Advertisement

International Review of Education

, Volume 63, Issue 4, pp 521–543 | Cite as

Can pluralistic approaches based upon unknown languages enhance learner engagement and lead to active social inclusion?

  • Rebecca Dahm
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

One way to foster active social inclusion is to enable students to develop a positive attitude to “foreignness”. Creating a situation where mainstream students are less wary of foreign languages and cultures, and where newcomers feel their linguistic background is being valued, provides favourable conditions for the inclusion of these newcomers in the classroom and in society. However, language classrooms in French schools rarely take any previously acquired linguistic knowledge into account, thus unconsciously contributing to the rift between multilingual learners (e.g. 1st- and 2nd-generation immigrant children, refugees, children of parents with different mother tongues) and French learners. Native French learners’ first experience of learning another language is usually when English is added as a subject to their curriculum in primary school. In some schools in France, English lessons now include the simulation of multilingual situations, designed in particular for the French “quasi-monolingual” students to lose their fear of unknown languages and “foreignness” in general. But the overall aim is to help both groups of learners become aware of the positive impact of multilingualism on cognitive abilities. However, to achieve long-term effects, this awareness-raising needs to be accompanied by maximum engagement on the part of the students. This article explores an instructional strategy termed Pluralistic Approaches based upon Unknown Languages (PAUL), which was designed to develop learning strategies of quasi-monolingual students in particular and to increase learner engagement more generally. The results of a small-scale PAUL study discussed by the author seem to confirm an increase in learner engagement leading to an enhancement of learning outcomes. Moreover, PAUL seems indeed suitable for helping to prepare the ground for social inclusion.

Keywords

Social inclusion Language learning Pluralistic approaches based upon unknown languages (PAUL) Learning strategies Action research 

Résumé

Les approches plurielles fondées sur des langues inconnues peuvent-elles stimuler l’engagement de l’élève et entraîner une inclusion sociale active ?–Un moyen de favoriser une inclusion sociale active consiste à permettre aux élèves d’acquérir une attitude positive envers « l’extranéité ». Créer une situation où les élèves sont moins réticents envers les langues et cultures étrangères, et où les nouveaux arrivants perçoivent que leur bagage linguistique est valorisé, fournit des conditions favorables à l’inclusion de ces nouveaux venus dans la classe et dans la société. Les cours de langues dans les écoles françaises tiennent cependant rarement compte des connaissances linguistiques existantes, ce qui contribue inconsciemment à creuser un fossé entre élèves multilingues (enfants d’immigrants de première et seconde générations, réfugiés, enfants de parents aux langues maternelles différentes) et élèves francophones. Les élèves français de souche vivent généralement leur première expérience de l’apprentissage d’une autre langue lorsque l’anglais est ajouté comme matière au programme de l’école primaire. Dans quelques écoles en France, les cours d’anglais incluent aujourd’hui la simulation de situations multilingues, conçue en particulier pour que les élèves français « quasi monolingues » perdent leur inhibition envers les langues inconnues et « l’extranéité » en général. Mais l’objectif supérieur consiste à aider les deux groupes à prendre conscience de l’influence positive du multilinguisme sur les capacités cognitives. Pour obtenir des effets à long terme, cette prise de conscience doit néanmoins être accompagnée d’un engagement maximal de la part des élèves. L’auteure de l’article explore une stratégie d’instruction appelée Approches Plurielles fondées sur des Langues Inconnues (APLI), conçue notamment en vue d’élaborer des stratégies d’apprentissage pour les élèves quasi monolingues, et plus généralement d’accroître l’engagement des élèves. Les résultats présentés par l’auteure d’une étude à petite échelle sur cette stratégie semblent confirmer un engagement accru des élèves, qui a entraîné une amélioration des résultats d’apprentissage. En outre, APLI semble vraiment appropriée pour contribuer à préparer le terrain à l’inclusion sociale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article draws on research done in the INCLUDE (EC Erasmus+) project, which is part of the European Commission’s lifelong learning programme.

