acrobat distiller, job 2archive.ecml.at/documents/reports/rwsrepstruga1999e.pdf · european centre...

EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MODERN LANGUAGES CENTRE EUROPEEN POUR LES LANGUES VIVANTES

Niko la ip la tz 4, A-8020 Graz , Te l . : +43-316-323554, F ax: +43-316-323554-4 , e-mai l : in f ormat ion@ecml .a t at

Report

REGIONAL WORKSHOP

EARLY LEARNING/TEACHING OF MODERN LANGUAGES

(AGE GROUP: 9-10): CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS

Struga, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, 13-18 September 1999

Co-ordinator: Gilbert Dalgalian

Co-animators: Jean-Marc Caré

Lucija Cok Peter Doyé

Report

REGIONAL WORKSHOP

EARLY LEARNING/TEACHING OF MODERN LANGUAGES

(AGE GROUP: 9-10): CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS

Struga, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, 13-18 September 1999

Co-ordinator: Gilbert Dalgalian

Co-animators: Jean-Marc Caré Lucija Cok Peter Doyé

© December 2001

The European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) has published various studies concerning innovative approaches in modern language teaching and learning. However, the opinions expressed in the publications are not to be regarded as reflecting the policy of the Governing Board of the Enlarged Partial Agreement of the ECML or its Secretariat. The present report can be downloaded free of charge from the ECML website: http://www.ecml.at. Applications for reproduction and translation should be addressed to the Executive Director of European Centre for Modern Languages, Council of Europe, Nikolaiplatz 4, A-8020 Graz, Austria.

European Centre for Modern Languages, Graz 3

Table of contents Article: Introduction of the European Languages at Primary Level in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”: What is the future of the strategy adopted by the ECML? By Gilbert Dalgalian .....................................................................................................5 Workshop Report : Training programme for Teachers in view of introducing modern languages at primary level in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (Struga, 13-18 September 1999) Report by Gilbert Dalgalian, Workshop co-ordinator...................................................11 I. BACKGROUND AND ETAT DES LIEUX ............................................................15 II. FINAL PROGRAMME..........................................................................................17 III. WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS.............................................................................18 IV. WORKSHOP EVALUATION ..............................................................................25 V. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................30 Appendices .................................................................................................................31 Appendix 1 : Rapport de mission à Skopje pour le CELV....................................33 Appendix 2: Programme définitif de l’atelier n° 1...............................................41 Appendix 3 : Questions à traiter à Struga le 13 septembre 1999 avec Mme (Dr) Doréana Hristova et Mme Simeonka Guceva .........43 Appendix 4: Composition des groupes................................................................45 Appendix 5.1. : Résumé des plénières .....................................................................47 Appendix 5.2: The role of game-based techniques, motor activities and expressive arts in primary foreign language learning and teachin .....................53 Appendix 5.3 : The intercultural dimension of foreign language education in the primary school Peter Doyé....................................................61 Appendix 5.4 : Inventer pour apprendre, Jean-Marc CARÉ ....................................77 Appendix 5.4 : Notes relatives à la mission dans “l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine” .........................85 Appendix 5.4 – Deuxième partie : Bourse d’échanges, CIEP ...............................................................91 Appendix 6: Evaluation and prospective sheet / Questionnaire d’évaluation et de prospective ..................................95 Appendix 7 : Protocole et calendrier d’échange interscolaire international.........101

Article: Introduction of the European Languages at Primary Level in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”: What is the future of the strategy adopted by the ECML? By Gilbert Dalgalian


Article: Introduction of European Languages at Primary Level in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”: What is the future of the strategy adopted by the ECML By Gilbert Dalgalian Take a pluriethnic, plurilingual country, the last of its kind among the ex-Yugoslavian countries. Consider the wishes of many parents that their children start learning a modern European language from a very young age. Consider also the request made by the country's politicians to the Council of Europe, to support the introduction of a choice of four languages at primary level – French, German, English and Russian. Add to this the interests of the ECML who delegated an expert to this country, to set up an "état des lieux" (Skopje, November 1998). This is the "good side" of the coin. What is the other side? A situation where there are few primary school teachers who are qualified to teach one of these modern languages, a lack of funds which would be required to be invested in a comprehensive programme of linguistic and pedagogic training, little or no adequate teaching aids in schools for an active communicative methodology. To finish off this dismal picture and as a logical consequence of this shortage of resources, it was decided to introduce modern languages in the 4th class – quite late – and with only two periods of 50 minutes per week – very little. The two sides of the scale even out so well, that they are at risk of neutralising each other, leading to a lasting paralysis. What can be done to turn the dead weights of the system into benefits? How can we use the handicaps to find formative short cuts? In order to tip the scale to get the Macedonian project off to a quick start, the ECML agreed to a challenging plan, whereby the teachers who would be involved in teaching one of the four modern languages were given a brief training period using an innovative teaching method (see workshop report). The teaching methods consist of improving children's language skills through exchange projects between one or more classes from « the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” learning one of the given languages, and a class of native speakers of the given language or students of this language. What is a pedagogy of exchange? Almost all of the activities and exercises proposed would be of a production nature (oral, written, audio-visual) which would be sent to the partner class for discussion, debate, correction or simply as an exchange of information or of documents. This form of teaching would require only modest technology at the beginning, such as fax or mail, and could be increased with time to include audio and video cassettes, Internet and email. Regarding the teacher's training and information period, how could this be efficient without claiming to replace a solid linguistic training or a complete didactic basis? Would


it not be necessary to launch an extended programme of training in order to train experienced, well-qualified language teachers? Several issues come into play here. First is the urgent need for modern language instruction in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, and secondly, if the project gets off its feet quickly, this does not necessarily mean that a more comprehensive training programme will be ruled out in the future, but to the contrary, will reinforce teacher's motivation for further training. It is important to take a closer look at different types of teacher training programmes. A theoretical university training, indispensable as it is, is no guarantee against formalism in teaching, which can creep into even the most proven teaching methods. It would be better to favour a method of teaching, where the student is doing something which is real for him or her, such as writing to a real person who is going to respond, instead of learning things for the sake of his/her teacher. At the same time the teacher would be encouraged to favour activities which are immediately beneficial and motivating for the student. In this way, teaching goes back to being an aid to learning and the language class is no longer a course in language. There are hardly any better forms of auto-learning than those methods which avoid didactic formalism. What methodology could be better than the methodology of exchange described here, which closes the gap while drawing teachers forward, and training them to use the new language and encourage others to use the language in realistic scenarios. The ECML training / information plan consists of three workshops over two years, and we have only held one workshop to date. We hope that the remaining workshops will deepen and enrich the experience gained from the first, on the three levels which we deem central to the needs of the child – fulfilling the child's need for games and expressive and psychomotor activities; helping the child gain discursive text competence; and of course the most important aspect of exchange programmes, the intercultural dimension. During the workshop, participants evaluated the workshop content as adopted by the training team (for results see Annex 6). Does this mean that the strategy adopted was a success? Not by a long way. We must ask ourselves what the "external" conditions of the success of the strategy are. And which conditions would be necessary to apply the strategy chosen for “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” to other countries. These conditions are twofold: total commitment on the part of the school authorities of the country involved, and the support and follow-up by the European authorities and foreign cultural departments in the project. What does the "total commitment of the school authorities" entail? In the first instance this consists of the following: • choosing the project co-ordinators: at least two per language, who will be responsible

for setting up partnerships, collecting and distributing student's work between different classes within one country and organising reciprocal information sessions for teachers;


• distributing a "protocol schedule" to all teachers involved in the exchange project, in

order to co-ordinate their activities and their contacts with partner-classes; • ensuring that deadlines are met and that the schools have appropriate resources to carry

out the project. Each class should have access to a photocopier and a fax machine, and a minimal budget to cover postage and telephone expenses.

• finally, in the long term, organising language courses and didactic courses for

participating teachers. These are the administrative and financial impetus the participating teachers will require from their schools. Once this support is in place, further support can be sought from outside. External support could take several forms. First of all from the ECML: • part-financing the 2nd and 3rd workshops; • remaining in close contact with the school authorities involved offering advice and

support; • ensuring interim reports are presented on the effectiveness of the strategy. From the foreign cultural services: • supplying equipment and teaching aids; • supplying lists of potential partner schools; • possibly providing language training; • taking on a small group of pupils for a youth summer camp in 2000. Finally, it is especially necessary to mention the involvement of the International Centre for Pedagogical Studies (CIEP), Sèvres, which has offered its services to find partner classes for the four languages in question, and which has already provided a list of French classes interested in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. In conclusion, we can say that the challenge is not in the innovative methodology in itself, but in the way all involved parties will co-ordinate their efforts. The important thing, even without innovation, is that the resources already available are used to their full advantage.

Workshop Report : Training programme for Teachers in view of introducing modern languages at primary level in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (Struga, 13-18 September 1999) Report by Gilbert Dalgalian, Workshop co-ordinator

I. BACKGROUND AND ETAT DES LIEUX 1. Mission of Skopje Meeting, November 1998 2. Methodological choice and adequacy of “the former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia” 3. Proposed methods of training II. FINAL PROGRAMME 1. Schedule Delays 2. Working plan adopted in Graz 3. Methodology for conducting workshops in several languages 4. Uncertainty until Septembre 1999 III. WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 1. Preliminary visit to English language class, 13 September 1999 2. Composition of workshop groups (see Appendix 4) 3. Résumé of talks and activities 4. Final decisions IV. WORKSHOP EVALUATION 1. Analysis of evaluation questionnaires 2. Evaluation, future perspectives and final recommendations V. CONCLUSIONS


I. BACKGROUND AND ETAT DES LIEUX 1. Mission of Skopje Meeting, November 1998 The aim of the education authorities in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” was to introduce a choice of 3 modern European languages at primary level as soon as possible. The wishes of families were taken into consideration in this decision, in view of the number of children enrolled for private classes. This aim has remained unchanged after both the change in government, and recent events in Kosovo. Despite certain areas of excellence such as the Négotino Bilingual Secondary School, the school system lacks sufficient modern language resources. There are not enough technical and financial resources or qualified teachers to introduce modern languages at primary level. Another problem is the absence of a favourable linguistic environment. What is more, only two 45-minute classes a week are set aside for modern language teaching and this only from 4th grade on, a consequence of what is mentioned above. 2. Methodological choice and adequacy of “the former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia” How can we fulfill the Macedonian aim? With the agreement of the ECML, we resolved to propose a dynamic teaching method, where pupils and teachers would be encouraged by the need and desire to communicate with other schools in other countries. The training programme for the 35 participants at the Struga workshop therefore involved a method of production and exchange, finding real partners for language classes, and giving them real projects to do using real communication equipment. Initially, the method might seem straightforward, but we cannot deny the problems involved. On the very important question of the diversity of languages in the education system, to which Minister NOVKOVSKI showed a great interest in his opening speech, we must concentrate on the real choices available:

• if possible, the ideal situation of language diversity at school is that students learn two modern languages, one of which from primary level. In this case no language is neglected and parents can decide if English should be one of these languages;

• if this ideal is provisionally not possible, as for example at present in “the former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, the only remaining solution therefore depends on the teachers available for each language.

