Research internship report

(1)

Research internship report

Mercator European Research Center/Fryske Akademy

Lisanne de Jong

S3528863

Internal supervisor: dr. Joana Da Silveira Duarte

(2)

2

This internship report marks the end of my five-month internship at Mercator/Fryske Akademy. About seven months ago, I was looking for an internship position. Although my master’s program highly encourages people to go abroad, my personal priority was to find an internship that exactly fit my interests, also since I already spent some time abroad during my Bachelor’s. In the first three semesters of my Master’s, I had already spent considerable time doing experimental and quantitative research, so for my internship I was looking for something where I could use my knowledge in a more applied setting and in which I would spend less time working by myself in a lab. Therefore, when I saw the announcement on the Student Portal for this internship that promised a high variety of tasks, both research-related and more applied, I knew I did not have to look further. The VirtuLApp project involved topics that I was already passionate about, like computer-assisted language learning, multilingualism and language awareness, but also allowed me to dive into branches of linguistics that were new to me, such as the study of minority languages and in particular the Frisian language.

Five months later, I can say that I have learned a lot, both in terms of the new skills and knowledge I have acquired, but also in that it helped me gain insights into what I would like to do after I finish my Master’s. In this report, I will elaborate on these and many more aspects. In the following sections, I have provided a brief description of the organization of Mercator/Fryske Akademy in order to contextualize the project. Next, I have included a description of the VirtuLApp project, as this was the main project I was involved in, followed by a description of the tasks that I had. In section 4, I have summarized some of the key insights I gathered through working on the project. In the last section, I will reflect on my internship in relation to the learning goals for the Research Master Internship as specified in the OER (Onderwijs en Examen Regelement).

This leaves me to thank all of the people that contributed to making my experience at Mercator/Fryske Akademy such a positive one. First of all, the Mercator team and Cor van der Meer, who provided a great working and social environment and made us feel at home from the first moment on. Secondly, my fellow intern Margherita with whom I worked together on most tasks. And lastly, perhaps the most important ‘thank you’ goes to my direct supervisors Marlous and Joana, who always made time in their busy schedules to help me and give me constructive feedback, but also made my time here very enjoyable outside of the work aspects. I have a lot of respect for the huge amount of work they do on both the VirtuLApp project and the many other projects they work on and I wish them all the best for the future. It was a pleasure to be an intern for you- I had a blast!

2. Description internship

2.1. Mercator/Fryske Akademy

The Fryske Akademy, located in Leeuwarden (Ljouwert), the capital of Fryslân, conducts fundamental and applied research on the Frisian language, history and culture (Fryske Akademy, 2019). In terms of language acquisition and multilingualism, the institute has contributed significantly to both local and European policies. The Fryske Akademy hosts the Mercator European Research Center, which participates in studies on regional, minority and migrant languages in a broad context (Mercator European Research Center, 2019). It especially focuses on topics related to language learning at school, at home and through cultural participation.

(4)

4 Situated in the multilingual province of Fryslân, this offers many interesting research opportunities. However, Mercator does not only focus on the Frisian language. They are involved in many EU+ projects that come with collaborations between partners from all over the world. VirtuLApp is one of these projects.

2.2. The VirtuLApp project

The VirtuLApp project targets two ongoing developments in (primary) education in Europe: the increasing diversity among student populations in terms of their linguistic, cultural and religious backgrounds on the one hand (Cummins, 2001; Rosiers, Willaert, Van Avermaet & Slembrouck, 2016) and the increased use of technology in education on the other (Meier, 2018). However, these developments are not necessarily reflected in educational policies and didactics. When it comes to European primary schools, minority and migrant languages are rarely represented in the classroom and are often not recognized as an asset for learning (Fürstenau, 2016; Helot, 2016). There often seems to be a lack of knowledge on the benefits of multilingual didactics as well as how such didactics can be implemented. Similarly, although many teachers nowadays are instructed to use technology in their lessons, teachers often do not feel appropriately prepared to do so (Ihmeideh& Al-Maadadi, 2018).

The aim of VirtuLApp is to create tools that can help teachers in creating an inclusive and multilingual classroom in which positive attitudes towards different languages are promoted. Based on a preliminary needs analysis, three different types of schools were identified, all with different needs:

‘’a) Schools with a large number of immigrant pupils who want to improve attitudes towards

migrant languages and gain knowledge about how migrant languages can be utilised in education alongside regional and minority languages and foreign languages;

b) Schools who want to experiment with less language separation in their languages

didactics and receive tools with which they can also integrate other languages in their education;

c) Schools with predominantly national language-speaking children who want to introduce

their pupils to minority – and other languages and raise awareness about language differences.’’

Translating these needs into concrete aims thus leads us to the following target outcomes: 1) Develop language awareness amongst teachers (in training) as well as students in

European multilingual reasons

2) Familiarize teachers (in training) about the benefits of multilingual didactics

3) Provide teachers (in training) with examples of best practices which they can use as inspiration for their own teaching practices

4) Providing examples of digital tools to increase language awareness

The practical outcomes of this project will consist of a toolkit that contains two products. The first of this is a digital handbook that includes frequently asked questions by teachers (in training) answered by experts and video-based documentations of best practices of primary schools that already use multilingual approaches in the classroom. The second product will be a multi-player

(5)

5 app including quizzes about multilingualism and an AR game that targets multilingual skills and competences.

VirtuLApp is a three-year Erasmus+ project that started in September 2018 and will finish in September 2021. Mercator/Fryske Akademy is one out of the total of five partners of the project who come from all over Europe, including LUCA School of Arts (Belgium), ATiT(Belgium), the University of the Basque Country (Basque Country) and Trinity College Dublin (Ireland). All partners have their own responsibilities in the project, in that for instance Mercator, UPV and TCD offer the linguistic and pedagogical expertise, whereas LUCA is in charge of the game development and ATiT organizes the video recording and editing.

When I first talked to Marlous and Cor about the project, it had just had its first kickoff meeting. It was nice to be involved in the first year of the project, as it offered opportunities to brainstorm about ideas and provide input that could help shape the outcomes. The main goals of the first year included the collection of teacher questions (more on this in section 4.2), the setting up of the procedure surrounding the didactical videos, the development of the game concept and more general start-up tasks such as creating the website. The next section contains a more detailed description of the tasks that I was involved in, both those related to VirtuLApp as well as other tasks I worked on during the internship.

