言語政策と語学教育 Clil lecture jan 2017

1

LOOKING AT LANGUAGE POLICY IN EDUCATION AS A PROCESS: A LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

Lisa Fairbrother, Ph.D.Faculty of Foreign Studies,

Sophia University

[email protected]

外国語教育における CLIL の実践と応用Symposium for CLIL in a plurilingual community of practiceLanguage policy and education 言語政策と語学教育Sophia University, January 28th, 2017

2

OUTLINE 1. What is language policy and planning? 2. A language management perspective 3. What processes can we see behind the development and implementation of language policy in education? 3.1 Where do language policies come from? Who is involved? Whose interests are represented? 3.2 How are those policies implemented (if at all)? What happens after they are implemented? 4. If CLIL were introduced as a national education policy, what issues would we need to pay particular attention to?

3

WHAT IS LANGUAGE POLICY AND PLANNING? “Language planning refers to deliberate and

future-oriented activities aimed at influencing or modifying the language behaviour of a speech community or society”(Swann et al. 2004)

The results of such planning are what we call language policies ( 言語政策、言語教育方針）

4

WHERE DOES LANGUAGE PLANNING HAPPEN?

a) macro-level: government public policy, laws b) meso level: in institutions （団体） (e.g., universities, schools, hospitals, corporations, local boards of education) c) micro level: individual interactions, in the

individual classroom

5

LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT THEORY Language management theory (Jernudd &

Neustupný 1987, Nekvapil 2009) looks at “behaviour towards language” and the processes behind that behaviour

The theory was developed in response to the situation common in the 1960’s and 1970’s where language policies were made primarily by politicians and experts without any consideration of the actual language issues that language users faced.

THE LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT MODEL

6

Deviation from a norm or expectation

No noting Noted

No evaluation Evaluated

No adjustment plan

Adjustment planned

No implementation

Adjustment implemented

7

THE MANAGEMENT CYCLE The processes connecting the micro and

macro levels (Sherman 2006, Nekvapil 2009)

“…any act of language planning should start with the consideration of language problems as they appear in discourse, and the planning process should not be considered complete until the removal of the problems is implemented in discourse” (Neustupný 1994, p.50)

8

IN OTHER WORDS…. Language policy should begin with a) an examination of the actual language

problems occurring in the language use of language users (or their attitudes and aspirations towards language use)

and b) aim to remove those problems so that

they no longer appear in discourse

9

WHERE DOES LANGUAGE EDUCATION POLICY COME FROM?

From a language management cycle perspective, it should be based on an analysis of language problems actually occurring on the ground

In reality, most policy is the result of competition between multiple interests and influenced by a variety of agents and actors involved at different levels of the process

“competing managers ..with divided and competing goals” (Spolsky 2006: 97)

10

WHAT ISSUES RELATING TO LANGUAGE EDUCATION ARE NOTED?

• Problems occurring in actual language classrooms (e.g. students aren’t getting enough speaking practice)• Problems relating to proficiency levels (e.g. students’ speaking skills aren’t good enough/ the current teaching approach doesn’t seem to be working)• Problems in the overall education system that hinder

students’ language acquisition? (e.g. the university entrance exam system)

But as Spolsky (2006) warns us, the ‘stated’ problem or motivation is sometimes different from the ‘real’ motivation (i.e. political interests, financial concerns etc.)

11

WHO IS DOING THE NOTING? Micro-level Teachers Students Parents

Meso-level School administrators Local boards of education Pedagogy experts at universities Employers

Macro-level Bureaucrats (MEXT) Politicians Business leaders ( 経団連）

12

WHAT NORMS OR EXPECTATIONS ARE THOSE PROBLEMS BEING MEASURED AGAINST? Micro-level Students should be able to use (speak) English Students should be getting better exam results Students need the skills necessary to get a job

Meso-level Individual schools: Need to keep a good reputation in order to

attract students and extra funding Individual companies: Need more foreign-language speakers

to help them sell or make their products overseas

Macro-level Sensitivity to international test score rankings (Politicians) The necessity of raising a workforce capable of dealing with

globalization ( グローバル人材の育成）

13

COMPETING INTERESTS ( 利害の衝突） Private schools often want to improve their

students’ speaking skills BUT They also need to guarantee that students

get good university entrance exam results

14

THEN WHO IS INVOLVED IN ACTUAL POLICY-MAKING? E.g. MEXT Guidelines for the Course of Study ( 学習指導要領） Expert advisory committee （有識者会議） 4 university professors 3 school principals The head of an entrance exam prep school The CEO of Rakuten The head of an economics and international relations research institute

15

MEXT 外国語ワーキンググループ 5 school principals/vice-principals 6 university professors 2 local board of education members 1 school teacher 経団連 representative

16

WHAT LANGUAGE EDUCATION POLICIES ARE DESIGNED TO REMOVE THOSE PROBLEMS?

