School
Language and the Role of Multilingualism in Class
Mariska Kistemaker & Peter Broeder (both Tilburg, The Netherlands)
Abstract
(English)
It is a recurrent
observation that a source of problems with the linguistic diversity
in multicultural classrooms often lies in the differences between the
language the students use at home and the school language they are
required to speak at school. A better insight into the
characteristics of school language can yield important information
for multilingual classroom practice. In the first part of this
article, we present a theoretical framework that specifies different
aspects of five domains of skills: language, literacy, interaction,
learning, and presentation. Subsequently, results are presented from
two studies. In the first top-down study, six experts from different
European countries were interviewed. In the second bottom-up study,
58 teachers from general secondary schools in 30 cities in
North-Rhine Westphalia (Germany) participated in an online survey.
Finally, the practical relevance of the school language framework and
new opportunities for teacher training are discussed.
Key words:
school language, skills, multilingualism, teaching practice
Abstract
(Deutsch)
Eine immer
wiederkehrende Beobachtung ist, dass die Ursache von Problemen mit
der sprachlichen Vielfalt in multikulturellen Klassenzimmern oft in
den Unterschieden zwischen der Sprache, die mehrsprachige Schüler zu
Hause sprechen, und der Schulsprache, die in der Schule
vorausgesetzt wird, liegt. Mehr Klarheit über die Besonderheiten der
Schulsprache kann wichtige Informationen für die Unterrichtspraxis
aufdecken. Im ersten Teil stellen wir ein Schulsprachenmodell vor,
das verschiedene Aspekte von fünf Fertigkeitsbereichen auflistet:
Sprache, Lese- und Schreibfertigkeit, Interaktion, Lernen und
Präsentation. Im Anschluss werden Ergebnisse von zwei Studien
vorgestellt. In der ersten Top-down-Studie wurden sechs
Experten aus verschiedenen europäischen Ländern interviewt. In der
zweiten Bottom-up-Studie nahmen 58 Hauptschullehrkräfte in 30
verschiedenen Städten Nordrhein-Westfalens an einer Online-Umfrage
teil. In einer abschließenden Zusammenschau
werden die praktische Relevanz des Schulsprachenmodells und
Anregungen für die Lehreraus- und fortbildung diskutiert.
Stichwörter:
Schulsprache, Fähigkeiten, Mehrsprachigkeit, Unterrichtspraxis
1 Introduction
For
many students, problems arise with the linguistic demands at school.
A common observation is that challenges for multilingual students are
bigger than for monolingual students (e.g. Cummins 1981, Laghzaoui
2011, Thomas & Collier 2002). School success, rather than being
determined largely by cognitive (dis-)abilities, is instead strongly
influenced by the gap between the characteristics of the home
language and those of the so-called school language (or
academic language). A better insight into the characteristics
of school language yields important information for the
development of practical measures to substantially diminish the
problems encountered. This paper investigates the kind of school
language competences students need in order to be successful at
school. In addition, the focus is on the impact of students’
multilingual backgrounds on these competences and consequently on
students’ school success. In the first part of this article
different theoretical perspectives on the language habits of
schooling are discussed. Five domains including different types of
activities and tasks
that students are asked to carry out
at school are identified. Subsequently, the out-comes of two studies
are presented: a qualitative study based on interviews with European
experts and a quantitative survey held among general secondary school
teachers in Germany (North-Rhine Westphalia).
2 A Framework for School Language
The
language habits of schooling have been investigated frequently. A
distinction can be made between socio-cognitive-oriented approaches
and functional-linguistic ones. Studies that center on a
socio-cognitive understanding (e.g. Cummins 1981, 2000, 2008, Cummins
& Swain 1986) draw educators’ attention to the cognitive
challenges second language learners encounter if the relevant
linguistic features are not “automatized”
(Cummins & Swain 1986: 154) yet. Even if students appear to be
fluent in spoken informal interactions, their language proficiency
may not be sufficient for the school context. There is less
“contextual support” there than in other contexts and,
consequently, a higher dependence on linguistic means as well as a
higher “cognitive involvement” (Cummins & Swain 1986: 154).