In both cases, starting to learn a foreign language in the 4th grade is late. 10 is not the best age to start learning a modern language, but starting in the 5th grade would make the programme too short and parents would be inclined to make the same choices in the 4th grade as they would normally make in the 5th grade. The only difference is that they would be making their choice one year earlier. At the end of the day, it is important to instruct parents clearly and precisely, that learning a second language well from a very early age, will facilitate the learning of a third language. In


this way, English would not necessarily be neglected, but on the contrary children would be able to learn it more easily because of already having learnt a second language. It was necessary to respond to the situation and the demands of the country while awaiting clarification about educational orientation and languages. How were the methodological choices adapted? The small number of hours dedicated to modern language teaching, and the relative lack of preparation on the part of some teachers led us to favour a methodology using a new environment – thanks to the exchanges and student productions (oral, written and audio-visual). We thought a more traditional methodology would not create such a favourable environment for both pedagogical and linguistic self-training of teachers. This would require long training periods of a different kind. The student's productions and exchanges gives them the opportunity to express their feelings about their local or national reality in the language of the exchange, without the use of textbooks which are usually not adapted to the Macedonian situation. This method would also mean that the teacher would be less dependent on textbooks, and this type of active teaching would encourage auto-learning. This method of teaching can be put into practice with little funding and later enriched with the type of modern technologies we are going to see in the very near future in the “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. The situation and content of the exchanges even encourage pupils to produce work after school hours, which is a very welcome factor in view of the small number of hours dedicated to modern languages. From the very first day of class, the modern language taught will be seen by the pupils as a real and necessary means of communication and the learning of formal aspects of foreign language, such as grammar and vocabulary, will depend on the content, creativity and efficiency of the exchange. The exchange project not only seemed to us to be quite compatible with the urgency and the lack of resources in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, in fact it also appeared as the only possible solution. 3. Proposed methods of training The teaching programme approved by the authorities of the “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” consists of three stages or workshops over a period of two years, the first of which was financed by the ECML. The three-stage training programme for three languages and for 25 to 30 teachers, was conceived to launch the project of introducing languages at primary level, then to evaluate the programme after the first year, in order to improve the methodology for the second and third years of the programme. The aim was to train in all three languages those teachers who were seen to be the best candidates to take an innovative approach in class, and who would also be able to pass on their newly gained knowledge to colleagues during local or regional teacher training sessions.


Each of the workshops had three training mainstreams: A. Learning games, expressive and psychomotor activities; B. Pedagogy of production and inter-school exchanges; C. Text competence which would later be broadened into: Inventing for learning: description,

discussion and argumentation. II. FINAL PROGRAMME 1. Schedule Delays The workshop was originally scheduled to take place in March 1999, and rescheduled for May 1999. Finally, the first session had to be postponed until September due to events in the Balkans and because of information which had been requested by the ECML regarding numbers of participants, and languages of participants being received too late. On March 26 and 27, 1999, the training team met to finalise the programme at the offices of the ECML in Graz. The Executive Director of the ECML facilitated the research and the structuring of a competent training team for each of the training mainstreams: • Mainstream A: Dr. Lucija COK* of Slovenia and Dr. Peter DOYE of Braunschweig (also

responsible for the intercultural dimension of learning games); • Mainstream B: Jean-Marc CARE of BELC/CIEP, Sèvres, for pedagogy and organising

the exchanges, in association with Gilbert DALGALIAN; • Mainstream C: Jean-Marc CARE, with the assistance of Gilbert DALGALIAN. [*Lucija COK who was originally chosen for this mainstream, was replaced at the Graz meeting by Valérie SOLLARS of Malta because of the change of date.] 2. Working plan adopted in Graz Please see Appendix 2 for a detailed description of the contents and activities. In view of the level of uncertainty surrounding the Macedonian project, (at least at the time of the Graz meeting), the training team under the direction of the ECML, planned the workshop as a pilot project which could be used in other countries with a similar educational background. This was done without losing sight of the double aim of introducing languages at primary level, and of training "pilot teachers" or trainers for the long term. 3. Methodology for conducting workshops in several languages In view of the multiplicity of languages expected (but not confirmed) at the workshop, it was necessary, after the Graz meeting, to pay particular attention to choosing the working languages. This was later confirmed at Struga.


Should there be two, three or four working languages at the workshops? French and English would certainly be used, and probably German. We were not sure about Russian. Would there be simultaneous interpreting provided by Macedonian colleagues? If so, into which languages? Faced with a lack of any satisfactory answers to these questions, we decided it would be best to be self-sufficient in this regard. Thus the following measures were adopted in Graz: • all plenary sessions would be short (max. 30 minutes) and in two or three languages with

interpretation by the speaker or one of the team; • all practical work, which is the basis of the workshop, would be done in two large groups,

(A and B), with the Anglophones in group A and the Francophones in group B; according to numbers, German and Russian teachers would be divided among groups A and B and sub-groups would be formed when necessary;

• each activity carried out in the subgroups would be piloted by a group leader and an

assistant; in most cases it was G. DALGALIAN, who was also responsible for the plenary meetings; for the Russian colleagues, it would be necessary to enrol the help of a colleague who could interpret exposés and instructions into Macedonian.

This important issue was thoroughly evaluated at the end of the workshop. 4. Uncertainty until Septembre 1999 We finally received the first list of participants and their respective languages on 8 September, 6 days before the workshop was to commence on 14 September. This led to a special meeting being called for 13 September to discuss urgent organisational matters on the group's arrival in Struga (see Appendix 3). III. WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 1. Preliminary visit to English language class, 13 September 1999 This visit to a 4th grade English class of complete beginners in an isolated village near the Albanian border, during their second lesson, enabled us to verify a number of hypotheses: • The children were highly motivated; • The teacher was dynamic and intelligent, but tied to traditional teaching methods which

lacked a communicative dimension; • The teacher was open to new methods of teaching. I asked quite spontaneously if this teacher would be interested in taking part in an exchange with an Anglophone school, where the children could exchange productions. The response from the teacher was so enthusiastic that the School Director, Ms. Guceva, asked her if she would like to take part in the workshop commencing the very next day. In the week that


followed, this teacher proved to be one of the most engaged trainees and one of the most willing to innovate. 2. Composition of workshop groups (see Appendix 4) There were more numbers than expected: 1 French teacher, 1 Russian teacher and 2 English teachers joined us in extremis. Dr Doreana HRISTOVA, Assistant Minister, attended the whole workshop. From the beginning of the workshop, the question of German and Russian was raised. It was immediately clear that the German group expected to work through the medium of German. This was possible through interpreting provided by Peter DOYE and Gilbert DALGALIAN and when the need arose, by Mr. Franz WERNER, Consultant for German Language at the German Embassy, who actively participated in the whole workshop. Interpreting into Macedonian was provided for the Russian teachers by colleagues in Group A. 3. Résumé of talks and activities Plenary sessions: General information and presentation of concepts (see Appendix 5.1) Languages: German, French, English The opening session was opened by Mr. NOVKOVSKI, Minister of Education of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, who very much wished to emphasize the new linguistic policy for primary education. During the following sessions, Gilbert DALGALIAN was able to: • explain the teaching scheme and the factors which determined the programme of

Workshop 1, following the visit to Skopje in November 1998; • sketch the conceptual framework for early language learning (transdisciplinarity,

competence threshold); • show the advantages of a production and exchange pedagogy, in particular in “the former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”; • show the importance of technology in this type of active teaching; • underline the importance of building text competence in children and on an oral base first; • sketch evaluation and auto-evaluation tools which are most formative for pupils.


Mainstream A/Group A Learning games, expressive and psychomotor activities workshop presented by Dr. Lucija COK. Languages: English, Macedonian This training, based on the didactics of games – heuristic games, creativity, simulations – integrates all types of expression in transdisciplinary learning and encompasses games based on body movement, images, music and drawing. The objective of these activities is for participants to live an immediate experience, in this case learning a language by doing. The Anglophone and Russian speaking participants of Group A experimented and exploited body-, gestural-mimical-, graphic-, verbal- and musical expression through a wide range of activities. A simple theoretical introduction was followed by practical sessions: A) Motivation B) Presentation C) Controlled practice D) Role transfer/mutual teaching: Participants presented to Group B, what they had learnt

from Lucija COK. The three sessions adopted a synthetic and integrative approach in order that participants would be able to efficiently transfer knowledge and know-how to their classrooms. The activities were organised into theme-based interdisciplinary activities and centred on the aims of teaching/learning a foreign language at an early age. Conceived to improve the child's social, cognitive and motor skills, they are aimed at developing the child's intellectual development as well as increasing cultural awareness. Group A successfully took part in sessions A through D with great enthusiasm. They even excelled in both the theoretical and practical aspects of the transfer phase, in which they presented what they had learnt to the French and German groups. If time had allowed, material could have been prepared for four languages, making it easier for participants to transfer knowledge to other groups. Streamline A/Group B: Intercultural education: Basic concepts. Songs, nursery rhymes and stories, lead by Mr. (Dr.) Peter DOYE. Languages: French, German. The work of this mixed group (French and German teachers) was focused, fruitful and agreeable. The participants considered it as a success. It included the following items: 1. a presentation of the fundamental concepts and main questions in intercultural education

at the primary level (see the English version in Appendix 5.3);

2. a discussion on these concepts and most important questions;


3. reading of and discussion on the main extracts of the Council of Europe report on language teaching/learning at the primary level (Doyé and Hurrell 1997) in German and in French;

4. a separated study in two sub-groups (German and French) on more specialised topics in

the field of intercultural foreign language education;

5. study and discussion – first within the sub-groups, then within the whole group B – on examples presented by the didactical units animator, songs, nursery rhymes, pictures and stories in both languages;

6. as a conclusion: a summary of the work carried out. Group B, which had received from Group A theoretical information and practical examples given by Ms. (Dr.) Lucija Cok, has in turn successfully transmitted to Group A the notions taught by Mr. (Dr.) Peter Doyé. Streamline B/Groups A and B: Organising an exchange, activity, lead by Jean-Marc CARE, assisted by Gilbert DALGALIAN. Languages: French, English, German. The activity took place in two steps: During the first session, the basic principles concerning any exchange were formulated: − indispensable reciprocity of means; − a project negotiation; − respect of deadlines. Then, a reflection went on in terms of chronology: − formulation of a common project with the main protagonists: the pupils; − writing of an exchange request: advertisement, presentation of the group; − in the classroom, explanation of the project through the teacher; − search for partners, use of existing exchange grants.

Finally, work was carried out within sub-groups: − search for ideas concerning contents; − writing of partnership requests. At the end of this session, we were able to contact the DEEI (Exchange and International Education Department of the CIEP) via fax in order to get further information (Appendix 5.4). The 2d session gave the opportunity to deepen the reflection on: − the status of languages in exchange situations: from this point of view, the situation

(concerning “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) is likely to be very unbalanced.


Indeed, exchanges can only be carried out in one language with two different statuses: foreign language for Macedonian pupils, mother tongue for the partners. The very first exchanges should therefore favour languages, especially pictures, in order to transmit the contents: − project typology: information project (exchange of information on a topic chosen in

common), expressive project; − common creation with common final production; − letter-writing project (in order to develop more personal correspondences). The different

projects are not closed one from another and can be carried out simultaneously. The DEEI suggests receiving within the framework of its exchange grant requests from participants concerning foreign languages introduced in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” at the primary level (see again Appendix 5.4, part 2). It should nevertheless be mentioned that no request was really suggested at the end of the workshop. Streamline C/Groups A and B: Inventing for learning Activity conducted by Jean-Marc CARE, assisted by Gilbert DALGALIAN. Languages: French, English, German This method, which is far beyond the stage of experimentation, entered the area of language teaching at the end of the 70's as part of a pedagogical trend open to early learning games, active methods and creativity. It emphasises the creative element of linguistic learning and has brought about an evolution of the status of modern languages. The tendency today is to consider it as either a means of creativity or a road to other knowledge, rather than simply as a main aim and object of study. The two groups – French/German and English/Russian – were able to put the principles and methods into practice, exploring three stages of invention and three important discursive functions: – description; – narration; – argumentation. These three stages of invention, put back to back, constitute the framework of all Romanesque projects. Participants were able to create in their own teaching language: – a landscape, which they then had to describe according to different descriptive modes:

geographic monograph or literary description; – fictional characters: portraits, biographies, administrative forms. The argumentation sessions were done through debates. The practical tasks were alternated with periods of reflection on linguistic means employed as well as on animation techniques


proposed for the classroom and of course their adaptation to target audience of children or adolescents. 4. Final decisions Mainstream A/Group A: The work carried out in this group led to the following ideas and proposals for activities: 1. Reflections: • Participants wish to continue training in learning games, expressive and psychomotor

activities, while at the same time getting feed back on their competence and linguistic and communicative skills.