3. Description of tasks

This section aims to give an overview of the tasks I was involved in during the internship. It should be noted that I shared most tasks with Margherita, the other intern. Although we often divided tasks, the outcomes were always a joint product of our work. As I had one extra day per week and a few more extra weeks towards the end of the internship, there were a few things I worked on by myself, but for the most part, we worked together.

3.1. Literature review

The focus of the first few weeks of the internship was on familiarizing myself with the literature and the VirtuLApp project itself. We spent many hours looking up and reading literature and while doing so, we filled out a spreadsheet containing relevant papers, their most important findings and the implications these findings could have for the VirtuLApp project. This resulted in a literature review of roughly twenty pages, of which a summary is provided in section 4.1. The entire review can be found in Appendix A1.

During the first two months of the internship (February-March), I also followed the 5 ECTS Computer-assisted Language Learning course at the RUG. Although officially this was not part of the internship, the course introduced me to field-specific literature and new digital tools for language learning, which helped me in writing the literature review.

3.2. VirtuLApp

Online partner meetings

The main focus of my internship consisted of work related to the VirtuLApp project. I participated in the monthly online partner meetings in order to stay up-to-date on the progress of all partners in the project. I also took the minutes during these meetings to document the action points. Based

(6)

6 on these meetings, like all other partners, I gave feedback on new content, such as ideas for the conceptualization of the VirtuLApp game.

Document preparations

Margherita and I prepared some of the documents necessary for data collection. For instance, we prepared consent forms and information letters for the recording days as well as for the collection of teacher questions. For the latter, we also set up a Google Form questionnaire in order to target a wider audience. We also worked on the Dutch translation of the VirtuLApp quiz, which can be found in Appendix A2.

Teacher Interviews / collection questions

We organized two 30-minute interviews with teachers in which we asked them about multilingual approaches in the classroom, at the school they worked at, how to deal with cultural diversity in the classroom and the use of digital tools in (language) education. Although we intended to do more interviews, it was hard to find teachers (in training) willing to participate in an interview. Therefore, we set up a Google Form as to be able to reach more educational professionals. For this, we emailed our questionnaire to a large number of primary schools, most of which were located in Friesland. Although we did not receive a high number of responses, the main goal was to receive qualitative input in the form of questions from teachers that we could incorporate in the FAQ section of the toolkit. A short report on the outcomes of the interviews and survey can be found in section 4.2.

Recordings didactical videos

On the 13th of March, we attended the video recording day at primary school De Twa Fjilden in Joure, Fryslan, during which the project partners from AtIT recorded several in-class activities as well as an interview with the teacher, some of the children and a coordinator. On this day, we also interviewed one of the other teachers to collect questions for the Teacher FAQ. Afterwards, we went through the four hours of footage and made a selection of interesting segments, which we coded in line with predefined categories based on literature and transcribed (Appendix A4). Based on the video recordings, we also created a storyboard that contained all elements to be included in a short video to be put on the VirtuLApp website. The storyboard (which can be found in Appendix A5) was aimed to guide the editing process of the final video.

Workshop

Joana and Marlous came up with the idea to have a workshop during one of the next Multiplier Events, an annual event where all project partners come together and present the progress of the project to the target audience, in our case teachers (in training) and other educational and language professionals. The main goal of this workshop was to discuss the use of digital tools in multilingual classroom activities. We brainstormed about ideas for this workshop and wrote an outline that could be used for such a workshop in the future (see Appendix A8).

3.3. ICML

In our initial meeting prior to the internship, Cor had told us about the conference that would be held in Leeuwarden in May 2019 and he encouraged us to extend our internship in such a way that we would be there to experience the conference.

(7)

7 This year, Mercator hosted the 17th edition of the International Conference on Minority

Languages, a conference that has a long tradition of bringing together scholars, practitioners,

policy makers and students from many different disciplines who study minority languages in their social context. The theme of this year’s edition was Minority Languages in a globalized

society.

Since Mercator was in charge of the organization, we attended most of the meetings dedicated to ICML with our Mercator colleagues, because of which we got an insight into the process of organizing such a large academic event. Ahead of the conference, we helped with the preparations in a couple of ways. For instance, we helped preparing the booklet of abstracts, creating the information booklet for participants including a foreword and information about the city and activities to do, we bought the presents for the keynote speakers and we helped preparing the name badges. During the conference, we made sure everything was going smoothly, we attended many interesting lectures and joined the social event. A short report on the lectures I attended can be found in section 4.3. We also participated in a poster session, in which we presented the VirtuLApp project to people who were interested. The poster we created can be found in Appendix A6.

3.4. TABU

During TABU Dag, a linguistics conference organized by the University of Groningen, we presented the poster that we also presented at ICML. The abstract of our poster presentation can be found in Appendix A7. At TABU Dag, we were also required to participate in a pitch session in which we had to present our project in one minute in front of all attendees of the conference. Afterwards, there was a poster session in which we talked about our project to those who were interested. For this, we also created a video in Magisto that contained some of the clips from the Joure footage.

3.5. Miscellaneous

Considering we were part of a bigger organization, we also regularly got to hear about research of our colleagues. During the weekly ‘wurkbesprek’, we were informed about the latest updates regarding the Fryske Akademy and got to listen to presentations of colleagues. Similarly, within Mercator there were the so-called ‘standup’ meetings in which people gave updates on what they were working on. These meetings were also used to ask each other for feedback. Because of this, we were provided with contacts for our teacher interviews and we in turn also looked at the work of colleagues and gave some feedback if necessary. Lastly, we also went to a Multiplier event of the 3M project (Meer kansen Met Meertaligheid). Here, we were introduced to similar projects dealing with multilingualism in the classroom.

4. Reports on main tasks

4.1. Summary literature review

This section contains some of our main findings from the literature review we conducted (for the full review, see Appendix A1). In this review, we focused on the use of digital tools for promoting multilingualism in children (with a main focus on the primary school age) and on teacher professionalization when it comes to the use of technology in their classroom.

