Multilingualism in kindergartens: Challenges, Chances and Concepts Hausarbeit zur Erlangung des Akademischen Grades Master of Arts vorgelegt dem Fachbereich 05 – Philosophie und Philologie der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz von Maren Gockel geboren am 04.01. 1989 in Hamm (Westf.) 2015 Kernfach: Int. Master in Sociolinguistics and Multilingualism Erstgutachterin: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Anneli Sarhimaa Zweitgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Ineta Dabašinskienė
101
Embed
Multilingualism in kindergartens: Challenges, Chances and ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Multilingualism in kindergartens:
Challenges, Chances and Concepts
Hausarbeit zur Erlangung des Akademischen Grades
Master of Arts
vorgelegt dem Fachbereich 05 – Philosophie und Philologie
der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
von
Maren Gockel
geboren am 04.01. 1989 in Hamm (Westf.)
2015
Kernfach: Int. Master in Sociolinguistics and Multilingualism
A good command of German is generally seen as a defining key qualification
for a successful school attendance and later on for a successful career path.
Knowing German properly also is crucial for an active participation in the society
and the economic life. This is especially a challenge for families with a migration
background. Their children are at risk to attend a special-needs school with the
focus of learning just the basic skills, only because their German skills are not
good enough for a regular school (Siegert 2008). Consequently, they are at risk of
getting a much lower school degree than children of native German-speaking
families and therefore have economical disadvantages. In order to counteract this
social disadvantage and to provide migrant children with an equal access to
education with native German-speakers, acquiring German as a second language
has to be supported as early as possible.
5
Kindergartens are the first educational institution which the majority of children
in Germany attend. In 2010, 96% of all children aged four to five years attended a
kindergarten and also the number of migrant children attending a kindergarten
increased in the last few years (Roßbach 2008; Statistisches Bundesamt 2012).
The increase of migrant children attending a kindergarten and the decline in the
birth rate in Germany changed the composition of kindergarten groups in the last
years. It is not uncommon anymore that migrant children are the majority in
kindergarten groups, especially in bigger cities. In Frankfurt the share of
immigrants in kindergartens varies from 59% to 63% (Schupp 2012:78/79).
The different cultures and languages can be a challenge for all people involved
in early-childhood education and educators have to find strategies on how to cope
with such a diverse environment. They not only have to help the migrant children
to integrate into the kindergarten group and society but also show and teach every
child that multiculturalism and multilingualism are a natural part of the German
society, that there is nothing negative in it but rather the contrary: it should be
valued. Furthermore, children of immigrant families are not always proficient in
the German language when entering educational institutions as shown e.g. by
Beck already in 1999 and educators have to develop strategies to communicate
with immigrant children in order to effectively help them to acquire such a
proficiency that will provide them with equal opportunities with their native
German-speaking peers at school.
At the most general level, this study aims at identifying strategies that actually
are employed by educators in diverse kindergarten groups. It will be investigated,
firstly, how kindergarten teachers communicate with migrant children and how
they support their acquisition of the German language and, secondly, if the
educators implement the different languages and cultures into their daily
pedagogical work. Acquiring the German language as well as becoming aware of
different languages and cultures is important for the development of the children
and both processes should be supported by the educators.
Investigating the whole Federal Republic of Germany would exceed my
possibilities and would blast the extent of the study, so due to the exclusive
diversity of its population, I decided on Frankfurt as a research area. An Online-
Questionnaire was designed in order to gather quantitative data and interviews
were conducted for the qualitative aspect of the study.
6
The study begins with a short general introduction into the topic immigrants in
Germany and in Frankfurt (Chapter 2) and then informs about educational
political discourses and policies in early-childhood education in Chapter 3.
Chapter 4 presents briefly those theories of second language acquisition which
have shown a direct impact on the case study discussed in Chapters 6 to 8 and in
Chapter 5 strategies are presented which educators can use for the language
support of migrant children as well as for the appreciation of the linguistic and
cultural diversity.
Chapters 6 to 8 are dedicated entirely to the case study. In Chapter 6 the
methodology of the study is briefly presented, while in chapter 7 the collected
data is analyzed, reviewed and compared to the regional policies of early-
childhood education as well as to the aforementioned SLA theories and language
support strategies. In Chapter 8 I present language projects, which were designed
by communal institutions of Frankfurt and were put into practice in Frankfurt‟s
kindergartens. The study ends with a conclusion in Chapter 9 where the main
results of the study are summarized and the research question is answered.
2 Immigrants in Germany
Germany is a very diverse country and according to the micro census from 2011,
16 million people in Germany have a migration background which is 19.5% of the
entire population of Germany. The largest immigrant group is of Turkish origin
(around 3 million people), followed by Poles (around 1.5 million people),
Russians (around 1.2 million people), Kazakhs (around 0.9 million people) and
Italians (around 0.8 million people). These data refer to the population with a
migration background in a strict sense, meaning that people who migrated to
Germany after 1950 belong to this demographic population as well as people who
were born in Germany with a foreign citizenship. In addition to that, children who
have a German citizenship and have at least one parent with a migration
background or one parent who was born as a foreigner in Germany are also
considered to have a migration background and are included in the data
ascertainment (Statistisches Bundesamt 2011).
7
2.1. Germany as an immigrant country
In 1950 approximately 500.000 foreigners were living in Germany which was 1%
of the entire population of Germany. In the following years migration to Germany
increased and today 16 million people with a migration background live there.
Reasons for the increase of foreigners and people with a migration background
in Germany are diverse. Fleeing and expulsion were and still are one of the main
reasons for migration. Due to safety reasons people flee from their native
countries and try to find asylum in EU-States and since 1950 Germany
accommodated 3.5 million asylum seekers. Current data from the year 2013 show
that 109.600 first applications and 17.400 subsequent applications were handed in
to the German state by persons seeking asylum. The largest groups were from the
Russian Federation, Syria and Serbia (Bundesministerium des Innern 2014:26/27).
Other reasons for people to immigrate are economical reasons or simply the wish
for a better life.
