Sloganizations in Language Education Discourse Prof. Dr. Dagmar

Transcription

Sloganizations in Language Education Discourse
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany, May 8-10, 2014
Prof. Dr. Dagmar Abendroth-Timmer
Universität Siegen (Germany)
Fakultät I, Philosophische Fakultät, Didaktik der französischen und spanischen Sprache und Kultur
[email protected]
The concept of reflection: approaches and desiderata
Reflection is a concept often referred to in current teacher research – especially when we talk about
the notion of the reflective practitioner. In teacher education, pre-service teachers are guided to
reflect in order to critically examine and to further develop their professional actions. The methods
used to foster reflection in teacher education often are also employed as research methods to
investigate language teachers’ reflection processes. The question yet to be answered is what
concepts of reflection underlie approaches of reflective teacher education and related research.
I will first approach the notion of reflection from an epistemological point of view. It has to be
considered what the key features are that define the quality of reflection. What does it mean when
teachers reflect on their actions? In what ways does reflecting on them differ from describing,
analyzing and discussing them?
When referring to teacher research it is crucial to take a close at the parameters that are referred to
when reflection processes are described and whether these can currently be determined sufficiently
on the methodological level. Approaches of reflective teacher education are analyzed against that
background to identify conceptual or methodological desiderata.
Literature
Abendroth-Timmer, Dagmar (2011): Reflexive Lehrerbildung: Konzepte und Perspektiven für den
Einsatz von Unterrichtssimulation und Videographie. In: Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung
22/1: 3-41.
Abendroth-Timmer, Dagmar; Aguilar, Jose (2014): Accompagner la formation de futurs enseignants
de langue en tandem interculturel médiatisé: la sensibilisation aux fonctions du tutorat. In:
Abendroth-Timmer, Dagmar; Hennig, Eva-Maria (eds.): Plurilingualism and Multiliteracies.
International Research on Identity Construction in Language Education. Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 297309.
Altrichter, Herbert; Lobenwein, Waltraud (1999): Forschendes Lernen in der Lehrerbildung?
Erfahrungen mit reflektierenden Schulpraktika. In: Dirks, Una; Hansmann, Wilfried (Hrsg.) (1999):
Reflexive Lehrerbildung. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag, 169-196.
Barad, Karen (2012): Agentieller Realismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp (engl. Original von 2011).
Borg, Simon (2006): Teacher Cognition and Language Education. Research and Practice. London:
Continuum.
Bosse, Dorit (2014): unveröffentlichter Vortrag mit dem Titel „Zur Förderung psychosozialer
Basiskompetenzen für den Lehrerberuf in der Eingangsphase des Studiums“, Vortrag am 20.1.2014
an der Universität Siegen.
Boud, David; Keogh, Rosemary; Walker, David (eds.): Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning.
London: Kogan Page / New York: Nichols Publishing Company.
Candy, Philip; Harri-Augstein, Sheila; Thomas, Laurie (1985): Reflection and the Self-organized
Learner: a Model of Learning Conversations. In: Boud/Keogh/Walker (eds.), 100-116.
Caspari, Daniela (2003): Fremdsprachenlehrerinnen und Fremdsprachenlehrer. Studien zu ihrem
beruflichen Selbstverständnis. Tübingen: Narr.
Cosh, Jill (1999): Peer Observation: A Reflexive Model. In: ELT Journal 53/1: 22-27.
Haack, Adrian (2014): Diskussion in der Arbeitsgruppe 7 „Selbstverständnisse von Studierenden und
Lehrenden in der Lehrer_innenbildung“ unter der Leitung von Franziska Klimczak und Katrin Schultze,
25. Kongress für Fremdsprachendidaktik der DGFF „Sprachenausbildung, Bildung aus Sprachen,
Sprachen bilden aus“ an der Universität Augsburg, 25. bis 28. September 2014.
Johnson, Karen E. (2006): The Emerging Beliefs and Instructional Practices of Preservice English as a
Second Language Teachers. In: Teaching & Teacher Education 10/4: 439-452.
Kemmis, Stephen (1985): Action Research and the Politics of Reflection. In: Boud/Keogh/Walker
(eds.), 139-163.
Krewer, Bernd; Eckensberger, Lutz H. (1998): Selbstentwicklung und kulturelle Identität. In:
Hurrelmann, Klaus; Ulrich, Dieter (Hrsg.): Handbuch der Sozialforschung. Weinheim u.a.: Beltz, 5. neu
ausgestattete Auflage, 573-594.
Mälkki, Kaisu (2012): What does it take to reflect? Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning
revisited. In: Lifelong Learning in Europe I: 44-53.
Manen van, Max (1995): On the Epistemology of Reflective Practice. In: Teachers and Teaching:
theory and practice 1/1: 33-50.
Mehlmauer-Larcher, Barbara (2012): The EPOSTL (European Portfolio for Student Teachers of
Languages): A Tool to Promote Reflection and Learning in Pre-Service Teacher Education. In: Hüttner,
Julia; Mehlmauer-Larcher, Barbara; Reichl, Susanne; Schiftner, Barbara (eds.): Theory and Practice in
EFL Teacher Education. Bridging the Gap. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 186-203.
Moon, Jennifer A. (2004): A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning. Theory and Practice.
London (u.a.): Routledge Falmer.
Müller, Stefan (2010): Reflex, Reflektion und Reflexion. Dimensionen von Reflexivität in der
Lehramtsausbildung. In: Liebsch, Katharina (Hrsg.): Reflexion und Intervention. Zur Theorie und
Praxis Schulpraktischer Studien. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, 27-52.
Procee, Henk (2006): Reflection in Education: A Kantian Epistomology. In: Educational Theory 56/3:
237-253.
Schaffner, Sabina (2013): unveröffentlichter Vortrag mit dem Titel „Peer Coaching als Mittel
effizienter Lösungsfindung und ressourcenorientierter Personalentwicklung“, Vortrag am 8.
Hochschuldidaktiktag der Geschäftsstelle Hochschuldidaktik im Kompetenzzentrum der Universität
Siegen am 10.10.2014.