(8)

8 First and foremost, a large number of studies emphasizes the positive effects that a proper implementation of digital tools can have for children’s cognitive and social development. The use of technology has been linked to improvement of reading, writing and communication skills (Anderson, Grant & Speck, 2008) as well as overall cognitive abilities (Nir-Gal & Klein, 2004) and it has been suggested to lead to higher levels of (social) engagement, motivation and creativity (see for instance Akçayır & Akçayır, 2016; Burnett, 2016; Bonner & Reinders, 2018; Cheng, Huang & Chou, 2017; Lin & Lan, 2015; Vandercruysse, Vandewaetere & Clarebout, 2012). When it comes to promoting language awareness, digital tools can also play a role in fostering multilingual identities of students as authentic linguistic input can be incorporated so that the language is truly present in the classroom (Darvin & Norton, 2014; Rowe & Miller, 2016; Van Laere et al., 2016). The wide range of multimedia and digital tools available allows for different approaches depending on desired target outcomes or specific (multilingual) classroom environments. In our review, we discussed a few categories of multilingual activities using digital tools, namely the use of multilingual ‘ebooks’, digital storybooks and storytelling activities, telecollaboration activities, games and AR/VR applications. For the extended discussions on these categories, the reader is encouraged to read the full-length review. In this section, I would like to focus on the general trends that were discussed.

The most frequently named advantages of the different types of digital tools stem from opportunities for interaction, either between the pupil and the tool or the interaction between peers during (or as a result of) the use of the tool. For instance, pupils working on their own multilingual ‘ebook’ in the study by Rowe & Miller used multimodal features and interacted with adult speakers of the respective language, in order to later the discuss their creations with the teacher and other students. Interactive features in digital story books in the study by Brunsmeier & Kolb (2018) did not only support pupils’ understanding of the story, but also encouraged them to use language spontaneously and in interaction with their peers. Similarly, the goal-directed and interactive features that are generally present in games come with the need for problem-solving skills and collaboration, which therefore requires (linguistic) interaction between players.

Additionally, the real benefit of digital tools supposedly lies in the elements that are difficult or even impossible to incorporate in paper-based activities. Augmented and virtual reality applications are perhaps the clearest example for this as they quite literally ‘add a dimension to the real world’ and it is this additional and contextual information that allows pupils to extend their experience of reality (Squire & Klopfer, 2007, in Wu, Lee, Chang & Liang, 2013) and to be fully involved with the subject matter (Billinghurst & Dünser, 2012). However, even for tools that make use of ‘less advanced’ technologies, these benefits still hold. As Edwards and colleagues acknowledge in their study, many aspects of the described activities would also be available in a paper-based format, but the added benefit of including digital tools lies in its combination of modalities, namely ’‘’when words, images, and sounds are deployed in dynamic combinations, and especially when the learner is in control and able to explore this potential in creative new ways” (Edwards et al., 2000, p. 145).

However, in order to incorporate technology in a way that maximizes learning potential and to avoid using technology ‘for the sake of using technology’, there are a number of issues that need to be taken into account. The first issue frequently mentioned is the high costs associated with (high-quality) digital equipment, programs and applications and the trade-off between finding tools that are suitable for classroom use but are also affordable (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2016; Wu et al., 2013). The second important consideration is related to lesson design in which the implementation of digital tools is carefully done with clear target goals in mind. It is here where

(9)

9 digital competences of teachers (and/or curriculum planners) come into play. The literature points to several shortcomings in terms of teacher trainings, both when it comes to having access to appropriate tools (or to have an overview of what is available) as well as receiving guidance on the implementation in the (multilingual) classroom (Brand, 1998; Foulger et al., 2017; Ihmeideh & Al-Maadadi, 2018; Tondeur et al., 2012).

Following from research indicating that training programs could help teachers to see the benefits of implementing multilingual didactics (Lee & Oxelson, 2006), training programs targeting digital skills could educate teachers on the potential positive impact of using technology (Foulger et al., 2017; Ihmeideh & Al-Maadadi, 2018). Moreover, it can show teachers that the incorporation of technology does not have to be difficult, which is important considering that perceived ease of use has been named as one of the most important predictors for future use of technology in the classroom (Yuen & Ma, 2008).

Our review on digital tools for promoting multilingualism in primary school classrooms and the development of digital competences of teachers outlines the issues that the VirtuLApp project should focus on. The toolkit that comes with the project targets the issues in several ways. First, the section on frequently asked questions and the documentation of best practices offers teachers guidance on how they can implement multilingual didactics and technology in lessons in order to promote language awareness. Moreover, the game that the consortium is developing provides an example of a tool that could be used. As such, the project outcomes address both the multilingual and digital aspects that were discussed in this literature review.

4.2. Teacher experiences & needs analysis - preliminary outcomes

One of the aims of the VirtuLApp project is to provide teachers with information on how to incorporate multilingual didactics as well as digital tools into their lessons. In order to create a toolkit that could meet the wishes of teachers, it was necessary to conduct a needs analysis first. All partners were asked to contact teachers (in training) in order to collect frequently asked questions which will later be included in the toolkit, along with answers by experts. This section contains a report of Mercator’s preliminary findings based on two 30-minute interviews and 7 survey responses. Although we would have liked to have more respondents, it was difficult to find schools willing to cooperate. However, we believe that despite the limited number of respondents we were able to get some valuable insights into teachers’ experiences and needs when it comes to language policies at schools, multilingual approaches in the classroom, dealing with diversity, the use of digital tools in (language) education and contact with multilingual parents. On the basis of the results of the interviews and the survey, a list of around 20 questions was created (see Appendix A3).

Background respondents

Most respondents were working in the province of Fryslân, others were working in other areas of the Netherlands. Most schools offered English as a foreign language, but the schools in Fryslân also incorporated the Frisian language. The respondents varied in age (the youngest being in their 20s, the oldest in their 50s) and in the number of years of teaching experience (ranging from 3 to 25 years).

(10)

10

Multilingualism at school

The two people that were interviewed represented opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to multilingual teaching approaches. One teacher (from here on referred to as ‘T1’) worked at the school in Joure where we also made the video recordings and thus, this teacher had been involved in projects aimed to include other (minority, migrant and foreign) languages in the classroom. The other teacher (from here on referred to as ‘T2’), on the other hand, had only worked at monolingual schools at which English was taught as a foreign language. These schools tended to have a ‘Dutch only’ policy and the use of other languages was therefore not a point of discussion or policy. For the other teachers at Frisian schools, they indicated that languages were separated, in the sense that Dutch, English and Frisian were either provided as separate subjects, or that there were clear agreements made on when to use which language and how. One teacher indicated that attitudes toward minority languages (in this case Frisian) are still an issue, in that she felt the need to convince both students and staff of their importance as compared to the importance given to learning foreign languages like English.

