Multilingualism as a resource in the Dutch-Radboud Universiteit
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
Multilingualism as a resource in the Dutch-
German border zone: Monitoring cross-linguistic
and cross-cultural encounters of Dutch and German
secondary students and their teachers
Eva Knopp (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen), Dr. Eva Schmidt (Universität
Duisburg-Essen), Dr. Sabine Jentges (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen)
Outline: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
• Nachbarsprache, buurcultuur & multilingualism
• Language policy in education
• Research questions
• A review of multilingualism in curricular policy documents
• Ways forward
• Questions and discussion
The Dutch-German border-zone: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
The Dutch-German border-zone: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
Nachbarsprache & buurcultur: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
• 2017-2020: exchange of students,
teachers and school-administrators in the
German and Dutch border-region (Rhine-
Waal)
• secondary schools: > 6000 students
(school), > 300 teachers, > 30 school
leadership teams, > 50 schools
• funded as part of the Interreg-program by
the EU, the German federal state
Northrhine-Westphalia, the Dutch
province Gelderland and other partners
→ http://www.nachbarsprache.nl
Research perspectives: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
contextual factors:
- culture, history, identity students
(national, regional)
- educational policy, educational
practices, available methods
and materials
- country-specific and/or site- target groups:
specific - attitudes
- goals
- behaviour
teachers administrators
Why focus on multilingualism?: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
• Discourses on “multilingualism” in NL and GER differ in form and degree
• society, in general
• educational sector, in specific
• Special status of neighbouring languages (German – Dutch)
• as opposed to prestigious foreign languages and minority languages
• as special case of a language pairing that allows intercomprehension and receptive
multilingualism
• Exchange situation as a “safe” space for interlingual and intercultural
encounters
Overarching research questions: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
• How is multilingualism understood?
• with regards to participating individuals
• with regards to the educational and socio-political framework
• Which attitudes towards multilingualism do participating students
and teachers have?
• multilingualism as a “problem” or a “resource”
• status of different languages involved
• What are the multilingual practices that students and teachers
engage in?
• translanguaging, code-switching, uses of lingua francas, intercomprehension,
etc.
• Which factors affect these practices?
Methods of investigation: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
Investigative triangulation:
• Content analysis and cross-cultural comparison of policy documents
and teaching materials with respect to multilingualism discourse
• Attitude questionnaires for teachers and students
• Behavioural research on multilingual practices (e.g. observations,
experimental scenarios)Educational language policies: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
Previous research:
• Netherlands:
• little attention to multilingualism in research on the Dutch school system (Agirdag &
Oudeweetering, 2018), except for Frisian as autochtonous minority language
• differentiation between “good” and “bad” languages and structural discrimination of “bad”
languages (Agirdag, 2016)
• Germany:
• discrepancies between policy documents and teaching materials (Marx, 2014)
• discrepancies between policy documents, teacher attitudes and actual behavior with respect to
multilingual teaching practices (*de Angelis, 2012; *Grasz, 2017; Heyder & Schädlich, 2014; Leist-
Villis, 2016; *Schedel & Bonvin, 2017)
* not only in Germany, but also other European countriesSpecific research questions: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
How is multilingualism understood in educational policy documents in
the two neighbouring countries?
With respect to:
• multilingualism as a baseline and/or an outcome of education?
• multilingualism as a resource and/or problem?
• the languages under discussion, particularly the status of the neighboring
language?
• multilingual understandings of language competence?
• multilingual approaches to teaching?Methodological considerations: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
Approach:
• Content analysis via keyword research in curricular guidelines and related
policy documents
• Keywords: multilingual(ism), German/Dutch as second language, heritage
language (learner), language awareness, language sensitive
Germany: Netherlands:
Kerncurriculum (for German, globale kerndoelen (for Dutch,
Dutch and other FLs) English and other FLs, Fries)
• NRW (regional) • nation-wide
• more detailed • more global
• more content-oriented • more outcome-orientedReview of policy documents: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
1. Is multilingualism understood as a baseline and/or goal of education?
2. Is multilingualism considered a resource and/or a problem?
Netherlands Germany
• Primary education (age 5-12) • Secondary education (age 10-16):
• growing importance of Dutch as L2 (NT2) • Multilingualism as a reality in childrens’ lives
• this affords different didactics • this affords special didactics for German as a second
• possibly supporting also native Dutch language (DaZ)
• Frisian as a resource • multilingual background background of children
contributes to language awareness for all
• English • development of individual multilingual
• Secondary education (age 15-16): profiles through all heritage and foreign
languages
• no more mention of NT2
• no curriculum for Frisian
• EnglishReview of policy documents: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
3. Which languages feature in policy documents? Which role does the neighbor
language play?
