Plurilingualism – can it help solve the current crisis in our language

education?

Sauli TakalaKauppakirjeenvaihdosta plurilingvaalisuuteen

Turun kauppakorkeakoulu September 26,2009

CRISIS:

1)the turning point for better or worse in a short-lived and usually severe disease or fever

2)an unstable or crucial time ot state of affairs , esp. one whose outcome will make a decisive difference for better or worse

Do we have a crisis in our language education?

• Undoubtedly - reasons to follow.• Several critical remarks voiced over a long period of time. Predictions of problems were corroborated. •Developments were easy to predict. Not to do so must have been due either to incompetence , indifference or a hidden agenda to weaken language education.• The worst is not over.• Difficult to reverse the trend.

Is ”crisis” an exaggeration?

Golden period in the 1960s and 1970s:• Several important committees: major reforms proposed• All pupils started to study languages: 2 or 3• Language study introduced in vocational education• Higher education: LSP taught by Language Centres• Matriculation Exam moved from translation to more comprehensive testing formats• Language proficiency started to improve in the population• General atmosphere: strong optimism, intensive development work, intensive in-service education..• Now: obvious irresolution, lack of vision,helplessness, growing pessimism

CRISIS: What has happened?

1)Need for plurilingual competence has increased – study of languages has decreased.2)Level of required proficiency tends to increase – cuts in time allowance make this difficult or impossible.3)Levels of proficiency are prescribed for several contexts – in many cases they cannot be reached, and certificates are not reliable.4)Several actions/decisions taken by several official agencies over a long period of time have tended to undermine support for language study. Public rhetoric supports language study, concrete actions are missing. 5)There is an association which has been and is working actively to undermine the teaching and learning of our national language Swedish. 6) Good role models for multilingualism and –culturalism are largely missing (exception:current Minister of Foreign Affairs).

What is plurilingualism?

Pluri and multi• Multilingualism of terrirories – plurilingualism of

people/individuals• Plurilingualism – the ability to use langs for the

purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction where a person, viewed as a social agent, has proficiency of varying degrees, in several langs, and experience of several cultures. This is not seen as a superposition or juxtaposition of distinct competences or even composite compositions on which the user may draw (CEFR, 2001, 168)

What is plurilingualism?

The CEFR describes plurilingualism in the following way:

The plurilingual approach emphasises the fact that as an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or college, or by direct experience), he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. In different situations, a person can call flexibly upon different parts of this competence to achieve effective communication with a particular interlocutor.

Plurilingualism - how do language choices support it ?

Language Choices, A1, 3rd grade (%)

1975 1984 1994199820022005

English 88,9 90,2 86,9 87,7 89,7 89.5Swedish 2,7 8,1 3,1 2,0 1,5 1,1Finnish 5,1 ? 4,6 4,8 5,3 5,,5German 0,2 0,8 4,0 2,9 2,0 1,4French 0,0 0,4 1,1 1,6 1,0 0,8Russian 0,0 0,5 0.2 0,2 0,1 0,2Sami 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

Language Choices, A2, 5th grade (%)

1994 1998 2002 2005

English 9,6 10,2 8,8 8,3Swedish 1,7 6,6 8,4 7,7Finnish 0,5 0,5 0,2 0,3German 4,1 16,2 12,3 8,6French 0,9 3,1 3,3 2,9Russian 0,1 0,5 0,3 0,3Sami 0,1 0,0 0,1 0,0Other 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,2

Language Choices, B2, Grades 8-9 (%)

1984 1994 20022005 2007

33,9 39,4 17,514,1 8,7

Language Study at the end of Upper Sec. School, 2007 English 33 011 99,3%Swedish A 2 564Swedish B1 27 091 Total 99,2%French A 733French B2 1302French B3 1605 Total 19,3% 9,3%

26,5%German A 2637German B2 2482German B3 2221 Total33,2% 27.2% 37,5%Russian A 239Russian B2 90

Russian B3 519 Total 5,6% 3,8% 6,9%

Spanish A 6 B2 33 B3 1361 11,1%6,3%14,7%

Plurilingualism – what do Matriculation Examination

statistics show?