Former guestworkers from Turkey, Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia are one of
the largest groups of migrants in Germany. They migrated to Germany during
1955 and 1973 in order to work. The German state campaigned for guestworkers
because their workforce was needed for the booming economy. Recruitment
agreements with Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Morocco, Portugal, Tunisia and
former Yugoslavia were negotiated and soon many men who did not have a good
financial income in their home countries moved to Germany for work purpose.
Turkish citizens became the largest group of foreigners with 23% in the year
1973, followed by people from former Yugoslavia with 17.7%
(Bundesministerium des Innern 2014:15).
Originally the term guestworker defines a person who temporarily immigrates
to a foreign country to work and to earn money with the understanding that once
the work is finished and the demand for outside labor is no longer needed, the
guestworker will return to his or her homeland (Ehrkamp 2005). However, many
of the guestworkers in Germany did not return to their homeland but decided to
migrate permanently to Germany and were later joined by their families. Half a
century later the former guestworkers have firmly established their lives in
Germany and their children and grandchildren have roots in both their heritage
society and in the German society.
8
2.2 Frankfurt as a multilingual and multicultural metropolis
Frankfurt is the biggest city in the federal state Hesse and one of the metropolitan
areas of Germany. The city is the financial center of the European Union and has
a high economical appeal to investors because it is seen as a Global City (Schupp
2012:24). Because of the economical attractiveness many people move to
Frankfurt, not only people from Germany but people from all over the world.
Consequently, the city has the highest number of immigrants in Germany (42.7%
of the total population of Frankfurt has a migration background) and is home to
more than 170 nationalities as can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Foreigners in Frankfurt by country of origin (Max Planck Institut zur Erforschung
multireligiöser und –ethnischer Gesellschaften 2008: 89).
Only four of the more than 170 nationalities of Frankfurt are big in numbers and
receive a percentage of over 5%: Turkish with 18.5%, Italian with 8.15%,
Croatian with 6.78% and Polish with 5.77%. The other nationalities are rather
small in numbers, which shows the true diversity of Frankfurt. No nationality has
the majority; instead, migrants from all parts of the world move with their families
to Frankfurt.
The share of young children with a migration background is quite high in
Frankfurt. According to the micro census 2011, 68% of Frankfurt‟s children aged
five years or less do have a migration background and this number is constantly
rising (Gold, Schulz 2014: 39). This high proportion of migrants also has an effect
9
on the kindergartens in Frankfurt. Kindergartens are the first educational
institutions children attend before entering school and especially for migrant
children the attendance of kindergarten is advisable because often they experience
their first intensive contact with the German language there.
However, the rate of the kindergarten attendance of migrant children is lower
than the rate of attendance of German children, especially in the age range of
under three years (Gold, Schulz 2014: 39). 21% of German children under three
years go to a kindergarten while only 12% of migrant children under three years
attend a kindergarten. This difference, however, adjusts with advancing age. The
attendance rate of children aged three to five years is at 94% of children without a
migration background and at 90% of children with a migration background.
In general, children with a migration background attend kindergarten later and
for a shorter time than children without a migration background, but the number
of migrant children who attend kindergarten is increasing steadily (Hessisches
Ministerium der Justiz, für Integration und Europa 2013: 10).
3 Political Educational Backgrounds
The education of children gained much attention in the last few years, beginning
with low results in PISA in 2000 (Kristen, Dollmann 2012). For the German
government and educational system the results of the study were a shock and
many discussions took place. In these discussions the importance of early-
childhood education was emphasized and soon kindergartens got an educational
mandate. Additionally, kindergarten laws and policies were revised and defined
more closely in regard to early intervention.
3.1 The Consequences of the German PISA-shock
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a study by the
OECD and was first performed in the year 2000 and then in a rhythm of three
years. The study examines basic skills of 15-year-old pupils, e.g. their reading
abilities and their mathematical skills with the aim to improve national education
policies. The results of the first study showed that German pupils have serious
deficiencies in all basic skills, but especially in their reading abilities (Jungmann,
10
Albers 2013). The PISA results were later on supported by another study, the
International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), which examines the reading
abilities of primary-school pupils (Tarelli et al. 2012). Both studies showed that
pupils in Germany did not even achieve the OECD-average, which resulted in a
national educational debate. Before the results were published, German politics
and the German society assumed that the German education system did well, so to
see it fail this drastically compared to international standards came as a shock.
For Germany, it was surprising to see that there were big differences between
pupils who did well in the results and people who did not (Smolka 2002: 6). A
reason for the differences in their performances was found in the pupils‟ social
background. Children who came from families with a low socioeconomic status or
from families with a migration background achieved much lower results than their
native German-speaking peers or children from families with a high
socioeconomic status. Especially the low results of migrant children were
discussed not only in the German politics and media but also internationally. It
seemed that the German education system did not offer equal opportunities for
every child and that it failed children who did not have a strong economic family
background or German as a first language. Furthermore, it was feared that the low
results were already an indication for the future life of the children and that they
will have difficulties with finding a place to study or a good apprentice position.
This also meant that they were at risk to lose the opportunity of social
participation and integration into the German society (Jungmann, Albers 2013).
The main reason for the failure of migrant children was seen in insufficient
German skills, be it reading or writing skills. It was assumed that they were not
able to understand all instructions and explanations and had difficulties to express
themselves in German. According to Holler (2005), language is the basis of
scholastic learning and therefore good knowledge of German is a determining key
qualification for a successful educational career.
As a consequence of the PISA, the governments of the federal states of
Germany decided to put more focus on early-childhood education. Primary
schools, but also kindergartens were advised to especially focus on the language
development of children from families with a low socioeconomic status and from
families with a migration background in order to counteract the development of
educational inequality.
11
The PISA results of the years 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012 showed minor
improvements, but it is difficult to say if these improvements happened because of
language promotion programs due to the fact that the programs‟ efficiency is not
empirical recorded (Tarelli et al. 2012: 206). The results of PIRLS showed that
there were improvements from 2001 to 2006, but these could not be held. In the
study from 2011 the reading abilities of pupils fell back to the results of the study
from 2001. Migrant children did better than in the years before but they still
scored worse than their classmate without a migration background. Consequently,
language support is still a very important field of action in early-childhood
education and should not be neglected.