• They hope that the exchanges can enrich their didactic resources with material they can

use at primary level in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. • The introduction of languages at primary level should be done together with an

evaluation and auto-evaluation according to age and level of learners. It would therefore be necessary to have some training pack.

• Contact among teachers in the pilot group and between them and the experts in “the

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and at the ECML, must be maintained effectively.

2. Follow-up activities between September 1999 and June 2000: • As well as being a workshop animator, Lucija COK personally undertook to: • assist Dr. Doreana HRISTOVA to prepare “the former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia”'s application for the TEMPUS project (for setting up training programmes for foreign language teachers);

• help pilot teachers find exchange schools (an English class in Slovenia, whose mother

tongue is a "minority language" learning English in Istrie, Slovenia) and try to encourage Slovenian classes to participate in the exchange.

• send Group B the didactic material presented during the workshop; • maintain regular contact with the pilot teachers by mail, phone and email.


Streamline A/Group B: Comment and suggestion: 1. Comment: although all members of this mixed group felt the group had worked well, the

linguistic factor was felt to be a handicap. Even though the group was quite able to transfer the contents to the English group, the fact that both French and German teachers were working together from the beginning was felt to be less effective and less intensive than in "monolingual" groups.

2. Suggestion: It would be preferable in future to divide groups linguistically for the duration

of the workshop, which of course would not prevent groups coming together for certain discussions or recaps of each phase. The idea of transferring the information learnt from group to group was seen as an excellent learning activity, as long as the preparatory phase was carried out in only one language. This would allow the animator to be able to concentrate on each participant, without having to periodically put participants into sub-groups.

Streamline B and C – Plenary discussion on final day Before this discussion the participants had a period of reflection in small groups. The main points of the various groups were: 1st group: • the exchange is necessary for teachers as well as for students; • there are two possible forms in which the exchanges can take place: either with a class

whose native tongue is the exchange language, or with a class from a neighbouring country who is learning the same foreign language. The second permits a reciprocal learning situation, but it would be important to avoid choosing partner classes in neighbouring countries whose mother tongue is too similar to Macedonian;

• if exchanges were made with classes in neighbouring countries, how would the cultural

aspect of the respective language, French, English or German be transmitted? 2nd group: • it would be more fruitful to organise exchanges among classes of similar language

competence and status; • it is necessary to choose co-ordinators by language and level, both regional and national; • it would be beneficial if the exchanges would also involve twinning of schools. 3rd group: • the third group remarked that the small number of workshop participants did not

correspond to the 96 new language classes announced by the Minister of Education on the first day of the workshop;


• what would the procedure be for classes which were not represented at the workshop but which were to participate in the project?;

• finally it would be valuable to have contacts outside of “the former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia”, in order to be able to compare different experiences. A plenary discussion then followed with these conclusions: • the teaching aspect of the exchanges should be built on a network of classes, animated by

co-ordinators (two per languages); • this network would be responsible for setting up and following up the exchanges, but also

for training the modern language teachers; • it would be the responsibility of co-ordinators to ensure:

− that teachers are free to choose their partner classes;

− that only classes which are properly prepared for the project would be allowed to join the network;

− that students should always be involved in all decisions concerning the exchange;

whether this be in choosing the target country and target class or choosing the type of project and production;

− that there is a good level of communication maintained within the network and with

partners;

− and especially that once exchanges had been set up, they would get off to a good start. A consultation took place between the workshop team and Dr. Doréana HRISTOVA, assistant to the Minister for International Co-operation to discuss which participants would be most suitable for the role of co-ordinators. It was also decided that these co-ordinators should be officially appointed as soon as possible. IV. WORKSHOP EVALUATION 1. Analysis of evaluation questionnaires (see Appendix 6 for complete results) A. Positive aspects Workshop orientation • Of the 29 participants who answered question 1, 18 thought the proposed foreign language

methodology was “coherent with the conditions of primary schools in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”“ and a further 10 that it was "partly coherent" with these conditions.


• This response was corroborated by 24 participants who said they felt “able to explain this methodology to colleagues teaching the same language”, and 6 "at least only for a start" (Question 2)

• 28 participants said the workshop required follow-up training session – 17 requested two

follow-up sessions while 11 said they would be happy with one session. One person believed no further training was necessary! (Question 3).

• Five of the participants believed the training sessions should be only for teacher trainers

(i.e. themselves) while the majority (13 people) preferred that the further training sessions be for all language teachers. (Question 3, part 2).

Workshop content • Question 4 asked which modules were most appreciated and in which order. The sessions

involving practical aspects were favoured in the following order:

− “Learning games, expressive and psychomotor activities”; − “Inventing for better learning”; − “Intercultural education, songs, rhymes and stories”; − “Organising an exchange”.

• The plenary sessions, perceived as theory-based, were not received with as much

enthusiasm. As is usually the case with training programmes, participants rejected "too much theory" and showed an insatiable desire for more practice and model lessons.

Organisation • The fact that the workshop was run in three working languages was seen as enriching by

14 participants, while three saw this as a difficulty and one person found it tiring. (Question 5)

• 12 participants said they would have preferred to work solely with colleagues of the same

language group as opposed to a majority of 15 who preferred the mixed language groups despite the difficulties involved. It would be important to take this mixed opinion into consideration for future workshops. (Question 5)

• On the question of interaction with other participants, organisers, etc, (Question 6),

participants thought they were "good" or "excellent" on all levels. It is significant, however, that there were 12 people who did not answer this question, which would suggest that these participants either had problems expressing themselves in the foreign language or had problems understanding the question. In fact, 7 of these 12 from the French group had serious comprehension problems with the rest of the questionnaire: only three of this group answered question 6 with legible comments.

• 24 participants said that they had had enough time to ask questions. (Question 7)


B. Suggestions for the future • Requests and comments about documentation (question 1) were many and diverse, but

most of these concerned class materials such as tests, posters, audio and video tapes, and different written materials. However there were also numerous requests for information for the teachers, including texts on didactics, psycholinguistics, Europe and early learning in Europe. Here again there were 8 who did not answer or who gave answers which were not relevant to the question.

• Concerning future training sessions, participants requested more sample lessons, more

practical sessions and more time spent developing class materials. Here also there were 13 who did not respond or who gave answers which were not relevant to the question.

• Questions concerning the exchange itself revealed mixed preferences. Some participants

preferred to have an exchange with another school within the “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, others preferred exchanges with different levels and with schools in different countries. Some preferred to exchange with native speakers and others with a class who was learning the same foreign language. The following are a few interesting suggestions which were made:

− to create a network or data base which all teachers and pupils could use; − to exchange documents and lesson plans;

− to integrate into the exchange programme, immigrant Macedonian families living in

the country of the partner class; − to organise meetings between different Macedonian classes learning the same

language;

− to organise internal meetings or seminars where participating teachers could share their experiences.

• Other useful suggestions:

− to set a deadline for setting up partner classes; − to appeal to other countries for help.

C. Three working languages • On being asked whether participants had felt any benefit from working together with other

language groups, 25 responded "yes", one "yes, but" and three "no". There was one person who did not respond. (Question 1).

• In explanation of the above responses, participants wrote:

− the main benefit was of a communicative nature, but also linguistic and practical in exchanging ideas and class methods;


− many of the participants said they had either realised the importance of having more than one language, or that the multilingual environment had helped them to start learning a new language;

− the participants had benefited from interpreting of some of the exposés;

− the diverse languages created a multicultural and European aspect;

− only one participant found the interpreting during the plenary sessions to be fastidious,

and here again there were 8 people who did not respond. • Question 4 asked participants how they would solve the issue of language diversity. All

but one agreed on having: − simultaneous interpreting; − all documents provided in 3 languages; − more work in monolingual groups to treat different subjects separately.

15 non-responses seem to show a wariness to have separate language groups. D. Negative aspects worth mentioning Despite the success of the workshop on a level of methodology and content, three major gaps where brought to light by the evaluations of participants as well as by the trainers: 1. Although the documentation available was very extensive, it was limited to the modules

presented. Therefore it was not diverse or exhaustive in the three languages. However, as previously mentioned, lists of participants for each language were not received until the night before the workshop started. This especially concerns the German group. In future these aspects need to be improved so that ample documentation is available for both practical and theoretical aspects of the project. This will also ensure that there is smoother co-operation.

2. The choice to have three working languages, even if seen as positive on a communicative

and cultural level, proves unpractical when there are too many plenary sessions. Rather than have exposés and synthesis done in plenum, it would be worth considering having training through three sub-groups running parallel and with identical content and activities presented by the same experts (with or without interpretation). In short, a same programme the same week by the same training team but in three languages successively.

3. The very diverse levels of linguistic competence which was evident during oral activities,

was confirmed in the written responses to the questionnaire. This was especially the case for the future teachers of French. Two recommendations arose from this situation:

− an extended language course in co-operation with the Philology Department and the

Cultural Services of the embassies in question in the “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” should be an obligatory prerequisite for teachers on the project ;

− in future pilot teachers would be chosen according to the pedagogical requirements of the project.


2. Evaluation, future perspectives and final recommendations Apart from the evaluation made on the basis of answers given in the questionnaires, the following points also attest the success of the training programme: • a second workshop was planned for Spring 2000, given that the exchanges would start as

planned from 1999, with at least one training period; • during the workshop a certain number of dynamic personalities emerged who were likely

candidates to act as co-ordinators for the exchange project; • there was wide agreement of the functions of the co-ordinators:

− to help set up the exchanges, especially in the initial stages;

− to help collect and exchange productions in and between Macedonian classes learning the same language;

− to link the trained teachers and other interested parties by a network, and to organise

training for them. • participants requested a schedule of deadlines of when the exchanges should be put in

place and a contact form for participating classes to guide the teachers and pupils in the early stages of the project. (See Appendix 7).

In conclusion, here are the main recommendations made by the training team: 1. schools are to be equipped with the minimum resources agreed necessary to start the

project: fax machine, access to a photocopier, and a small budget; 2. “the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia” is to apply to the foreign embassies and

to the ECML for funding for computers in order to make Internet use possible; 3. embassies are to inform if they are able to accommodate 15 students each for the 2000

European summer camp; 4. the ECML and the Council of Europe are asked to verify financial support for

workshop 2, which has been deemed indispensable by all involved. Most important according to the training team would be: 5. to search for financial partners and sponsors for this innovative project; 6. to try to ensure the full commitment of different Macedonian organisations in

implementing and following up the exchanges, by supporting the work of the co-ordinators, and conditions necessary to assure that the project is successful in the long term.


