European Universities Network on Multilingualism (EUNOM) Final Conference
European Universities Network on Multilingualism (EUNOM) Globalization, Modernity and Knowledge. Opportunities and Challenges in a Multilingual world Final Conference European Parliament Brussels, October 18th 2012 How to Become Multilingual and Stay Healthy … Piet Van de Craen Vrije Universiteit Brussel European Language Council/Conseil européen pour les langues (ELC/CEL) pvdcraen@vub.ac.be Piet Van de Craen1 Vrije Universiteit Brussel How to Become Multilingual and Stay Healthy... 0. Abstract In this contribution two questions are addressed namely what is the influence of policy on multilingual education and what is the impact of multilingual education on practices? By multilingual education is meant content and language integrated learning or CLIL. This paper is organized in two parts. The first one studies the influence on policy on multilingual education on a European macro level and societal level. The second part studies the impact of multilingual education on practice by researching the results of multilingual schooling at primary and secondary level by means of a number of tenets that include linguistic and non-linguistic ones. Current scientific research has mainly focussed on aspects of language education while here the idea that learning in another language has a major influence on a number of factors that eventually create better learners is argued. In this way this approach is, first, a contribution to the advantages of multilingualism and, second, a plea for educational innovation via language education. Finally, a number of theoretical pathways are identified to open the way toward a new educational paradigm. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research questions What are the political aspects that influence the implementation of multilingual education, i.e. content and language integrated learning (CLIL), in Europe in general and in Belgium in particular and, in what way multilingual education has an addedvalue vis-à-vis the learners in secondary education? These are the research questions addressed here. The parts to be distinguished in this contribution relating to the influence of policy on multilingual education are, first, the examination of parameters in selected European countries that have influenced the introduction of multilingual education in Europe and, second, the results of the implementation of multilingual education in a number of schools, primary and secondary, one vocational as well as an elite school. Finally, it is suggested that the basis for a new educational paradigm precisely lies in the introduction of multilingual education in the European school system and officially called CLIL, i.e. content and language integrated learning. 1.2. Positioning of research questions In recent years scientific research related to CLIL has been booming (cf. in alphabetical order: Cenoz 2009, Coyle et al. 2010, Dalton-Puffer 2008, Gorter & van der Meer 2008, Jäppinen 2005, Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe 2010, Lecocq et al. Part of the research presented here was sponsored by the Sixth Framework Programma DYLAN. I am grateful to my colleagues Jill Surmont, Evy Ceuleers, Laure Allain, Katrien Mondt and Esli Struys who collaborated with me at various stages of the on-going project as well as to the Dylan colleagues for their comments. For Dylan see www.dylan-project.org 2008, Linares et al. 2012, Lorenzo et al. 2009, Maljers et al. 2007, Mondt 2005, Van de Craen et al. 2007a, b, 2008, 2009) to name but a few. One important result that has come out of these studies is that CLIL is shown, over and over again, to have a beneficial effect on the learning outcomes of children be it in primary or in secondary school. Some authors have tried to go even further. They have demonstrated a positive cognitive effect that can boost learning (Jäppinen 2005, Van de Craen et al. 2007a, b 2008 and Lorenzo et al. 2009, Murray 2010) and some of them even studied brain effects related to multilingual education (Mondt et al. 2011). However, these latter authors form a minority among CLIL researchers, as the study of cognition and the brain is often left aside. We explicitly pursued this path in order to demonstrate the power that multilingual education engenders. However, education never appears in a vacuum. In every European member-state it is high on the political agenda but in some member-states multilingualism is frowned upon often for ideological reasons that completely ignore learning. While this fear is totally unwarranted it is sometimes far from easy to convince educational authorities of the benefits of multilingual education. 2. Analytical framework 2.1. Macro and micro research We analysed, first, some European educational policies in order to identify parameters that might hamper or foster multilingual education and, second, an analysis of learning results was carried out in primary and secondary bilingual schools (Dutch and French), one being a vocational school, and one being an elite school, teaching in Dutch and English. The analysis originally focussed on six tenets, namely (i) knowledge of the target language, (ii) knowledge of the mother tongue, (iii) knowledge of subject matter, (iv) attitudes and motivation, (v) cognition and (vi) the influence on the brain 2. 