Number of test takers in the Matriculation Examination, 1998-2007

Number of students in the Matriculation Exam

Lang 1965 1970 1980 (1985) 1989

(1994)1997

2000 2005 2007

Engl 74582363

111016198

27872695

25719542

42896863

466241242

435931075

41513966

Swed 17638 27314 186927654

415135331

341338256

334830018

320124585

Ger 75307612

80115979

5598008

53512411

6978716

20985976

16344404

Fre 33831

532761

1242483

3314392

3754189

5372768

5132379

Russ 25183

471699

163951

268663

210834

195493

371537

Latin 141157

-97

-134

-138

Spa -683

201101

531153

Option-al c. 15000 26786

% c. 1500013.1

C 2000020.3

C 30000 C 27000 35661 34058

The upper figures denote A/long course and the lower line C/short course; the year in brackets indicates the year when a new syllabus was introduced

Number of test takers in the Matriculation Language Examination, 1965-2007

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

1965 1970 1980 1989 1997 2000 2005 2007

Engl A

Egl B3

Swe A

Swe B1

Ger A

Ger B3

Fre A

Fre B3

Rus A

Rus B3

Spa B3

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

1965 1970 1980 1989 1997 2000 2005 2007

Engl A

Swe A

Swe B1

Ger B3

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1965 1970 1980 1989 1997 2000 2005 2007

Fre A

Rus A

Spa B3

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1965 1970 1980 1989 1997 2000 2005 2007

Egl B3

Ger A

Fre B3

Rus B3

Plurilingualism – what do lesson allocation trends indicate?

Number of Lessons

Lang/ syllabus

Sec. sch. Comp + Upper Sec ond sch.

1985 1994/ minimum time

2004

A1 17+11/28650+455/ 1105

27335+ 570 +305 /875

15+8/23540+304/844

16+6608+228/836

16+6 (+2)/22/24836/912

A2 - 4+8

B1 15+9/24570+340/910

6-12+ 8/20345+265 / 610

9+7/ 16325+ 266/ 590

6+ 5/11230+190/420

116+5 (+2)418/494

B2/C 0+15

B3/D 0+9/0+ 304 190+230/ 418

6+6/ 1216

Advances and defeats in language-in-education policy• - Until 1960´s - in the dual school system the study of foreign languages

was limited to the secondary school• + since 1970 ´s – comprehensive school brought along the obligatory study

of 2 FLs; a third language optional: 1+2 > 1+3• + end-of 1970s – Language-in-Education Committee proposal (1978/60);

language planning at national, regional, municipal and school level; decentralisation starts gaining ground

• 1980’s –some gains but also clear losses • - Course-based upper secondary school: study of optional language (C/D,

B2/B3) became optional for the long maths students; drastic drop in study and in the amount of optional matriculation language tests

• + language education became a regular element in all vocational education• + language requirements in higher education became more uniform;

Languages Centers gained a clear status; adult education received more attention

• + 1990´s – increased attention to needs of the world of work; Foreign Language Certificates (YKI) created; periodical & representative survey of Adult Education introduced a self-assessment of language proficiency

• + 1990´s – legislation allowing immersion and CLIL; CLIL expanded• - 2005 – test of Swedish/Finnish became optional in the Matriculation

Examination; dramatic cut in test takers in Swedish

What level is attained in language education in Finland?

Distribution of Levels (%) in the Matric Exam (19yrs)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

En-10

Ger

-10

Rus-1

0Fi-1

0

Ger

- 3/5

Rus 3

/5

Fr 3/5

Sp3/5

Swe6

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

10: 10 years of study; 3/5: 3-5 years of study; 6 - 6 years of study

How to accommodate the national grading and reporting system and the CEFR (levels)?

• Matriculation exam (150+ yrs old!) grades (7 levels) from top to pass: roughly 5%, 15%, 20%, 24%, 20%, 11% <> CEFR 6 levels C2-A1

• One solution: by means of conversion tables/ charts, which show how national grades are related to the CEF levels.

A rough time/level (English) estimate based on CEFR:

• In the Finnish context (L1 And L2 not related):

• Getting from A1.1 (age 9/10) to the average of B1 (age 15/16) takes about 300 lessons and perhaps 100 hours of homework -> 400 hours.