Schocker-von Ditfurth, Marita (2001): Forschendes Lernen in der fremdsprachlichen Lehrerbildung.
Tübingen: Narr.
Schön, Donald A. (1983): The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London:
Temple Smith.
Viebrock, Britta (2006): Bilingualer Erdkundeunterricht: Subjektive didaktische Theorien von
Lehrerinnen und Lehrern. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.
Walker, David (1985): Writing and Reflection. In: Boud/Keogh/Walker (eds.), 52-68.
Wanning, Berbeli (2013): unveröffentlichter Vortrag mit dem Titel „Forschendes Lernen in der
Praxisphase der Lehrerausbildung aus der Sicht des Faches Deutsch“, Vortrag im
sprachwissenschaftlichen-sprachdidaktischen Kolloquium an der Universität Siegen am 12.6.2013.
Woods, Devon (1996): Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching. Beliefs, Decision-Making and
Classroom Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zeichner, Kenneth M.; Liston, Daniel P. (1996): Reflective Teaching. An Introduction. New Jerseys:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Bach
Universität Bremen (Germany)
[email protected]
“Slow-ganization, or: against the constant need for re-inventing discourse on language education.
The case of ‘multiple intelligences’.”
Since the communicative turn, Innovation in foreign/second language teaching methodology has
been scarce; to compensate for this lack, slogans have mushroomed in the critical discourse as
facades of otherwise not apparent innovation. Much like pop-charts, hit lists of current slogans
abound, in constant need of re-invention. This paper argues that there would be little need for such
re-inventions (or, to use the appropriate slogan “re-visions”, since much of what hides in catch
phrases are mere re-interpretations of established thought. A case in point is the term “multiple
intelligences”, which announced a paradigm shift in language education discourse after its
propagation by Howard Gardner in the early 1980ies. What originally was meant to be a wake-up call
for medical research to expand its view of intelligence from the restricted cognitive domain to other
domains, quickly caught on in foreign language research and practice as a broadband remedy to
meet the needs of individualizing learning processes. Armstrong (2000) neatly appropriated
Gardner’s model to ESL practices by assigning to each particular “intelligence” a plethora of learning
designs and particular teaching options. I intend to show that the adaptation of the Gardner-model
by Armstrong and further modified by German foreign language curriculum designers is little more
than an all-too-ready re-formulation of what used to be known as learning skills and learning
strategies. Thus, the term “intelligence” turns out to do little to enhance our insight into individual
learning processes; it just sounds so much more serious and professional. As a slogan it has found its
way into German EFL curricula, there to serve as a checklist for teachers to observe how best to serve
their students’ individual intelligences. By way of historical contrast, I will show that the slogan of
multiple intelligences in the EFL classroom was already prevalent in EFL methodologies from the
1960ies onward, albeit in less extravagant sloganistic terminology. Rather than forcing the discourse
into ever new paradigms, slowing it down may turn out to have savory effects.
Literature
Armstrong, Thomas (2000): Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Gardner, Howard (1983): Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, Howard (1993): Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.
Annette Berndt
Deutsch als Fremdsprache
TU Dresden
Zur Sloganisierung des Begriffs „lifelong learning“: Fremdsprachenlernen lebenslänglich?
Im Kontext des europäischen Konstrukts der „Wissensgesellschaft“ wird immer wieder auf die
Wichtigkeit zielgerichteten Lernens im Laufe des gesamten Lebens verwiesen. Bildung hat einen
hohen ökonomischen Stellenwert in einer sich rasch umstrukturierenden Gesellschaft und wird
stilisiert zum einzigen Ausweg weniger Begüterter aus sonst drohenden prekären Lebenslagen bis in
späte Erwerbsphasen hinein (die sich tendenziell in immer höhere Altersstufen erstrecken).
Ein Blick auf die heutigen Erkenntnisse über die wesentlichen Veränderungen der Lernfähigkeit des
menschlichen Individuums im Laufe des Lebens machen die Anforderung lebenslangen Lernens zu
einem höchst komplexen didaktischen Unterfangen – es sei denn: Der Lernende wäre autonom.
Slogans sickern über die Medien und deren Rezipienten (i.e. die sog. Wissenschaftler) in
Fachdisziplinen wie die Fremdsprachendidaktik oder Sprachlehrforschung ein und müssen dort mit
Inhalten gefüllt werden; es handelt sich also nicht um genuin fachwissenschaftliche Konzepte. Zu
fragen ist daher im Sinne einer Grundlagendiskussion: Sind solche Entwicklungen unvermeidlich für
hybride, also auf verschiedenen Bezugswissenschaften basierende Disziplinen? Wo liegt ihr Sinn und
wie ist damit umzugehen?
David Block
ICREA/Universitat de Lleida (Spain)
[email protected]
What on earth is language commodification?
Language commodification is among the many terms in applied linguistics research that have
become increasingly sloganized with little, if any, consideration of what they mean. Monica Heller
(e.g. 2010) may be considered the originator of the term, and she has written about it with some
care and intellectual integrity. However, originators of terminology seldom have control over how
their terminology is taken up and used by others, and so language commodification is now used in a
rather loose manner by sociolinguistics interested in the interrelationship between economic issues
and language practices, who integrate it into their discussions of skilling discourses in education and
society in general (see Urciuoli & LaDousa, 2013, for a recent survey and Block, 2014 and McGill,
2013, for critiques). There is, therefore, a need to stop and take stock, and this means engaging in a
critical process of first examining how the term is used and then moving to consider what it might
mean to the different researchers using it. To this end, I will take an historical view of
commodification, going back to the classical political economy of Adam Smith (1976 [1776]) and
above all Karl Marx’s work (e.g. 1904 [1859]; 1976 [1867]) a century later on commodity as a product
of human labour and his use value/exchange value distinction. But beyond this, I will question
whether or not language (and I could add here, whatever this term might mean) can ever have value
as a ‘real’ product in the way that Marx had in mind. The overall aim here is to develop a more
rigorous working understanding of language commodification, if, indeed, such a thing can reasonably
be said to exist.
