Language Policy Theory and Practice
At a diverse international public school in Amsterdam
L.A.J. Koster
(s3199207)
June 2018
Master Thesis – Multilingualism
Faculty of Arts
13,126 words
First supervisor: E. Juarros Daussà
Second supervisor: J. Da Silveira Duarte
l.a.j.koster@student.rug.nl / Laurinde.koster@gmail.com
Abstract
In today’s society, multilingualism is a common phenomenon amongst students (Cenoz, 2013). Many children come from multilingual families, are bilingual, trilingual or multilingual and have different cultural backgrounds coming into school. At school they learn in the school language, which is commonly the national language of the country they live in. In the Netherlands, the school language is Dutch, with the exception of bilingual programs. The school I conducted my research is called the DENISE school, located in Amsterdam. The DENISE school has a bilingual Dutch/English primary and secondary curriculum. Many of the schools’ students are multilingual and come from different backgrounds. Yet, all pupils in school need to learn through the same curriculum and through the same instruction language(s). It is helpful to use students’ multilingual knowledge as an aid for learning, by using translanguaging, for example. In this way, multilingualism is used as a didactic and pedagogic teaching strategy. At the DESNISE school the instruction languages are both Dutch and English but up to “32 home languages are represented in school” (Taalbeleid DENISE, 2017/2018). As a way of organising language and curriculum, the school has devised a written language policy. Ergo, his thesis defined the role of home languages by analysing the language policy written by the DENISE school. The thesis then contrasted the guidelines of the policy to the classroom practices in the school, focusing on home language use. The overall objective of the language policy at the DENISE school is to formulate a context in which the two main languages (Dutch and English) are organised and used in school, giving guidelines and background on the usage of Dutch and English as a language of instruction. Moreover, the language policy states that the mother tongue is supported in different ways and aimed at maintenance. Through interviews and observations, is concluded that school has a positive attitude towards home languages. Unfortunately, the results of this research does show that home languages only get a small place in class. Home languages are tolerated in school, yet no evidence of didactical teaching strategies were observed with regards to the mother tongue maintenance and use. The language policy of the DENISE school is in line with a Dual Language Plan bilingual education model, but more strategies need to be implemented in order to use student’s linguistic knowledge as an aid for learning, i.e. by using translanguaging. Keywords: multilingualism, multilingual education, bilingual education, home languages, translanguaging, bilingual education model, dual language plan, mother tongue education.
Table of Contents 1. Introduction ... 5 1.1. Overview ... 5 1.2. Context ... 5 1.2.1. Amsterdam ... 5 1.2.2. DENISE School ... 6 1.3. Research questions ... 7 1.4 Purpose ... 8 2. Background ... 9 2.1. Superdiversity ... 9 2.2. Limited Language Inclusion ... 10 3. Theoretical Background ... 12 3.1. Jim Cummins’s Theory ... 12 3.2. Traditional Bilingual Education Models ... 13 3.3. Translanguaging ... 16 4. Methodology ... 18 4.1. Research Questions ... 18 4.2. Participants ... 19 4.3. Observations ... 19 4.4. Interviews ... 20 4.5 Validity and Ethics ... 21 5. Results and Discussion ... 23 5.1 Language Policy Theory ... 23 5.1.1 Language Policy ... 23 5.1.2 The role of mother tongue in the language policy ... 25 5.1.3. Analysis of the Theory ... 26 5.2. School Practice ... 28 5.2.1. Language Separation ... 28 5.2.2. Language Awareness ... 29 5.2.3. Use of Home Languages in Class ... 31 5.2.4. Analysis of the Practice ... 33 6. Conclusion ... 35 6.1. Overview ... 35 6.2. Research Questions ... 35 6.3. Recommendations ... 37 6.4. Further Research ... 38
6.5. Limitations ... 38 7. References ... 40 Appendix I ... 44 Interview Questions for Staff ... 44 Interview Questions for Teachers ... 46 Appendix II ... 48 Extracts Original Dutch Version Interview Director: ... 48 Extracts Original Dutch Version Interview Staff Members: ... 49 Extracts Original Dutch Version Interview Teachers Group 1-2: ... 50 Extracts Original Dutch Version Interview Teacher Group 8: ... 52 Appendix III ... 53 Observation Group 1-2 Teacher 1 ... 53 Observation Group 1-2 Teacher 2 ... 55 Observation Group 8 ... 57 Appendix IIII: Language Policy DENISE (PDF) ... 58 Acknowledgement:
I would like to thank my supervisors Eva J. Daussà, PhD and dr. Joana Duarte, whose continued support and guidance made this project possible. I want to thank all staff and teachers at the Multilingualism MA department for giving me the knowledge and motivation I needed to continue my studies. Special thanks to the DENISE school, that opened their doors for collecting my data and being so open in talking about languages at school. Without them this research would not have been possible. I would also like to give special thanks to dr. Ellen-Rose Kambel for her continued guidance and inspiring me with her knowledge on multilingualism and her determination to make the world a better place.
1. Introduction
1.1. OverviewThis thesis will research how a diverse international school in Amsterdam responds to the multilingual and multicultural population of its city. The school was founded four years ago and provides a relevant model for bilingual education in the 21st century. Therefore, this small-scale study will discuss the written language policy of the school and show the relevant thought behind their bilingual model. This research will compare the policy guideline provided in the school and what actually happens in the classroom. I believe that researching how schools use theory in practice will be a very relevant addition to the analysis of bilingual classroom education today.
Many recent studies argue that translanguaging is the new addition to the multilingual classroom, by providing a safe learning environment for students to explore and make use of their full language repertoires (García, 2009a, 2009b, Lewis et al. 2012, Creese and Blackledge, 2010, Baker 2001, 2006, 2011, and Duarte, 2016). Due to the diversity of our current society, using the home languages of the students as an aid for academic learning will benefit many children. By being allowed to use their knowledge and strengths in languages, translanguaging provides a didactical and pedagogical strategy for children to develop their emotional, cognitive and social skills (García, 2009a, 2009b, Baker 2001, 2006, 2011). However, many schools, such as the topic school of my research, still have a bilingual approach. This means that only Dutch and English are being used as languages of instruction and materials to develop their skills are provided in these two languages only. This thesis researches the school’s policy and bilingual practice and in addition will focus on the home language use in the school as a focal point. The study will also offer recommendations to the school based on the analysis of the data. By examining what is being done with students’ mother tongue, this study is relevant to see how schools are responding to its diverse student population and all the languages its students bring with them to class.