• Getting from the average of B1 to the average of B2 (at 18/19) takes about 250 lessons and probably some 200-250 hours of homework -> 450 – 500 lessons/hours

• A1 -> B2: 800 – 900 hoursI could never

have predicted such develop-

ments!

I could never have predicted such develop-

ments!

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

<B1

Matr Exam GradeCEFR-level

Laudatur -5%

Eximia -15%

Magna - 20%

Cum laude -24%

Lubenter - 20%

Approbatur -11%

Improbatur

>C1

C1

B2

B1

Su

m s

co

re (

ma

x. 2

99

)

Increased transparency and comparability

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

<B1

Matr Exam GradeCEFR-level

Laudatur -5%

Eximia -15%

Magna - 20%

Cum laude -24%

Lubenter - 20%

Approbatur -11%

Improbatur

>C1

C1

B2

B1

Sum

sco

re (

max

. 299

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Matriculation GradeCEF Level

Laudatur

Eximia

Magna

Cum laude

Lubenter

Approbatur

Improbatur

>B2B2

B1

A2

A1

Su

m S

core

(m

ax. 2

99

)

Can plurilingualism help in the crisis?

Typical myths/misconceptions about language education – need of rethinking:

• Europe is outstanding in being multilingual and –cultural (only 2% of the world´s languages!)• Normal situation: one country, one language (monolingual – multilingual) – a myth•¨Normal situation: one person, one language (monolingual – plurilingual) – a myth• Languages are difficult to learn; require linguistic ability (cf. Laurén) – a myth• Language education is almost exemplary in Finland, the ”PISA-land” - becoming a myth

Some theses• Everyone is plurilingual in some sense (local dialect, standard

language, professional terminology, other languages)• ”Normality” of becoming plurilingual should be pointed out and

publicised• Advantages of plurilingualism should be spelled out -

empowerment• Languages are learned formally, nonformally and informally;

language learning is not the sole responsibility of formal provision

• Plurilingualism can be promoted in formal, nonformal as well as informal contexts

• Integration of all language education – need for a coherent approach and curriculum design: plurilingualism worth exploring

Der Sprachunterricht muss (wieder) umkehren! (cf. Wilhelm Vïetor 1882)

• Return to the earlier model of systematic language-in-education planning (”Numminen committees”) – language-in-education planning needs to be ”politicized” and seen as strongly values-related rather than to continue as administrative/technical social engineering • The consequences of the strongly expanded electivity need to be assessed and the common core needs to be strengthened• Teaching and testing of speaking needs to be an essential and sometimes the dominant element of language education, including the Matriculation Examination• Curricula need to be developed so that integration between the mother tongue and the other languages is much strenghtened, and integration of languages and other subjects is also systematically promoted;•The new curricula must take integration and plurilingualism as the starting point• Teacher education must be reformed to make CLIL and immersion easier to implement

Pluri: Utilizing the potential

• Not only formal language study/ language education provision – Language-in-education planning,

• But also nonformal and informal language learning/ acquisition

Pluri: Utilizing the potential• ”English sticks to your clothes”• Kees de Bot: Dutch learners learn more English

informally than formally• Erkki Pitkänen: study of English vocabulary

knowledge at the outset of formal study, 1984 - 1985

• 3rd graders: knew 13-15 words• 7th graders: knew 35 words• 8th graders: knew 45 words• Beginning of upper secondary: 105 words• Swedish-speaking pupils knew more words (cf. M.

Björlund 2008)

Utilizing the potential: structural similarity

• Assumption: English comes first; utilize it fully• Germanic languages show strong ”family

resemblence”: German, Dutch, Swedish, English • Romance languages show strong ”family

resemblence”: French, Spanish, Italian • Slavic languages show strong ”family

resemblence”: Russian, Bulgarian, Polish, Serbo-Croatian

• Finno-Ugric: Finnish, Estonian show family resemblance, Hungarian not

Utilizing the potential:Cognates (vs faux amis)

• Assumption: English comes first; utilize it fully• English has been both a very active ”borrower

and lender”• French: c. 25% of the most frequent words

common with English • Spanish: also 25%• German: hundreds of cognates (cf. Dutch)• Swedish: like German• Finnish: very few cognates – a clearly bigger

learning load in the beginning

Attitudinal change needed: Stressing what one can

• Not: ”I can´t read this text: I had only 3 years of German in school!”