3. Results 3.1. Results with reference to the influence of policies on multilingual education 3.1.1. Influence of policies regarding multilingual education in six selected countries With respect to study the influence of policies regarding multilingual education we identified four key concepts that influence language policies in Europe. A summary of our findings is given below with respect to The Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg, France, Estonia and Spain. (i) Standardization Countries that underwent early standardization are likely to be strong economically and culturally confident. This is the case for The Netherlands and France. Their standardization processes can be traced back to the 17th century and - in the case of France – even earlier. The same is true for Spanish, i.e. the Castilian dialect. However, regions and countries like Dutch-speaking Belgium, Luxembourg, Estonia and Germany underwent late standardization starting in the 19th century or later. With respect to multilingual education our hypothesis is that in countries with a long history of standardization multilingual education find a fertile ground. (ii) Language Threat The second major variable that plays a role in the implementation of European policies regarding multilingualism is the threat - or the perceived threat - a language has encountered throughout history. It is clear that, more often than not, big countries rarely are under threat. Smaller countries easily perceive linguistic threats. In Dutchspeaking Belgium, there has been the perceived threat – rightly or wrongly - of French, in Estonia, the threat of Russian, in Luxembourg, the threat of both German and French. An exception is The Netherlands, independent since the 17th century, where language threat never has been an issue. Germany seems a special case in the sense that its current status in Europe, given the numbers of speakers estimated at 120 million, does not represent its real power. With respect to multilingual education our hypothesis is that countries that perceive threats to their language will put up more resistance towards the implementation of multilingual education. (iii). Language dominance Closely related to the previous is the notion of dominance. Here again bigger countries are more dominating than others. France and Spain again stand out. However, the notion of dominance should also be seen in a local or regional context. Dutch is clearly a dominant language in The Netherlands and German in Germany. In smaller regions or countries, things are often unclear: in Luxembourg, Letzebürgisch is not necessarily perceived as the dominant language. The same is true for Estonia, although these countries often try to install some kind of protective legislation in their favour. With respect to multilingual education our hypothesis is that countries with users of dominant languages should, in principle, be more inclined to be more open to multilingual education. (iv) Language legislation The fourth parameter is related to legislation. Big countries have not necessarily less legislation. An example is France where a lot of resistance against the regional languages has led to complicated legislation to hamper their development. On the other end of the continuum there is The Netherlands with hardly any history of language legislation. In some cases, like in Spain, Dutch-speaking Belgium and Estonia legislation is closely related to political developments. The hypothesis is that regarding multilingual education, the more language legislation is part of the landscape, the more resistance against European policies can be found. The next table summarizes the previous. Country/ Parameter Standardization Perceived language threat Language dominance Language Legislation Acceptance of multilingual education Dutchspeaking Belgium Late Big France The Netherlands Luxembourg Germany Spain Estonia Early Awareness Early Small Late Big Late Small Early Awareness Late Big - + + - + + - Heavy Reasonably heavy Light Light Very reluctantly Wholeheartedly Heavy before, much lighter now Before, very reluctantly, now wholeheartedly Heavy Very reluctantly Changing towards heavy Very reluctantly Wholeheartedly Very reluctantly Table 1: Parameters influencing acceptance of multilingual education in one region and six countries in Europe From the above interesting inferences can be made. European policies have a fertile ground in countries where the language has known (1) early standardization, (2) no language threats (3) dominant status and (4) light legislation. The optimal case is The Netherlands. The contrary, i.e. when the language (1) had late standardization, (2) perceives threats, (3) is or feels dominated and (4) lives under heavy legislation multilingual education encounters resistance to implementation. The optimal case here is Flanders. This situation can of course evolve rapidly. Two examples should be mentioned. In French-speaking Belgium, Wallonia, that followed France’s policies until the end of the 1990s, the same resistance toward multilingualism as in France could be perceived. However, the 1998 decree making it possible for individual schools to opt for a content and language integrated learning path3 changed the landscape tremendously. The second example is even more recent. Since Castilian and Andalusian regional legislators published their European inspired language plans in 2005 (cf. Plan 2005) an increasing amount of pupils has been following multilingual education just as in the Catalan, Basque and Galician regions. Since then tens of thousands of children have been exposed to CLIL in regions where before Castilian reigned supremely (cf. Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe 2010). Compared to Spain, France still seems to struggle with its Jacobinian past. Multilingual education has not yet found its way into mainstream education and, as a result, France is seriously lagging behind compared to Spain and the Netherlands. Dutch-speaking Belgium, Luxembourg and Estonia are now at the crossroads. If legislation were to change supporting CLIL education these regions/countries could easily be back on track again, given their tradition of language learning. The latest development in Flanders is that the new language plan from 2011 will allow CLIL under certain conditions in secondary education. In Wallonia this is known as enseignement de type immersif 3.1.2. Conclusion The analysis of the Flemish language plan shows how multilingual education can be hampered by a number of historical variables. The overview of six European countries demonstrates that four parameters play an important role in implementing European policies. However, as the example of Spain shows, it is possible to overcome this. What is needed is political will and a vision of what modern Europe should look like. 3.2. Results with reference to the influence of multilingual education on practice Six tenets were used to guide the research (i) how does CLIL influence target language knowledge, (ii) how does CLIL influence mother tongue development, (iii) does CLIL influence subject matter knowledge, (iv) does multilingualism affect attitudes and motivation, and (v) does multilingualism affect cognitive development and finally, (vi) what if anything is the influence of multilingual education on brain organisation? These tenets will be discussed below. 1. The influence on the target language development? As might be expected, the extra exposure to the new language has a positive effect on the development of the target language. Surprising however, is the extent to which it has an effect. The results from Lorenzo et al. (2009) show that the interaction between implicit and explicit learning offered in CLIL-programmes yields much better results than traditional education. Research by Clachar (1999) and Butler & Hakuta (2004) has demonstrated that pupils have an increased accuracy when their production is focused on discourse topics that engage student’s attention due to the contextual significance. The advantage for pupils in a CLIL-learning programme is obvious. Comparing L2 acquisition with L1 acquisition, it seems that in both cases a stimulating environment helps to achieve better accuracy. Pupils in these programmes are also able to transfer their knowledge, as they use rhetorical moves and discourse patterns in L2, which are typical for academic discourse but which are not present in primary or early secondary L2 syllabi (Lorenzo et al. 2009). This means that pupils seem to understand without explicit grammar instruction, how certain forms are used. The reason is that linguistic metacognition is much better developed than in regular pupils (Surmont, 2011). These results are in line with findings by Van de Craen et al. (2007a & b, 2009) who found not only better results for general proficiency in the target language but also that pupils were less anxious to use the language because pupils’ pragmatic skills are better developed. 2. The influence on mother tongue development? The fear of losing the mother tongue is often used as an argument against the implementation of multilingual education. However, research has proven differently: research by De Samblanc (2006), Lecocq et al. (2007), & De Vriese (2007) show that in the Dutch/French primary schools in Wallonia, pupils have no problem attaining the final goals in their mother tongue (French), despite the fact that they received 75% of their education in Dutch. No arguments can be found to show that CLIL is detrimental to the development of the mother tongue. In the secondary schools we studied mother tongue loss was not an issue. Teachers had the impression that both the target language and the mother tongue were fostered (cf. Van de Craen et al., 2007a,b). This results are in line with the findings of international research showing that students in multilingual education programmes achieved the same score or an even better one than their fellow students in traditional programmes on mother tongue proficiency (Cummins & Swain, 1986, Hamers & Blanc, 2000, Johnstone, 2002b; Goorhuis-Brouwer & De Bot, 2005; Coyle, 2007, Knell et al., 2007, Mehisto & Asser, 2007, Merisuo-Storm, 2007, Serra, 2007 and Dalton-Puffer, 2008). These scholars, however, do mention that in the first years of multilingual education, the proficiency of the mother tongue seems to lag behind but that this is made up for after a few years. Learning in another language is beneficial for mother tongue development. This can be explained in a very logical way. The comparison with learning how to play an instrument can be used here. A child who plays piano may have better piano skills after one year of practice than another child learning to play both the piano and the guitar. However, after a certain period of time, the difference between the two children – if there is one - will have disappeared and the child who has mastered two instruments will have a much better ear for music and a better understanding of music in general. It has developed better metacognition for music. The same reasoning can be applied to children learning one or more languages. This is also why mother tongue development benefits from learning a second language, even though less time will be spent on learning the mother tongue itself. 