The EU-Speak Project Finding and sharing European Treasure Martha Young-Scholten

1. The EU-Speak Project Finding and sharing European Treasure Martha Young-Scholten martha.young-scholten@newcastle.ac.uk LESLLA 30 August 2012 Jyväskylä, Finland

2. EU-Speak: 8 institutions in 6 European Union countries participated in a ‘partnership’ project

3. Partners: Universities of Amsterdam, Cologne, Granada, Leipzig, Newcastle (and the Workers Education Association), Stockholm and Funen Further Education College in Odense • Funding: 141,000 euros from the Grundvig Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) from autumn 2010 to summer 2012

4. LLP partnership project requirements Mobilties (visits) to each other’s institutions revolving around activities which • familiarize participants with the host’s language and culture • include teachers and trainees (students) working or planning to work in the lifelong learning/further education sector (for EU-Speak, LESLLA teachers/trainees) • include learners in the lifelong learning/further education sector (for EU-speak, LESLLA learners)

5. EU-Speak’s specific aims & objectives As stated on the Grundtvig LLP application: Capture, celebrate and share local best practice in provision of second language teaching and professional training of teachers to immigrant adults at the Basic User (A1 and A2) level (Common European Framework of Reference; next slide).

7. EU-Speak activities 2010-2012 An inaugural & planning workshop early November 2010 (Newcastle) and a wrap-up workshop late May 2012 (Amsterdam) + five workshops on best practice in • Reading research (Odense) • Policy (Granada) • Methods/techniques/materials (Leipzig) • Assessment (Cologne) • Teacher training (Stockholm; Amsterdam) EU-Speak’s results (= best practices captured, celebrated and shared) must be submitted to the Lifelong Learning Programme’s European Shared Treasurehttp://www.europeansharedtreasure.euWhat is our treasure?

8. Guiding questions, late November 2010 (by Paula Bosch & Elwine Halewijn, U of Amsterdam) 1. Policy, provision and curriculum • What is EU-Speak’s position in relation to the different official/governmental views on LESLLA learners and their needs, appropriate curricula, teaching approaches, duration of study, assessment and teacher qualifications? • Do learners in some European countries suffer more from ignorant governments than others? • Are there examples of good policies that could be promoted in other European countries?

9. 2. Reading/oral proficiency • What stages of reading development can be identified? • How much L2 oral proficiency is needed to successfully master basic L2 literacy skills? • How does this relate to how literacy and oral language are taught? • What levels do students acquire and over how long?

10. 3. Assessment • Why assessment? • Placement, progression, for teachers insights into their students • What should be assessed? • What assessment tools exist? How do these tools assess learners? • Below CEFR Basic User, sub-A1 level • Is a framework that works for LESLLA learners across languages/orthographies possible?

11. 4. Methods, techniques and materials • How do the target oral language and its orthography map on to methods, techniques and materials? • Are there commonalities in materials across countries? • Where do materials originate? Teachers? Research groups? Publishing houses? • How can teachers share techniques and materials that are learner centered, communicative-competence-driven, real life application-oriented? Those working in countries with less widely-spoken languages (Danish, Dutch, Swedish) need help. • Can one create a central, digital repository? • Public vs. subscriber-only • Recognition/credit for teachers for their creative work (e.g. via a Creative Commons license)

12. 5. Teacher training • What are the LESLLA teacher training curricula across the various countries? • What sort of certificates do they lead to? • Is a certificate required for all LESLLA teachers? • Are there inspections of LESLLA teachers? • What do/should these curricula contain? • What skills and knowledge should LESLLA teachers have? “It would be fascinating to focus on European standards for teacher education in L2 literacy and/or a teacher curriculum with general European modules and L2-specific national modules.” (Bosch & Halewijn, November 2010)

13. ...but We collectively had only 141,000 euros and this had to be spent in part on meeting Grundtvig LLP requirements (see slide 4) • familiarize participants with the host’s language and culture • The host arranged key cultural activities as well as language training both before and during each event. • include LESLLA teachers and trainees • Partners took local teachers with them to workshops at other partners; this included PhD students who were also LESLLA teachers. • A day during each partner’s event was an open conference (a mini-LESLLA) to which local teachers were invited. • include LESLLA learners • Partners interacted with LESLLA learners and their teachers through visits to basic language/literacy programmes in the other partners’ cities.