A
functional-linguistic approach is based on the idea that language
always has a function according to the social context in which it is
used (Halliday & Hasan 1985). In this approach, a school language
register is described which comprises the linguistic features and
meanings that are typically used within the school context. Such a
register needs to be mastered by students (e.g. Aarts, Demir &
Vallen 2011, Gibbons 2003, Mohan & Beckett 2003, and
Schleppegrell 2004). The mastery of the register depends on the input
of parents and teachers rather than on contextual support.
In
both approaches, students’ school success depends on their mastery
of linguistic means. If their mastery of these linguistic means is
not sufficient (cf. socio-cognitive focus) or if they do not master
relevant school-specific features (cf. functional-linguistic focus),
students are likely to perform at a lower level than their
(monolingual) peers. Snow & Uccelli (2009) call into question the
practical relevance of these approaches for school language. A
description of linguistic features results in a “lengthy list”
(Snow & Uccelli 2009: 121), but it does not enable us to make any
statements about the hierarchy or frequency of the different
components. According to the authors, a practically relevant
framework should “direct less attention to the description of
linguistic features per se and more to the skills required in the
process of mastering [school] language” (Snow & Uccelli 2009:
112).
Based
on a competence model by Byram (1997) and a framework developed by
Thürmann & Vollmer (2011), which is currently applied in North
Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), we identified the following domains of
school language: language-internal aspects (e.g. mastery of
vocabulary, grammar), literacy (reading and writing skills),
interaction (interpersonal communication skills), learning
(content-related organizational and studying skills), and
presentation (explanatory skills). Each domain specifies competences
as well as different types of activities and tasks that students need
to be able to carry out and respond to at school (Appendix I). While
skills have a practical ring to them, basically referring to
performance abilities, and competences are associated with a
more abstract level, the two terms will be used indiscriminately. The
descriptions of what is needed in terms of language proficiency in
each of the domains speak for themselves.
2.1 The
Language Domain
The
language skills in this domain refer to school-relevant vocabulary
and range from the mastery of basic content words to that of
conjunctions, modalizing words, and abbreviations. This vocabulary is
used respecting specific rules, such as, for example, the avoidance
of informal or personal expressions (Thürmann & Vollmer 2011,
Kistemaker 2013: 8).
2.2 The
Literacy Domain
The
domain of literacy comprises the skills that are needed in order to
read and write texts on different cognitive levels. The basic element
of reading literacy is a repertoire of words as has been specified in
the first domain (language). At a high level of reading literacy,
students need analytical skills. Thus, they should be able to uncover
the intention of a text and to evaluate the text critically. With
regard to the production of texts, the spectrum ranges from the
author's ability to use accurate words to the ability to avoid
presuppositions (Thürmann & Vollmer 2011, Kistemaker 2013: 8).
2.3 The
Interaction Domain
Interaction
skills are here defined as the ability to engage towards attentive
and responsive behavior in class towards peer students as well as
towards the teacher. These skills become explicit in different
activities, from simply listening and asking relevant questions to
giving feedback or counter-arguing (Thürmann & Vollmer 2011,
Kistemaker 2013: 8).
2.4 The
Learning Domain
Learning
is defined as a process that is driven by active learning skills
(Byram 1977: 22). Organizational learning skills comprise the ability
to organize one’s own written notes or to organize work procedures.
Research learning skills range from the ability to find out the
meaning of unknown words to the ability to conduct and analyze
surveys (Thürmann & Vollmer 2011, Kistemaker 2013: 9).
2.5 The
Presentation Domain
Within
the presentation domain, the notion of skills refers to the
content (what) and the way of communicating this content (how)
at different cognitive levels. At school, different action verbs
(e.g. summarize, explain, analyze) indicate at which level
students are able to handle and to present a given message. The way
in which the message is communicated requires strategic choices that
make the message attractive to the audience. These choices include
stylistic devices, audio-visual material as well as the ability to
take the interest of the audience, i.e. fellow-students and the
teacher, into account (Thürmann &
Vollmer 2011, Kistemaker 2013: 9).