Literature
Block, D. (2014) Social Class in Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Heller, M. (2010) ‘The Commodification of Language’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 39: 101-114.
McGill, K. (2013) Political Economy and Language: A Review of Some Recent Literature. Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology, 23 (2): E84–E101.
Marx, K. (1904 [1859]) A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Chicago: Charles H. Kerr.
Marx, K. (1976 [1867]) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, New York: Vintage Books.
Smith, A. (1982 [1776]) The Wealth of Nations, Books 1-3, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Urciuoli, B. & LaDousa, C. (2013) ‘Language Management/Labor’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 42:
175-190.
Michael Byram
Durham University
m.s.byram @durham.ac.uk
From ‘communicative competence’ through ‘intercultural competence’ to ‘intercultural
dialogue’ – ignoring the relationship of language and culture.
Interpretations of Hymes’ ‘communicative competence’ have ignored the intertwining of the
linguistic and the cultural while interpretations of van Ek have ‘forgotten’ his emphasis on education;
in both cases the assimilation of the foreign language learner to the native speaker have been
problematic.
‘Intercultural competence’ is treated in two different traditions: one where language competence is
ignored and one where language competence and ‘mediation’ are integral.
The coining of the phrase ‘intercultural dialogue’ at European level – and its politicisation by contrast
with ‘multiculturalism’ – is another conceptualisation which ignores language competence. The
Council of Europe’s White Paper on ‘intercultural dialogue’ is a step in the wrong direction.
Alice Chik
City University of Hong Kong
[email protected]
Digital literacy: Discrepancy between curriculum and assessment
For many young people, technology is already part of their daily lives and beings. They learn, play,
communicate and live through an array of technologies. Literacy in digital technology is an essential
skill for study and work in the 21st century, so much so that education policy makers sometimes talk
of technology as if it were the be all and end all solution to the standard and quality of education.
The more computers and tablets the merrier the learning. Thus, many countries include digital
literacy as a key indicator or direction in their educational documents since the early 2000s.
Universities are frequently the incubators for technological innovations, but are not necessarily the
places for innovative uses of technology for learning. Schools are given the financial support to
purchase computers and tablets, but school-based curriculum development and assessment is not
necessarily supported. Faculty members and teachers usually place the blame on the technology and
curricular restrictions. These curricular restrictions may come from the fact that digital literacy is not
assessed in many educational contexts, and thus not relevant to the curriculum. In this paper, I will
survey key educational documents from North America, Europe, Australasia, and Asia to investigate
the discrepancy between curriculum and assessment of digital literacy, and explore the possible
backwash effects.
Susanne Ehrenreich
TU Dortmund University, Germany
English Department
[email protected]
English as a lingua franca - What it is and what it isn't
Based on empirical research, English as a lingua franca (ELF) can be characterized as a communicative
mode that is used among speakers of different lingua-cultural backgrounds as part of their often
plurilingual language repertoires. It is a highly fluid and variable resource, which requires its speakers
to constantly (re-)negotiate common, and probably more importantly, non-shared linguistic and
cultural ground. Interestingly, the factors contributing to communicative success in such
constellations and the way it is defined from the interactants' perspective only partially overlap with
what is generally promoted as linguistic norms in English classrooms at all levels. We therefore need
to rethink the way English is taught and tested today.
In my presentation, I will discuss how such a rethinking seems to be taking place in current language
education discourse. Or does it? - The subject of very often highly controversial debate in academic
discourse, the notion of English as a lingua franca is now also increasingly evoked and referred to –
by name or in spirit – in more applied contexts such as language policy documents, curricula,
textbooks for teacher education and teaching material. Very often, however, this is done in a pretheoretical and pre-empirical way, as a convenient catchphrase to underline the material's relevance
in today's globalized world. ELF has thus successfully joined the ranks of other buzz words in
language education discourse. The sloganization of "English as the world's lingua franca" in these
texts (but also in some camps of academic discourse on ELF) happens along mainly three lines: ELF is
either, rather naively, equated with British or American English, or it is trivialized or even demonized
as an 'anti-slogan' (cf. 'broken English', 'threat to multilingualism' etc.). Alternatively, it is simply
ignored, a 'non-slogan' as it were. In my paper I will analyze these different ways in which ELF has
become sloganized and show how the most effective approach to challenging such views is –
unsurprisingly – continued empirical research coupled with careful mediation of its findings into
pedagogical contexts such as e.g. teacher education.
Literature
Ehrenreich, S. (2012b) "Thinking about the global language: Englishes and other languages." In: Bär,
M. et al. (eds) Globalisierung. Migration. Fremdsprachenunterricht. Dokumentation zum 24.
Kongress für Fremdsprachendidaktik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Fremdsprachenforschung
(DGFF), Hamburg, 28. Sept. - 1. Okt. 2011. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, 397407.
Ehrenreich, S.; Jansing, B. (2012a) "CLIL meets ELF - Englisch als Arbeitssprache in Unterricht und
Beruf." In: Bär, M. et al. (eds), 235-247.
Ehrenreich, S. (2011) "The dynamics of English as a business lingua franca. A language contact
perspective." In: Jenkins, J. et al. (eds) Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 11-34.
Ehrenreich, S. (2009) "'Englisch als Fremdsprache' auf dem global-lokalen Prüfstand." Zeitschrift für
Fremdsprachenforschung. 20 (1), 3-36.
English as a Lingua Franca Research Network (AILA ReN) website: http://www.english-linguafranca.org/about/elf-ren (accessed 14 April 2014).
Hülmbauer, Cornelia (2013) The real, the virtual and the plurilingual - English as a lingua franca in a
linguistically diversified Europe. PhD Dissertation, University of Vienna.
Jenkins, J. et al. (2011) "Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca."
Language Teaching 44 (3), 281-315.
Mauranen, A. (2012) Exploring ELF. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pitzl, M.-L. (2012) 'Preparing teachers for an ELF future: What we CAN tell them'. Conference
presentation, 5th International Conference on English as a Lingua Franca (ELF5), Istanbul, 24 May
2012.
