, to incorporate methodological expertise and enhance intercultural understanding. In addition, the overwhelming majority (CRO n = 37; PL n = 37) would be willing to use pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures in their classroom. The participants were presented with a choice of activities and were asked to pick those they would find especially useful (it was possible to select more than one option). Analysing cross-cultural encounters met with the greatest interest (n = 55) and was followed by scanning non-English discourse for familiar elements (n = 48) and scanning non-English discourse for structural similarity (n = 45).

The relation of the number of languages spoken to positive attitudes towards plurilingualism As regards the relationship between the number of languages spoken and the amount of teaching experience, our analysis revealed that neither could be related to readiness to use pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures in the classroom. To be exact, there was no variability in responses to the questions about the use of and interest in pluralistic approaches and they had to be excluded from the chi-square analysis. Irrespective of the number of languages spoken and of the length of teaching experience, the participants were close to unanimous about using pluralistic didactic approaches: 95% would use their own and their students’ knowledge and skills in other languages in the language classroom. Moreover, 82% of our sample expressed an interest in attending CEFR/ELP/pluralistic approaches workshops regardless of the amount of teaching experience they had. Finally, statistical analyses confirmed that there is a positive relationship between the number of languages spoken by the teacher trainees and their language attitudes. The Pearson chi-square tests showed a statistically significant association between the number of languages spoken and interest in learning additional languages (χ2(3) = 10.37; p < 0.05). We also established a significant positive relationship between the number of languages a participant spoke and their readiness to encourage his or her students to take up an LWUL (χ2(3) = 10.74; p < 0.05). In other words, the participants who knew more languages were more inclined to learn additional languages and to encourage their students to learn LWULs. Interestingly, the association between the number of languages spoken and the belief that an EFL teacher should speak other foreign languages apart from English was not found to be statistically significant. Likewise,

90

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

no statistically significant association was found between the number of languages spoken and interest in learning a language from the same language family as English.

Discussion As shown in the ‘Results’ section, our first prediction was confirmed: pre-service EFL teachers had generally positive attitudes to learning foreign languages. There were, however, slight differences in the two samples, since Polish participants initially expressed an almost exclusive interest in the major languages. In Lasagabaster and Huguet (2007: 248), a similar ‘linguistic parochialism’ was observed in a variety of contexts. It may thus be necessary to make FL students ‘aware of the richness inherent in linguistic and cultural diversity’. Our second prediction was also confirmed: pre-service teachers could be relatively easily induced to promote or learn LWULs. Since the simple act of asking the participants about particular languages served as an awareness raising tool and prompted them to express willingness to learn them, it is likely that a greater awareness of language diversity and interest in LWULs could be achieved if language courses and workshops devoted to plurilingualism, interculturality and pluralistic approaches were provided as part of teacher training courses (Candelier et al., 2010; Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007; Pinho & Andrade, 2009). When it comes to the participants’ personal reasons for learning foreign languages, our third prediction was also confirmed. The participants were primarily governed by linguistic/educational reasons, and pragmatic reasons came second. As regards their future learners, however, the participants believed that they would primarily be motivated by pragmatic reasons. These findings are in line with findings from numerous contemporary studies on L2 motivation (e.g. Dörnyei et al., 2006). Next, our participants tended to believe that it is necessary for an EFL teacher to speak other language(s) and they were nearly unanimous regarding the benefits of pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures, which confirms our fourth prediction. With regard to the fifth prediction, the results were more optimistic than we expected, since, regardless of how many languages the EFL pre-service teachers spoke and how much teaching experience they had, 95% of the participants were positive towards pluralistic didactic approaches. It seems that the participants in our study substantiate the tenets of plurilingual/pluricultural competence as promoted widely through, for example, the Council of Europe’s documents, including the CEFR (2001), From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of language policies in Europe (2007) and Plurilingual and pluricultural competence (Coste et al., 2009). Furthermore, as discussed by Horvatić Čajko (Chapter 10 in this volume) pluralistic didactic approaches will likely increase

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goal s of Mult ilingualism

91

students’ metalinguistic awareness and thus contribute to their multilingual competence. Our sixth prediction was confirmed as well: the statistical analysis corroborated that positive attitudes to foreign languages were related to the number of languages spoken. These findings are in line with the results of Mettewie and Janssens (2007). Statistically significant associations with the number of languages spoken, however, were only recorded for willingness to learn additional languages and willingness to recommend learning LWULs to their students. In both contexts, it was the participants speaking fewer languages who were less interested in learning more languages. Our findings support the recent findings of Mihaljević Djigunović (2013), who found that multilinguals display a range of significant differences in attitudes when compared with bilinguals. Finally, although our predictions were to a large extent confirmed, we should be aware that our study was conducted using a small sample. Future research should ideally include a broader selection of institutions so as to provide a more comprehensive view on EFL pre-service teachers’ attitudes to multilingualism and its promotion in Europe.

Conclusions As was emphasised in an OECD (2009: 89) study, ‘teachers’ beliefs, practices and attitudes are important for understanding and improving educational processes’ and, in individual countries ‘certain beliefs and practices are more prominent than others’. Our study was designed to provide an insight into EFL teacher trainees’ attitudes towards plurilingualism in an EU member country and a non-EU country. The obtained data provided a dual perspective of the EFL trainee: as a language learner and as a (prospective) language teacher. First, we concentrated on the specific attitudes of pre-service language teachers of English towards languages in general and languages in particular. Second, the study involved countries that have not yet been comparatively examined in this way (see Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007). Third, our findings shed new light on the results of the ongoing implementation of European language policy. The outcomes of the study are generally promising. The majority of our participants were multilingual (there were only nine participants with only one foreign language). However, the most widely spoken or learnt FLs other than English were other major languages. In both contexts examined collectively, interest in languages (i.e. learning languages, including LWULs, and the promotion of LWULs to students) increased with the number of languages spoken. Nevertheless, it must be noted that although our participants expressed willingness to take up the learning of LWULs during their study programme, the figures for those who chose to learn an LWUL in their own free time/outside the curriculum remained modest.

92

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

As the participants in the study seemed to be pragmatic about language learning, it could be recommended that LWULs are promoted not through political slogans but with greater attention given to initiatives such as Erasmus Intensive Language Courses, through wider implementation of European Language Label projects and ideas, and through LWUL courses in HEIs. The participants support the tenets of plurilingualism, pluriculturalism and pluralistic didactic approaches to languages and cultures and are generally willing both to promote language learning and to use activities which incorporate their own and their students’ plurilingual and pluricultural competences. Finally, professional knowledge and skills might not suffice, as language attitudes also have to be taken into account. Attitudes ‘are learnt and, therefore, educators play a paramount role in their formation, to such an extent that attitudes formed under educator influence may be extremely difficult to change’ (Lasagabaster & Huguet, 2007: 1). Accordingly, educators themselves need to recognise plurilingualism as a positive phenomenon, to be aware of its importance and to strive to promote it through their teaching practice. This could be accomplished by devising and introducing relevant workshops and seminars in teacher training curricula. Such courses would allow for the ‘moment of reflection about plurilingualism, interculturality and intercomprehension due to a wide array of advantages that spring from it (cf. e.g. Paradowski, 2011) [which] seemed to have an “earthquake effect” on the student teachers’ linguistic and professional imagery’ in the study conducted by Pinho and Andrade (2009: 323). The potential is still great, and the efforts put in so far are already bearing fruit. However, activities in HE curriculum enrichment need to be furthered if the fruits are to be fully enjoyed both at the national and the supranational levels.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Professor Hanna Komorowska for valuable suggestions for the questionnaire. We wish to thank Professor Jelena Mihaljević Djigunović for her help in administering the questionnaire to participants from the University of Zagreb.

References Act of 27 July 2005 – The law on higher education (2005) Online document: http://www. nauka.gov.pl/higher-education/law-on-higher-education/?type=110. Aronin, L. and Ó Laoire, M. (2004) Exploring multilingualism in cultural contexts: Towards a notion of multilinguality. In Ch. Hoffmann and J. Ytsma (eds) Trilingualism in Family, School and Community (pp. 11–29). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bartram, B. (2010) Attitudes to Modern Foreign Language Learning: Insights from Comparative Education. London: Continuum International Pub. Group. Bernaus, M. (2003) Language educators’ values and beliefs. In P. Rádai (ed.) The Status of Language Educators (pp. 45–51). Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages/ Council of Europe Publishing.

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goal s of Mult ilingualism

93

Bernaus, M., Masgoret, A., Gardner, R. and Reyes, E. (2004) Motivation and attitudes towards learning languages in multicultural classrooms. The International Journal of Multilingualism 2, 75–89. Bernaus, M., Andrade, A.I., Kervran, M., Murkowska, A. and Saez, F.T. (2007) Plurilingual and Pluricultural Awareness in Language Teacher Education: A Training Kit. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Byrnes, D.A., Kiger, G. and Manning, L. (1997) Teachers’ attitudes about language diversity. Teaching and Teacher Education 13 (6), 637–644. Candelier, M., Camilleri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V., de Pietro, J.-F., Lörincz, I., Meissner, F.-J., Schröder-Sura, A. and Noguerol, A. (2010) Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures. Version 3. Strasbourg/Graz: Council of Europe/ European Centre for Modern Languages – Online document: http://carap.ecml.at/ LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AIacyR%2bV03k%3d&tabid=425&language=en-GB. Cenoz, J. and Genesee, F. (1998) Psycholinguistic perspectives on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds) Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education (pp. 16–32). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2009) Towards Multilingual Education. Basque Educational Research from an International Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Coste, D., Moore, D. and Zarate, G. (2009) Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence. Studies Towards a Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning and Teaching. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (2007) From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for the Development of Language Policies in Europe. Main version. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division – Online document: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Guide_ Main_Beacco2007_EN.doc. Council of the European Union (2008) Council Resolution of 21 November 2008 on a European strategy for multilingualism. Online document: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:320:0001:0003:EN:PDF. Country report. Poland. Language education policy profile (2005) Warsaw: Ministry of National Education Poland. De Angelis, G. (2007) Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Diederen, F., Hos, H., Münstermann, H. and Weistra, G. (1984) Language attitudes of future teachers in the Netherlands. In K. Deprez (ed.) Sociolinguistics in the Low Countries (pp. 213–236). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dooley, M. (2005) How aware are they? Research into teachers’ attitudes about linguistic diversity. Language Awareness 14, 97–111. Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K. and Németh, N. (2006) Motivational Dynamics, Language Attitudes and Language Globalisation: A Hungarian Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. East, M. (2009) Promoting positive attitudes towards foreign language learning: A New Zealand initiative. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 30 (6), 493–507. European Commission (2003) Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004–2006 (COM (2003) 449 final) – Online document: http://ec.europa. eu/education/doc/official/keydoc/actlang/act_lang_en.pdf. European Commission (2006) Europeans and Their Languages. ‘Special Eurobarometer243’. Brussels: European Commission. Eurydice (2010) The System of Education in Poland. Warsaw: Foundation for the Development of the Education System. Follow-up of the Action Plan on Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity. National Report. Poland (2006) – Online document: http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/archive/ policy/report/pol_en.pdf.

94

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Gardner, R.C. (2010) Motivation and Second-Language Acquisition. The Socio-Educational Model. New York: Peter Lang. Garrett, P. (2010) Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gibbons, J. and Ramírez, E. (2004) Maintaining a Minority Language. A Case Study of Hispanic Teenagers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Herdina, P. and Jessner, U. (2002) A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hufeisen, B. and Neuner, G. (eds) (2004) The Plurilingualism Project – Tertiary Language Learning – German after English Strasbourg: Council of Europe/Graz & München: European Centre for Modern Languages. Hufeisen, B. and Marx, N. (2007) How can DaFnE and EuroComGerm contribute to the concept of receptive multilingualism? Theoretical and practical considerations. In J. ten Thije and L. Zeevaert (eds) Receptive Multilingualism. Linguistic Analysis, Language Policies and Didactic Concepts (pp. 307–321). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ibarraran, A. Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2008) Multilingualism and language attitudes: Local versus immigrant students’ perceptions. Language Awareness 17 (4), 326–341. Jessner, U. (2006) Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Jessner, U. (2008) Teaching third languages: Findings, trends, challenges. Language Teaching 41 (1), 15–56. Klein, C. (2007) The valuation of plurilingual competences in an open European labour market. International Journal of Multilingualism 4, 262–281. Komorowska, H. (2004) Polityka je˛zykowa w polskim systemie os´wiatowym na tle rozwia˛zan´ europejskich [Language policy in the Polish education system compared to European solutions]. Je˛zyki Obce w Szkole 2, 34–40. Komorowska, H. (2006) Teaching English as a lingua franca. In J. Zybert (ed.) Issues in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 111–123). Warszawa: WUW. Komorowska, H. (ed.) (2008) Nauczanie Je˛zyków Obcych. Polska a Europa [Foreign language teaching. Poland versus Europe]. Warsaw: Academica. Komorowska, H. (ed.) (2009) Kształcenie je˛zykowe w szkolnictwie wyz˙szym [Language education in higher education institutions]. Warsaw: Academica. Language Education Policy Profile. Poland (2007) Language Policy Division, Strasbourg: Ministry of National Education, Poland. Lasagabaster, D. (2007) Language use and language attitudes in the Basque Country. In D. Lasagabaster and Á. Huguet (eds) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts. Language Use and Attitudes (pp. 65–89). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lasagabaster, D. and Huguet, Á. (2007) The linguistic issue in some European bilingual contexts: Some final considerations. In D. Lasagabaster and Á. Huguet (eds) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts. Language Use and Attitudes (pp. 234– 251). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lasagabaster, D. and Huguet, Á. (2007) Introduction: A transnational study in European bilingual contexts. In D. Lasagabaster and Á. Huguet (eds) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts. Language Use and Attitudes (pp. 1–13). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Llurda, E., Lasagabaster, D. and Cots, J.M. (2006) From bilingualism to multilingualism in schools in Catalonia: A study of language attitudes among immigrant and nonimmigrant secondary school students. Paper presented at the Sociolinguistic Symposium 16. University of Limeric, 5–8. July 2006. McKenzie, R.M. (2010) The Social Psychology of English as a Global Language: Attitudes, Awareness and Identity in the Japanese Context. Springer: London.

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goal s of Mult ilingualism

95

Mettewie, L. and Janssens, R. (2007) Language use and language attitudes in Brussels. In D. Lasagabaster and A. Huguet (eds) Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts. Language Use and Attitudes (pp. 117–143). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2013) Multilingual attitudes and attitudes to multilingualism in Croatia. In D. Singleton, J. Fishman, L. Aronin and M. Ó Laoire (eds) Current Multilingualism: A New Linguistic Dispensation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mihaljević Djigunović, J. and Bagarić, V. (2007) A comparative study of attitudes and motivation of Croatian learners of English and German. SRAZ 52, 259–281. Nikolov, M. (2007) Early modern foreign language programmes and outcomes: Factors contributing to achievements of Hungarian learners. Early learning of modern foreign languages. In M. Nikolov (ed.) Processes and Outcomes (pp. 90–107). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. OECD (2009) Teaching practices, teachers’ beliefs and attitude. Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS, pp. 88–120. Otwinowska, A. (2011) Promoting plurilingual competence in Polish learners of English. In H. Komorowska (ed.) Issues in Promoting Multilingualism. Teaching Learning– Assessment (pp. 233–254). Warsaw: FRSE. Paradowski, M.B. (2011) Multilingualism – Assessing benefits. In H. Komorowska (ed.) Issues in Promoting Multilingualism. Teaching – Learning – Assessment (pp. 336–355). Warsaw: FRSE. Phillipson, R. (2010) The EU and languages: Diversity in what unity? In A.L. Kjær and S. Adamo (eds) Linguistic Diversity and European Democracy (pp. 57–74). Farnham: Ashgate. Pinho, A.S. and Andrade, A.I. (2009) Plurilingual awareness and intercomprehension in the professional knowledge and identity development of language student teachers. International Journal of Multilingualism 6 (3), 313–329. Program studija anglistike (2009) (Curriculum of English studies). Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu – Online document: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/anglist/course_ description.htm. Shin, F. and Krashen S. (1996) Teacher attitudes toward the principles of bilingual education and toward students’ participation in bilingual programs: Same or different? Bilingual Research Journal 20 (1), 45–53. Wilczyn´ska, W. (2007) Wieloje˛zycznos´ć – przegla˛d problematyki w uje˛ciu dydaktycznym [Multilingualism – The review of issues from a didactic perspective]. In M. Jodłowiec and A. Niz˙egorodcew (eds) Dydaktyka je˛zyków obcych na pocza˛tku XXI wieku [Foreign Language Didactics at the beginning of the XXI century] (pp. 27–40). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego. Wilton, A. 2009. Multilingualism and foreign language learning. In K. Knapp and B. Seidlhofer in cooperation with H. Widdowson. (eds) Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning (pp. 45–77). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zakon o znanstvenoj djelatnosti i visokom obrazovanju (July, 2003) (Act on scientific activity and higher education). Narodne novine – Online document: http://narodne-novine. nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/306330.html

96

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Appendix Questionnaire Dear Teacher Trainee! We would like to ask you to help us by anonymously answering the following questions concerning your preparation for and attitudes to developing plurilingual skills in EFL classes. This is not a test and your responses will be used for research purposes only. Please do not skip any questions and give your answers sincerely as only this will guarantee the success of the investigation. Thank you very much for your help. Questionnaire concerning EFL teacher trainees’ attitudes to developing plurilingual skills in EFL classes (public and non-public HE institutions in Croatia and Poland) Warsaw and Zagreb 2011 I. General data on teacher trainees: 1. Year of study 2. Do you know any other language(s)

(MA: 1 or 2)

(please specify levels of competence according to CEFR: A1–C2) Language: Language: Language: Language: 3. Do you intend to learn any other FL? YES/NO If so, which one? 4. Have you been teaching English so far? YES/NO 5. If you have experience in teaching EFL, a) How many years have you been teaching? b) Which age group? c) What kind of EFL course, e.g. ESP, preparation for exams, GE, private tutoring: II. Attitudes of EFL teacher trainees: 6. As you teach the English language, which other language or languages would you advise your students to learn? Why?

EFL Teacher Trainees and European Goal s of Mult ilingualism

97

7. Would you encourage your students to learn less widely used languages (such as Catalan, Turkish, Slovak)? YES/NO Why? 8. Is it necessary for a FL teacher to have skills in more than one FL? YES/NO Why? 9. Do you think that your English competence would make it easier for you to learn another language from the same language family? YES/NO 10. Provided that an introductory course in Dutch, Danish or Swedish (or any other language of the same language family as English) was offered as an elective, would you take it just to expand your current competence even though at the moment you do not see how or when you would use it? YES/NO Why? 11. Would you use your and your students’ knowledge and skills in other languages in your language classroom? YES/NO 12. Which of the following activities would you find useful when you teach English? (you can choose more than one) a) scanning non-English discourse for familiar elements b) scanning non-English discourse for structural similarity c) analysing cross-cultural encounters d) none 13. Would you be interested in participating in workshops devoted to CEFR, ELP and pluralistic approaches (as part of your existing programme of studies)? YES/NO Thank you for your participation!

6

Rethinking Urban Schools – A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Multilingualism in Frankfurt/M, Germany Tatjana Leichsering

Introduction The aim of this chapter is to discuss the interdependence between language(s) and the dynamics of social interaction within multilingual and socioculturally diverse schools in Frankfurt am Main (Land Hesse, Germany). In this context, social categorisation and the process of ascribing ethnic, cultural or linguistic properties as specific features to groups or individuals are to be seen as dynamic elements of social interaction, and as such also as elements of identity negotiation. They will, therefore, be illustrated and analytically related to language (as means of discourse) and to language learning processes. The discussion leads to the importance in our analysis of linking different levels of social interaction with different levels of linguistic behaviour (and proficiency). By doing so, a differentiated perception of students’ linguistic expression in socioculturally diverse settings will be developed. Our analysis is based on a corpus, which was collected through qualitative research based on sociolinguistic ethnography. The research was carried out by the author in five primary schools in Frankfurt am Main. All these schools had joined a project called mitSprache, which was developed in Frankfurt to deal more constructively with diversity at school. The main objective of the research was to broaden the perspective on processes of language elaboration in heteroglossic urban schools. 98

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

99

Theoretical Approach to Linguistic Diversity in German Schools For several decades and due to migration, German society has become an increasingly heterogeneous society. This dynamic is accompanied by a contradictory and dialectic public discourse on migration. Although on the one hand diversity is perceived as an enriching factor, on the other it is feared as a threat to national identity, social order and security. The issue of how to deal with multilingualism in schools due to migration is one of the central subjects in this discourse. Such multilingualism is perceived as the main reason for poor language proficiency in German. And the historically rooted ideology of one unifying language being a crucial pillar for nation building in Europe has remained the background in which educational policy and practice in Germany has evolved. The debates around migration, integration and education focus on language proficiency in German and perpetually reproduce the ideological discourse of the monolingual state. However, from a political point of view, schools are spaces where the public and the private spheres are deeply entangled, and where linguistic diversity has become a social fact. Schools are now places of more complex diversity and identity negotiation. Language in this context is, therefore, seen as an important tool of power. By investigating the process whereby public discourse on migration impacts the nature of social interaction among students in an elementary school, we explore how far categorisation according to the level of language proficiency of these students leads to stigmatisation and subtle underlying power relations among primary school students. In other words, we show how self-perception and the perception of others are influenced by this powerful public discourse. Students with a migrant background often fail in their educational careers in Germany and end up not graduating or, more often, doing so with lower qualifications than their non-migrant peers (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 2010). According to Bernstein (1971), Cummins (2006) and Maas (2008) among others, language registers and repertoires are linked to social environments as well as to the socio-economic status of families and they have a much deeper impact on school careers than just multilingualism. Maas’ (2008) understanding of language registers and repertoires forms the background for the following reflection. He differentiates between language as the basic capacity of human beings to handle specific problems, and languages as differently shaped subsystems of this capacity. He explains how a child engaging with its social environment acquires a specific language (or more than one) due to this general ‘language-capacity’, which is also linked to a basic competence for social learning. The process of developing and managing a variety of different behavioural options to fit different social

100

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

situations is a result of social learning. Maas understands language appropriation as a process of elaborating repertoire and a variety of language registers. He uses the term ‘Sprachausbau’ to describe this process, which is synonymous to language elaboration, rather than language acquisition or language appropriation. According to him, written and literary language also has to be considered as a specific language register to be elaborated since its appropriation consists of far more than just the acquisition of alphabetic characters. It is about a register, which is subject to a complex process of supported elaboration and essential for educational success and beyond, since our societies are marked by a high level of written culture (Maas, 2008). To meet the respective linguistic requirements at school, children need a specific proficiency linked with what he calls a literate language register (Maas, 2010). Maas’ reflections are consistent with the theories of Bernstein (1971), Koch and Oesterreicher (1985, 2011) as well as Cummins’ (2006) definition of Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) versus Academic Language Proficiency (formerly CALP). The mutual influence between processes of language elaboration and specific forms of social interaction form the framework of the present case study. This mutual influence has a dynamic character and can be described in the context of linguistic and social practice within school and family. We have chosen to intersect linguistic phenomena with phenomena of social interaction such as ethnic, cultural and other social attributes being ascribed to individuals and groups. As Jørgensen writes, ‘Language is the instrument with which we handle our social relations, from the close one-to-one relation to the enormously complex structures of a metropolis or a nation state’ (Jørgensen, 2008: 162). In other words, social categorisations and ethnic or culturally based ascriptions expressed through linguistic practices are seen as means by which identities and social status are negotiated within schools and the social and political spaces surrounding them (see also Byrd Clark & Lamoureux in Chapter 3 in this volume). This process of negotiation takes place at different levels. First, identity negotiation is located within families. However, families are not isolated systems within a socially neutral environment. Therefore, the self-positioning of each family member is linked to various parameters such as gender role, socioeconomic status, political preference, religious belief and sense of belonging (national, ethnic, cultural and other social settings). In the specific case of migrant families, their perceptions and valuations of the society in which they live also influence the process of their identity negotiation (Gomolla, 2002). Second, identity and status negotiation take place among students within schools. Interaction among peers is linked to their family backgrounds and their own perceptions of the different social contexts in which they are located. Third, identity and status negotiation takes place in the relationship between students and teachers. Besides the given power relationship between learners and educators, their individual perception of

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

101

diversity also influences their interaction. Fourth, identity and status negotiation takes place between mainstream teachers and teachers of ‘languages of origin’ (who are usually employed and paid by the respective consulates; their status will be explained later on). Here, too, one cannot ignore the unequal relationship of power between them. Fifth, identity and status negotiation takes place between teachers and parents or other close relatives of the students. Again these interactions have to be seen in the context of power relationships. Two levels of power have to be mentioned here: (a) teachers as representatives of the German state and its educational institutions; and (b) teachers (usually) as representatives of the majority in Germany, as there are still few teachers with a migrant background. Altogether, it is important to consider that individual perception is strongly influenced by the media and public discourse, in general. Thus, all of these social dynamics are embedded within a broader socio-cultural and political context and its specific system of discourse, which they equally reify. Therefore, the significance of phenomena or events to the respective social actors themselves has an indexical function. In other words, the emic perspective of the respective social actors is an important component for the analysis of the processes mentioned above. Methods, findings and theories of critical discourse analysis (Wodak & Meyer, 2009) hence frame the analytical approach. Thus, the notion of linguistic diversity in schools used throughout this chapter does not just refer to the simple existence of different languages within a group of students, but to a complex intersection of linguistic and social realities. In this context, it is also worth mentioning that schools are seen as societal institutions operating within a specific political and discursive field as the work of Foucault (1969) and Bourdieu (1991) have underlined.