14. 1. familiarizing participants with host culture

15. familiarizing participants with host (& immigrant) language

16. 2. including LESLLA teachers

17. 3. including LESLLA learners

18. ...and discussing it all with each other and with teachers/trainees formally, informally and very informally

21. EU-Speak’s results • Establishment of a new international network of professionals, practioners and trainees(students) • The majority of the participants had not been involved in LESLLA before the start of the project • The network is leading to new activities and could lead to more e.g. cross-linguistic studies under the larger LESLLA umbrella • Capture, celebration & sharing of ‘best practice’ • Can we conclude that something is best practice without systematic research to confirm it is? • All that glitters is not gold: the treasure chest needs more research exploring EU-Speak’s observations

22. The rest of the talk • EU-Speak’s European Shared Treasure: an assortment of the gems were captured, shared, celebrated (including some research project reports) • Policy, provision and curriculum 2. Reading 3. Assessment 4. Methods, techniques and materials 5. Teacher training • Identifying the jewels: Revisiting Amsterdam’s questions

23. 1. Policy Everyone has the right to free, basic education.(Declaration of Human rights, Article 26) A person who is functionally literate can engage in all those activities in which literacy is required to function. (UNESCO 2011)

24. Percentage immigrants w/ 0-3 years’ school from 7% – 15% National policies tend not to reflect international policy • Denmark: Up to three years’ publically-funded/provided instruction. • Germany: 2005 Migration Law; establishment of Office for Migration and Refugees (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge/BAMF) which directs provision for learners; hours vary by learner type. • Netherlands: Civic integration programmes free but obligatory and examined (literacy skills required to pass exams). • Spain: State-provided adult education + voluntary sector. • Sweden: Swedish Language Act of 2009: everyone has the right to develop and learn Swedish and to develop and use their mother tongue. Unlimited free classes up CEFR B1 but government has started financially rewarding students for passing exams. • UK: Steady decline of public funding, provision devolved to local authorities and dependent on exam outcomes; since 2007 fees for classes; push for employers to take over teaching; increased involvement of voluntary sector.

25. Denmark (thanks to Andersen; Hansen): residents have the right to three years’ instruction at one of 14 state-funded Laerdansk centres; includes Danish instruction for vulnerable refugees and immigrants. • Germany (thanks to Buschfeld & Bathe-Jablanovic; Pietzuch, Scheithauer, Schramm & Elena): 1960s sole immigrants guestworkers/received no classes; 2005 Migration Law and Office for Migration and Refugees (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge/BAMF) to direct provision; fund research, e.g. Projekt Alphabetisierung und Grundbildung für Erwachsene im Sozialraum (PAGES) on adults in socially deprived areas (universities Cologne and Siegen, local/regional government, further education colleges on quantity/quality of literacy classes, training of literacy teachers, research on linguistic prerequisites for literacy and learners’ backgrounds. • Netherlands (thanks to Dalderop & Stockmann): civic integration programmes obligatory and examined (literacy skills required to pass). Classes are free; exam becomes students own responsibility in 2013. • Spain (thanks to Ramírez Ortiz, de Dios Villanueva Roa and Sosinski): state-provided adult education + voluntary sector (e.g. charities Cáritas, Acoge, Red Cross) no national curriculum, official list of examination topics, but teachers create own exams; no specific LESLLA teacher certification (rather primary/secondary certification). One charity-supported programme (Mirlo in Andalucia) delivers literacy classes to 20 – 35 year olds, regardless of legal status, mostly from Senegal and Morocco, then Nigeria, India, Romania and China. • Sweden (thanks to Lindberg): 15 % of 9.5 million inhabitants 1st or 2nd generation immigrants from one of 200 countries; 1965: informal, but government-financed study circles; 1970s: up to 200 hours free lessons at the workplace, widened to include unemployed, 1980s: formal curriculum; teacher qualifications begun, The Swedish Language Act of 2009: everyone has the right to develop and learn Swedish and to develop and use their mother tongue. State funding distributed to municipalities who provide/tender to private providers) Sfi as part of adult education. Unlimited free classes up CEFR B1 but government has started financially rewarding students for passing exams. • UK (thanks to Cooke): 1950s voluntary, home-based classes; 1970s first professional groups in 1970s; 2000s with national Skills for Life + National Research & Development Centre; funding keeps decreasing, has been devolved to local authorities; now dependent on exam outcomes; fees for classes since 2007; push for employers to take over teaching; increased involvement of voluntary sector.