Seidlhofer, B. (2012) "The challenge of English as a lingua franca". In Appel, J.; Klippel, F. (eds). Focus
on Teaching English. Special issue of Anglistik 2012, 73-86.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2006) "English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it isn't.". In Rubdy, R.;
Saraceni, M. (eds). English in the World: global rules, global roles. London: Continuum, 40-50.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001) "Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua
franca." International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 133-158.
Daniela Elsner
Goethe University Frankfurt am Main
[email protected]
Plurilinguals are better language learners!
The slogan “plurilinguals are better language learners” can – amongst others - be found on this
website: http://c-lee.hubpages.com/hub/How-To-Maintain-Your-Multilingual-Ability, 22.4.2014 as
well as in several articles and books, most of them advertising bilingualism, bilingual education,
immersion programs and CLIL.
This presentation seeks to shed light on the question where this assumption comes from and how it
needs to be understood. It will be shown how bilingual and plurilingual students evaluate their
“special language skills” themselves for further language learning and what can be observed when
monolingual and plurilingual pupils get the chance to actively make use of their prior language
knowledge in the EFL classroom. It should become obvious in the end that the slogan “plurilinguals
are better language learners” needs to be further qualified.
Olga Esteve
Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona)
[email protected]
De-sloganizing core concepts in teacher education programs
In the field of teacher education, concepts such as ‘autonomy’, ‘multilinguism’, and the like,
are frequently used without taking into account that teachers’ pragmatic use of concepts is
often based on implicit theories. This means that when a teacher tries to understand or uses a
concept it reflects in part his or her personal point of view of that concept, because concepts
represent a generalization of one’s own experience.
Therefore, by working with concepts in teacher education programs we actually work with
mental models. Hence, the introduction of so called ‘sloganized concepts’ does not guarantee
that the concept that is introduced by means of educational research connects with the
mental model of the teacher.
In regard to this question and in order to promote a significant use of concepts it is first
necessary to visualize ‘what is behind the concept’, that is, its components.
In my lecture, I will present a tool which we (our teacher education group) have been using in
teacher education programs in Catalonia (Spain) to split core concepts in a way that it allows
teachers or student teachers to analyze the similarities and differences between the new
concept and their own mental model.
The tool is based on the idea of SCOBA (Schema for Complete Orienting Basis of Action)
developed by one of Vygostky’s followers called Galperin, who studied for years e formation of
mental actions in learning. A SCOBA is a ‘cognitive map’ that provides a clear picture of the
components that have to be taken into account for executing an action. This kind of
representation is shown as diagrams, models, displays or similar illustrations. In the
educational field all actions are related to core concepts.
From our experiences in teacher education programs we can conclude that the use of SCOBAs
helps to de-sloganize core concepts. Moreover, it helps teachers or teacher trainers to clarify
the concepts they want to work on, while it helps learners to visualize the meaning of the
concepts he or she has to deal with.
Özlem Etuş
Istanbul University
[email protected]
Competing discourses on intercultural learning: a critical review of concepts, definitions and
practices within the context of FLE in Turkey
As contemporary societies become increasingly multicultural, an intercultural perspective has
become the key to innovating education to prepare learners for the “postmodern plurality”
(Byram, Barrett, Ipgrave, Jackson & Méndez García, 2009) and the socio-cultural, political and
economic challenges of the 21st century. It goes without saying that the highly complex, fluid
and multifaceted nature of culture and identity and the interdisciplinary approaches to their
study generate new discussion platforms, (re)newed understandings of cross-cultural,
multicultural, pluricultural, intercultural, and transcultural dynamics and (re)conceptualization
of their distinctive theoretical underpinnings, especially within the realm of language
education. Nevertheless, the diverging, shifting and occasionally overlapping discourses on
these concepts may lead to misinterpretations and superficial readings of ‘culture’ dimension
in foreign language education with a potential danger of ‘sloganization’, widening the already
existing gap between theory and practice. Further complications arise in the conventional use
of certain terms such as ‘foreign language’ which can no more be defined with respect to
nation-based territories, considering especially the emergent nature of English; ‘intercultural
learning’ which cannot assumed to be a natural outcome of any teaching enterprise; and
‘culture’ which can neither be taken as a body of knowledge on values, beliefs and attitudes
conveyed by language nor as a closed system of communicative practice but can rather be
conceived as intercultural processes reaching beyond the here and now of unfolding
interaction in “microsocial timescale” to include “temporal ranges” for sense-making in an
ecological paradigm (Urdu, Steffensen & Kramsch, 2014). From this theoretical lens, the talk
initially focuses upon differing views on the term ‘intercultural’ in a critical-comparative frame
and then offers a general discussion of how foreign language education processes in Turkey
respond to intercultural orientation to language education in the spheres of language and
language teacher education policies, foreign language curriculum, and academic research.
Literature
Byram, M., Barrett, M., Ipgrave, J., Jackson, R., & Méndez García, M.C (2009) Autobiography of
Intercultural Encounters: Contexts, concepts and theories. The Council of Europe, Language
Policy Division. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/autobiography/source/aie_en/aie_context_concepts_and_theo
ries_en.pdf
Uryu, M., Steffensen, S.V., & Kramsch, C. (2014). The ecology of intercultural interaction:
Timescales, temporal ranges and identity dynamics. Language Sciences 41A, 41-59.
Claus Gnutzmann
Englisches Seminar
Technische Universität Braunschweig
[email protected]
Authenticity in foreign language education. A well thought-out concept or just a slogan?