The Socio-Political Context of the Study Frankfurt am Main has 688,249 residents. Of these, 24.3% are foreigners, meaning that they hold a non-German passport. In addition, 13.1% of German passport holders have a migrant background (City of Frankfurt, 2011). These statistics show that almost 40% of Frankfurt’s residents have experienced migration. According to a sample census carried out by the Federal Statistical Office in 2005, 64.6% of children under the age of five in Frankfurt have parents, or other close relatives, whose migration directly influenced their linguistic and social lives (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2008). This shows why actors in public life, education policy, social interaction and politics, in general, cannot ignore the issue of diversity, or rather super-diversity as Vertovec (2007) puts it. In this context, one should mention that Vertovec and Römhild provided an expert opinion on transnational milieus in Frankfurt for the city’s current ‘concept for integration and diversity’ (Magistrat der Stadt Frankfurt, 2010).

102

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

It is important to remember that the development of language education policy in Germany has been highly influenced by the history of postwar migration. After World War II Germany had to reconstruct its infrastructure and in the 1950s, thanks to an economic boom known as the Wirtschaftswunder, it required foreign labour. From 1955 to 1973, Germany agreed specific labour contracts with specific Southern European states, such as Italy, Greece, Spain and Turkey. It established a complex labour rotation system according to which labour migrants were usually allowed to stay in Germany for only one year. Migrants at that time were meant to go back to their home countries once they completed their jobs and thus were called ‘guest-workers’. (More detailed information about Germany’s history of migration can be found in many sources: e.g. Bade et al., 2007; Flam, 2007; Münz et al., 1999.) However, many of the so-called ‘guest-workers’ did not return to their home countries. Over the years Germany developed into a linguistically and culturally diverse society, which could increasingly be witnessed in both schools and public life. Throughout the 1970s, several researchers from Heidelberg University studied the German language proficiency and language performance of ‘guest-workers’ (Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt, 1975). Against this background, educational policies started to take students speaking languages other than German into consideration. Up to the 1990s, this took place within the (false) paradigm that ‘guest-workers’ would return to their home countries sooner or later. Therefore the so-called ‘mother-tongue’ education was implemented. ‘Native-speakers’ financed by the German state taught these classes and the main objective was to facilitate the return to schooling in the home countries. Although the teaching focus changed towards enabling children to attend German schools and to integrate into German society, these classes lasted into the 1990s. Over the years the notion of ‘mother tongue’ changed into the notion of ‘language of origin’ due to discussion about terminology. But the political paradigm was still framed within the notion of the students’ return to their home countries. In 1989, an innovative Office for Multicultural Affairs (Amt für multikulturelle Angelegenheiten, AmkA) was founded in Frankfurt as a response to the growing linguistic and cultural diversity in the city. For many years it held the status of a pioneering institution in Germany. Up to 2002 ‘mother tongue/language of origin’ teaching in Frankfurt am Main was the responsibility of and financed by the Land Hesse. However, from 2002 these classes have successively become the responsibility of the respective consulates, which would then finance these programmes. This means that each time a teacher of a ‘language of origin’ employed by the State of Hesse leaves, the respective consulate has to employ a new teacher (Hessischer Landtag, 17. Wahlperiode, Drucksache 17/409). Thus, the development of family languages other than German is no longer part of education

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

103

policy, except of course for the languages regularly taught as foreign languages, such as for example English and French. In this context, it is also worth mentioning that in 2000 the ‘languages of origin’ were no longer included in the evaluation for admission to the next grade. In addition to this process, the general promotion of bilingualism, which up to then had been guaranteed by law, was also abrogated in 2002 (Hessischer Landtag, Drucksache 17/409). In contrast to this development, the German Institute for International Educational Research (www.dipf.de/en/dipf-news/news?set_language=en) conducted a survey in 2002 on behalf of the urban administration of Frankfurt to find out how schools were handling linguistic and cultural heterogeneity (Bender-Szymanski et al., 2002). In this survey, BenderSzymanski and her co-authors pointed to the necessity of preparing teachers more thoroughly for their work in multilingual/multicultural classes. Many teachers mentioned a lack of knowledge on how to handle such heterogeneous groups – especially when it came to language teaching and dealing with problems concerning German language proficiency. Responding to this situation, despite the political tendencies mentioned earlier, in 2000 the Frankfurt Office for Multicultural Affairs and the State Education Authority (Staatliches Schulamt) developed a specific programme called mitSprache (AmkA, 2003, 2007) to support all social actors concerned: students and teachers as well as parents and families. Schools along with day care centres are free to participate or not. The project is briefly explained below as it forms the context of the research presented in this chapter.

mitSprache: A Step Towards Diversity Management in Urban Schools The declared objective of mitSprache is to integrate immigrant children and their families into German society both linguistically and socioculturally (AmkA, 2007). The project consists of four strategic areas: (a) teaching German as a second language; (b) in-service teacher training; (c) parental work and involvement and (d) multilingualism. These areas are seen as being dynamically intertwined and frame a process-oriented pedagogical approach in superdiverse schools. For the respective pedagogical teams, including the ‘languages-of-origin’ teachers, mitSprache provides additional space for reflection on and discussion about the ongoing pedagogical and didactical approach. The specific process orientation of the project thus reaches beyond the usual focus on teaching and learning dynamics within classrooms and is meant to contribute to organisational development within the respective educational institutions. The process also involves a change of perception and perspective on the part of every social actor concerned: children as well

104

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

as their families and teachers. Therefore, educational institutions participating in the programme are provided with pedagogical coordinators (who are not members of the regular school staff) in order to professionally organise and moderate the ongoing work and communication. An important tool of the project is its internal communication structure consisting of institutionalised and regular meetings held at different levels. At the first level, the respective project teams of each school meet for ongoing reflection on their daily work and an exchange of professional experience and ideas. At the second level, meetings of all pedagogical coordinators are held to reflect, evaluate and develop their work at each school. At the third level, meeting school directors, pedagogical coordinators, representatives of the Office for Multicultural Affairs and the State Education Authority (Staatliches Schulamt) further review and coordinate the work in progress adding a further perspective. This multilayered approach is a unique feature of mitSprache. We would also like to stress that teachers of ‘languages of origin’ usually do not belong to the regular team of teachers within a school. Thus, these teachers hardly interact and therefore rarely are aware of what kind of subjects each deals with in their lessons. As a result of mitSprache some of the schools participating have coordinated the content of the ‘languages-oforigin’ lessons with those of different subjects within the regular curriculum. Furthermore, some of the ‘language-of-origin’ teachers also get greatly involved when it comes to (a) talks about students and their evaluation, and (b) talks with students and their families. And this cooperation has acquired a symbolic value, which empowers the students, their families and teachers. Another feature of German schooling that should be stressed is that the teaching of German as a second language (DaZ) is not integrated into regular lessons as a matter of course, but is mainly taught as extra tuition. Moreover, there are few teachers with sufficient expertise, as DaZ is not part of the regular curriculum. The schools participating in the programme have been provided with additional resources, such as extra time for lessons and meetings on the one hand, and pedagogical materials, for example books, games, computer software and so on, on the other. As we have seen, the main point of mitSprache’s strategy is to link the most relevant operational levels within the maze of migration, educational institutions and the respective protagonists. In this vein, an interactive process has been put into place and should lead to an improved pedagogical and didactic approach in superdiverse schools in Frankfurt. As all the schools participating in the project handle highly diverse constellations of students (more than 50% of these students are from multilingual and multicultural backgrounds), they are interesting environments to research processes dealing with language and social dynamics.

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

105

Methods and Data The main aim of the research is (a) to investigate the nature of linguistic and cultural heterogeneity, and (b) to ask what kind of links can be extrapolated between language elaboration and social interactions. Thus, a general inductive approach rooted in ethnographic and sociolinguistic methods (Heath & Street, 2008; Flick, 2007; Geertz, 1995; Gogolin, 2004; Thomas, 2003) has been chosen to collect and analyse data. Ethnographic methods such as participant observation and checklist-based semistructured interviews were used aiming to reveal dynamics not visible at first sight and therefore impossible to anticipate. Or, as Heath and Street (2008: 50) put it, ‘Ethnographers do not begin their research with a clearly defined research question or delimiting hypothesis. Taking their cue from anthropologists, ethnographers have field sites and areas of core interest in front of them as they begin their research, but they do not enter their work with a single fixed question.’ Thus, participant observation at school was carried out both in formal and informal settings: (a) classes; (b) breaks; (c) staff meetings; (d) celebrations; (e) further events as, for example, excursions or activities with parents. Participant observation was also the first step of getting in contact with students and their families. A confidence-building process was necessary until trustful relationships between researcher and school community were established. As our research took place in the context of persons belonging to different linguistic minorities, it was only on the basis of such trustful relationships that fruitful interviews could be conducted, especially with the children. Furthermore, schools as research fields ought to be handled with high sensitivity, as protection against the abuse of personal data or other kinds of personal information related to children and families has the highest priority. Therefore, the choice of students for interviews mainly depended on the permission of parents. Nevertheless, to collect data that would reveal the utmost possible information about processes of categorisation, language representations, discursive dynamics and the perception of diversity, an important criterion was to generate a sample of interviews representing a wide range of bi- or multilingual students from different language minorities. Two different interview-starting scenarios were applied to the interviews with the children as the objective was to establish a relaxed setting for the conversation: scenario (a) consisted of asking each interviewee to draw himself as an adult and in scenario (b) the interviewee could choose one of a variety of cuddly toys. As introduction for scenario (a) we read one chapter of Pippi Longstocking to all the children in the classroom, even if not all of them were participating in the interview. The respective chapter narrates how Pippi and her friends fantasise their future as adults. After the reading we asked the students to think about their own future and then to draw a picture showing themselves as adults. In scenario (b) we asked the respective

106

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

child to tell us about why she or he had chosen a specific animal and then started to ask how this animal would talk with other animals during a holiday trip in a foreign country. During all of the interviews we talked about language biographies, discursive practices with friends and family, language preferences, and school issues. However, every interview setting was open to individual dynamics and topics especially related to language, migration, family and friends that arose in the course of the conversation. The entire database consists of notes from participant observation in five primary schools during a period of approximately four years, interviews with more than 40 students (first to fourth grade), 20 parents, 36 teachers as well as six interviews with the pedagogical staff of the programme mitSprache. Cloze tests with free writing samples in 12 different primary school classes (only third and fourth grade) were carried out over the years in order to also be in a position to study oral and written linguistic competence. Students in the first and second grade were not asked to participate in the cloze tests because they were too young. However, some of the students interviewed in the second grade participated in cloze testing when they moved to the third grade. Therefore, 30 of the students we interviewed completed the cloze test. All the interviewed children were volunteers. Table 6.1 shows the range of non-German languages represented within the respective families. Some of the data was the subject of a three-dimensional multileveled analysis: (a) discourse analysis focusing on social categorisation as well as language perception and awareness; (b) analysis of the process of language elaboration by exploring language registers and repertoire, linguistic background, education background, migrant background and socioeconomic conditions; and (c) analysis at a grammatical level, which includes morphology and syntax on the one hand and lectal as well as register markers on the other. The examples of data presented throughout the text are taken from this corpus and have been chosen to demonstrate possible links between (a) public discourse and discourse within the schools about language proficiency and (b) social categorisations and ascriptions made at the level of students. In this way, we focus on the discourse of the children, as we aim to illustrate how public and school discourse reify at the level of these students. Interviews with adults and cloze tests will be presented in further publications. Altogether, the analytical outcome does not have a representative status in a quantitative, statistical sense, but, at the level of discourse analysis, it will supply an insight into principles of how single discursive interactions, mental representations, and linguistic practices at a micro-level are embedded within a broader social, societal, and political discourse. Related to a critical discussion of generalisability in the context of qualitative research Myers (2000: 3) writes as follows: ‘A major strength of the qualitative approach is the depth to which explorations are conducted and descriptions are written, usually resulting in sufficient details for the reader to grasp the idiosyncracies of the situation.’

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

107

Table 6.1 Children interviewed indicating provenance countries of parents (most children born in Germany) and non-German languages spoken within the families Grade

Parents’ or child’s provenance

Non-German languages spoken within the family

Child’s pseudonym

1. Grade

Afghanistan

Probably Pashto (not identified)

Don (m)

2. Grade

Afghanistan

Pashto

Pasha (m)

4. Grade

Bosnia

Bosnian/Croatian

Mirko (m)

2. Grade

Bosnia

Bosnian

Tanja (f)

1. Grade

Columbia/Germany

Spanish

Esteban (m)

4. Grade

Croatia

Croatian

Liana (f)

2. Grade

Ghana

Twi/English

Kasi (f)

1. Grade

Ghana/Sierra Leone

Temne/Krio/English

Djamila (f)

1. Grade

Greece/Poland

Greek/Polish

Felipe (m)

4. Grade

India/England

Punjabi/English

Mike (m)

1. Grade

Italy

Italian

Marco (m)

4. Grade

Italy

Italian

Nino (m)

2. Grade

Kosovo/Macedonia

Albanian/Macedonian

Bella (f)

1. Grade

Morocco

Tamazight

Nadija (f)

1. Grade

Morocco

Tamazight

Gaia (f)

2. Grade

Morocco

Tamazight

Ahmed (m)

3. Grade

Morocco

Moroccan Arabic

Omar (m)

4. Grade

Morocco

Moroccan Arabic

Sina (f)

2. Grade

Morocco

Moroccan Arabic

Zara (f)

2. Grade

Morocco

Tamazight

Tirak (m)

2. Grade

Morocco

Tamazight

Asrina (f)

2. Grade

Morocco/Italy

Moroccan Arabic/Italian

Alina (f)

1. Grade

Pakistan

Urdu

Farideh (f)

1. Grade

Pakistan

Urdu

Isa (f)

3. Grade

Pakistan

Pashto

Imran (m)

2. Grade

Poland

Silesian/Polish

Toni (m)

2. Grade

Poland/Italy

Polish/Italian

Valeria (m)

1. Grade

Turkey

Turkish

Hawa (f)

2. Grade

Turkey

Turkish

Ince (f)

2. Grade

Turkey

Turkish

Aise (f)

108

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Table 6.1 (Continued) 2. Grade

Turkey

Turkish

Atila (m)

3. Grade

Turkey

Turkish

Fehmi (m)

3. Grade

Turkey

Turkish

Zuhal (f)

3. Grade

Turkey

Turkish

Sedenay (f)

4. Grade

Turkey

Turkish

Leyla (f)

4. Grade

Turkey

Turkish

Aynur (f)

2. Grade

Turkey

Turkish

Nilgün (f)

4. Grade

Turkey/Italy

Turkish/Italian

Dalia (f)

1. Grade

USA/Germany

English

Celia (f)

2. Grade

Vietnam

Vietnamese

Mi Nham (f)

The following research questions form the framework of the analytical outcome presented subsequently: (a) What does linguistic and social heterogeneity consist of and how can this be described? and (b) How do language and social dynamics interact in multilingual and multicultural urban school contexts?

Data Analysis A broadened perspective on linguistic and social diversity A broadened perspective on linguistic and social heterogeneity will be illustrated first through the analysis of a drawing of a 7-year-old girl whose parents are from Sierra Leone. We asked her to draw herself as an adult and then used her drawing as the first topic of the interview we conducted with her. She chose to draw herself with Pippi Longstocking standing by her side. Figure 6.1 shows (a) the picture she drew and (b) the extract from the interview, where she explains her drawing. The girl’s most obvious physical attribute in a German school context is her skin colour: she is the daughter of two black Africans. Thus, apart from linguistic considerations, she has to deal with her being different from the majority of white students. How did she refer to this dimension of her identity during the discussion of her drawing? In this context, it is noticeable that she did not draw herself alone or within her future family or in some kind of ‘job setting’, as other children did. She drew herself together with Pippi Longstocking (probably triggered by the previous reading in the classroom) to whom she physically compares herself. She explicitly differentiates between the colour and the structure of her and Pippi’s hair, pointing out in her explanation that Pippi has got orange hair but it is so straight. She uses the

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

109

Girl: this is Pippi Longstocking (she points at the girl on the right) TL: hm Girl: and has orange hair but it is so straight (not curly) TL: hm and who is this one here (we point at the girl on the left ) Girl: me TL: could you explain what you drew Girl: the hair the head the sweater the gloves with the hands the skirt and black shoes Girl, 1st grade

Figure 6.1 A drawing by a 7-year-old girl with relatives from Sierra Leone and Ghana

conjunction but and thus emphasises that in contrast to hers Pippi’s hair is not curly. She uses the same crayons for both of the faces (hers and Pippi’s) so they are in a similar colour. However, she does not explicitly refer to different skin colour, neither in her drawing nor in her explanation, but had drawn her gloves in dark brown and mentions ‘black’ only in connection with her shoes. Thus, we could infer that this is the way she chose to deal with her ethnic difference and in a subtle and implicit way she located herself in her social environment. Her self-positioning became clearer during the interview. To initiate the issue of her multilingualism we asked her how she and Pippi would talk together. TL: Girl: TL: Girl: TL: Girl: TL: Girl: TL: Girl:

Ok/und wie sprecht ihr miteinander [Ok/and how do you speak together] (. . .) Will ich nicht sagen [(...) Don’t want to say it] Willst du nicht sagen/warum/ist das was Schlimmes [Don’t want to say it/why/is there something wrong with it] Hm nein [Hm no] Und warum möchtest dus nicht sagen [And why don’t you want to say it] (...) Hm/einfach nur so [(...) Hm/just because] Einfach nur so/sprecht ihr vielleicht gar nicht miteinander [ Just because/maybe you do not talk at all] Doch (..)/aber Englisch [Yes (..)/but English] Englisch Hmhm (nodding)

110

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

TL: Girl:

Gefällt dir Englisch gut [Do you like English] Hm/und Tsimni undKrio/sonst nix [Hm/and Tsimnee and Krio/nothing else]

After having been asked how she and Pippi would talk together, she first refuses to reply (I don’t want to say it). Only after having been asked why she did not want to talk about it and if there was something wrong with it she revealed she spoke English, Temne and Krio. She appeared to be shy and almost ashamed when it came to talking about the languages other than German. When asked what kind of language Temne was she replied it’s a difficult language for German people. Afterwards, when referring to Krio, she said that Krio was even more difficult for Germans. There we see a 6-yearold student categorising her African languages as very foreign ones for Germans. She is able to decentre and reflect on her languages from the point of view of Germans, at least from what she thinks their point of view could be. At the same time, she changes into the role of an expert being aware about (a) her own discursive practice; (b) the perception of ‘Germans’ concerning her African languages and (c) the distance between Africans and Germans. If we consider language as an important element of belonging to a specific group, the girl’s analysis is not located exclusively on a linguistic level. The mental representation she has when referring to different kinds of languages is the result of day-to-day interactions at school, in public spaces beyond school and within her family. These interactions concern diversity far beyond linguistic levels. Clothing, skin colour, religious beliefs and further so-called different ‘cultural behaviours’ are all sources of more or less subtle social categorisations. Thus, if we understand language appropriation and language elaboration processes as being linked to processes of social learning, all these different levels of diversity have to be taken into consideration when reflecting on language in multilingual spaces.

How students reproduce mainstream discourse categories In public discourse and within school discourse proficiency in German has become one of the most important focal points and embodies the main (political) instrument of social integration of multilingual and multicultural individuals. For a better understanding of the following arguments about the reproduction of public discourse at the level of students we will discuss briefly how far language is envisaged as a synonym for diversity and how problematic that is. Linguistic diversity in the schools mentioned tends to be perceived as the most hindering factor for the school careers of students. Keywords such as semi-lingualism and language proficiency deficit are widespread in the mainstream discourse of teachers, and used to describe linguistic diversity as a problem, rather than as a resource. Therefore, if heterogeneity

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

111

is mainly discussed at a linguistic level and expressed in terms of a language proficiency deficit, the attainment of standardised language proficiency within a defined time frame forms the criterion of measurement. Children who do not perform according to these normative expectations within the defined time frame are stigmatised as ‘students with inadequate language proficiency’. This disregards the individual’s language acquisition background and language elaboration processes in multilingual and socially diverse settings (in this context see Chapter 1 by Hammarberg and Chapter 8 by Lucietto in this volume). This also includes the communicative needs and dynamics in these specific social environments and concerns even monolinguals in German, since the discursive practices of families differ greatly according to the nature of their interaction and their socioeconomic status. In this context, recall that multilingualism per se does not cause the perceived problems of German language proficiency. But from the very beginning of school, specific language registers are needed to successfully perform within school. And the basic development of these registers happens before entering school. However, the way linguistic integration was managed in schools was based exclusively on the concept that multilingualism was the main problem for students who were not achieving the expected level of attainment. A few extra measures to assist students with ‘linguistic deficits’ were established, but were not integrated into the school curriculum. In addition, this ‘extra’-treatment of multilingual students can be seen as symptomatic in the context of dealing with diversity. It emphasises a substantial difference between monolingual students (German) and multilingual students. This difference is not observed on a purely neutral descriptive level, but can be seen as a further categorisation into Germans and foreigners, implicitly including unequal power relationships between the two groups. This process influences many different levels in school life: pedagogical and didactic concepts of regular lessons do not take multilingualism into consideration; the attitudes of teachers towards languages and language support; cooperation, or rather, the lack of cooperation between colleagues especially with those teaching ‘languages of origin’; linguistic and cultural features being ascribed to children and their families; interaction among teachers, children and families; interaction among children; and internalisation of ascriptions by students. Some of the notes generated during participant observation, as well as some interview extracts, will be presented to illustrate the dimension of reproduction and reification of ascriptions emerging through a deficit-oriented language perception. The following example illustrates a school scene. Some of the first grade children join extra classes in German outside the official timetable and we observed the following conversation between a student and her teacher: Stud:

Warum bin ich eigentlich in Deutschkurs? Hat mich meine Mama angemeldet oder was?

112

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

[Why am I actually in German-course? Did my mum register me, or what?] Teach: Nein, ich habe mit deiner Klassenlehrerin gesprochen und wir haben Kinder ausgesucht, die noch ein bisschen Hilfe in Deutsch benötigen. [No I talked with your main teacher and we chose children who still needed a little help in German.] Stud: (mürrisch) Muss ich jetzt immer und ewig in Deutsch-Kurs bleiben? [(irritated) Do I have to follow (this) German-course now forever more?] Of course, this observation does not mean that all extra-curricular tuition in German language is counter-productive. What it just shows is that children as young as first graders (usually aged six) are able to reflect carefully on their linguistic (and social) situation. The last remark of the girl shows she is aware she is different from her peers. She perceives being in this class as a sign of relegation and she wonders how long she will have to attend this special class. Thus, we would argue that these ‘extra’ classes could have excluding effects. Of course, it also depends on how teachers and parents explain it to the children. Children and families do appreciate language support when they decide themselves that they need it, in other words, when they can exercise agency. However, their multilingualism and the way it is perceived within the public debate, as explained above, is directly related to their status as people with migrant backgrounds. The next interview extract is used to illustrate how the link between being multilingual and a migrant gets collectively internalised and reproduced: TL: Girl: TL: Girl: TL: Girl:

Und was machst du wenn du nich Fernsehen guckst [And what do you do when you’re not watching TV] Dann/dann spiel ich mit meiner Schwester [Then/then I play with my sister] Okay/und wie sprecht ihr miteinander wenn ihr spielt [Okay/and how do you speak (together) when you play] Mmh (lange Pause)/also wir sind Marokkaner [Hm (long break)/well we are Moroccan] (überrascht) Ja/ach so/und wie sprecht ihr miteinander [(surprised) Yes/I see/and how do you speak together] Wir sprechen Deutsch [We are talking German]

From the beginning our interest in conducting an interview with this girl (first grade), because of her being multilingual, was transparent to her. She

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

113

knew that this was our main motive for talking to her. When asked about the discursive practice with her sister she answered with a self-categorisation: she positioned herself as a member of a Moroccan family. She must have presumed that our main interest was to learn about her migrant background. Only after being asked for a second time, did she reveal the discursive practice with her sister, which in her individual discourse is not quite consistent with her previous self-positioning as Moroccan. A complex relationship is illustrated here among ascription, self-categorisation and discursive practice with her sister in German, the majority language. Indeed, as in almost all of the interviews conducted, German language is often used in the daily life of these children and, in addition to other family languages, is also an important marker of identity. Most of the subjects interviewed perceive their own language proficiency in German as good and even as much higher than in any other language used within the family. According to subjective self-evaluation, their German is not lacking in proficiency and fits the communicative competence for their social environments. However, at school every day they experience a negative image of their German language proficiency, which does not match the standard and academic registers required. Not only is their multilingual background ignored as a potential resource, but it is also perceived as a main stumbling block for adequate language proficiency in German. This kind of ascription dynamic also takes place at the level of student interaction, as the next interview extract with a monolingual German boy shows: TL:

Boy:

(. . .) Was macht sie denn dann zu Portugiesen, Marokkanern oder Franzosen/du hast ja eben gesagt jemand der deutsch ist spricht gut Deutsch/und du hast gesagt/deine Mitschüler sprechen gut deutsch [(. . .) What is it then that makes them Portuguese, Moroccan or French/you just said somebody who is German can speak German well/and you said/ your classmates speak German well] Ja/die lernen auch viel Deutsch bei uns/die kriegen ja auch hier Nachhilfe in Deutsch/nach der Schule/deswegen auch [Yes/(that’s because) they are learning a lot of German at our place/here they are given extra tuition in German/after school/(it is also) therefore] (Leichsering, 2009: 95)

This monolingual German boy (fourth grade) is very aware of the different social status of his peers with migrant backgrounds. On the basis of a deictic use of personal and possessive pronouns he constructs his discourse around a they/we and an our/their dichotomy, which mirrors the gulf between Germans and foreigners within both public and school discourse. His deictic categorisation ‘at our place’ illustrates his perception of his classmates as newcomers although most of them were born in Germany; he

114

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

implicitly mentions their deficits in the German language. Again, through indicating deictically that it is here (at the German school) that they get extra tuition (here they are given extra tuition in German) he confirms the dichotomy mentioned before. In his childlike manner he even shows what one could call a paternalistic attitude. As we can see here again, the dichotomy between foreigners and Germans pervades all layers of the (education) system. Furthermore, participant observation will strengthen our argument. In a first grade classroom the following argument between two girls and a boy took place: Ein einsprachig deutsches Mädchen sagt: [A monolingual German girl says:] Ich war noch nie krank in Schule. [I’ve never been ill in school.] Dem hält ein Junge mit türkischen Eltern entgegen: [A boy with Turkish parents counters:] Doch, einmal warst Du. [Yes once you were.] Daraufhin die ebenfalls einsprachig deutsche Freundin des Mädchens: [The also monolingual German friend of the girl defends her:] Lern erstmal Deutsch. [You first have to learn German.] The girls do not actually take into consideration what the boy says. They just want to silence him, which probably would have occurred in any other situation, independent from the ethnic background of the students. However, in this specific case an important display of social hierarchy took place at the same time. As illustrated throughout this chapter, the framework of such an interaction in this specific context of diversity is provided by a climate of devaluing non-German (and non-prestigious) languages, in this case Turkish, and seeing these languages as obstacles or even as threatening elements. At the same time, these languages function as markers of groups who are not perceived as fully accepted members of German society. Language thus becomes a means of social classification within a multilingual situation. This confirms that children, as social beings, are extremely aware of the heterogeneous settings around them. Young children have great sensitivity with regard to their social environments and tend to conform to their surroundings. As Tomasello (2002) and Jørgensen (2008) put it, their whole cognitive ability and development, including language acquisition, is connected to their capacity to understand others as intentional subjects. Learning the most important basic cultural techniques, such as literacy competence,

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

115

means at the same time that they must as well permanently locate themselves within their social reality. They, therefore, perpetually reproduce and adopt the most established categories, also those of hierarchy and devaluation within public discourse. Thus, schools turn out to be places of permanent identity negotiation linked to a process of establishing and re-establishing hierarchical structures within the institutional setting. The parameters of these processes change, as students grow older. As adolescents they tend to define themselves according to different principles. For instance, it becomes more important to establish borders between themselves and others, mainly adults. Therefore, if they are constantly confronted with ascriptions making them members of a stigmatised minority group speaking German badly, they might rebel and reject educational institutions as well as society in a broader sense.