26. Curriculum • Germany: Combines functional literacy (25% +); oral competence (25%+); learner autonomy (25% +); addressing learner needs-based; intercultural competence (up to 10%); digital skills (up to 10%), e.g. publishers’ books. • Netherlands: Formalizes CEFR A1 and below as Alfa A, Alfa B and Alfa C (= A1); aims to integrate oral language + literacy in a challenging, relevant, and fun way. Teachers have the flexibility to deliver instruction as they see fit. • Spain: None (but suggests textbooks). • Denmark; Sweden: Learner-centred approach taking into account learners’ backgrounds, goals, etc.; does not specify content or method. • UK: Skills for Life Core Curriculum includes Entry 1 (=CEFR A1). Based on the four skills of listening, speaking reading and writing, further divided into ‘elements’. Curriculum excludes sub-A1 learners.

27. Germany: Functional literacy and linguistic competence + ability to socially integrate; course content: oral 25-30%; literacy 25-30%; learner autonomy 25-30%; needs-based/intercultural competence materials 5-10%;digital skills IT 5-10%. (Feldmeier, Alexis. 2007, Vorläufiges Konzept für einen bundesweiten Integrationskurs mit Alphabetisierung) • Netherlands: Formalization of levels below and including CEFR A1: Alfa A, Alfa B and Alfa C (= A1): oral language + reading and writing skills simultaneous processes. Suggested topics: challenging, relevant, fun; delivery flexible/teacher independent. Curriculum on the internet (as of December 2011). • Spain: no national curriculum • Denmark; Sweden: Learner-centred approach which takes into account students’ interests, experiences, general knowledge and long-term goals. Neither content nor methods specified; criterion referenced regarding reading, writing, speaking, talking listening and understanding in different contexts; using language with different people in variety of situations • UK: Skills for Life Core Curriculum: Entry 1, 2, 3 and Level 1, 2; Entry 1 = A1 but curriculum excludes sub-A1 learners (‘pre-entry’ national curriculum for adults with ‘profound and complex learning disabilities’, not for LESLLA learners). Based on speaking, listening, reading and writing competences further divided into elements www.excellencegateway.org.uk

28. German integration courses for six types of learners at CEFR B1 to subdivision of A1 (Feldmeier; see also Dutch levels)

29. Subdivision of Alphabetisierungs ‘literacy’ courses in Germany; 68,000 students 2005-2010

30. 2. Reading: views • Top down/bottom up processes are reciprocal -phonemic awareness build reading; improved reading builds phonemic awareness. • Adult immigrants have complex learning trajectories – this may make it difficult/undesirable to apply standards. • Socio-cultural factors are important • Four literacies model (Freebody 1997; Barton 2007): cultural (pragmatic and semantic meaning making), operational (decoding) and critical is basis for literacy instruction based on mutual respect; meaningful and useful material; participation and responsibility (thanks to Franker; Sweden). • Reflect for ESOL based on the Freirian idea of critical literacy through participatory rural appraisal to directly involve learners in all aspects of their education(thanks to Cooke, UK).