Netherlands Germany
• Primary education (age 5-12) • Secondary education (age 10-16):
• Core-aims available for Frisian (heritage • Curricula available for multiple foreign and
heritage languages (Chinese, Dutch, English,
language) and English French, Spanish, Portugese, Russian, Spanish,
• no mention of other (heritage) languages Turkish)
• Dutch as a foreign language:
• Secondary education (age 15-16):
• lessons should include students’ prior
• transfer of core-aims from English to German, linguistic knowledge (English and
French and Spanish heritage languages)
• no mention of other (heritage) languages • no mention of specific status of neighbor
• no mention of specific status of neighbor language
languagesReview of policy documents: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
4. In how far is language competence understood as multilingual?
5. Are there specific mentions of multilingual educational practices?
Netherlands Germany
• Secondary education (age 10-16):
• Primary education (age 5-12) • German:
• Dutch children can also profit from NT2 didactics • Students learn to reflect on their own languages
making use of individual multilingual profiles
• English: goal should be communicative
• Multiligualism in the classroom should be used to
competence to converse with native speakers raise awareness for linguistic differences
• Frisian: comparing Dutch and Frisian, reflection on • Dutch as a foreign language:
differences • Lessons should support development of
multilingual profiles, reflection on language
• Secondary education (age 15-16): learning processes
• naming of linguistic structures and comparison
• description of goals oriented along the between German, English and Dutch
categorization of the EFR (listening comprehension, • making use of intercomprehenibility of English,
reading, writing and speaking) German and Dutch and possibly other languages
• FL-curricula in general:
• BUT: aim on “monolingual use of target
language”Summary of findings: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
• Multilingualism as a baseline and a goal of education, as a problem or a
resource:
• in both countries policies acknowledge multilingualism as a given, but more mentions of
resourcefulness in German documents
• Repertoire of languages, status of neighbor languages:
• Dutch documents more oriented towards English as a world-language, while German
documents more inclusive of other modern FLs and heritage languages
• no specific mention of neighbor languages
• Multilingual understandings of language competence and teaching
methods:
• Dutch documents are oriented towards EFR, German documents include language
awareness and cross-curricular language-sensitivityLimitations and ways forward: www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
Policy documents:
• direct cross-cultural comparison between Dutch & German system problematic:
• different status of curricular guidelines and freedom of schools → difference in detail
• Dutch curricular guidelines currently under development:
• higher sensitivity for a multilingual make-up of society in all subjects, specifically Dutch
• inclusion of heritage languages in foreign language teaching
Ways forward in the project:
• How do language policies influence teaching beliefs and practices?
• How can our results help to explore and shape conditions under which multilingualism
becomes a resource in classrooms of our partner schools and in general?
• How can we optimize scientific support and monitoring for multilingual classrooms?www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
Grazzi ħafna, Thank you,
Dankjewel, Danke schön!
sponsored by / gefördert von / gesubsidieerd door:Bibliography www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
• Agirdag, Orhan/ Kambel, Ellen-Rose, eds (2017): Meertaligheid en onderwijs. Nederlands plus. Amsterdam: Boom.
• Boonen, Ute K. /Jentges, Sabine/Sars, Paul (2017): Grenzenlos lernen in der Euregio Rhein-Waal – Das deutsch-niederländische Schulaustauschprojekt
Nachbarsprache & buurcultuur. In: nachbarsprache niederländisch 2/2017 (11 Seiten, im Druck).
• Cummins, J. 2007. Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 10/2. 221-240.
• de Angelis, G. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about the role of prior language knowledge in learning and how these influence teaching practices.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 8(3), 216–234. Francis, N. (2006). The development of secondary discourse ability and metalinguistic
awareness in second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 37–60.
• Frenzel, Beate/Niederhaus, Constanze/Peschel, Corinna/Rüther, Ann-Kristin (2016): „In unserer Schule sind alle im Grunde ins kalte Wasser
gesprungen und alle sind nach ´ner Weile belohnt worden durch große Erfolge.“ Interviews mit Lehrerinnen und Lehrern zu den Besonderheiten des
Unterrichtens neu zugewanderter Schülerinnen und Schüler. In: Benholz, Claudia/Frank, Magnus/Niederhaus, Constanze (Hrsg.): Neu zugewanderte
Schülerinnen und Schüler – eine Gruppe mit besonderen Potentialen. Beiträge aus Forschung und Schulpraxis. Münster: Waxmann, S. 171-196.