Others mentioned that their respective schools were thinking of ways to integrate Frisian in other subjects, but that they would like to receive more guidance in this. T1 mentioned that this is a big task that can be seen as quite abstract and that workshops might help teachers in finding a concrete starting point and to provide tools to take further steps. She also mentioned that collaboration between teachers within a school is important to motivate colleagues, but she indicated that evaluations cost time which often is scarce already.

Multilingualism in the classroom

An issue that was addressed with regard to the use of English was that some teachers did not feel competent to use the foreign language themselves, which they felt might have a negative impact on the students’ use of the language as well. This issue of confidence also related to the use of migrant and minority languages, as it was reported that they were generally not comfortable with using a language (or having pupils use that language) if they did not understand or speak it themselves.

Related to this, a main question that was raised was about to what extent pupils should be allowed to use their home languages in the classroom. T2 described a situation where she had two Polish children who would start to speak Polish as soon as they did not agree with her on something, and she mentioned that she did not allow that in her classroom. However, she indicated that she had no problem if children spoke their own languages with each other during for instance break time, as long as they would not exclude any of the other pupils. Other teachers provided similar input which suggested that although they were open to pupils sharing their language, they were not sure how allowing them to converse with each other in another language that the classroom language, without excluding other children or the teacher, could be applied practically. However, T1 gave an example of how some students of hers would talk to each other in Arabic, and that that through observation, she was able to see whether they were talking about the task they were working on, or whether they were doing something else. In the latter case, she would ask them to repeat what they said in Dutch. T1 mentioned that as a teacher, you develop a ‘feel’ for situations like this, and that not being able to understand the language of the pupil should not stand in the way of them using it with each other.

(11)

11

Multilingualism in the classroom

A few teachers mentioned that they occasionally talked about languages, language diversity and related topics during their classes. One teacher shared an experience of having ‘’exchange teachers’’ who would read books in their language to children. A number of teachers mentioned that discussions about language were not purposefully given a place in the curriculum, but that they almost automatically came up during projects around themes such as traveling, ‘the world’ and different cultures. Several teachers mentioned that such projects can provide opportunities for children to talk about their home country and share their language(s) with their peers. In contrast to fixed curricula where there is less room for the pupil’s own input, a project-based learning approach would allow for more (multilingual) input from the part of the pupils rather than the teacher(s).

Another concern that was raised about adopting multilingual didactics was the extent to which attention should be given to each particular language, and how meaningful a ‘broad’ approach could be when attempting to create more language awareness. Another teacher also commented that she saw difficulties in how to implement a, what she called, ‘differentiated approach’ in which all languages are taken into account.

Another issue that was raised concerned the nature of activities and their suitability for different age groups and individuals. For instance, one teacher said multilingual writing assignments can prove difficult if not all pupils are able to write in their home language. Others were able to write in their home language, but needed guidance to be confident enough to do so. T2 commented that she wondered what activities would be suitable for all children, both multilingual and monolingual, as she expressed her concern that monolingual students might be less motivated to participate if they do not have another (home) language to provide input for.

Diversity in the classroom

T1 shared a concern specifically about refugee children. She mentioned that when she would ask pupils to create a story in their own language, it would sometimes occur that they would start talking about sensitive topics related to the war in their home countries or their flight to Europe. Although she acknowledged that these are very important topics that should be talked about, they require a very different approach and should perhaps be dealt with at a different time in order to give it the appropriate attention it deserves.

Many teachers mentioned instances regarding cultural and religious differences that are likely to become a topic of discussion with the presence of multilingual children. All teachers indicate that they regularly talk about different cultures in their classroom, even those that do not focus on multilingual approaches (like T2). These discussions are most likely to occur around holidays, such as Christmas and Eid al-Fitr and they provide opportunities for pupils to talk about traditions around festivities and share food. T2 mentioned that there was more social cohesion for classrooms in which these types of discussions regularly occurred, as children learn from each other and they are curious about each other’s cultures. T1 gave an example of how language can be used to put pupils in each other’s shoes. In one project, they used a Frisian-Arabic book about a refugee child. She mentioned that during the parts that were in Arabic, children with a Dutch background could not follow everything, but that because of this they realized that this is how someone would feel coming to their school without knowing Dutch or Frisian.

(12)

12

Digital tools

All respondents indicated to make use of technology in their classroom. For most people, this included digital school boards, iPads and software that comes with materials for certain courses, such as math or grammar exercises. A commonly named benefit was the ability for students to practice individually at their own pace. Interestingly, one teacher mentioned that they used the digital board during English and Frisian lessons and that a benefit of this is that teachers do not have to be able to speak the language themselves, while at the same time stimulating the pupils to participate.

Two main issues were raised regarding the use of digital tools. The first one was related to the abundance of options out there. T1, for instance, talked about wanting to know what applications or tools would be the best ones for specific purposes and age levels, but that she simply did not have to time to research all options herself. She indicated that this was mostly a problem for people of her generation, and that younger teachers tend to be better at navigating the large pool of options. T2 expressed similar concerns and indicated that while her teacher training program pays attention to the use of technology in the classroom, the older generations of teachers struggle more with it. More specifically, she indicated that it would be helpful to target training sessions at this group of teachers, and also to use systems that are user-friendly for everyone. The second issue named related to financial concerns. T2 indicated that she had worked at schools who had more money, and thus better opportunities to purchase high-quality applications, but that this was not the case everywhere.

Contact with parents of multilingual children

Different views were exchanged on the topic of the relationship between the teachers and parents of multilingual children. The main issue that was raised was that sometimes communication is difficult if there is no common language in which both parties are proficient enough to communicate. One teacher indicated that she felt that this would sometimes be a barrier, in that she felt that these parents were less likely to come to her with questions or input. However, many factors might be involved in this and positive experiences were shared by T1, who had the personal experience that for instance refugee parents are often very motivated and enthusiastic about discussing how their child is doing, and what activities they could do at home. As such, as more languages are involved in the classroom, this might positively affect the involvement of parents as well, strengthening the relationship between teacher and parents.

