WORKSHOP 4 DISCUSSION PAPER
Introduction
Language is a major factor in human society because is fundamental in forming and expressing both individual and group identities. Language is also a tool of prime importance in communication among individuals and between groups. When considering ways of improving ‘learning to live together’, the role that language and language communication play in human interaction, should certainly be considered. Mankind has developed thousands of languages, most of which are mutually unintelligible. Most individuals are born into and brought up in only one language.
The languages of many individuals, however, have no or only a very small place in education; many nations and communities are plurilingual and, therefore, have grave internal communication problems to cope with; and, on the international level, the languages of both the majority of nations and their individuals have no status. Although for each individual person his or her own language is a unique and priceless commodity -not in the least because of the close connection between language and culture- and although diversity of languages and cultures may be equally highly priced, it is this diversity that at the same time causes grave problems, both for individual persons and for societies.
There are language communication problems at a variety of levels and in a variety of domains. When it comes to ‘learning to live together better’, the most pressing problem-areas from a politician’s point of view may well be: (1) the different ‘status’ of languages, nationally and internationally, (2) the importance of language(s) of instruction, (3) foreign language(s) instruction, and (4) language learning and teaching strategies. In each of these areas important developments may be observed and many political decisions wait to be taken.
Linguistic diversity: conflicts and consequences
Only very few countries are truly monolingual; some ‘pretend’ to be monolingual –usually by ignoring or underplaying the existence of minority languages. Multilingual countries display great variety in their choice of the language(s) for national intercourse. Often a choice is made for one language, occasionally two or three. The language chosen is usually spoken by a majority of the population. But, sometimes either one of the few ‘international’ languages -often English- or a, more neutral, ‘lingua franca’, are adopted.
Whatever the choice, the main objective is usually to achieve improvement of the national communication process by reducing and simplifying linguistic variety. Often, a related but not always articulated objective is building a more homogeneous nation and fostering the national identity. Reduction of cultural variety is often the result. The promotion of a language – nationally and internationally- has a lot to do with exercising economic and political power. Even if it is common to defend the view that no one should be treated as inferior because of the (minority) status of his or her language, it is a fact that in a multilingual communicative setting mother-tongue speakers of the preferred language are at an advantage over the non- natives of that language. However, the national or international supremacy of a language is usually the outcome and not the cause of economic and political power.
It is generally acknowledged that ‘simplification’ of multilingual situations – nationally or internationally-, however much accepted as a necessity, holds a threat of both linguistic and cultural uniformity. On the other hand, fighting the loss of diversity by (over-)stressing the need for diversity, may lead to intolerance and rejection of other cultures. Moreover, statements regarding the dramatic loss of linguistic and cultural variety are not always devoid of rhetorical exaggeration. However closely linked language and culture are, partial or –for that matter- full loss of a language does not necessarily mean a concomitant loss of (part of) the related culture; as every individual language has the capacity to express various (sub-)cultures, so every individual (sub-)culture may be expressed in different languages. In a similar way, the monopoly position that a language may be accorded in international and global communication, may be overrated. ‘Global’ languages are normally used for specific purposes only, in a restricted number of language use situations. And the more they are used by speakers of more and more different language backgrounds, the more the non- natives will take over the ‘ownership’ of the particular, ‘global’, brand of the language in question. The natives, consequently, will feel themselves ‘disowned’ and to them the –more and more culturally ‘neutral’- new brand of their language may eventually appear as foreign as it may do to the non-native users of it.
The preceding insight is of particular relevance, it seems, for the internal communication policy of international organisations, like the European Union, in which many different languages come together. If for practical reasons a drastic restriction of the number of working languages is required, a reduction to just one implies less undue preference to the native speakers of that language than is often supposed.
- Which are the consequences related to 'learning to live together' that can be drawn from the diverse 'status' of languages?
The importance of the language(s) of instruction
A major factor determining success at school is the language in which the instruction is given. In general, it is a serious handicap to be instructed in another language than one’s own. But because of a great many and a variety of reasons and circumstances instruction through the mother-tongue is very often not made available to pupils. Sometimes this is inevitable, sometimes it is by design.
Languages may be so small that there are no instructional materials and/or teachers to give instruction in them. In other cases pupils, indigenous and/or immigrant, may have to be made acquainted quickly with the national language surrounding them, to make sure that they will be able to function as citizens of the country. Where there is a choice, in primary education one most profitably starts with instruction through the mother-tongue; then, instruction in the non-native national language is introduced by its side; and, eventually, all instruction is given in the national language only. Pupils being instructed in a non-native language right from the start usually fall behind seriously.
However, there are other reasons for deliberately abstaining from using the mother-tongue. It may be that for all further and higher education pupils will later have to go to educational institutes abroad. Or, instruction is given in a major foreign language because one hopes to achieve a higher level of command in it, more quickly than is habitual.
To sum up, there is no model that may be advocated as the best for all countries. Each set of circumstances requires its own assessment, which may lead to different outcomes.
- Which considerations should be taken in the choice of the language(s) of instruction in basic education related to relevant factors holding for that specific situation?
- Is there a particular model which can be the best for all educational systems?
Controversial foreign language(s) instruction
A great variety of factors, and their combination, differ widely from country to country. There is the internal language situation of the country, but also of the country in its relations with neighbouring countries and with the international organisations in which it participates. There are factors which may be called socio-economic (e.g. foreign trade), and also many psychological and educational factors. As with ‘language(s) of instruction’ issue, there is not one model- solution applicable to all situations for foreign language(s) instruction.