V. CONCLUSIONS If we succeed in introducing this programme of languages at primary level, the type of innovative teaching proposed would have three main advantages: • language learning would have a purpose in the eyes of pupils; • the school system would benefit from the strategy of opening to the outside; • the programme would provide an opening towards Europe. These three aspects would go hand in hand with the pedagogic aspect of the exchange. Does not “the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia”, the last pluriethnic, plurilingual of the ex-Yugoslavian countries, deserve a multilateral effort in support of diffusing languages and cultures in Europe? The ECML in Graz has demonstrated that the Council of Europe is certainly interested in promoting this project and in investing in its future. This commitment was especially evident in the active participation of Mr. Michel Lefranc, Executive Director, ECML, in all of the workshop activities. Through him, the Council of Europe is committed to facilitating all Macedonian steps, both in the area of training and in setting up important contacts in Strasbourg and Brussels, and any other type of support for this project. All involved, and especially the country’s authorities, were impressed at how well the workshop was run and how successful it was on many levels, a concrete sign of the Council's commitment to the project. We would like to hope that all involved will play their role in making this innovative project work, in order that it might also be implemented in other countries.

Appendices Appendix 1: Rapport de mission à Skopje pour le CELV Appendix 2: Programme définitif de l’Atelier n° 1 Appendix 3: Questions à traiter à Struga le 13 septembre 1999,

avec Mme (Dr) Doreana HRISTOVA et Mme Simeonka GUCEVA

Appendix 4: Composition des groupes Appendix 5: Résumés des exposés et des activités

Appendix 5.1: Résumé des plénières Appendix 5.2: The role of game-based techniques, motor

activities and expressive arts in primary foreign language learning and teaching, Lucija Cok

Appendix 5.3: The Intercultural Dimension of Foreign Language

Education in the Primary School, Peter Doyé Appendix 5.4: 1re partie: Inventer pour apprendre, Jean-Marc Caré 2e partie: Bourse d’échanges, CIEP

Appendix 6: Evaluation and prospective sheet / Questionnaire d’évaluation et de prospective Appendix 7: Protocole et calendrier d’échange interscolaire

international


Appendix 1 : Rapport de mission à Skopje pour le CELV par Gilbert DALGALIAN I. Déroulement de la mission: (programme en annexe 4) Le point culminant de la mission a été la réunion du 13 novembre 1998 avec Mme DEMNIEVA, Vice-Ministre de l’Education et de la Culture physique, ainsi que les représentants des Ambassades d’Allemagne et de France et des Services culturels américains concernés par l’anglais. Le British Council n’était pas représenté. Cette réunion a permis une description exhaustive de la situation des langues dans le système éducatif de “l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine”, suivie d’engagements réciproques de tous les partenaires présents, notamment sur le plan de formation (Annexe 2) ci-après qui a rencontré l’approbation de tous. Détails de la réunion dans les parties Il et 111 ci-dessous. II. Conditions générales d’introduction des langues vivantes en 4ème année primaire: D’abord le contexte: une demande massive de langues étrangères de la part du grand public et bien entendu des parents d’élèves, qui se traduit dans toutes les villes de “ l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine » par un foisonnement de cours de langues privés. Lequel profite surtout à l’anglais comme partout ailleurs. C’est dans ce contexte que les autorités de la République décident l’introduction progressive de plusieurs langues vivantes au choix en dernière année primaire (4ème année). Ce qui signifie clairement qu’il ne peut s’agir d’une simple sensibilisation aux langues, mais qu’un véritable apprentissage est ici visé. A. Les paramètres: A.1.: âge et classe: la 4ème année -élèves de 9-10 ans- n’est pas l’âge idéal. En outre, les langues proposées (selon les écoles – anglais, français, allemand et russe) le sont au double titre facultatif et optionnel, il en résulte deux difficultés: • la lère langue obligatoire commençant en 5ème année, les classes se retrouvent alors

composées de deux cohortes hétérogènes – vrais débutants et faux débutants ayant déjà un an d’apprentissage – dans les mêmes classes;

• le caractère optionel de la langue vivante en 4ème année (avec seulement 1 an d’avance

sur la 1ère langue obligatoire) est un obstacle à la politique officielle de diversification des langues: en effet, les parents choisiront 1 an plus tôt la langue qu’ils auraient choisie de toute façon en 5ème année: l’anglais à 85%.

Cependant le choix de la 4ème année ne peut être remise cause, car il dépend du second paramètre: les effectifs des enseignants formés, en nombre limité. J’ai donc été amené, dans un souci de maintenir la diversité des langues, à soumettre à la discussion la suggestion suivante – il ne serait pas moins démocratique, du point de vue des parents mais aussi de


l’institution, de remplacer le caractère optionnel des langues au primaire par une double obligation: • une langue au choix – à l’exclusion de l’anglais – en 4ème primaire (où elle reste

facultative); • l’anglais pour tous en 5ème année (LV obligatoire) en plus de la continuation de la 1ère

LV choisie au primaire. Cette idée a été bien accueillie par toutes les parties. Mais elle reste une décision lourde d’implications budgétaires, du fait du doublement du nombre de langues aux niveaux collège-lycée, ainsi que de la généralisation progressive d’une LV1 en 4ème année primaire. Elle ne pourrait se mettre en place que progressivement et ne peut en aucun cas changer le dispositif prévu pour la rentrée de 1999. A2. Le nombre de classes par langue. A3. Le nombre d’enseignants formés. Ces deux paramètres sont liés entre eux, ainsi qu’au financement des nouveaux enseignements de langues. Mme DEMNIEVA s’est engagée à faire connaître avant la fin de l’année le nombre d’enseignants disponibles par langue et le nombre et la liste des classes introduisant une LV au primaire en 1999. A4. La pédagogie. A5. L’environnement linguistique. Ici aussi les paramètres sont liés – une pédagogie ne vaut que si elle s’appuie au maximum sur l’environnement linguistique. Quand celui-ci fait totalement défaut dans le champ social comme dans “l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine” (pour le français, l’anglais et l’allemand), il faut en aménager un qui soit cohérent avec les conditions de l’école. Or que signifie “environnement linguistique” dans le cadre scolaire? Que peut-on aménager? Il y a d’un côté les outils, les technologies utilisées en classe. De l’autre, les partenaires de la communication dans un échange interscolaire international. B. Analyse du système et aruments pour une pédagogie des échanges Compte tenu des multiples contraintes du projet et des horaires prévus (deux périodes de 40 minutes par semaine), il est clair que si on veut une pédagogie dynamique, dans laquelle les enfants se sentent motivés pour la langue au-delà des limites du système, l’enseignement/apprentissage doit être orienté non sur les seuls aspects fonnels de la langue, mais sur des productions (orales, écrites, audiovisuelles) sur projets et échangeables avec une (ou plusieurs) classe(s)-partenaire(s), allemande(s), anglaise(s), française(s) ou russe(s). C’est ainsi seulement que la langue peut remplir sa triple fonction d’instrument d’apprentissage, de production intellectuelle et de communication.


De tous les éléments d’un environnement aménagé, les échanges pédagogiques sur projets sont: 1. celui qui coûte le moins cher (seuls frais: les frais postaux, et le fax existe déjà dans

beaucoup d’écoles); 2. celui qui peut tirer parti de toutes les technologies acquises par la suit de la vidéo à

l’intemet, tant en production qu’en communication; 3. le seul vraiment adapté à la situation et pouvant rendre l’enseignant moins dépendant

des manuels, toujours considérés inadéquats à la situation macédonienne, et permettre aux élèves d’exprimer leur réalité locale ou nationale dans la langue de l’échange. Quels que soient les manuels utilisés!

4. Enfin la pédagogie de productions et d’échanges induit de façon spontanée un

changement des comportements pédagogiques chez l’enseignant et réduit la part du magistral au profit d’un élève plus actif. Elle est de ce fait un facteur d’auto-formation de l’enseignant et d’autonomie de l’élève.

C’est à partir de ces considérations et en intégrant également l’essentiel des orientations prévues par Mme Elena IOVANOSKA, Conseillère pédagogique de français – que je salue ici pour son excellent travail préparatoire à l’introduction des langues vivantes au primaire – que j´ai formulé le plan de formation qu’on touvera en annexe 3. III. Réflexions et suggestions issues de la réunion du 13 novembre 1998 sous la présidence de Mme DEMNIEVA, Vice-Ministre, concernant le plan de formation A la question de Mme DEMNIEVA quant au financement de cette formation, j’ai répondu en citant le fax du 9 novembre de M. Claude KIEFFER, Directeur exécutif du CELV lequel: • confirme la prise en charge par le CELV (Conseil de l’Europe) de l’Atelier n° 1, prévu

pour le printemps 1999; • mais ne peut prévoir aucun engagement financier pour les phases suivantes (Ateliers n° 2

et 3); • et suggère pour la suite une prise en charge partagée avec d’autres partenaires bi- ou

multilatéraux. J’ai eu également l’occasion de rappeler que, la formation concernant les enseignants de plusieurs langues, il s’avérait indispensable de recourir à des intervenants allemands, français et anglophones qui, dans la suite du plan de formation, pourraient être pris en charge par leurs Ambassades respectives. Voici en outre les demandes précises que j’ai formulées pour l’immédiat à l’adresse des Services culturels étrangers représentés: • pour étoffer l’équipement en technologies éducatives urgentes des écoles qui introduiront

leurs langues respectives;


• pour rechercher rapidement un certain nombre de classes-partenaires par langue, susceptibles de travailler sur des projets comniuns avec les classes de “l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine”.

Sur ces deux points, les partenaires étrangers ont pris bonne note et feront leur maximum. Enfin la question suivante a été soulevée: comment rétribuer le stage régional que chacun des participants à l’Atelier n° l (national) sera amené à conduire à son tour dans sa propre circonscription? Comme aucune solution ne semble exister au plan local, je suggère qu’on envisage un Atelier n° l ramené à quatre jours pour reverser le montant ainsi épargné sur la rémunération des formateurs “régionaux”. Est-ce possible? Une dernière exigence – à vrai dire allant de soi – à l’endroit des ambassades européennes est de faciliter à l’avenir l’obtention des visas d’entrée des enseignants de leurs langues respectives, quand ceux-ci ont la possibilité de se rendre en stage ou à des colloques dans leurs pays. Une réglementation trop restrictive est ressentie dans ce cas comme inacceptable et sans fondement.


Appendix A Ministry of Education and Physical Culture Pedagogical Institute of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” Programme for the visit of Mr. Gilbert Dalgalian, Council of Europe Expert to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (November 10-14 November, 1998) Tuesday, November 10, 1998, 9.00 a.m. -Venue: Pedagogical Institute of “the former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia” - meeting with Ms Stanka Slavenska, Deputy Director - meeting with Ms Jelena Jovanoska, French language advisor and project

manager of the proposed seminar on Early Teaching of Foreign Languages and Mr. Wadimir Mostrov, advisor to the Director, for international co-operation in education

Wednesday, November 11, 1998 9.00 a.m. - Venue: Ministry of Education and Physical Culture - meeting with Ms. Veselinka Ivanova, Undersecretary for pre-school and

elementary school education 11.30 a.m. - Venue: University of Skopje, Faculty of Philology, - meeting with Prof. Aleksa Poposki, Dean, Prof. Katerina Babamova,

Vice-Dean, and the methodology teachers of the foreign languages departments

Thursday, November 12,1998 9.00 a.m. - Visit to the dual language secondary school (Macedonian- French) in Negotino, Meeting with Mr. Kosta Kupov, Director and staff. Friday, November 13, 1998 9.00 a.m. - Venue: Pedagogic Institute - meeting with the foreign languages advisers of the PIM 12.00 a.m. - Venue: Ministry of Education and Physical Culture - meeting with Ms Demnieva, Assistant to the Minister, Department for

International Co-operation in Education, Ministry of Education and cultural representatives from the corresponding embassies.