3.2 Early-Childhood Education Policies in Hesse
Due to the PISA and PIRLS results and the following debates, not only the social
view of kindergartens changed from just being a child care center to an institution
with an educational mandate but also kindergarten policies and laws were altered.
In general, kindergartens are defined as preschool institutions, which take care
of children aged three to six. Some kindergartens also host day nurseries for
children aged 0 to three and a day care center for primary school pupils who go
there after school ended. Children can attend kindergarten full-day or half-day, the
decision lies with the parents. The attendance of kindergarten is obligatory and
parents have to pay a fee for their children to go there. The fees are dependent on
the income of the parents, e.g. if parents have a low income the attendance of
kindergarten can be partly or wholly funded (Günther 2012: 17). Legally and
organizational the kindergarten sector belongs to the youth welfare service and is
governed on a national level by the §§ 22 et seqq. of the Child and Youth Welfare
Act (Kinder- und Jugendhilfegesetz KJHG). It states as the main objective for
childcare that child care centers should:
12
(1) 1
1.) support the development of the child to an independent and socially
competent character,
2.) support and complement the upbringing and education in the family,
3.) help parents, to combine employment and child-rearing.
(Sozialgesetzbuch 2012, KJHG: § 22 (2), English translation by Gockel )
The KJHG sets general principles, which all federal stated needs to follow. Due to
the fact that Germany has a federal system, the educational sector is the
responsibility of the federal states. This means that the federal states are also
responsible for kindergartens, so consequently they can define the principles
kindergartens have to follow more detailed and in accordance to regional
circumstances (Roßbach 2008: 290 et seqq.).
I focus on kindergarten policies and laws in the federal state Hesse because that
is the federal state in which my research area Frankfurt is located. Kindergartens
in Hesse have to follow the Hessian Childcare Funding Act, which is part of the
Hessian Child and Youth Care Code (HKJGB) and became effective on the first
of January 2014. The law standardizes regulations for the education, the
upbringing and the care of children. Furthermore, it regulates the minimum
standards in kindergartens to ensure the child‟s well being, e.g. the size of
kindergarten groups, the minimum personnel requirements and the qualification of
the staff. Concrete framework conditions for the kindergarten work, however, are
not defined by law but by the kindergarten providers, e.g. the city of Frankfurt, the
church or private child care institutions.
In order to provide good care, kindergartens receive not only financial support
from the children‟s parents but also from the federal state Hesse; the amount is,
among others, dependent of the size of the kindergarten groups, the age of the
children, the care time but also of the amount of children with a different mother
tongue than German (§ 32a (4) HKJGB).
1 The original German quotation of the laws and political frameworks can be found in Appendix I.
13
(2)
Child care centers, where the amount of children whose families do not
predominantly speak German (…), is at a minimum of 22%, will receive a fixed
rate of 390 Euros for every child in order to
1. support the language promotion of the children in the day care center,
2. promote the health, the social, cultural and intercultural competences of the
children,
3. promote the education and upbringing partnership [with the parents] (…),
4. support the interconnection of the child care centers in the social
environment.
(Hessisches Kinder- und Jugendhilfegesetzbuch (HKJGB) 2013: §32a (4)
English translation by Gockel)
The law declares that kindergartens with a high amount of children with another
mother tongue than German, receive financial support from the government. This
indicates that the government knows that money is needed in order to ensure equal
opportunities for every child. How the kindergartens use the money is the
responsibility of the local kindergarten institutions. They can, for example, hire an
additionally employee who is responsible for the integration of the children or can
use the money for language or cultural projects. Furthermore, kindergartens
receive more money from the federal state, if at least one employee participates in
further training programs (HKJGB 2013: §32b (1)).
In addition to the HKJGB, which is very general, the Hessian ministry of social
affairs and integrations and the ministry of cultural affairs designed an education
and upbringing plan for children aged 0 to 10 which was launched in 2008 and is
a general, obligatory framework for kindergartens. The plan states as an overall
aim that every child in Hesse should be supported as early, as optimal and as
sustainable as possible and puts the child with its individual learning abilities into
the center of the pedagogical work (Fthenakis et.al. 2014). It defines learning as a
lifelong process that starts at birth and stresses the importance of a close
cooperation of kindergartens, parents and schools. The plan acknowledges the
importance of language education and puts it into the center of early-childhood
education.
14
(3) Today, language education is of particular importance. It starts with the first day
of kindergarten and should be continuously carried forward. It is a requirement
for educational success. The elementary level [kindergarten] can contribute
significantly to good starting chances for every child, regardless of its social
background.
(Fthenakis et.al. 2014: 37, English translation by Gockel)
The education and upbringing plan also mentions several objectives in regard to
multilingualism. Children should develop curiosity for other languages and should
see multilingualism as a cultural and linguistic enrichment. Additionally, they
should develop linguistic awareness and that the way someone speaks or
understands something is culturally shaped and can differ from their own culture.
Furthermore, the plan states that the acquisition of the German language is
important but educators should also value the mother tongues of the children.
(4) For children, who learn German as second language, additionally programs in
German are available in educational institutions. But important for the language
support is also the appreciation of the family languages and an active, constant
work with parents.
(Fthenakis et.al. 2014: 66, English translation by Gockel)
Not only does the plan suggest the use of programs for language learning and
language appreciation, it also advises work with parents. This includes agreements
on the education style, participation of the parents in the kindergarten community,
but also indicates that kindergartens should assist parents in their integration.
However, even though the use of programs is recommended, no specific programs
or projects are mentioned in the plan.
The plan also states, in bullet point form, what children should learn in regard
to their linguistic development: They should learn new vocabulary according to
their age, should develop differentiated phonological awareness, should know
how to communicate with others and should be able to express emotions and
needs verbally. Furthermore, they should enjoy speaking and should show interest
in a linguistic dialogue. They should experience language as an instrument, should
have knowledge of different speech and text styles (small talk, fairytale, factual
information, rules of politeness), should develop curiousness for foreign
languages and should see multilingualism as enrichment. Lastly, they should be
15
able to form their own linguistic identity (Fthenakis et.al. 2014: 68/69). So,
children have a lot to learn in kindergarten and educators have to support them in
learning the aforementioned skills which can be a challenging task.