1.2. Context
1.2.1. Amsterdam
Amsterdam is a multilingual and multicultural capital city. In 2017, Amsterdam counted to have at least 167 nationalities living in its city borders (CBS, 2017). In 2017, a research project was conducted by the University of Amsterdam to also count the amount of languages represented in the city. Since Amsterdam has a long history with
migration and has over 167 nationalities, it would be beneficial for this research to also illustrate the amount of language present. The results stated,
“In total there are more than a 100 languages used in Amsterdam. More than half of the students (56%) indicate having more than one home language. Next to Dutch, these are the ten most languages spoken in Amsterdam: Arabic, English, Turkish, Sranan Tongo/ Surinamese, Berbers, Spanish, Akan/Twi/Ghanaian, Russian, Japanese and Papiamento. In addition, 16 other languages are frequently used: French, German, Indonesian/Javan, Hindi, Mandarin/Chinese, Portuguese, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, Eritrean, Kurdish, Italian, Punjabi, Afghan/Dari/Pashto, Iranian/Farsi, Swedish and Korean. About 90% of Amsterdam students use one or more of these 26 languages” (Hanekamp and Kuiken, 2017).
Not only do these numbers indicate that Amsterdam is very multilingual, but they also indicate that the languages spoken in Amsterdam are languages that are spoken all over the world. Interestingly, the languages taught as subjects in school in Amsterdam are “English (88%), French (57.1%), German (34,2%) and Spanish (22,8%)” (Hanekamp and Kuiken, 2017). When comparing these to the previous mentioned languages spoken in Amsterdam, it shows that these languages, unfortunately, only represent a very small sample of the repertoires described. The school that I conducted my research with is a bilingual school, where Dutch and English are used as languages of instruction. The following section will provide more information about the school.
1.2.2. DENISE School
The school that I conducted my research in is the de Nieuwe Internationale School Esprit1 (DENISE). The DENISE school started in 2014 and “offers widely accessible international education of high quality standing in present society with broad awareness of the collective responsibility for the world we live in” (DENISE website, 2018). They offer an English-Dutch Dual Language program based on the International Primary Curriculum (IPC) for primary education and on the International Middle Years Curriculum (IMYC) for middle years education. The participants of this thesis are three teachers and three staff members from the primary education department. The observations were done in the first and eighth grades of the primary education
1Translation: New International School Esprit. Esprit is the overarching school board that this school is a member of.
department. DENISE also highly values intercultural competence development. Students from all cultural backgrounds are accepted at this school. The school’s language profile and aim is: By explicitly stating that the school has a Dual Language plan and dividing the languages in Dutch and English days, the school seems to correlate with the Dual Language bilingual education model that will be discussed in the theoretical framework. In addition, this research also investigates the role of home languages in this school by analysing the written language policy theory with regards to home languages and examining the implementation of this theory in the classroom.
1.3. Research questions
This study is interested in the language policy of this bilingual school, its implementation and classroom practices. The first research question will focus on the language policy itself, by asking 1. What language policy does the school have and what is its objective? By discussion and explaining the objective of the language policy, this study will try to see the language organisation the school provides for its students. But, just considering the written language policy does not aid to the investigation of classroom practices.
Language Profile:
“At DENISE there are 32 different languages spoken (based on data from school year 2016-2017). The majority of our students have Arabic (22%), English (22%) or Dutch (13%) as their first language. Other mother tongues are Spanish (6%), Portuguese (3%), Polish (3%), Turkish (2%), and Russian (3%). In total, 75% of our students speak English next to their mother tongue. 76% of the students also speak Dutch” (Taalbeleid DENISE, 2017/2018, p. 19).
Aim:
“Our aim is to ensure that our students receive high quality Dual Language education from the first year on. Our Dual Language Program helps develop our students’ speaking, reading and writing skills building on their existing (first) language skills. With the help of a Dutch class teacher on three days and a English class teacher on two days, students are enabled to explore and learn in both languages” (website DENISE, 2018).
Therefore, the second research question will be on implementation of the language policy.
2. What difference is there to be found in the intended objective of the written language policy versus observed classroom practice?
Analysing classroom practices and observing in which ways the theory of the written policy is implemented, will examine the outcomes of the written language policy in the classroom. The role of home languages in the classroom will be paid attention to specifically, because, as mentioned in the school’s language profile above, students at this school speak many more languages than just Dutch and English.
1.4 Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to define the role of home languages at the DENISE school by analysing the written language policy of the school versus the classroom implementation of this policy. I originally wanted to find a school that works explicitly with translanguaging but I was not able to find a school that had a place for me to conduct my research. Eventually, I was asked by the DENISE school to conduct my research with them, focusing on their written language policy and classroom implementation. In addition, I did want my research to have a special focus on the home languages represented in class because of Amsterdam’s diverse and multilingual student population. This thesis is looking at language policies, classroom implementation and home language use. Moreover, I believe this research to be relevant to the field of education because of its focus on the response of the educational environment to today’s growing multilingual and multicultural society.
2. Background
2.1. Superdiversity A diverse population in the Netherlands has long been a reality. The Dutch national newspaper ‘Trouw’ stated, “you can consider the (Dutch) multicultural society as a fixed fact” (Trouw, 2011). Migration patterns changed after the government signed migration accords with Morocco and Turkey in the 1950s (Geldof, 2015). Furthermore, in the 1990s, the migration shift grew as a result of globalisation, military conflicts, and EU migration regulations. The Netherlands and its neighbours became an immigrant society, which resulted in the population becoming not only more diverse but also more complex (Geldof, 2015). Currently, the Netherlands has become a society with people from different cultures and many different languages. With migrant patterns changing over decades, the diversity is now even more diverse. Accordingly, Geldof (2015) states,“This means that the basic pattern of migration has changed, from ‘people from limited countries of origin to a small number of host countries’ to ‘people from a large number of countries of origin to a large number of host countries.’ The result is a growing pluriformity in migrant backgrounds: ethnically, linguistically, legally, culturally or economically” (p. 1).
