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.
DOCUMENT
This small-scale observational study explores how Dutch bilingual education history teachers (BHTs) focus on the L2 component in their CLIL-lessons. We observed and rated eight BHTs on five language teaching categories. Results show that Dutch BHTs focus more strongly on using the L2 to teach subject content and that they tend to be less engaged in teaching specific second language topics, such as focus on form or language learning strategies. Further results and suggestions for improving the BHTs’ L2 focus are discussed together with a plea for a CLIL definition that is more in line with the everyday reality of the CLIL classroom.
DOCUMENT
In CLIL contexts, school subjects are taught in an additional language, allowing learners to acquire the target language through meaningful use. This places language teachers in an ambiguous position. What is their role in this context? On the one hand, language teachers are expected to collaborate with subject teacher colleagues; on the other hand, they teach separate language lessons. This double role provides language teachers and their educators with specific challenges in terms of identity and focus.To explore and explain the choices language teachers have, this review examines international research from the last 25 years with a primary focus on secondary schools. As recent discussions argue convincingly that research into CLIL, Content Based Instruction and immersion benefit from convergence and cross-fertilisation, we used a broad range of search terms to identify primary and secondary research.Selected articles were organised into four inquiry areas and analysed thematically: (1) language focus, (2) content focus of learning, (3) language teachers’ pedagogical practices, and (4) their collaboration with subject teachers. Based on these themes, we developed a framework for language teachers and their educators in bilingual education designed to help them explore, explain and develop their own identity and focus.
DOCUMENT
Background: Collaboration between Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and parents is considered best practice for children with developmental disorders. However, such collaborative approach is not yet implemented in therapy for children with developmental language disorders (DLD) in the Netherlands. Improving Dutch SLTs’ collaboration with parents requires insight in factors that influence the way SLTs work with parents. Aims: To explore the specific beliefs of Dutch SLTs that influence how they collaborate with parents of children with DLD. Methods and procedures: We conducted three online focus groups with 17 SLTs using a reflection tool and fictional examples of parents to prompt their thoughts, feelings and actions on specific scenarios. Data were organised using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Outcomes and results: We identified 34 specific beliefs across nine TDF domains on how SLTs collaborate with parents of children with DLD. The results indicate that SLTs hold beliefs on how to support SLTs in collaborating with parents but also conflicting specific beliefs regarding collaborative work with parents. The latter relate to SLTs’ perspectives on their professional role and identity, their approach towards parents, and their confidence and competence in working collaboratively with parents.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: Most speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with children with developmental language disorder (DLD) do not perform language sample analysis (LSA) on a regular basis, although they do regard LSA as highly informative for goal setting and evaluating grammatical therapy. The primary aim of this study was to identify facilitators, barriers, and needs related to performing LSA by Dutch SLPs working with children with DLD. The secondary aim was to investigate whether a training would change the actual performance of LSA. Method: A focus group with 11 SLPs working in Dutch speech-language pathology practices was conducted. Barriers, facilitators, and needs were identified using thematic analysis and categorized using the theoretical domain framework. To address the barriers, a training was developed using software program CLAN. Changes in barriers and use of LSA were evaluated with a survey sent to participants before, directly after, and 3 months posttraining. Results: The barriers reported in the focus group were SLPs’ lack of knowledge and skills, time investment, negative beliefs about their capabilities, differences in beliefs about their professional role, and no reimbursement from health insurance companies. Posttraining survey results revealed that LSA was not performed more often in daily practice. Using CLAN was not the solution according to participating SLPs. Time investment remained a huge barrier. Conclusions: A training in performing LSA did not resolve the time investment barrier experienced by SLPs. User-friendly software, developed in codesign with SLPs might provide a solution. For the short-term, shorter samples, preferably from narrative tasks, should be considered.