3 Does CLIL influence subject matter knowledge? Research by Jäppinen (2005) and Van de Craen et al. (2007b, 2009) has shown that the influence of CLIL on subject matter knowledge is positive. Van de Craen et al. (2007b) performed a study on the knowledge of maths in a CLIL primary school context and found better results for CLIL pupils. This is in line with the findings by Jäppinen (2005). She had three different age groups do four types of mathematical tests. She found that in the first age group, there were no statistical differences between the CLIL-pupils and the control group, implying that the CLIL-environment does not hamper the mathematical thinking processes of this age group. In the second age group however, the differences between the control group and the CLIL-pupils were statistically significant in favour of the CLIL-pupils in three of the four subtests. This difference between the control group and the CLIL-pupils was interpreted as resulting from a different - what she calls - cognitional development. In the third age group, these differences were gone and no statistical differences could be found between the two groups (Jäppinen, 2005, see also Surmont 2011). These results are confirmed by our research in primary as well as in secondary schools in Brussels and Flanders that has been conducted on the effects of CLIL. One school even reports that the CLIL-learners score 10% higher than the learners in control groups. Teachers often report that not only the content is mastered better but also that concepts and terminology are better understood. 4. Does multilingual education influence attitudes and motivation How CLIL influences attitudes and motivation is best shown with results of the vocational school in Hasselt, Limburg. This particular group of students are taught in Dutch and French as part of a CLIL project. In fact they are taught practical kitchen skills in French for two hours a week. These children are 12 to 13 years old and are mostly from lower class origins. The fact that they were taught in French made them quickly realize that something special was going on. They also embraced the idea they were doing something completely different from other sections in school and they were quick in labelling themselves as special. These pupils were also reported to be happier and more collaborative than other groups in the same school. Their wellbeing and better school performance are a direct result of the CLIL approach and is also reported elsewhere (cf. Merisuo-Storm 2007, Smit & Dalton-Puffer 2007). It is easy to link this to a more creative approach because of their better mastery of the language, the subject matter and the attitudinal aspects related to this (cf. Marsh et al. 2009). 5. Does multilingual education affect cognitive development CLIL offers its students an extra cognitive value. Van de Craen et al. (2009) point out that the main concern of studies pointing to positive effects of bilingualism is how exactly bilingualism influences cognitive structures. The possibility to become fluent in two or more languages and whether there is a predisposition to do so has a large influence on the reception of educational programmes (Van de Craen et al., 2009). As mentioned before, bilinguals have more advanced metalinguistic cognitive capabilities; they also have better analytical skills and better cognitive control over linguistic operations (Bialystok, 1988). Examples of how bilinguals have better analytical skills are the results of a calibrated math tests performed by Van de Craen et al. (2007b). Because students have a better understanding of abstract structures they can easily transfer their knowledge and thinking processes to other kinds of information. More research is needed in the area of cognition, because these results lead to more research questions. However, the existing findings already indicate what can be expected, namely that the cognitive advantage of CLIL cannot be denied. (vi) Does multilingual education influence brain organisation? An abundant amount of research by the Canadian scholar Bialystok (see Bialystok 1998, Bialystok et al. 2005, Bialystok 2005, Bialystok et al. 2006, 2012) has shown that bilingualism has an effect on the brain of children as well as adults. Multilingual education also has an effect on the brain of children even if they only have a relatively limited learning experience in another language. This was convincingly shown by Katrien Mondt’s dissertation, one of my team members. In a brain study under scanning conditions she obtained the following results. On these pictures it is clear to see how the workload in monolingual children, top row, is extremely heavy as compared to bilingual children, mid row. The children who are learning another language at school show, last row, show workload that is in between the top row and the mid row, indicating that the workload has decreased with respect to the monolinguals (see also Mondt at al. 2011). This research shows how the brain is affected by learning experiences and education can only profit from this. What it actually implies is beyond the scope of this contribution but suffice it to say that the way languages are learnt, in this case via an implicit learning strategy, has a considerable impact on brain organisation. 