Vertovec (2007) coined the term super-diversity to explain the new coherency of the current society we live in. Super-diversity has resulted in various complex situations in different layers of society. One of these layers and the focus of this thesis is education. The diversity of a community has a direct impact on classroom formation. Different people of different backgrounds come into direct contact with each other and they all need to be able to absorb new information to learn new things. They do not have a language barrier, whereas a child who speaks a different language at home does. Nevertheless, both children need to learn the school language simultaneously to advance in education academically. This difference in language levels leaves for an achievement gap between monolingual and multilingual students that have been unveiled by large-scale monitoring studies (OECD 2014). According to these studies, this gap “triggered the implementation of programmes to support language learning of minority multilingual pupils” (Duarte, 2016, p.1).
With this large-scale research and information, the Dutch government, together with the Primary Education Board (PO-Raad), initiated the action to publish a booklet called ‘Ruimte voor nieuwe talenten’ (Make Room for New Talents) in 2017 to give top-down support for teaching and acknowledging multilingual support in primary
education. Further, in 2017, we can see that around 130 schools are offering full bilingual education to students. This means that students do not only learn two languages simultaneously, but are also subjected to two languages of instruction (Kambel and Agirdag, 2017). All these factors signify a “multilingual turn” (May, 2013) in education.
2.2. Limited Language Inclusion
Unfortunately, these bilingual programs are only in European languages such as English, French and German and do not include the multitude of migrant languages represented in Dutch society. Schools have to create their own initiatives and support to include migrant languages for learning, and “although the positive effects of multilingualism and multilingual education are not at issue, not all multilingual repertoires are valued in the same way” (Agirdag and Oudeweetering, 2017, p.11). For example, in 2013 a Turkish boy was suspended from school for speaking Turkish on school grounds (Volkskant, 2013). Even back in 2004, government funded mother tongue initiatives such as Onderwijs in Eigen Taal en Cultuur2 (OETC) and Onderwijs van Allochtone Levende Talen3 (OALT) for migrant children were abolished in the Netherlands. The Dutch constitution Article 9.13 of the Primary Education Law states that Dutch is the main language of instruction. “However, the law leaves open the possibility of using other languages as a language of instruction in education. This concerns both the Frisian language and regional languages, but also mother tongues of pupils with a non-Dutch cultural background” (LePichon-Vorstman and Kambel, 2017, p. 37). Yet, the use of mother tongues in school needs to be established in the code of conduct of the school itself (LePichon-Vorstman and Kambel, 2017).
Though the numbers of bilingual education programs are growing, they are still only in neighbouring high socio-educational status languages, whereas migrant low status languages are still struggling to receive acceptance in mainstream education (Dörnyei, 1990). Dutch newspaper NRC wrote that children whose parents speak another language than Dutch have a “developmental delay” (NRC, 2018) coming into school, which clearly shows a monolingual viewpoint that Dutch speakers have of children brought up with other languages. But, children’s developmental delay is not
2Roughly translates to: Education in Home Language and Culture
only a consequence of parents speaking a different language at home. Developmental delay can be a result of many more factors such as low socioeconomic status of the parents, marginalized group status, unable to create rich language environments with early-stage reading and other social factors (Cummins, 2018).
As stated before, the Netherlands still maintains a monolingual view on education, yet language attitudes are slowly shifting in schools. Yet, on national policy level, it comes as no surprise that the Netherlands “does not offer mother tongue instructions at all in education, the emphasis is on assimilation and instruction in the language of the state” (Sirius Report, 2014, p.6). Though multilingualism is not supported in national policies, mother tongue initiatives outside schools may be implemented at municipality level. These initiatives are usually done through religious schools or weekend schools (Sirius Report, 2014). This shows that, small multilingual shifts in Dutch education are happening as a reaction on the multilingual reality that we live in.
3. Theoretical Background
National language ideologies are often displayed inside the classroom. Many Dutch schools still have a monolingual policy, even though many schools have a multilingual and multicultural schooling population. This could result in a non-connection to their home environment and low motivation between the school and its pupils. As Krause and Prinsloo (2016) state:
There is need for “recognizing potential fluidity of language resources and attention in schools. As Martin Jones (2007: 172) puts it, schools operate as institutions (linked to the state) where specific language (national official languages) and specific linguistic practices (ways of speaking, reading and writing) come to be inculcated with legitimacy and authority” (p. 349).
Accordingly, this chapter will discuss the theory behind bilingual education. Firstly, this chapter will explain Jim Cummins’s Underlying Proficiency Theory. Secondly, it will discuss weak and strong bilingual education models. Finally, the theoretical background will outline and explain the new discussion in multilingual education, namely translanguaging.
3.1. Jim Cummins’s Theory
Back in 1981, Jim Cummins introduced his notion of Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) and Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). These two systems need to be developed in school, meaning that we learn our communicative skills in our surroundings but need to learn academic proficiency in professional settings. Cummins explains it takes longer to develop academic skills in life. However,
“The idea of BICS and CALP is useful, but it is not absolute. For example learners can acquire specific formal academic language that there is a lot of focus on in class. The distinction between the two does not refer to informal spoken language versus formal written language. It is important that English as an Additional Language Learners develop control over different forms according to the context” (Bell Foundation, 2017). Building on his notions of BICS and CALP, Cummins devised his Iceberg Model, stating that beneath the water surface more information and knowledge is present in students. However, when a child is bilingual, it means that he/she has knowledge in two or more languages simultaneously. This introduced the idea of Common Underlying Proficiency
(CUP), meaning that if you have learned a concept in one language you do not need to re- lean it in another language (Cummins, 1980). For example, if you have learned how to write in your first language, you do not need to re-learn the concept of putting words on paper, just need to learn how to do it with another writing system in another language. Therefore, “Those who have developed CALP in their first language can transfer much of this learning to additional languages. Learners who move into a new language environment at an early age can benefit enormously if they are given opportunities to continue to develop their first language alongside English, using both languages for cognitively demanding tasks” (Bell Foundation, 2017).
In this way, many students come into class with knowledge present, but the development of those languages need to be stimulated in class. This is not an easy task since the notion of bilingual education is not just about education. “There are sociocultural, political, and economic issues ever present in the debate over the provision of bilingual education” (Baker, 2006, p. 214). The next question is how to organise bilingual education in the curriculum. Many theories and practices have been discussed throughout the twentieth century.
