Prof. Dr. Dagmar Abendroth-Timmer Universität … · [email protected] The concept of reflection: approaches and desiderata Reflection is a concept often referred

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, 297-309.

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 pre-theoretical 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, 397-407.

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-lingua-franca.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.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0802-6106


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.

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/autobiography/source/aie_en/aie_context_concepts_and_theories_en.pdf

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/autobiography/source/aie_en/aie_context_concepts_and_theories_en.pdf


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 subject-

matter 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: Learning in the Challenge Zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Documents

Prof. Dr. Dagmar Abendroth-Timmer Universität … · [email protected] The concept of reflection: approaches and desiderata Reflection is a concept often referred