Appendix B Formation de formateurs dans “l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine” I. Généralités: • Formation prévue pour être prolongée par des stages régionaux • pour 25 à 30 formateurs • en trois étapes ou ateliers • dans “l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine” (Ohrid 9 Négotino?) • pour l’enseignement des quatre langues proposées • avec l’aide du CELV: intervenants d’au moins trois langues et trois pays. II. Axes méthodologiques: A. Activités ludiques, expressives et psychomotrices (Ateliers 1, 2 et 3) B. Pédagogie centrée sur la production et l’échange international (Ateliers 1, 2, 3) C. Pédagogie du conte et du récit, bases de la compétence textuelle (Ateliers 2 et 3) En outre, une quatrième constante: repartir avec un projet de stage décentralisé s’inspirant directement des activités de chaque atelier et adapté aux situations scolaires locales. III. Modalités des ateliers: Pour éviter la lourdeur des traductions permanentes et rendre la formation plus active: • les plénières seront de brèves introductions de 30 minutes • suivies de travaux de groupe par langue (un groupe anglophone, un groupe francophone

et, si l’effectif le permet, un groupe germanophone) • chaque groupe de langue se subdivisera en petits groupes pour certaines phases de travail Les traductions des plénières seront assurées par l’encadrement et notamment par G. DALGALIAN, coordinateur de l’atelier (allemand, français, anglais) pour le CELV et par Mme E. IOVANOSKA (français, macédonien) et M. V. MOSTROV (anglais, macédonien), tous deux de l’Institut Pédagogique de Macédoine. Une concertation permanente entre les intervenants et ces trois personnes est donc indispensable au déroulement des travaux de groupe. Un certificat de stage est demandé par la partie macédonienne. Sera-t-il délivré par le CELV? La liste des matériels requis pendant le stage devra être fixée par chaque intervenant pour sa partie et centralisée à Graz. Un transport de Graz jusqu’au lieu de l’atelier est à prévoir.


IV. Calendrier et programme de formation 1. Atelier n° l de mars 1999: A. Activités ludiques, expressives et psychomotrices • jeux centrés sur le corps • jeux centrés sur le groupe • expression corporelle et recours à des éléments d’éducation physique et sportive • expression musicale et vocale élémentaire B. Pédagogie centrée sur la production et l’échange • enregistrements oraux de présentations de soi, de sa ville, de son école, de brefs

dialogues par les enfants • productions écrites selon un canevas narratif donné • premiers exercices écrits de créativité • journal d’échange du type “Fax international” • ainsi que toute la problématique des jumelages de classes et des projets interscolaires

internationaux. Prévoir en outre: un “horaire de questions” quotidien pour traiter les préoccupations pédagogiques diverses des participants et un temps de travail pariculier concernant les modalités de transmission lors des stages régionaux. 2. Atelier n° 2 de décembre 1999 ou printemps 2000 (mêmes participants): Bilan et approfondissement. A. Axe ludique, expressif et psychomoteur • jeux de rôle, simulations et créativité • expression corporelle, mimique et gestuelle • éducation physique et langage • expression graphique, travaux manuels en langues: expositions de travaux d’élèves • expression vocale et musicale (suite) • B. Production et échanges avec recours à de nouveaux outils • bilan des productions et des échanges réalisés • vidéo-correspondance • exemples de projets interscolaires sur l’environnement et le patrimoine • initiation aux nouvelles technologies (si disponibles à Skopje).

C. Pédagogie progressive du conte et du récit, comme bases d’une compétence textuelle • exercices textuels progressifs • initiation à l’écriture narrative • initiation à l’écriture descriptive


Prévoir ici aussi un horaire de questions et un temps de travail sur les modalités des stages décentralisés. 3. Atelier n° 3 de novembre-décembre 2000: (mêmes formateurs + quelques autres) A. Axe ludique, expressif et psychomoteur: • techniques de dramatisation et d’improvisation adaptées à l’apprentissage d’une langue

vivante • exercices de simulation (suite) • éducation physique et langage (suite) B. Travail sur les technologies éducatives en production et dans les échanges: • selon les matériels disponibles à ce moment-là dans les écoles il avec le magnétophone, la

vidéo et le magnétoscope travail avec l’ordinateur et l’Intemet C. Pédagogie d’acquisition d’une compétence textuelle narrative, descriptive, etc...: • bilan et approfondissement • exercices d’écriture créative Ainsi qu’un horaire de questions et de préparation des stages décentralisés. V. Participation souhaitée des Services culturels des ambassades des pays

représentés dans cette formation de formateurs: 1. A très court terme: recherche et sélection de classes-partenaires en nombre supérieur aux

besoins réels pour parer aux défections prévisibles transmission à l’Institut pédagogique de Skopje qui diffusera les listes à la fois aux formateurs et au CELV de Graz, à l’attention des intervenants.

2. A moyen terme: une fois identifiées les classes de 4ème année et la langue

respectivement choisie par elles, aider ces classes à s’équiper progressivement en équipements et technologies éducatives adaptées à chaque situation.

3. A long terme: identifier les enseignants susceptibles de devenir à leur tour des

formateurs et ayant besoin d’un perfectionnement linguistique dans le pays dont ils enseignent la langue, leur faciliter l’obtention d’un stage et d’une bourse de stage à l’étranger.

Ce plan de formation représente un canevas général, il devra être suivi d’un programme détaillé (horaires, contenus, intervenants choisis, etc.) qui sera soumis aux autorités éducatives de “l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine”. Le CELV pourra transmettre ce plan de formation de formateurs aux destinataires concernés en l’état ou après modifications, si nécessaire. Gilbert DALGALIAN (Dr.)

Euro

pean

Cen

tre fo

r Mod

ern

Lang

uage

s, G

raz

41

App

endi

x 2:

Pro

gram

me

défin

itif d

e l’a

telie

r n°

1

1e

r jou

r 2e

jour

3e

jour

4e

jour

5e

jour

9

h 00

Pl

éniè

re:

Ouv

ertu

re d

e l’a

telie

r Pl

éniè

re: G

. DA

LGA

LIA

N

Péda

gogi

e de

pro

duct

ion/

des

éc

hang

es

Plén

ière

: G. D

ALG

ALI

AN

Fo

ndem

ents

or

aux

de

la

com

péte

nce

text

uelle

Plén

ière

: G. D

ALG

ALI

AN

Le

rôle

des

tech

nolo

gies

Pl

éniè

re: G

. DA

LGA

LIA

N

Eval

uatio

n de

s él

èves

et

au

to-

éval

uatio

n

9 h

30

Prés

enta

tion

et d

iscu

ssio

n du

pla

n de

fo

rmat

ion

et

du

prog

ram

me

de

l’ate

lier

Gro

upes

A &

B: J

.-M. C

AR

É,

G. D

ALG

ALI

AN

In

vent

er p

our a

ppre

ndre

: D

écrir

e

Gro

upes

A &

B:

J.-M

. C

AR

É,

G. S

ALG

ALI

AN

In

vent

er p

our a

ppre

ndre

: R

acon

ter

Gro

upes

A &

B: J

.-M. C

AR

É,

G. D

ALG

ALI

AN

In

vent

er p

our a

ppre

ndre

A

rgum

ente

r

Gro

upes

A

&

B

: G

. D

ALG

ALI

AN

. J.-

M.

CA

RÉ,

L.

CO

K, P

. DO

YÉ

Org

anis

er u

n éc

hang

e II

I 10

h 3

0 Pa

use

café

Pa

use

café

Pa

use

café

Pa

use

café

Pa

use

café

11 h

00

Séan

ce p

léni

ère:

G

. DA

LGA

LIA

N

Cad

re

théo

rique

de

l’a

ppre

ntis

sage

pr

écoc

e de

lang

ues v

ivan

tes

In

vent

er p

our a

ppre

ndre

D

écrir

e (s

uite

)

In

vent

er p

our a

ppre

ndre

R

acon

ter

(sui

te)

In

vent

er p

our a

ppre

ndre

A

rgum

ente

r (s

uite

)

O

rgan

iser

un

écha

nge

III

Prép

arer

et p

rom

ouvo

ir un

pro

jet

d’éc

hang

e (s

uite

) 11

h 3

0 “B

rison

s la

glac

e”, P

. DO

YÉ

12

h 0

0 C

onst

itutio

n de

s gro

upes

12

h 3

0 Pa

use

déje

uner

Pa

use

déje

uner

Pa

use

déje

uner

Pa

use

déje

uner

Pa

use

déje

uner

15

h 3

0 G

roup

e A

: L.C

OK

Ed

ucat

ion

phys

ique

et j

eux

Gro

upe

B: P

. DO

YÉ

Con

cept

s de

bas

e de

l’e

nsei

gnem

ent

inte

rcul

ture

l

Gro

upe

A: L

.CO

K

Tech

niqu

es d

’exp

ress

ion

Gro

upe

B: P

. DO

YÉ

Cha

nson

s, co

mpt

ines

et c

onte

s da

ns l’

ense

igne

men

t in

terc

ultu

rel

Du

trava

il en

gr

oupe

s à

la

plén

ière

: L.

CO

K &

P. D

OY

É

Ense

igne

men

t mut

uel e

t ob

serv

atio

n

Du

trava

il en

gr

oupe

s à

la

plén

ière

: L.

CO

K &

P. D

OY

É

Ense

igne

men

t mut

uel e

t ob

serv

atio

n

Plén

ière

: 1.

Ev

alua

tion

de l’

atel

ier:

- par

les p

artic

ipan

ts - p

ar le

s ani

mat

eurs

- p

ar le

CEL

V

2.

Con

stitu

tion

des

équi

pes

pour

les

stag

es r

égio

naux

de

form

atio

n d’

ense

igna

nts

(ave

c le

sou

tien

de l

’Ins

titut

Pé

dago

giqu

e de

Sko

pje)

17

h30

Dr.

Hris

tova

17

h 0

0 Ev

alua

tion

17 h

00

Eval

uatio

n

18 h

00

- 19 h

00

J.-M

. CA

RÉ

& G

. DA

LGA

LIA

N

Org

anis

er u

n éc

hang

e I

J.-

M. C

AR

É &

G. D

ALG

ALI

AN

O

rgan

iser

un

écha

nge

II Q

UES

TIO

NS

Pot d

’adi

eu


Appendix 3 : Questions à traiter à Struga le 13 septembre 1999 avec Mme (Dr) Doréana Hristova et Mme Simeonka Guceva 1. Qui parle à l’ouverture (9.00 à 9.30)? Qui traduit? 2. Photocopies:

− Programme de l’Atelier n° 1 − Liste des participants − Bibliographies − Autres documents de stage

3. Documentation envoyée par le CELV:

− Portfolio − Rapport 17

4. Salles pour travaux de groupes 5. Composition des groupes:

− Groupe A = 14 anglophones + 2 russophones = 16 − Groupe B = 11 francophones + 2 germanophones = 17

6. Nombre de classes primaires par langue:

− Anglais − Français − Allemand − Russe

7. Nombre de stages régionaux ‘post-atelier’: (Formons-nous des multiplicateurs?)

− Lieux 8. Certificat de stage:

− Il faut adresser à Graz une liste des participants avec leurs adresses. Le CELV leur enverra le document.

9. Procès-verbaux de séances par des participants. 10. Modes de travail durant les périodes intitulées “From group work to plenary”.