Language elaboration Finally, we will focus on language elaboration processes. The implication of social conditions and language elaboration processes will be illustrated by applying a multileveled analysis. The analysis of a short interview extract sheds light on the complexity of the ongoing dynamics: Girl:

TL: Girl:

Meine Mutter ist bei Türkei geboren aber sie kann nich so gut Deutsch/ und ich bin hier geboren obwohl ich eine Türkin bin kann ich nich so gut Türkisch [My mother is born at Turkey but she cannot speak German so well/ and I am born here even though I’m Turkish I cannot speak Turkish so well] Und wie sprichst du mit deiner Mama [And how do you talk with your mummy] Türkisch/aber was ich manschma nich versteh sag ich auf Deutsch/ sie versteht das [Turkish but what I sometimes don’t understand I say it in German she understands it]

This is an extract from an interview with a girl (second grade) whose parents emigrated from Turkey. She was born in Germany, went to a German kindergarten and now joins a German school. We talked to her and also to her mother who speaks Turkish and a little German. The mother left school in Turkey after the fifth grade and came to Germany when she was 16 years. The extract can be analysed on three different levels. (a) At the level of discourse analysis the girl’s language perception and her mental picture of multilingualism is to be understood in the following

116

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

way. The young girl describes in a very conscious way the complexity of her family’s social and linguistic dynamic within the triangle of linguistic situation, nationality and living reality. At first she explains the situation of her mother who was born in Turkey and, according to her, does not speak German well. With that the girl relates both to her own background being influenced by the migration of her mother (parents) and to the linguistic situation within the family. In this context the girl obviously feels the need to place herself at a linguistic as well as at a social level: although born in Germany she categorises herself as Turkish. However, she regards her language proficiency in Turkish as poor. She thus reflects a dialectic relationship between languages, place of birth and nationality and expresses a highly differentiated perception of the contradictory ascriptions she is faced with from her external social environment; ascriptions, which in part she has already internalised as her own markers of identity. Altogether quite a complex mental representation of her multilingualism results from this. Her discourse shows how she reproduces the categories both of public and (her family’s) private discourse. (b) The next step of analysis leads us to the level of language elaboration processes. In the second part of the interview extract the girl was asked in which language she would talk with her mother and she clearly answers that it would be Turkish but due to ‘what I sometimes don’t understand’, as she says, she would also speak German with her mother, who would understand it. In this vein she implicitly alludes to different discursive practices at school and within her family and to the fact that there are issues or areas she does not feel able to express in Turkish. This indicates a specific register-oriented acquisition of a multilingual lexicon within the linguistic repertoire: a steadily ongoing development of different linguistic registers in German at school. The girl’s language registers in Turkish remain in the area of language of proximity while her German registers successively develop also in the area of an abstract language register. However, on a syntactical, morphological and lexical level her development of this register does not fit with the required school standards. We understand this because of several comments from her teachers as well as from what she explains further on during the interview. For example she says: Ich kann nicht so gut Tests schreiben und so/aber bei Mathetest/bei Mathe/dieser Test und so bin ich gut/aber bei Deutsch nicht [I cannot write tests so well (and so on)/but at math-test/at math/this test and so on I am good/but not at German] (c) If we then explore her discourse at the grammatical level we can show how it is linked to our other levels of analysis and why we argue against focusing on one level only.

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

117

In her first sentence she uses the German preposition ‘bei’ which in this case we have translated as at (Meine Mutter ist bei Türkei geboren aber sie kann nich so gut Deutsch/My mother is born in Turkey but she cannot speak German so well). Here this preposition is not used according to standard German, but is very often used by students in heterogeneous environments as a lexical element with the function of a syntactical placeholder preposition. At the same time, this lexeme also has become a diaphasic marker and may even develop into a diastratic one. This might also illustrate the link between the syntagmatic, paradigmatic and pragmatic level, which again is related to language elaboration processes and language proficiency. Although bei is just one lectal marker in an entire code-system of children and youngsters that will neither relate to standard German nor to the linguistic registers needed at school, it is quite an important lectal marker, which teachers quickly identify and then use to confirm their own deficitoriented perception of multilingual students’ proficiency in German. Through a multilevel analysis we consider that language elaboration processes as well as the acquisition of language proficiency in multilingual and socially heterogeneous environments, are connected with ascriptions, social categorisation and preconceived deficit orientation at an institutional level. The way students talk and later write generates certain ascriptions on the part of teachers and educational institutions. They consist of expectations and perceptions of proficiency in the German language that unfortunately are mainly characterised by a deficit orientation rather than an understanding of multilingualism and language elaboration processes.

Discussion and Conclusions In reference to Maas (2008), Tomasello (2008) and representatives of construction grammar, such as Haberzettl (2007), we understand language acquisition as a process of social learning, which is influenced by valuations. Summarised, this means that the notion of linguistic and cultural heterogeneity in schools is never a neutral description of existing social phenomena. It is rather an appraisal of given social conditions, which end up being mainly perceived as deficits concerning language proficiency and/or a lack of cultural/ social integration. Referring to language there are two different levels, which can be differentiated and on which valuations take place. On the one hand, we can detect different values of languages in Germany (e.g. prestigious languages such as English and French versus less valued ones such as Turkish, or Polish). On the other hand, a valuation of students takes place according to their language repertoire and registers, which they in turn develop in reference to their social environments. This process of valuing languages and students influences the attitude of almost every single actor within the school’s environment, as well as students’ self-perception, their development and their

118

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

interaction among one another. What we have tried to show here is how linguistic and cultural diversity ends up being linked to a subtle dynamic of discrimination within schools. Multilingualism within the described context is perceived as a salient feature of students, which defines them both as inadequate and foreign due to their non-German languages. It appears that the framework for language elaboration processes in many primary schools in urban areas consists of the social dynamics mentioned above; a fact which (in the worst case) causes negative effects on students’ self-confidence. At the same time their trust in others, as well as their language awareness and resilience to benefit from linguistic resources in a creative and conscious way, is affected negatively. Furthermore, a widespread deficit-oriented perception of their linguistic productions at school in each of their languages, including German, leads to frustration on both sides, teachers and students. From this standpoint, attention should again be drawn to language registers and language repertoire as well as to the preconditions of students’ language acquisition processes. Therefore, a differentiation between the following two main levels of linguistic diversity appears to be crucial: the first level refers to different languages spoken in different family environments as well as to different language acquisition settings (e.g. two or more languages spoken within the respective family network and sibling position), while the second level concerns language registers and repertoire, the acquisition of which is deeply linked to sociocultural environments resulting in different competence and performance levels. Language registers and repertoire turn out to have a much deeper impact on school careers than just the fact of children being multilingual. Thus, all educational actors should be aware that their approach to teaching languages and literacy should focus on the acquisition of these academic registers and that it will benefit both monolingual and multilingual students alike.

Postscriptum The project mitSprache, which formed the background of the research for this chapter, will phase out by the end of the school term in 2013. The experiences and innovative approaches towards diversity management at school resulting from the project are treated as an important contribution to a comprehensive implementation of diversity management strategies in the school context of Frankfurt am Main. How this will be managed politically remains to be seen.

Acknowledgement For precious advice and support, I wish to express deepest thanks to Christine Hélot. Merci beaucoup!

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

119

References Amt für multikulturelle Angelegenheiten (AmkA) [Office for Multicultural Affairs] (ed.) (2003 and 2007) Dokumentation mitSprache. Frankfurt/M: AmkA. Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (2010) Bildung in Deutschland 2010. Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Perspektiven des Bildungswesens im demografischen Wandel. [Education in Germany. An indicator-founded report with an analysis of perspectives of education in times of demographic change]. Im Auftrag der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung (p. 9). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann Verlag. Bade, K., Emmer, P.C. and Lucassen, L. (2013) Enzyklopädie. Migration in Europa. Vom 17. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart [The Encyclopaedia of Migration and Minorities In Europe: From the 17th Century to the Present]. Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh. Bernstein, B. (1971) Class, Codes and Control. Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brügelmann, H. (2002) Heterogenität, Integration, Differenzierung: empirische Befunde – pädagogische Perspektiven [Heterogeneity, integration and differenciation: empirical results – pedagogical perspectives]. In F. Heinzel (ed.) Heterogenität, Integration und Differenzierung in der Primarstufe [Heterogeneity, Integration and Differenciation in Primary School]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Cummins, J. (2006) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Flam, H. (ed.) (2007) Migranten in Deutschland. Statistiken-Fakten-Diskurse [Migrants in Germany. Statistics-facts-discourses]. Konstanz: UVK. Flick, U. (ed.) (2007) Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung [Qualitative Research in Social Science. An Introduction]. Hamburg: Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verlag. Foucault, M. (1969) L’archéologie du savoir [The Archeaology of Knowledge]. Paris: Gallimard. Heath, S.B. and Street, B.V. (2008) On Ethnography. Approaches to Language and Literacy Research. New York: Teachers College Press. Homepage City of Frankfurt am Main: http://www.frankfurt.de/sixcms/detail. php?id=2811&_ffmpar[_id_inhalt]=7524&_ffmpar[_id_eltern]=2811 (11/11/2011). Geertz, C. (1995) Dichte Beschreibung. Beiträge zum Verstehen kultureller Systeme [Thick Description. Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture]. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. Gogolin, I. and Roth, H.-J. (2004) Schulversuch bilinguale Grundschulklassen in Hamburg – Wissenschaftliche Begleitung. Bericht 2004 [Experimental School Project Bilingual Schools in Hamburg – Scientific Supervision. Report 2004]. Gomolla, M. and Radtke, F-O. (2002) Institutionelle Diskriminierung. Die Herstellung ethnischer Differenz in der Schule [Institutional Discrimination. Producing Ethnical Difference at School]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Haberzettl, S. (2007) Konstruktionen im Zweitspracherwerb [Constructions in second language acquisition]. In K. Fischer and A. Stefanowitsch (eds) Konstruktionsgrammatik I, Von der Anwendung zur Theorie [Construction grammar I, from Applying to Theory] (pp. 55–77). Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt (1975) Sprache und Kommunikation ausländischer Arbeiter [Language and communication of foreign workers]. Kronberg: Scriptor. Hessischer L., 17. Wahlperiode, Drucksache 17/409 (09.09.2008): Kleine Anfrage der Abg. Cárdenas (DIE LINKE) vom 10.07.2008 betreffend den Herkunftssprachlichen Unterricht (HSU) und Antwort des mit der Leitung des Kultusministeriums beauftragten Ministers der Justiz. Wiesbaden: Hessisches Kultusministerium – Online document: http://starweb.hessen.de/cache/DRS/17/9/00409.pdf (13/11/2011).

120

Par t 1: Mult ilingualism in Educat ion

Jørgensen, J.N. (2008) Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. In Gabrys-Barker, D. et al. (eds) International Journal of Multilingualism 5 (pp. 161–176). London: Routledge. Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W. (1985) Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte [Language of proximity – language of distance. Speech and writing in the area of conflict between theory of language and history of language]. In Deutschmann Flasche, H., König, B., Kruse, M., Pabst, W. and Stempel, W-D. (eds) Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36 [Yearbook of romance philology] (pp. 15–43). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W. (2011) Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch [Spoken language in areas of romance languages: French, Italian, Spanish]. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Leichsering, T. (2009) Sprachliche und kulturelle Diversität in Schulen – Reflexionen zu einem Modellprojekt in Frankfurt am Main [Linguistic and cultural diversity in schools – reflections about a project in Frankfurt/main]. In M. Geistlinger, P. Hilpold and G. Kremnitz (eds) Europa ethnica.Schwerpunkt ‘Minderheiten und Bildung’ 65 [Europa Ethnica. key aspect ‘Minorities and education’] (pp. 43–51). Wien: Braumüller. Maas, U. (2008) Sprache und Sprachen in der Migrationsgesellschaft. Die schriftkulturelle Dimension [Language and languages in migration societies. The dimension of writing as a cultural technique]. Göttingen: V&R unipress GmbH mit Universitätsverlag Osnabrück. Maas, U. (ed.) (2010) Orat und literat. Grazer Linguistische Studien (GLS) 73 [Orat and literat (not to translate, like ‘gestalt’)]. Graz: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Graz. Magistrat der Stadt Frankfurt (2010) Vielfalt bewegt Frankfurt. Integrations- und Diversitätskonzept für Stadt, Politik und Verwaltung. [Diversity moves Frankfurt. Concept for integration and diversity for town, politics and administration]. Frankfurt: Municipality of Frankfurt. Münz, R., Seifert, W. and Ulrich, R. (1999) Zuwanderung nach Deutschland [Immigration to Germany. Structures, effects, perspectives]. Frankfurt/M, New York: Campus. Myers, M. (2000) Qualitative research and the generalizability question: Standing firm with Proteus. [30 paragraphs]. The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 4(3/4). http:// www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4–1/myers.html (15/02/2013). Plath, I., Bender-Szymanski, D. and Kodron, C. (2002) Dokumentation zur Situation von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit Migrationserfahrungen an Frankfurter Schulen im Schuljahr 2000/2001 [Documentation of the Situation Of Students with Migration Experience at Schools in Frankfurt in the Schoolterm 2000/2001]. Frankfurt a. M.: Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung. Prengel, A. (2006) Pädagogik der Vielfalt. Verschiedenheit und Gleichberechtigung in Interkultureller, Feministischer und Integrativer Pädagogik [Pedagogy of diversity. Difference and equal opportunities within intercultural, feminist and inclusive pedagogy]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Schulrecht, Siebter Teil, Schülerinnen und Schüler nichtdeutscher Herkunftssprache, § 52 http://www.hessen.de/irj/HKM_Internet?rid=HKM_15/HKM_Internet/nav/344/ 3443019a-8cc6–1811-f3ef-ef91921321b2%26_ic_uCon=ae21081c-a279-d901-e76cd97ccf4e69f2.htm&uid=3443019a-8cc6–1811-f3ef-ef91921321b2 (14/02/2012) Statistisches Bundesamt (2008) Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund. Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2005 [Population and employment. Population with migration background. Results of the sample census 2005]. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

A Soc iolinguist ic Analysis of Mult ilingualism in Frank f ur t/M, Ger many

121

Thomas, D.R. (2003) A General Inductive Approach for Qualitative Data Analysis. New Zealand: University of Auckland. Tomasello, M. (2002) Die kulturelle Evolution des menschlichen Denkens. Zur Evolution der Kognition [The cultural origins of human cognition]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Tomasello, M. (2008) Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, London: MIT Press. Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-Diversity and Its Implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30 (pp. 1024–1054). London: Routledge. Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (ed.) (2009) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd edn). London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi/Singapore: Sage Publications.

Part 2 Students and Teachers in the Multilingual Classroom

7

The Role of Age on the Development of Written Competence in L4 English: Evidence From a Spanish/ German CLIL Context Laura Sanchez1

Introduction In the past three decades, the attention of the research community has been drawn to the lack of adequate research on the acquisition of written competence carried out primarily in two fields, namely, acquisition at low proficiency levels (Ishiwaka, 1995; Leki, 1996), and formal acquisition in school-age children (Harklau, 2002). The call for research in this direction has led to valuable insights into the formal acquisition of written competence informed by several studies carried out in Spain. The main evidence informing such research comes from two contexts, namely, Catalonia and the Basque Country. The major findings of these studies are reviewed in the section ‘Literature Review’. Similarly, a field that has recently received great scientific interest in research on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is the formal acquisition of an L2 in a context of bilingual education that provides learners with massive exposure to the target language. This is the case of immersion programmes (full or partial) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL, see Lucietto, Chapter 8 in this volume). Less of an interest has been taken in the acquisition of a second non-native language in such acquisitional settings. Hence, the main aim of the study reported here is to expand the scope of investigation from a first non-native language to a second non-native language in an immersion context where the language being investigated is not 125

126

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

one of the languages of the bilingual programme, but a subsequent language acquired later on. In this regard, the acquisitional setting of the TL investigated here (L4 English) corresponds to a situation of foreign language acquisition with a limited amount of input. Therefore, the setting is particularly relevant for pedagogical practices, and for the development of language policies in a multilingual society. In this line of investigation, the growing interest for the acquisition of written competence in languages beyond the mother tongue has fostered the proliferation of studies of a theoretical nature. These studies define, review or refine analytical measures for the thorough analysis of the written production of second language learners (Archibald & Jeffery, 2000; Polio, 1997, 2001; Reichelt, 1999; Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1998), or weigh up the effect on the production of factors such as age (Collier, 1988) or proficiency (Thomas, 1994). At the same time, all these have been effectively submitted to empirical evaluation in several studies on learners with varied linguistic profiles (Ortega, 2003; Polio, 1997). The most pertinent implications of these are presented in the following section.

Literature Review Among the common goals that unify the aforementioned studies is the manifest concern for investigating age effects (both biological age and starting age) on the development and acquisition of the different areas associated to the skill of writing. In Catalonia, the main research findings from the GRAL research group (and the BAF Project in particular) come from the volume edited by Muñoz (2006b) on the effects of age on the formal acquisition of English as a first non-native language by 2L1 children (Spanish and Catalan) in the short, mid and long term. In this context, several studies have investigated the development of learners’ English interlanguage in the four areas that constitute written competence, that is, fluency, grammatical complexity, lexical complexity and accuracy. All of these studies (e.g. Celaya et al., 2001, 2003; Muñoz, 1999; Navés, 2006; Navés & Miralpeix, 2002; Navés et al., 2003; Pérez-Vidal et al., 2000; Torras & Celaya, 2001; Torras et al., 2006) have drawn on cross-sectional and longitudinal data from two groups of learners after 200, 400 and 726 hours of formal instruction, whose starting ages were 8 and 11, respectively. A composition task titled ‘Introduce yourself’ (a topic the learners were familiar with) was the instrument used at the three data collection times, which took place when the learners’ mean ages were 10.9/12.9, 12.9/14.9, 16.9/17.9 for early and late starters, respectively. The most important result yielded by the various qualitative and quantitative analyses in these studies is the initial advantage for older learners in rate of learning in an instructed setting. The explanation given to these results was cognitively grounded.

The Role of Age on the Development of Wr it ten Competence in L4 English

127

The cognitive maturity and memory constraints of older learners, including a potentially greater working memory capacity (Muñoz, 2011; Muñoz & Singleton, 2011), enabled them to benefit more from the same instructional time in spite of their later onset in the learning of English. This, in turn, equipped older learners with a more solid linguistic foundation, necessary to produce complex grammatical constructions. Conversely, ‘younger learners could not make use of their alleged advantage at implicit learning because in a limited-input setting they did not have enough exposure to the target language’ (Muñoz, 2011: 116). At the same time, this seemed to benefit older learners, who were demonstrated to make a more effective use of the cognitive resources at their disposal, including the benefits of explicit teaching and explicit learning mechanisms (Muñoz, 2006a). Furthermore, the results of the studies by the GRAL research group suggest that at least in the early stages of L3 English acquisition, the various components of writing do not develop in tandem. As a consequence, learners may have different proficiency levels in each of these components (Torras et al., 2006: 157). Maybe the strongest evidence of this was to be found in the area of grammatical complexity, where learners seemed to progress more rapidly. In the area of accuracy, the findings had no easy explanation, as differences did not always turn out to be statistically significant. Despite this, gains were observed in this area, as both groups progressed with age, proficiency and instructional time. In any case, the rate of progress in accuracy and grammatical complexity had the potential of distinguishing the two age groups. Furthermore, progress in these and other areas was uneven, and more obvious around age 12 in all of them. At this age, the rate of learning was speeded up, and this acceleration was related to a turning point in the acquisition of written competence. This was assumed to be to due to the simultaneous operation of the various factors examined here (Celaya et al., 2003; Li, 2000; Tedick, 1990; Torras & Celaya, 2001; Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1998). Another outstanding finding by the GRAL research group is that the age factor needs to be understood along with instruction. Indeed, their interactive effects are difficult to tease apart, and as Muñoz (2006a: 34) claims, ‘second language learning success in a foreign language context may be as much a function of exposure as of age’ (emphasis added). Moreover, age and exposure also interact with proficiency in such a way that age-related differences in learning rate allow learners at different ages to benefit from instruction to different extents (Celaya et al., 2001; Celaya, 2006; Cummins, 1980). Thus proficiency does not necessarily reflect instructional time, especially at different ages. In this sense, in a study on the acquisition of L3 German by Swedish learners with prior knowledge of L2 English, Sayehli (2001) found that some of her 13–14-year-olds were of overall higher proficiency than 12–13-year-olds. This provides further confirmation to the simultaneous operation of age and instruction.

128

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Analogous research conducted in the Basque country on the compulsory acquisition of English as a first foreign language by 2L1 children (Spanish and Basque) are strikingly similar to those obtained in GRAL, and also concede an advantage to older and more instructed learners (e.g. Cenoz, 2002; Doiz & Lasagabaster, 2001; García-Mayo, 2003; Lasagabaster, 2001). The consonance in the findings from the two acquisitional settings is particularly informative for two reasons. On the one hand, similar findings are reported despite slight differences in biological age and accumulated hours of instruction. The data analysed by different researchers in the Basque Country include very similar starting ages for early starters (8–9 years) and late starters (11–12 years), although the amount and length of instructional time differed slightly from those in Catalonia (namely, 310, 396, 594, 600, 693 or 792 hours of instruction, depending on the study). For example, Lasagaster and Doiz (2003) analysed sixth, tenth and twelve graders after 693, 704 and 792 hours of instruction, respectively. The ages of these learners at the time instruction in English began were 4/5, 8/9 and 11/12 years old for each group. Similarly, Sagasta (2003) investigated learners aged 12–16, and Doiz and Lasagabaster (2004) did so with learners at grade 10 after instructional times of 792 and 660 hours (with English lessons starting at ages 8 and 11, respectively). However, the findings in Catalonia and the Basque Country are similar across tasks, since the instrument employed in data collection in the Basque Country was a recipe or an informal letter (Sagasta, 2003). Outside Europe, the most representative studies with low-proficiency school-age learners were conducted in the United States and Canada mainly during the 1980s with elementary and middle school children at different grades (Crowhurst, 1980; Crowhurst & Riche, 1979; Eckstrand, 1976; Ferris & Politzer, 1981; Hunt, 1965, 1970; Lapkin et al., 1980; Tarone et al., 1993). Apart from certain differences in the approach to the investigation of the age factor, which has often centred around the length of residence or the age at the time of arrival of immigrant populations, research in the North-American context (e.g. Braun & Klassen, 1973; Burstall, 1975; Carlisle, 1989; SktutnabbKangas, 1979; Snow & Hoefnagel-Höhle, 1978; Steart & Grobe, 1979) is characterised by sociocultural diversity. Besides, another characteristic aspect in this context is the design of the study, which often differs from those described above in the elicitation technique used. Along a continuum, these techniques fluctuate from tasks of relative little difficulty, as for example controlled sentence combining (Stotsky, 1975), to argumentative writing (Crowhurst, 1980) or essays (Chastain, 1990; Frantzen, 1995). Free-picture description (Ishikawa, 1995) and direct compositions (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1992) are in the middle of this continuum. All in all, further research is needed to confirm or reject the findings on the acquisition of written competence by instructed school-age learners with limited proficiency and instructional time. Moreover, given the somewhat restricted series of tasks

The Role of Age on the Development of Wr it ten Competence in L4 English

129

employed in the analysis of written data in the formal acquisition contexts described above, it is also necessary to use a wider range of task designs.