The
framework was explored in two studies. In the first study, which
focussed on the theoretical value of the framework, six experts from
different European countries and disciplines were interviewed. In the
second study, in which the experiences and opinions of practitioners
are investigated, 58 teachers from general secondary schools in
Germany (North-Rhine Westphalia) participated in a quantitative
survey.
3 Interviews with Experts
In
our first study, six experts from four different European countries
(Austria, Britain, The Netherlands, Poland, and Germany) were
interviewed. These experts were Rian Aarts (e.g. Aarts, Demir &
Vallen 2011), Mike Byram (e.g. Byram 1997), Joana Duarte (e.g. Roth
et al. 2010), Waldemar Martyniuk (e.g. Martyniuk 2007, McPake et al.
2007), Eike Thürmann, and Helmut Vollmer (e.g. Thürmann and Vollmer
2011). All these experts are involved in research and / or in
(developing) policy on school language, at a national as well as a
European level.
For
the expert interviews, a semi-structured questionnaire with
qualitative open-ended questions was developed. The starting point of
the questionnaire was the framework for
school language that we developed. The experts were provided with a
summarizing definition of each domain and were asked to discuss its
importance for the school success of students. Besides, they were
asked to describe the extent to which problems with school language
are bigger for multilingual students than for their monolingual
peers. The interviews (30 - 90 minutes in length) were conducted
between May and June 2013. For each domain of school language
distinguished in our model, we will present a synthesis of the expert
interviews (cf. Kistemaker (2013) for a more detailed report of the
interviews).
3.1 The
Language Domain
All
the experts considered adequate language skills as an important
precondition for the school success of students. However, in the
interviews, the experts emphasized that mastering the systematic
linguistic features of school language does not constitute the
only precondition for success. Knowing how to do things is
also essential. Education should be encouraging and show students the
know-how they need for being successful at school: first, the actions
that are carried out in the school context should be clarified and
then, the linguistic features that are characteristic of these
different kinds of actions should be specified.
As
far as multilingual students are concerned, it is important to
appreciate the meta-linguistic competences that these students might
have acquired at home. To concentrate strictly on mastering language
features means to take a deficit-oriented perspective, considering
solely what students lack rather than taking into account what they
already bring to school.
3.2 The
Literacy Domain
The
experts interviewed considered the domain of literacy to be the key
to the acquisition of a successful
educational language register. In many respects, school language is
similar to written language. This similarity makes reading and
writing activities in class particularly useful for the acquisition
of school-language features. According to our experts, it is
important to make a clear distinction between reception and
production, i.e. between understanding subject-specific materials on
the one hand, and responding to them in writing or speaking on the
other. Our experts also stressed that school language features are
learnt best through the production of texts. Text production should
therefore receive more attention in subject instruction because it
gives teachers a realistic idea of their students’ actual language
level and allows them to give them adequate feedback. However,
teachers should not force students to a high
degree of formality, unless this can be justified by the
purpose of the writing exercise. This means that informal writing
performances should be part of the daily teaching practice.
The
experts interviewed mentioned a number of aspects of literacy that
have, to some extent, been disregarded in the past or that are new to
the literacy domain. One such addition is the Internet, which needs
specific attention because it involves new aspects of literacy that
children need to be taught about. For instance, students should be
taught how to process the huge amount of information they get from
the Internet in a critical way. This also requires a high level of
visual literacy, as the Internet does not only provide textual
information. More visual input in class could contribute to students'
visual literacy. Besides, visual input could contribute to the
understanding of course content and might help students to overcome
language problems during the learning process.
3.3 The
Interaction Domain
All
experts considered interaction skills as important for school
success. Language obviously is an important element in the
acquisition of interaction skills. However, what exactly the language
features are that are required in interaction processes, is still
unclear. It is also unclear which type of language performance is
needed for the development of interaction competences.
The
experts interviewed emphasized the gate-keeping function of
interaction skills at school and in society. If students fail to
master specific norms of interaction, they will score lower grades at
school. Likewise, interaction skills are essential for students to be
able to participate and function adequately in society. Finally,
interaction with others is crucial to the learning process. It is in
interaction that students learn, explore, and become aware of their
own positions and their own thinking (i.e. social-constructivist
orientation).
