Across the globe, linguistically heterogeneous populations increasingly define school systems at the same time that developing the ability to communicate cross-culturally is becoming essential for internationalized economies. While these trends seem complimentary, they often appear in paradoxical opposition as represented in the content and execution of nationwide education policies. Given the differing geopolitical contexts within which school systems function, wide variation exists with regard to how policymakers address the challenges of providing language education, including how they frame goals and design programs to align with those goals. Here we present a cross-continental examination of this variation, which reveals parallel tensions among aims for integrating immigrant populations, closing historic achievement gaps, fostering intercultural understanding, and developing multilingual competencies. To consider implications of such paradoxes and parallels in policy foundations, we compare language education in the US and in the EU, focusing on the Netherlands as an illustrative case study.
LINK
In times of stability, it is relatively easy – or so it seems – to educate students for a ‘known’ future. My argument in this chapter is that we live in a time of multiple transitions (Rotmans, 2015), multiple crises (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Wahl, 2016; Sayer, 1994; Harvey, 2000; Jessop, 2012) and an unknown future. We are heading for an unknown future which, because of climate change, in its two extremes may either end in complete destruction or may be shaped by a shift towards a new sustainable balance: either a breakdown or a breakthrough (Wahl, 2016). Turbulent times tend to be fertile podia for a wide array of narratives that seek to make sense of the crisis, and which present imaginaries about the future. According to Jessop (2002), capitalism develops in a sequence of spatio-temporal fixes that each end in a crisis and then lead to competing narratives. This chapter claims that it is important for the educational community – and for society at large – to develop sufficient critical language awareness in order to be able to both critically analyse and evaluate existing narratives. In addition, it is important to be able to articulate our own narratives so as to be empowered to participate in this process of imagining and co-creating the future (Kress, 2000; Harvey, 2000).
Introduction The CEFR offers a framework for language teaching, learning and assessment for L2 learners. Importantly, the CEFR draws on a learner’s communicative language competence rather than linguistic competence (e.g. vocabulary, grammar). As such, the implementation of the CEFR in our four years bachelor program Teacher of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) caused a shift in didactic approach from grammar-based to communication-centered. It has been acknowledged that didactic approaches associated with the CEFR are scarcely documented (Figueras, 2012) and the effectiveness on learner outcomes have not been investigated systematically. Moreover, for many languages the levels of the CEFR are not supported by empirical evidence from L2 learner data (Hulstijn, 2007). Purpose We will i) describe our communication-centered approach in detail and iii) present some preliminary findings on the effectiveness of this approach on student’s outcomes. Method We followed four student cohorts longitudinally: students in the first cohort (n=14) were taught in a grammar-based curriculum, students in the second (n=6), third (n=9) and fourth (n=14) cohort in a communication-centered curriculum. Data involved production (interviews) videos that are transcribed using ELAN. Results Comparing students in their first and second year, results show that students who followed a communication-based curriculum show more grammatical variability as compared to students who followed a grammar-based curriculum. Conclusions Interestingly, the communication-centered approach stimulates the development of linguistic competence. We attempt to fit the empirical evidence of L2 learners within the CEFR-levels. References Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66, 477 – 485. Hulstijn, J. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: quantitave and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 663 – 667.