Whereas the word concept is generally used in a semantically neutral sense, this
understanding does not apply to slogan in the same way, at least not when used in language
education discourse. Here, slogan very often refers to a hackneyed, more or less meaningless
expression. Interestingly enough, in other fields, for example, in marketing research and
business studies, slogan has a neutral, if not positive connotation, as in the following
definition: “The verbal or written portion of an advertising message that summarizes the main
idea in a few memorable words – a tag line” (http://marketing.about.com). However, in
language education discourse and probably in the humanities at large, slogans seem to evoke a
negative reaction, as they are largely considered as semantically empty buzz-words being
stripped of their theoretical and historical background. Taking a historical perspective to the
concept of authentic/ity, the paper aims at identifying its relationship to different language
teaching methods/approaches as well as different meanings in its development. This analysis is
complemented by a comparative frequency count of authentic/ity in the ELT Journal and
TESOL Quarterly to show up similarities and differences between two influential applied
linguistics journals and to see whether authentic/ity is still a concept to be reckoned with or
whether it has lost its appeal and become sloganized. An overriding question to be pursued in
the discussion is whether it is the potential destiny of terminology in the humanities that it
changes and possibly loses its original reading over time and why this is different in the natural
sciences and in the engineering subjects. Thus, this study is intended to shed some light on the
historical development of a central idea in language teaching and, furthermore, raise the
question of whether processes of sloganization may be inherent to the humanities as well as
to the social sciences.
Literature
Breen, Michael P. (1985). “Authenticity in the language classroom”. Applied Linguistics 6:
60-70.
Gilmore, Alex (2007). “Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning”.
Language Teaching 40: 97-118.
Little, David/Devitt, Seán/Singleton, David (1989). Learning Languages from Authentic Texts:
Theory and Practice. Dublin: Authentik Language Learning Resources Ltd.
Widdowson, H.G. (1998). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Christine Hélot & Yan-Zhen Chen
UR1339 LiLPA – GEPE, University of Strasbourg, France
[email protected]
Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence in the Teaching of Standard Chinese as a Foreign
Language in France: slogan or relevant notion?
Our presentation will address the notion of plurilingual and pluricultural competence and its
interpretation in the curricula for the teaching of Standard Chinese as a Foreign Language
(CFL) in the French educational context. Our analysis will focus on three dimensions of the
notion of plurilingual competence:
1) its various definitions by researchers in the field of language didactics (Candelier &
Castellotti, 2013; Coste, Moore & Zarate, 2009), and in European policy documents (Beacco,
2007, and CEFRL Conseil de l’Europe, 2001).
2) the use of the term from the policy point of view looking at French official
discourse i.e.; the national curricula in relation to Foreign language teaching and more
specifically to Chinese as a third language in secondary education. A quantitative and
qualitative analysis of the term will be proposed to understand its discursive function and
whether it can be considered a form of sloganisation.
3) the meaning of the term will be investigated at the practice level looking at a
teacher of Chinese’s discourse as well as some students’ discourse on their understanding of
their multiple language learning experiences and whether the notion of plurilingual
competence makes sense for them or not and why.
Literature
Beaccao, J.-C. (2007): De la diversité linguistique à l’éducation plurilingue: guide pour
l’élaboration des politiques linguistiques éducatives en Europe. Version intégrale.
Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe
Candelier, M. & Castellotti, V. (2013): Didactique(s) du (des) plurilinguisme(s). In: Simonin, J.
& Wharton, S. (eds): Sociolinguistique du contact: Dictionnaire des termes et concepts.
Langages. Lyon: ENS Éditions, p.179-222
Conseil de l’Europe (2001): Un Cadre Européen Commun de Référence pour les Langues:
apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Apprentissage des langues et citoyenneté européenne. Paris:
Didier/Strasbourg: Conseil de l'Europe, Division de politiques linguistiques
Coste, D., Moore, D. & Zarate, G. (2009): Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle. Version
révisée et enrichie d’un avant-propos et d’une bibliographie complémentaire. Strasbourg:
Division des politiques linguistiques
Adelheid Hu
University of Luxembourg
Faculté des Lettres, des Sciences Humaines, des Arts et des Sciences de l´Education
Abteilung Englische Sprache und ihre Didaktik
[email protected]
Internationalization of universities:
Some thoughts about intercultural and multilingual encounters.
In times where economic imperatives are of particular significance for Higher Education, the
question of what Internationalization of universities means is often reduced to an
instrumental perspective. Exchange, degree mobility, recruitment of "international"
students, English speaking programmes is what counts. Concepts like "global skills",
"intercultural competence" or "cross-border-education" are overused in this context, but
often remain quite vague. What is needed is an approach which transcends this instrumental
perspective.
In my talk I will argue that the theoretical framework that has been developed within
cultural studies/Kulturwissenschaften and which takes the notion of culture serious might be
helpful for an innovative view on learning, teaching, research and communication processes
within an international and multilingual university. From within a cultural perspective they
can be interpreted as hybrid intercultural encounters where "third spaces" are created,
identities are shaped and knowledge development becomes multi-perspective. The
University of Luxembourg is an excellent example of an institution where the interplay of
cultures and different languages shape the academic life - as well for students as for scholars
and administrative staff.
Glenn S. Levine
University of California, Irvine
School of Humanities
[email protected]
Questioning "the L2 Classroom”
A great deal of applied linguistics scholarship has investigated aspects of classroom L2
teaching and learning, in large part to discover the most effective and efficient ways to help
students learn in that educational setting. Yet apart from critiques of particular pedagogical
approaches, the very institution of “classroom L2 teaching and learning” seldom has been
called into question or critically examined. This is understandable, as the classroom is the
ubiquitous setting for the vast majority of those who engage in L2 learning, or any other sort
of intentional learning. However, epistemological and methodological paradigm shifts in the
field of SLA toward complexity theory and other poststructuralist models (e.g. Block &
Cameron 2002; Kramsch & Steffensen 2008; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron 2008; van Lier
2004), coinciding with greater ease of international travel and transnational living, the
increasing seamlessness of global digital media and communications, and what Blommaert
and Rampton (2011) call “superdiversity” in our globalized world, mean that the time is ripe
to consider whether or how the language classroom itself should remain the primary site of
language teaching and learning. Working from the assumption that doing away with “the L2
classroom” would be the worst sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, in this
presentation I consider the components of an “ecological approach” to L2 instruction, which
Kramsch (2014) and colleagues assert should be “reflective, interpretive, historically
grounded, and politically engaged,” a pedagogy which integrates the above-mentioned
affordances available to, in particular, L2 learners at the university level to help them engage
productively with superdiversity and the demands of multilingual being in the 21st century.