3.3. Conclusion It can be concluded that the effects of CLIL are positive. The knowledge of the target language is better and the development of the mother tongue is not hampered. Results even indicate that the mother tongue is better mastered. Pupils have the feeling they are doing something special and are more motivated at school. By allowing and using French as an instruction language in certain situations, pupils feel proud and respected. The better level of abstraction and the more developed metacognition of the CLIL-pupils give them an advantage in cognitive development. This advantage is also notable in brain research, as scans have shown that bilinguals have a more automatized brain that solves certain problems more efficiently than a monolingual brain (cf. Mondt et al. 2011). It has already been mentioned, but it cannot be repeated enough: CLIL goes further than just another language learning programme and it is certainly the path to follow for future education policies. 4. CLIL in two secondary schools Two secondary schools out of nine, within an experimental set up by the Flemish community, were selected for this project: (1) one highly profiled, elite school, in Limburg in the eastern province of Belgium that worked with English (subject matter mathematics and the philosophy) in a CLIL context from the age of 15, namely the Stedelijke Humanoria Dilsen4 and (2) a vocational school in the city of Hasselt, namely the Hotel School5 that worked with French from the age of 12. These schools were part of an experimental set up organized by the Flemish Ministry, involving nine Flemish CLIL schools in the period 2008-2010. Since then the Hotel School has quit the CLIL project in 2011 while the other school still continues. In this part we will report on the qualitative aspects of the experience carried out by the researchers. Both schools will be discussed separately since they are both miles apart in terms of pupils, aims and activities. We opted for a qualitative approach in line with Fullan’s commentary on educational change (Olson 2007, Fullan 2011). The Stedelijke Humaniora Dilsen. This school can without any doubt be called an elite school in the sense that its regular school has a 100% output to higher education. In 2007 the school decided to take part in the CLIL experiment organized by the Flemish community in order to find out about the CLIL approach advocated by the European Commission. Nine Flemish schools were selected and this school was one of them. They opted for English in mathematics and the human sciences according to the principles outlined in the previous sections. The school also opted to start with pupils from 15 years old. Since this project was closely followed by the Ministry of Education and since the school was aware of our expertise and our tenets, results from the CLIL experience came from two independent research groups, ours and the ministry one (see Ministry 2011). The Ministry research concentrated on subject matter knowledge, knowledge of Dutch and knowledge of the target language, while we concentrated on the same plus attitudes and motivation and especially on cognitive aspects that we studied as explained in the previous section by examining their results for math. In table 2 the results have been summarized. The author would like to thank Bram Moons and Dirk Geeraerts both teachers in the school for their invaluable help. School: Stedelijke humaniora Research Body Target Language Mother tongue (Dutch) Subject matter knowledge Attitudes and motivation Cognitive aspects Ministry research In favour of CLIL pupils No difference found between +CLIL and – CLIL pupils In favour of CLIL pupils Dylan research In favour of CLIL pupils No difference found between +CLIL and – CLIL pupils In favour of CLIL pupils Not studied Not studied In favour of CLIL pupils Highly in favour of CLIL pupils Table 2: General qualitative results on six tenets in the elite school involved in the study As can be seen in table 2 the CLIL results are favourable for CLIL pupils not only on specific language related tasks but also on non-linguistic tasks, such as mathematics, exactly what we predicted and what we also found in primary schools in previous studies (cf. Van de Craen et al. 2007a en b). It has to be said that both the teachers and the school were very enthusiastic, to such an extent that after two years they decided to include French as well in their CLIL offer. The Hotel School Hasselt The Hotel School is a completely different school. Most of its pupils come from a low socioeconomic background. We recommended the Hotel school to use French as the target language because the French language has largely influenced the language of cooking. Moreover, internships by these pupils often take place in an international French-speaking environment. Finally, quite a number of cooking terms are of French origin. The school decided to start with twelve-year-olds for two hours a week. In fact, kitchen practice took place in French and researchers