Research Questions and Hypotheses In compliance with previous research, and in view of the shortage outlined in the preceding sections, the present study sets out to investigate the role of biological age and minimal input on the acquisition of written competence in L4 English in an instructed setting. Phrased in terms of a general question, the research question (RQ) guiding the study is formulated as follows: do biological age and instructional time affect the rate of learning in three writing areas (fluency, grammatical complexity and accuracy) in preadolescent learners of L4 English? In light of the literature reviewed in the section ‘Literature Review’, the two underlying hypotheses are the following. First, progress in the different areas will not run parallel, with fluency, complexity and accuracy developing at different rates. Second, after the same instructional time, different-aged learners of an L4 will not perform in the same way as far as their rate of acquisition of writing skills is concerned. To be more precise, the specific prediction is that older learners will proceed at a faster pace than their younger peers in the very short term under 100 hours of instruction.

Participants In order to guarantee that all the participants fulfilled these requirements and ensure their comparability, they were administered a questionnaire that gathered information on their linguistic and sociolinguistic background (see Appendix A). The items in this questionnaire, inspired by Baker and Jones (1998), included questions on the L1s and knowledge of foreign languages, age of onset in the learning of the L3 and the L4, extracurricular exposure, and home and family languages, as well as languages spoken with friends and teachers inside and outside the classroom. Out of the approximately 150 potential candidates who filled out the questionnaire, 122 of them were included in the working sample. The remaining candidates were excluded because one or both parents were native speakers of English or German, so they would not have foreign language status required in this study. Another major reason for exclusion was further exposure to the target language, which was non-desirable if input through instructional time was a key variable in the study. Data from these beginning learners of English (n = 122) were collected after 66 hours of tuition in this language, with an aim to find out whether instructional time received at different ages affects the rate of learning in

130

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Table 7.1 Participating groups Groups

Instructional time

Grade

Age

Length of exposure

Group A (YOUNGER)

66 hours

4

9.9

1st year

Group B (OLDER)

66 hours

7

11.9

1st year

various areas of writing. Hence, different-aged learners were examined after the same instructional time. Learners were classified according to age into two cohorts, namely, a group of 9.9-year-olds (n = 79) and a group of 11.9-year-olds (n = 43) (Table 7.1).

Instruments and Procedure The elicitation technique employed in the data collection was a picture story telling task in its written modality (Appendix B). This task is ‘The Dog Story’ (Sanchez & Jarvis, 2008), and it is part of the battery of tests employed by the GRAL research group in the BAF and BAFiA Projects. The task was time-controlled (12 minutes), and it was performed by learners during class time under the supervision of the researcher. Learners were asked to narrate the story, and they were not allowed to use dictionaries or any other reference tool.

Data Analysis To assess the development of written competence, several performedscaled measures were employed for the areas of fluency, grammatical complexity and accuracy. These were defined following directions in Foster and Skehan (1996) and Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998). The analytical measures used were adapted from Celaya et al. (2001), Navés (2006), Navés et al. (2003) and Torras et al. (2006). These are studies by the GRAL research group with learners of a comparable background and socioeconomic status, but for whom English was an L3 (see Navés et al., 2003 for a detailed description of the 39 measures in the different areas of written competence) instead of an L4. In consonance with previous research, the construct fluency was measured using a frequency of the total number of words, sentences and clauses. Along with frequencies, fluency was measured as well using a ratio of words per sentence and words per clause. Borrowings and lexical inventions from any of the background languages in the linguistic repertoire of the learners (Spanish, Catalan and German) were not counted. In turn, grammatical complexity was defined in terms of sophistication and grammatical variation. It was calculated using frequencies and indexes. In this study, frequencies were

The Role of Age on the Development of Wr it ten Competence in L4 English

131

Table 7.2 Analytical measures used in the analysis of L4 English written development Fluency 1. W (number of words)

Grammatical complexity

6. Sub C (number of subordinate clauses) 2. S (number of sentences) 7. Coor C (number of coordinate clauses) 3. C (number of clauses) 8. C /S (clauses per sentence) 4. W/S (words per sentence) 9. Sub/S (subordinate clauses per sentence) 5. W/C (words per clause) 10. Coor/S (coordinate clauses per sentence)

Accuracy 11. EFS (number of errorfree sentences) 12. %EFS (percentage of error-free sentences) 13. EFC (number of errorfree clauses) 14. %EFC (percentage of error-free clauses)

based on a count of coordinate and subordinate clauses. Next, indexes were calculated using a formula that yielded a numerical score for clauses per sentence, subordinate clauses per sentence and coordinate clauses per sentence. The last area of written competence examined here was accuracy. It was defined as target-like use. It was measured using the frequency of error-free sentences and clauses (counts), along with a ratio defined in terms of the occurence of error-free sentences expressed as a percentage over the total number of sentences, and a ratio of the occurence of error-free clauses as a percentage over the total number of sentences. Table 7.2, adapted from Torras et al. (2006: 163), surveys the analytical measures used in this study. The production in the 122 narratives was coded using the performed-scaled analytical measures described in the preceding paragraph. For the data codification, the Nvivo research software was employed. The results of these analyses were quantified and imported to the SPSS package (version 16). They were then compared across age groups and submitted to statistical treatment.

Results The results of the various analyses are now presented, along with a report of the statistical tests run on the data. Before doing this, the quantitative results are presented for each area of written competence separately. Table 7.3 shows the means, and standard deviation of the analytical measures in the area of fluency. The information in Table 7.3 indicates that older learners were ostensibly more fluent. Above all, this is due to the fact that they wrote longer narratives, and also to their higher ratio of words per clause. An apparently contradictory piece of evidence would be the slightly lower number of sentences and words per sentence in older learners in comparison with younger

132

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Table 7.3 Mean and standard deviation in the analytical measures of fl uency Group ‘A’ (n = 79)

Group ‘B’ (n = 43)

Mean

Mean

SD

t-Tests

Df

SD p = 0.915

F_W F_S

12.32

2.62

p = 0.007

73.940

F_C

1.95

1.54

p = 0.015

72.315

F_W/C

2.68

2.30

p = 0.286

31.332

F_W/S

3.33

12.48

12.73

p = 0.328

68.135

5.70

1.44

6.07

1.64

67.026

learners. This, however, needs to be understood in relation to grammatical complexity (see Table 7.4). Thus, younger learners exhibited a higher tendency to write simple sentences. In contrast, older learners made more use of complex sentences involving coordination and subordination. This explains why the mean of clauses and words per clause is higher in older than in younger learners. With the purpose of ascertaining whether these differences were statistically significant, t-tests were run on these quantitative data. The results of these t-tests confirmed the observations just made, thereby suggesting that older learners significantly outperformed younger learners in the number of clauses and sentences. The number of sentences was an exception to this, for reasons already stated. As for grammatical complexity, Table 7.4 indicates that older learners outperformed their younger peers in every single analytical measure. To state differently, older learners drew on more complex constructions, as evidenced by their greater use of subordinate clauses, coordinate clauses, clauses per sentence, subordination per sentence and coordination per sentence. Consequently, all the comparisons of measures in this area between the two age groups were statistically significant, with the only exception of clauses per sentence. Table 7.4 Mean and standard deviation in the analytical measures of grammatical complexity Group ‘A’ (n = 79)

Group ‘B’ (n = 43)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

GC_SubC

0.69

0.907

1.33

GC_CoorC

0.76

1.16

GC_C/S

1.22

0.32

GC_Sub/S

0.11

GC_Coor/S

0.15

t-Tests

Df

0.75

p = 0.001

69.464

1.47

1.35

p = 0.014

52.725

2.77

1.11

p = 0.065

29.093

1.48

0.32

0.24

p = 0.000

40.863

0.23

0.50

0.68

p = 0.001

32.686

The Role of Age on the Development of Wr it ten Competence in L4 English

133

Table 7.5 Mean and standard deviation in the analytical measures of accuracy

A_EFS A_%EFS A_EFC A_%EFC

Group ‘A’ (n = 79)

Group ‘B’ (n = 43)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

0.74 12.63 1.22 15.62

1.102 18.15 2.006 20.51

1.00 21.8133 2.23 30.6400

0.947 19.31 1.977 22.81

t-Tests

Df

p = 0.068 p = 0.037 p = 0.029 p = 0.004

68.001 56.943 60.784 54.858

The results obtained in the area of accuracy are shown in Table 7.5. As Table 7.5 indicates, the results in the area of accuracy were congruent with those in the other areas. The performance of older learners was clearly much more accurate. This claim is substantiated by the higher incidence of error-free sentences and clauses (both in number and percentage). To sum up and for the sake of clarification, this section closes with a visual representation of these findings. Figures 7.1–7.3 illustrate the performance of each age group in the areas of fluency, grammatical complexity and accuracy.

Figure 7.1 Fluency

134

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Figure 7.2 Grammatical complexity

Figure 7.3 Accuracy

The Role of Age on the Development of Wr it ten Competence in L4 English

135

Discussion It is a generally accepted belief among parents that young children learn ‘like sponges’. This observation based on their everyday life leads them to extrapolate this facility to all areas of learning, including that of language. For this reason, parents invest huge amounts of money and time in private language lessons (see also Lindgren & Muñoz, 2011). While the argument here does not run counter to children’s exposure to as large an extent as possible, the main concern at this point is the age at which this exposure should take place. The major handicap for this kind of learning to occur is that it requires a great deal of exposure that provide learners with ‘multiple instances of a feature’ (Muñoz, 2006a: 34) so that it can be acquired. This, unfortunately, is difficult to accomplish in the foreign language classroom. In consonance with these observations, Larson-Hall (2008: 37) notes that ‘small amounts of input will not be sufficient to trigger the formation of a morphological, syntactic or phonological system’. Therefore, the restraints imposed by this kind of instructed setting might slow down the rate of acquisition of a language beyond the mother tongue and may not benefit younger learners. In fact, on the basis of the evidence presented in the section ‘Results’, it seems reasonable to claim that not only does an early start in a non-native language not guarantee a more effective or higher rate of acquisition in the short-term (and apparently, neither in the long term, see Muñoz, 2011) in an instructed setting, but a premature introduction may have a deleterious effect on learning (Ellis, 1989: 325). However, it is becoming a fashionable trend and an increasingly common practice in Catalonia to introduce more than one foreign language or even two at a very early point in the curriculum of primary school learners (as for instance Mandarin Chinese in public schools). Thus, at least a priori, there might be no apparent reason why parents should expect this to be different for the acquisition of an L3, L4 or Ln. In contrast, from the linguist’s perspective, the question that needs to be addressed on the basis of objective empirical evidence is whether this is certainly the case or not. Indeed, the results obtained in the present study seem to suggest that in the L4 acquisition of English, older learners outperform their younger peers. This provides an answer to the RQ in the section ‘Research Questions and Hypotheses’. These results indicate that instructional time and biological age affected the rate of learning in the areas examined, and that older learners benefitted more from the same instructional time. Specifically, the older learners analysed here achieved a higher level of success in the L4 than their younger peers, by outperforming them in virtually all the measures employed in the analysis of writing performance. This was particularly obvious in the area of grammatical complexity, where older learners improved the most.

136

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Despite the assertion that the results were more salient in this area, older learners clearly showed a superior rate of acquisition also in all the other measures employed in the data analysis. Nonetheless, it may not be a coincidence that the best results of the group of older learners were obtained in relation to complexity (both structural and grammatical). Following the line of reasoning offered in the literature review, this might well be explained by the fact that older learners were tested at an age that is believed to represent a turning point for interlanguage development. This, in turn, might have led them to take a greater advantage of explicit grammar instruction. These findings can be interpreted as an indication that ‘early’ does not mean ‘better’ in the acquisition of writing skills in a second non-native language (i.e. L4 English in this case). This replicates the findings in Torras et al. (2006) with learners of the same language background but for whom English was a first non-native language. Hence, besides yielding support to previous research, it extends its scope to a multilingual context with two non-native languages (cf. Hammarberg, Chapter 1 in this volume). For the purposes of the present study, the main implication of these results is pedagogical, and reinforces the claim that language planning should consider the joined effects of age and instruction. On the one hand, the findings reported here should be of help to language policy makers. After all, if introducing a second non-native language in the learners’ school curriculum does not bring them benefit, what is the point of advancing the starting age? Probably it would be wiser and more effective to provide higher amounts of instructional time at an age when learners are cognitively more mature and have a higher metalinguistic awareness. Such cognitive maturity should aid them in speeding up their rate of acquisition. This is remarkably necessary in cases where there is concurrent learning of two or more non-native languages, as in the context investigated in this study. It might then be the case that a way of enhancing education in present-day multilingual society may involve not so much an increase of instructional time, but a rescheduling of this instructional time to a later start. This is a promising area of research for linguists interested in the fields of pedagogy and language policy, and definitely a worth attempt to improve multiple language learning.

Note (1) The present study is part of the BAFiA project on the effects of age and input by the GRAL Research Group, funded by project FFI2010-21478 from the National Ministry of Education. The author is grateful to this funding.

References Archibald, A. and Jeffery, G. (2000) Second language acquisition and writing: A multidisciplinary approacy. Learning and Instruction 10, 1–11.

The Role of Age on the Development of Wr it ten Competence in L4 English

137

Baker, C. and Jones, S. (1998) Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Braun, C. and Klassen, B. (1973) A transformational analysis of written syntactic structures of children representing varying ethno-linguistic communities. Research in the Teaching of English 7, 312–323. Burstall, C. (1975) Primary French in the balance. Educational Research 17, 193–198. Carlisle, R. (1989) The writing of Anglo and Hispanic elementary school students in bilingual, submersion, and regular programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 257–280. Celaya, M.L., Navés, T. and Torras, M.R. (2003) La producción escrita en inglés lengua extranjera en contexto escolar: medición y evolución. Anuari de Filologia XXV [Philology Annals], 65–80. Celaya, M.L., Pérez-Vidal, C. and Torras, M.R. (2001) Matriz de criterios de medición para la determinación del perfil de competencia lingüística escritca en Inglés (LE). Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada [Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics] 14, 87–98. Cenoz, J. (2002) Age differences in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics 135, 125–142. Chastain, K. (1990) Characteristics of graded and ungraded compositions. Modern Language Journal 74, 10–14. Collier, V. (1988) The effect of age on acquisition of a second language for school. Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education 2, 1–8. Crowhurst, M. (1980) Syntactic complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels. Canadian Journal of Education 5, 6–13. Crowhurst, M. and Riche, G. (1979) Audience and mode of discourse effects on syntactic complexity in writing at two grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English 13, 101–109. Cummins, J. (1980) The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education an the optimal age issues. TESOL Quarterly 14, 175–187. Doiz, A. and Lasagabaster, D. (2001) El efecto del factor edad en la producción escrita en inglés. In I. de la Cruz, C. Santamaría, C. Tejedor and C. Valero (eds) La lingüística aplicada a finales del siglo XX. Ensayos y propuestas [Applied Linguistics at the End of the XX Century. Essays and Proposals] (vol. 1, pp. 63–68). Alcalá: Universidad de Alcalá. Doiz, A. and Lasagabaster, D. (2004) The effect of the early teaching of English on writing proficiency. International Journal of Bilingualism 4, 525–540. Eckstrand, L. (1976) Age and length of residence as variables related to the adjustment of migrant children, with special reference to second language learning. In G. Nickel (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics (vol. 3, pp. 179–197). Stuttgart: Hochusulverlag. Ellis, R. (1989) Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, 305–328. Ferris, M. and Politzer, R. (1981) Effects of early and delayed second language acquisition: English composition skills of Spanish speaking junior high school students. TESOL Quarterly 15, 263–274. Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 299–323. Frantzen, D. (1995) The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an Intermediate Spanish Content Course. Modern Language Journal 79, 329–344. García-Mayo, M.P. (2003) Age, length of exposure and grammaticality judgements in the acquisition of English as a foreign language. In M.P. García-Mayo and M.L. GarcíaLecumberri (eds) Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language (pp. 94–114). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

138

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

García Mayo, M.P. and García Lecumberri, M.L. (2003) Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Harklau, L. (2002) The role of writing in second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing 11, 329–350. Hunt, K. (1965) Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Report no. 3 of the NCTE Committee on Research. Hunt, K. (1970) Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 35, 1–67. Ishikawa, S. (1995) Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 57–69. Kobayashi, H. and Rinnert, C. (1992) Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning 42, 183–215. Lasagaster, D. and Doiz, A. (2003) Maturational constraints on foreign-language written production. In M.P. García Mayo and M.L. García Lecumberri (eds) Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language (pp. 136–160). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Larson-Hall, J. (2008) Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger strating age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research 24, 35–63. Lapkin, S., Swain, M., Kamin, J. and Hanna, G. (1980) Report on the 1979 Evaluation of the Peel County Late French Immersion Program, Grades 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Mimeographed. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Lasagabaster, D. (2001) Bilingualism, immersion programmes and language learning in the Basque Country. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22, 401–425. Leki, I. (1996) L2 Composing: Strategies and perceptions. In B. Leeds (ed.) Writing in a Second Language (pp. 27–37). London: Longman. Li, Y. (2000) Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities. System 28, 229–245. Lindgren, E. and Muñoz, C. (2012) The influence of exposure, parents, and linguistic distance on young European larners' foreign language comprehension. International Journal of Multilingualism 10, 1–25. Muñoz, C. (1999) The effects of age on instructed foreign language acquisition. In S. González, R.A. Valdeón, D. García, A. Ojanguren, M. Urdiales and A. Antón (eds) Essays in English Language Teaching. A Review of the Communicative Approach (pp. 1–22). Oviedo: Univerisdad de Oviedo. Muñoz, C. (2006a) The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF Project. In C. Muñoz (ed.) Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1–41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Muñoz, C. (2006b) Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Muñoz, C. and Singleton, D. (2011) A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate attainment. Language Teaching 44, 1–35. Navés, T. (2006) The long-term effects of an early start on foreign language writing. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Barcelona. Navés, T. and Miralpeix, I. (2002) Short-term effects of age and exposure on writing development. Actas del XXVI Congreso de AEDEAN [Proceedings of the XXVI AEDEAN Conference] (pp. 417–416). Navés, T., Torras, M.R. and Celaya, M.L. (2003) Long-term effects of an earlier start. An analysis of EFL written production. In S. Foster-Cohen and S. Pekarek (eds) EUROSLA – Yearbook. Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association (vol. 3, pp. 103–130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ortega, L. (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24, 492–518.

The Role of Age on the Development of Wr it ten Competence in L4 English

139

Pérez-Vidal, C., Torras, M.R. and Celaya, M.L. (2000) Age and EFL written performance by Catalan-Spanish bilinguals. Spanish Applied Linguistics 4, 267–290. Polio, C. (1997) Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning 7, 101–113. Polio, C. (2001) Research methodology in second language writing: The case of text-based studies. In T. Matsuda (ed.) On Second Language Writing (pp. 91–116). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Reichelt, M. (1999) Toward a more comprehensive view of L2 writing: Foreign language writing in the U.S. Journal of Second Language Writing 8, 181–204. Sagasta, P. (2003) Acquiring writing skills in a third language: The positive effects of bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism 7, 27–42. Sanchez, L. and Jarvis, S. (2008) The use of picture stories in the investigation of crosslinguistic influence. TESOL Quarterly 42, 329–333. Sayehli, S. (2001) Transfer and syntax: A study on the acquisition of German word order by Swedish native speakers. Master Thesis, Lund University. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1979) Language in the Process of Cultural Assimilation and Structural Incorporation of Linguistic Minorities. Wheaton, MD: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Snow, C. and Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978) The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development 49, 1114–1128. Steart, M. and Grobe, C. (1979) Syntactic maturity and mechanisms of writing: Their relationship to teaches’ quality ratings. Research in the Teaching of English 13, 101–110. Stotsky, S. (1975) Sentence-combining as a curricular activity: Its effect on written language development and reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English 9, 30–71. Tarone, E., Downing, B., Cohen, A., Gillette, S. and Murie, R. (1993) The writing of Southeast Asian-American students in secondary school and university. Journal of Second Language Writing 2, 149–172. Tedick, D. (1990) ESL writing assessment: Subject-matter knowledge and its impact on performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9, 123–143. Thomas, M. (1994) Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning 44, 307–336. Torras, M.R. and Celaya, M.L. (2001) Age-related differences in the development of written production. An empirical study of EFL school learners. Special issue edited by R.M. Manchón: Writing in the L2 classroom: Issues in research and in pedagogy. International Journal of English Studies 1, 103–126. Torras, M.R., Navés, T., Celaya, M.L. and Pérez-Vidal, C. (2006) Age and IL development in writing. In C. Muñoz (ed.) Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning (pp. 156– 182). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. and Kim, H. (1998) Second Language Develoment in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuray, and Complexity. Hawaii: University of Hawaii at Manoa.

140

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Appendix A

The Role of Age on the Development of Wr it ten Competence in L4 English

141

142

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

The Role of Age on the Development of Wr it ten Competence in L4 English

143

144

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Appendix B

8

The Role of External Consultancy in Supporting Multilingual CLIL Teams and in Shaping School Pedagogical Culture: The Case of S. Giacomo di Laives/St Jakob Leifers (Italy) Sandra Lucietto

Introduction In this chapter, I present and discuss principles, methodology and structure as well as main results, strengths and weaknesses, success conditions and transferable elements of an ongoing consultancy carried out with teams of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) teachers in a primary school in Alto Adige/South-Tyrol, Italy. The consultancy is a teacher development mentoring programme which has supported the CLIL teaching teams, the integrated pedagogical approach applied in class and the use of a range of strategies aiming to develop pluriliteracy. Through the consultancy I seek to access and articulate teachers’ knowledge about good pedagogy, to work with them to agree on good practice in CLIL and to support their professional development through action-research-based reflective discussion. I argue that consultancy plays a role in changing school culture and in developing a new school ethos. I further suggest that the CLIL consultancy methodology used can be transferred to other contexts where languages are in competition for local prestige, as well as where a school is characterised by 145

146

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

profound internal divisions caused by great professional differences and resistance to CLIL on the part of some members of the staff. The context for the CLIL consultancy is the multilingual autonomous province of Alto Adige/South-Tyrol near the border with Austria. The project is conducted in the primary school of S. Giacomo di Laives, near Bolzano, the capital city. Three co-official languages are spoken in the province: German (70%), Italian (26%) and Ladin (4%).1 Issues still unresolved from the controversial political history of the 20th century (Agostini et al., 1995; Pallaver & Steuer, 1998; Steuer, 1993) have given rise to three parallel education systems, different for each language group. By law, the language of schooling is the children’s first language (Nuovo Statuto di Autonomia, 1972, art. 19), and ‘the language of the other’ (Baur, 2005; Baur et al., 2008) is taught as L2 for several hours per week (h/w), six in primary education. In 2007, parents from S. Giacomo asked local politicians to address the need of the Italian-speaking population to achieve higher levels of competence in German, which is necessary to become active members of the provincial, German-driven, economic sector. To this aim, a school-based CLIL project (Content and Language Integrated Learning, Marsh, 1994) was agreed upon between the municipality and the Local Education Authority (LEA). CLIL provision started in one Y1 class in the school year 2008/2009, was then extended to incoming classes in June 2009, and encompasses a total of four classes at the time of writing (school year 2011/2012) (Table 8.1). The project goals are improving L2 competence (German) as compared to the level usually achieved in Italian schools; fully developing the acquisition of Italian (L1); creating a school ethos open to understanding, accepting and valuing the linguistic and cultural diversity of the province. To reach these goals, the LEA agreed on increasing the weekly timetable of the German Table 8.1 Teaching teams, CLIL classes and consultants from 2008/2009 to 2011/2012 Teams

Classes per school-year 2008/2009

T1 T1 T2 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T4

2009/2010

2010/2011

Consultants 2011/2012

Y1 Y2 Y1 Y3 Y2 Y1 Y4 Y3 Y2 Y1

C1 C1 C2 (4 months) C1 C3 C3 C1 C3 C3 C1

Role of E x ter nal Consult anc y in Suppor t ing Mult ilingual CL IL Teams

147

language teacher (a German native speaker) by seven hours per week and the timetable of the teacher of English (L3) by 1 hour per week in the new class, so that they could teach other subjects through L2/L3. For sustainability reasons, however, the LEA later revised the original increase (Table 8.2). The table shows each Y1 weekly timetable, which changed from 28 h/w in years 1 and 2 of the project to 27.5 h/w in year 3 and 4. Total ‘CLIL time’ was 8 h/w in the first two years of the project (28.6% of the total 28-h/w timetable), decreasing to 6 h/w (21.8%) in years 3 and 4. During some CLIL time in German, the teachers of Italian and of German are in class together and use both languages to achieve common goals. In 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, LEA decisions, different from year to year, added complexity to the model: time adjustments in L2 and L3 were made in every class as well as in the new Y1s. In 2011/2012, for example, the original increase of hours in German, which had been established in year 1 of the project as 7 h/w, has been reduced in Y4 to only 4.5 h/w, while the English increase was cancelled in 2010/2011. There was no CLIL competence in S. Giacomo in 2008, as no teacher had any CLIL experience, hence the need to provide professional support. The Faculty of Education (Free University of Bolzano) was contacted for scientific assistance and a CLIL pedagogical consultancy was negotiated to ensure the implementation of quality CLIL. I was appointed to this Table 8.2 Languages of schooling in each Y1 School subject

Time p/w

2008/2009 First Y1

2009/2010 Second Y1

2010/2011 Third Y1

2011/2012 Fourth Y1

Italian

6h

6 IT

6 IT

6 IT

6 IT

German

6h

6 DE

6 DE

6 DE

6 DE

History + Geography

3h

3 DE

3 DE

2 DE

2 IT

Science

2h

2 DE

2 DE

2 DE

2 h DE/IT

Maths

5h

2 h DE/IT

2 h DE/IT

2 h DE/IT

2 h DE/IT

3 h IT

3 h IT

3 h IT

3 h IT

Music

1h

1 IT

1 IT

1 IT

1 IT

P.E.

