Plurilingualism – can it help solve the current crisis in our language education?

1. Plurilingualism – can it help solve the current crisis in our language education? Sauli Takala Kauppakirjeenvaihdosta plurilingvaalisuuteen Turun kauppakorkeakoulu September 26,2009

2. CRISIS: • the turningpoint for betterorworse in a short-lived and usuallyseverediseaseorfever • an unstableorcrucialtimeotstate of affairs , esp. onewhoseoutcomewillmake a decisivedifference for betterorworse

3. Do we have a crisis in our language education? • Undoubtedly - reasons to follow. • Several critical remarks voiced over a long period of time. Predictions of problems were corroborated. • Developments were easy to predict. Not to do so must have been due either to incompetence , indifference or a hidden agenda to weaken language education. • The worst is not over. • Difficult to reverse the trend.

4. Is ”crisis” an exaggeration? • Golden period in the 1960s and 1970s: • Several important committees: major reforms proposed • All pupils started to study languages: 2 or 3 • Language study introduced in vocational education • Higher education: LSP taught by Language Centres • Matriculation Exam moved from translation to more comprehensive testing formats • Language proficiency started to improve in the population • General atmosphere: strong optimism, intensive development work, intensive in-service education.. • Now: obvious irresolution, lack of vision,helplessness, growing pessimism

9. CRISIS: Whathashappened? • Need for plurilingualcompetencehasincreased – study of languageshasdecreased. • Level of requiredproficiencytends to increase – cuts in timeallowancemakethisdifficultorimpossible. • Levels of proficiencyareprescribed for severalcontexts – in manycasestheycannotbereached, and certificatesarenotreliable. • Severalactions/decisionstakenbyseveralofficialagenciesover a long period of timehavetended to underminesupport for languagestudy. Public rhetoricsupportslanguagestudy, concreteactionsaremissing. • There is an association whichhasbeen and is workingactively to undermine the teaching and learning of our national languageSwedish. • 6) Good role models for multilingualism and –culturalism are largely missing (exception:current Minister of Foreign Affairs).

10. What is plurilingualism?

11. Pluri and multi • Multilingualism of terrirories – plurilingualism of people/individuals • Plurilingualism – the ability to use langs for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction where a person, viewed as a social agent, has proficiency of varying degrees, in several langs, and experience of several cultures. This is not seen as a superposition or juxtaposition of distinct competences or even composite compositions on which the user may draw (CEFR, 2001, 168)

12. What is plurilingualism? The CEFR describes plurilingualism in the following way: The plurilingual approach emphasises the fact that as an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or college, or by direct experience), he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. In different situations, a person can call flexibly upon different parts of this competence to achieve effective communication with a particular interlocutor.

13. Plurilingualism - how do language choices support it ?

14. Language Choices, A1, 3rd grade (%) 1975 1984 1994 1998 2002 2005 English 88,9 90,2 86,9 87,7 89,7 89.5 Swedish 2,7 8,1 3,1 2,0 1,5 1,1 Finnish 5,1 ? 4,6 4,8 5,3 5,,5 German 0,2 0,8 4,0 2,9 2,0 1,4 French 0,0 0,4 1,1 1,6 1,0 0,8 Russian 0,0 0,5 0.2 0,2 0,1 0,2 Sami 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

15. Language Choices, A2, 5th grade (%) 1994 1998 2002 2005 English 9,6 10,2 8,8 8,3 Swedish 1,7 6,6 8,4 7,7 Finnish 0,5 0,5 0,2 0,3 German 4,1 16,2 12,3 8,6 French 0,9 3,1 3,3 2,9 Russian 0,1 0,5 0,3 0,3 Sami 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0 Other 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2

16. Language Choices, B2, Grades 8-9 (%) 1984 1994 2002 2005 2007 33,9 39,4 17,5 14,1 8,7

17. Language Study at the end of Upper Sec. School, 2007 English 33 011 99,3% Swedish A 2 564 Swedish B1 27 091 Total 99,2% French A 733 French B2 1302 French B3 1605 Total 19,3% 9,3% 26,5% German A 2637 German B2 2482 German B3 2221 Total 33,2% 27.2% 37,5% Russian A 239 Russian B2 90 Russian B3 519 Total 5,6% 3,8% 6,9% Spanish A 6 B2 33 B3 1361 11,1% 6,3% 14,7%