Recommendations

On a final note, teachers were asked to share their personal ‘tips’ for other teachers when it comes to dealing with multiple languages in the classroom. When it comes to language learning and using multiple languages, it was stressed that repetition is key, and that one should not try to do everything at once, but that one can adapt the current approach step-by-step, using interactive (e.g. games) to improve effectiveness. Additionally, one teacher mentioned the importance of non-verbal communication in creating a ‘safe’ environment in which everyone is allowed and encouraged to share their experiences and languages. It was also mentioned that although taking a different approach than you are used to might take time and effort, it is more than worth it to invest in this.

(13)

13

4.3. Reflection ICML

This section contains a reflection on the lectures I attended during ICML XVII. The numbers provided in brackets correspond to the numbers of the abstract of that particular presentation. The book of abstracts can be found here.

The theme of this year’s International Conference of Minority Languages was ‘Minority Languages in a Globalized Society’. On the one hand, globalization has brought about positive changes, for instance in increased opportunities for people from different communities to communicate, be educated or to learn languages. However, this development often occurs at the expense of minority languages. In many countries, the preservation of the position of minority languages is not only challenged by the majority languages, but often also by the widespread use of a lingua franca such as English. The presentations at ICML XVII addressed these challenges as well as possible opportunities for the revitalization of minority languages. A major theme consisted of the use of technology for minority language documentation as well as preservation. It was interesting to see that there was a big variety in topics and the differentiation in viewpoints led to interesting discussions (especially during the panels).

When it comes to the use of technology, the keynote session by dr. Delyth Prys (#k1) provided an example from the Welsh community (Cysill) that involves a collection of language resources such as corpora of texts, dictionaries, part of speech taggers and other resources that could in turn also be used for the development of speech recognition applications. The panel on minority languages on social media (#008) showed interesting findings from different languages such as Frisian, Welsh, Māori, Cherokee and Lakota languages. It was shown how in virtual communities, be it for instance on Twitter or Facebook, the language is used to communicate but also to create new content such as memes (Māori), and that this can even have an impact beyond social media, such as major commercial companies starting to advertise in Welsh.

A more theoretical point of view was offered in for instance the keynote session by dr. Bernat Joan í Marí (#k2), who amongst other things argued for an EU-level agency that could ensure linguistic diversity, which in his words forms the foundation of European values. At a local level, several presentations emphasized the ‘affective’ aspect addressed by minority language speakers. Andrin Büchler (#106) found that the majority of Romansh speakers who participated in his survey described their language using metaphors that indicated a strong emotional connection, as opposed to the more ‘rational’ conceptualizations used for the standardized varieties or majority language.

In the school context, Eabele Tjepkema (#112) discussed the integration of a foreign language (English), a minority language (Frisian) and the national language (Dutch) in trilingual schools in Fryslan. The results of his observational study showed that the quantitative use of the different languages varied for the different student samples he studied and that the actual use of the minority and foreign language was often limited. The same was discussed by Nia Mererid Parry and Enlli Thomas (#113) who studied the Welsh educational context. A general point that was raised concerned the lack of confidence of teachers to speak in the non-majority language, which they argued is necessary for a successful implementation of multilingual teaching approaches.

(14)

14 Some presentations discussed interventions targeted to increase the use of a certain language. Arwel Tomos Williams ( #107) found that during an intervention program aimed at increasing the use of Welsh in a bilingual workplace, the language was used significantly more often than in a context in which the intervention did not take place. Similarly, Dewi Huw Owen (#111) presented about regulations at public bodies in Wales, where staff are required to acquire a certain level of proficiency in Welsh depending on their role. Related to this, Anna-Fardau Schukking and Ramziè Krol-Hage discussed two projects that targeted communication competences for migrants and learners from disadvantaged backgrounds in bilingual work environments (#327). These projects do not aim for people to acquire full competences in several languages, but rather they aim for minority languages to have a place in the workforce and inform people how they can make use of their linguistic repertoire. A similar goal was found in the LangUp project presented by Helga Kuipers-Zandberg (#p11).

This goal of raising language awareness within public institutions and the workplace also came back in discussions on translanguaging approaches (#005). Although this panel focused on education, similar issues regarding the position of minority and migrant languages next to the majority language were raised. It was discussed how languages can serve different functions within the educational context (e.g. symbolic, scaffolding and epistemological functions; see Duarte, 2018) and how the attitude of teachers is important in successful translanguaging approaches. Perhaps the most important point that was raised was that translanguaging should be seen a continuum in that it should not be the goal to replace monolingual approaches by multilingual ones, but rather to create a context in which different languages (including minority and migrant languages) have their own place.

A lecture on the role of book reading and oral story telling by Jelske Dijkstra (#328) discussed the respective role of such activities in the majority language (Dutch) and minority language (Frysian) on the language development of bilingual children. Although a study by Bosma and Blom (2019) revealed that shared book reading in Frisian played an important role in the acquisition of Frisian vocabulary, this was not found in a similar study by Dijkstra. However, she argued that this might be explained by the observations that children were less engaged in the Frisian language activities as opposed to the Dutch ones and that the level of exposure, both in terms of interaction between the child and adults and peers and exposure to books, media etc, was not equal for both languages.

On a last note, as mentioned by dr. Mandana Seyfeddinipur in her keynote session (#k3), the preservation of a language is only possible as long as there are still enough speakers of said language, as well as (digitalized) documentations that can be used to create material that the young generation can actively engage themselves with. This element of ‘productive’ engagement was also mentioned in the panels on education and the one on social media, where it was argued that even if there is media in a minority language available, this does not automatically lead to language revitalization. In order to achieve that goal, people need to be stimulated to actively use the minority language. Although for many contexts having the minority language (officially) recognized remains a first priority, a similar point of consideration is relevant there. Many presenters showed that the recognition of minority languages does not immediately lead to implementations in the form of for instance workplaces. For this, initiatives like the ones proposed during ICML XVII remain necessary, and I am looking forward to seeing what future (research) projects will bring.

(15)

15 5. Reflection on internship

5.1. Reflection in relation to Research Master learning outcomes

The main goal of the research internship is for students to gain experience in linguistic research. The Onderwijs- en examenregelement (OER) specifies a list of learning outcomes of which a subset should be targeted during a particular internship project. In this section, I will briefly describe how the tasks I was involved in related to these learning outcomes.