Jean-Paul Narcy-Combes
Université Sorbonne nouvelle-Paris 3
DILTEC – EA2288
Words…words…words, is there a reality behind them ? Ontological validity in language education.
Bachelard coined the concept of epistemological obstacle which is a reminder that objects should be
constructed with reference to scientific theory(ies), and not to everyday experience, and Kelly
claimed that we are responsible for the construction of the knowledge we refer to. Teaching
languages and researching in language education is based on objects whose ontological validity is not
always questioned because, among other reasons, the terminology sounds comfortably scientific.
This presentation will discuss a number of these constructs, and by contrasting doxa and episteme
will attempt to show that the competition between commitment and distantiation in human actions
partly explains our reliance on beliefs. Reflective practice in teaching and in researching may help,
but only partly… since neurophysiology and psychology seem to indicate that total control is neither
possible nor, in many ways, desirable…
Literature
Bachelard, G (1938). La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Paris: J.Vrin.
Berger, P.L. and Thomas Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge . New York: Anchor.
Searle, J. R. (2004). Réalité institutionnelle et représentation linguistique. In L. Pinto, G. Sapiro et P.
Champagne (dir.), Pierre Bourdieu, sociologue (p. 189-214). Paris: Fayard.
Channouf, A. (2004). Les influences inconscientes. Paris : Armand Colin.
Damasio, A. R. (1995). L’erreur de Descartes, la raison des émotions. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Elias, N. (1993). Engagement et distanciation. Paris : Fayard.
Foucault, M. (1966). Les Mots et les Choses, une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris : NRF.
Kelly, G. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: WW Norton.
Lahire, B. (2001). L’homme pluriel, les ressorts de l’action. Paris: Nathan.
LeDoux, J. (2003). Neurobiologie de la personnalité. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Lenoir, Yves (2007). L’habitus dans l’œuvre de Pierre Bourdieu: un concept central dans sa théorie de
la pratique à prendre en compte pour analyser les pratiques d’enseignement. Document du CRI et de
la CRCIE. N°1. Université de Sherbrooke.
Lyotard, J-F. (1979). La Condition Postmoderne: Rapport sur le Savoir. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind Works. New York: Norton.
Popper, K. (1999). All life is problem solving. Londres: Routledge.
Aneta Pavlenko,
Department of Teaching and Learning
Temple University
Superdiversity and why it isn’t
In the past few years, we have witnessed an emergence of the sociolinguistics of superdiversity,
seen as “a tremendous increase in the categories of migrants” (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011). In this
talk, I will argue that assumptions about the time period, locales and phenomena that matter in this
approach reveal a presentist, Western-centric and myopic view of language. I will begin with the
timeline implicit in the superdiversity approach: ‘super’ and ‘tremendous’ as compared to what? The
number of immigrants in today’s Brussels may be “tremendous” as compared with that of fifty years
ago yet the long-term history of human migrations unambiguously shows that present-day
globalization is by no means unique – rather it is just the latest in a series of globalizing eras in
human history (Jennings, 2011). Problems are also apparent in the implicit assumption that the only
locales that matter are the places immigrants ‘come to’ – yet the celebration of increased
heterogeneity in Western Europe obfuscates the dramatically increased homogeneity in places
immigrants ‘come from’, including Eastern Europe (Pavlenko, 2013). Last but not least, what types of
diversity are we committed to studying as linguists? Is it the diversity of the easily accessible, of
charming linguistic landscapes and amusing ways of speaking, or is it the diversity of the phenomena
we call ‘languages’? If the former, then indeed we have something to celebrate and explore in
Western European cities but if it is the latter then there is little to celebrate and a lot to document
(Evans & Levinson, 2009). I will argue that the sociolinguistics of globalization needs more
historically-minded, comparative, and genuinely global approaches that consider how linguistic
effects of today’s migrations are similar to and different from those of the past and what they mean
for the irreducibly decreasing diversity of human languages.
Literature
Blommaert, J. & B. Rampton (2011) Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13, 2, 1-22.
Evans, N. & S. Levinson (2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its
importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429-492.
Jennings, J. (2011) Globalizations and the ancient world. Cambridge University Press.
Pavlenko, A. (2013) Language management in the Russian empire, Soviet Union, and post-Soviet
countries. In Bayley, R., Cameron, R. & C. Lucas (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics.
Oxford University Press, pp. 651-679.
Alison Phipps
Glasgow Refugee
Asylum and Migration Network
University of Glasgow
Communicative skills and competences – is that it?: Learning from language under strain.
The discourse of skills and competences has dominated the neoliberal language curriculum and
produced a global technocracy of considerable power and, arguably, of efficiency. The political
economy of languages and their labour has been tied to the job market and as professionals
language teachers have been assessed for their competency and skills, in turn, in delivering to this
agenda. This trajectory has followed Lyotard's assessment and predictions for education in the
Twenty-First Century as a characteristic of the Postmodern Condition. Competency abounds in the
core texts and documents strategizing the field. Who, could possibly be against competence or skill?
In this paper I will consider some the limits to competence and skill by bringing attention to the
political economies which hold this discourse in place, and drawing on research under way with
those who are excluded from the structures which reward skills and competence in their narrower
conception. To this I shall bring the dual pressurising effects of the disciplines of the arts and the
experience of pain and loss in the context of considering the limits to competence and hinterlands of
language education. This paper will draw on both research with interpreters, health care providers
and patients in health care contexts and on the new project 'Researching Multilingual at the borders
of the body, language, law and the state'.
Literature
Barnett, R. (1994). The Limits of Competence: Knowledge, Higher Education and Society.
Buckingham, Open University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Polity.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon,
Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., et al. (1997). Sociocultural Competence in Language Learning and Teaching. Strasbourg,
Council of Europe Publishing.
Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings . J.B.Pride and
J.Holmes. Harmondsworth:, Penguin: 269-29373.
Kramsch, C. (2006). "From Communicative Competence to Symbolic Competence." Modern Language
Journal 9: 249-252.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester, Manchester
University Press.