In addition to supporting the linguistic development of the children, educators
should also promote intercultural competences, according to the Hessian
education and upbringing plan.
(5) Bilingualism and multilingualism as well as intercultural competences can help
children to develop to worldly, cosmopolitan personalities. Shared activities,
where children with different cultural backgrounds come together, are
especially suitable in order to practice intercultural competences. Children will
get curious about the different cultures and will learn to respect otherness (…).
(Fthenakis et.al. 2014: 32, English translation by Gockel)
The plan acknowledges the importance of multilingualism and intercultural
competences and wants educators to assist children in developing an open-minded
personality. In order to achieve this, children should have a feeling of belonging
to their own culture, should be sensitive to differentness and should be respectful
towards persons with other values, preferences, morals and languages (Fthenakis
et al. 2014: 42).
While each kindergarten has to follow the HKJGB, the Hessian education and
upbringing plan is not mandatory for kindergartens. It is, however, recommend
from the ministry of social affairs and integration to use it as a framework for
successful early-childhood education. Furthermore, it must be mentioned that the
Hessian government gives the kindergarten institutions much freedom with the
implementation of the HKJGB. While it says that the acquisition of German is an
important matter in early-childhood education it does not say which programs
need to be used or to what extend children need to be supported. This gives the
kindergartens the chance to work in their own timeframe and also with their own
possibilities in order to ensure equal opportunities for every child but can also
cause difficulties because educator might not know what support programs they
can use.
16
4 Theories of Second Language Acquisition
Second Language Acquisition refers to the process of learning
another language after the native language has been learned.
(Gass, Selinker 2008: 7)
With this definition of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Gass and Selinker
emphasizes the main aspect of SLA: The learning or acquisition of a second
language (L2), the nonnative language, begins only after the native language (L1)
has been learned and is fairly established in the speaker. The process of acquiring
L2 does not happen simultaneous to the L1 acquisition and therefore, SLA should
not be equated with bilingualism, which Felix defines as the simultaneous
acquisition of languages from birth (Felix 1978: 13).
In Germany, the majority of children with a migration background have a
different mother tongue than German and often their first systematic contact to the
German language is made when they start to attend child care institutions. Since
most of them enter kindergarten at the age of three or older, the acquisition of
German starts in their fourth year of life (Gold, Schulz 2014:17). This usually
means that they already established the basic knowledge of their mother tongue,
including the grammatical system and age-appropriate vocabulary. With the
societal need to be proficient in German, they have to conquer the challenge of
learning a new language to a nearly native-like proficiency. They must learn new
grammar rules, a new syntactical system and of course new vocabulary. Due to
the fact that they already know a language, their mother tongue, SLA researchers
talk in this context about sequential second language acquisition, e.g. Barry
McLaughlin who defines child SLA as “the successive acquisition of two
languages in childhood” (McLaughlin 1978: 99). In the following paragraphs
some SLA theories are introduced in their basic principles in order to give an
overview on the broad topic of SLA.
4.1 The Critical Period Hypothesis
Many researchers argue that the successive or sequential language acquisition can
only take place at a certain age if the learners are supposed to reach a native-like
17
level of proficiency in L2 (Gass, Selinker 2008; Meisel 2013; Miller 2012). It is
assumed that children learn a L2 easier than adults and that there is a certain
window of opportunity for mastering a language to a native-like level. This
assumption is supported by the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), which states
that the first few years of life are most important for language learners, be it
learners of L1 or L2 (Birdsong 1999: 1).
Lenneberg, who brought the CPH into prominence with his book Biological
foundations of English (1967), argues that children acquire a language
automatically when they are exposed to it and that they do not have to put any
conscious effort into language learning (Lenneberg 1967: 176). When the window
of opportunity closes, the ability to learn a language to a native-like level
diminishes. Language acquisition researchers, though, are divided over the time
frame of this window. While Lenneberg assumes the window closes after puberty,
other researchers think it happens much earlier.
Gass and Selinker (2008) think that the window of opportunity for child SLA
opens at age five and closes at age nine while Lakshmanan assumes, similar to
Lenneberg, that child SLA starts at age three and ends at the beginning of puberty
(Lakshmanan 2009: 377). For Schwartz the window of opportunity for child SLA
starts at age four. She argues that, at the age of four, the most important aspects of
the L1 grammar are established and therefore learning a new language at this age
is acquiring a second language and not simultaneous bilingual language
acquisition (Schwartz 2003). Based on studies of DeKeyser (2000) and Johnson
and Newport (1989, 1991) Schwartz argues that the window of opportunity closes
at the age of seven. According to her, the results of the studies have shown that
children who start to acquire a second language before the age of eight achieve the
same results on morpho-syntactical tasks like native speakers do. For Schwartz,
this proves that children who start to acquire a second language no later than age
seven use the same acquisition processes as children use in first language
acquisition. Furthermore, Schwartz states that L1 acquisition and child SLA are
both guided by the Universal Grammar (Schwartz 2003).
18
4.2 The Universal Grammar
Some scholars, like Schwartz, are convinced that child SLA is guided by the
Universal Grammar. Advocates of the Universal Grammar, a language learning
theory introduced by Noam Chomsky, believe that all languages have a common
set of rules and a common language structure. It is assumed that certain
grammatical principles are inherent and that every child is born with a language
acquisition device. With this device children are able to learn the structure of a
language quite easily. Originally, Chomsky explained only the L1 acquisition with
the Universal Grammar but in recent years many scholars discussed the
possibility that the theory cannot only apply to L1 acquisition but also to child
SLA (Rakhkochkine 2012: 324). This language acquisition device, which the
child assumingly uses for SLA, is only available during a certain timeframe and
could explain why children are able to learn a second language easier than adults.
This is in agreement with the Criticial Period Hypothesis.
4.3 The Monitor Theory
The last SLA-theory I introduce is the Monitor Theory by Stephen Krashen
(1981). The theory consists of five hypotheses; the Acquisition-Learning
Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the Natural-Order Hypothesis, the Input
Hypothesis and the Affective Filter Hypothesis.