1h

1 IT

1 IT

1 IT

1 IT/DE

Arts&Crafts

1h

1 EN

1 EN

1 IT

1 IT/DE

English

1h

1 EN

1 EN

1.5 EN

1.5 EN

R.E.

2h

2 IT

2 IT

2 IT

2 IT

28 h (y1–2) 27.5 h (y3–4)

13 h in DE 13 h in IT 2 h in EN

13 h in DE 13 h in IT 2 h in EN

12 h in DE 13 h in IT 1.5 h in EN

12 h in DE 14 h in IT 1.5 h in EN

TOTAL

148

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

role. A co- consultant was given the responsibility of project documentation and evaluation for the school years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010.

Literature Review: The Methodology of CLIL Consultancy The present study reports on pedagogical consultancy in a school-based CLIL project. The theoretical framework which best enables a researcher to understand a school as a complex system, and to address staff development needs as they change over time, is complexity theory (Cohen et al., 2007), also called ecological paradigm (Mortari, 2007). The researcher who is to start consultancy in this context needs to seek answers to her research questions in different professional fields, drawing from, and interconnecting and blending, different academic literatures (in this case: teacher training, professional development, action research for teachers, foreign/second language teacher education, CLIL, bilingual education, education). In the school year 2007/2008, papers on consultancy to CLIL teams of experienced teachers in school-based projects were limited. Studies from Estonia (McConnell, 2005; Tallinn Language Immersion Centre, 2005) and Belgium (Chopey-Paquet & Amory-Bya, 2007) focused on large-scale projects, included classroom observation against preset criteria and feedback sessions, but the main focus seemed to remain on CLIL input and materials development. As for the methodology used to facilitate professional learning and change in teaching practice in small-scale projects, to the best of my knowledge nothing was available at the time. To structure the framework of the CLIL consultancy, therefore, I drew extensively on my past experience as a foreign language teacher trainer (Lucietto, 2007, 2008a) and CLIL consultant (Lucietto, 2008b, 2008c). I explored the rationale, principles and possible structure of the support scheme, and reflected on prerequisites and on what competence, knowledge and experience were required from the CLIL consultant, together with the university colleague appointed for documenting and evaluating the project. When the decision was made to extend the project, I discussed the need to harmonise the work of new teams with the principled approach of Team 1 in an institutional meeting with the headteacher and several school and LEA representatives. The consultancy model that I will be discussing is grounded in the characteristics of the reflective practitioner (Schön, 1983, 1987) and action research, both widely used in EFL teacher development (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Bailey, 2006; Burns, 1999, 2010; Nunan, 1989). The approach enables teachers to learn from experience and develop scientific knowledge validated by practice (Mortari, 2003) in an action-research-based spiral circle – from practice to theory and from theory to practice (Hopkins, 1985; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1992) – which seeks to solve problems/questions

Role of E x ter nal Consult anc y in Suppor t ing Mult ilingual CL IL Teams

149

posed by the teachers themselves. Mortari (2003: 128) states that ‘pedagogical research needs to provide knowledge useful to practice’ and that it ‘must be grounded in experience to find its true sense’. She also insists that Practitioners need to develop a systematic method for analysing experience through the acquisition of reflective competence and the discursive competence necessary to implement the results of disciplined reflective discourse. In turn, academic researchers need to change their research paradigm: the epistemological principle of listening to the reality of education is essential, and this implies conceiving practitioners as irreplaceable partners in the construction of pedagogical knowledge. The concept of transformative research, which promotes change in reality, is to assume primacy. (2003: 128, my translation) Mortari considers ‘change in the symbolic – as well as in the material – quality of life’ (2007: 134) as the aim of pedagogical research. No consultant, however, has the power, or the right, to enforce change. Change cannot be imposed, only facilitated by applying the right strategies: respect, understanding and a ‘gentle push’. Change needs time to adjust, to see oneself in a different situation and to develop new attitudes. Change happens when people are ready to change (see Table 8.3). In the process, the consultant has to keep anxiety at bay while working on the conditions that enable change to take place. Within this paradigm, being a CLIL pedagogical consultant means offering help in the quest for improving established practice and creating opportunities that allow teachers’ competence to grow. The principles highlighted above provide a valuable framework for an effective, close-to-practice support structure, which Mortari calls laboratory of reflective epistemology (2003: 69). Yet, they are not commonly applied in teacher education in Italy, let alone in CLIL teacher education. To the best of my knowledge, the approach to CLIL consultancy implemented in S. Giacomo is the sole example in South-Tyrol and nearby Trentino2, and probably further afield.

Research Design Research questions Three research questions were posed, to be pursued within one primary school cycle (five years). Two were to do with the consultancy model: (1) What data is to be taken into account as evidence of a successful consultancy? (2) What attitude/s on the part of the CLIL consultant facilitate/s the development of a trusting relationship with the teachers?

150

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Table 8.3 Examples of change in attitudes and competence in the teams over the years Team

Change

When

Evidence found in

Team 1

Improved data collection of learning/learners’ materials

Y2 (from mid-year, and developing since)

n. of photos, videos, logbook entries, learners’ materials, examples of learners’ language

Ability to reflect on teaching

Y2 (from mid-year, and developing since)

Dialogue during consultancy meetings

Organisation of team learning

Y3

Mind maps during consultancy meetings

Becoming more knowledgeable about CLIL

Y3 (and developing since)

Dialogue during consultancy meetings

Y3 (September Ability to present the 2010) project at formal meetings/public events

CLIL Conference, Faculty of Education, Bressanone/ Brixen

Y4 (end of Graduation viva (teacher September 2011) 1), Faculty of Education, Bressanone/ Brixen Y4 (October 2011) A new understanding of teaching practice (widening the horizons)

Team 2

Educational Forum, Faculty of Education, Laives

Writing the BA Summer Y3–4 dissertation (teacher 1), (June– Faculty of Education, September 2011) Bressanone/Brixen Y4 (November 2011)

telephone conversation between teacher 2 and consultant

Professional autonomy

Y4 (November 2011)

All of the above, and e-mail message from teacher 1 to consultant

Resistance to CLIL at least partially overcome

Y3 (November 2011)

Dialogue during consultancy meetings (teacher 3)

Valuing reflection

Y3 (November 2011)

Dialogue during consultancy meetings (teacher 3) (Continued)

Role of E x ter nal Consult anc y in Suppor t ing Mult ilingual CL IL Teams

151

Table 8.3 (Continued) Improved communication with other teams:

Team 3

Team 4

Asking Team 1 for advice

Y3 (November 2011)

Staffroom talk (teacher 3)

Sharing views on CLIL at school

Y3 (February–March 2012)

Two joint team meetings (all teams involved)

Asking Team 1 for advice

Y2 (November 2011)

Staffroom talk (teacher 3)

Sharing views on CLIL at school

Y2 (February–March 2012)

Two joint team meetings (all teams involved)

Improved communication with other teams:

n.a.

The third research question focused on the kind of data that needed to be taken into account as evidence for the evaluation of the CLIL project, with direct reference to the CLIL project aims, which are: improving L2 competence (German) while fully developing the acquisition of L1 (Italian), and creating a school ethos open to understanding, accepting and valuing the linguistic and cultural diversity of the province. In this chapter, only answers to questions 1 and 2 will be illustrated and discussed, as the full evaluation of the CLIL project is still ongoing (for an evaluative study of a CLIL context, see Brohy et al., Chapter 9 in this volume).

Overall organisation The core of the CLIL consultancy consists of school-based, 3/4-hour monthly twilight sessions (after-school meetings) with individual CLIL teams, where reflection on practice is carried out through professional dialogue. Classroom observation sessions (usually video-recorded) are offered when focusing on specific classroom activities which highlight a CLIL teaching/learning point. The monthly meetings are not meant to produce learning materials, although salient ones produced by the teams can be discussed. Two institutional meetings (beginning and end of school year) complete the support structure, where stakeholders (the headteacher, the CLIL consultant/s, the CLIL teams, the Chair of Education of the municipality, the Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Education, LEA inspectors and parents) discuss the project’s development.

152

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Participants At the time of writing (school year 2011/2012), four CLIL teams and two external CLIL consultants are involved in the project (see Table 8.1), for a total of 16 teachers. Each team typically includes 5–7 teachers, two being the main ones in terms of curriculum responsibility and number of hours in the timetable. Team 1 is the most stable and best assembled (two permanent main teachers who share their pedagogical approach and chose to be in the project from the beginning). In Team 2, no teacher has been there for the whole three years, and quite a few have changed every year. In Team 3, only the German teacher has been present for two years. Finally, the teacher of English, who in S. Giacomo takes responsibility for all classes, has changed three times in four years. This teacher turnover derives from many teaching posts being structurally non-permanent in S. Giacomo (>50%). Twenty-seven (27) teachers altogether have been in the project so far, many of whom for one or two years only, all of them varying greatly in experience, expertise and institutional position, yet with one trait in common: none had had any previous CLIL experience. This has been an important co-factor in the CLIL project’s difficulties, a characteristic the consultants have had to respond to, finding strategies to build relationships with, and expertise in, newcomers who in many instances had not chosen to be in the project, knew they would not be in the school for long and did not want to invest time in learning how to teach using CLIL methodology. Some of these difficulties are discussed below. As to the consultants, consultant 1 (the author) started to be involved in the project during the planning phase, has worked with Team 1 since the beginning and with Team 4 since 2011/2012. Consultant 2, appointed in 2009/2010 to take care of Team 2, resigned after only four months. Consultant 3 has worked with Teams 2 and 3 since September 2010.

Methods The co-construction of professional knowledge As discussed earlier, the consultancy model is based on a reflective and insightful two-way pedagogical dialogue between teachers and consultant, who makes extensive use of active listening (Rogers & Farson, 1979). The consultant seeks to co-build a shared concept network which accesses the teachers’ tacit knowledge and gives explicit sense to their pedagogical choices. For this reason, the consultant asks the teams not only to tell their class stories, but also to make the sources and motivations of their perceptions and reflections explicit. By gently pushing the team’s thinking and reflection forward, the consultant facilitates the co-construction of new professional knowledge and deeper levels of awareness.

Role of E x ter nal Consult anc y in Suppor t ing Mult ilingual CL IL Teams

153

Reflection on how to achieve the goals of the CLIL project is carried out in line with the developing theory of CLIL (Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto et al., 2008), classic research manuals of bilingual education (Baker, 2006) and recent overviews on language acquisition and learning (Dörnyei, 2009; Lightbown & Spada, 2006). As to how to pursue literacy and numeracy in particular, as well as formative cross-curricular aims, reflection is based on the overall pedagogical approach chosen by Team 1. This is inspired by principles of the creative child (Montessori, 1972) and other principles and materials that were progressively included by the team members (Reichen, 1988; Wittmann & Müller, 2009, 2011). To this effect, action research, ‘designed to bridge the gap between research and practice’ (Somekh, 1995: 340; cited in Cohen et al., 2007: 298) has proven to be ‘a powerful tool for change and improvement at the local level’ (Cohen et al., 2007: 297), as it has been employed ‘to plan, act, observe and reflect more systematically, and more rigorously than one usually does in everyday life’ (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1992: 10). In fact, action research is not the usual thinking teachers do when they think about their teaching. Action research is more systematic and collaborative in collecting evidence on which to base rigorous group reflection. Action research involves problem-posing, not just problem-solving. [. . .] It is motivated by a quest to improve and understand the world by changing it and learning how to improve it from the effects of the changes made. It is not research done on other people. [It] is research by [. . .] people on their own work, to help them improve what they do, including how they work with and for others. (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1992: 21; cited in Cohen et al., 2007: 298) To successfully implement this reflective approach, essential actions on the part of the CLIL consultant are the following: staying focused on what emerges from the discussion/research field; responding appropriately to promote professional dialogue; valuing elements of good practice; anticipating potential conflicts; acting quickly but respectfully to solve emerging divergences. By listening to the teachers, the consultant can recognise when teachers appear ready to ‘take in’ theoretical knowledge, and only then will she introduce direct input on principles of language acquisition and CLIL. The consultant avoids forcing change, which would be detrimental to professional relationships and teachers’ motivation to learn, as she is aware that in professional development, as well as in any learning situation, scaffolding (Gibbons, 2002; Wood et al., 1976) helps learners construct new knowledge while respecting their zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1962). That is why, for example, Cummins’ Quadrant on BICS and CALP (cited in Baker, 2006), although often referred to on numerous occasions in passing, was only formally discussed in a meeting in February 2011, in year 3 of Team 1’s consultancy.

154

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Gathering data from the classroom as a way to professional growth In year 1 of the project, the CLIL consultant invited Team 1 to collect data from their class (Hopkins, 1985), so that monthly discussions could be based on evidence of children’s learning and progress (or lack of it) as well as on their perceptions and memories. Data would include instances of learners’ behaviour in response to teacher interaction in L2, examples of learners’ language use, examples of T–S/S–S interaction, individual/group tasks, classroom materials and examples of learner production (accomplished tasks). The consultant asked for any record to include date, time, lesson and activity. Linguistic/paralinguistic elements that could contribute to recreate the context in which the data had appeared (i.e. what happened before, what happened next) would also be included, for example was it a • • • •

physical response to teacher/peer-initiated interaction? linguistic response to teacher/peer-initiated interaction? utterance initiating an interaction with the teacher/a peer? teacher response to child behaviour/utterance/question? (etc.)

The consultant suggested data collection through a multiplicity of techniques: audio/video recordings, field notes, photos and so on (Hopkins, 1985). Salient data were to be shared at meetings, analysed and discussed, reflected upon, and recorded as part of the project’s ongoing database. Any decisions on further actions would be agreed upon and recorded as well. The consultant also invited the team to keep a log-book in class, as a tool to record impressions from lessons or questions they wanted to ask, as well as a tool to record evidence of (perceived) progress and examples of children’s speech. This request found the team disorganised for the whole year: first, they did not have the right instruments (no audio-/videorecorder at school); then, when some were bought with municipal funds, they claimed they lacked video-recording skills and time; besides, they would not remember to have the instruments ready at hand. They did start a log-book, but the consultant’s request was not fulfilled: throughout the year they seemed reluctant to use it, claiming they had too much to do during lessons to be able to jot down impressions and words. Another use of the log, however, proved helpful as a ‘housekeeping’ tool: they used it as a classbased go-between within the team, that is, as an easy way of recording critical incidents they thought every team member ought to know immediately. Since the consultancy meetings take place in the children’s classroom, despite this ‘resistance’ the consultant nonetheless managed to access learners’ materials (e.g. pages from exercise books/folders) with evidence of progress in Italian, Maths and German, to discuss them at meetings and to digitally record some of them for the project documentation.

Role of E x ter nal Consult anc y in Suppor t ing Mult ilingual CL IL Teams

155

Data collection remained the sole responsibility of the colleague in the consultancy team, who visited the school at regular intervals to that purpose in year 1 of the project. During year 1, the value of gathering data was mentioned several more times, but the consultant then decided not to force the situation, as she did not want to appear to require the data for her own research purposes, which would jeopardise the development of a trusting relationship.

Results and Discussion In this section, answers to research questions 1 and 2 will be provided and discussed. As the experiment has not completed the five-year cycle of primary education yet, they are to be considered provisional.

Consultancy evaluation: Seeing the changes in place In this subsection, answers to research question 1 will be provided. Research Q 1 – What data is to be taken into account as evidence of a successful consultancy? If the role of educational research and consultancy is to facilitate change (Mortari, 2007), then its success is to be evaluated against the quality of the change it brings about. After almost four years, several changes are apparent in S. Giacomo’s school. Team 1 (now in Y4) has grown significantly, and the whole school culture has begun to change. The challenges from now on will be to overcome the remaining obstacles to fully sharing project goals and professional language across teams, and to continue to work for the development of the whole school. The following sections describe the nature of some of the changes: at the individual level, in attitudes (for instance in carrying out team work), in communicating with others and in applying reflection as a basis for action; as a team, in the emerging awareness of the ‘big picture’ and new professional competencies: (i) in the way data is now collected and used to support queries and justify choices; (ii) in the ability to represent the project at formal meetings and public events; and (iii) in a new understanding of teaching practice; at whole-school level, in initial decisions on the part of the headteacher to make the project more coherently embedded in the development of the whole school plan. Table 8.3 summarises major changes in the teams/individuals so far, as described below.

Changes in teachers’ attitudes In Italy, teachers are free to use the educational approach they think best suits their class without having to justify their choice and activities in

156

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

the classroom. Sharing principles and practice was hence a new concept for most teachers in S. Giacomo in 2008. Moreover, teachers were not equally skilled nor prepared to take responsibility for a CLIL class. When the decision to extend the project was taken in 2009, these elements, in addition to the school’s high teacher turnover rate, raised concerns about the sustainable quality of the CLIL delivery over time. These concerns proved to be true. Team 1 had always worked in harmony, sharing a pedagogical approach in line with what CLIL literature considers good practice: learnercentred, task-based, with children working alone/in groups, linguistically and cognitively scaffolded by teachers or more able peers (Barbero & Clegg, 2005; Coyle et al., 2010; Lucietto, 2008b; Marsh, 2002; Mehisto et al., 2008; Mehisto & Lucietto, 2010). On the contrary, in the casually assembled Team 2, great professional dissimilarities, open resistance to CLIL and strong attitudes jeopardised both team development and children’s results for over two years. Resistance to CLIL played a key role, emerging as aggressiveness and professional put down. Team 2 teachers would not accept any help from Team 1 and their consultant, who were perceived as threats. As alternative qualified support was difficult to find for most of the year, they were left to their ineffective teaching strategies, with relationships both internal and external to the team becoming critical. Gossipping, lies and jealousy thrived. These attitudes extended to Team 3 the following year, who took sides with the partially restructured (but still fairly ineffective) Team 2. Only in year 4 of the project (2011/2012) has the situation changed, thanks to the invaluable presence of consultant 3. With her support, most teachers in Teams 2 and 3 have now become more aware of the need to transform their beliefs and practice to implement CLIL teaching. They are also beginning to value reflection: suspending unreflective teaching in order to ponder seems now less controversial to them than it did only one year ago. In effect, facing change and responding to it are slowly becoming part of their professional life. Evidence of these changes is given in the way teams communicate: teachers of different teams are now talking more freely in the staffroom; Teams 2 and 3 have started to ask Team 1 for informal advice and are also more inclined to borrow materials and use them critically rather than as recipes; when consultant 1 arrives at school, she is equally welcomed by all teachers. As a consequence, organising cross-fertilising team meetings has become possible: two meetings have taken place in 2011/2012 in which all the teams have shared views with the help of both consultants. Finally, the willingness to ask professional questions is spreading across teams, for example what good CLIL practice is, how children learn a second/third language and how a teacher can support the individual learning process. The challenge for the two consultants from now on will be to harmonise the work of all teams within the framework of a principled and fully shared CLIL pedagogical approach.

Role of E x ter nal Consult anc y in Suppor t ing Mult ilingual CL IL Teams

157

Changes in teachers’ competence At the beginning of a new project, the overall objectives are usually clearly stated, but the teachers involved cannot often see how their teaching practice will have to change, as issues are not explored before direct experience, but only arise during practice and reflection on practice. From the start, the teachers in Team 1 were invited to collect data that would be useful in the reflection phase. However, as indicated in the methodology section, for almost a year they considered this request to be additional work and felt that precious time would be taken out of planning. As the consultancy proceeded, however, they developed greater awareness of the value of data: they saw that their practice contained valuable but submerged knowledge which they needed to access and make explicit; at that point, they realised they needed data to support their beliefs, choices and insights. This had a positive effect on the pace of their development. Half-way through year 2 of the project, when data started to appear regularly in their log-book, they also started to ask more specific questions on language acquisition and CLIL, proceeding from a simpler to a more sophisticated understanding of the ‘big picture’ behind their small-scale project. Admittedly, they had been attending specific professional development courses and meetings elsewhere as well, but without fully grasping how the parts were interconnected to a coherent whole. From year 3, as they started to make sense at a deeper level, the amount and quality of their data swiftly increased, as did their insights and comments. In the last 12 months they have been gathering a substantial corpus of data, which will make it possible to accurately document the added value of this CLIL experiment by the end of year 5. As a consequence, the whole approach to action research of Team 1 is now different: from being highly dependent on the consultant, to being fully empowered inside and outside school (with colleagues, the headteacher and external stakeholders). This became apparent when they presented the school project to a wider audience at a CLIL Conference organised by the Faculty of Education in Bressanone/Brixen in 2010 (21–22 September). They had presence and discourse that surpassed those of many colleague presenters: instead of simply illustrating the project organisation, as others did, they concentrated on justifying their pedagogical approach and methodological choices. They had not prepared the presentation with the consultant, but had only discussed with her the framework which best conveyed the meaning of this project. They did it by themselves, and fully succeeded. They also showed a high level of competence at an Educational Forum which took place in Laives the following year (21–22 October 2011), where several innovative projects carried out in partnership by the Municipality and the Faculty of Education were presented. As well as illustrating the CLIL project to visitors, they were given the responsibility of organising and supervising the school stand. When the consultant arrived, they were too busy to even wave

158

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

a welcome: they were talking to a numerous group of visitors – blushed cheeks, sparkling eyes, their whole faces lit up – surrounded by multimedia equipment showing schoolchildren’s photographs, project materials and realia. A delight to see how at ease they both seemed to be. Finally, in Team 1 these changes have led to a different kind of motivation to learn, a very profound and life-encompassing change. I attribute the following remark, made recently by one of the two teachers, to their newly acquired understanding of the ‘big picture’: I can no longer stand many of the things I used to do in class. To be satisfied, I have to reinvent my teaching practice from its foundations. I do not feel comfortable otherwise, I feel as if I’m not doing the best for my kids. I cannot think in the same way as before, and I must admit I find myself impatient at times with colleagues who still do not understand what they are doing and why they are doing it.3

Changes at the management level (towards a whole-school policy) Yet another change is beginning to emerge at the management level. In a project evaluation interview in year 1, the L2 inspector was convinced that projects like this are non-replicable, as they start, succeed and die with the team that initiated them. In other words, they do not change school cultures. In S. Giacomo, there is some evidence that this may slowly begin to happen. Many changes put the continuation of the project at risk after the decision was made to expand it in June 2009. Over that summer, the designated teacher of German of Team 2 left; the new German teacher and the other two main team members showed methodological and pedagogical weaknesses; the long-standing headteacher took retirement; the new headteacher did not make the project a priority for his management and leadership in the incoming school year (2009/2010). With no strong hold on the part of the new headteacher as well as internal conflict, Team 2 openly refused consultancy and actively resisted it when it finally started in late February 2010, with the result that the consultant (consultant 2) resigned in June. By then, differences in achievement and behaviour between children of the former and the new Y1 became evident. Only during the evaluation process of year 2, however, did the new headteacher become aware of what had made the difference. While it was evident to all, on the one hand, that competence and motivation in Team 1 had been much higher than in Team 2 from the start, it was as evident to Team 1, on the other hand, that the consultancy had been ‘irreplaceable’, as they openly stated at a focus group evaluation meeting in July 2010: the consultant had ‘sealed and shielded’ the coherence of their overall approach and facilitated and accompanied their professional growth. At that point the headteacher fully understood the added value of the consultancy as a scaffolding structure. He then decided he would make CLIL team consultancy a school priority from year 3 of the project onwards, insisted in organising external support to all teams

Role of E x ter nal Consult anc y in Suppor t ing Mult ilingual CL IL Teams

159

from the beginning of the school year, and made it clear to the next-in-line teams that the pedagogical approach in the incoming classes would have to be inspired by Montessori, be learner-centred and task-based: in a word, that they were to follow the principled CLIL pedagogical choices of Team 1. At the end of year 3, thanks to the professional dialogue between consultants 1 and 3 (who was appointed in September 2010) and to the bridging and mending role that the latter played with what had been two very reluctant teams (Team 2 and Team 3), the premises were created for professional dialogue to start between all teams. Highly encouraged by the results, which did not seem possible only nine months earlier, the two consultants agreed upon a facilitating strategy for the development of a whole-school approach in year 4: consultant 1 would work with Team 1 and the new Team 4, while consultant 3 would keep her teams. Thus, the two middle teams would be metaphorically ‘embraced’ by the continuity of spirit which already existed between Teams 1 and 4. The decision was also made by the headteacher that consultant 1 would have overall responsibility for the whole school CLIL project and its harmonious future development. Supporting this prospective change with effective management decisions and leadership strategies is now the headteacher’s challenge. The perception is there, however, that a new school culture could be beginning.

Working on the prerequisites of change In this subsection, answers to research question 2 will be given. Research Q 2 – What attitude/s on the part of the consultants facilitate/s the development of a trusting relationship with the teachers? Some attitudes and strategies used by the consultant to work on the prerequisites of change are illustrated and discussed in the two paragraphs below: the key role of active listening in creating a non-judgemental group culture beneficial to all participants, as well as the effect of empathy, professional honesty and openness in establishing positive teamwork; the role played by patience and confident suspension of disbelief in enabling the change process to develop.