Problem: Students’ communication skills aren’t good enough for “smooth communication with people of different countries and cultures using foreign languages as a tool” (MEXT 2011:3)

Policy: (MEXT, 2011): From 2013 high school English classes should be taught through the medium of English

17

(HOW) ARE LANGUAGE EDUCATION POLICIES ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED? In their study of the implementation of the Common

European Framework of Reference (CEFR), Byram and Parmenter (2012) point out that:

“like any text, the intentions of its authors many not be read by its users” (p4)

They criticize the overemphasis on the scales of proficiency (A1, C2 etc.) and attempts to link the scales to generalized test scores rather than its intended context-based focus on autonomous learning ( 自立的学習） and plurilingualism

18

HOW ARE THOSE POLICIES IMPLEMENTED? MEXT asks local boards of education to follow

their guidelines Training courses offered to help teachers be

able to do it

In reality (micro-level) many students are not being taught in this way

19

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION Just implemented in certain schools, not all

schools

Just implemented in a limited number of classes within one school

20

HOW IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES CHECKED? Internal school checks?

Local board of education checks?

Questionnaires and reports

21

THE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES BEHIND CLIL What language education issues motivated

its development? Who designed the approach? (How) is it implemented? By whom? Does the approach remove the problems it

was designed to remove? How is this checked?

What new issues are being noted after implementation?

22

LOOK AT HOW CLIL DEVELOPED Developed in the 1990’s in Europe

Questions from a language management perspective:

Why was it developed and by whom? How is it being implemented?

23

WHO WAS INVOLVED “the European launch of CLIL during 1994

was both political and educational” (Marsh, 2012: 1)

Political: The European Commission （ EU 政策執行機関） Educational: Language education experts, particularly

David Marsh

24

ISSUES NOTED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Deviation: Many Europeans were not proficient enough in

other European languages

Expectation: need to create a practically and 　 psychologically

united Europe where people feel European

25

ISSUES NOTED BY LANGUAGE EDUCATION EXPERTS Marsh (2002): Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and

Content-based Language Teaching (CBLT) approaches did not seem to be effective enough in raising the language proficiency of Europeans

The Canadian immersion programmes were proving to be succesful but they didn’t suit the European context.

Expectations: European language education needs to be better

26

WHAT ISSUES WERE NOTED IN JAPAN? According to Sasajima (2013), one motivation

for the introduction of CLIL was dissatisfaction with Presentation, Practice, Presentation (PPP) and CLT approaches to Teaching English for Specific Purposes (ESP ：特定目的のための英語 ).

At Sophia University, there were concerns about students’ development of language proficiency ( 渡部、池田、和泉 2011).

27

(HOW) IS CLIL IMPLEMENTED IN EUROPE?• According to Eurydice (2012: 39):CLIL courses are offered in nearly all European countries.However, no country provides CLIL courses in all schools and “the practice is not necessarily widespread” 　 with some countries implementing ‘pilot projects’only

E.g. in the UK, it is only offered in a small minority of schools (Eurydice, 2006).

So we can see partial implementation at the macro and meso levels.

28

IN JAPAN Meso-level （ Sophia University) Since 2014 CLIL has been introduced into the

curriculum at the Centre for Language Education and Research (CLER)

MA TESOL programme courses in CLIL Symposiums and training workshops (like

today )

29

IN JAPAN Micro-level (in the classroom) According to Sasajima (2013), ‘Soft’ CLIL is

more likely to be implemented in Japan, in contrast to the ‘hard’ CLIL implemented in Europe

• i.e. more focus on “broad linguistic aims” and English medium instruction (EMI) rather than ‘hard’ CLIL emphasizes ‘subject-based aims and objectives” (Ball et al., 2015:26)

30

THE BIG QUESTION Does the CLIL approach work better at

improving learners’ language proficiency than the other methods it was designed to improve on and replace?

In other words, can we see the management cycle? Are the problems initially noted removed from the micro level?

There is some evidence.

31

EVIDENCE OF IMPROVEMENTS (REMOVAL OF ORIGINAL PROBLEMS) CLIL students develop better reading and writing

skills compared to students in other types of bilingual and monolingual classes (Ikeda, 2013; Yamano, 2013; Admiraal, Westhoff and De Bot, 2006)

Japanese students develop more positive attitudes towards foreign language learning (McEvoy, 2014).