In the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis Krashen argues that there is a
distinction between language acquisition and language learning. Language
acquisition occurs subconsciously and in a natural environment while language
learning occurs consciously and in a prepared setting. Furthermore, language
acquisition focuses on the meaning, on the aim to hold a conversation while
language learning focuses on the structure of a language, on its grammar. In
language learning formal teaching is advisable, while in language acquisition
formal teaching is not needed because the learner acquires the language in a
natural linguistic environment (Krashen 1994). For Krashen, the subconscious
language acquisition is more successful than language learning.
The Monitor Hypothesis assumes that every learner has a mental monitor
which acts as a supervisor. This monitor stores the already learned vocabulary and
grammatical rules of the language and the speaker recalls this saved knowledge
19
when using the language. In order to successfully use the monitor, the learner
needs to have time, needs to apply attention to the correct form of the language
and needs to have appropriate knowledge of the language rules. Only then the
monitor can become effective. Some learners, however, overuse the monitor and
make use of it all the time while others are under-users and do not use the monitor
at all. Under-users make more mistakes and are difficult to understand but the
over-users concentrate too much on the correct use of rules so that they are not
able to speak the language fluently. Optimal monitor users use the monitor at
appropriate times, e.g. when they have enough time to check their utterance or
when they are not sure with language structure to use (Caroll 2008: 174).
With the Natural Order Hypothesis, Krashen argues that learners acquire
grammatical structures of L2 in a predictable order but different from L1 learners.
SLA follows a certain natural pattern, independently of the order in which it is
taught (Krashen 1994: 52/53).
Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis applies only to natural language acquisition and
not to language learning. It says that a language is always acquired by
comprehensible input. This input should always consists of a structure that is a
little above the already acquired knowledge of the language and should be given
in natural communication situations. Furthermore, the person already knowing the
language should only assist and not teach the learner.
The last hypothesis is the Affective Filter Hypothesis. In this hypothesis,
Krashen describes affective factors which influence SLA. These are non-linguistic
factors, like motives for acquiring a language, the emotions of the learner, his
fears and his general habits. If a learner has a high self-confidence and high
motivation to acquire a language, he has a low affective filter and the input can
reach the language acquisition device easier. If the learner has a low self-
confidence and is not motivated much to learn the language, then he has a high
affective filter and has difficulties to acquire the language to the same level as the
person with a low affective filter (Krashen 1994: 58). Consequently, a person
acquiring a L2 needs to feel motivated, needs to feel welcome in the natural
language environment and needs to trust the persons who gives input and assists
in the acquisition of the second language.
SLA interested and still interests many linguistic researchers and therefore
many theories were made, proven and disproved. The above mentioned theories
20
do not cover every aspect of SLA, this was due to the amount of theories and
research not possible and I only focused on some of the theories that are important
for the daily kindergarten work. When children enter kindergarten they have the
ideal age for acquiring a second language, according to the Critical Period
Hypothesis. Therefore, they need to receive qualitative L2 support in
kindergartens. Kindergarten teachers need to give ample and qualitative input, as
was mentioned in Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis and need to create an environment
where the children feel welcome and secure enough to successfully acquire
German, like it was mentioned in the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Consequently, in
order to support the German acquisition of the children, educators need to be
qualified and aware of the complexity of SLA.
5 Strategies for the Work in Diverse Kindergartens
One of the most important tasks educators in kindergartens have is to support
children in acquiring the national language of the country they live in. There are
several concepts for language support, but one concept is especially recommended
to educators: the concept of acquiring a language in the context of everyday
activities. This concept was established by the Hanen Centre, a non-profit
organization based in Canada, which is concerned with the language acquisition
of children and designs different programs for language support, e.g. Learning
Language and Loving It (Weitzmann, Greenberg 2002). According to the
program, the keys of language support are qualitative interactions, adequate
linguistic input and motivation.
Children, and also adults, are more motivated to learn a language when the
acquisition process is linked to their everyday life and to their own personal
interests. Therefore, the Hanen program advises educators to approach the child
during everyday activities, e.g. to sit with the child when it plays, to imitate its
playing and to describe what the child does and repeat what it says. The child
feels that its actions attract attention and that the educator is interested in what it
does, which then can lead to a conversation.
Furthermore, the program recommends a strategy called OWL- observe, wait,
listen-. In this language support strategy, educators should first observe the child
and then wait for the child to initiate a conversation before listening closely to
21
what the child says or wants to say. It is advised to wait approximately 10 seconds
for the child to speak which can be a long time for the educator. It is, however, the
time a child needs in order to find the right words and to formulate a sentence,
especially if the child just starts to acquire the language (Dörfler 2014: 33).
Educators are also linguistic role models for children, especially if they care for
children who grow up in a non-German environment. These children need to
receive qualified linguistic input, so educators need be very aware of their own
speech. The Hanen Centre advises the use of a strategy called SSSS: Say less,
Stress, Go Slow, Show. According to this strategy, educators should use
simplified sentences with fewer words, should stress specific words which are
important in the particular situation, should speak slowly and should illustrate the
meaning of the words. Often these strategies are used intuitively when speaking
with young children but they can also be transferred to older children in
kindergarten who cannot speak German well.
Interaction between the educator and the child is most important for a
successful language support, but equally important is the interaction between the
children. Educators can support language learning in small groups, using the
SSCAN strategy, in which the educator has to „scan‟ the children‟s group. This
means, that educator has to constantly observe the children and react to each of
their needs. SSCAN consists of 5 principles:
1) Small groups are best
2) Set up an appropriate activity
3) Carefully observe each child‟s level of involvement
4) Adapt your responses to each child‟s need
5) Now keep it going
(Dörfler 2014: 66)
SSCAN works best if only 3 to 4 children join the group activity because then the
educator can react to the language development of all children. To observe the
linguistic needs of more than 4 children at once is difficult and not advisable.
Furthermore, the group activity should correspond with the interests of the
children so that they do not lose interest during the activity, e.g. if three children
are playing a lot with toy cars, the educator should incorporate this. Ideally, the
22
educator withdraws from being actively involved and just observes the children.
However, if the educator observes that one of the children does not speak, the
child should be encouraged and the educator should assists in the communication.