18. Plurilingualism – what do Matriculation Examination statistics show?

19. Number of test takers in the Matriculation Examination, 1998-2007

20. Number of students in the Matriculation Exam The upper figures denote A/long course and the lower line C/short course; the year in brackets indicates the year when a new syllabus was introduced

21. Number of test takers in the Matriculation Language Examination, 1965-2007

23. Plurilingualism – what do lesson allocation trends indicate?

24. Number of Lessons

25. Advances and defeats in language-in-education policy • - Until 1960´s - in the dual school system the study of foreign languages was limited to the secondary school • + since 1970 ´s – comprehensive school brought along the obligatory study of 2 FLs; a third language optional: 1+2 > 1+3 • + end-of 1970s – Language-in-Education Committee proposal (1978/60); language planning at national, regional, municipal and school level; decentralisation starts gaining ground • 1980’s –some gains but also clear losses • - Course-based upper secondary school: study of optional language (C/D, B2/B3) became optional for the long maths students; drastic drop in study and in the amount of optional matriculation language tests • + language education became a regular element in all vocational education • + language requirements in higher education became more uniform; Languages Centers gained a clear status; adult education received more attention • + 1990´s – increased attention to needs of the world of work; Foreign Language Certificates (YKI) created; periodical & representative survey of Adult Education introduced a self-assessment of language proficiency • + 1990´s – legislation allowing immersion and CLIL; CLIL expanded • - 2005 – test of Swedish/Finnish became optional in the Matriculation Examination; dramatic cut in test takers in Swedish

26. What level is attained in language education in Finland?

28. How to accommodate the national grading and reporting system and the CEFR (levels)? • Matriculation exam (150+ yrs old!) grades (7 levels) from top to pass: roughly 5%, 15%, 20%, 24%, 20%, 11% <> CEFR 6 levels C2-A1 • One solution: by means of conversion tables/ charts, which show how national grades are related to the CEF levels.

29. A rough time/level (English) estimate based on CEFR: • In the Finnish context (L1 And L2 not related): • Getting from A1.1 (age 9/10) to the average of B1 (age 15/16) takes about 300 lessons and perhaps 100 hours of homework -> 400 hours. • Getting from the average of B1 to the average of B2 (at 18/19) takes about 250 lessons and probably some 200-250 hours of homework -> 450 – 500 lessons/hours • A1 -> B2: 800 – 900 hours I could never have predicted such develop-ments!

31. Increased transparency and comparability

32. Can plurilingualism help in the crisis?

33. Typical myths/misconceptions about language education – need of rethinking: • Europe is outstanding in being multilingual and –cultural (only 2% of the world´s languages!) • Normal situation: one country, one language (monolingual – multilingual) – a myth • ¨Normal situation: one person, one language (monolingual – plurilingual) – a myth • Languages are difficult to learn; require linguistic ability (cf. Laurén) – a myth • Language education is almost exemplary in Finland, the ”PISA-land” - becoming a myth

34. Some theses • Everyone is plurilingual in some sense (local dialect, standard language, professional terminology, other languages) • ”Normality” of becoming plurilingual should be pointed out and publicised • Advantages of plurilingualism should be spelled out - empowerment • Languages are learned formally, nonformally and informally; language learning is not the sole responsibility of formal provision • Plurilingualism can be promoted in formal, nonformal as well as informal contexts • Integration of all language education – need for a coherent approach and curriculum design: plurilingualism worth exploring

35. Der Sprachunterricht muss (wieder) umkehren! (cf. Wilhelm Vïetor 1882) • Return to the earlier model of systematic language-in-education planning (”Numminen committees”) – language-in-education planning needs to be ”politicized” and seen as strongly values-related rather than to continue as administrative/technical social engineering • The consequences of the strongly expanded electivity need to be assessed and the common core needs to be strengthened • Teaching and testing of speaking needs to be an essential and sometimes the dominant element of language education, including the Matriculation Examination • Curricula need to be developed so that integration between the mother tongue and the other languages is much strenghtened, and integration of languages and other subjects is also systematically promoted; • The new curricula must take integration and plurilingualism as the starting point • Teacher education must be reformed to make CLIL and immersion easier to implement

36. Pluri: Utilizing the potential • Not only formal language study/ language education provision – Language-in-education planning, • But also nonformal and informal language learning/ acquisition