Appendix 4: Composition des groupes

Groupe allemand

Groupe anglais Groupe français Groupe russe

Peter Doyé

Evdorisa Galovska

Irina Ikonomova

Gotze Matsowski

Marina Nisliska

Blagorodna Naumoska

Suzana Petrova

Suzana Stojanovska

Angela Werner

Franz Werner

Zora Busovska

Lucija Cok

Marija Kitanova

Risto Kostadinov

Vasil Kostov

Saveta Kostreska

Laura Nevzazti

Marija Nospal

Vesna Nikolovska

Gordana Pavoska

Daniela Sterjova

Jean-Marc Caré

Gilbert Dalgalian

Sabri Doruti

Doreana Hristova

Marika Janeva

Jordanka Nikoloska

Atanas Nikolov

Marija Nikolova

Sofija Petroska

Asan Selimi

Slava Softovska

Zora Zivaljevic

Krassimira Ilievska

Georgina Jakimova

Bozidar Jovic

Michel Lefranc


Appendix 5.1. : Résumé des plénières DAY 1: Tuesday 14.09.1999 Plenary 1: 9.00 • Presentation of ECML/CELV by Michel LEFRANC, Executive Director. • Presentation of the ECML trainers’ team. • Modus operandi with the 3 (or 4) languages. Plenary 2: 9.30: Presentation of Training Scheme and Workshop Programme. Training Scheme: • This is an in-service preparatory Training for Macedonian Trainers. • i.e. to be followed by regional teacher training sessions. • with about 30 participants in this Workshop n° 1 (Struga) • followed eventually by Workshop n° 2 (spring or autumn 2000) • and Workshop n° 3 (2001?) with the same participants/trainers • in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” • for 4 languages to be introduced in primary schools • with the assistance and support of ECML/Council of Europe. Training Mainstreams: • Mainstream 1: Learning Games, expressive and psychomotor activities: Workshops

nos. 1, 2 & 3. • Mainstream 2: Pedagogy centered on Learners’ Productions & Learners’

interschool/international Exchanges: Workshops nos. 1, 2, 3. • Mainstream 3: Text competence based on stories and tales: Workshops nos. 1, 2, 3. + an additional and transdisciplinary practice of Intercultural Education. Programme Guidelines: • Taking into account many constraints:

- only two periods per week (45 + 45 minutes?) - very few materials and few well trained teachers - not much money for the start of early language learning - introduction of language only at 4th grade, that is ‘late’and induces on parents’

side the same choice as in 5th grade


• Necessity to promote a very favourable Linguistic Environment: i.e.

- communication partners (in & outside “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)

- communication tools & instruments - both coherent with macedonian school conditions: only postal mail & telecopy, if

no other possibility right now, - in order to motivate pupils to produce and exchange (oral, written, and later on

audio-visual) productions to be exchanged with other classes at home & abroad.

• Technologies & partners favour use of language in and outside classroom • Language used in producing & exchanging productions is a way to compensate for lack

of time, lack of material, lack of teachers. • Learners’ productions and exchanges create both a completely new linguistic as well as

pedagogical environment: - pupils do not learn only for better marks, but mainly for proper communication

with their partners; - pupils do not learn in order to master formal aspects of a foreign language; but

they have to master the language in order to produce & exchange their productions;

- teachers are less dependent on (mostly unadapted) manuals; - teachers teach a little less and pupils learn and work a lot more, because they are

more active and responsible for their “products”.

• Formal aspects of foreign language will be presented to learners only in activities that respond to children’ needs: learning games, expressive activities, psychomotor activities linked with language use & exchanges.

Brief description of workshop programme: 1. Short plenary sessions will give the theoretical background of each day; 2. Rest of morning sessions will be devoted to creative means & methods for learning

how to describe, narrate and elaborate an argumentation. (Mainstream 3: Text competence and creativity).

3. Afternoon sessions are devoted to Mainstream 1: Physical education and games,

expressive arts, songs, rhymes and stories. But Group A will have only one half of this topics, and Group B the other half. So that on day 3 & 4 each Group will have to peer-teach its counterpart.

4. Evening sessions are left for organising a real exchange, that will eventually end in

the preparation of an exchange project by small groups of participants.


5. Question hours are left to deal with everyone’s questions and doubts. 6. Last day will provide time for Questions of Evaluation:

- Learners’ Evaluation - Workshop Evaluation

7. As well as for preparing follow-up seminars in different regions. Plenary 3: 11.00: Theoretical framework for early language learning. • 3 basic parameters:

− Age of learner − Responding to children’s Needs − Linguistic Environment

Age for early language learning: before 7 years of age. Responding to children’s Needs means: language used in games, in body response (physical activities) & in group work. Linguistic Environment: none in the classroom. Therefore necessity of constructing an adapted Learning Environment:

− Social Envir., i.e. Partner classes − Intellectual Env. i.e. Producing for communication& Producing on other

Subjects − Material Envir. i.e. Communication Technologies

• Differences between early language learning and adults’ learning process:

− Acquisition vs. structured learning − Natural strategies vs. voluntary learning − Before 7 years: child builds up a fundamental Language Ability (‘hidden’

behind the mother tongue) − After 10 years: he/she learns ‘only’ a new code through the filter of his/her

mother tongue. − between 7 and 10 years: filter is already operative, but some natural strategies can

still be stimulated. • Thresholds of language competence & Competence Transferability:

− Communicative competence − Text competence − Cognitive competence

- The 3 competences have to be built up in L1, L2 (L3, L4 as well). - But transfers do not take place in the same way:

. in early lang. learning: two-ways transfer = parallel process

. in F.L. learning: mainly one-way transfers.


• The particular importance of Text Competence:

− not simply the ORAL/WRITTEN difference − Text is opposed to dialog:

.Text is structured in a different way: 100% ling. signs

. Face-to-face Dialog has a great % of material signs & situational context indications.

− First Text Competence is acquired with stories told/heard before 5 years of age. − Hence early Text Comp. is the basis of school success (or failure) − For it is the basis of most Cognitive (Academic) Performances.

DAY 2: Wednesday 15.09.99 Plenary 4: 9.00: Pedagogy of Productions & Exchanges. Principles: • Producing and exchanging suppose:

− use of technologies − corresponding with partners − producing and getting information & knowledge in different matters and subjects

• Thus a new linguistic Environment is created – material, social and intellectual – that

brings the learners in a situation of total language response, i.e. not only a cognitive-grammar response.

• So language learning is no longer beside other subjects, but inside:

− in getting familiar with tools & technologies − in learning how to communicate (oral & written) − in learning contents for the purpose of producing

and all that makes sense to chidren, whatever age they are. Methodology: • 3 interactive parameters:

− partner-classes to be selected & contacted − technologies to be defined: mail/fax, phone/audio K7 video K7, and later on:

Internet − subjects &projects to be agreed upon and programmed

• “Arguments” for negociation with partners:

− fields of interest for Macedonian classes are obvious − interest of English/american or French/or German classes has to be raised and

enhanced by such arguments as Macedonian History or geography or tourism or churches or sport, or else.


• Phases of production & exchanges have to be well defined between teachers of the two or more classes:

− greeting & introducing oneself (oral & written) − introducing class, family, school, village − &.s.on and so forth...(cf. teachers made documents for French in Germany).

• One foreign class can be twinned with more than one Macedonian class, if necessary.

Exchanges can also take place between Macedonian classes, provided they stick firmly to the foreign language ‘discipline’.

DAY 3: Thursday 16.09.99 Plenary 5: 9.00. Oral basis before Building up a Text Competence. • Compare oral & written communication • In written communication:

− Addressee is absent − - Sender has no check on and no interaction with addressee Sender has to give all

indications about situation, action going on, protagonists and circumstances − What is not perceived (due to lack of direct communication) has to be put in

words − Thus Text has a structure completely different (almost opposite) to that of Dialog:

redundancies, synonyms, parasynonyms, anaphores (pronouns), recapitulating words or sentences, paraphrases

− Each genre has its own structure: descriptive, narrative, argumentative, prescriptive

• First Text experiences in the child’s life:

− when? and how many times the same story? − why? − what makes a story so interesting for such a long time? − the many faces of one story:

. images only with words

. no material or situational hint

. getting familiar with pronouns, synonyms, gender

• Consequences: − some children know Text Structure before going over to reading & writing, some

other do not − some children know already what to do with a written text and are eager to read

even before school age; some are not.

• Suggestions for teachers both in mother tongue and in foreign language: - get the children used to listen to stories adapted to their level - give them appetite and tools to become autonomous in reading stories.


DAY 4: Friday 17.09.99 Plenary 6: The role of technologies. • The theme was completed during previous periods devoted to ‘Organising an

Exchange’. DAY 5: Friday 18.09.99 Plenary 7: Pupils’ Evaluation and Self-evaluation. • A language learning approach based on production and exchanges cannot be aiming at

traditional ways of evaluating pupils only in terms of grammar and lexicon. • The new ways of teaching and learning require a more complete evaluation: i.e. of all

that the learner can perform using foreign language in and outside classroom, beginning with every day life situations, upto performances linked with productions (oral & written) and exchanges.

• These overall skills, combining formal aspects of language as well as speech acts and

discursive skills, can easily be identified by learners if they are asked to do so. • Furthermore, getting accustomed to measure and register their own progresses in

terms of practical skills is highly motivating and helps children to become conscious of the very sense of a second language.

• For this purpose the Council of Europe has developped a very attractive instrument: the

“Language Portfolio” for children that has been explained and commented during the Workshop.


Appendix 5.2: The role of game-based techniques, motor activities and expressive arts in primary foreign language learning and teaching Lucija Cok 1. Some basic observations Early or pre-secondary teaching of a foreign language (FL) has to follow the general principles of language didactics, while also being subject to the principles of primary level pedagogy. But since children entering primary school are characterised by greater and greater diversity, every primary school teaching has to choose between different alternatives regarding the aims of syllabuses and methods. Teaching children is different. • In case of children, the notion of mixed ability refers to the development abilities or

knowledge. Differences of a few years amongst children of an identical chronological age are to be expected. Any approach to teaching a foreign language must attempt to reconcile developmental differences.

• Children are still developing first language, they are still developing their

communication skills (writing!). As they are global learners their first language provides them with the foundations on which to construct the FL system.

• Children have no real linguistic needs. Adults learn languages for special purposes but

children have immediate functional needs. Playing games with recognised rules provides the starting point for the exploration of the abstract world of linguistic relationships. Combining game-based techniques with communicative patterns will arouse the children’s curiosity and imagination, as well as their interest and need for speaking the FL.

• Young children learn very quickly under immersion conditions (great exposure to the

language). Full advantage should be taken on the fact that children have wonderful memories. They are capable to imitate accurately the sounds (motor movements of the mouth used to produce sounds may become fixed by the age of seven!), to follow the rhythm and intonation of the FL, to respond quickly and willingly to linguistic stimulation. But they are egocentric and they get bored quickly.


Ensuring and enhancing the motivation is one of the main factors behind an early start of foreign language learning! Some remarks for better organisation and informing of the teachers before embarking upon the FL teaching:

Do we know well enough our learners? Observe differences among them! Have we chosen the appropriate methodology? Approach the first language (L1) methodology to the FL teaching! Do we have enough time? Provide enough teaching hours for FL (immersion based approaches)! What are the environmental conditions? Analyse background and previous experience with the FL! Who should be doing the teaching? Train teachers to become specialists in early language teaching!

2. The role of play in foreign language learning The verbalisation of linguistic meaning is performed on the logical level, in grammatical and semantic frameworks. It is accompanied by feelings, evaluating and experiencing at the moment of its coming into existence. Movements and gestures, sight, body language, drawing, artistic production, disordered voices, the harmony of singing can be parts of the verbalised content. The signs that enable the child to acquire information can be heard, seen and touched. The child will understand them, analyse them and respond to them. In doing so the child will be helped or hindered by its abilities, character, temper, attitudes towards the contents being learnt, motives, interests and experience. The child will try to verbalise what he understands, but also what he doesn’t. In the transition from the similar, analogue, to the tangible, original, new knowledge and original experience emerge. Play has a decisive role in the development and education of a child. As a unique activity it is closest to the child’s nature and to the laws of growing up. For the child the play is a fundamental learning experience. The verbalisation of a new notion, for example, is the setting up of a new mental and verbal game. As a development and educational activity as well as a method of learning it contains peculiarities that contribute to the formation of the child’s personality and his intellect. The great majority of games are connected with verbal expression. Word and movement are the most frequent activities in playing, but also word and music, or word, music and movement. The rules of play can be different, but all of them know some basic principles of co-operation, entering the game and changing the roles of the players. Dance and movement belong to the areas of visible reality, but their connection with music classifies them into the field of emotional experience. Musical elements, such as rhythm, tempo and harmony, release emotions in the child and make the experience of dancing activities more profound.