3.2. Traditional Bilingual Education Models
Traditionally, bilingual education has always argued that the languages of instruction have to be separate for learning. As Jacobson and Faltis (1990) stated,
“Bilingual educators have usually insisted on the separation of the two languages one of which is English and the other, the child’s vernacular. By strictly separating the languages, the teacher avoids it is argued, cross-contamination, thus making it easier for the child to acquire a new linguistic systems as he/she internalizes a given lesson. It was felt that the inappropriateness of the concurrent use was so self-evident that no research had to be conducted to prove this fact”. (p. 4, in Creese and Blackledge, 2010, p. 104).
Not only separation of languages deemed to be an important factor for bilingual educators, some forms of bilingual models even argue for mainstreaming or submersion education, aiming to assimilate the minority language group (Baker, 2006). Since populations are getting progressively more diverse, even super-diverse, there is increasing contact between minority and majority communities in educational contexts. To categorise such educational programs, it is useful to examine the aims of such education. Hence,
“Submersion contains the idea of a language minority student thrown into the deep end and expected to learn to swim as quickly as possible without the help of floats of special swimming lessons. The language of the pool will be the majority language and not the home language of the child” (Baker, 2006, p. 216).
The ‘sink or swim’ metaphor is still the reality of many educational models today, where no special language policy is integrated in schools with minority students. “Also, where indigenous language minorities are perceived as ‘outside’ the common good, mainstreaming becomes a tool of integration. The school becomes a melting pot to help create common social, political, and economic ideals” (Baker, 2006, p. 218). Subsequently, transitional bilingual education has emerged. The aim of transitional bilingual education is still assimilation, but language minority students are temporary allowed to use their home language in school. Thus, to adhere to the ‘swim or sink’ metaphor;
“Transitional education is a brief, temporary swim in one pool until the child is perceived as capable of moving to the mainstream pool. The aim is to increase use of the majority language in the classroom while proportionately decreasing the use of the home language in the classroom” (Baker, 2006, p. 221).
The underlying rationale is that the child needs to be able to function in the majority language, but needs help in their own language to achieve that goal, at least for a while. When the child has the necessary language tools to communicate in the majority language, the child becomes mainstreamed. This is still the official policy of the Netherlands, providing special language classes in schools for newcomer students, before entering mainstream Dutch education (see EDINA country report). However, transitional bilingual education can be split into two major types: early-exit and late-exit (Ramírez and Merino, 1990). “Early-exit transitional bilingual education refers to two years maximum help using the mother tongue. Late-exit transitional bilingual education allows around 40% of classroom teaching in the mother tongue” (Baker, 2006, p. 221).
Main criticisms of this model argue that the model is “remedial, compensatory and segregated, perpetuating the status quo by separating language minority students from the mainstream and thus reproducing differences in power and progress for those with lower class status” (Baker, 2006, p. 222). Submersion and transitional bilingual programs are therefore deemed ‘weak’ bilingual programs (Baker, 2006).
One strong form of bilingual education is Dual Language bilingual education. These “strong forms of bilingual education have bilingualism, biliteracy and biculturalism as intended outcomes” (Baker, 2006, p. 228). Typically, this type of education strives to have equal language balance as forms of instruction in its curriculum. For example, many school in the Netherlands have a Dutch/English bilingual educational system, where courses, subjects and instructions are given in both Dutch and English throughout the school years. “The aim of Dual Language bilingual schools is to not simply to produce bilingual and biliteral children. Gensee and Gándara (1999) suggest that such school enhance inter-group, communicative competence and cultural awareness” (Baker, 2006, p. 231). However, in order to achieve positive interaction between groups, “these programs must require suitable teachers” (Baker, 2006, p. 231). Even though the main aim of Dual Language bilingual programs it to achieve proficiency in both instruction languages, the system still uses language separation as a form of organisation.
In Dual Language programs, “language boundaries are established in terms of time, curriculum content and teaching. The essential aim is a careful distribution of time to achieve bilingual and biliteral students” (Baker, 2006, p. 233). The issue of time spent on language can have different organisations, one school could use 50-50 time, meaning dividing the teaching hours between the two languages evenly in the middle. Other schools may use the 60-40 or 70-30 time schedule. ‘Whatever the division of time, instruction in Dual Language bilingual school will attempt to keep boundaries between the languages, whether this is set to prevent language switches in class, usage of the language of instruction or set in the school curriculum’ (Baker, 2006). The two main instruction languages are still seen as two solitudes. Heller (1999) coined the term “parallel monolingualism” as a way of explaining the language organisation, whereas Swain (1983) used the phrase “bilingualism through monolingualism” (p. 4), and Creese and Blackledge (2008) used the term “separate bilingualism” to describe such language
practice in bilingual classrooms. This terminology hints at the fact that in these strong bilingual programs, language is still seen as two separate entities for learning.
3.3. Translanguaging
“In the 21st century, bilingualism is not simply seen as two separate monolingual codes, it is a vision that goes beyond ‘one plus one equals two’” (García, 2009, p. 2). With classrooms becoming increasingly diverse, many different people with various home languages go through the same educational systems as monolingual students. Therefore, the new view on bilingual education involves the concern for the students’ mother tongue. As Cummins stated in his CUP model, students might already have the acquired knowledge in their mother tongue that they could use as funds of knowledge for their second language learning, which could be the language of instruction. Therefore, “while bilingual education has traditionally argued that languages should be kept separate” (Creese and Blackledge, 2010, p. 104), translanguaging argues for no separation of languages in the classroom (Lewis, et al., 2012). As an concept,
“Translanguaging is the process of making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understand and knowledge through the use of two or more languages (Baker, 2011, p. 288). Thus, both languages are used in a dynamic system and functionally integrated manner to organise and mediate mental processes in understand, speaking, literacy, and, not least, learning. Translanguaging concerns effective communication, function rather than form, cognitive ability, as well as language production” (Lewis et al. 2012, p. 641).
By stating that language learning does not happen separately, it also “reflects the growing belief that content and integrated language learning (CLIL) is preferable to second language learning lessons for successful academic achievement when both languages are utilised in a lesson” (Lewis et al, 2012, p. 643).