Overcoming the fear of being judged An effective, hard-working and cohesive team is essential for any innovative school project to succeed; to this effect, being in tune with colleagues and believing in the same pedagogical principles are irreplaceable elements. As one of the teachers put it at the end of year 1: Without good feelings in the team you can’t spend the whole day here [in school] . . . Thinking, planning, working . . . it would be impossible. Thus, promoting a group culture in which nobody feels excluded and everyone is recognised and respected is crucial for bringing about change. In this project, a non-judgemental group culture was openly sought for by making use of active listening strategies. The consultant paid particular attention to listening to teachers’ beliefs and values in order to create a

160

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

climate of respect, confidence and trust. At the end of year 1, one teacher said: I have experienced our meetings as moments which allow me to regain strength. True, we speak a lot amongst ourselves in the team, but with the aim of planning the future. In contrast, in meetings with you [the consultant] the time was used to stop, stand back and keep still, to make sense, to see where we were in relation to our key choices, and to recharge our batteries. This non-judgemental approach also enabled the teachers of English and Religious Education, who had not been involved in the project’s decision-making phase, to feel included. They often joined the consultancy meetings and enjoyed being part of the team. The confidence which derives from feeling accepted is important for all involved in a true two-way professional relationship where everyone is learning. The fear of being judged does not only affect one party, as all participants invest a lot of emotional as well as intellectual energy. The following is an example in case: Towards the end of year 1, one CLIL consultancy meeting was organised with the purpose of getting ready for a prospectively challenging institutional meeting the following week. The discussion, however, ended with no clear role allocation between the teachers and the consultant. Two days later, the consultant received an e-mail from the teachers which questioned the whole support structure. She found the message unexpected, incomprehensible and very difficult to cope with, as she felt personally and professionally criticised. However, since she had a colleague working with her in the consultancy team, she was able to share her perplexities. The two consultants reflected on the true meaning of the message, which they interpreted as an expression of panic. This consultancy approach, which is in some respects contiguous to counselling, reaches very deeply into one’s professional and personal identity, and mobilises emotions that in other professional development settings may remain untouched. As a pedagogical consultant is usually not a psychologist by education, ‘holding’ the teachers and their emotions is sometimes challenging, as it was in this case. The consultants managed to resolve the potential conflict through empathy, by going beyond the overt message and understanding and accepting the teachers’ underlying fears, and by mobilising their own emotions in response: in a word, by considering themselves in the same circle of change with the teachers, and by taking full responsibility for the emotional – as well as cognitive – dissonance brought about by the change they were facilitating with their presence.

‘But how long does it take to grow?’: Waiting for the long-term impact of consultancy for learning Respecting individual paces of development (Table 8.3) is at the core of facilitating change, which is in turn the ‘measure’ of consultancy success. It is not an easy task, as it is always tempting to estimate the time that change will take, while indeed many individual as well as contextual elements powerfully interplay, making any educated guess virtually impossible. Given

Role of E x ter nal Consult anc y in Suppor t ing Mult ilingual CL IL Teams

161

the complexity of the change process, it is also difficult to fully understand and correctly interpret the meaning of behaviour at the time it takes place. Two examples in case are as follows. First, it became apparent only later in the project that the initial sparing use of the log-book was not a symptom of resistance to change on the part of Team 1, as it might have appeared at the time. The reason was much deeper: it was a case of readiness to learn which still needed time to emerge. In a nutshell, the teachers were not ready to see the point that the CLIL consultant was making. In fact, their ability to notice (Schmidt, 2001) – and with it to record – salient data, developed as the consultancy progressed and their selfconfidence in reflecting on real stories from the class increased. From year 2 onwards, more and more entries appeared in the log-book. At present, the logged events, reflections and doubts are too numerous to do justice to all. Second, there may be busy periods in a school year which may cause consultancy meetings to be postponed or suspended for a while. This can create dissonance and distress, especially if teachers are still in the process of making sense or adjusting to a new frame of mind. Towards the end of year 1 of the project, after a two-month break, their sad and angry remark was: During these last few months all we have done is worked. What they meant was that they had missed the opportunity to grow through reflecting on their practice. They said they had felt the ground disappearing from under [their] feet and that they had proceeded kind of blindly into their CLIL practice. If taken at face value, this might have been wrongly interpreted as a sign of unconstructive irritation and rudeness. When the consultant is confronted by such remarks, however, deconstructing the verbal message and ‘hearing’ the anxiety behind what is said, ‘holding’ the feelings without panicking, trusting that the distress will cease as professional learning progresses, are strategies that are difficult to implement, but which are fundamental in making the relationship between consultant and teachers work. Two school years later (2011/2012), a similarly busy period caused the first meeting of the new year to be postponed by two months. The message the consultant received this time was of a completely different tenor: the same teacher sent a warm, sparkly e-mail saying she was looking forward to seeing the consultant again soon, as she was badly missing [their] invaluable meetings for learning. This has happened as Team 1 are now able to reflect on their own, as well as with the consultant, and they now see her more as a professional friend than simply as an external tutor who has to ‘show them the way’.

Conclusion This CLIL consultancy approach gives the consultant responsibility over teachers’ professional development and in grounding the school project in principled CLIL teaching practice. The goal is pursued through reflection-in-practice

162

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

and reflection-on-practice (Schön, 1983, 1987), two-way professional dialogue, scaffolding and respecting individual ZPD and learning times. Teacher autonomy and critical thinking are fostered from the beginning through shared analysis and discussion of teachers’ pedagogical choices. The consultancy is also based on experiencing in the consultancy class the same approach to teaching and learning that teachers are invited to apply to their own class (loop input, Woodward, 1988). Overall results indicate that this CLIL consultancy approach ‘has enabled changes in the symbolic – as well as in the material – quality of life’ (Mortari, 2007: 134). To this effect, the consultant initially chose to concentrate on the prerequisites of change through: (1) The use of active listening and empathy, lowering the fear of being judged and creating a climate of mutual respect. This facilitated the pursued two-way pedagogical dialogue between CLIL teachers and consultant/s. (2) Suspending disbelief in the interpretation of behavioural data. This allowed better understanding of the dynamics in the consultancy class, and enhanced the ability to see instances of change. By consistently applying the two strategies described above, several changes were facilitated and have now emerged. First, changes in teachers’ attitudes. They have been all the more welcome, as initial profound differences in professional competence, experience and awareness within the school staff caused professional conflict between teams, which thrived in years 2 and 3. At the time of writing, after three and a half years of external pedagogical support to the school: (1) sharing educational principles with the CLIL consultant/s in each team and between teams is possible and is becoming more common; (2) most teachers have become more aware of the need to become more skilled in CLIL knowledge and practice; (3) teachers have learnt to value reflection in the process of changing pedagogical practice and beliefs. Reflecting on what happens in class is less controversial in Teams 2 and 3 than it previously was; (4) initial informal exchange of materials and advice is beginning to take place between teams. This was almost non-existent until the end of year 3, as Teams 2 and 3 saw Team 1 as a professional threat: they felt that Team 1 exposed their lack of competence by comparison; (5) organising cross-team meetings has lately become a reality, where all teams meet and share views in the presence of both consultants (two meetings of this kind have been conducted so far); (6) the willingness to ask more in-depth theoretical questions is spreading, for example what good CLIL pedagogical practice is like, how children

Role of E x ter nal Consult anc y in Suppor t ing Mult ilingual CL IL Teams

163

learn a second/third language, how a teacher can support the individual learning process. Second, changes in teachers’ competence in Team 1, the ones who have worked longer at their professional development: (1) the teachers are now fully aware of the value of data collection. They have been gathering substantial data which will make it possible to document the added value of this CLIL project by the end of year 5; (2) their overall competence is now different: from a sense of being highly dependent on the consultant, to being fully empowered with colleagues, the headteacher and external stakeholders; (3) they can explain and justify their pedagogical approach and their main methodological choices; (4) they can present the school project to a wider audience at formal public meetings; (5) they are showing a different kind of motivation to learn – a profound and life-encompassing change. Finally, minor changes at the management level have also occurred. At the end of year 2, having seen the disappointing results of the second Y1 class, and having heard Team 1 feedback on the value of the CLIL pedagogical support structure, the headteacher: (1) decided that in future years pedagogical support would start at the beginning of the school year for all teams; (2) made it clear to all staff that incoming teams would have to follow the principled CLIL pedagogical choices made in Team 1; (3) decided that from year 4 onwards consultant 1 would have overall responsibility for the whole-school CLIL project and for its harmonious future development. The principles underlying the described approach to CLIL pedagogical consultancy provided a valuable framework for an effective, close-to-practice support structure to practitioners. Some participants have openly stated the value of this CLIL kind of consultancy work. Overall results show that the approach can be empowering and transformative of teachers’ perspective, critical thinking, intellectual autonomy and professional competence. Although it has proven valuable, the approach is not commonly used in CLIL in-service teacher education and training, which typically still tends to include theoretical input on CLIL, lesson planning and materials development. The study, therefore, adds to the current body of knowledge in the field of CLIL teacher education, showing the positive outcomes of a school-based, close-to-practice consultancy for CLIL teachers’ professional development.

164

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the sole example of this kind in AltoAdige/South-Tyrol, in nearby Trentino, and probably further afield. The task is certainly complex for the consultant, as s/he needs to possess a wide range of professional competencies, from CLIL to language acquisition theories, learner-centred pedagogical approaches, teacher education models, and consultancy approaches. However daunting the task may seem, its positive outcomes are the best advocates for its implementation. The approach has facilitated professional dialogue in a school in Alto Adige/South Tyrol, a context where innovative CLIL projects still encounter a great deal of resistance. It is a territory where issues deriving from the controversial political history of the 20th century and its social and linguistic divisions are yet to be completely resolved, and where past legacies still play a role in the dynamics between different language groups. On the basis of the success achieved in this complex geographical area, I believe that the approach could be considered for use in other CLIL projects in contexts where different languages are in competition for local prestige, as well as where a school is characterised by profound internal divisions caused by great professional differences and resistance to CLIL on the part of some members of the staff.

Acknowledgments I very warmly thank the two CLIL teachers of Team 1, Gabriella Cretti (German) and Elisabetta Stricca (Italian), for what has become a valuable professional and personal encounter; the Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Education, Professor Dozza, for her trust that I would apply all my professional competence, critical thinking and emotional energies to making the CLIL consultancy a rewarding experience for all; the former Chair of Education, now Mayor of the Municipality of Laives/Leifers, Liliana Di Fede, for her commitment and support to the project. Many thanks also to the parents of the first Y1 class (2008/2009) and to the colleague consultants who have shared responsibility with me, Olimpia Rasom4 and Irene Girotto.5

Notes (1) Source: www.provincia.bz.it/astat (2) The province of Trento lies immediately south of Bolzano, and like Bolzano is an autonomous province, once belonging to a bi-provincial administrative region. (3) November 2011, teacher–consultant telephone conversation. (4) Consultant for project documentation and evaluation (2008/2009, 2009/2010). (5) Consultant 3.

References Agostini, P., Ansaloni, G. and Ferrandi, M. (1995) Alto Adige. Ottant’anni di storia. Cronologia essenziale dall’annessione al dibattito sull’Euregio [South Tyrol. Eighty Years of History. Essential chronology from the Annexation to the EuroRegion debate]. Bolzano: Praxis 3.

Role of E x ter nal Consult anc y in Suppor t ing Mult ilingual CL IL Teams

165

Allwright, D. and Bailey, K.M. (1991) Focus on the Language Classroom. An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, C. (2006) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (4th edn). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bailey, K.M. (2006) Language Teacher Supervision. A Case-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barbero, T. and Clegg, J. (2005) Programmare percorsi CLIL [Planning CLIL paths]. Roma: Carocci Faber. Baur, S. (2005) Schulpolitik in Südtirol. In J. Marko, S. Ortino, F. Palermo, L. Voltmer and J. Woelk (eds) Die Verfassung der Südtiroler Autonomie. Die Sonderrechtsordnung der Autonomen Provinz Bozen [The Constitution of South Tyrol’s Autonomy. The special legislation of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano] (pp. 351–366). Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag. Schriftenreihe der Europäischen Akademie Bozen, Breich Minderheiten und Autonomie. Baur, S., Mezzalira, G. and Pichler, W. (2008) La lingua degli altri. Aspetti della politica linguistica e scolastica in Alto Adige-Südtirol dal 1945 ad oggi [The language of the others. Aspects of language and education policies in Alto Adige-Südtirol (1945 to the present)]. Milano: Franco Angeli. Burns, A. (1999) Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burns, A. (2010) Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching. A Guide for Practitioners. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Chopey-Paquet, M. and Amory-Bya, N. (2007) ‘Mission CLIL-possible’: The quest to generate and support good CLIL practice in francophone Belgian state comprehensive catholic secondary schools. In D. Marsh and D. Wolff (eds) Diverse Contexts – Converging Goals. CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education (6th edn). London and New York: Routledge. Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. (2010) CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2009) The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Westport, CT: Heinemann. Hopkins, D. (1985) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1992) The Action Research Planner (3rd edn). Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press. Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (2006) How Languages are Learned (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lucietto, S. (2007) Plurilinguismo, multilinguismo e curricolo verticale: un modello di formazione in servizio [Plurilingualism, multilingualism and the curriculum Y1-Y13: a teacher development model]. Lend XXXVI (5), 80–87. Lucietto, S. (2008a) Plurilingualism, multilingualism and innovation in foreign language teaching: Alis, a Continuous Professional Development Project – An example of good practice at system level? – Online document: http://www.iprase.tn.it/en/activities/ download/Alis2008.pdf (April 2008). Lucietto, S. (ed.) (2008b) … e allora … CLIL! L’apprendimento integrato delle lingue straniere nella scuola. Dieci anni di buone prassi in Trentino e in Europa [… and therefore … CLIL! Foreign language integrated learning in schools. Ten years of good practice in Trentino and in Europe]. Trento: IPRASE del Trentino. Lucietto, S. (2008c) Il modello IPRASE di consulenza CLIL alle scuole [The IPRASE CLIL consultancy model to schools]. In S. Lucietto (a cura di) … e allora … CLIL ! L’apprendimento integrato delle lingue straniere nella scuola. Dieci anni di buone prassi in Trentino e in Europa. Trento: IPRASE del Trentino.

166

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Marsh, D. (1994) Bilingual Education & Content and Language Integrated Learning. International Association for Cross-cultural Communication, Language Teaching in the Member States of the European Union (Lingua). Paris: University of Sorbonne. Marsh, D. (2002) CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension. Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Jyväskylä: UniCOM Continuing Education Centre, University of Jyväskylä. McConnell, R. (ed.) (2005) Immersion Handbook. Tallinn: Estonian Language Immersion Centre. Mehisto, P. and Lucietto, S. (2010) CLIL Essentials – Online document: http://www.ccnclil.eu/index.php?name=File&nodeIDX=5060 Mehisto, P., Marsh D. and Frigols, M.J. (2008) Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan. Montessori, M. (1972) Das kreative Kind [The Creative Child]. Freiburg in Breisgau: Herder. Mortari, L. (2003) Apprendere dall’esperienza. Il pensare riflessivo nella formazione [Learning from Experience. Reflective thinking in professional development]. Roma: Carocci. Mortari, L. (2007) Cultura della ricerca e pedagogia. Prospettive epistemologiche [The Culture of Research and Pedagogy. Epistemoplogical perspectives]. Roma: Carocci. Nunan, D. (1989) Understanding Language Classrooms: A Guide for Teacher-Initiated Action. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall. Pallaver, G. and Steuer, L. (1998) Condividerò la sorte della mia terra. August Pichler 1898–1963 [I’ll share the destiny of my country. August Pichler 1898–1963]. Bolzano: Raetia. Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano (2009) Il Nuovo Statuto di Autonomia [The New Constitution of South Tyrol’s Autonomy] (10th edn). Bolzano: Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano. Reichen, J. (1988) Lesen durch Schreiben, wie Kinder selbstgesteuert lesen lernen [Reading through Writing. How children autonomously learn to read] Heft 1, Zürich: Sabe Verlag. Rogers, C. and Farson, R. (1979) Active Listening. In D. Kolb, I. Rubin and J. MacIntyre (eds) Organizational Psychology (3rd edn) (pp. 168–180). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D.A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Somekh, B. (1995) The contribution of action research to development in social endeavours: A position paper on action research methodology. British Educational Research Journal 21 (3), 339–355. Schmidt, R. (2001) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11 (1), 17–46. Steuer, L. (1993) Südtirol 1918–1945. In Handbuch zur neueren Geschichte Tirols [Tyrol’s recent history: a Guidebook]. Band 2. Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag Wagner. Tallinn Language Immersion Centre (2005) Five Years of Accomplishment. Tallinn: Language Immersion Centre. Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and Language. New York: Wiley. Wittmann, E. and Müller, G. (2009, 2011) Das Zahlenbuch – Spiele zur Frühförderung [The Book of Numbers – Games for early support]. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag GmbH. The MATHE 2000 Programme is accessible from www.uni-dortmund.de/mathe2000 Wood, D.J., Bruner, J. and Ross, G. (1976) The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17 (2), 89–100. Woodward, T. (1988) Loop Input. Canterbury: Pilgrims Publications.

9

Discourse on Multilingualism, Language Competence, Use and Attitudes in German– English Bilingual Vocational Schools in Switzerland Claudine Brohy, Philippe A. Genoud and Jean-Luc Gurtner

Introduction The aim of this chapter is twofold. It first gives an account of a CLIL approach used at the vocational level in which limited input in a foreign language, mostly English, was introduced in some classes called bili, which were proposed to students as an alternative to mainstream German-only classes. It also presents some results of an external evaluation of this programme carried out in 10 vocational schools in the Canton of Zurich. The goal of the evaluation was to gauge the efficiency of the bilingual approach in an initial vocational school context within a multilingual setting, and to evaluate its transferability to the other vocational schools in the Canton.

Vocational training in Switzerland After compulsory schooling (kindergarten, primary and lower secondary school), students at upper secondary level can either opt for general education at a high school called Gymnasium, lycée or liceo, in the different language regions, or for vocational training. Swiss vocational schools (students roughly aged from 16 to 20) are part of a complex educational and linguistic mosaic (cf. Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education for more information), 167

168

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

with cultural differences among the language communities and also among the 26 cantons. These schools prepare for more than 800 professional certificates of various kinds, mainly within the so-called dual system, in which students work part time in a company and attend school for one or two days a week, during three or four years, depending on the profession. Nationwide, an average of approximately 66% of the students in an age group is enrolled in vocational schools, with important differences between the cantons and between the language regions. Approximately half the students attending vocational schools no longer have any foreign language classes (cf. Nabholz, 2002), since in the one-day school model, there is no time for language classes alongside general education and the vocational disciplines.

The bili programme: A dynamic CLIL approach with various teaching conditions The pilot project bi.li (later called bili by the authorities) was launched in 1999 in some vocational schools in German-speaking cantons to bridge the gap between compulsory education, during which the students have to learn at least two foreign languages (a national language plus English, a third national language and other languages being optional), and the increasingly multilingual workplace and as a way to compensate the lack of opportunity to continue learning foreign languages while learning a profession at a vocational school. In this project, it was decided that a part of the general and professional disciplines is taught in a foreign language, mainly in English. According to the intensity of bilingual teaching and learning, three models exist: basic (approximately 33% of the discipline is taught in the second language), standard (approximately 50%) and advanced (a minimum of 75%). During the school year 2009–2010, according to the information provided by the school principals, bili instruction was given to 1172 students, within 71 classes by 35 teachers, in the vocational schools of the Canton of Zurich, that is between 1% and 9% of all the students of each school. In one school however, dedicated to informatics and technologies, up to 24% of all the students had bili instruction, since English is widely used in this field. The teachers use the bili approach on an optional basis. Since most of them are not native speakers of English, an in-service training in English and bilingual didactics is compulsory. In contrast to immersion teaching with longer monolingual periods in the foreign language, English is used in a dynamic manner, in which code-switching and code-mixing are very frequent and teachers and students go back to standard German if necessary, since the professional and scientific outcomes are seen to be more important than the linguistic ones. English is ‘nice to have in addition to sound vocational competencies’, as one principal put it. During pair and group work, the students also use Swiss German for communication, switching back and forth for example between assignments in English and standard German, writing texts in standard

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

169

German and English, and discussions in Swiss German. Before and after the lessons, during recess and for private communication even during the courses, the teachers also usually use Swiss German. Some teachers introduce new topics in German, and expand them in English afterwards, while some vary the languages along an orality/literacy line for some time, and yet others code-switch as soon as difficulties at the language and/or scientific level arise. In contrast to the immersion approach used in Swiss high schools where language switching and mixing is less frequent, bili students are encouraged to mix languages to keep conversation and negotiating going and to move towards the goals of the teaching unit. During the interviews, several teachers pointed out that they were doing bili and not immersion ‘as in the high schools’.

Review of the Literature Immersion, bilingual education and CLIL education are approaches rapidly spreading at all levels of instruction in many countries. In Switzerland, most empirical research undertaken outside the multilingual regions (multilingual cantons and language-border areas) concerns the upper secondary level, and particularly the high schools which offer an optional bilingual certificate in the local language and another national language or English. A range of issues is explored, such as language and academic outcomes, classroom discourse and communication, attitudes, integration of language and content (cf. Bürgi, 2007; Elmiger et al., 2010; Lys & Gieruc, 2005; Maillat, 2010; Maillat & Serra, 2009; Peter & Leimer, 2009). The surveys point to positive results of such education and give evidence of an added value, since the immersion students have better second/foreign language competencies compared to the control groups, with no detrimental effects on the first language or academic achievement. Immersion students are motivated, and their family background is usually more multilingual and pluricultural than that of their monolingual peers. However, research and evaluations conducted in vocational schools are scarce. In Switzerland, a bilingual French–English vocational commercial school in the Canton of Neuchâtel has been evaluated (Elmiger & Brohy, 2007; Elmiger, 2008). Compared to the mainstream class, the students from the bilingual class come from a more multilingual family background, and they use English more often outside school. Moreover, they evaluate their progress in English positively. However, they want more English input in school and during their compulsory internship in companies. Some publications on the bili vocational schools investigated (cf. Jansen O’Dwyer & Nabholz, 2003; Jansen O’Dwyer & Nabholz, 2004; Jansen O’Dwyer, 2007) focus mainly on observation and methodology and serve as handbooks for bili didactics and information on the specificities of the bili approach. Outside Switzerland, research

170

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

in vocational schools at upper secondary level has been carried out in Scandinavia, the Netherlands (Tanner & de Graaff, 2011) and Austria. Dalton-Puffer et al. (2009) investigated the attitudes of Austrian vocational students towards CLIL instruction and their language competencies. The bilingual students rated their competencies in English significantly higher than those of a control group; they also displayed a lower inhibition level when speaking English (cf. also the contribution of Lucietto and Sanchez on CLIL in this volume).

Research Questions and Methods The Department of Educational Sciences of the University of Fribourg was charged by the school authorities of the Canton of Zurich to conduct an external evaluation of the programme (Brohy & Gurtner, 2011). The aims set to the evaluation were (a) to provide a basis for decisions concerning the future development of the bili teaching in vocational schools in the Canton of Zurich; and (b) to assess its success and efficiency regarding the development of multilingualism.

Research design The research design was constructed to obtain data on the following issues: • • • • •

the setting up, organisation and preparation of bili courses and examinations; students’ competencies in English and in the academic disciplines compared with those of the students in the mainstream classes without bili; the use of different languages; attitudes and expectations towards bili and multilingualism; teachers’ needs for language training and professional development; subjective theories of all the stakeholders about multilingualism.

The evaluation was carried out during the year 2010 and involved all the 10 schools of the canton participating in the programme. It reached all the disciplines in which the bili framework was used and all the school degrees, although neither all the schools nor all the classes were involved in all the measures, as will be shown in the results section below.

Research methods Overall, the research methods comprised online and electronic sociolinguistic questionnaires with open and closed questions, language tests, interviews, observations of classroom activities as well as of examination

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

171

Table 9.1 Research tools for data collection Bili students

Mainstream students

Teachers

Principals

Authorities

• Sociolinguistic questionnaire • English tests (vocabulary and C-Test) • Self-evaluation in English • Exam marks • Group discussions • Classroom observations • Observation of bilingual exams

• Sociolinguistic questionnaire • English tests (vocabulary and C-Test) • Self-evaluation in English • Exam marks

• Sociolinguistic • Sociolinguistic • Interviews with questionnaire questionnaire teacher trainers • Interviews • Interviews • Interviews with • Analysis of administrators teaching • Analysis of materials regulations, • Classroom documentation, observations flyers, internet • Observation sites etc. of bilingual exams

situations, and analysis of official documents, including students’ examination marks. We also collected teaching material used, and often created, by the teachers involved in the programme (cf. Table 9.1). The sociolinguistic questionnaire addressed to the students contained questions such as nationality, languages used in the family, languages learned outside the family, English learning and use, previous stays in English-speaking countries, plans to learn other languages as well as their definition of multilingualism. These same questions were administered both to the bili students and students from corresponding mainstream classes of the same schools who had decided not to attend bili modules. The teachers had to answer questions regarding their own sociolinguistic background, their training, international English certificates and previous stays in English-speaking countries. They were also requested to evaluate their work conditions, their current motivation to work in the bili programme and to judge the impact of bili on the learning behaviour and results of their students. The principals had roughly the same questions as the teachers, with some additional ones concerning the organisation of the bili programme and classes as well as the impact of bili on the corporate identity of their school (cf. questionnaires in the Appendix). At the end of the sociolinguistic questionnaire, all participants were asked to write a definition of multilingualism. The questionnaire administered to the bili students also included questions regarding the reasons why they had chosen the bili programme, the expected benefits of it, the impact of bili on their own learning behaviour, their

172

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

perceptions of the suitability of bili for the different disciplines as well as their current motivation and interest in the bili classes. Finally, the bili students and the control group were asked to rate their English competencies using the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe, 2001). To assess the real impact of the bili programme on students’ English competencies, five English tests were administered to both groups – a vocabulary test consisting of eight subtests (Nation, 2007) and four C-Tests (Lenz, 2010). The students’ marks for all their classes at the end of the school year were collected and compared. The evaluation scheme also included semidirected interviews with all the principals and with a selection of volunteer teachers, and group discussions with students. Thus, the evaluation yielded a substantial amount of quantitative and qualitative data of various kinds and origin.