Motive games make it possible for the child to gain knowledge and experience of his own body in space, they develop motor skills of the child and stimulate the acquisition of social habits. Some aspects of the communication relationship are constituent parts of playing. The language and playing are similarly designed. The language is a system of symbols, game a system of more or less concrete rules. Both language and playing are directed by human activity. Both represent content (linguistic, playing) in interaction with participants (in communicative position, in playing procedure). In communicative and in playing positions the roles are chosen and defined, the influence of an individual participant defines the aim or the outcome of the game. 3. The role of motor activity in mental development of a child With the aid of motor experience, children acquire language knowledge in a natural, meaningful way within holistically designed learning environment. They discover the immediate environment, move in it and change the relationship within it. They can verbalise the basic mental operations, with the aid of motor activities they group, classify, distinguish and compare the characteristics of objects and phenomena in nature. They experience themselves and others, satisfy the need for movement, creation, exploring, being together with their friends. Movement in playing helps the child to discover the world and is a constituent part of his activity from the very first weeks in his life. It prevails in the play of the pre-school and school periods, it gives playing certain dynamics and diversity. Co-operation and competition is part of motion games. In group games the child discusses the rules and the way of performing the games, thus creating suspense, in which he wishes to ascertain and prove himself. He learns to win and to lose, to accept rules and to act according to them. Learning by playing is automatic and connected with a practical motive to acquire new knowledge and experience. 4. Two examples: The Propp’s cards and the story- telling by action THE PROPP’S CARDS The Russian linguist Vladimir Propp defined common elements in the Indo-European fairy-tales (Morphology of fairy-tales and Transformations in fairy-tales, 1935). One of the them, the 31 protagonist functions, was used by Gianni Rodari for a card game. He reduced the number of functions and proposed the game in which the protagonist functions display a story (La grammatica della fantasia, 1973). The starting function (separation) introduce the first player and he starts the story, the owner of the next function, drawn on his card, continues the narration.


Proposed protagonist functions: separation, prohibition, infringement, investigation, trap, damage, reparation for the damage, departure of the hero, testing the hero, providing the magic object, fight, victory, way back, false hero, uncovering the false hero, punishing the false hero, wedding of the hero.

Rodari’s card game (1973) THE STORY-TELLING THROUGH ACTION Total physical response (TPR) was a well known teaching technique in the sixties, introduced in FL teaching and learning by James Asher. Children, especially very young ones, are able to understand much more that they can produce. TPR techniques build on that capacity. In teaching children the multisensorial input and repetition arouse intuition on the meaning of the verbal context and enhance associative learning.


Learning vocabulary1: • A little mouse comes out of the hole. • She looks around. • The cupboard is open. • She climbs into the cupboard. • There is a plate with cheese on it. • She eats a lot of cheese … • Then she falls asleep. • Dad comes into the kitchen. • He is hungry. • He takes the plate with the cheese on it. • The mouse jumps down. • Dad drops the plate and runs out of the kitchen.

Phase 1: The teacher is telling the story gesticulating. The children are repeating the teacher’s

gesticulation. Phase 2: The teacher is repeating the oral version, the children the mimic one. Phase 3: The sequences of the story are mixed, the children are responding by mimic. Phase 4: The children receive the strip, with the story. They are testing their comprehension of

the sequences. Phase 5: The puzzled story is recomposed by the children. Narration, dramatisation of the

story.

1 Do and Understand, ÖBV Pädagogischer Verlag GmbH, Wien, 1994.


5. Planning a teaching unit Primary FL teaching, whether it is more directive in form, should be not chaotic or improvised. Even though the emphasis is on communication, it is carefully planned and monitored. The different ways of presenting the target language in the classroom are grouped around a unifying theme, the topic of study. Schematically, a teaching unit can be represented as having a horizontal axis consisting of games for the presentation of all items on the syllabus, and the vertical axis consisting of the activities involved in playing them: verbal activities, singing and doing music, motor activities, artistic expression. Puppets (finger puppets, stick puppets, paper bags puppets, glove puppet, pop-up puppet) can have a special role in a speaking practice.

communication

a m eg

language

poemsrhymes

songsmusic

drawingartspuppets

psychomotoractivitiesdancing

O

PI

CS

Trhythm

Interdisciplinary structure of a teaching unit Adhering to the principles of an integrated syllabus (which implies interdisciplinarity) and monitoring methodological procedures as a whole (which means looking for interrelationships between outcomes) are strategic rather then methodological issues. Didactics of FL teaching and primary school pedagogy meet at this point. Integrating FL teaching into primary school curriculum is not just a matter of inter-relating the syllabuses of different subjects, but also involves the approaches and strategies adopted in every phase of FL teaching unit: organising previous knowledge, presentation of new items, organising learning activities and assessment of outcomes. In this way the curriculum comes to form an integral consensual whole.


1 ORGANISING EXPERIENCE

PREVIOUS

ONGOING

FUTURE

2 ORGANISING LEARNING

Knowledge

Interest motivation

Learning items

Learning activities

Assessment Use

3 ORGANISING SYLLABUS

Theme-based interdisciplinary activities

4 MEETING AIMS

Linguistic and cultural education Overall development of the learner

Monitoring methodological procedures 6. Bibliography 1. Cok, L. (1990): Gioco e parlo, parlo e gioco. Libro dell’insegnante. Edit Rijeka. 2. Cok, L. (1992): Éducation précoce des langues, LIDILEM, Université Stendhal, Grenoble III. 3. Cok, L. – Pišot, R. (1997) Convergencies between motor activities and early teaching of foreign

languages. V: Bangsbo, J.(ed.) Book of abstracts. Sport science in a changing world of sports. Copenhagen: European College of Sport Science.

4. Cok, L. (1998):. Foreign languages at primary school level: what forms of instruction? Fink, Bärbel

(ed.). Modern language learning and teaching in central and eastern Europe: which diversification and how can it be achieved? Proceedings of the second colloquy of the European Centre for Modern Languages. Council of Europe Publishing

5. McLaughlin, B. (1984): Second Language Acquisition in Childhood, Vol.1, Pre-school Children,

Hillsdale, NY, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 6. Krashen, S.D. (1981): Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:

Pergamon Press. 7. Mallet, B. (1993): Imaginaire et Language, Position du textuel dans l’apprentissage précoce d’une

langue étrangère. Études de Linguistique Appliquée, Revue de Didactologie des langues et cultures, Didier Érudition, janvier-mars 1993, p.49-56.

8. Murphey, T. (1992): Music & Song. Oxford University Press. 9. Philips, S. (1993): Young Learners. Oxford University Press. 10. Rodari, G. (1973): Grammatica della fantasia. Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi. 11. Selinker, L., Swain, M., Dumas G. (1975): The Interlanguage Hypothesis Extended to Children.

Language Learning 25, 139-155. 12. Sollars, V. 1966: Introducing English as a second language to six-year-old Maltese school children.

Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Manchester.


7. Example of a theme-based interdisciplinary teaching unit THEME: What is happiness? Relé wants to be happy2. Aims: to develop “intuitive” listening, to draw on the children’s language

resources to tell a story, to present and practise vocabulary, to practise reading, to practise writing, to stimulate the children’s imagination, to exercise their memory, to involve them in a story, to make them reflect on their feelings.

P: pupil’s activities, T: teacher’s activities. ORGANISING EXPERIENCE

ORGANISING LEARNING

IMPROVING LANGUAGE USE

Experience Previous knowledge

P Singing songs

Interest, motivation

PT Puppet introducing a story

Discovering NEW ITEMS

T Narration

TP Analysing the story Looking at pictures

TP Reading a story

TP TPR activities

Use

P TPR activities

P Dramatisation

TP Writing word and sentences about Relé

P Writing sentences about friendship

Assessment

P Completing sentences

P Ordering sequences

P Narrating a story

P Writing short texts

P Talking about friendship

YOU ARE HAPPY WHEN SOMEBODY LOVES YOU!

2 Di Suald, 1994: Relé e la felicitât. Università di Udine. Multilingual edition of the Friulan story.

Relé, a little mouse, leaves home and begging around for happiness finds it at last in a friendship.

TOPICS


Appendix 5.3 : The intercultural dimension of foreign language education in the primary school Peter Doyé∗∗∗∗ 1. Introduction In 1966, the American linguist, Howard Lee Nostrand, stated with regret: “Enlightened language teaching today shows gratifying progress in all its component parts except one: the teaching of the foreign cultural context.” (Nostrand 1966:1) He explained that foreign language education could never truly succeed unless teachers paid as much attention to the cultural content of learning as to the linguistic content. At the same time, the British educator, H. H. Stern, complained about the neglect of foreign languages in most primary schools and demanded: “If education is to reflect the realities with which we live, other languages and other cultures should impinge on children from the earliest stage of formal education.” (Stern 1968:26). More than thirty years have passed since the two authors issued their statements and, indeed, considerable progress has been made in these two areas of language learning. Cultural Studies have become an integral part of most language programmes and the teaching and learning of foreign languages has been introduced to primary school curricula in quite a number of countries. But the two have not yet come together. The cultural dimension is taken seriously only at the secondary level. There are not many theorists who have come to the conclusion that, once foreign language education is introduced in primary schools, the same necessity for cultural learning arises at this level. The final report on the extensive project, “Language Learning for European Citizenship”, presented in Strasbourg in 1997, lists a number of priority areas that would need intensive consideration also after the end of the project. The most important of these areas are:

• Learning to learn • Linguistic competence • Intercultural competence • Communication technology • Assessment • Bilingual education As these areas are of equal relevance in all sectors of language learning, we can integrate them in a table that shows the position of the topic we intend to deal with in the present publication.

∗ Peter Doyé’s contribution was first published in his book “The Intercultural Dimension – Foreign Language Education in the Primary School” which appeared two months before the Struga conference. It is reprinted here by permission of Cornelsen Verlag, Berlin.