made numerous audiorecordings. An interesting characteristic was that from the beginning the teacher of French was very closely involved. She went as far as to attend most, if not all, CLIL activities. Later, in the French class this knowledge was used for good measure. Perhaps the most remarkable observations with reference to attitudes and motivation emerged in this school. After three months of kitchen activities in French pupils already showed a remarkable shift in attitude towards their fellow students one year older than themselves and who were not involved in CLIL activities. The CLIL pupils considered themselves to be better pupils because they figured that their knowledge of French simply made them stand out. The teacher of French reported a remarkable shift in interest in the French classes. Where before, children dragged themselves into class, not really interested in what they considered dull French lessons, now they came in and showed genuine interest in what happened during the French lessons. As could be expected their results increased dramatically. The math teacher noticed a change in pupils’ interest and an increase in maths and general school results. Table 3 summarizes the results for the Hotel school. School: Hotel school Research Body Target Language Ministry research In favour of CLIL pupils Mother tongue (Dutch) No difference found between +CLIL and – CLIL pupils In favour of CLIL pupils Subject matter knowledge Attitudes and motivation Cognitive aspects Not studied Not studies Dylan research Highly in favour of CLIL pupils Differences found between +CLIL and –CLIL pupils are outspoken Highly in favour of CLIL pupils Very favourable for CLIL pupils Highly in favour of CLIL pupils Table 3: General qualitative results on six tenets in the hotel school involved in the study If anything, it can easily be said that the results for the vocational school are more spectacular than for the traditional secondary school in Dilsen. This result is important because some school authorities and politicians have a tendency to associate CLIL education with elite pupils and elite schools. Our results clearly show that this is absolutely not the case. We can state that the contrary is true. Our vocational pupils tend to benefit even more from CLIL education than other pupils because the implicit way of learning advocated by CLIL suits these pupils very well. 5. Discussion Let us briefly summarize the findings with respect to the influence of policies on multilingual education. We were able to show that European policies are affected by four parameters. (i) The fact that standardization occurred early or late whereby late standardization hampers the introduction of multilingual education. (ii) The perception of language threat: the more a language feels threatened, the more resistance towards multilingual education. (iii) Language dominance can be a means for enhancing multilingual education, such as is the case in The Netherlands or a reason to reject it, as is the case in France. Spain is an example where a major dominant language has wholeheartedly embraced multilingual education since 2005. (iv) Finally, there is language legislation. Here smaller countries tend to have heavier language legislation than bigger ones and countries with a particular language history such as Estonia or Belgium are heavily legislated as well. It can be said that the heavier the legislation is the more resistance toward multilingual education will exist. These four parameters are a means for detecting the tempo with respect to the implementation of multilingual education. With respect to European policies it can be predicted that it will take a couple of decennia before countries and/or regions with a negative score for these parameters have come to grips with multilingual education. The second body of results referred to the influence of multilingual education on practices. The schools we studied did show beyond any doubt the added value of CLIL at the secondary level. With reference to Flanders we were able to witness a remarkable shift of attention and even a change of policies as a result of multilingual school practices. The language plan of 2007 rejected all forms of multilingual education. But continuous practice in primary and secondary schools, showing the added value of CLIL with respect to the learning abilities of the pupils, was able to turn the table. The language plan of 2011 does now allow multilingual education in secondary schools (Talennota 2011). These results should lead to a new educational paradigm. The fact that language use is superior in a CLIL context and that cognitive benefits can be observed, point in the direction of a new paradigm. Moreover, another characteristic of this kind of learning is that it is – at least at the onset of the CLIL approach - implicit (cf. DeKeyser 2003). On a theoretical level this way of learning can be compared to ideas related to emergence summarized by Johnson (2001). Emergence is defined as “[t]he movement from low level rules to higher-level sophistication” (Johnson 2001:18). This is the kind of process that is happening in a stimulating learning environment like a CLIL learning context. From a more general and theoretical point of view we may state that learning in another language is a low level activity that results in higher-level sophistication in the sense that this way