The first goal of the internship was to gain ‘’a thorough knowledge of at least one theoretical and methodological approach within linguistics’’ (1.2). For me, the theoretical aspect consisted of getting familiar with the literature in the field of multilingual education as well as on the position of minority and migrant languages. Throughout the project, I kept reading new information I came across that could be of help for the project (5.1 Be able to keep abreast of the latest developments in linguistics and broaden and deepen their own knowledge and understanding). However, this deeper understanding of the field was not only realized through the consultation of literature, but also through attending the ICML conference and through doing my internship at an institute where a minority language is spoken, in a multilingual region. In terms of methodological approaches, I become more familiar with qualitative research in the form of for example interviews and transcribing and analyzing video materials. An example of a learning point in this was that for the interview and survey questions, we needed to rephrase questions a number of times, as we realized that it was sometimes difficult to get teachers to provide insights we were looking for, as their concept of ‘multilingual teaching approaches’ would initially be limited to incorporating the English (and maybe Frisian) language and not take into account migrant languages. Rephrasing questions allowed us to gather more meaningful results.

Being an intern at Mercator, I was involved with different academic projects, the most important ones being VirtuLApp and the organization of the ICML conference. Moreover, because the VirtuLApp project is a product of several partners, I was involved in a bigger group of people (4.1 Be able to participate actively in a research group working on an academic project). During the VirtuLApp partner meetings, updates were given on the project and tasks were divided between partners. Because of the applied nature of this project, the term ‘research results’ is not necessarily applicable, but the collaboration with different partners meant that we could make use of each other’s expertise and exchange feedback when necessary (3.1. To make use of the research results of others and evaluate these critically).

The involvement in the VirtuLApp project, the literature review, working on the reports in section 4 and preparing and presenting a poster about the project contributed to my development within this area of specialization and in terms of oral and writing skills (4.3 Be able to participate in international academic debate in the chosen area of specialization and to present an academic problem convincingly in English, both orally and in writing). It forced me to find connections between different fields, such as sociolinguistics and pedagogy, but it also showed me the importance between finding a balance between research and practice in projects like this (3.2 Be able to make connections between their own specialist knowledge of a subdiscipline of linguistics and other related disciplines). I was able to look at the project from a more theoretical side when it came to the literature review, but also at what kind of implications the existing research can have for the project outcomes, for instance in the forms of the didactical videos, workshops and

(16)

16 the game (5.2 Be able to reflect on the implications of one’s work for the development of linguistic theories).

5.2. Personal reflection on the internship and future goals

As mentioned before, I learned a lot during my internship at Mercator. Apart from the learning goals as described in the section above, it also gave me insights about my personal interests within the project and how they could shape my future career.

First of all, I initially became interested in the VirtuLApp project because of its focus on (language) education, multilingualism and educational technology. Although I previously mostly thought about language technology in the context of second language learning, this project introduced me to other applications for such technology, namely for language awareness and especially in the context of minority and migrant languages. I am not sure yet which of these directions I would like to go into after this internship, but I do plan on staying in the field of computer-assisted language learning, and my experiences with the VirtuLApp project will come in handy in this. Moreover, I also really liked the applied side of this project and the ability to translate research to a product in collaboration with experts from the field (i.e., primary school teachers) in a bottom-up approach. However, I also realized that one of the biggest challenges here is getting in contact with primary schools and teachers willing to cooperate, which is completely understandable considering their high workload. Still, I believe it is very worthwhile to keep this collaboration between research and practice in order to create products that truly meet the wishes of teachers.

Part of the reason this internship appealed to me was because I wanted to explore career options outside of university, as my Master’s program is very (experimental) research-oriented. Looking back at my tasks during the internship, there were some aspects that I really enjoyed, such as looking at the video recordings and categorizing interaction sequences based on the theory, as well as the more ‘creative’ tasks such as creating the video storyboard and providing feedback on the game concepts. At the same time, I also realized that I somehow missed the aspect of doing quantitative research, as that allows you to collect data and analyze results in a different way. I am still debating whether to apply for PhD positions, but if I do, I will probably want to work on a project that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches with a close connection to the target group, as is the case in the VirtuLApp project.

Now that my time in Ljouwert has come to an end, the only thing that I find a shame is that I have to leave while the products are still taking shape. Although I would have loved to be more involved with certain parts of the project, I understand that collaborating with many different partners can mean that some processes take a bit of time to start up. However, considering the great level of expertise of the people working on VirtuLApp, I am sure that in two years time, there will be a high-quality toolkit and augmented-reality game of which I can proudly say I contributed towards, if only for a small part. Once again, I would like to thank Mercator/Fryske Akademy and everyone involved in the project who made the past five months very valuable for me.

6. Sources

(17)

17 for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11.

Anderson, R., Grant, M., & Speck, B. (2008). Technology to teach literacy: A resource for K-8

teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Billinghurst, M., & Dünser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer, 45(7), 56-63.

Bonner, E., & Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and Virtual Reality in The Language Classroom: Practical Ideas. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 33-53.

Bosma, E., Blom, E., Hoekstra, E., & Versloot, A. (2019). A longitudinal study on the gradual cognate facilitation effect in bilingual children’s Frisian receptive vocabulary. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(4), 371-385.

Brand, G. A. (1998). What research says: Training teachers for using technology. Journal of staff

development, 19, 10-13.

Brunsmeier, S. & Kolb, A. (2018). ‘I like the character, weil er so richtig funny ist’: Reading Story Apps in the Primary EFL Classroom. In J. Buendgens-Kosten & D. Elsner (Eds.), Multilingual

Computer Assisted Language Learning (pp. 41-58). Bristol: Multilingual Matters

Burnett, C. (2016). The digital age and its implications for learning and teaching in the primary

school. York: Cambridge Primary Review Trust.

Chen, C. H., Huang, C. Y., & Chou, Y. Y. (2017). Effects of augmented reality-based

multidimensional concept maps on students’ learning achievement, motivation and acceptance. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1-12.

Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual Children’s Mother Tongue: Why Is It Important for Education?

Sprogforum, 19, 15–20.

Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2014). Transnational identity and migrant language learners: The promise of digital storytelling. Education Matters: The Journal of Teaching and Learning,

2(1), 55-66.

Duarte, J. (2018). Translanguaging in the context of mainstream multilingual education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1-16.

Edwards, V., Monaghan, F., & Knight, J. (2000). Books, pictures and conversations: Using bilingual multimedia storybooks to develop language awareness. Language Awareness,

9(3), 135-146.

