Trilingual Education in Friesland: Challenges & Developments

1. TrilingualEducation in Friesland: Challenges & Developments Alex M.J. Riemersma & Reitze J. Jonkman Lector Frisian & Multilingualism in Education ICLASP, 23th JUNE, 2012

2. Frisian in Fryslân (Netherlands) • Autochthonousminoritylanguage • Western Germaniclanguage • Spoken in oneprovince (of 12) of the Netherlands: Fryslân • Fryslân has 640,000 inhabitants • 55% has Frisian as mothertongue (= 350.000 speakers) • BUT: Frisian is successful as a second language: • 65% canreadFrisian; 74% canspeakFrisian; • 94% comprehendsFrisian.

3. MultilingualPrimaryEducationin Fryslân • Mainstreamprimaryeducation (500 schools): (a) 400 schools: limitedmultilingualeducation: mainly Dutch + English as a subject; limiteduse of Frisian as a medium; (b) 100 schools: semi-multilingualeducation: mainly Dutch + English as a subject; Frisian medium for (half) school day • Trilingualprimaryeducation (about 45 schools): - Dutch, Frisianand English as subject and medium - aiming at integratedlanguagelearning Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

4. 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 • Consciouslyseparateduse of languages: person / time / themes

5. Trilingual education in Fryslân • Developments:2012 > 50 primary schools (= 10%) • Continuitytosecondaryeducation:2012: 3 pilot schools with the concept of multilingualclil (= medium of instruction) • Teacher training:2011: Trilingualstream2011: Minor (30 ECTS)

6. MultilingualSecondaryEducationin Fryslân • Mainstreamsecondaryeducation: - Dutch dominant- English andFrisian as a subject only- limiteduse of Frisian as a medium in oraluseonly • Experiments in progress: • 3 CLIL-schools: Dutch (obligatoryforexams!); English medium (30%-50%); Frisianas a subject only • 3 Trilingual schools: Dutch, English andFrisianboth as a subject and a medium Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

7. Common UnderlyingProficiency(Cummins) Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en Opvoeding

8. Synergy of trilingual educationthrough Common UnderlyingProficiency Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en Opvoeding

9. Synergy of multilingual education? On base of the CUP-model / ice mountain (Cummins) students are expectedtoacquire more languages in relationshipwitheachother: constructs / significants; andsimultaneously. Problem 1: in school practice the watershed is persistent.Problem 2: comparability of different target languageswithregardto levels of commandand the measurement. Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en Opvoeding

10. Conflictingpolicies • Ideal: EU- & CoE-policy: mother tongue + 2 languages – multilingualism as anasset • National: stress on nationallanguage + foreignlanguages– discouragingregionaland migrant languages • School level: reflectsthoseconflictingpolicies • Solution: Concept of MultilingualEducation (ME) fits bettertoEU- & CoE-policy  CLIL Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

11. School & class room • CLIL shouldbereflected in didactics: • Teamwork is conditio sine qua non:- teachers of subjects and medium of instructionaiming at integral approach- common target levels of languagecommand in the target languages • Learning strategies of pupilsbased on translanguagingandlanguageuse Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

12. Task/ambition of lector • Continuity of ME fromprimarytosecondaryeducation; adequate teacher training • Didactic approach for teacher training:- effective & integratedlearning- aiming at results • Development of measurement tool forcomparableresults of languagecommand;Reference levels: CEFRandAnglia (and the Dutch levels) Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

13. Comparison of CEFR andAnglia levels Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en opvoeding

14. Comparison CEFR-Anglia levels of languageproficiency Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

15. Example of CEFR levels forverb in English(Van Dale) Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en opvoeding

16. Achievable goals • What is the most important goal for the learner? Communicativelanguageuse • But whatcanbemeasured on base of the CEFR andAnglia levels? Vocabulary, syntax, morphology, …..

17. Uptilnowmultiple choicevocabulary

18. Example of English test • I _____________ the paper at the moment. • read • am reading • to read • have read

19. Example of relatedFrisian test • Ik bin de krante _____________ . • telêzen • oan it lêzen • lêzende • lêze

20. Synergyof ME and the comparablemeasurement of target languages • Towhatextentcan different testing systems show validatedresultsconcernigreference levels in the target languages? • Towhatextentcan the common practice in didacticsbeappliedtowardsintegratedlanguagelearning? Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en opvoeding

21. Conclusion • Comparability of achievable levels of languagecommand is relatedto:(a) the mother tongue of the student(b) complexity of target language(c) languagerich input / quality of education • Registration of progress of languagecommand:(a) language portfolio of student(b) student monitoring system (c) language portfolio of teacher & school (d) class / school monitoring system Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma

22. Conclusion • Teacher and pupil want toseeprogress in theirresults of languagelearning • Schools needto show “hard” comparableresults of teaching • Validatedtests necessary / Synergyof several tests

23. TrilingualEducation in Friesland: Challenges & Developments Bedankt voor debelangstelling! Tige tank foarjimomtinken! Thankyouforyour attention! Reitze Jonkman en Alex Riemersma Lectoraat Fries & Meertaligheid in Onderwijs en opvoeding