However, translanguaging is even more inclusive. It takes acceptance of a child’s home language and personal idiolect to give the child opportunities to allow for cognitive and emotional development (Meertaligheid en Onderwijs, 2017). Additionally, if children who speak a minority language feel that their language and culture are not appreciated, it decreases not only their self-confidence and self-image (Ball, 2011) but also their motivation to learn. Motivational learning is a teaching aspect that is taught early on in didactics (Brown, 2007, Hedge, 2000, Scrivener, 2005). LePichon-Vorstman (2013) explains that
“It is the task of every teacher to encourage and praise the development of every language of the child. It is a vicious circle: we all have the need to belong to it but to be socially accepted you need to be able to communicate adequately and to communicate adequately you have to be socially accepted” (p. 52) (In Meertaligheid en Onderwijs, 2017, p. 21).
This means that it is crucial for the teacher to relate to their students and allow them to be themselves in any language or cultural aspect. In this way, the motivation to learn increases because pupils are allowed to express themselves in their full registry. However, how to do this requires knowledge on interculturalism and multilingualism. Canagarajah (2011) argues that some studies imply that “current classroom studies show that translanguaging is a naturally occurring phenomenon for multilingual students and cannot be completely restrained by monolingual educational policies. However, such studies might give the impression that translanguaging does not have to be taught” (p. 8).
For successful bilingual teaching, didactical and pedagogical strategies have to be implemented in class to prevent chaos or exclusion. Therefore, Canagarajah (2011) argues for instructing teachers how to use translanguaging in class. Successful translanguaging also includes literacy advancement and to achieve the goal for students to be biliterate (Canagarajah, 2011; Hornberger and Link, 2012). Even if translanguaging occurs in class naturally, translanguaging strategies still need to be implemented by the teacher to reach full academic achievement by the students. Furthermore, it remains essential that the teacher has full support by the school leaders to implement multilingual teaching so that the motivation for multilingualism is not only supported by a bottom-up approach, but also top-down.
4. Methodology
The school in which I conducted my research has a language policy written for its teachers and students’ .The purpose of this research is to analyse the written language policy versus the classroom implementation of this policy. In addition, the role of home languages in this implementation is focused on specifically. I wanted my thesis to focus on translanguaging but was not able to find a school that uses this practice to a full extent. Therefore, I decided to do my thesis with a bilingual school instead. Nonetheless, a discussion on home languages remains a focal point in this research. To conclude, I will offer recommendations for possible future development. The motivation behind this research derives from the fact that Amsterdam has a multilingual and multicultural population and I want to know what schools are doing to cater for those students. To examine what the DENISE school is doing for its bilingual students, I want to find out what is written in the language policy of the school and contrast that analysis with data from classroom practices. 4.1. Research Questions Accordingly, the two research questions are catered to those inquiries. The first research question is, what language policy does the school have and what is its objective? This research question aims to discuss and analyse the theory of the language policy, its implications, and its overall objective. The second research question is: what difference is there to be found in the intended objective of the written language policy versus observed classroom practice? This research question aims to discuss the difference observed between the written language policy and classroom practices. This thesis will use data gained from interviews with three staff members and three teachers and observations in three classrooms in order to answer the research questions. Finally, based on these results, I will offer recommendations to the school focusing on the strategies for implementing home languages in school. The type of research in this thesis is qualitative only and this topic is intrinsically interesting to me and includes current educational issues. I find that many schools are only providing bilingual education in only other European languages. However, the multitude of global languages present in class offers the teacher with new didactical and pedagogical strategies in order to achieve learning. Therefore, this is a topic close to my heart since I want all children to be able to achieve their full potential. Moreover, Stake (1995) would go as far as argue,
“selection on the basis of being intrinsically interesting is a sufficient justification in its own right” (Descombe, 2014, p. 60). However, the thesis must also be doable and consist in the given time frame, which is why I restricted my participants sample to staff members and teachers of the school only, as well as how many classes I observed. In this way, I am only able to analyse the written language policy and contrast that data with practice in the classrooms because further comparative investigation would fall outside the scope of my current research. 4.2. Participants
Data was collected in different sample groups. Firstly, I interviewed three members of staff and three teachers. I also observed in the interviewed teachers’ classrooms. The observations were done in two different age classes: the first grades and the eighth grades. The age groups of these two grades are four to six years old in the first grades and the eighth grade children are eleven to twelve years old. When I spoke to the school, the only classes they allowed me to conduct my research with, were the first and eighth grades. This is why these two classes are the sample of this thesis. Three different teachers taught the classes and the classes consisted of 35 pupils in total. The interviews were done with the director of the school, the primary school counsellor, the teacher support coordinator and the three teachers of the classes. Two interviewees were male and four were female. Before the interview, the participants were given the choice to do it in English or Dutch and all participants choose Dutch to be the main language. My supervisor approved the interview questions beforehand.
The school approved the observations and special permission to observe was asked from the parents of the pupils, since all pupils are under the age of eighteen. However, because of the ages of the children, the parents did not allow me to film or record anything during my observations and therefore, for ethical reasons, the observations were done by me without the aid of technological devices. 4.3. Observations There are three main areas when using observations: first I must decide what I wish to observe, what the main area of my observation is, and why the observation will produce the information I need. My reasons for using the observation method is to see
how the policy is implemented in the classroom but also to see any evidence of integrated language learning or even translanguaging. As Bell mentions,
“Observations can reveal characteristics of groups of individuals, which would have been impossible to discover by other means. Interviews, as Nisbet and Watt (1980, p. 13) point out, provide data but they reveal only how people perceive what happens, not necessarily what actually happens” (2010, p. 191).
To get a better framework for my observation, I decided to use a method by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007) as an additional tool and to ensure reliability and validity in this project. This method consisted of a background questionnaire to narrow down my purpose for my observations. By answering the background questions beforehand, I was able to have a good overview of what exactly it was I wanted to observe in class. I wanted to prevent any bias or interpreting during my observation, although one can never assure that the observation data can be a hundred percent objective (Bell, 2010, Descombe, 2007). However, by doing research beforehand and using Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007) questions to prepare, I had a good purpose for my observation and knew what I wanted to look for. I also decided to be a covert participant and not to interfere with the lesson at all. Even though I was a new person in the classroom, I did not participate in the actual lesson in any way. In this way I could assure that the children would not change their language because of interacting with me. To collect the data in the easiest way possible and because I was not allowed to use technology to help me observe, I used structured observation based on my framework and keeping records.
