Background to the problem Dutch society demonstrates a development which is apparent in many societies in the 21st century; it is becoming ethnically heterogeneous. This means that children who are secondlanguage speakers of Dutch are learning English, a core curriculum subject, through the medium of the Dutch language. Research questions What are the consequences of this for the individual learner and the class situation?Is a bi-lingual background a help or a hindrance when acquiring further language competences. Does the home situation facilitate or impede the learner? Additionally, how should the TEFL professional respond to this situation in terms of methodology, use of the Dutch language, subject matter and assessment? Method of approach A group of ethnic minority students at Fontys University of Professional Education was interviewed. The interviews were subjected to qualitative analysis. To ensure triangulation lecturers involved in teaching English at F.U.P.E. were asked to fill in a questionnaire on their teaching approach to Dutch second language English learners. Thier response was quantitatively and qualitatively analysed. Findings and conclusions The students encountered surprisingly few problems. Their bi-lingualism and home situation were not a constraint in their English language development. TEFL professionals should bear the heterogeneous classroom in mind when developing courses and lesson material. The introduction to English at primary school level and the assessment of DL2 learners require further research.
This chapter deals with the study of how deaf and hearing signers, and others, understand sign languages by themselves and in relationship to other languages and modalities. By doing linguistic ethnography, it is possible to investigate these language attitudes and ideologies as they unfold in everyday practice, towards ideas such as the status of sign languages and particular varieties; discourses surrounding linguistic authority, authenticity and ownership; and the emergence (or development) of new sign languages and new subject-specific vocabulary. The methods discussed in this chapter are ethnographic research methods and visual methods: participant observation, ethnographic filmmaking, and language portraits. The main points of the chapter are illustrated by means of three case studies: (1) participant observation in multilingual tourist spaces in Bali, in which Indonesian Sign Language, International Sign, and American Sign Language are used; (2) ethnographic filmmaking within an international multi-sited research project focusing on International Sign; and (3) the use of language portraits with new signers and heritage signers in Flanders, who mostly use Flemish Sign Language and Dutch
LINK
This article discusses the rationale for using language diaries as a method to evaluate language use and language choice in multilingual contexts, as well as the benefits and limitations of this approach vis-à-vis other research methods. This is illustrated using examples from two contexts: Flemish Sign Language/Dutch bilinguals in Flanders and Gaelic/English bilinguals in the Western Isles of Scotland. In both cases, the language diaries were part of a larger mixed-method study which aimed to evaluate language use and language choice in contexts in which the majority language is in almost all instances the unmarked choice. Language diaries provide a new perspective on individual language practices as they allow for an evaluation of contextualised examples of language use and give insight into the factors that drive language and modality choice, and language ideologies. Language diaries give participants ownership over the information shared with the researcher and provide access to a number of different domains. Despite being based on self-reported practices, their situated nature demonstrates how language use can change through personal circumstances. This in turn contributes to a greater understanding of the use of Flemish Sign Language and Gaelic in the wider sociolinguistic contexts in which these languages exist.
LINK
The eleven Universities forming the KreativEU consortium agreed to the common goal of establishing a fully European University, that places the creative potential derived from Europe’s cultural heritage at the heart of its teaching, research and knowledge transfer activities. Committing to a long-term institutional, structural and strategic cooperation the partners will jointly implement an ambitious yet inclusive vision for transforming the study of culture, identity, memory and heritage for the benefit of society. Building upon this strong foundation, KreativEU will provide innovative concepts, methods, and solutions to address both current and future challenges, contributing to a sustainable and harmonious future for communities and the environment alike. KreativEU recognizes the inseparable interconnection of tangible and intangible cultural heritage, as well as the interwoven nature of local and national traditions, crafts, cultural practices, and folklore. The alliance is dedicated to formulating cutting-edge educational and research programmes that reevaluate these elements and their associated ecological surroundings, the lived environment, especially in the context of the digital age. This ecocultural vision serves as the foundational principle guiding KreativEU's efforts, ensuring that a new generation of EU citizens working together across cultures, borders, languages, sectors and disciplines will be educated. Students from the KreativEU are expected to be leaders of change and enablers of societal transformation.To reach this vision, the KreativEU Alliance will work towards the completion of 8 work packages (WP1 - Governance and Management; WP2 - KreativEU Education; WP3 - KreativEU Research; WP4 - KreativEU Culture with and for society; WP5 - KreativEU Knowledge-creation and design network on Smart Sustainability WP6 - KreativEU Heritage European campus; WP7 - KreativEU Mobility; WP8 - Communication and Dissemination).Collaborative partners:Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Escola Superior de Gestão de Tomar, D.A. Tsenov Academy of Economics, Johoceska Univerzita V Ceskych Budejovicich, Universita Degli Studi di Camerino, Universitaet Greifswald, Pilitechnika Opolska, Universitatae Valahia Targoviste, Trnavska Univerzita V Trnave, Sodestorns Hogskola, Adana Alparslan Turkes Bilim VE Teknoloji University
Digital technologies in public spaces have become more prescient, capable, and invisible. As a result, the need to explain and mediate these technologies has become more urgent. Current processes for designing digital trust interaction protocols, visual languages, and interfaces for the urban environment have been dominated by governing actors: policing, government, and tech-companies. When communities are involved in the design process, their participation is limited to formats these organisations prescribe. By default, these designs exclude the lived technological experiences of communities that use the built environment. The outcome is a lopsided appraisal of digital trust, and designs that are insufficiently transparent and equitable– and as a result, not understood and embraced by the communities who must use them. This design-research aims to develop prototypes that include how urban interactive technologies are ‘lived’ in the spaces where they are implemented. These experiences will be teased-out through site-specific aesthetic and performative actions, which in turn inform the design process. The envisioned contribution includes ways of ’doing’ to the field of situated design, and concrete prototypes for alternative digital trust protocols, visual languages, and interfaces. By flipping the current approach on its head, this research argues that the practical and ethical departure points for addressing digital ‘trust deficits’ are already within the diverse communities who use the built environment.