Phipps, A. (2013). "Linguistic Incompetence: Giving an account of researching multilingually."
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 23(3): 329-341.
Schulz, R. A. and E. Tschirner (2008 Communicating Across Borders: Developing Intercultural
Competence in German as a Foreign Language. Munich, Iudicium.
John L. Plews
Saint Mary’s University (Halifax, Canada)
Department of Modern Languages & Classics
“Exposure”—Theory and Practice in Study Abroad
I draw on second language education research, study abroad data, and an investigative process
exemplified in Williams’ Keywords to explore the term “exposure.” By reviewing the effort made in
academic discourse to dismiss or reassign the term and the interconnection of other terms mobilized
to confront it while also attending to the persistence of its popular understanding, it is possible to
trace a broad context in which to make available alternate meanings for the field to consider.
“Exposure”—as in: “exposure to language” —is a term that has not only fallen out of favour but even
been consciously driven out of discussion in second language education in the past two decades. This
has occurred despite the term’s continued currency in popular discourse, not to mention its
migration to neurobiology. Yet the recent academic/social/cultural history of the term—its
contestation, migration, and persistence—has produced contrasting meanings that provide a fertile
ground for exploring what the term has to offer. Popular belief still maintains you have to be
“immersed” in a language in order to learn it the best. That is, to learn a language, you have to go to
a country where that language is spoken in order to be exposed to it in a so-called real setting and so
hear it not as it is used for the sake of learning in the domestic modern language classroom but
because it is omnipresent and being used as intended by lots of proficient speakers naturally going
about genuine daily business. Perhaps it is because of this ungovernable popularity that scholars
turned exposure into a dirty word, replacing it primarily with the hypothesized, model-like, and
mercantile-sounding “input.” Since the domestic classroom is the province of most second language
educators, you can imagine how that word “exposure” must have grated. All-crucial exposure was
deemed beyond their domain and implied their redundancy, whereas they can take control of input
(especially when it looks like learners are tasked with using language purposefully). Intriguingly,
exposure also fell under suspicion of researchers who followed language learners to those other
countries: Study abroad research regrets to inform that program participants do not learn simply by
osmosis, or exposure. It is in this layered network of terms, people, and position-takings that I wish
to intervene, not to elevate “exposure” but to better understand its situation and to bring to light a
range of meanings.
Literature
Williams, R. (1985). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society (Rev. ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dietmar Rösler
Justus Liebig Universität Gießen
Fachbereich Sprache, Literatur, Kultur
Huch – schon wieder ein Paradigma gefunden! Wie die Fremdsprachenforschung ihren
Erkenntnisfortschritt behindert und den Praktikern das Leben unnötig erschwert.
Paradigmenwechsel im Kuhnschen Sinne sind es eher nicht, die im fremdsprachendidaktischen
Diskurs beschrieben oder gar programmatisch angekündigt werden. Der seit den 1960er Jahren ja
eigentlich nicht mehr mögliche Hegemonialanspruch des kommunikativen Ansatzes, die Ausrufung
eines neuen Paradigmas Interkulturelle Germanistik in den 1970ern, die peinliche Konstruktion des
Feindbildes Instruktivismus durch die konstruktivistische Fremdsprachendidaktik, das überflüssige
‚vs.‘ in der Diskussion um Inter- und Transkulturalität oder das naive Autonomiekonzept, das mit dem
Aufkommen der digitalen Medien Eingang in die Diskussion fand, –sie alle sind Beispiele dafür, wie
fremdsprachendidaktische ‚Innovationen‘ vor lauter Konzentration auf die kleine Welt, die sie
‚entdeckt‘ haben, sich (zu) wenig auf das Gesamt und die Befassung mit der Komplexität des Lehrens
und Lernens neuer Sprachen in unterschiedlichen Bildungskontexten einlassen.
Warum? Gibt es individuelle Gründe (Ruhmsucht, Lesefaulheit)? Handelt es sich um
Kollateralschäden der Neuausrichtung der Universitäten an Ranking und Marketing? Oder um einen
Ausdruck des hype cycles? Oder liegt die Erklärung doch eher in unserer Diskussionskultur? Der
Vortragende hat auf diese Fragen keine Antworten, hofft aber, sie zumindest prägnant formulieren
zu können.
Lars Schmelter
Bergische Universität Wuppertal
Romanistik
Autonomy through bilingual education for the plurilingual citizen of multilingual Europe?
Die Vielzahl der Sprachen und Kulturen in Europa galt dem Europarat von Beginn an als
schützenswertes Vermögen und Erbe. Früh erkannte der Europarat zudem, dass auch die von ihm
verfolgten politischen Ziele davon profitieren würden, wenn viele Europäer mehr als nur eine
Sprache sprächen. So sind zahlreiche Publikationen im Auftrag und unter dem Schirm des Europarats
entstanden, die mehr oder weniger großen Einfluss auf die fremdsprachendidaktische Diskussion und
die Entwicklung von fremdsprachlichen Lehr-Lernkontexten hatten und haben.
Par contre, ce n’est qu’au début des années 1990 que l’Union européenne commence à s’intéresser
plus intensément à la promotion du plurilinguisme de ces citoyens. Depuis, le concept de
plurilinguisme a subi un changement intéressant : désormais, il tient mieux compte de l’individu et
de ses compétences linguistiques et culturelle, et au niveau du multilinguisme il permettrait même
de mieux prendre en compte le patrimoine linguistique des personnes issues de l’immigration hors
l’Union européenne. Pourtant les mesures concrètes sensées promouvoir les compétences
plurilingues et pluriculturels des citoyens européens restent parfois controversés voire
contradictoires.
Ainsi, pour la promotion du plurilinguisme et donc du multilinguisme européen, le conseil de l’Europe
mais surtout les différentes institutions de l’Union européenne renvoient régulièrement aux qualités
présumées d’un enseignement des langues étrangères dès l’école primaire voire maternelle, ils
prônent les biens-faits de l’enseignement bilingue et rappellent que l’apprentissage des langues tout
au long de la vie nécessite la formation d’un apprenant autonome.