What each individual country must do, is to define its own needs pattern in the first place and, on the basis of that, develop a proper foreign language learning and teaching policy. Needs are of various types (individual vs societal, but also commercial vs cultural) and the weighting of these categories one against the other is a separate issue; should one attach greater weight to the commercial needs of the country and its citizens than to the cultural needs? Under all circumstances, the point of departure should be the needs of the country itself. No foreign language should be taught ‘for its own sake’, for instance to prevent it from becoming extinct.
The policy drawn up eventually should encompass all sectors –‘school’ and ‘out- of-school’- of the educational spectrum. Each sector may have to play its own specific role. Too often the burden of teaching has been laid in secondary education. In recent years, more and more primary education has been given a role to play. That in itself is a good thing. But, too often, it seems, early learning of foreign languages is put forward as an argument in cases, where one is just desperately looking for a panacea for failing secondary school teaching.
Finally, since a large part of the vast effort in foreign language teaching is necessitated by the requirements of international mobility of students and workers, there is also a growing need for measuring language competence –and for quality assurance- across languages and across national educational systems. In the search for ways to get to grips with the problems of international comparisons, in the European context important progress has recently been made by the development of the Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio.
- Which elements should be taken into consideration when an individual country is to define, in the first place, its own needs pattern (related to foreign language teaching) and, on this basis, develop a proper foreign language learning and teaching policy?
- Which are the advantages of a national teaching policy for foreign language that encompass not just secondary education but all educational sectors?
- Which are the conditions required for full international mobility related to systems of certification and of quality assurance for foreign language competence?
Language learning and teaching strategies
Learners are involved most directly at the level of the classroom, where in first language teaching (flt) and foreign or second language teaching (slt) takes place. Therefore, the three main didactic questions to be tackled are: a) what to teach?, b) how to teach?, and c) how to assess learner achievements? Furthermore, hardly ever are ‘best practices’ available that are applicable to all actual flt or slt situations. Much, therefore, depends on the qualifications of the body of teachers. Teachers must be properly trained and, among other things, should have a minimum of insight into the latest state of affairs in didactic theory. Slt-teachers should have a high level of competence in the language they have to teach. However, native language competence in itself does not qualify a person to teach the language to non-natives. A few points are of special interest with regard to each of these questions.
What to teach? ‘Needs’ are of prime importance in particular when the final objectives of the curriculum are defined. ‘Psychological’ and ‘educational’ factors play their part especially when the day-to- day classroom programme has to be given shape. They are factors that, for example, have to do with characteristics of the learner, of the teacher, of the subject matter and of the educational context. Some of the issues that have a special educational policy relevance are the following.
As with other school subjects, not everything that is in the final objectives of the curriculum does actually have to be learned or taught in school. Often learners will pick up part of the programme objectives outside of school. A case in point is the influence of the omnipresence in Dutch society of the English language, which alleviates the school’s task to a great extent.
In second language competence the objectives to be achieved for the (sub-skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking are not necessarily the same. There has even been a long tradition of teaching reading only. Of late, ‘partial competences’ have again come under consideration, especially in countries where slt claims large proportions of curricular time. In the latest curricular changes in Dutch general secondary education the obligation for English, French and German as final examination subjects for all pupils has been re- instituted. However, the obligation for the latter two languages concerns only the reading competence. Such a restriction of the final objective to one skill should not lead to the misconception that the other skills cannot have a place in the classroom at all or that the particular partial competence can and should only be learned and taught through that skill.
How to teach? In slt the prime concern is the acquisition of competence in the language. Contrary to what may be the case in flt, an understanding of the structural make-up of the language will normally not be part of the objectives nowadays. In discussions of the didactics of slt the contribution that the learning of explicitly formulated rules of grammar can make to the acquisition of the desired competence, has always been –and still is- a moot point. A full and fully automatized command of the underlying rule-system is a prerequisite for high-level performance in a second language. In first language competence such a command seems to be a given thing that comes about in a ‘natural’ way, without any learning of explicit rules. In slt there have always been, in one form or another, the opposing theories of the ‘grammar-translation’ method and the ‘direct method’. So much is clear, neither theory can lay claims to universal validity for all learners under all circumstances.
The form that classroom teaching takes, greatly depends both on the characteristics of the learners, the teacher and the subject matter and on their interaction. No specific setting is exactly like any other setting., which means that there is a great deal of variation of ‘best practice’ in actual teaching. Some principles, however, hold under all circumstances. As a rule, skill acquisition requires a great deal of actual practice by the learners; not the avoidance of mistakes but the attempt at second language communication should be the principal concern. The learners should also be presented with lots of second language material, preferably authentic. The learning tasks set should at all times be challenging; the demands put on the learners should tax them to the utmost.
How to assess learner achievements? Assessment of both on-going learning performance and final achievements is necessary. Procedures, tests and examination formats applied should result in a valid and reliable assessment of the progress made by the learners. In theory, for tests to be valid they do not have to require genuine skill performance –think of the very common multiple-choice format-, but the backlash that examination requirements and formats may have both on the learners and on classroom teaching, poses serious problems. Assessment matters should be handled with great care, especially in cases where the body of teachers is not adequately trained or well- informed.
- Which are the main objectives of curriculum for the first foreign teaching language that should be guaranteed for all learners? Which strategies can be developed to help school in this task?
- Can any teaching theory – i.e. ‘grammar-translation’ method or ‘direct method’ - claim to universal validity for all learners under all circumstances?
- Which are the risks of assessment, provided that, to be valid, procedures chosen do not have to represent faithfully the skills defined in the objectives?
[ICE Menu - - Contact us] Last update:8-08-2001