• But: ”It should not be that difficult: after all, I had 3 years of German at school! With some effort I can do it.”

Der Sprachunterricht muss umkehren!

• Languages are learned at different rates.

• Nonformal and informal learning support varies.

• >This must be reflected in time allocation.

Plurilingualism – a sketch for Finland

• Premises:• Official bilingualism: 1 + 2 > 2 + 2• English proficiency: informal learning a considerable

positive impact (”English sticks to your clothes.”)• Learning outcomes in English are good, somewhat less

would, in fact, do. There is no need to foster further the Matthew effect in the case of English

• Less time for formal learning in school for English needed than in other languages

• ESP can be promoted effectively in tertiary education and in the postgraduate stage

• English is learned considerably in the job – specialised learning

• THUS: the time released from English can be used for other languages in the interest of plurilingualism

Thesis:

Chances to promote plurilingualism are better in the upper secondary level than in the comprehensive school.

Number of courses in the upper secondary school: a sketch

Lang/syllabus Compr.

1-6

Compr.

7-9

Upper secondary; proposed change in red

A1 8 8 6 + 2 > 4+2

A2 6 6 6 + 2 > 4+3

B1 (mostly Swe)

6 5 + 2 > 6+2

B2 4 0 + 8 > 4+4

B3 0 + 8 > 3 + 5

Increase: A2, Immersion (early but also partial late immersion) , CLIL…

The Way Ahead

Language education is based on the principles of lifelong learning, continuity of education, flexible modes of learning and equality. Language education adopts a functional approach according to which language competence is seen as the ability to act in a language use situation in a way which is appropriate linguistically, socially and culturally.Language education is a whole which comprises the mother tongues, foreign languages and minority languages without seeing them to be in competition to each other. This promotes both individual plurilingualism and societal multilingualism. It supports social and societal empowerment. (KIEPO)

The policy making and development concerning language-in-education is co-ordinated and professional and is based on the anticipation of future language competence needs and on relevant research. Learning outcomes and the impact of language education and related costs are evaluated systematically and comprehensively. Language education policy draws on an analysis the current national pool of linguistic resources and anticipates prospective language competence needs , among others, from the point of view of the world of work. (KIEPO, 37, 454-4559

The Committee for European Languages and Cultures, a third major commission chaired by Jaakko Numminen, considered in its report in early 1991 that it is important that pupils and students are encouraged to fully utilize the opportunities that our educational system offers for obtaining a good and many-sided knowledge of foreign languages. It is equally important that foreign language teaching in our educational system is systematically developed, so that it can meet the increasing challenges.  The Committee emphasized that Finland must be among the leading nations in foreign language teaching.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas!

We often feel that we are helpless in the present drift to

decreased plurilingualism. We need to strengthen our resolve to effect a change.

Some references• Hildén, R. & Takala, S. (2007) Relating descriptors of the Finnish school scale to the CEF overall scales of communicative activities. (pdf available from sjtakala@hotmail.com; raili.hilden@helsinki.fi)

• Kaftandjieva, F. (2004) Standard setting. Section B in Reference Supplement to the Manual for relating language examinations to the CEFR. Council of Europe (available at: http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Default-en-asp)• Kaftandjieva, F. & Takala, S. (2002) Council of Europe Scales of Language Proficiency: A validation study.In Common European Framework of Reference. Case studies, Council of Europe, 106-129. (pdf available from sjtakala@hotmail.com)

• Kaftandjieva, F. & Takala, S. (2003) Development and Validation of Scales of Language Proficiency. In: W. Vagle (ed.) Vurdering av språkferdighet, NTNU. Trondheim, 31-38 (pdf available from Takala: sjtakala@hotmail.com)• Takala, S. & Kaftandjieva, F. (2002) Relating the Finnish Matriculation Examination English Test Results to the CEF Scales. Helsinki Seminar, June 31- July 2, 2002 (available by request from Takala: sjtakala@hotmail.com)• Tuokko, E. (2007) What level do pupils reach in English at the end of the comprehensive school? U of Jyväskylä, Finland. (PhD thesis in Finnish, with English summary: tuokko@pp.inet.fi)