In order to fulfill this, the educator has to pay close attention to every child during
the whole activity and needs to find a balance between getting actively involved
and staying in the background. They need to see themselves not as language
teachers but as a supportive part of a language learning community (Dörfler,
Gerlach 2013).
In addition to the language support in the context of everyday activities,
educators can also sing songs that support the language acquisition of children,
can use role playing games, storytelling and bilingual books (Gayle-Evans 2004).
The latter, however, can be difficult because it can only be used if the educator or
another person, e.g. a parent, has reading skills in both languages.
However, not only have educator to support the acquisition of the German
language, they also have to communicate with the children and show that they
value the linguistic and cultural diversity in the kindergarten. The appreciation of
the child‟s mother tongue is important for the personal and linguistic development
but also for the inclusion of the child and its family into the society (Nemeth
2009). In order to communicate with children who do not have much German
language skills, facial expressions and gestures can be used as well as slow and
easy speech. Furthermore, educators can use pictograms and multilingual posters
where important phrases are written down in different languages and are further
explained by the pictograms. Examples for that would be phrases like Wash your
hands. Let’s go outside. or Form a circle of chairs. (Nemeth 2009). Each of these
phrases is important in the daily pedagogical work and can be easily written down
in different languages and complemented with pictograms. This way,
communication with migrant children is easier but it also signals that their
linguistic heritage is also part of the kindergarten group and appreciated by the
educators. Posters with pictures from different countries and cultures can also be
hung up in the classroom to raise cultural awareness and to give parents and
children from different countries and cultures a feeling of belonging and
appreciation.
Another strategy to include the different cultures and languages of the children
into the classroom is with the assistance of parents. Young and Helot (2003) did a
23
study in a French primary school where 37 % of the pupils were not of French
origin. The school started a three years long project, where more than 20
languages and cultures have been presented. Parents and local residents, who were
native speakers of another language than French, came into the classroom and
spoke to the pupils about their language and culture. They read traditional tales
from bilingual books, tasted country-specific food, sang traditional songs and
learned basic vocabulary and phrases. With this promotion of intercultural
understanding and language awareness, the school signaled acceptance and
approval towards migrant languages and made children, teachers and parents
aware of the wealth of linguistic and cultural diversity in their community. It
broke down barriers and stereotypes and furthermore, children with a migration
background felt finally acknowledged and valued as native speakers of their
languages. The children learned not only that languages and cultures are different,
but also equally important (Young, Helot 2003).
This approach of raising language awareness and promoting diversity can also
be used in German kindergarten groups. It would help to fight prejudices which
are very much implanted in the German society and would show the migrants‟
children that their heritage is valued and that they are part of the kindergarten
group and therefore also part of the society.
In addition to that, educators can encourage the children to teach their mother
tongue to others and compare certain vocabulary with each other. This, for
example, could happen during breakfast or lunch time. The children name the
food they are eating in their native language and then compare the answers. This
way, children learn new vocabulary but also feel valued because they can teach
other children their language. This is especially important for children with a
migration background whose languages do not always have a high prestige or
value within the society (Dörfler 2014).
6 Methodology of the Case Study
In order to find out how multilingualism affects the work of educators and which
strategies and concepts they use in order to support the acquisition of German and
to raise language and cultural awareness, I decided to collect quantitative and
qualitative data from educators in Frankfurt‟s kindergartens. For the quantitative
24
data collection an online survey was designed while for the qualitative data
collection interviews were conducted. Observation was not used as a data
collection method even though it would have been interesting to see how
kindergartens really work with multilingualism and to compare these results with
the results of the online survey and the interviews. However, due to legal statues,
e.g. data protection of minors, observation was not possible and had to be omitted.
The study consists of two target groups; firstly, people who work in
kindergartens and secondly, people in authority who design linguistic concepts
and projects for Frankfurt‟s kindergartens. The persons working in a kindergarten
answered the online survey and did interviews while the second group, the people
in authority, only gave interviews. Age, gender, origin and job experiences were
not selection criterions, but the respondents had to work in kindergartens in
Frankfurt, respectively in institutions in Frankfurt which are concerned with early-
childhood education, e.g. the Education Authority Office of Frankfurt.
6.1 Quantitative Data Collection: An Online Survey
Quantitative data is often used in research in order to find out how much or how
many there is of the subject the researcher is interested in, e.g. variation in
pronunciation (Rasinger 2008: 10). However, quantitative data is also important in
order to get a general overview of a specific group or topic (Angouri 2010: 33).
Therefore, I collected quantitative data in order to get an overview of the
multilingual situation in kindergartens in Frankfurt and in order to find out which
standard values are used in the daily pedagogical work with migrant children.
As a data collection tool I decided on an online questionnaire because
questionnaires are able to gather data from a large number of persons without
being as time-consuming as interviews. While questionnaires are not time-
consuming during the data collection, they require preparatory work and deep
knowledge of the research area (Rasinger 2010: 60). Once they are sent out to the
respondents the questionnaires cannot be changed and the researcher cannot
answer any arising questions or explain the wording. Therefore, the questions
need to be unambiguous, easily to understand and must address the exact issues
the researcher investigates because only then reliable and useful data can be
gathered (Rasinger 2008: 57).
25
Often questionnaires are a mixture of open and closed questions, but the latter
should be preferred. Respondents answer closed questions more likely than open
questions and the answers are easier to analyze and to compare. The answer
possibilities of closed questions, however, have to be well prepared and thought
through in order to collect useful data. The researcher should not choose the
answer possibilities randomly; instead they should be based on previous studies in
the research area and should be aligned to the research question (Rasinger 2008).
For my study, I designed an online questionnaire2 that consists of 8 sections,
including the introduction and the expression of thanks at the end of the
questionnaire. Out of the 42 questions I ask, most are closed multiple choice
questions, but in order to ensure variety and quality the respondents can add their
own answers to almost every question and can write about their own personal
experiences in open questions. To make sure that not too many people abandon
the questionnaire, open questions can be skipped.