Participants All stakeholders – students, teachers of the bili programme, principals, teacher trainers, and school authorities – were integrated into the research scheme in various ways. All the principals of the 10 schools involved in the programme agreed to participate in the evaluation and provide access to teachers and students as well as to forward official documents and students’ records to the researchers. Since one principal is head of two of the participating schools, nine principals participated in the interviews. They were well experienced in that function and proved very useful for the smooth run of the evaluation. At the time of evaluation (spring 2010), 35 teachers were involved in the bili programme 22 of which, that is 66%, returned the questionnaire. Access to the students was made possible by the teachers who were in charge of motivating them to fill in the online questionnaire and of letting them pass the English tests. The completed forms of the tests were returned to the researchers directly by the teachers. Access to the students of the control group (i.e. students belonging to corresponding classes, discipline and level) who received their education in German only, was made possible via a group of teachers selected by the principals so that the students match as completely as possible to those attending the bili programme. Overall, 390 students from the bili programme and 133 of the mainstream classes returned the sociolinguistic questionnaire and the self-evaluation of their English skills. In both groups, the majority of the students were men (75% of the bili students and 74% of the mainstream students), an observation perfectly in line with the national statistics for such technical schools. Twelve percent of the students of the bili group and 14% of the mainstream group were of foreign nationality. In both groups, students of grade 1 had a mean age of 17, whereas students of grade 3 are around 19, with no significant differences between the bili and the mainstream groups.

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

173

Results The setting up, organisation and preparation of bili courses and examinations For all the principals, the organisation and management of bili classes is highly complex and a time- and energy-consuming process. This especially regards fixing the timetable and setting up the classes, since bili is optional and monolingual classes must still be offered. However, they generally plan to expand bili in their schools to a minor extent in the future, and one principal foresees even a significant expansion. The reasons for implementing bili are the reinforcement of the attractiveness of the school, teachers’ suggestions and the wish to improve their students’ language competencies. The principals are very well aware that the bili courses and examinations need more preparation time for the teachers and they greatly appreciate their teachers’ commitment and motivation. This view is shared by the bili teachers who returned the online questionnaire. However, 82% of them consider that bili is worth the extra work and commitment because of the better professional and linguistic competencies it provides to the students. The main problems for the teachers are the lack of adequate teaching materials and the time needed for the preparation of such teaching. Some teachers emphasise that bili cannot and should not compensate for the lack of core second-language teaching in vocational schools.

Competencies in the academic disciplines and in English As to academic, technical and scientific knowledge, no loss is seen due to bilingual teaching: 95.4% of the teachers believe that the outcomes are comparable in bili and mainstream classes, an observation corroborated by the principals who see no differences in the performance of the two groups. The statistical analysis of students’ marks yielded no significant differences between the bili classes and the mainstream classes (cf. Table 9.2), and attendance to the presentation by the students of their personal research project during the final examination showed no downgrading of content because of partial teaching/learning in English. When it comes to English, the superiority of the bili students is seen both in the self-evaluation (cf. Table 9.3 and Figure 9.1) and in the English tests. When asked to evaluate their level in English, the bili group attributed Table 9.2 Final marks for bili and mainstream classes

Total mark

Bili

Mainstream

4.74 (0.30)

4.76 (0.36)

174

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Table 9.3 Statistical values, self-evaluation in English, comparison between bili and mainstream in the second year Listening

Reading

Spoken interaction

Spoken Writing production

Mann–Whitney U

3739.500

3456.500

3623.000

3739.500

3496.000

Wilcoxon W

7567.500

7372.500

7193.000

7225.500

6899.000

Z

− 3.481

− 4.351

− 3.311

− 2.889

− 3.510

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.004

0.000

themselves significantly better English competencies in all five skills than the mainstream group during the second year, while the first-year groups indicated similar competencies in both programmes. As for the English tests (cf. Table 9.4), the bili group had significantly better results than the mainstream group in the second year, although they tend to

Listening

50%

Reading

50%

40% 30%

40%

20% 10%

20%

30% 10% 0%

0% A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

Spoken production

Spoken interaction

50%

A1

C2 50%

40%

40%

30%

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

0%

0% A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

A1

A2

B1

B2

Writing 50% 40% 30%

Mainstream

20% 10% 0% A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

Figure 9.1 Self-evaluation of English in the five skills

Bili

C1

C2

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

175

Table 9.4 English tests results for bili and mainstream classes (Vocabulary test and C-Test) Year 1

Year 2

Bili

Mainstream

Bili

Mainstream

Voc. 1

7.22 (1.57)

7.24 (1.18)

7.41 (1.25)

6.37 (2.05)

Voc. 2

5.07 (2.08)

5.55 (2.01)

6.20 (2.19)

4.66 (1.83)

Voc. 3

4.73 (1.99)

5.31 (1.95)

4.83 (2.04)

4.03 (1.96)

Voc. 4

4.95 (1.34)

4.59 (1.35)

4.72 (1.31)

4.30 (1.63)

Voc. 5

4.79 (2.37)

5.72 (2.30)

5.61 (2.24)

4.01 (2.52)

Voc. 6

3.64 (1.74)

4.03 (2.04)

4.28 (1.46)

3.16 (1.81)

Voc. 7

3.34 (1.51)

3.45 (1.15)

3.74 (1.54)

3.09 (1.69)

Voc. 8

3.75 (1.94)

4.20 (2.08)

4.46 (2.01)

3.39 (2.31)

C-Test 1

14.76 (3.28)

14.86 (4.20)

15.75 (3.28)

12.10 (4.20)

C-Test 2

9.53 (3.84)

10.07 (4.17)

11.12 (3.75)

7.78 (4.28)

C-Test 3

8.96 (4.56)

8.52 (3.45)

9.97 (4.39)

5.91 (4.38)

C-Test 4

7.47 (3.10)

7.72 (2.69)

8.58 (3.67)

4.96 (3.10)

score below the other group in many subtests in the first year of school. ANOVAS conducted on each of the 12 subtests show a main effect for study year in one of the subtests (Vocabulary 3, F(3) = 5.07, p < 0.05) and a strong main effect for the programme in all C-Tests subtests (p < 0.01), as well as a significant effect in half of the vocabulary subtests (Vocabulary 1, 2, 4 and 6, p < 0.05). Strong interaction effects (p < 0.01) also appear in all but two of the subtests (Vocabulary 4 and 7). Self-evaluation and tests thus indicate that bili has positive effects on perceived and measured competencies in English. According to the teachers, the students make clear progress in English thanks to bili, they are more risk-taking, show less anxiety, more flexibility and more tolerance towards errors. Students also report less anxiety (Figure 9.2, Translation: ‘In the meantime I find bilingual teaching a good idea. I got

Figure 9.2 Student feedback

176

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

used to it and don’t have any inhibitions any more to say something in English. Besides, we can learn incidentally. We learn two things at the same time. But still, we get corrected and when we don’t know how to go on we can switch to German.’).

Use of languages, attitudes and willingness to learn more languages Principals and teachers The principals were asked to indicate their language background. Of the nine principals (one principal is the head of two schools), eight have one first language (provided that Swiss German and standard are not counted separately), and one has two first languages (German/Swiss German and English). Seven principals indicate French and English as second/foreign languages, whereas two indicate French, English and Italian as second/foreign languages. Eight of them report using their foreign languages infrequently professionally, although eight also indicate that foreign languages are very important for the students. Furthermore, one principal anticipates that the students will work only locally and will thus use foreign languages infrequently in the future. Some wish they had a bili type of schooling instead of the traditional ‘grammar and vocabulary method’. Overall, the 22 teachers are more multilingual than the principals. They master a mean of 3.04 foreign languages, which is clearly more than the Swiss mean of 2.7 languages mentioned by Werlen et al. (2011). The combination most often reported was French and English plus one foreign language (eight times). French, English plus a minimum of two foreign languages was mentioned four times, and one teacher indicated five foreign languages. The languages mentioned after French and English were mostly Italian and Spanish, although Russian, Chinese, Swedish, Dutch and an African language were also mentioned. Latin was discarded, and Swiss German and standard German were again not counted separately.

Students Students’ linguistic background is also rich and diverse. Besides a command of German and Swiss German, they all attended French and English lessons during compulsory school. Moreover, like in most other schools in Switzerland, between half and two-thirds of the students are not of Swiss origin and often speak other languages at home. Asked what language(s) they would like to learn in addition to Swiss German/German, English, and their first language (in case it did not coincide with German or Swiss German), bili students indicated 23 languages. Spanish with its cultural and linguistic prestige ranks first (69) and Italian second (36). French is in the third position (29), Chinese and Russian in the fourth place (11), followed by Japanese (10), then Rumansh and Latin (3). The following languages are also mentioned

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

177

once or twice: Arabic, Tamil, Turkish, Dutch, old Slavic, Albanese, Swedish, Farsi, Danish, Serbo-Croatian, Portuguese, Thai, Hungarian, and Hindi. Interestingly enough, standard German is mentioned here as a foreign language one student wants to learn. The reasons why the students want to learn these languages are more integrative than instrumental: (1) trips/holidays, (2) beauty/interest, (3) internationality/diffusion of the language, (4) job/work/ study/knowledge, (5) family/friends, (6) national languages and women; 26 students do not indicate any reasons. One student wants to learn Rumansh because ‘it is a unique language’, one wants to learn Italian because he wants to understand his father at last, another one wants to learn Spanish because ‘A lot of people speak Spanish’ and yet another one wants to learn Chinese simply for ‘Commerce’. The same pattern regarding the top choices applies to the mainstream group. Prestige of English is very salient; almost 80% of the students would not have chosen French, a national language, as teaching language (cf. Table 9.5), if they had been given the choice. Nevertheless, there are more comments in the bili group, but there is more variety in the mainstream group.

Defining multilingualism All respondents, that is the principals, teachers and students, were asked to provide their definition of multilingualism. According to the principals’ view, multilingualism is a must and a necessity (4), an added value in education and cultural richness (2), or a widening of one’s horizon and one’s culture (1). The answers of the principals are often rather short and half of them alluded to the work sphere in their definitions. The answers provided by teachers were generally longer than those of the principals. For teachers, multilingualism means communication and understanding (5), widening one’s horizon and one’s culture (5), high competence in several languages (2), or open-mindedness and possibilities amplifier (2). One teacher adds: ‘Englisch ist ein MUSS, kein Plus. Plus wäre Spanisch, Chinesisch, Russisch’ (Translation: ‘English is a MUST, not a plus. A plus would be Spanish, Chinese, Russian’). Table 9.5 If I had had the choice between English and French for bili, I would have chosen French . . . Possible answers

N

%

Certainly

18

4.9

Maybe

41

11.3

Certainly NOT

287

78.9

I do not know

18

4.9

Total

364

100

178

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Five of the 22 teachers who answered this question, that is less than a quarter of them, relate multilingualism in some way to work and jobs. Finally, 333 students from both groups provided definitions. By and large, the responses of the mainstream group are shorter than those of the bili group. Of all the respondents, only nine students associated multilingualism with negative aspects, such as too much effort and work, or even chaos. One student mentions equally positive and negative aspects. For 201 students, the term is associated with understanding and communication; for 60, with holidays and travels; for 29, with culture and interculturality. Twenty-seven relate multilingualism to flexibility while three relate it to intercomprehension and strategies. Some refer to dispositions and self-concepts, such as freedom, independence, diversity, motivation, openness, security, recognition, dominance, self-confidence, better education, more sympathy and intelligence, preparedness and to be taken more seriously. Some definitions are provided below. For some of the students, multilingualism is: •

•

•

•

•

Das Leben, die Diskussion und Erlebnisse mit Menschen anderer Kulturen ohne Verlust zu teilen. Die Möglichkeit zu haben, in anderen Ländern zu arbeiten. Mit Menschen verschiedenster Kulturen in Kontakt zu treten. Ohne Probleme zu reisen und vieles mehr! (Translation: To share without loss discussion and experiences with people from other cultures. To have the possibility to work in other countries. To be in contact with people from the most diverse cultures. To travel without problems and much more!). Das Kommunikationsspektrum ist erweitert, was freier macht, Informationen können vielseitiger aufgenommen werden (Translation: The spectrum of communication is widened, which makes one freer. Information can be processed in more varied ways). Verbindung zwischen verwandten Sprachen herstellen zu können und mit Menschen in ihrer Landessprache sprechen zu können (Translation: To be able to establish connections between kin languages and to speak with people in their national language). Flexibel zu sein. Sich in verschiedenen Ländern zurecht zu finden. In anderen Ländern leben oder auch nur Freundschaften pflegen zu können. Es ist auch eine Art von Intelligenz. Zudem ist es auch eine Kompetenz, die im Berufsleben immer wichtiger wird (Translation: To be flexible. To find your way around in different countries. To be able to live in other countries or just to cultivate friendship. It is also a sort of intelligence. Besides, it is a competence which is increasingly important in professional life). Mich mit anderen Personen unterhalten zu können und somit meine eigene Lebensqualität und die der anderen zu steigern. Zudem wird es mich vielleicht zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt karrieremässig unterstützen (Translation: To be able to interact with other people and thus increase my quality of life and those of other people. Besides, it could help me for my career later on).

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

•

179

Flexibilität in allen Lebenslagen mit Anderssprachigen. Ich kann bei Gesprächen Kompetenz vermitteln. Grössere Freiheit und Sicherheit bei Reisen. Vor allem mit Englischkenntnissen eröffnet sich mir im Internet eine riiiesengrosse Menge an zusätzlichem Inhalt (Translation: Flexibility in all circumstances with people speaking other languages. In conversations, I can convey competence. More freedom and security while traveling. Especially with English, it opens up a huge amount of additional content on the internet).

Overall, only few students do link multilingualism to professional development. Most of the students see it as a way to get in contact with a larger range of people and cultures and to improve in a rather general sense one’s quality of life.

Expected outcomes of bili Very often, economic reasons are the rationale and incentive for the implementation of bilingual models; however, informants also indicate cultural and personal reasons for learning foreign languages, even in the case of English, associated with the global economy. The answers to the questionnaire item ‘Thanks to bili I will be able to . . .’ show that money and professional success is not the first motivation to choose bili. Asked to rate various potential effects of bili on a five-point Likert scale between strongly agree (4) and strongly disagree (0), students attributed the lower scores to earning more money and being able to find a management position (cf. Figure 9.3), while they attributed the higher scores to travel and live in another language region, to meet interesting people, to become acquainted with other cultures and to facilitate the learning of additional languages. The questionnaire item ‘Using languages other than German’ (Figure 9.4) also yielded interesting results regarding the use of several languages in 3.00

Grade of agreement

2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 to find a job more easily after vocational school.

to find an interesting job.

to earn more to find a money. management position.

to work in another language region.

to meet interesting people.

to learn additional languages more easily.

Figure 9.3 Consequences of bili – ‘Thanks to bili I will be able to ...’

to get to know other cultures.

to be able to travel more easily.

180

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom 3.5

Degree of agreement

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Upon completion of Privately, I use Compared to the It is not necessary to To switch from one English more often vocational training my students in speak or write foreign to another language than the students in English monolingual classes, languages without and to mix languages monolingual classes. competencies will be my scientific errors, is part of better than those of vocabulary in communication is communication. the students in German will be important. monolingual classes. reduced.

Figure 9.4 Using other languages than German

conversation. Here again, the students had to indicate their level of agreement – between strong agreement (4) and strong disagreement (0) – with the pre-formulated statements. The highest scores were obtained for the items ‘It is not necessary to speak and write foreign languages without errors; communication is important’, and ‘To switch from one to another language and to mix languages is part of conversation’. Classroom observation during the evaluation process showed that this multiple language use is exactly what is happening in bili courses. Bili students acknowledged that in their eyes, ‘Learning some content in English will obviously not prevent them from knowing scientific vocabulary in German.’

Discussion Immersion and bilingual teaching is popular at kindergarten, primary, secondary, high school and higher-education levels in many countries of the world. Increasingly, boards of education are aware that multilingualism and multilingual competencies constitute a prerequisite for most professional domains, and should not be limited to compulsory education and education preparing for academic careers and a social elite. There are also cognitively less demanding professions that also require multilingual competencies and pluriliteracy. Thus, vocational and professional schools in many countries increasingly integrate bilingual modules, immersion, CLIL or a foreign language as a working language into their curriculum (cf. Dalton-Puffer et al., 2009; Schwab, 2009). In Switzerland, bilingual vocational schools involve national languages (mostly at the language borders and in the multilingual cantons) and/or English. Federal regulations encourage the use of CLIL (cf. SBBK, 2003), but it is not yet a full-fledged part of the vocational curriculum.

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

181

The research on bilingual teaching and learning in 10 vocational schools in the Canton of Zurich in Switzerland yielded interesting and rich quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative results regarding competencies in English and in the vocational disciplines showed that bili is efficient. The bili students examined not only have better results in the tests and in the selfevaluations, but their achievement in the vocational disciplines is also comparable with the mainstream groups. Some principals and teachers pointed out in the interviews that the results are even better in bili classes since the students who choose bili are more motivated and committed, which is very often the case in immersion and CLIL contexts. However, some students pointed out that they had been compelled to choose bili for organisational reasons. Other students said they were initially reluctant but were happy after a certain period of time. It is difficult to compare the different bili classes and groups, since the intensity of English teaching varies greatly from one class to another. Most students accept and even like bili, yet about 10% hold critical views of bili and multilingualism in general or teachers’ competencies in English, or they think that bili too closely resembles traditional language teaching. In the space for additional comments in the questionnaires, some students readily mentioned that they were not inclined to complete a lengthy questionnaire. However, the evaluation also shows that behind their overt bilingualism there is covert multilingualism in the sense that many students use languages other than Swiss German, German and English, and that they wish to learn other languages. This belies the idea that learning English in an immersion-type environment would demotivate students to learn other languages. Regarding code-switching in the classroom, one of the highlights of the research was to witness the spontaneous, uninhibited and efficient translingual language use of the students (cf. Brohy, 2002: 12), which is also increasingly referred to as translanguaging. Students clearly learn in multilingual spaces, they scaffold knowledge in Swiss German, German and English, especially during group and pair work, they negotiate meaning and form in these languages, and students who speak other languages at home also use their native languages.

Conclusion and Future Research In the conclusion of our evaluation, we advocated the extension of bili to other vocational schools in the Canton of Zurich beyond the 10 pioneering schools and the creation of a bili committee in each vocational school, which would be responsible for issues such as the specific bili curriculum, evaluation, networking between the schools and the cantons, and other issues regarding multilingualism and bili didactics. We also recommended the increased use of English, since some classes were clearly under the minimum of 33%, the

182

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

consideration of more bilingual final examinations, and the integration of other bili languages besides English. Integrating French, which all students have as a compulsory subject during primary and secondary school, would assure more educational continuity. Of the teachers, 27% would also teach in French, which could additionally function as a bridge language to Italian, Spanish and Portuguese; Italian and migrant languages have also been suggested as bili languages. However, the negative attitudes of the students towards French raise concern about Swiss multilingualism and correspond to current ideologies in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. It also means that multilingualism should be promoted among all the stakeholders – employers and companies, vocational schools, professional associations, the Federal Office for Professional Education and Technology as well as students and their parents. The evaluation yielded somewhat contradictory results between the principals, teachers and students, and among the students themselves. According to the teachers and principals and corroborating other studies (e.g. DaltonPuffer et al., 2009), the students in the bilingual classes use the target language more spontaneously than those in the mainstream classes, they feel less anxiety to speak it and they show more flexibility. In some schools and sections, more than 50% of the students speak and use heritage languages, and many students want to learn other languages for various reasons. However, we need more systematic observations to measure and describe how students use different languages to make sense of complex vocationally oriented content.

References Brohy, C. (2002) La forêt – der Wald – il bosco – il guaud – the forest – el bosque . . . Quelques pistes pédagogiques dans la jungle du plurilinguisme scolaire [The forest. Some pedagogical tracks in the jungle of school multilingualism]. In C. Brohy (ed.) L’enseignement bilingue dans/par/à travers la forêt. Actes des 4èmes Rencontres des enseignant(e)s bilingues, Nyon, 20/21 janvier 2000 [Bilingual education in/with/through the forest. Proceedings of the 4th conference of bilingual teachers] (pp. 5–31). Neuchâtel: IRDP. Brohy, C. and Gurtner, J-L. (2011) Evaluation des bilingualen Unterrichts (bili) an Berufsfachschulen des Kantons Zürich [Evaluation of bilingual education (bili) in vocational schools in the Canton of Zurich]. www.mba.zh.ch/downloads/Projektstellen/Bili%20 Bericht%20Januar%202011%20ohne%20Foto.pdf (accessed 2 June 2011). Bürgi, H. (2007) Im Sprachbad. Besseres Englisch durch Immersion. Eine Evaluation zweisprachiger Ausbildungsgänge an drei kantonalen Gymnasien in der Schweiz [In the language bath. Better English through immersion. Evaluation of bilingual streams in three high schools in Switzerland]. Bern: Hep-Verlag. Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Schindelegger, V. and Smit, U. (2009) Technology-geeks speak out: What students think about vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal 1 (2), 17–25. Elmiger, D. (2008) Evaluation de la Maturité professionnelle commerciale bilingue françaisanglais du Lycée Jean-Piaget à Neuchâtel. Rapport final [Evaluation of the bilingual FrenchEnglish vocational commercial Maturity (= high school diploma) of the Jean-Piaget high school in Neuchâtel]. Neuchâtel: IRDP.

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

183

Elmiger, D. and Brohy, C. (2007) Evaluation de la Maturité professionnelle commerciale bilingue français-anglais au sein du Lycée Jean Piaget à Neuchâtel (COMBI). Rapport intermédiaire [Evaluation of the bilingual French-English vocational commercial Maturity (= high school diploma) of the Jean-Piaget high school in Neuchâtel (COMBI)]. Neuchâtel: IRDP. Elmiger, D., Näf, A., Reynaud Oudot, N. and Steffen, G. (2010) Immersionsunterricht am Gymnasium. Eine Fallstudie zur zweisprachigen Maturität in der Schweiz [Immersion education in high schools. A case study of the bilingual Maturity (= high school diploma) in Switzerland]. Bern: Hep-Verlag. Federal Office for Professional Education and Technology (OPET, BBT, OFFT, UFFT) www.bbt.admin.ch (accessed 2 June 2011). Jansen O’Dwyer, E. (2007) Two for one. Die Sache mit der Sprache. Didaktik des zweisprachigen Sachunterrichts [Two for one. The language issue. Didactics of bilingual content teaching]. Bern: Hep-Verlag. Jansen O’Dwyer, E. and Nabholz, W. (2003) Pilotprojekt bi.li – Zweisprachiges Lernen an Berufsschulen [The pilot project ‘bi.li – Bilingual learning in vocational schools’]. Babylonia 3–4, 72–75. Jansen O’Dwyer, E. and Nabholz, W. (2004) Die Lehre zur Sprache bringen. Handbuch für die Einführung von zweisprachigem Unterricht an Berufsschulen [Giving voice to apprenticeship. Handbook for the implementation of bilingual teaching in vocational schools]. Bern: Hep-Verlag. Lenz, P. (2010) C-Tests. Unpublished test materials. Lys, I. and Gieruc, G. (2005) Etude de la Maturité bilingue dans le Canton de Vaud [Evaluation of the bilingual Maturity (= high school diploma) in the Canton of Vaud]. Lausanne: URSP. Maillat, D. (2010) The pragmatics of L2 in CLIL. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula and U. Smit (eds) Language Use in Content-and-Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Maillat, D. and Serra, C. (2009) Immersion education and cognitive strategies: Can the obstacle be the advantage in a multilingual society? International Journal of Multilingualism 6 (2), 186–206. Nabholz, W. (2002) Eine zweite Sprache für alle Lehrlinge [A second language for all vocational students]. Babylonia 4, 50–52. Nation, P. (2007) Vocabulary Size Test. Victoria University of Wellington (selection). www. lextutor.ca/tests/levels/recognition/1_14 k/ (accessed 20 February 2010). Peter, J. and Leimer, R. (eds) (2009) Immersives Unterrichten. 10 Jahre zweisprachige Matura: Hintergründe – Erfahrungen – Herausforderungen. Enseignement bilingue. 10 ans de maturité, mention bilingue: contextes – expériences – défis [Immersion teaching. Ten years of bilingual Maturity (= high school diploma): context, practice, challenges]. Bern: Hep-Verlag. SBBK (2003) Die zweite Sprache in der Berufsbildung: Empfehlungen und Richtlinien zum zweisprachigen Unterricht [A second language in vocational training: Recommendations and guidelines regarding bilingual teaching]. 21. November. www.sbbk.ch/dyn/bin/20099-19889-1-bili. pdf (accessed 15 August 2011). Schwab, D. (2009) Bilingualer unterricht: Wenn gewerbler zweisprachig lernen [Bilingual teaching: when vocational students learn bilingually]. Spektrum (Luzern) 1, 6–7. Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK, CDIP, CDPE, CDEP) (2008) Portrait. www.edk.ch and www.edudoc.ch/static/web/edk/port_edk_e.pdf (accessed 1 November 2011). Tanner, R. and de Graaf, R. (2011) Teachers’ and students’ opinions about good practice in bilingual junior secondary vocational education. Utrecht: Centre for Teaching and Learning. www.kortlopendonderzoek.nl/leerprocessen_pdf/VVL85%20-%20 Proud%20to%20be%20tvmbo.pdf (accessed 25 February 2012). Werlen, I., Rosenberger, L. and Baumgartner, J. (2011) Sprachkompetenzen der erwachsenen Bevölkerung in der Schweiz [Language competencies of the adult population in Switzerland]. Zürich: Seismo.