3.4 The
Learning Domain
According
to our experts, learning skills need to be taught actively. Mastering
a foreign language and active learning are intricately linked. Most
of the learning in schools is verbal learning, takes place through
texts, through what students hear, through instruction, through
writing, talking, and giving presentations. Therefore, language
learning skills are of special importance for the learning domain.
Students need special strategies and the know-how to improve their
language skills. In their internal learning processes, students
should have a range of abilities, such as the ability to categorize,
to remember, to retrieve information, and to reflect on the entire
learning process.
3.5 The
Presentation Domain
The
experts interviewed considered presentation skills as important for
school success. It was emphasized that while non-verbal presentation
skills are quite important, language skills are an essential
precondition for any successful presentation. Regardless of how nice
a (Power Point) presentation may look, this will be of little use if
a student is not able to adequately express him- or herself verbally.
The presentation is then bound to be a failure. Students need to be
able to make clear what they know. In this respect, the experts
interviewed pointed out that presentation skills are important
because they have a relatively strong influence on the teachers’
grading behavior. However, this domain should not only refer to the
presentation of results, but also to students’ reflection on the
learning process, hence, the individual steps that lead to the
results.
3.6 Multilingualism
and School Language Problems
The
experts interviewed emphasized that, in fact, there are huge school
language problems, which are not restricted to minority groups or
immigrant groups. There are other factors besides those typical of
minority or immigrant groups, such as a lower socio-economic
background, a lower educational
background of parents, less input from parents, and (local) dialects
that may influence the gap between home language and school language.
The problems surrounding school language were first brought to the
forefront as a result of the problems encountered with migrant
children. However, now that these problems are being addressed, all
students whose academic challenges can be traced to issues of
language competence can benefit from the results achieved.
Multilingualism
can also work to students' advantage if the language used at home is
similar in register to that used at school. The more support there is
from home, the better students will adopt the school language, and
the more likely they will be to outperform native (first) language
speakers from underdeveloped or difficult environments.
4 Surveys among Teachers
In
all, 58 teachers participated in our survey, which was carried out in
May and June 2013. The teachers worked at
general secondary schools in 30 different cities in
North-Rhine Westphalia (Germany). Most of the schools
were located within the Rhine-Ruhr metropolitan region, but some
teachers also worked at schools in rather rural areas beyond the
urban agglomeration. 21 (36%) of the 58 teachers were male and 37
(64%) of them were female. An overview of the age and working
experiences of the teachers is given in table 1.
Most
of the participants were teachers of German (35%), 19% taught
mathematics and 10% were teachers of English. The second subjects
taught by these teachers were biology, physical education, physics,
arts, history, and geography, respectively.
|
Teachers’
age and their years of experience in Means (M) and Standard
Deviations (SD) (n=58)
|
||
|
|
M
|
SD
|
|
Age
|
49.43
|
10.54
|
|
General
working experience as a teacher
|
18.98
|
12.39
|
|
Experience
of teaching in multilingual classes
|
15.36
|
10.65
|
Table
1: Age and working experiences of the teachers
The
teachers filled out an online questionnaire consisting of
quantitative questions. After having provided some background
information on their age, gender, work place, experience, and the
school subjects taught, the teachers estimated to what extent their
class could be considered as being ‘multilingual’, and they
specified their students’ language backgrounds. Subsequently, they
were asked to indicate on a five-point scale the importance of four
typical aspects of each of the domains distinguished, i.e. the
aspects considered to be the least and the most cognitively demanding
ones of each sub-domain (= the first and the last aspect listed in
the tables in Appendix I). Based on these
examples, the teachers were asked about the general performance of
their students in the five domains. Finally, they were asked
to indicate on a five-point scale whether they had the impresson that
monolingual students perform better than multilingual students.
4.1 Multilingualism
in Class
On
average, the 58 teachers who participated in our survey indicated
that 41% of their students had a multilingual background (SD =
25.61). Their estimates ranged from 0 to 90 percent. Only one teacher
reported having no multilingual students in class.