Fryske Akademy (2019). Mission and objectives. Retrieved from

https://www.fryske akademy.nl/en/about-us/mission-and-objectives/

Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413-448. Fürstenau, S. (2016). Multilingualism and school development in transnational educational

spaces. Insights from an intervention study at German elementary schools. In A. Küppers, B. Pusch, P. Uyan Semerci (Eds.), Bildung in transnationalen Räumen (pp. 71-90). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.

Hélot, C., & Young, A. (2006). Imagining multilingual education in France: A language and cultural awareness project at primary level. In O. Garcı́a, T.Skutnabb-Kangas & M. Torres-Guzmán (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and

glocalization (pp. 69-90). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Ihmeideh, F., & Al-Maadadi, F. (2018). Towards Improving Kindergarten Teachers’ Practices Regarding the Integration of ICT into Early Years Settings. The Asia-Pacific Education

Researcher, 27(1), 65-78.

(18)

18 heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 453-477.

Lin, T. J., & Lan, Y. J. (2015). Language learning in virtual reality environments: Past, present, and future. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 486-497.

Mercator European Research Center (2019). About Mercator European Research Center.

Retrieved from https://www.mercator-research.eu/en/about/about-mercator- research-centre/

Nir-Gal, O., & Klein, P. (2004). Computers for cognitive development in early childhood: The teacher’s role in the computer learning environment. Information Technology in Childhood

Education Annual, 16, 97–119.

Rosiers, K., Willaert, E., Van Avermaet, P., & Slembrouck, S. (2016). Interaction for transfer: flexible approaches to multilingualism and their pedagogical implications for classroom interaction in linguistically diverse mainstream classrooms. Language and Education,

30(3), 267-280.

Rowe, D. W., & Miller, M. E. (2016). Designing for diverse classrooms: Using iPads and digital cameras to compose eBooks with emergent bilingual/biliterate four-year-olds. Journal

of Early Childhood Literacy, 16(4), 425-472.

Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144.

Vandercruysse, S., Vandewaetere, M. and Clarebout, G. (2012). Game-Based Learning: A Review on the Effectiveness of Educational Games. In M.M. Cruz-Cunha (ed.),

Handbook of Research on Serious Games as Educational, Business, and Research Tools (pp.

628–647). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Van Laere, E., Agirdag, O., & van Braak, J. (2016). Supporting science learning in linguistically diverse classrooms: Factors related to the use of bilingual content in a computer-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 428-441.

Yuen, A. H., & Ma, W. W. (2008). Exploring teacher acceptance of e‐learning technology. Asia

Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 229-243.

Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & education, 62, 41-49.

7. Appendix

A1 Literature review

Using technology to support multilingualism in the primary school classroom: a literature review

Margherita Burdese & Lisanne de Jong 1. Introduction

The rise of globalization has resulted in two major developments. On one hand, we can observe an increase in migration and population mobility all over the world, resulting in communities becoming increasingly more diverse with respect to language, culture and religion (Cummins, 2001; Rosiers, Willaert, Van Avermaet & Slembrouck, 2016;). The rich diversification in the cultural and linguistic population make-up is reflected in the domain of (primary)

(19)

19 education, where students are often part of multilingual and multicultural classrooms. The second development consists of the so-called ‘digital revolution’ that has led to ‘new ways of being, learning and socializing’ (Meier, 2018, p. 255). However, despite these two developments, not many educational policies seem to stimulate didactics that could create primary school classrooms that are a true reflection of today’s increasingly multilingual and digital society, as will be discussed below. The central question we attempt to answer in this literature review is: How can we use technology in multilingual education, and how can we prepare teachers to create and manage these multilingual classrooms?

Although the process of population diversification has started several decades ago, national educational policies in most parts of Europe and North America still tend to ignore or even reject the reality of multilingual students in the school system. Current national policies encourage only certain types of multilingualism, as different languages are given different values: while some hold high prestige, other fall into low-prestige categories (Van Der Wildt, Van Avermaet & Van Houtte, 2016). While the knowledge of foreign languages such as English, German or Spanish is often seen as an added value for future professional benefits, at the same time, the pupils’ knowledge of a low-status minority or migrant language is seen as disfavorable and as an obstacle to school success (Slembrouck, Van Avermaet & Van Gorp, 2018). More specifically, linguistic diversity in the classroom is often depicted as a problem that needs to be solved, because it might constitute a threat to the country’s identity (Cummins, 2001). As a result, the ministries of education of several host countries often adopt “assimilationist policies” (Cummins, 2001, p. 16), which discourage the maintenance of home or migrant languages and, through a submersive approach, promote the exclusive use of the majority language in the classroom. The exclusion of minority and migrant languages from the realm of education and the pressure towards linguistic and cultural conformity (Lee & Oxelson, 2006) are causing serious damage to the maintenance of home and migrant languages (Cummins, 2001; Lee & Oxelson, 2006). Additionally, research by Goriot, Denessen, Bakker and Droop (2016) on Turkish-Dutch children in the Netherlands has shown that the students’ feeling of acceptance and tolerance for their languages positively influenced their cognitive performance in non-verbal working memory tasks. Although this is a preliminary result, it suggests that a negative attitude towards multilingualism may hinder optimal cognitive functioning. Furthermore, past studies have demonstrated that the loss of proficiency in the home language can cause lower self-esteem in the speakers, a sense of alienation from their ethnic community and breakdowns in communication (Snodgrass, 1991 in Lee & Oxelsen, 2006). As Cummins (2001) suggested, the limitation of a child’s linguistic resources is a “violation of the rights of the child” (p. 17).

Thus, considering the aforementioned factors contributing to the obstruction of linguistic diversity, it is evident that there are several challenges and difficulties within the management of multilingualism in their classrooms. For instance, there is often a scarcity of either digital or paper educational materials available in minority languages, which further obstructs the possibility of integrating home languages in the classroom environment (Edwards, Monaghan & Knight, 2000). Teachers are often unprepared to deal with cultural and linguistic diversity and do not have the knowledge or the tools for their management in their (language) classes (Coleman, 2010 in Strobbe, Van der Wildt, Van Avermaet, Van Gorp, Van den Branden & Van Houtte, 2018). Furthermore, teachers’ attitudes towards multilingualism play a crucial role in the school context. Qualitative research based on teacher interviews and surveys has revealed that some teachers might not feel responsible for the inclusion of multiple languages during their lesson and do not intend to participate in the process of home language maintenance (Lee & Oxelson, 2006). In turn, as pointed out by Lee and Oxelson (2006), the lack of interest in heritage or minority language

(20)

20 inclusion negatively affects the students’ attitudes towards their own home culture, damaging their own sense of belonging.