184

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Appendix Bili questionnaire: Students 1. Identity 1. Name, given name 2. Gender

❑f❑m

3. Vocational school 4. Section 5. Class 6. Date of birth 7. Address 8. Nationality or nationalities 9. Mother tongues(s), first language(s) 10. Mother’s job 11. Father’s job 12. Other languages learned

12.1 In the family 12.2. In school 12.3. Outside family and school

2. Learning English 2.1 In what school year did you start learning English? ❑ Before 2nd grade of primary school ❑ In 2nd grade of primary school ❑ In 3rd grade of primary school ❑ In 4th grade of primary school ❑ In 5th grade of primary school ❑ In 6th grade of primary school ❑ In 1st grade of secondary school ❑ In 2nd grade of secondary school ❑ In 3rd grade of secondary school ❑ I never had English in school before vocational school 2.2 How good was your English when you started bili? ❑ I had no command of English ❑ I had very little command of English

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

185

❑ I had little command of English ❑ I had intermediate command of English ❑ I had good command of English ❑ I had very good command of English 2.3.1 Do you have an international English diploma (e.g. Preliminary English Test – PET)? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ I do not know 2.3.2 If yes, which one(s)? . . . 2.3.3 If yes, since when (year)? . . . 2.4.1 Did you ever spend more than 2 weeks in an English-speaking country? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2.4.2 If yes, how many weeks, when and why? Country ...

Number of weeks Year ... ...

❑ Holidays or visit ❑ Language stay ❑ Training or work

Country ...

Number of weeks Year ... ...

❑ Holidays or visit ❑ Language stay ❑ Training or work

2.5 Do you have a European Language Portfolio? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ I do not know 2.6.1 Do you have, did you have, or will you have English lessons at your vocational school, beside the bili lessons? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2.6.2 If yes: ❑ In the 1st grade of vocational school ❑ In the 2nd grade of vocational school ❑ In the 3rd grade of vocational school ❑ In the 4th grade of vocational school 2.6.3 In case you have English lessons or technical English (not bili) at your vocational school, are the English lessons ❑ Optional? ❑ Compulsory?

186

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

2.7 Comments regarding English learning . . . 3. Choice of bili lessons 3.1 Who influenced or decided the choice of bili lessons? ❑ I decided alone ❑ I decided with my parents ❑ My parents decided ❑ My school peers or friends motivated me ❑ Other . . . ❑ Bili is compulsory, I have no choice 3.2 If you had had the choice between English and French for the bili lessons, would have chosen French bili? ❑ Certainly ❑ Possibly ❑ Certainly not ❑ I do not know 3.3 The bili lessons and the bili degree will allow me to . . . I totally agree 1. Find a job more easily after vocational school 2. Find an interesting job 3. Earn more money 4. Find a management position 5. Work in another language region 6. Get to know interesting people 7. Learn other languages more easily

I partially I do not I partially I totally agree know disagree disagree

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

187

8. Get to know other cultures 9. Travel more easily 3.4 Comments regarding the choice of bili lessons . . . 4. My bili lessons 4.1 Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements (S = Students): I totally I partially I do not I partially I totally agree agree know disagree disagree 1. I have to work more for the bili lessons than for the monolingual lessons. 2. I am able to master the scientific contents of the bilingual lessons as well as those of the monolingual lessons. 3. Bili lessons are for above average S. 4. Bili hinders the development of German. 5. During the bili lessons S like to use other languages than German and English. 6. During the bili lessons I am more concentrated than during the monolingual lessons.

188

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

7. In the bili lessons we lose a lot of time due to the switching between the languages. 8. In the bili lessons the changing perspective due to the use of two languages is an advantage for the discipline. 9. In the bili lessons during pair and group work I usually speak English. 10 Bili lessons are more fun than monolingual lessons. 11. The results of my bili exams/tests are similar to other exams/tests. 12. During the bili lessons I am more active than during the monolingual lessons. 13. During the bili lessons I feel more stress than during the monolingual lessons. 14. All students in the vocational schools in the Canton of Zurich should have bili lessons. 4.2 In your opinion: ❑ Are all disciplines suited for bili teaching? ❑ The following disciplines are better suited for bili teaching . . .

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

189

4.3 In your opinion which disciplines are not suited for bili teaching? . . . 4.4 Your motivation for the bili lessons . . . ❑ Has always been high ❑ Has always been low ❑ Was/is changing 4.5 At the moment your motivation for the bili lessons is . . . ❑ High ❑ Medium ❑ Low 4.5 Comments on the bili lessons and bili classes . . . 5. The consequences of bili teaching . . . I totally I partially I do not I partially I totally agree agree know disagree disagree 1. Privately, I am using English more often than the S in the monolingual classes. 2. After vocational school I will have better competencies in English than the S in the monolingual classes. 3. In German I will have a reduced scientific vocabulary compared to the S in the monolingual classes. 4. It is not necessary to speak and write foreign languages without errors, communication is important.

190

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

5. Changing from one language to another and mixing languages are part of communication. 6. Use of English At the moment I am using English in the following contexts: Very often Sometimes or often

Seldom or never

1. Hearing or making music 2. Reading of technical documents 3. Reading of literature 4. Talking with English-speakers 5. Talking with speakers of other languages 6. Internet 7. Trips 8. Films/DVD/TV 9. Chats, sms, blogs, social media 10. Games 11. Other situations 7. Other languages In addition to German and English (and your first language in case it is not German) what languages would you like to learn and why? Language(s) ...

Why ...

8. Definition of bi- or multilingualism: Bi- or multilingualism for me is ‘. . .’ 9. General comments . . . Bili questionnaire: Teachers 1. Identity 1. Name, given name 2. Vocational school

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

191

3. Section 4. Your bili classes this school year 5. Date of birth 6. Nationality, nationalities 7. Mother tongue(s), first language(s) 8. Other languages learned 2. Pre- and in-service training 2.1 What is your vocational/academic training (discipline, school, title)? . . . 2.2 Do you have an international English diploma? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2.3 If yes, which one(s) (e.g. First or Proficiency)? . . . 2.4 Did you ever spend more than 4 weeks in an English-speaking country? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2.5 If yes, how many weeks, when and why? Country ...

Number of weeks ...

Year ...

❑ Holidays or visit ❑ Language stay ❑ Training or work

Country ...

Number of weeks ...

Year ...

❑ Holidays or visit ❑ Language stay ❑ Training or work

2.6 According to the self-evaluation check list of the European Portfolio how do you evaluate your personal competencies in English? B1 1. Listening 2. Reading 3. Spoken interaction 4. Spoken production 5. Writing

B2

C1

C2

C2+ or native speaker

192

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

2.7 Do you want more in-service training in English? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2.8 Do you want more in-service training in bili didactics? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2.9 Comments on your vocational, linguistic and didactic pre- and in-service training . . . 3. Your bili teaching 3.1 Since when do you teach bili (school year)? . . . 3.2 What bili disciplines do you teach during the school year 2009–2010? . . . 3.3 During the school year 2009–2010 do you also teach monolingual classes? ❑ Yes ❑ No 3.4 Is teaching bili a free choice for you? ❑ Yes ❑ More or less, I have been convinced

❑ No

3.5 In your opinion, are all disciplines suited for bili teaching? ❑ Yes ❑ No 3.6 In my opinion the following disciplines are better suited for bili teaching . . . 3.7 In my opinion the following disciplines are not suited for bili teaching . . . 3.8 What percentage of your teaching time is dedicated to bili? ❑ Less than 33% ❑ About 33% ❑ Between 33% and 50% ❑ Between 50% and 70% ❑ More than 70% 3.9 Are there any bilingual final exams in your school? ❑ Yes ❑ Partly ❑ No 3.10 If this is the case, what are the results of the bili students (= S) in the final exams compared to those of the monolingual S? ❑ They are better ❑ They are comparable ❑ They are worse

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

193

3.11 If they are no bilingual final exams, why is this the case? . . . 3.12 In your opinion, is bili teaching worth the effort (adequacy between English and content competencies as compared to the investment)? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ I do not know 3.13 Comments on your teaching in the bili classes . . . 4. The bili lessons and classes 4.1 Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements. I totally I partially I do not I partially I totally agree agree know disagree disagree 1. For the bili lessons the S have to work more than for the monolingual lessons. 2. In the bili classes the S master the scientific contents of the bilingual lessons as well as those of the monolingual lessons. 3. Bili lessons are for above average S. 4. Bili hinders the development of German. 5. During the bili lessons S like to use other languages than German and English. 6. During the bili lessons the S are more concentrated than during the monolingual lessons.

194

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

7. In the bili lessons a lot of time is lost due to the switching between the languages. 8. In the bili lessons the changing perspective due to the use of two languages is an advantage for the discipline. 9. In the bili lessons during pair and group work the S usually speak English. 10. For the S bili lessons are more fun than monolingual lessons. 11. The results of the bili exams/tests are usually similar to the exams/tests in the monolingual classes. 12. In the bili classes the S are more active than those of the monolingual classes. 13. All S in the vocational schools in the Canton of Zurich should have bili lessons. 14. In the bili classes content is taught less clearly and precisely.

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

195

15. Thanks to bili the S make good progress in English. 16. Specific bili didactics is needed. 4.2 Comments on the bili lessons and bili classes . . . 5. Your work in the bili classes 5.1 Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements. I totally I partially I do not I partially I totally agree agree know disagree disagree 1. For me, bili teaching requires more work than monolingual teaching. 2. I have support from the school direction. 3. Compensation is adequate. 4. I would also teach bilingually in French. 5. I have enough teaching materials for bili teaching. 6. I feel more stress in the bili classes than in the monolingual classes. 7. Bili teaching allows professional development. 8. Bili is added value for our school. 5.2 What is your satisfaction concerning teaching in the bili classes? ❑ High ❑ Average ❑ Low

196

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

5.3 What is your motivation concerning teaching in the bili classes? ❑ High ❑ Average ❑ Low 5.4 Do you work with the European Language Portfolio? ❑ Yes ❑ No 5.5 Comments on your work in the bili classes: . . . 6. Definition of bi- and multilingualism: Bi- or multilingualism for me is ‘. . .’ 7. General comments . . . Bili questionnaire: Principals 1. Identity 1. Name, given name 2. Vocational school 3. Mother tongue(s), first language(s) 4. Other languages learned 2. Bili at your school 2.1 Please indicate all bili classes in your school (School year 2009–2010)? S = students Class Grade Section Profession Bili teacher(s) Number Number of of bili S school days in class per week

2.2 The bili classes make up the following percentage of the school . . .. 2.3 Why did you implement bili at your school (several answers are possible) ❑ The school authorities motivated us to do so ❑ The teachers motivated us to do so ❑ The S motivated us to do so ❑ The lack of English lessons had to be compensated with bili ❑ The role of English in the work sphere motivated the choice of bili ❑ Bili is an efficient approach to foster language competencies

Discourse on Mult ilingualism, L anguage Competence, Use and At t itudes

197

❑ Bili promotes school and teaching development ❑ Bili enhances the quality of the school ❑ Other reasons . . . 2.4 What hinders the extension of bili in your school (several answers possible)? ❑ No more S want bili ❑ No more teachers want bili ❑ The teachers are not trained well enough ❑ Our school does not want to expand bili ❑ The training companies do not want ❑ The school authorities are not supportive enough ❑ Other reasons . . . 2.5 In case bili teaching would be expanded at your school how many potential bili teachers are available? ❑ None ❑ 1–2 ❑ 3–4 ❑ More than 4 2.6 How important is the administrative charge for the organisation of the bili classes in your school? ❑ Comparable to the regular classes ❑ More important than for the regular classes ❑ Significantly more important than for the regular classes 2.7 Are the final exams in your school bilingual? ❑ Yes ❑ Partly ❑ No 2.8 If this is the case, what are the results of the bili S in the final exams compared to those of the monolingual S? ❑ They are better ❑ They are comparable ❑ They are worse 2.9 If they are no bilingual final exams, why is this the case? . . . 2.10 In your opinion what is the future of bili at your school? . . . 2.11 Comments of the organisation of the bili classes (time table, setting up of the classes, bilingual final exams, etc.) . . .

198

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

3. Bili teachers in your school 3.1 What is the occupation rate (in %) of the teachers? Name of teachers

Occupation rate in %

3.2 In your opinion what is the satisfaction of the bili teachers as compared to the monolingual teachers of the same discipline? ❑ Higher ❑ The same ❑ Lower 3.3 In your opinion what is the stress of the bili teachers as compared to the monolingual teachers of the same discipline? ❑ Higher ❑ The same ❑ Lower 3.4 In your opinion what is the motivation of the bili teachers as compared to the monolingual teachers of the same discipline? ❑ Higher ❑ The same ❑ Lower 3.5 Comments regarding the teachers in your school . . . 4. Definition of bi- and multilingualism: Bi- or multilingualism for me is ‘. . .’ 5. General comments . . .

10 Developing Metalinguistic Awareness in L3 German Classrooms Irena Horvatic´ Cˇ ajko

Introduction The concept of metalinguistic awareness (in further text MA) is examined in this chapter from the perspective of its contribution to the development of multilingual competence. The starting point is the assumption that MA is especially important in the acquisition of the third language (L3), because it enables a conscious application of the existing knowledge of prior languages (L1 and L2), which, speaking with Jessner (2008: 26), ‘can contribute to the catalytic or accelerating effects in TLA’. The facilitating effect of MA has been discussed by other authors too. Referring to Knapp-Potthoff (1997), Behr (2007: 32) states that language awareness has instrumental and emancipatory function. Some of the effects of language awareness, according to Knapp-Potthoff (1997: 11) are that it creates categories for the analysis and processing of language input, leads to higher degree of attentiveness in the perception and processing of the input, directs the focus on specific linguistic properties in the input, enables the application of appropriate learning strategies and provides the basis for metacommunication. These and other effects are seen by Jessner (2008: 26) as special ‘qualities which develop in a multilingual speaker/learner due to the increase in language contact(s)’. In her DMM model (Dynamic Model of Multilingualism), Jessner (2008) introduces the concept of the M-factor (multilingualism factor) in order to refer to these qualities. Research has so far provided evidence of positive correlation between MA and multilingual competence, for example Fehling (2008: 54) reports that ‘the process of awareness raising and sensibilisation for languages and language learning in the sense of language awareness and language learning awareness can considerabely support the development of multilingualism’ 199

200

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

(translated from German by I.H.Č.) (see also Gibson & Hufeisen, 2003; Meißner, 2000). Since the development of MA is one of the language learning and teaching goals, as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, 2001: 134), and the didactics of multilingualism considers it to be an essential element of the cognitive approach to learning and teaching (see e.g. Neuner, 2005: 67), it is important to find ways on how to train MA. The main goal of this chapter is to record the results of an experiment, which was based on the hypothesis that classroom language learning context provides space to influence the development of MA. The experiment was conducted with classes of L3 German beginners and was based on an additional input aimed at raising attentiveness to cross-linguistic influences, which are understood as ‘similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (. . .) acquired’ (Odlin, 2003: 436). In the case of the subjects, who took part in the experiment, the previously acquired languages were Croatian as L1 (mother tongue) and English as L2 (the first foreign language). Further organisation of the chapter are as follows: a review of the literature related to the MA; the presentation of the research design, including the research questions, the sample, methods and the course of the experiment; research results related to (a) the development of MA and (b) the impact of the additional input on L3 competence; and a discussion of the results. Consequences of the results for future research and for the teaching practice are discussed in the concluding part.

Review of the Literature Aspects of metalinguistic awareness In the study of language and language acquisition, there is the problem of language being both ‘the object of research and the instrument of description. (. . .) This is why a distinction is needed between language and metalanguage, in other words the language used to describe another language’ (Škiljan, 1994: 183, translated from Croatian by I.H.Č.). In order to examine language and language acquisition procedure as an object, the awareness of language as an object of reflection is needed. The ability to perceive language differently than just as a means of communication is defined by Gass and Selinker (2008: 29) in the following way: ‘Metalinguistic awareness is the ability to think about (and manipulate) language. In other words, metalinguistic ability allows one to think about language as an object of inquiry rather than as something we use to speak and understand language.’ Looking at the process of foreign language acquisition, both from the psycholinguistic and didactic perspective, there are two aspects of MA that

Developing Met alinguist ic Awareness in L 3 Ger man Cl assrooms

201

require attention – the awareness of language, or more precisely of the already existing languages in the learner’s language repertoire (e.g. their phonetic, lexical, morphological and syntactic features as well as similarities and differences among them) and the awareness of language learning (e.g. language learning strategies). Consequently, MA should be viewed as an integrating concept. Referring to Rampillon (1997: 175 ff.), Gnutzmann (2003: 337) presents the view of MA as (. . .) a concept of language awareness that integrates language, communication and learning aiming at the metacognitive reflection of foreign language learning and including the components of linguistic awareness, communicative awareness und learning awareness. The linguistic awareness means the linguistic knowledge of the language system as well as language skills. The communicative awareness refers to the knowledge about language functioning, such as communication strategies, strategies of body language, domination strategies and the application of these strategies. The learning awareness in the sense of the language learning awareness includes learning, thinking and problem solving starategies as well as the skill to apply those (translated from German by I.H.Č.). Communicative competence in a mother tongue plus at least two more languages is the ultimate goal of the multilingual development, as defined by the European Commission in the White Paper on Education and Training. Teaching and Learning. Towards the Learning Society (1995: 47): ‘. . . it is becoming necessary for everyone, irrespective of training and education routes chosen, to be able to acquire and keep up their ability to communicate in at least two Community languages in addition to their mother tongue’. In accordance with that aim the communicative awareness is definitely an important element of MA. However, the research presented in this chapter is focused on the linguistic awareness and the learning awareness in the process of L3 learning, in other words on the cognitive dimension of the MA. Although the cognitive dimension of the MA is the focus of this chapter, it should be mentioned that MA can also include affective and social parameters. Fehling (2008: 47 ff.) refers to the five dimensions of language awareness identified by James and Garrett (1991: 12 ff.), which include affective, social, political and cognitive dimension as well as performance dimension. Neuner (Hufeisen & Neuner, 2003: 28) describes the linguistic awareness and the language learning awareness as the crucial parameters of foreign language learning and relates them to two aspects of linguistic knowledge, to declarative and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge means awareness and knowledge about language and enables the establishment of interlinguistic relations between L1, L2 and any subsequent language. It also forms the basis for the discussion about what has been noticed in the new language and how it can be related to the previous linguistic knowledge.

202

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

Csire and Laakso (Chapter 11 in this volume) point out, however, that the effect of cross-linguistic influence does not always occur. They have observed a lack of interlinguistic transfer and analysis with their heritage language learners of Hungarian, who seem to act differently than foreign language learners. Procedural knowledge includes awareness and knowledge about the foreign language learning process and enables conscious experience of foreign language learning, as well as the reflection on the experience of language acquisition and on applied learning stategies.

Metalinguistic awareness from the teaching perspective Gnutzmann (2003: 335 ff.) stresses that the beginning of a more intensive MA development, in other words of an explicit linguistic knowledge, is triggered by the start of the formal tuition in a mother tongue. At the same time he underlines the importance of MA in the context of foreign language teaching, explaining that content and exercises supporting language reflection were neglected in the period of the dominance of the audio-visual method in foreign language teaching. Having in mind the methodic and didactic implications of MA, Gnutzmann (2003: 338) calls for changes in the methodic and didactic approach to language teaching and suggests some areas where more emphasis should be placed. He proposes that more attention should be paid to the cognitive approach to learning (learning by discovery, contrastive learning) and to interlinguistic comparison. Error analysis and reflection should become a legitimate part of the class work as well as the communication about learning processes, in other words metacognition and metacommunication. Such a change in favour of plurilingual approach to foreign language teaching depends on teachers’ attitudes towards plurilingualism and multilingualism, on their training and teaching skills with respect to didactics of multilingualism. Research results of Cybulska and Kabalin Borenić (Chapter 5 in this volume) as well as Gnutzmann’s proposals show that there is a lot of space for change in the area of language teaching, which multilingual development could benefit from. The main direction of change should be characterised, as stressed by Jessner (2008: 38), by the implementation of ‘awareness-raising techniques (. . .), enhancing the connections between languages in both teachers and learners; that is, bridging the languages, creating synergies and exploiting resources’.

Research Design The aim of the experiment described here was to support the building of interlingual bridges among L1, L2 and L3 by using potential synergies of the previously learned languages (L1 and L2) and the new language (L3) in order

Developing Met alinguist ic Awareness in L 3 Ger man Cl assrooms

203

to facilitate the development of MA and a more efficient mastering of L3 German.

Research questions The experiment conducted within the research of MA development in the secondary school context was based on the following two questions: (a) Can the work on additional language input aiming at raising awareness of interlinguistic connections among learners’ L1, L2 and L3 contribute to the development of MA? (b) Is there a correlation between the level of MA and the L3 competence?

Methods The experimental design included three phases: the initial testing, five months of work on modules of additional language input and final testing. The testing instruments (questionnaires, language transfer tests, L3 competence test) enabled gathering of comprehensive data; however, due to the limited space of this chapter two segments of the results are presented. The first segment refers to a group of questions about facilitating/hindering effect of L1 and L2 in L3 learning. The results of the analysed data gathered through these questions are taken as indicators of language learning awareness, in other words of metacognitive strategies. Since the subjects were asked to explain their answers, content analysis of the explanations enabled insight into their language awareness, related to cognitive strategies, especially to the elements of language transfer. The second segment of the results is related to the L3 language competence test, which was administered after the experiment in the final testing. The presentation of the two result segments follows after the description of the research sample and the course of the experiment.

Research sample The research sample was composed according to the main principle of the experimental design which is maximal similarity of the experimental group (in the further text EG) and the control group (in the further text CG) before the start of the experiment. Although efforts were made to control external factors (e.g. types of school programmes, number of language lessons, teaching approach), one should be aware of the limitations related to sampling as well as to experimental conditions). The subjects were 15-yearold students in the first class of the secondary school (the Croatian educational system consists of eight years of compulsory primary education plus four years of secondary education). They were beginners in the L3 German classes. All of them had between five and eight years of formal instruction in English (L2), depending on whether they started learning L2 in the first

204

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

or in the fourth class of primary school, and eight years of formal tuition in the mother tongue Croatian (L1). Their trilingual language constellation is chronological; however, the focus of interest in this chapter relates to its cognitive implications (cf. 3-level models by Hammarberg in Chapter 1 in this volume), MA being one of the key cognitive factors. All together 84 students were involved in the experiment, 45 in the EG and 39 in the CG. There were 46 female and 36 male subjects, two subjects had not answered the question related to gender. As far as school profile was concerned 40 subjects came from grammar schools and 32 from secondary vocational schools, 12 subjects had not provided an answer concerning the school type. The χ2 test showed that there was no significant difference between the EG and CG before the start of the experiment. It resulted in the following values: concerning the school profile (grammar school/secondary vocational school) χ2 test = 0.643, p > 0.05 and concerning gender χ2 test = 0.345, p > 0.05. When the experiment started, students spent only four months in secondary schools and before that they had all taken part in an equal programme of primary education, which might account for the absence of a significant difference between the EG and CG at the beginning of the experiment.

Course of the experiment The experiment lasted from January till May 2011. The EG was provided with additional input during this period. The input was divided into five modules, and the task was to work on a new module every month in addition to the regular programme. An attempt was made to secure a noticeable progression between the first and the fifth modules and the language tasks were connected with slightly higher requirements than what is foreseen by the standard programme. Teachers were asked to record their observations related to the work on the modules generally and to students’ reactions. Each module included exercises in the area of phonology, one-word items, morphology, syntax and text comprehension. The exercises (see Appendix) involved the comparison of Croatian, English and German elements and structures and were partly inspired by the available materials based on the multilingual approach to foreign language learning and teaching, for example Kursiša and Neuner (2006) and Behr (2005). Each of the tasks was followed by a question that encouraged reflection on the process of exercise completion.

Results Impact of the additional input on MA development In order to answer the first research question about the development of MA, the subjects’ awareness of the cross-linguistic influence in the procedure of learning L3 German was examined through a group of questions within the final questionnaire referring to the facilitating/hindering effects

Developing Met alinguist ic Awareness in L 3 Ger man Cl assrooms

205

of L1 and L2 in L3 learning. The first segment of the presented results comes from the analysed questionnaire data. The answers serve as indicators of the use of metacognitive strategies related to language learning awareness, in other words of the strategies used in the planning, analysing, monitoring and directing the language learning process (Fehling, 2008: 141). There were two questions related to the impact of English on German and two questions related to the impact of Croatian on German. Subjects were asked to mark frequency values on the Likert-type scale for each of the questions (1 – never, 2 – seldom, 3 – sometimes, 4 – often, 5 – very often). The additional task was to explain their answers. The content analysis of the explanations enabled insight into cognitive strategies, which include translation, inferencing, elaboration and especially transfer (Fehling, 2008).

Language learning awareness – Metacognitive strategies The results of the analysed date are compared for the EG, which was exposed to the additional input, and the CG, which worked according to the standard programme during the experimental phase, whereas the standard programme does not foresee systematic work on the cross-linguistic influences. The results are presented in Table 10.1. Table 10.1 Difference between the EG and the CG concerning language learning awareness N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

Mann– p Whitney U

Does the knowledge of the EG Croatian language help CG you in the learning of the German language?

40 34

43.99 29.87

1759.50 1015.50

420.500

< 0.01

Does the knowledge of the EG CG English language help you in the learning of the German language?

41 34

42.93 32.06

1760.00 1090.00

495.000

< 0.05

EG CG

40 34

42.33 31.82

1693.00 1082.00

487.000

< 0.05

Does the knowledge of the EG English language hinder CG your learning of the German language?

41 34

37.48 38.63

1535.50 1313.50

675.500

> 0.05

Questions about the facilitating/hindering effects of L1 and L2 in L3 learning

Does the knowledge of the Croatian language hinder your learning of the German language?

Group

206

Par t 2: Student s and Teachers in the Mult ilingual Cl assroom

The values of the Mann–Whitney U test show a significant difference between the EG and the CG for the first three questions. The EG subjects who were practicing to identify cross-linguistic influences among their L1, L2 and L3 during the work on modules notice the facilitating effect of their L1 Croatian (U = 420,500, p =