of brain stimulation entails greater cognitive activity via the principles of self-organisation. Evidence for this comes from work with brains and monkeys and should not come as a shock given the similarities between the species (cf. Jenkins et al. 1990). It simply means that the development of the brain is influenced by external factors. And that since learning is dependent on brain plasticity and the impulses given by the environment (cf. Edelman & Tononi 2000), the brain gets remapped after such an experience. In other words the experience dependent brain plasticity is altered, i.e. strengthened. As a result, CLIL is much more than a new and efficient way of language and content learning. It refers to learning and pedagogy in a much more scientific way than was hitherto the case. It also empowers the learner and has as such an emancipating effect. At the same time it is inherently stimulating and useful for all children whatever the level or background. It is innovative education at its best. It is our duty to make sure that our pupils develop in the most sustainable way. Hence the word ‘staying healthy’ in the title referring to a sustainable way of learning that improves on our cognitive and brain development. This is also the way I would like to understand the meaning of life long learning. 6. Conclusion In this contribution we looked at multilingual education from a number of different perspectives. We studied the influence of policies on multilingual education on a local level, Flanders, Belgium and a European level by studying language policies of six selected countries. We also looked at the reverse, namely how multilingual education influences multilingual practices. In the third part we related CLIL education to a new educational paradigm implying that multilingual education is also innovative education and capable of transforming European society. Its implementation on a grand scale in all forms of education will create a new European citizen. New, not only in the sense of having new attitudes and/or a new identity, but also new in the sense that his learning habits will have made him cognitively more apt for learning. It is in this way that we would like to see evolve the meaning of life long learning. References Bialystok, E. 1988. ‘Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness’. Developmental Psychology, 24, 560–567. Bialystok, E., F. Craik, C. Grady, W. Chau, R. Ishii, A. Gunji & C. Pantev. 2005. ‘Effect of bilingualism on cognitive control in the Simon task: evidence from MEG’. NeuroImage 24, 40-49; Bialystok, E. 2005. ‘The impact of bilingualism on language and literacy development’. In: T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Bialystok, E., F. Craik & M. Freedman. 2006. ‘Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia’. Neuropsychologia 45, 459-464. Bialystock, E., & R. Barac. 2012. ‘Emerging bilingualism: Dissociating advantages for metalinguistic awareness and executive control’. Cogntion 122, 67-73. Butler, Y.G. & K. Hakuta 2004. ‘Approaches to bilingualism and second language acquisition’. In: T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds.) The Handbook of bilingualism. Blackwell, pp. 114-146. Cenoz, J. 2009. Towards Multilingual Education : Basque Educational Research from an International Perspective. Bristol: Multilingual matters. Clachar, A. 1999. ‘It is not just cognition: the effect of emotion on multiple level discourse processing in second language writing.’ Language sciences, 21, pp. 3160. Coyle, D. 2007. ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies’. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10 (5), 543- 562. Coyle D., Ph. Hood & D. Marsh. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J., & Swain, M. 1986. Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of theory, research and practice. Longman, New York & London. Dalton-Puffer, C. 2008. ‘Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): current research from Europe’. In: W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (eds) Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching. Carl Winter, Heidelberg. DeKeyser, R. 2003. ‘Implicit and explicit learning’. In: C. Doughty & M. Long (eds). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 313-348. De Samblanc, G 2006. ‘De immersiescholen in de Franse Gemeenschap’. Lecture held during the seminar Meertaligheid en basisonderwijs, 9th June 2006. Ministerie van Onderwijs, Brussel. De Vriese, W 2007. Een kwalitatief onderzoek in een immersieschool. Lees- en rekenvaardigheden in het tweede leerjaar. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles. Mémoire. Edelman, G. & G. Tononi 2000. Consciousness. How Matter Becomes Imagination. London: Allen Lane & The Penguin Press. Fontecha, A. 2009. ‘Spanish CLIL: Research and official actions’. In: Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. Jiménez Catalán (eds) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 3-21; Fullan, M. 2011. ‘Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform’. Centre for Strategic Education. Seminar Series 204. Goorhuis-Brouwer, S., & K. De Bot. 2005. ‘Heeft vroeg vreemde-talenonderwijs een negatief effect op de Nederlandse taalontwikkeling van kinderen?’ Levende Talen 6 (3), 3-7. Gorter, D. & C. van der Meer. 2008. ‘Developments in bilingual Dutch education in Friesland’. AILA Review 21 (1), 87-103; Hamers, J. & M. Blanc. 