Besides,
teachers named up to three languages that their multilingual students
spoke at home instead of or in addition to German. One teacher
reported no other languages besides German. One teacher named one
other language, 14 teachers named two, and 42 teachers named three
other home languages. In all, 25 different home languages were
reported. An overview of the three most frequently mentioned
languages is given in Table 2:
|
Top
three of the languages mentioned by 58 teachers
|
|
|
Languages
|
Absolute
number
|
|
Turkish
|
47
|
|
Russian
|
25
|
|
Polish
|
18
|
Table
2: Top three languages
The
most frequently reported home language was Turkish (n=47;
27%), followed by Russian (n=25; 14%) and Polish (n=18;
10%). The other languages included Albanian (9%), Kurdish (3%), and
Arabic (3%).
4.2 Importance
of the Five School Language Domains for Students’ School Success
Whereas
the experts interviewed reflected on the overall importance of each
of the school language domains distinguished, the teachers were asked
to give their opinion on the importance of four typical aspects of
each domain. In general, they estimated all these aspects as being
important for students to be successful in their course. The average
(dis)agreement on all aspects presented is illustrated in Table 3.
Within each domain, the aspects are listed in order of importance,
starting with the most important one:
|
Importance
of school language skills estimated by 54 teachers in Means and
Standard Deviations (Mean on a 5-point scale, 1 = min – 5 =
max)
|
|||
|
Domain
|
Aspect
|
M
|
SD
|
|
Language
|
|||
|
|
Knowing
course-relevant vocabulary
|
4.20
|
1.11
|
|
|
Knowing
how to indicate a location in detail
|
3.65
|
1.23
|
|
|
Knowing
how to remain impersonal by
using passive forms |
3.30
|
1.06
|
|
|
Knowing
idiomatic expressions
|
3.28
|
1.37
|
|
Literacy
|
|||
|
|
Understanding
the words in written texts
|
4.53
|
0.92
|
|
|
Using
accurate words while writing texts
|
4.10
|
1.10
|
|
|
Avoiding
presuppositions while writing texts
|
3.76
|
1.07
|
|
|
Knowing
how to review written texts
|
3.67
|
1.18
|
|
Interaction
|
|||
|
|
Listening
carefully in class
|
4.60
|
0.88
|
|
|
Answering
appropriately
|
4.44
|
0.88
|
|
|
Asking
relevant questions
|
4.40
|
0.83
|
|
|
(Counter-)Arguing
|
4.18
|
0.98
|
|
Learning
|
|||
|
|
Organizing
work procedures
|
4.24
|
1.01
|
|
|
Finding
out the meaning of unknown words
|
4.22
|
1.07
|
|
|
Organizing
written notes
|
4.20
|
0.91
|
|
|
Analyzing
the results of surveys
|
3.78
|
1.18
|
|
Presentation
|
|||
|
|
Naming
objects
|
4.42
|
1.01
|
|
|
Taking
a stance
|
4.06
|
1.16
|
|
|
Taking
the audience into account
|
3.79
|
1.05
|
|
|
Using
pauses during a presentation
|
3.60
|
1.14
|
Table
3: Importance of school language skills
The
aspects that were considered as most important by the 54 teachers
correspond to the least cognitively demanding and most basic skill of
each domain. The only exception to this result was to be found in the
domain of learning. Teachers considered the organization of work
procedures as slightly more important than the organization of
students' own written notes.
4.3 Differences
between the Performance of Multi- and Monolingual Students
Before
being asked about differences between the school language performance
of mono- and multilingual students, teachers indicated whether
students generally managed to master the aspects that were relevant
in their respective courses. The average estimates on students’
school language performance in class, ordered from the domain
mastered least to that mastered best are illustrated in Table 4:
|
General
performance in class estimated by 54 teachers in Means and
Standard Deviations (Mean on a 5-point
scale, 1 = min – 5 = max)
|
||
|
Domain
|
M
|
SD
|
|
Literacy
|
2.31
|
1.16
|
|
Presentation
|
2.38
|
1.14
|
|
Learning
|
2.51
|
1.16
|
|
Interaction
|
2.60
|
1.14
|
|
Language
|
2.61
|
1.22
|
Table
4: General performance in class
As
shown in Table 4, our teachers were dissatisfied with their students'
school language skills in all the domains, all average estimates
being at the lower end of the five-point scale. Students' performance
in literacy skills was estimated the lowest, closely followed
by their performance in presentation skills.