In order to find participants for my study, I have sent out e-mails to head
organizations of kindergartens in Frankfurt, e.g. Kita Frankfurt and churches and
asked them if I have their official consent to send a link to the online
questionnaire to their kindergartens. The organizations have the legal authority of
the kindergartens and only if they agree the kindergartens were allowed to
participate in my study. After most of the organizations agreed, I sent out e-mails
to all kindergarten in Frankfurt which had a publicly accessible e-mail address and
were legally allowed to participate (147 kindergartens in total). In the e-mail I
introduced myself, explained my study and asked the recipient, who was most of
the time the head of the kindergarten, to participate and to distribute the link to the
questionnaire to the kindergarten staff.
The online questionnaire had a time limitation of seven weeks, which was also
mentioned in the e-mail. After four weeks I sent out an email reminder to the
kindergartens and asked them again to participate. Three weeks later I closed the
online questionnaire and started to analyze the data.
2 The whole questionnaire is attached in Appendix II. For the purpose of understanding, the
questionnaire is in English. For the study the questionnaire was put online in German.
26
6.2 Qualitative Data Collection: Interviews
In addition to quantitative data I also gathered qualitative data. I conducted
interviews in order to get even more insights and even more specific information
about the topic of multilingualism in Frankfurt‟s kindergartens.
There are different interview methods, which can be used in order to receive
qualitative data. For this study I used informal, half-structured face-to-face
interviews. A face-to-face interview is a questioning technique, in which a person
interviews a respondent with a structured or half-structured questionnaire.
Because of its flexibility and its possibilities, the face-to-face interview has been a
sovereign data collection method for many years (de Leeuw 1991). The direct
confrontation with the respondents is the main advantage of this data collection
tool. Occurring obscurities can be removed by further questions, both by the
interviewer and the interviewee. Furthermore, new interesting perspectives can be
discovered during the interview, which may contribute to the research. The in
advance developed questionnaire gives the interview structure and assists the
interviewer to keep the focus on the main topic of the interview. Since the
interviews are half structured, the possibility exists to expand the questions during
the interviews as well as changing the order of the questions and adjust them in
accordance to the interviewee. Consequently, the half structured interview has a
general direction, but also has the possibility to grant open space to the
interviewee for making relevant statements about the research topic, which the
interviewer has not considered yet. The researcher can gain more in-depth
knowledge about the topic because the interviewee can explain his answers and
opinions in more detail than in the online survey. Therefore, face-to-face
interviews are a good addition to the online questionnaire and add a qualitative
value to the study (Rasinger 2008: 59).
Over the course of three weeks in April, five interviews were conducted. Two
of them were with the heads of two kindergartens in Frankfurt while the other
three were with people in authority from the Office for Multicultural Affairs (Amt
für multikulturelle Angelegenheiten), the Education Office of Frankfurt
(Stadtschulamt Frankfurt) and from the largest kindergarten institution in
Frankfurt (Kita Frankfurt). I got in contact with the interviewees via e-mail and
asked them if they are willing to participate in my study. After agreeing, we set a
27
date and discussed specifics over the phone. The interviewees from the official
institutions asked to have a questionnaire sent out to them before the interview in
order to prepare for it. So, when I arrived for the interviews they were well-
prepared and gave me a lot of insight knowledge about their work and the topic.
The questionnaires were adapted to the individual work of the interviewees, so
consequently I have two questionnaires3; one for the heads of kindergartens and
one for the people in authority. Questionnaire 1 focuses on the daily pedagogical
work with migrant children while Questionnaire 2 is more concerned with the
theoretical background of early-childhood education, e.g. the development of
language projects. All five interviews were conducted in the offices of the
interviewees without any disturbances. After I explained my study, assured them
of their anonymity and asked if I could record the interview, I started with my
questions. The interviewees were very helpful and provided interesting
information.
7 Analysis of the Data
After the online survey was closed and all the interviews were conducted, the
process of the data analysis started. Even though, online surveys belong to the
quantitative data collection, my analysis is to a great extent qualitative. I decided
to use a descriptive, qualitative analysis rather than comparative statistics for the
study because it is not the aim of the study to compare different variables, e.g. if
the age of the respondents influences the usage of certain communication
strategies but to describe, interpret and evaluate the answers of the study
participants in order to get an understanding of the diverse environment in
Frankfurt‟s kindergartens and an insight into the work of the educators. The
results of the online questionnaire are accompanied by quotes4 of the interviewees
in order to add even more qualitative value to the study.
3 English translations of Questionnaire 1 and 2 are attached in Appendix III. Originally the
questionnaires are in German because the interviews were all conducted in German. 4 Due to the shortage of space, the original German quotes are in Appendix IV. In the text,
English translations are used.
28
7.1 Demographical Data of the Interviewees and Respondents
In order to analyze and interpret data it is important to have biographical and
demographical background information about the respondents because only then
data can be looked at holistically.
The demographical data of my interviewees revealed that two of the five
interviewees are both the head of a kindergarten in Frankfurt. Interviewee 1 is
male and works in kindergartens for 8 years, while interviewee 2 is female and
works in kindergarten for nearly 10 years. The other three interviewees, all
female, do not work in kindergartens, but they still have much knowledge about
early-childhood education, multilingualism and language promotion because they
all work in institutions which are concerned with these topics. Interviewee 3
works for the Office for Multicultural Affairs in Frankfurt and she is responsible
for language education in kindergartens and schools as well as for the language
projects mitSprache5 and Sprachbildung im interkulturellen Alltag (SiA).
Interviewee 4 works for the kindergarten institution Kita Frankfurt, which is the
largest communal kindergarten institution in Frankfurt. She is responsible for
language promotion, including the program wortstark. Lastly, interviewee 5
works for the Education Authority Office in Frankfurt and is responsible for
linguistic education in Frankfurt‟s kindergartens and is one of the project heads of
the projects wortstark and SiA.
The online questionnaire of the study was started by 93 people, but 17
respondents already ended the questionnaire after the demographic questions
about their person and 25 more after the demographic questions about their
kindergarten group. More respondents were lost during the course of the
questionnaire so in the end 34 respondents finished the survey. I decided to use
the answers from all respondents, including the ones who did not finish, because
their given answers are also an insight into the work of educators in Frankfurt,
even though they did not answer all the questions.
