Trilingual Education in Friesland: Challenges & Developments

Trilingual Education in Friesland: Challenges & Developments

Alex M.J. Riemersma & Reitze J. Jonkman

Lector Frisian & Multilingualism in EducationICLASP, 23th JUNE, 2012

Frisian in Fryslân (Netherlands)• Autochthonous minority language• Western Germanic language• Spoken in one province (of 12) of the Netherlands: Fryslân • Fryslân has 640,000 inhabitants • 55% has Frisian as mother tongue (= 350.000 speakers) • BUT: Frisian is successful as a second language:• 65% can read Frisian; 74% can speak Frisian; • 94% comprehends Frisian.

Multilingual Primary Education in Fryslân

• Main stream primary education (500 schools): (a) 400 schools: limited multilingual education: mainly Dutch + English as a subject; limited use of Frisian as a medium; (b) 100 schools: semi-multilingual education: mainly Dutch + English as a subject; Frisian medium for (half) school day

• Trilingual primary education (about 45 schools): - Dutch, Frisian and English as subject and medium - aiming at integrated language learning

Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

Trilingual education in Fryslân

· Model: Frisian, Dutch and English as subject & medium of instruction- Grade 1-6: 50 % Frisian, 50 % Dutch- Grade 7-8: 40 % Frisian, 40 % Dutch, 20% English

· Early start English

· Consciously separated use of languages: person / time / themes

Trilingual education in Fryslân

Developments:2012 > 50 primary schools (= 10%)

Continuity to secondary education:2012: 3 pilot schools with the concept of multilingual clil (= medium of instruction)

Teacher training:2011: Trilingual stream 2011: Minor (30 ECTS)

Multilingual Secondary Education in Fryslân

• Main stream secondary education: - Dutch dominant- English and Frisian as a subject only- limited use of Frisian as a medium in oral use only

• Experiments in progress:• 3 CLIL-schools: Dutch (obligatory for exams!);

English medium (30%-50%); Frisian as a subject only• 3 Trilingual schools: Dutch, English and Frisian both as a

subject and a medium


Common Underlying Proficiency(Cummins)

Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en Opvoeding

Synergy of trilingual educationthrough Common Underlying Proficiency


Synergy of multilingual education?


On base of the CUP-model / ice mountain (Cummins) students are expected to acquire more languages in relationship with each other: constructs / significants; and simultaneously.

Problem 1: in school practice the watershed is persistent.

Problem 2: comparability of different target languages with regard to levels of command and the measurement.

Conflicting policies• Ideal: EU- & CoE-policy: mother tongue + 2 languages –

multilingualism as an asset • National: stress on national language + foreign languages

– discouraging regional and migrant languages• School level: reflects those conflicting policies

• Solution: Concept of Multilingual Education (ME) fits better to EU- & CoE-policy CLIL


School & class room• CLIL should be reflected in didactics:• Teamwork is conditio sine qua non:

- teachers of subjects and medium of instruction aiming at integral approach- common target levels of language command in the target languages

• Learning strategies of pupils based on translanguaging and language use


Task/ambition of lector• Continuity of ME from primary to secondary

education; adequate teacher training• Didactic approach for teacher training:

- effective & integrated learning- aiming at results

• Development of measurement tool for comparable results of language command;Reference levels: CEFR and Anglia (and the Dutch levels)


Comparison of CEFR and Anglia levels

Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en opvoeding


CEFR AngliaC2 MastersC1 Accept proficiencyB2 AdvancedB1 IntermediateA2 Pre-intermediate

ElementaryA1 Preliminary Primary

JuniorFirst step

Comparison CEFR-Anglia levels of language proficiency

Example of CEFR levels for verb in English (Van Dale)


Achievable goals

• What is the most important goal for the learner?

Communicative language use• But what can be measured on base of the

CEFR and Anglia levels? Vocabulary, syntax, morphology, …..

Uptil now multiple choice vocabulary

1. What is the translation of paard

ko

hynder

peerd

fôle

Example of English test

• I _____________ the paper at the moment.

- read- am reading- to read- have read

Example of related Frisian test

• Ik bin de krante _____________ .

- te lêzen- oan it lêzen- lêzende- lêze

Synergy of ME and the comparable measurement of target languages


- To what extent can different testing systems show validated results concernig reference levels in the target languages?

- To what extent can the common practice in didactics be applied towards integrated language learning?

Conclusion• Comparability of achievable levels of language

command is related to:(a) the mother tongue of the student(b) complexity of target language(c) language rich input / quality of education

• Registration of progress of language command:(a) language portfolio of student(b) student monitoring system (c) language portfolio of teacher & school (d) class / school monitoring system


Conclusion

• Teacher and pupil want to see progress in their results of language learning

• Schools need to show “hard” comparable results of teaching

• Validated tests necessary / Synergy of several tests


Thank you for your attention!

Bedankt voor de belangstelling!

Tige tank foar jim omtinken!

Trilingual Education in Friesland: Challenges & Developments

Documents

Trilingual Education in Friesland: Challenges & Developments