When
teachers were asked whether monolingual students performed better
than their multilingual peers, they agreed with respect to the
domains of language and literacy only. The average (dis)agreement on
these differences, ordered from the domain with the highest agreement
to that with the lowest agreement on differences between the
performances of mono- and multilingual students, is illustrated in
Table 5:
|
Differences
between mono- and multilingual students estimated by 54 teachers
in Means and Standard Deviations (Mean
on a 5-point scale, 1 = min – 5 = max)
|
||
|
Domain
|
M
|
SD
|
|
Language
|
3.50
|
1.13
|
|
Literacy
|
3.31
|
0.99
|
|
Interaction
|
2.82
|
1.08
|
|
Learning
|
2.78
|
1.14
|
|
Presentation
|
2.65
|
1.12
|
Table
5: Differences between mono- and multilingual students
5 Conclusions
The
findings presented in this article suggest that the adequate mastery
of language skills alone does not make a successful student. An
approach to school language that goes beyond the limits of
linguistic understanding allows us to take other competences into
account that might also be required in the school context. Both
informant groups, experts and teachers alike, considered all domains
to be highly important and the distinction in these domains as
meaningful. The teachers interviewed considered the most basic
aspects of each domain as being the most important ones, i.e.
knowing course-relevant vocabulary, understanding the words
in written texts, listening carefully in class, organizing
work procedures, and naming objects. Among the experts
interviewed, literacy appeared to represent the core domain of the
framework. Due to the considerable number of features that written
language and school language share, literacy plays a central role in
the acquisition of school language.
Aspects that were emphasized here were visual literacy,
Internet literacy and, notably, written production.
In
all the five domains, teachers’ estimates of their students’
performance were relatively low. With regard to the importance that
has been attributed to student literacy, it was in this domain in
particular that teachers were not content with their students'
performance.
This
study shows that multilingualism cannot
be the only explanation for students' low performance. In the domain
of language and literacy, multilingual students performed less well
than their monolingual peers. This is in line with one of the
findings reported by Broeder & Stokmans (2011) in the
Netherlands: teachers perceive considerable problems in teaching
literacy, especially in multilingual classrooms. However, in the
domains of interaction, learning and presentation, the students’
multilingual background cannot be held responsible for the problems
encountered, since they persisted for the entire class.
The
experts interviewed criticized the bipolar distinction in mono- and
multilingual students that is often implemented in studies and policy
measurements. They did not deny that challenges with regard to school
language can be bigger if students speak other languages at home, but
they underlined that the explanations for the problems encountered
are much more complex than that. In fact, multilingualism can even
present advantages, if the home language is spoken and used in
school-similar registers.
To
conclude, we can state that schools can no longer expect all students
to come to class with the same kind of preparation and the same
preconditions applying to them. This result has consequences for
school curricula development and teaching practice. Schools need to
include the explicit teaching of language features and competences
that are specific for the school context across all subjects. The
present study therefore supports the idea of Inclusive Academic
Language Teaching (IALT) which has been established in the
framework of the EUCIM-TE project (Roth et al. 2010). This approach
implies that teachers of all subjects are not only responsible for
teaching the content of their subject, but also the subject-relevant
language features and competences. This approach is often referred to
as language across the curriculum.
6 Discussion
The
view that the problems involved in language use at school are
restricted to multilingual students fails to capture the complexity
of the problems encountered. There is a lack of studies on other
factors besides multilingualism that may cause problems with school
language, which include factors like a lower educational background
or parents, restricted input from parents, socio-economic
constraints, and dialects spoken at home. Future discourse on school
language should therefore not just focus on the problems and the
challenges involved in multilingualism in the classroom, but also pay
attention to the positive effects of multilingualism.
The
present study has revealed the strong need for the integration of the
relevant aspects of school language in subject teaching. An important
precondition for the implementation of school-language related
aspects in the daily teaching practice is a certain awareness of the
problem among subject teachers that goes beyond the basic aspects of
school language. The lack of awareness in practice calls for the
development of appropriate modules in teacher education at
university, in pre-service training after university and in
in-service training (Roth et al. 2010). In the framework of the
EUCIM-TE project, a Core Curriculum for Inclusive Academic
Language Teaching has been developed. It defines core competences
of teachers and serves as a guideline for the implementation in the
different national educational systems in Europe (Roth et al. 2010).