4.4. Interviews
A big advantage of using interviews is the adaptability of the conversation because interviews allow, “things to be discussed in depth, ask additional questions when necessary and they allow you to explore interviewees’ attitudes, opinions and feelings” (Lambert, 2012, p. 109). This is why I used semi-structured interviews with my participant sample. I decided to do interviews with the director and primary school counsellor at the school to get an overview, attitudes, and opinions on the school from a top-down point of view. I decided to interview the teachers because of my observations so I could see what the teachers’ attitude and opinions were on the language policy and language use in class before observing it first-hand. Consequently, I was able to have a good understanding of the teachers’ position before doing my observation. At the
beginning of the interview, I explained what to expect and how I would behave during the discussion and I made it clear that my opinions would not be expressed. It was also because of the focus of the interview was on language policy and classroom implementation of the participants that the interviews were conducted in Dutch. All participants (and the researcher) are native Dutch speakers and I expected them to be more comfortable discussing this topic in Dutch rather than English and therefore produce more authentic and valid data. The names of the interviewees will be changed to allow full anonymity. Any personal features or background has been left out.
The interviews were only about their opinions, thoughts, and awareness of the language policy and language use in class and no personal questions were asked. I remained neutral and non-committal on the statements made, and I made sure that I presented myself in a light that is designed not to antagonise or upset the interviewees in any way. All participants knew they were recorded, but this was said again before the interview started. I recorded the whole interview on my computer and afterwards transcribed the text. The process of transcription is certainly time-consuming, but it is a valuable part of the research because it brings the researcher close to the data (Descombe, 2007; Lambert, 2012). Furthermore, the data and analysis are grounded and allows richness and detail to the data that will be analysed in the next part of the thesis. Parts of the interviews were recorded on my MacBook Garage Band app. I did four interviews and the interviews together lasted a total of 2 hours and 22 minutes and consisted of 22 questions in total, divided up in three parts: general information, school questions and classroom question (see Appendix I).
4.5 Validity and Ethics
According to Bell (2010), validity relates to “whether an item or instrument measures what it is supposed to measure” (p. 119). I catered my interview questions to my research questions and adapted my observation method to them as well. The research questions and the data collection methods were discussed and approved before conducting the interviews and observations. By using two data collection methods I was able to triangulate my data “to be able to confirm the findings of one participant with those of another, which is the key element of triangulation” (Bell, 2010, p. 118). The school selected which teachers and which classes I could use for my
research and therefore I had no prior knowledge on the sample I would use for my thesis because I was assigned these classes by the school.
All teachers, staff, and parents gave permission to use my data for this thesis. However, to ensure full anonymity for the pupils, I was not allowed to record any of my observations. I did not use any technological or recording devises for anyone under the age of eighteen in this research. The teachers and directors gave full permission before the interview to be recorded. For ethical reasons, they will continue to be anonymous throughout this thesis.
5. Results and Discussion
In this part of the thesis I will discuss and analyse the data gained from the interviews and observations done at the DENISE school. The interview data has been translated because this thesis is written in English, the original Dutch version can be read in Appendix II. This chapter will consist of two sections: results and discussion. The results and discussion will be subdivided into two overarching sections: school policy theory and school practice, sub-categorized focusing on language separation, language awareness and home language use in class. 5.1 Language Policy Theory 5.1.1 Language Policy The DENISE school has a written language policy and a Dual Language Plan4 for their primary education. The written policy is also bilingual; there is a Dutch version and an English translation available. The data is this section is from the translation. The English quotes from the interviews are my English translations from the Dutch interviews; the original can be viewed in Appendix II. First of all, the director and founder of the school explained about the written language policy, that:
“We have a whole plan, it is very practical and also a working document because the practice changes again and again. … We are different from other schools because we are doing integrated [language] learning, whereas other schools where I worked still work with a transitory classroom. You have to learn Dutch with respect for the mother tongue, and you have to pay attention to English because this language becomes more and more important. … Everything is aimed at learning the two languages as well as possible and the whole program is aimed at making sure that language learning happens comfortably and that it is not a language course, but a full-fledged education.” (Interview director, 1:49, 3:53, and 6:22).
The language policy specifically states, “Our main focus at DENISE is language acquisition and development. At DENISE, all teachers are language teachers, as we believe all teachers bear responsibility for our students language acquisition” (Taalbeleid DENISE, 2017/2018, p. 17). The policy of every teacher is a language teacher is stated throughout the guideline of the school and also stated in two interviews, one 4The Dual Language Plan will not be discussed further in this thesis, but an acknowledgement is made. This is because the Dual Language Plan is a guideline that explains the reasoning why the language policy is organised the way it is.
with the director and the other with the primary school leader and the teacher support coordinator. This indicates awareness of this policy at the top level. The policy states that teachers follow three workshops a year about teaching language learners (Taalbeleid DENISE, 2017/2018, p. 26), but no extra information is given in regards to these workshops and teachers’ professional development.
The language policy features in-depth information on the uses of the main two instruction languages at the school, namely Dutch and English. The policy states
“Students in the primary department of DENISE get lesson in Dutch and in English. They get three days lessons in Dutch and two days in English. We can offer this by using team-teaching. There are two teachers (Dutch and English) and two language assistants (Dutch and English) both responsible for the education in one group. On the Dutch days the communication with students will be in Dutch and on the English days in English” (Taalbeleid DENISE, 2017/2018, p. 18).
This means that the policy uses language separation by dividing the weekly days in Dutch days and English days. However, the teachers of group 1-2 do not have a separate English teacher available and therefore made their own language separation organisation:
“Teacher 2: Teacher 1 and I were both Dutch teachers in the class and we had a separate English teacher. We noticed that the group was quite restless and we noticed that it was very difficult for some children to learn Dutch all day because most children were English.
Teacher 1: Another consideration was that in the mornings we wanted to concentrate more on Dutch when the children were fresher and there were more group moments like a circle where the yield was just a little higher” (interview teachers group 1-2, 4:56).
In this way, the teachers of group 1-2 use Dutch in the mornings and English in the afternoons, under the teacher’s assumption that it is easier for the children to learn their second language in the morning. The language policy also states that six teaching hours of English language and eight teaching hours of Dutch language is given per week, with more additional language lessons available for students with Dutch or English as a second language (Taalbeleid DENISE, 2017/2018). Both languages are used in teacher instructions as well as for the subjects, such a mathematics, geography and history (Taalbeleid DENISE, 2017/2018).