References

  1. Bialystok, E. (1987). Words as things: Development of word concept by bilingual children. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bono, M. (2008). « Quand je parle en langue étrangère, je parle anglais ». Conscience métalinguistique et influences interlinguistiques chez les apprenants plurilingues [“When I speak in a foreign language, I speak English.” Metalinguistic awareness and interlingual influences in multilingual learners]. In M. Candelier (Ed.), Conscience du plurilinguisme. Pratiques, représentations et interventions [Awareness of plurilingualism. Practices, representations and interventions] (pp. 93–107). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
  3. Busch, B. (2011). Trends and innovative practices in multilingual education in Europe: An overview. International Review of Education, 57(5–6), 541–549. doi: 10.1007/s11159-011-9257-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Candelier, M. (2008). Approches plurielles, didactiques du plurilinguisme: le même et l’autre [Pluralistic approaches, didactics of plurilingualism: The same and the other]. Les Cahiers de l’Acedle, 5(1), 65–90.Google Scholar
  5. Cathomas, R., & Carigiet, W. (2006). Auf dem Weg zu einer intergralen (Mehr-)Sprachendidaktik [On the way to integral (multi)language didactics]. In W. Wiater & G. Videsott (Eds.), Schule in mehrsprachigen Regionen Europas [School Systems in Multilingual Regions of Europe] (pp. 137–152). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. Retrieved 15 March 2017 from http://chilab.asu.edu/papers/ChiWylie2014ICAP.pdf.
  8. Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CoE (Council of Europe). (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahm, R. (2013). Effets de l’introduction d’une approche plurielle fondée sur des langues inconnues sur le système didactique. Des éléments de cadrage à la mise en place expérimentale en classe d’anglais au collège [Effects of introducing a pluralistic approach based on unknown languages on the didactic system: From framing elements to the experimental set-up in English classes in lower seciondary school]. Thèse de doctorat [doctoral thesis] sous la direction de M.-C. Deyrich, soutenue le 7 novembre 2013 à l’université de Bordeaux-Segalen, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
  12. Dahm, R. (2014). Les « Approches Plurielles fondées sur des Langues Inconnues » ou comment valoriser la dimension affective de l’enseignement des langues [“Pluralistic Approaches based on Unknown Languages” or how to value the affective dimension of language teaching]. Etudes en Didactique des Langues, 23–24, 79–102.Google Scholar
  13. Dahm, R. (2015). Developing cognitive strategies through pluralistic approaches. In G. De Angelis, U. Jessner, & M. Kresic (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence and crosslinguistic interaction in multilingual language learning (pp. 43–70). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1966 [1916]). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deyrich, M. -C. (2001). Quelles médiations pour une gestion efficace de la transposition didactique en anglais de spécialité ? [Which kinds of mediation are best for effective didactic transposition in teaching English as a specialty subject?] ASp, 31–33, 143–152.Google Scholar
  16. Dörnyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (1999). The role of group dynamics in foreign language learning and teaching. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 155–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Edwards, R., Armstrong, P., & Miller, N. (2001). Include me out: Critical readings of social exclusion, social inclusion and lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(5), 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Extra G., & Yagmur K. (Eds.). (2012). Language rich Europe: Trends in policies and practices for multilingualism in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, on behalf of the British Council. Retrieved 14 March 2017 from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/LRE_English_version_final_01.pdf.
  20. Faerber, R. (2002). Le groupe d’apprentissage en formation à distance: ses caractéristiques dans un environnement virtuel [The distance learning learning group: Its characteristics in a virtual environment]. In F. Larose & T. Karsenti (Eds.), La place des TICE en formation initiale et continue à l’enseignement : bilan et perspectives [The role of ICTs in initial and continuing education: Assessment and perspectives] (pp. 99–128). Sherbrooke, QC: Editions du CRP, Université de Sherbrooke.Google Scholar
  21. Gajo, L. (2001). Immersion, bilinguisme et interaction en classe [Immersion, bilingualism and classroom interaction]. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
  22. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism. Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  23. Houssaye, J. (1988). Le triangle pédagogique [The educational triangle]. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  24. Hulstijn, J., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34(1), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. INCLUDE. (2014). INCLUDE: Language policy for active social inclusion [flyer]. Brussels/Luxembourg: INCLUDE Network. Retrieved 9 March 2017 from http://www.includenetwork.eu/images/Leaflet2/Leaflet2_EN.pdf.
  26. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindblad, S. (2005). Knowledge, governance and social inlcusion/exclusion. A report from a European Union research project. Gothenburg: Göteborgs universitet, Institutionen för pedagogik och didaktik.Google Scholar
  28. McIntosh, C. (Ed.). (2013). Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary (4th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Nordin, A. (2008). Educating inclusion? Aspects of exclusion within the inclusive policy concept of Lifelong Learning. Paper presented on 10 September at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER) in Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  30. Orlando, N., & Cullen, J. (2016). Roadmap for integration of language learning in inclusion policies in Europe. Deliverable 9. Bordeaux etc.: INCLUDE (Language policy for active social inclusion) network. Retrieved 15 February 2017 from http://www.includenetwork.eu/DOCUMENTS/D9%20-%20ROADMAP.pdf.
  31. Pea, R. D. (1998). Distributed intelligence and the growth of virtual learning communities over the global Internet. PC97 Keynote address presented at the Council for Improving Educational Computing, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
  32. Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ringbom, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  34. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Van Driel, B., Darmody, M., & Kerzil, J. (2016). Education policies and practices to foster tolerance, respect for diversity and civic responsibility in children and young people in the EU (NESET II Report). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved 15 February 2017 from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/study/2016/neset-education-tolerance-2016_en.pdf.
  36. Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and measurement of motivation in the academic domain. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Rochester, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESPE Midi-Pyrénées/University of Toulouse-Jean JaurèsToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options