In the previous sections, a brief overview of the reality of multilingualism in education in Europe has revealed both the clear dominance of monolingual policies in classroom practices and the danger of submersive approaches for the maintenance of the home language of multilingual, migrant and minority language students. As such, a need is expressed for multilingual education that is able to represent a valid opportunity to acknowledge and optimize the pupils’ learning experience. In fact, the integration of multilingual practices in (primary) school classrooms leads to multiple benefits for the cognitive and personal wellbeing of the pupils, which will be further illustrated in section 3.1.1. These advantages could be enhanced by the use of digital tools and multimedia materials, as suggested by the promising results in for instance McGlynn-Stewart, Murphy, Pinto, Mogyorodi & Nguyen (2018) and Van Laere, Rosiers, Van Avermaet, Slembrouck & Van Braak (2017). The wide availability of multimedia and digital instruments allows for an extended range of tools catered for multiple classroom environments and multilingual scenarios. Not only is it worth investigating the potential of the integration of digital tools in multilingual classrooms, but also examining in what ways teachers’ education and professional development can better prepare the educators for the management of multilingual and multicultural classroom environments. Thus, this report aims to review relevant studies on the topic of the use of digital tools in pre- and primary schools, illustrating the different types of media and digital materials incorporated in the educational domain. Further, this report will also examine teacher’s professional development in terms of what is currently offered, the needs of the teachers and possible future directions for teacher preparation courses.

2. Methodology

A systematic literature review was conducted in February and March 2019 by using Google Scholar and SmartCat, the library search engine for students and staff of the University of Groningen (The Netherlands). Scientific articles were included based on their publication date and their relevance. In order to create a representative overview of the current state of the field, the main focus of the search was on scientific articles published between 2008 and 2019. A few works published before 2008 were included in the review if they laid the foundation for more recent research projects. Articles were deemed relevant if they discussed the topic(s) of multilingual education, digital tools in education and/or the position of digital competences in teacher training and development. This could be in the form of original empirical or theoretical work as well as reviews of such studies that resulted in guidelines for use. Keywords searches were optimized and extra articles were found through the consultation of reference lists. Additionally, a number of reports on projects with a relevant focus on multilingual education, digital tools and teacher development were included. We believed that these reports gave valuable insights into the challenges and the current state of the field, especially considering the scarcity of empirical studies available.

After reading the titles and abstracts of initial hits, around 80 articles and project reports were selected for inclusion in this literature review and therefore studied in detail. For empirical articles, we filled out a form containing the key words, the main findings, the empirical results and possible implications of the findings for the VirtuLApp project to allow for categorization. We then matched the sources with the categories that correspond to the sections in this review: Multilingual education (3.1), Digital tools for promoting multilingualism (3.2) and The position of digital competences in teacher training and/or professional development (3.3). As such, the

(21)

21 following section attempts to provide an overview of recently published literature in the fields of multilingualism, education and educational technology.

3. Literature overview 3.1. Multilingual education

3.1.1. The vast benefits of multilingual education

As displayed in Section 1, several issues currently arise with regards to the management of multicultural and multilingual classrooms. Monolingual and assimilationist educational policies at school tend to isolate and reject the plurilingual repertoire of students speaking low-prestige languages. However, the multilingual background of the pupils can also be approached differently. In fact, instead of being perceived as an obstruction to optimal instruction, the entire linguistic repertoire of the children can be regarded as “didactic capital” (Slembrouck et al., 2018), as a resource for the learning process and experience of the pupil (Cummins, 2001; Lee & Oxelson, 2006; Rosiers et al., 2016). The opportunity of offering multilingual education can carry benefits for the learner on multiple levels. The advantages can be observed both at the cognitive and academic level, as well as at the social and personal one. Firstly, the inclusion of the home language in the classroom can “regulate cognitive processes and mediate [the pupils’] learning process” in the majority language (Van Laere et al., 2017, p. 98). In fact, considering Cummins’ (2000) interdependence hypothesis, it is possible to state that competence in one language can sustain the development of another. Thus, allowing the multilingual child to speak his/her mother tongue can actually support the learning process as a result of the transfer of conceptual knowledge. Indeed, Scott and de la Fuente (2008, in Van Laere et al., 2017) demonstrated that it can reduce the pupil’s cognitive overload and help him/her to process information in the majority language more efficiently. Further, multilingual classroom practices allow the child to develop more comprehension, verbal flexibility and problem solving skills (Bialystok, 2017 in McGlynn-Stewart, Murphy, Pinto, Mogyorodi & Nguyen, 2018). The promotion of the home language in daily classroom practice does not seem to hinder academic success in the majority language. The mother tongue supports, but does not replace the development of the majority language, instead favoring conceptual transfer and allowing for a successful learning experience (Cummins, 2001; Van Laere, Agirdag & van Braak, 2016). Lastly, research has shown that if teachers encourage the multilingual pupil to use his/her whole linguistic repertoire and have high expectations of them, pupils will be more likely to achieve higher academic results (Vorstman & Baauw, 2018).

Moreover, on a social and personal level, fostering the use of the home language at school contributes to a sense of belonging and legitimacy: the child feels accepted by his/her environment and respected. McGlynn-Stewart et al. (2018)’s study found that allowing the children to speak their mother tongue and engaging in culture-related activities at school helped to minimize the home-school separation, in that parents of the multilingual pupils felt more included and the children felt more accepted by their school peers. As pointed out by Strobbe et al. (2018), migrant pupils coming from ethnolinguistic minorities are often academically underestimated by their teachers: by only mentioning their weaknesses, the educators negatively impact the pupils’ self-esteem and wellbeing. In more culturally open and tolerant classrooms, students instead feel trusted by their teachers, have higher self confidence and a stronger sense of belonging and connection to the school (Van Der Wildt et al., 2016). Offering multilingual education can thus bring about advantages for students on multiple levels, both in terms of their academic achievement and their personal wellbeing.

Research internship report