Childcare professions have a tradition of having mostly female workers. This is
also reflected in the questionnaire because 92.7% of my respondents stated that
there are female while only 7.3% stated that there are male. The politic as well as
5 Translated to English these projects are called wordstrong, withLanguage and Language
education in cultural everyday life (SiA). WithLanguage is a play of words, it also contains the expression ‘to have a say’. More information about these projects will be given in chapter 8.
29
the kindergarten organizations try to convince more men to become educators, but
it is difficult because of the low wages and low chances of advancement.
In addition to the gender, I also wanted to know the age of my respondents and
as figure 2 illustrates, most respondents are of middle age.
Figure 2. Question 1: How old are you?
Most of the respondents are over 40 years old, which suggest that they
already work in kindergarten for some time and therefore have much
experience in it. This assumption is confirmed by the answers of question 8
where I ask the respondents for how long they already work in kindergartens.
62.64% of the respondents answered that they work in the kindergarten sector
for more than ten years and 34.3% answered that they work in kindergartens
for already more than twenty years. 37.36% of the respondents work less than
ten years in kindergartens, which might suggest that some respondents are
lateral entrants and learned something different before entering early-
childhood education. This hypothesis is also supported by interviewee 1 and
2, who both worked in a different sector, before deciding to work in
kindergartens.
Most of the respondents, 56.52%, are state-approved educators, they had a
three-year long training in early-childhood education in a professional school for
social services. Other occupational groups are social pedagogues (22.83% of the
respondents) and childcare assistants (1.09% of the respondents). The answer
possibility others was chosen by 19.57% of the respondents and most of them
stated that they are certified pedagogues, which means that they studied pedagogic
at university and either have a Bachelor or Master-Degree. The high percentage of
6.45%
12.9%
27.6%35.48%
17.2%
Age Structur of the Respondents
18-25 years
26-35 years
36-45 years
46-55 years
56-65 years
30
educators was foreseeable because this is the usual occupational group who works
in kindergartens. Also, interviewee 1 and 2 are state-approved educators.
In addition to their age, gender and job training, I also asked the respondents
about their citizenship and mother tongue(s). Despite the fact that Frankfurt is a
very diverse city, the answers of my respondents indicate that this is not
applicable to the kindergarten staff. The majority of the respondents, 94.6%, have
a German citizenship while the remaining 5.4% of respondents have a Polish,
Hungarian or Turkish citizenship. Furthermore, 90.3% of the respondents have
German as a mother tongue, while 2.1% have Polish and 1.1% of the respondents
have Turkish as a mother tongue. 6.5% chose the answer possibility others and
stated to have Spanish, Croatian or English as a mother tongue. Furthermore, only
8.6% of the respondents grew up multilingual. The majority, 91.4%, grew up
monolingual.
This very homogeneous data suggest that it is difficult to attract migrants for
the work in kindergartens, but the city of Frankfurt tries to counteract this and
tries to train more people with a migration background for the work in
kindergartens, according to interviewee 3.
(6)
Interviewee 3: And, naturally, we try to support that part of the staff
which has a migration background itself. Firstly because
of the shortage of professional staff, but secondly, also to
keep an eye on the participation in education, the societal
participation of migrants.
(Interview 3: 37:12-37:30)
Frankfurt, as many other German cities, has a shortage of educators and tries to
counteract this shortage with educational programs for migrants. They advertise
the program and would like to increase the amount of migrants in early-childhood
education, but due to the fact that the HKJGB and the education and upbringing
plan focus on language support, migrants who want to become educators need to
have very good German skills, which might be an obstacle for some migrants.
However, good German skills are needed in order to ensure the quality in
early-childhood education. Because has the Hanen program in Chapter 5 has
shown, educators have a linguistic role model function and therefore, it is
31
important that they are proficient in German. It is to hope that migrants are not
discouraged by the demand of good German skills but instead improve them if
they are interested in becoming an educator. Educators with a migration
background will not only help with the shortcuts but will also add more quality
and diversity to the kindergarten and will increase the societal participation of
migrants.
7.2 Demographical Data of the Kindergarten groups
The demographical data of the kindergarten groups show a different, more diverse
picture than the demographical data of the respondents. While most of the
respondents have a German citizenship and grew up monolingual German, their
kindergarten groups consist of children with many different languages as figure 3
illustrates.
Figure 3. Question 13: How many languages are spoken in your kindergarten group?
The figure shows that most kindergarten groups are very multilingual and diverse.
Nearly half of the respondents, 48.64%, reported that more than five languages are
spoken in their group while 16.21% of the respondents even stated that ten or
more languages are spoken in their group. This means, in an average group size of
20 to 25 children, almost every second child is speaking a different language,
which can be a challenge for the educators as well as for the children. This result
is also supported by the interviewees, because all of them said that Frankfurt and
its kindergartens are very multilingual.
20.27%
16.22% 14.86%
17.57%
14.86% 16.21%
1
Language
2-3
Languages
4-5
Languages
6-7
Languages
8-9
Languages
Amount of languages spoken in Frankfurt's kindergarten
groups
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
32
(7)
Interviewee 4: It [the linguistic situation in Frankfurt] is very mixed and one
notices that in kindergartens. We have kindergartens in which
up to 30 languages… [that] the children bring in with them.
(Interview 4: 08:05-08:13)
Interviewee 4, who works in the Education Authority Office of Frankfurt, is in
close contact with kindergartens and she experienced very multilingual and
multicultural kindergartens. According to her, in some districts of Frankfurt, the
amount of languages spoken in kindergartens can raise up to 30 languages, which
is a lot but also reflects the very diverse population of Frankfurt.
However, 20.27% of the respondents also reported that only one language is
spoken in their kindergarten group, which seems unlikely if one compares this
statement with the other results and the linguistic and cultural diversity in
Frankfurt. It is possible that this percentage does not represent a complete
monolingual environment but an approach of only speaking German in the
kindergarten group in order to support the acquisition of German. This hypothesis
is daring, but supported by the results of question 17, in which I asked how many
children do not have German as a mother tongue. The results from this question
suggest that the kindergarten groups are indeed highly multilingual or at least
bilingual as they host many children who do not have German as a mother tongue.
Figure 4. Question 17: How many children in the kindergarten group do not have German as their