5.1.2 The role of mother tongue in the language policy
The students’ mother tongue is mentioned in the written policy. In the introduction section it is said, “we encourage students to maintain good use of their mother tongue” (Taalbeleid DENISE, 2017/2018, p. 17). The mother tongue policy is specifically stated on page 25, where it is written:
“At DENISE teachers support students to use their mother tongue in different ways: - To decide the knowledge of the students on a certain topic, teachers start frequently with a start assignment. This assignment can be a brainstorm, making a mindmap or wordmap. Teachers at DENISE ask the students to make this starting off assignment in their mother tongue. This can be written on paper of even discussed in small groups, depending on the groups of mother tongue speakers that are in one class.
- For research assignments, at subjects like TOK5, History or Geography, teachers support the students to use sources from different countries, in order keep on reading their mother tongue.
- In different lessons students are asked to share their different cultures and languages together. This could be sharing food, literature, or art, but students are also constantly having discussions in the lessons where they share the perspectives of their own country.
- In TOK students discuss if language determines someone’s worldview and affects thoughts. In these lessons, students share different words, sentences and expressions coming from their mother tongue. - In all subjects students at DENISE can be asked to make a wordlist in their notebook. Teachers encourage students to write down difficult words per subjects in their mother tongue” (Taalbeleid DENISE, 2017/2018, p. 25) There is no goal stated for using the mother tongue of the students in school, other than that it is tolerated and encouraged by teachers. This does signify a positive attitude towards mother tongues.
Nonetheless, no explanation is mentioned on how they plan to maintain students’ mother tongue. By giving these points towards mother tongue policy, it is unclear how the mother tongue will be used in practice for learning, other than by the mentions of the notebook keeping (for which I have no evidence in my data) or the usage of the mother tongue during the brainstorm phase (see section 2, sub-section home language use in this chapter). When asked about the home languages of the children in the
interviews, all participants stated that all languages are welcome in the school. For example, on the case of the brainstorm phase, the eighth-grade teacher stated,
“I let them use it during the brainstorm phase so when they are gathering ideas… It is easier to express your ideas in your own language where are you the strongest and once they get started it is easier to take the second step in the story that they have to deliver at the end [in Dutch or English]” (interview eighth-grade teacher, 00:30).
This signifies the teacher’s understanding of using the full language repertoire of students’ in order to achieve output. The teacher of group 1-2 also stated “it is not used to exclude others but they [the children] do not often talk to each other in their home languages. Sometimes a word here and there and that is not bad” (interview teachers group 1-2, 35:00). The primary school leader also stated, “all languages are welcome in the class; you can also read in your own language. They are not being banned. We prefer that you communicate with each other rather than when you do not communicate at all” (interview primary support team, 26:14). However, no evidence on academic support of mother tongue in the school was given, not in the written language policy or the interviews. This means that all languages are welcome in school but no evidence of mother tongue support is given in class for academic advancement.
5.1.3. Analysis of the Theory
Two main topics arise from the results: the concentration of language separation in the written language policy and the place of home languages in the written language policy. By fixating on language separation, the policy views language as two separate entities. However, as Palmer et al. (2014) states,
“If our goal is to develop bilingual students, it seems wise to normalise translanguaging in the classroom. Yet, in a space governed by strict separation of languages, there does not seem to be a sanctioned place in the classroom where this dynamic form of everyday bilingualism is normalised” (p. 759-60). The teachers specifically stated the organisation of language in the school as one of their first policy points, focusing primarily on the separate language system of three days of Dutch and two days of English (or Dutch mornings and English afternoons). However, this seems to be an assertion that languages work separately in daily life. They seem to be “falling back upon a monolingual notion of bilingualism” (Palmer et al., 2014, p. 759). Even though some languages are allowed during class, they are not given a place. It seems to be a model where Dutch/English “remains the primary medium of instruction,
and students may use their first languages as auxiliary mediums of learning.” (Carstens 2016, p. 205). Yet, as May (2014) argues
“The notion that the target of second language acquisition is to acquire native-like competence in two languages, needs to be replaced with a more complementary model of bilingualism, recognizing that a bilingual acquires as much competences in two (or more) languages as is needed and that all of the language together serve the full range of communicative needs” (p. 8).
The written language policy indicates that the policy occupies a place in the strong form of the bilingual education model explained in the theoretical framework. As Baker (2006) states, “A variety of practices are implemented in a Dual Language Plan: - The two languages of the school have equal status. - The school ethos will be bilingual. - Staff in the dual language classroom is often bilingual. - The length of the Dual Language program is often longer” (p. 232). In the written language policy of the DENISE school, Dutch and English have equal status throughout the curriculum and all materials that offer information on the school is available in both languages. This signifies that the school ethos is bilingual throughout. Staff at the DENISE school is bilingual, however not all teachers have an official language diploma in both Dutch and English. The DENISE school also has a ‘middle school’ feature that allows students to take language classes for a longer period of time between primary and secondary school. This allows students to have extra time to practice their bilingual learning before going to secondary school. In addition, languages are separated throughout the curriculum, appointed time is given to each language, and the focus is on biliteracy, bilingualism and biculturalism (Baker, 2006). While the language separation model has a primary place in the written policy, home languages are mentioned. Moreover, I would argue that the policy only states that mother tongues are tolerated and are not actually given a place within the language policy structure. One of the aims of the policy is for students to maintain their mother tongue, but no strategies are given in order to achieve this aim. Furthermore, in the mother tongue section of the policy, small hints are given on how to use home languages in the classroom; but it is heavily focused on intercultural teaching, instead of multilingual teaching. Therefore, I would agree with Carstens’s (2016) statement that
this “situation calls for strategies to be put in place that value all language as a resource” (p. 204). 5.2. School Practice 5.2.1. Language Separation In the written language policy, it is clearly stated that Dutch and English should be used on separate days, with separate Dutch and English teachers. In the interview with the primary school principle and teacher support coordinator, they stated, “we are a bilingual school, where we teach three days in Dutch and two days in English, the structure with which can vary per group” (interview primary school principle and teacher support coordinator, 2:07). All teachers and support staff state the language separation as one of the key factors of the language organisation in school. However, the eighth-grade teacher explained that sometimes the language becomes fluid, meaning “I cannot use the languages exclusively. I also notice that I am switching on my Dutch or English days and that I use both languages on those days and just move on” (interview eighth-grade teacher, 9:12). She explains that she repeats things or sometimes switches her language depending on which student she speaks to. In this way, language separation in practice is more fluid than stated in the language policy.