However, having a closer look on what is meant, when we are talking about bilingual education, and
having a closer look on empirical findings about the outcomes of bilingual education we might find
out, that neither autonomy nor multilingualism (i.e. individuelle Mehrsprachigkeit) are promoted by
bilingual education in the way it is often claimed in the discourses on educational policy.
In my contribution I try to show that despite the inherent potential to promote personal autonomy
by strengthening individual multilingualism concepts of bilingual education might undergo the same
processes of mainstreaming in which concepts like autonomy and multilingualism have already lost
part of their potential power in becoming just a mere slogan.
Prof. Dr. Britta Viebrock
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
Just a change of prefix? From inter- to transcultural foreign language learning and back
In my presentation I will look at the development and expansion of the concept of inter- and
transcultural foreign language learning in the academic discourse, the resonance of both concepts in
education policy papers, and their significance and acceptance in the teaching profession.
Intercultural learning certainly meets typical criteria of sloganisation, which is an outcome of
simplification, i.e. – deliberately or not – taking concepts or parts of texts out of their textual or
historical context and subsequently working with a reduced version. Transcultural learning as a more
recent concept is probably not quite as worn down, but by differing only in the prefix it runs the risk
of being lumped together with the intercultural paradigm and the “mess” around it. The potential
and limitation of each concepts will be discussed.
Dr Andrea YOUNG
Strasbourg University
Ecole Supérieure du Professorat et de l’Education (ESPE)
(Emergent) bilinguals from migrant backgrounds à l’école de la République: Isolating concepts in
interconnecting worlds?
In the French context two contrasting linguistic ideologies are currently colliding and creating
confusion in schools and classrooms. The national tradition, since free and compulsory schooling was
introduced by Jules Ferry in 1881-82, has been to award priority to the “maîtrise de la langue”, that is
to say mastery of the sole national language, regarded as one of the pillars of the République and
enshrined in the constitution (article 2, loi constitutionnelle n°95-880 du 4 août 1995 – art. 8,
Légifrance). In contrast to monolingual visions of education associated with the nation state building
of the 19th and 20th centuries, current European language policies support the development of
plurilingual education (Beacco & Byram, 2007) for mutual understanding, and social cohesion within
a complex linguistically and culturally diverse context.
In this presentation, after briefly situating the linguistic, historical, social and political context of the
Alsace region in north eastern France, I will present and analyse data from interviews conducted with
head teachers (N=46) working in nursery, primary and secondary schools in relation to these two
distinct ideological perspectives.
Critical, interpretive analysis of the reported discourse reveals evidence of linguistic hierarchies,
separate spaces for different languages, a profusion of bilingual myths and a persistent monolingual
habitus at school. Through listening to teachers’ voices and analysing their discourse I examine their
beliefs about pluri/bilingualism and reveal anxieties and questions concerning the learning and
development of the national language and the nurturing of shared values central to citizenship,
specifically in relation to emergent bilingual pupils. Overt and covert language practices and policies
within the school context are identified and the ideologies upon which they are founded explored.
Findings underline the importance of uncovering and analysing teachers’ language ideologies in a bid
to better understand the challenges and complexities which they face in linguistically diverse
classrooms.
Literature
Beacco, Jean-Claude & Michael Byram. 2007. Guide for the development of Language Education
Policies in Europe (final version). Council of Europe.
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Zydatiß
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Anglistik & Amerikanistik: Didaktik Englisch (CLIL)
Prospecting for „Durchgängige sprachliche Bildung“ in the German educational system – or: How
to pull an ill-defined concept out of a swamp of opaque pedagogic terminology by … (yeah, … by
grabbing whose hair?)
As far as I can see it can’t be „one’s own hair“, ie. „Sprachliche Bildung“ rescuing itself by staying on
the chosen path. The epistemological „Münch-hausen“-trick will not work; because this idea lacks a
comprehensive theoretical foundation, guiding both teacher education and classroom
implementation. The notion also floats about in a swamp of educational conditions and objectives
competing and contradicting each other: see notions like Risikoschüler, Bildungsnähe / -ferne, soziale
Herkunft, Entmischung, Betreuungsgeld etc.
To make my position clear: We need a fresh start for what is also called „Bildungssprache“ in
German-speaking contexts: perhaps a „new hairdo“ (to be grabbed); namely one inspired by a
mixture of Vygotskyan sociocultural theory and Hallidayan functional linguistics. Vygotsky’s theory
places cognition and learning firmly in interactive social settings emphasizing the mediating role of
„cultural tools“ (esp. language) and verbal thought. Halliday’s approach convincingly accounts for the
situated meaning-making of communicative language use by relating texts / genres (ie. discourse),
linguistic subsystems and lexico-grammatical realizations.
The central thesis of my presentation will therefore be that „Bildungssprache“ is not a „sociocultural
capital“ (Bourdieu) a learner (solely) ′inherits′ from his / her elders – no, it is an advanced academic
literacy which (for a growing part of our students) has to be developed cumulatively in subjectmatter teaching by systematically integrating content and language learning. The focal claim will be
substantiated by presenting prototypical tokens of academic texts and tasks that can be encountered
or offered in secondary content teaching. A „knowledge society“ has to promote „durchgängige
sprachliche Bildung“, indeed it has. However, if ′it doesn’t deliver′, there will probably be no
Münchhausen available to pull it out of the swamp of serious economic repercussions.
Literature
M.A.K. Halliday (1985 / 1993): An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
L. Vygotsky (1978): Mind in Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP.
M. Schleppegrell (2004 / 2010): The Language of Schooling. New York & London: Routledge.
P. Gibbons (2009): English Learners’ Academic Literacy and Thinking:
Zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Learning in the Challenge

Sloganizations in Language Education Discourse Prof. Dr. Dagmar

Transcription

Similar documents

wella gewusst wie

INFO DaF/DaZ - Fachbereich Deutsch als Fremd

BETHEL CEMETERY as of 03/31/2016 DATE OF

Charles Dickens Essay von Andreas Isenschmid | Karl

Veranstaltungen in Pfullendorf