In
this study, several aspects were identified that could and should be
paid attention to in teacher training. The domain of literacy has
been established as a core domain of school language and could be a
starting point for practical implementation. However, the focus on
reading literacy as it is established in the PIRLS framework (Mullis
et al. 2009) needs to shift to the written production of texts.
Especially in subject instruction, there is a need for more writing
practice. A bigger number of writing tasks in class would allow
teachers to gain a deeper insight into the actual school language
performance of their students, make it possible for them to give
explicit feedback and to make their own expectations clear. In the
meantime, students could practice their school language skills and
become more aware of the function of school language.
Appendix: Detailed Description of
the Five Domains1
|
Language
|
||
|
|
||
|
Words
|
|
Application
|
|
Course-relevant
vocabulary
|
Indicating
a location in detail
|
|
|
Conjunctions
|
Indicating
time by using the correct verb forms and adverbs
|
|
|
Prepositions
|
Making
comparisons
|
|
|
Modalizing
words and expressions
|
Nominalisation
|
|
|
Common
abbreviations
|
Highlighting
ways and means
|
|
|
Abstract
words
|
Decoding
new words
|
|
|
Loan
words from Greek or Latin
|
Avoiding
subordinate clauses
|
|
|
Prefixes
|
|
Avoiding
informal expressions
|
|
Idiomatic
expressions
|
|
Retaining
the impersonal nature of statements through the use of the
pas-sive
|
|
Literacy
|
||
|
Reading
|
|
Writing
|
|
Understanding
the words in written texts
|
Using
accurate words while writing texts
|
|
|
Identifying
the main points in written texts
|
Differentiating
between basic text types
|
|
|
Extracting
relevant information from documents or media
|
Applying
basic rules of sentence construction
|
|
|
Understanding
diagrams, tables, draw-ings and charts
|
Using
right spelling and punctuation
|
|
|
Recognizing
the structure and function of documents
|
Producing
simple handwritten texts
|
|
|
Understanding
the outline of complex texts
|
Reporting
and summarizing
|
|
|
Taking
into account the context of a text
|
Using
diagrams, tables, drawings and charts
|
|
|
Making
links between different texts
|
|
Guiding
the reader
|
|
Revealing
intentions, arguments and outlook of a text
|
|
Paying
attention to the consistency of the text
|
|
Reviewing
written work
|
|
Avoiding
presuppositions while writing texts
|
|
Interaction
|
||
|
Individual
|
|
Responsive
|
|
Listening
carefully in class
|
Answering
appropriately
|
|
|
Clarifying
tasks
|
Reacting
appropriately to statements in class
|
|
|
Asking
relevant questions
|
Giving
feedback to the teacher or peers
|
|
|
|
(Counter-)Arguing
|
|
|
Learning
|
||
|
Organization
|
|
Research
for information
|
|
Organizing
own written notes
|
Finding
out the meaning of unknown words
|
|
|
Organizing
work procedures
|
Doing
literature research in libraries and the Internet
|
|
|
|
Preparing
interviews and surveys
|
|
|
|
Conducting
interviews and surveys
|
|
|
|
Analyzing
the results of interviews and surveys
|
|
|
Presentation
|
||
|
Message
|
|
Audience-
orientation
|
|
Naming
and defining objects
|
Using
pauses during a presentation
|
|
|
Summarizing
and structuring information
|
Drawing
the attention to following statements
|
|
|
Keeping
a (chrono-)logical order
|
Making
use of stylistic devices: intona-tion, volume, rhythm, pauses,
non-verbal communication
|
|
|
Describing,
portraying, reporting, and narrating
|
Making
use of audio-visual material
|
|
|
Explaining
and clarifying
|
Taking
the audience into account
|
|
|
Assessing
and judging
|
|
|
|
Arguing
and taking up a stance
|
|
|
References
Aarts, Rian,
Serpil Demir & Ton Vallen (2011). Characteristics of academic
language register occurring in caretaker-child interaction:
Development and validation of a coding scheme. In: Language
Learning 61, 1173-1221.