The two teachers of group 1-2 stated that they were experiencing some difficulties with the language separation. They explained:
“Teacher 1: What I sometimes find the biggest challenge is to stay really consistent, not so much in that you forget which language part of the day you are in, but more because of the different students. Some students need different languages use sometimes than which you would like. … But that is a matter of being consistent.
Teacher 2: And that is sometimes difficult in this school, what I find difficult for example is when you have an English afternoon and the children go away for Physical Education and that is in Dutch. When they come back in class they speak almost only Dutch again and then you have to keep talking English very consciously and that switch makes it hard for me. You also sometimes have to adapt to the children.
Teacher 1: Look you try to keep that separation of the languages but the children do not keep to the language divide because child A speaks English with child B, who speaks Dutch with child C and he might speak Swedish with child D. They are using different combinations both mornings and afternoons. And children who speak Dutch
together [in the English afternoons], you have to be big enough to keep repeating that in English” (interview teachers group 1-2, 10:34). In this way, the teachers are very consciously thinking about their language separation organisation in class, whereas the students do not use the languages separately. In all days of observing, I found that the children do not adhere to the language divide because they speak both Dutch and English intertwined with each other both in group work, playtime and during subject courses. It is the teacher who continues speaking one of the instruction languages throughout the day, sometimes repeating it in the other language for clarification. During the group 1-2 lesson, there was a specific language divide during lunch, where the teacher indicated to the class “Jongens en meisjes, kijk even allemaal naar mij6, I’m going to count to three, two, one.” This signified the English time for the children, and they started singing English lunch songs and from then on out, the English time was announced. However, some children continued speaking Dutch to each other, which was repeated in English by the teacher. During afternoon playtime, some girls were also speaking Dutch and the teacher came and played with them for a while, continuously speaking English with them and encouraging the children to speak it with her. 5.2.2. Language Awareness This part will be in two parts: the awareness of the language policy in school with the teachers and staff and the students’ language awareness in class. I got various responses when asked about the language policy during the interviews. Firstly, the founder and director of the school knew about the language policy and sent me the written policy. He was the only person who also mentioned the Dual Language Plan of the school. The eighth-grade teacher also knew about the language policy because she is in “different working groups for language in the school” (interview eighth-grade teacher, 00:24). She specified the English and Dutch days as a part of the policy but also indicated that the language use was more variable in practice. In the interview with the teachers of group 1-2, they stated:
“Teacher 1: A policy is aimed at newcomers at the school and in the classroom it means that we use bilingual education with a slight emphasis on Dutch.
Teacher 2: There is a language policy on paper, I think the school has started with that but I do not think it is fully implemented yet. I do not know too much about it.
Teacher 1: It is a bit like what you understand as a policy, but the bilingual course offers NT2 and INL, there is language support for Dutch and English, and that varies per group. Teacher 2: Yes, and the structure also varies, with us it is that we speak Dutch in the morning and in the afternoon English but from group 3/4 there is an English teacher and a Dutch teacher so then it is spread over the school days. So it is very different. It is more an organisational decision than that there is a policy.” (Interview teachers group 1-2, 2:16). In this part, the teachers are aware of certain components of the language policy, namely the language separation between Dutch and English. However, they categorise this as an organisational decision instead of a policy decision. Nonetheless, an official policy is written and implemented in the school explaining the decision on why and how Dutch and English are used. It is not an organisational decision but a policy one.
Yet, during my interview with the teacher support team, they both stated that: “We do not have a language policy because it is very, very difficult. I wanted it but it was too complicated. Where do you start?” (Interview primary school principle and teacher support coordinator, 5:46). This indicates no awareness of a language policy. The interviewees were able to name certain policy components, like ‘every teacher is a language teacher’ and the separation of Dutch and English language use. However, they only focused on the difficulties they were experiencing with language in the school. This statement indicates that they are aware of language organisation, but unaware of a written language policy.
Language awareness also presented itself in my observations of the students. During my observations, it became very clear that students are very aware of the language use in class. There was a boy in group 1-2 who his language depending on which classmate he was talking to because he knew that that child spoke English at home. During playtime, I also witnessed bilingual use of languages, where one child would speak English all the time and her friend would reply in Dutch but they fully understood each other and language did not form any barriers. I also witnessed a lot of switching with the younger children, however an elaborate analysis of code-switching falls outside the scope of my current research. Nonetheless, this would be
interesting for further research. The teacher of group 1-2 also noticed this phenomenon, stating “very often what comes out of a child is a mishmash of language and that is not a problem because then a child is still trying to get it all right” (interview teacher group 1-2, 14:45). Students seem to understand social language cues at a very early stage. Students in all observed groups change their language to make sure others understand them. When asking some of the group eighth children, they were able to pinpoint to me exactly who could speak which language. Even though teachers and staff are very adamant to keep language separate, children are much more fluid in class, understanding each other and make sure no one was left out by switching languages and varieties very fluidly during conversation. It indicates that students are very much aware of using their languages as a form of communication. As the teacher of group 1-2 explains, “children are very aware that some classmates are still learning Dutch or that someone has a better command of another language than another. Here it is seen as something very normal language learning and that is very nice” (interview teachers group 1-2, 18:19).
5.2.3. Use of Home Languages in Class
No home languages were recorded during my observations. In the interviews, all teachers and staff accepted the use of the mother tongue. However, when I asked if mother tongue was used for academic purposes, the director stated, “we do not help with the development of home languages, purely because we do not have the capabilities and we have no idea how to organise this” (interview director, 31:55). The teacher support coordinator also expressed that:
“There is not much here with the home languages, because the parents do it. They often send their child to another school for their own language. That’s pretty hard because those kids still have to go to school in the weekends” (interview primary school principle and teacher support coordinator, 27:03).
This means that languages are tolerated, but not used for academic purposes during class. When asked about the mother tongue, most interviewees mentioned parents and weekend schools as responsible factors, which shows that the mother tongue does not serve a specific purpose in school, only that its usage is allowed. When asking three children about it, they stated:
“Child 1: Some students do use their languages. That girl, that girl, and that boy. I can only speak and listen so I know little, I would not use them that would be silly.