• Gogolin, Ingrid. 1994. Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster/New York: Wachsmann.
• Grasz, S. (2017). Hilfe oder Hindernis? Meinungen finnischer Sprachstudierender über Mehrsprachigkeit als Ressource beim Deutschlernen. Zeitschrift
Für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 22(2), 56–65.
• Haukås, Å. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism and a multilingual pedagogical approach. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(1), 1–
18.
• Hartinger, A., Kleickmann, T. & Hawelka, B. (2006): Der Einfluss von Lehrervorstellungen zum Lernen und Lehren auf die Gestaltung des Unterrichts
und auf motivationale Schülervariablen ZfE (2006) 9, S. 110-126, doi:10.1007/s11618-006-0008-1
• Herberg, S.; Strobl, J.; Gürsoy, E. & Reimann, D. (2018): Qualifizierung von Lehrkräften für das Unterrichten in sprachlich heterogenen Klassen – zweite
Evaluation der Zusatzqualifikation „Sprachbildung in mehrsprachiger Gesellschaft“ (ZuS) an der Universität Duisburg-Essen (im Druck).Bibliography www.nachbarsprache.nl
www.buurcultuur.de
• Heyder, K., & Schädlich, B. (2014). Mehrsprachigkeit und Mehrkulturalität. Eine Umfrage unter Fremdsprachenlehrkräften in Niedersachsen. Zeitschrift Für Interkulturellen
Fremdsprachenunterricht, 19(1), 1–25.
• Jentges, Sabine/Sars, Paul (2017): Deutsch als Fremdsprache in den Niederlanden und in den deutsch-niederländischen Grenzregionen: Position, Herausforderungen und
Perspektiven. In: Muttersprache 1/2017. Wiesbaden: GfdS, 43-54.
• Marx, Nicole. 2014. Häppchen oder Hauptgericht? Zeichen der Stagnation in der deutschen Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenunterricht 19(1). 8/24.
• Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. 2007. Kernlehrplan für den verkürzten Bildungsgang des Gymnasiums – Sekundarstufe I (G8)
Nordrheinwestfalen. Deutsch. Frechen: Ritterbach.
• Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. 2007. Kernlehrplan für die Gesamtschule – Sekundarstufe I (G8) Nordrheinwestfalen.
Niederländisch. Frechen: Ritterbach.
• Niederhaus, Constanze/Schmidt, Eva (2016): Lehrerinnen und Lehrer für das Unterrichten neu zugewanderter Schülerinnen und Schüler qualifizieren. Zur Qualifizierungsreihe für
Lehrkräfte neu zugewanderter Schülerinnen Schüler des Instituts für Deutsch als Zweit- und Fremdsprache der Universität Duisburg-Essen. In: Benholz, Claudia/Frank,
Magnus/Niederhaus, Constanze (Hrsg.): Neu zugewanderte Schülerinnen und Schüler – eine Gruppe mit besonderen Potentialen. Beiträge aus Forschung und Schulpraxis.
Münster: Waxmann, 261-284.
• Nortier, Jacomine (2009): Nederland meertalenland. Feiten, perspectiven en meningen over meertaligheid. Amsterdam: Aksant.
• Rijksoverheid Nederland. (2012) Beluit vernieuwede kerndoelen WPO. http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0018844/2012-12-01#Bijlage (31.05.2018)
• Rijksoverheid Nederland. (2012) Beluit vernieuwede kerndoelen onderbouw . http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0019945/2012-12-01#Bijlage (31.05.2018)
• Schulte, K.; Bögeholz, S.; Watermann, R. (2008): Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen und Pädagogisches Professionswissen im Verlauf des Lehramtsstudiums. Zeitschrift für
Erziehungswissenschaft, 11 (2008) 2, S. 268-287, doi: 10.1007/s11618-008-0020-8.
• Trautwein, C. (2013). Lehrebezogene Überzeugungen und Konzeptionen - eine konzeptuelle Landkarte. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, doi:10.3217/zfhe-8-03/02.
• Trautmann, M. Überzeugungen von Englischlernern. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 8 (2005): S. 38-52, doi: 10.1007/s11618-005-0122-5.You can also read