37. Pluri: Utilizing the potential • ”English sticks to your clothes” • Kees de Bot: Dutch learners learn more English informally than formally • Erkki Pitkänen: study of English vocabulary knowledge at the outset of formal study, 1984 - 1985 • 3rd graders: knew 13-15 words • 7th graders: knew 35 words • 8th graders: knew 45 words • Beginning of upper secondary: 105 words • Swedish-speaking pupils knew more words (cf. M. Björlund 2008)

38. Utilizing the potential: structural similarity • Assumption: English comes first; utilize it fully • Germanic languages show strong ”family resemblence”: German, Dutch, Swedish, English • Romance languages show strong ”family resemblence”: French, Spanish, Italian • Slavic languages show strong ”family resemblence”: Russian, Bulgarian, Polish, Serbo-Croatian • Finno-Ugric: Finnish, Estonian show family resemblance, Hungarian not

39. Utilizing the potential:Cognates (vs faux amis) • Assumption: English comes first; utilize it fully • English has been both a very active ”borrower and lender” • French: c. 25% of the most frequent words common with English • Spanish: also 25% • German: hundreds of cognates (cf. Dutch) • Swedish: like German • Finnish: very few cognates – a clearly bigger learning load in the beginning

40. Attitudinal change needed: Stressing what one can • Not: ”I can´t read this text: I had only 3 years of German in school!” • But: ”It should not be that difficult: after all, I had 3 years of German at school! With some effort I can do it.”

41. Der Sprachunterricht muss umkehren! • Languages are learned at different rates. • Nonformal and informal learning support varies. • >This must be reflected in time allocation.

42. Plurilingualism – a sketch for Finland • Premises: • Official bilingualism: 1 + 2 > 2 + 2 • English proficiency: informal learning a considerable positive impact (”English sticks to your clothes.”) • Learning outcomes in English are good, somewhat less would, in fact, do. There is no need to foster further the Matthew effect in the case of English • Less time for formal learning in school for English needed than in other languages • ESP can be promoted effectively in tertiary education and in the postgraduate stage • English is learned considerably in the job – specialised learning • THUS: the time released from English can be used for other languages in the interest of plurilingualism

43. Thesis: Chances to promote plurilingualism are better in the upper secondary level than in the comprehensive school.

44. Number of courses in the upper secondary school: a sketch

45. The Way Ahead

46. Language education is based on the principles of lifelong learning, continuity of education, flexible modes of learning and equality. Language education adopts a functional approach according to which language competence is seen as the ability to act in a language use situation in a way which is appropriate linguistically, socially and culturally. Language education is a whole which comprises the mother tongues, foreign languages and minority languages without seeing them to be in competition to each other. This promotes both individual plurilingualism and societal multilingualism. It supports social and societal empowerment. (KIEPO)

47. The policy making and development concerning language-in-education is co-ordinated and professional and is based on the anticipation of future language competence needs and on relevant research. Learning outcomes and the impact of language education and related costs are evaluated systematically and comprehensively. Language education policy draws on an analysis the current national pool of linguistic resources and anticipates prospective language competence needs , among others, from the point of view of the world of work. (KIEPO, 37, 454-4559

48. The Committee for European Languages and Cultures, a third major commission chaired by Jaakko Numminen, considered in its report in early 1991 that it is important that pupils and students are encouraged to fully utilize the opportunities that our educational system offers for obtaining a good and many-sided knowledge of foreign languages. It is equally important that foreign language teaching in our educational system is systematically developed, so that it can meet the increasing challenges. The Committee emphasized that Finland must be among the leading nations in foreign language teaching.

49. Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas! We often feel that we are helpless in the present drift to decreased plurilingualism. We need to strengthen our resolve to effect a change.

50. Some references • Hildén, R. & Takala, S. (2007) Relating descriptors of the Finnish school scale to the CEF overall scales of communicative activities. (pdf available from sjtakala@hotmail.com; raili.hilden@helsinki.fi) • Kaftandjieva, F. (2004) Standard setting. Section B in Reference Supplement to the Manual for relating language examinations to the CEFR. Council of Europe (available at: http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Default-en-asp) • Kaftandjieva, F. & Takala, S. (2002) Council of Europe Scales of Language Proficiency: A validation study.In Common European Framework of Reference. Case studies, Council of Europe, 106-129. (pdf available from sjtakala@hotmail.com)