Within the Netherlands, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in foreign language teaching can be considered a sibling of 'Language Oriented Content Teaching' (LOCT), a pedagogy in mainstream classes with second language learners of Dutch, where Dutch is used as language of instruction. This article characterizes two decades of research on LOCT through Dutch in multilingual schools and discusses its relevance for CLIL development.
DOCUMENT
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
In today’s foreign language (FL) education, teachers universally recognise the importance of fostering students’ ability to communicate in the target language. However, the current assessments often do not (sufficiently) evaluate this. In her dissertation, Charline Rouffet aims to gather insight into the potential of assessments to steer FL teaching practices. Communicative learning objectives FL teachers fully support the communicative learning objectives formulated at national level and embrace the principles of communicative language teaching. Yet, assessments instead primarily focus on formal language knowledge in isolation (e.g., grammar rules), disconnected from real-world communicative contexts. This misalignment between assessment practices and communicative objectives hampers effective FL teaching. CBA toolbox The aim of this design-based PhD research project is to gather insight into the potential of assessments to steer FL teaching practices. To this end, tools for developing communicative classroom-based assessment (CBA) programmes were designed and implemented in practice, in close collaboration with FL teachers. Rouffet's dissertation consists of multiple studies, in which the current challenges of FL education are addressed and the usage of the CBA toolbox is investigated. Findings reveal that assessing FL competencies in a more communicative way can transform teaching practices, placing communicative abilities at the heart of FL education.
DOCUMENT
Worldwide, pupils with migrant backgrounds do not participate in school STEM subjects as successfully as their peers. Migrant pupils’ subject-specific language proficiency lags behind, which hinders participation and learning. Primary teachers experience difficulty in teaching STEM as well as promoting required language development. This study investigates how a professional development program (PDP) focusing on inclusive STEM teaching can promote teacher learning of language-promoting strategies (promoting interaction, scaffolding language and using multilingual resources). Participants were five case study teachers in multilingual schools in the Netherlands (N = 2), Sweden (N = 1) and Norway (N = 2), who taught in primary classrooms with migrant pupils. The PDP focused on three STEM units (sound, maintenance, plant growth) and language-promoting strategies. To trace teachers’ learning, three interviews were conducted with each of the five teachers (one after each unit). The teachers also filled in digital logs (one after each unit). The interviews showed positive changes in teachers’ awareness, beliefs and attitudes towards language-supporting strategies. However, changes in practice and intentions for practice were reported to a lesser extent. This study shows that a PDP can be an effective starting point for teacher learning regarding inclusive STEM teaching. It also illuminates possible enablers (e.g., fostering language awareness) or hinderers (e.g., teachers’ limited STEM knowledge) to be considered in future PDP design.
LINK
The current study investigated how individual differences among children affect the added value of social robots for teaching second language (L2) vocabulary to young children. Specifically, we investigated the moderating role of three individual child characteristics deemed relevant for language learning: first language (L1) vocabulary knowledge, phonological memory, and selective attention. We expected children low in these abilities to particularly benefit from being assisted by a robot in a vocabulary training. An L2 English vocabulary training intervention consisting of seven sessions was administered to 193 monolingual Dutch five-year-old children over a three- to four-week period. Children were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: 1) a tablet only, 2) a tablet and a robot that used deictic (pointing) gestures (the no-iconic-gestures condition), or 3) a tablet and a robot that used both deictic and iconic gestures (i.e., gestures depicting the target word; the iconic-gestures condition). There also was a control condition in which children did not receive a vocabulary training, but played dancing games with the robot. L2 word knowledge was measured directly after the training and two to four weeks later. In these post-tests, children in the experimental conditions outperformed children in the control condition on word knowledge, but there were no differences between the three experimental conditions. Several moderation effects were found. The robot's presence particularly benefited children with larger L1 vocabularies or poorer phonological memory, while children with smaller L1 vocabularies or better phonological memory performed better in the tablet-only condition. Children with larger L1 vocabularies and better phonological memory performed better in the no-iconic-gestures condition than in the iconic-gestures condition, while children with better selective attention performed better in the iconic-gestures condition than the no-iconic-gestures condition. Together, the results showed that the effects of the robot and its gestures differ across children, which should be taken into account when designing and evaluating robot-assisted L2 teaching interventions.
DOCUMENT
Mastering academic language (AL) by elementary school students is important for achieving school success. The extent to which teachers play a role in stimulating students’ AL development may differ. Two types of AL stimulating behavior are distinguished: aimed at students’ understanding and at triggering students’ production of AL. As mathematics requires abstract language use, AL occurs frequently. The instructional methods teachers use during mathematics instruction may offer different opportunities for AL stimulating behavior. In our first study, based on expert opinions, instructional methods were categorized according to opportunities they offer for stimulating students’ AL development. In the second study, video-observations of mathematics instruction of elementary school teachers were analyzed with respect to AL stimulating behavior and instructional methods used. Results showed that actual AL stimulating behavior of teachers corresponds to the expert opinions, except for behavior shown during task evaluation. Teachers differ in time and frequency of their use of instructional methods and therefore in opportunities for stimulating AL development. Four teaching profiles, reflecting different AL stimulating potential, were constructed: ‘teacher talking’, ‘balanced use of methods’, ‘getting students at work’ and ‘interactive teaching’. Teachers showed more types of behavior aimed at students’ AL understanding than at production.
LINK
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 this epilogue, I take a teaching practice and teacher education perspective on complexity in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. I take the stance that it is essential to understand if and how linguistic complexity relates to learning challenges, what the implications are for language pedagogy, and how this challenges the role of the teacher. Research shows that differences in task complexity may lead to differences in linguistic complexity in language learners’ speech or writing. Different tasks (e.g. descriptive vs narrative) and different modes (oral vs written) may lead to different types and levels of complexity in language use. On the one hand, this is a challenge for language assessment, as complexity in language performance may be affected by task characteristics. On the other hand, it is an opportunity for language teaching: using a diversity of tasks, modes and text types may evoke and stretch lexically and syntactically complex language use. I maintain that it is essential for teachers to understand that it is at least as important to aim for development in complexity as it is to aim for development in accuracy. Namely, that ‘errors’ in language learning are part of the deal: complex tasks lead to complex language use, including lexical and syntactical errors, but they are a necessary prerequisite for language development.
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
This reports is about content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in multilingual primary classrooms. While in theory CLIL offers many opportunities for inclusive education in multilingual settings, questions remain as to how integrated language teaching can be realised, and what teacher knowledge is required for this. This research used a CLIL Teaching Wall activity and interviews with UK and Dutch primary school teachers to capture teacher knowledge underlying decision-making in actual multilingual classrooms. The report presents a framework of CLIL teacher knowledge that emerged from this work.
DOCUMENT