Broeder, Peter &
Mia Stokmans (2011). Bridging the language gap. Language problems
encountered in teaching linguistically diverse classrooms. In:
Babylonia 11, 64-67.
Byram, Mike
(1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative
competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, Mike
(2008). Plurilingualism, education for plurilingualism and the
languages in and of education.In: Ivšek, Milena (Hrsg.) (2008).
Languages in Education. Ljubljana: National Education
Institute of the RS, 19-26.
Cummins, Jim
(1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in
Canada: A reassessment. In: Applied Linguistics 2, 132-149.
Cummins, Jim
(2000). Putting language proficiency in its place: Responding to
critiques of the conversational / academic language distinction.
(http://web1.tolerance.org/tdsi/sites/tolerance.org.tdsi/files/assets/general/Putting_Language_Proficiency_in_Its_Place_Jim_Cummins.pdf;
28.10.2013).
Cummins, Jim
(2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the
distinction. In: Street, Brian & Nancy H. Hornberger (Hrsg.)
(2008). Encyclopedia of language and education. New York, NY:
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 71-83.
Cummins, Jim &
Merrill Swain (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of
theory, research and practice. London: Longman.
Gibbons, Pauline
(2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL
students in a content-based classroom. In: TESOL Quarterly 37,
247-273.
Halliday,
Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan (1985). Language, context, and
text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria:
Deakin University.
Kistemaker,
Mariska (2013). Do you speak ‘school language’? Towards a
conceptualization for multilingual classroom practice in Europe.
[Unpublished Master’s thesis].
Tilburg University.
Kistemaker,
Mariska, Peter Broeder & Carel Van Wijk (2013). Handling
multilingualism in secondary education: A teachers’ perspective.
In: Proceedings of Inaugural European Conference on Language
Learning "Shifting Paradigms: Informed Responses". Nagoya:
IAFOR, 345-356.
Laghzaoui,
Mohammadi (2011). Emergent academic language at home and at
school: A longitudinal study of 3- to 6-year-old Moroccan Berber
children in the Netherlands [PhD dissertation]. Tilburg
University: BOXPress Oisterwijk.
Martyniuk,
Waldemar. (Hrsg.) (2007). Towards a Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages of School Education. Krakau:
Universitas Publishers.
McPake, Joanna,
Teresa Tinsley, Peter Broeder, Laura Mijares, Sirkku Latomaa &
Waldemar Martyniuk (2007). Valuing all languages in Europe.
Strasbourg / Graz: ECML Council of Europe Publishing.
Mohan,
Bernard & Gulbahar H. Beckett (2003). A functional
approach to research on content-based language learning: Recasts in
causal explanations. In: The Modern Language Journal 87,
421-432.
Mullis, Ina V.
S., Michael O. Martin, Ann M. Kennedy, Kathleen L. Trong & Marian
Sainsbury (2009). PIRLS 2011. Assessment framework. Chestnut
Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International StudyCenter.
Roth,
Hans-Joachim, Joana Duarte, Peter Broeder & Mia Stokmans et al.
(2010). European core curriculum for inclusive academic language
teaching (IALT): An instrument for training pre- and in-service
teachers and educators. (www.eucim-te.eu;
28.10.2013).
Schleppegrell,
Mary J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistic
perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Snow, Catherine
E. & Paola Uccelli (2009). The challenge of academic language.
In: Olson, David R. & Nancy Torrance (Hrsg.) (2009). The
Cambridge handbook of literacy. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press, 112-133.
Thomas, Wayne P.
& Virginia P. Collier (2002). A national study of school
effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic
achievement [Final report]. University of California, SantaCruz,
CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence
(CREDE).
Thürmann, Eike
& Helmut J. Vollmer (2011). A framework of language
competences across the curriculum: Language(s) in and for inclusive
education in Northrhine-Westfalia (Germany).
(http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/checklist_nord-rhein-westphalia_en.pdf;
21.05.2013).
______________________