31. Reading: some research findings • Considerable native language orthographic influence, for those with some L1 literacy e.g. in Arabic (Hansen) • Emergent readers’ strategies become more sophisticated, reading speeds up after 40 weeks on a LESLLA course (Kurvers) • Similarities of emergent adult readers to emergent child readers, Antonio Manjón-Cabeza Cruz (see also Kurvers, van de Craats inter alia)

32. Spanish children’s CV spelling: <fulores> for <flores> ‘flowers’

33. Phonetic spelling: <vicis> for <bici> ‘bike’

34. Mis-segmentation: <es piritu> for <espíritu> ‘spirit’ ’

35. <bulanadans> for <plátanos> ‘ bananas’ <manysanas> for <manzanas> ‘apples’ <fulesas> for <fresas> ‘strawberries’ Adult immigrants’ CV spelling

36. Adult immigrants’ phonetic spelling<oubas> for <uvas> ‘grapes’

37. Adult immigrants’ mis-segmentation: <a hola> for <ahora> ‘now’ and <es panol> for <español> ‘Spanish’

38. 3. Assessment For placement and progression

39. The Amsterdam Literacy Placement Tool (thanks to Kaatje Dalderop) • Problem: 60% of the students failed to pass literacy courses • Working group established • They started by categorizing learners as • ‘quick’ = their literacy, participation and civic integration can be assessed • ‘average’ = their literacy, participation but only parts of civic integration can be assessed • ‘low skilled’ = only their participation can be formally assessed; their literacy should be assessed using a portfolio. • The Amsterdam tool • Teachers collected information/observe learners for four months using a three-point scale to rate aspects of learners’ behaviour influencing progress • age, health, previous education, understanding of instructions, ability to work alone and to use others as source of help, knowledge of Dutch society, oral proficiency and attendance. • Teachers placed students into one of the three groups (quick, average and low skilled) based on their average score • Results of pilot project with 180 students • Students were successful in subsequent assessment • Teachers loved it

40. Germany placement and progression (thanks to Michaela Perlmann-Balme, Goethe Institut Munich) • Multi-national group (Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, United Kingdom, Norway, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Deutschland) arrived at cross-linguistic can-do statements for literacy for the sub-A1 level • Includes assessment of native language skills, interview questions (amount of schooling; vocation/profession), 10 reception and production literacy tasks, progressing from letters, syllables, words to sentences and text and from identifying, reading, copying to writing.

41. A German form

42. The same form in Turkish

43. Pick the odd one out.

44. Read the text and then copy it.

45. Single words in isolation

47. Germany: establishing norms for adult immigrants(thanks to Markus Linnemann and Eva Knopp) AdISLA: an adaptive test battery for basic literacy skills in the L2 • Reduces test anxiety and length of test by starting with item of medium difficulty; next item presented will be at level learner can cope with (=adaptive) • Takes into account interlanguage, cognitive and cultural factors • Uses native language where necessary • Is criterion based • Diagnoses and suggests activities to support learner’s development • Domains: • Graphemes/phoneme, syllable and rhyme • Reading comprehension, fluency, accuracy • Writing (copying, free writing, dictation)

48. Sweden (U of Stockholm assessment group) • Common European Framework of Reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment • Course A (A1-/A1 CEFR) up to Course D (B1/B1+ CEFR) • National test of Swedish for Adult Immigrants compulsory at the end of each course (tests have been validated/normed) • Not a pass/fail exam, but one whose purpose is for teachers to track learners; computer based tests • Teachers consider all available information about the student for placement/progression

49. Denmark (thanks to Kirsten Andersen) • Test tasks at two sub-A1 CEFR levels. • Lowest level • Sound out selected letters of the alphabet (upper and lower case) • Sound out ten two-letter (nonsense) words • Read very short sentences (10 pictures each with three short sentences, mark x for the sentence that matches the picture) • Next level up • Read compound words and mark the the root morphemes: • Read three short texts each with text to match to picture • Read short gapped text (7 sentences) and fill in blanks

50. 4. Methods, Techniques & Materials