DOCUMENT
In order to optimize collaboration between Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and parents of children with Developmental Language Disorders (DLD), our aim was to study what is needed for SLTs to transition from the parent-as-therapist aide model to the FCC model and optimal collaborate with parents. Chapter 2 discusses the significance of demystifying collaborative working by making explicit how collaboration works. Chapter 3 examines SLTs’ perspectives on engaging parents in parent-child interaction therapy, utilizing a secondary analysis of interview data. Chapter 4 presents a systematic review of specific strategies that therapists can employ to enhance their collaboration with parents of children with developmental disabilities. Chapter 5 explores the needs of parents in their collaborative interactions with SLTs during therapy for their children with DLD, based on semi-structured interviews. Chapter 6 reports the findings from a behavioral analysis of how SLTs currently engage with parents of children with DLD, using data from focus groups. Chapter 7 offers a general discussion on the findings of this thesis, synthesizing insights from previous chapters to propose recommendations for practice and future research.
DOCUMENT
Children with developmental language disorders (DLDs) may experience barriers to communicative participation. Communicative participation is defined as ‘participation in life situations in which knowledge, information, ideas or feelings are exchanged’. Barriers experienced in communicative participation cannot be explained by language competence alone and are thought to be influenced by contextual factors. A better understanding of these factors will contribute to tailored speech and language therapy services for children with DLD. We conducted a focus group study with 13 speech and language therapists’ (SLTs) to explore their perspectives on contextual (environmental and personal) factors in early childhood that are associated with communicative participation in children with DLD. The personal factor of child well-being, and the environmental factors of familial support and SLT service provision were developed through thematic analysis. The potential mediating role of these factors on communicative participation implies that it is important to address contextual barriers and facilitators in speech and language therapy services.
DOCUMENT
This paper identifies some common and specific pitfalls in the development of sign language technologies targeted at deaf communities, with a specific focus on signing avatars. It makes the call to urgently interrogate some of the ideologies behind those technologies, including issues of ethical and responsible development. The paper addresses four separate and interlinked issues: ideologies about deaf people and mediated communication, bias in data sets and learning, user feedback, and applications of the technologies. The paper ends with several take away points for both technology developers and deaf NGOs. Technology developers should give more consideration to diversifying their team and working interdisciplinary, and be mindful of the biases that inevitably creep into data sets. There should also be a consideration of the technologies’ end users. Sign language interpreters are not the end users nor should they be seen as the benchmark for language use. Technology developers and deaf NGOs can engage in a dialogue about how to prioritize application domains and prioritize within application domains. Finally, deaf NGOs policy statements will need to take a longer view, and use avatars to think of a significantly better system compared to what sign language interpreting services can provide.
LINK
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational approach whereby an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language. In the Netherlands, this takes place in bilingual secondary education (tweetalig onderwijs). Policy guidelines, teaching handbooks, research and teacher education primarily focused on how subject teachers implement CLIL. Little was known about the nature and range of the pedagogical and collaborative practices of language teachers in this context. Exploring formal and practical theories of teaching, this dissertation reports on four studies; a literature review, focus group study, survey, and multiple-case study. These generated building blocks for a knowledge base for Teachers of English in Bilingual streams (TEBs) including a theoretical framework for language teaching in CLIL contexts, a set of practices which emerged as a professional development tool for TEBs, eight case descriptions of prototypical practices, and a model of the dynamic interaction of TEBs’ beliefs and practices. Reviewing the findings in the light of developments in conceptualizing what CLIL means for teachers in practice, the discussion highlights four points. Firstly, language teaching in CLIL contexts is not the same as foreign language teaching. Secondly, CLIL achieves integration through subject-specific language. Thirdly, CLIL contexts can lead to transformative change in language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Fourthly, collaboration between language and subject teachers can be beneficial. It concludes that teacher education and policy guidelines can and should do more to support, encourage and enable language teachers to be both creators and agents of change.
LINK
In general, teacher educators are considered to be educational specialists whose main task is to communicate content-based concepts to prospective teachers. However, unfortunately, most studies on teacher professional development overlook this specific language-oriented aspect of content-based teaching. Therefore, we address the aforementioned research gap and argue that teacher educators’ evaluation of their language-oriented performance in educational communication enhances the quality of their content-based teaching. Accordingly, we examine how the language-oriented performance of teacher educators is evaluated by both individual teacher educators (sample size N=3) and their students (N=32) in a small-scale intervention study. The findings of the study reveal that there is a relationship between the order of application of five language focus areas (i.e., language awareness, active listening, formalizing interaction, language support, and language and learning development, as noticed by the students), and teacher educators’ ability to apply these areas in accordance with their objectives related to content-based teaching.
DOCUMENT