2000. ‘Bilinguality and bilingualism. University Press, Cambridge. Second Edition. Jäppinen, A.-K. 2005. ‘Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (Clil): teaching through a foreign language in Finland’. Language and Education 19 (2), 148:169. Jenkins, W., M. Merzenich, M. Ochs, T. Allard & E. Guic-Robles. 1990. ‘Functional reorganization of primary somatosensory cortex in adult owl monkeys after behaviorally controlled tactile stimulation’. Journal of Neurophysiology 63, 82-104. Johnson, S. 2001. Emergence. New York: Touchstone. Johnstone, R. 2002 ‘Immersion in a second or additional language at school: review of the international research. Summary’. Scottish Cilt, 1- 7. Knell, E., Q. Haiyan, P. Miao, C. Yanping, L. Siegel, Z. Lin. 2007. ‘Early English immersion and literacy in X’ian, China’ . The Modern Language Journal 91, 395417. Lasagabaster, D., Y. Ruiz de Zarobe. 2010. CLIL in Spain. Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lecocq, K., P. Mousty, R. Kolinsky, V. Goetr, J. Morais & J. Alegria, J. 2008. Évaluation de programmes dʼimmersion en Communauté française: une étude longitudinale comparative du développement de compétences linguistiques dʼenfants francophones immergés en néerlandais. Rapport final 2001-2007. Bruxelles, Ministère de la Communauté Française. Linares, A., T. Morton & R. Whitaker, 2012. The Roles of Languages in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lorenzo, F., S. Casal & P. Moore. 2009. ‘The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning in European Education: Key Findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections Evaluation Project’. Applied Linguistics Advance Access published November 20th. Maljers, A., D. Marsh & D. Wolff, eds. 2007. Windows on CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in the European Spotlight. Alkmaar: European Platform for Dutch Education. Marsh, D. et al. 2009. Final Report. Study of the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity. Public services Contract EACEA/2007/3995/2, European Commission. Mehisto, P., & Asser, H. 2007. ‘Stakeholder Perspectives: CLIL Programme Management in Estonia’. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10 (5), 683-701. Merisuo-Storm, T. 2007. ‘Pupils’attitudes towards foreign- language learning and the development of literacy skills in bilingual education’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 226- 235. Ministry 2007. ‘De lat hoog voor talen in iedere school. Goed voor de sterken, sterk voor de zwakken’. Brussels: Flemish Ministry for Education. Mondt, K. 2005. Bilingual Language Education. Its Neurocognitive Effect and Opportunities for Integration. Neuroscientific Research and Language Learning in a Multilingual Environment. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Mondt, K., E. Struys, M. Van den Noort, D. Ballériaux, T. Metens, Ph. Paquier, P. Van de Craen, P. Bosch, & V. Denolin. 2011. ‘Neural differences in bilingual children’s arithmetic processing depending on language of instruction’. Mind, Brain and Education 5(2), 79-88; Murray. D. 2010. ‘Irish-Medium Language Immersion Programs. Effects on Mathematics Education.’ Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, Fall-Winter, 28-32; Olson, L. 2007. ‘Ontario pins hope on practices, not testing to achieve’. Education Week 27, 1-14; Perez-Vidal, C., M. Juan-Garau & A. Bel eds. 2007. A Portrait of the Young in the New, Multilingual Spain. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Plan. 2005. Plan de fomento del plurilingüismo. Une política lingüística para la sociedad andaluza. Consejería de educación. This document is available online in four languages. Serra, C. 2007. ‘Assessing CLIL at Primary School: A Longitudinal Study’. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10 (5), 582- 602. Smit, U & C. Dalton-Puffer eds. 2007. ‘Current Research in CLIL’. Vienna English Working Papers 16. Surmont, J. 2011. A beautiful mind: Cognitive effects of CLIL. Unpublished master after master thesis. Talennota 2011. Brussels: Flemish Ministry of Education. Van Avermaet, P. & J. Blommaert. 2008. Taal, onderwijs en de samenleving. Antwerpen: Epo. Van de Craen, P., E. Ceuleers & K. Mondt, 2007a. ‘Cognitive development and bilingualism in primary schools: teaching maths in a CLIL environment’. In: D. Marsh & D. Wolff eds. Diverse Contexts – Converging Goals. CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 185-200. Van de Craen, P., K. Mondt, L. Allain & Y. Gao. 2007b. ‘Why and How CLIL Works. An Outline for a CLIL Theory’. Vienna English Working Papers 16(3), 70-78; Van de Craen, P., E. Ceuleers, K. Mondt & L. Allain. 2008. ‘European multilingual language policies in Belgium and policy-driven research’. In: K. Lauridsen & D. Toudic (eds) Language at Work in Europe. Festschrift in Honour of Wolfgang Mackiewicz. Göttingen: V&R Press, 139-151; Van de Craen, P., Ceuleers, E., Allain, L., & Mondt, K. 2009. ‘Ten years of CLIL practice in multilingual Belgium. An overview of teaching and learning results.’ 3rd Colloquium on Semi-immersion in Catalonia- International Round Table (TRI) on CLIL programmes. Barcelona, Spain (2009). Ystma, J. 2000. ‘Trilingual primary education in Friesland’. In: J. Cenoz & U. Jessner, eds. English in Europe. The acquisition of a third language Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 222-235;
© Copyright 2024