32

ON THE OTHER HAND, CONCERNING SPEAKING SKILLS…

Regarding the classrooms that she researched in Austria, Christiane Dalton-Puffer (2007) argued that they are:

“less good training grounds for participation in speech events that are oriented towards interaction rather than transaction” (p.295)

And she argues for the necessity of developing clear language goals for the four skills.

33

HOW ABOUT THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S AIM TO PROMOTE EUROPEAN IDENTITY?

Brexit and the recent anti-EU sentiments displayed in France, Italy and the Netherland suggest not

34

BUT THE LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS DOESN’T STOP HERE

What new issues are being noted after attempts to implement the approach?

Kimura(2012)refers to this as the ‘feedback’ stage, whereby the actual implementation of a policy is evaluated.

35

WHAT NEW PROBLEMS ARE BEING NOTED AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CLIL Mehisto et.al (2008): Teachers’ and school administrators’

misconceptions of the approach Greater workload for teachers Shortage of materials

Sasajima (2013): The Malaysian government’s 2003 CLIL

education policy was not successful because of a lack of understanding of the basic concept of CLIL and a lack of proper teacher training ( 教育実習・教員研修）

36

David Graddol (CLIL debate, 2005): “In many countries they just don't seem to

be equipped to implement CLIL. When it works it works extraordinarily well, but it is actually quite a difficult to do well.”

37

WHAT TO DO NEXT? Future CLIL policy initiatives should be trying

to remove these problems, particularly:

Misconceptions of what CLIL is Lack of teacher training Lack of materials How to develop the approach to improve

speaking and listening proficiency

38

OTHER AREAS TO CONSIDER Monitoring implementation: How will we be able to make sure that all instructors

are teaching what they are supposed to be and in the way they are supposed to be? If they aren’t how will we be able to fix this?

Assessing the implementation: How will we gauge whether the original problems

that triggered the development of the CLIL approach have actually been addressed and removed from discourse on the micro level? How will we assess whether learners are meeting the aims of the original introduction of the policy?

39

Thanks for listening

40

REFERENCES

Admiraal, W. G., Westhoff, & De Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency. English Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, (1), 75-78.

Ball, P., Kelly, K. & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Byram, M & Parmenter, L. (Eds.) (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education

policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern

Ireland). Retrieved https://www.nfer.ac.uk/pdf/CLIL.pdf. Eurydice. (2012). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe 2012 edition. Retrieved

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/Eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143EN.pdf. Graddol, D. (2005). CLIL debate questions and answers. The Guardian Weekly, April 20, 2005. Retrieved from https://

www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2005/apr/20/guardianweekly.guardianweekly13 Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students? Potential for the “weak” version of CLIL. International CLIL

Research Journal, 2 (1), 31-43. Jernudd, B. H. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In L. Laforge (ed.) Proceedings of the International Colloquium

on Language Planning. Quebec: Les Presses de L’Université Laval, 69-84. Kimura, G. (2014) Language management as a cyclical process: A case study on prohibiting Sorbian in the workplace. Slovo a

slovesnost 75 (4), 255-270. Marsh, D. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL). A development trajectory. Córdoba: University of Córdoba. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual

education. Oxford: Macmillan Education. Nekvapil, J. (2009) The integrative potential of Language Management Theory. In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds.) Language

Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1-11. Neustupný, J. V. (1994a) Problems of English contact discourse and language planning. In T. Kandiah & J. Kwan-Terry (eds.) English

and Language Planning: A Southeast Asian Contribution. Singapore: Academic Press, 50-69. Sasajima, S. (2013). CLILはおもしろい　背景とその可能性. 英語教育６月号 , 10-17. Sasajima, S. (2013). 各国のCLILの実際　ヨーロッパとアジアを中心に. 英語教育 6月号 ,34-35. Sherman, T. (2006) Uncovering institutionally imposed norms through the interaction interview: Mormon missionaries in the Czech

Republic. In H. Muraoka (ed.) Language Management in Contact Situations. Vol 4. Report on The Research Projects no. 129. Chiba, Japan: Chiba University Graduate School of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1-12. Also available at http://languagemanagement.ff.cuni.cz/

Spolsky, B. (2006). Language policy failures. In M. Pütz, J. Fishman & J. Neff-van Aertselaer (eds.) ‘Along the routes to power’: Explorations of empowerment through language (pp.87-106. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Swann, J., Deumert, A., Lillis, T. & Mesthrie, R. (2004). A dictionary of sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 渡部義典、池田真、和泉伸一 (2011). 『CLIL（内容言語統合型学習）上智大学外国語教育の新たなる挑戦　第１巻　原理と方法』 上智大学出版 Yamano, Y. (2013). CLIL in a Japanese primary school: Exploring the potential of CLIL in a Japanese EFL context. International CLIL

Research Journal, 2 (1), 19-30.