Themes: Sectors of Language Learning:

Learning to Learn

Linguistic Competence

Intercultural Competence

Communication Technology

Assessment Bilingual Education

Primary

X

Secondary

Vocational

Adult

One final point concerns the definition of “primary school”. In this article we will apply the terminology of the Council of Europe (Doyé & Hurrell 1997) and mean by “primary school” any educational institution that starts at age 5/6 and ends at age 10/11. This terminology has proved useful over the past decades and avoids misunderstandings based on the varied school systems of the different countries in Europe. Besides the definition of the age range it contains the idea that this type of school lays the foundation for all subsequent education in institutions called “secondary schools”. 2. The aim: Intercultural Communicative Competence What is intercultural communicative competence? Primarily it integrates the so far disparate cognitive, pragmatic and attitudinal domains of foreign language learning and treats them as components of one comprehensive whole. The knowledge of other languages and cultures as in conventional Landeskunde, the competence to perform speech acts as in traditional pragmatics, and the attitudes of openminded-ness and tolerance as in political education are no longer regarded as separate personal qualities that can be shaped independently of each other. They are integral parts of a superordinate faculty that would be incomplete if one of the components were missing. The idea of treating the three domains of human learning as three components of one single integral process is well known in general education. Two prominent examples are the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives developed by a Committee of College and University Examiners in the USA with its three domains (cognitive, affective and psychomotor) and their obvious need for integration (Bloom 1956) and the Theory of Instruction developed by the members of the Berliner Schule der Didaktik, in which the same categorization (kognitive, pragmatische und emotionale Dimension) and the same integration are proposed. But this concept of a trinity – three components of one educational process – was not often applied to individual school subjects such as history, mathematics, music or foreign languages. Only in recent years have serious attempts been made to apply the general concept to the specific field of language teaching. Van Ek (1986) in his thorough analysis of communicative competence (1986) speaks of six partial or superordinate abilities, which can easily be attributed to the three domains of


education. And in my own synopsis of Lehr- und Lernziele (1995) I have identified “Kompetenzen, Kenntnisse und Haltungen” representing the three dimensions of language learning. Recently, Byram and Zarate have developed the concept further (1997). Their model of intercultural communicative competence includes: • savoirs, • savoir-être, • savoir-faire and • savoir-apprendre; i.e. • knowledge, • attitudes, • skills and • the ability to learn. Leaving aside the last (the ability to learn is so general an aim that we need not deal with it here), the first three correspond to the three components mentioned above. “Savoirs represent the aspect which is present in the traditional notion of cultural references. They are defined as a system of cultural references which structures implicit and explicit knowledge acquired in the course of linguistic and cultural learning, taking into account the specific needs of learners in their interaction with speakers of the foreign language.” Although savoir-être is independent of a specific foreign language, it can be developed “only in the context of a particular language. This condition is intended to avoid the trap of a theoretical style of teaching either designed to be universal or made up of a range of geographically or nationally diversified cultural practices. However, although these skills are to be acquired in the context of a particular language, they are also supposed to be ‘transferable’ to other cultural systems.” “Savoir-faire refers to an ability to combine the aforementioned skills in specific situations of bi- or multicultural contact. It implies an ability to make appropiate use of academic knowledge within the intercultural confines of a non-educational setting; an ability to recognize any special links between the cultural identity of learners and those of their foreign counterparts, as members of a given society; an ability to relate the perceptions existing within the learner’s culture to those expressed by the target language speakers.” (Zarate 1997:13f.). The demands expressed in these passages are very high indeed, but they are justified in terms of political and educational necessities. What is remarkable and particularly important in the formulation of the aims is the fact that the qualities to be acquired are not restricted to encounters with members and objects of the specific target culture(s) whose language the learners are studying. The knowledge, attitudes and skills are to be learnt with universal orientation. In their enlightening article on intercultural communication, Knapp and Knapp-Potthoff (1990) have dedicated a long passage to precisely this question: “Ist das Ziel die Verbesserung der Fähigkeit zur Kommunikation mit Angehörigen einer


bestimmten anderen Kultur oder eine Verbesserung der Fähigkeit zur Kommunikation mit Angehörigen beliebiger anderer Kulturen?” (p.83). Their answer is very clear and as definite as in Byram and Zarate’s model: it is the competence to communicate with members of other cultures in general that intercultural education has to aim at. 3. Primary Education The ideas expressed in the preceding chapter mainly refer to the aims of FL education at all levels and in all pedagogical contexts. But what is true of FL learning in general can also be applied to primary schools in particular. In early projects, primary school teachers concentrated on the pragmatic domain. They aimed at a certain level of achievement in the basic skills of listening comprehension and speaking and, at a later stage, reading comprehension and writing. Little or no attention was paid to the cognitive and the attitudinal domain and no attempts were made to integrate the three into the superordinate goal of intercultural communicative competence. However, the scene is changing. More and more protagonists have realized that changes in the political reality of our modern world do have an impact on the aims of primary FL education. For young children, contact with members of other cultures is no longer an event that might occur in the distant future, but is an immediate possibility in their everyday lives. They meet people of a foreign culture who speak a foreign language and consequently have to learn to cope with the situations arising out of such encounters. And it is the duty of our schools and of FL education in particular to help them in their learning. Support for this argument can be derived from a consideration of the functions of primary education. In the introduction to this article it was stated that the primary school – in addition to its formal definition in terms of the age range of its pupils – is characterized by the intention to lay the foundations for all subsequent learning. This intention seems to be a characteristic trait of the educational policy in most European countries. The national curricula speak of educacion básica, basis onderwijs, Grundbildung, educao básica or use similar, synonymous expressions in other languages. And they all assign the primary school the task of creating a basis upon which further learning and teaching can be built. For example, the Spanish Real Decreto 1991 formulates the purpose of Educación Primaria as follows: “To provide all children with a core education enabling them to acquire the basic cultural elements and skills” (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia 1991). The Austrian Lehrplan der Volksschule posits that all education in the Grundschule must be geared to the needs, interests and experiences of the children and has to lay the foundation for all subsequent learning. (Bundesminister für Unterricht und Kunst 1993:20f.) The new law for the Italian primary school (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione 1994) contains the same philosophy and so do the respective laws or decrees in many other countries. The common denominator of all these national regulations is this: the primary school is an institution in its own right. It does not just represent a first phase of schooling, but has the special and highly important function of laying the foundations for a great many fields of learning and for basic skills and strategies. That they are basic and that their promotion has to be continued at the secondary level of schooling is obvious.


Applied to FL education and its intercultural dimension, the rationale is the following: if the task of the primary school is fundamental in the sense described above, then the foundations for the main subject areas must be laid in it.3 Foreign language teaching is one of these areas and should therefore start in the primary school. Yet there is also a lot of opposition to such a proposed extension of the task of primary language education. The opposition has two sources: a) the fear that the extension might lead to an overloading of the curriculum; b) the fear that it might go beyond the capacities of primary school children. Both arguments must be taken seriously but they can be refuted quite easily on logical grounds: a) If intercultural communicative competence is accepted as the general goal of foreign

language education today and if primary school teaching is to lay the foundations for this goal then such constitutive elements as knowledge and attitudes cannot be left aside. Essential components would be missing. A concentration on just one aspect of the intended competence, namely the pragmatic one, would lead to an outcome which is fragmentary by its very nature. In this context a more sophisticated version of the fundamental opposition to the implementation of foreign languages in the primary curriculum has to be dealt with. From the very beginning, the advocates of early foreign language learning found themselves confronted with the traditionalists’ view that the main task of the primary school was to help children in their orientation in this world and therefore had to start with an exploration of their immediate surroundings. In Germany this concept was expressed by the term Heimatkunde which comprised all attempts to make the children know, understand and appreciate their home town, their home country and to lay the foundation for a later acquisition of the more distant parts of the world. However naive we might find this position today, the idea that children should first of all concern themselves with their immediate and then gradually extended environment before they are confronted with the wider world, is pedagogically plausible and is still held by many representatives of primary education. For this very reason, they are against the early introduction of foreign languages and cultures.

But that is naive. The environment in which most children grow up today is no longer monocultural. They do have contact with members of other cultures and direct experience of foreign influences from an early age onwards. Their local environment is often multicultural already, their peers come from different backgrounds; the objects which they work and play with come from distant places; the shop products which they see or buy are of foreign origin. Therefore the old dichotomies of Here

3 The term that is often used for these areas is “core subjects”. The English word “core” is derived from the Latin word “ cor” meaning “heart”. With reference to the curriculum it means those areas of teaching and learning that all pupils within a given system are required or expected to study. The National Curriculum for England and Wales restricts the term “core subject” to English, mathematics and science and speaks of “foundation subjects” when referring to seven further areas that are obligatory, namely technology, history, geography, music, art, physical education and a foreign language. (D.E.S.1990).


and There, of Near and Far, of Now and Later do not hold any more. If it is the purpose of all education to help the individual to function well in his or her society and if this society is multicultural already, then such help cannot be postponed to the secondary level of education but must be given from the earliest stage of formal education, i.e. from the primary school onwards.

b) Whether or not primary school children are capable of developing the proposed

attitudes and are ready for the information required for a basic intercultural communicative competence has to be thoroughly discussed. A good starting point is Bruner’s famous hypothesis “that any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development” (1962, 33). Bruner agrees that it is a bold hypothesis but also emphasizes that no evidence has been presented so far to contradict it. He argues that in most school subjects learners and teachers are concerned with rather wide fields of learning and that in any case the selection and gradation of the concrete contents and objectives have to be carried out according to the capacities of the learners. “Learner-appropriateness” is the key concept. For the intercultural education of primary school children this means that the tasks given and the experiences offered must be selected in accordance with the learners’ stage of development. They may be cognitively demanding as long as they are concrete; they may be emotionally complex as long as they are experiential; they may be practically exacting as long as they are systematically arranged, i.e. permit the progression from simple to difficult.

Recently, Kubanek-German has re-examined the concept of Kindgemäßheit (child-appropriateness) and criticized the obvious misinterpretation of this concept in a considerable number of primary foreign language projects (1996). In their endeavour to make the newly introduced subject as palatable and easy to learn as possible and on no account to overburden the children, they underestimate the capacities of young learners. They neglect the cognitive dispositions of primary school children for explicit linguistic information as well as their readiness to occupy themselves with people and objects that are strange or unfamiliar to them; in other words, with foreign cultures. Kubanek-German’s criticism is well-founded. “Child-appropriateness” does not mean that only the easily accessible contents are dealt with but that the educationally necessary subjects are treated in a manner that is adequate to the development of the children. Only in this strict sense can the concept be an essential condition for the establishment of Intercultural Communicative Competence as the overall aim of foreign language education at the primary level. Yet if it is understood in this way, it can serve as a guiding principle for the selection and gradation of the objectives and contents of such education. And if this principle is followed, the danger that the teaching of ICC might overburden young children, is greatly diminished. “Making the match”, the subtitle of the well-known handbook by Curtain and Pesola (1994), expresses best what task lies ahead for all those teachers who believe in the necessity of integrating the intercultural component in their primary teaching. Proposals on how to fulfil this task have been made by various authors, some of which will be presented in the following chapters.


4. The selection of learner-appropriate contents The selection of learner-appropriate contents has to be based on plausible objectives. Curtain and Pesola have identified seven cultural goals for primary foreign language teaching and given excellent “child-appropriate examples” for each of these goals (Curtain & Pesola 1994). They also make valuable proposals for the identification of cultural contents in an integrated curriculum. The common characteristic of these proposals is the fact that they locate the representations of other cultures in the environment of the children and use them as starting points for intercultural information and experience. The representations are grouped in three categories: Cultural Symbols (such as flags and insignia), Cultural Products (stories and songs, coins and stamps) and Cultural Practices (habitual forms of greeting, gestures, eating and drinking practices) (1994:180/1). Similar suggestions come from Skender. What she proposes for the teaching of French in Croatia is applicable to primary foreign language teaching in general. She suggests four groups of techniques: 1. Repérage des éléments de la culture étrangère dans l’environnement des enfants; 2. Utilisation des images types; 3. Accent sur l’aspect ludique de l’apprentissage à travers les chansons, les jeux, les

comptines, les histoires; 4. Création d’une atmosphère «française» (1995:108ff.). The selection of contents that meet the requirements of particular programmes of teaching has always been a major concern of curriculum developers in any field of learning. It is, in fact, the central didactic issue of education. In foreign language teaching, research has for a long time concentrated on the strategies of selecting the linguistic contents for the various language programmes. The work of the Council of Europe in the 1980s can be understood as a unique and courageous attempt to create a solid foundation for the definition of the linguistic proficiencies needed for communication in the different European languages (20 “threshold levels” have been worked out so far). What had to follow was a similar effort to determine the corresponding cultural contents of the respective programmes of teaching; a very difficult task indeed! The fact that anthropologists had redefined culture as “a whole way of life” did not make the undertaking any easier. With such a wide concept in mind, was it at all possible to determine the cultural contents of language programmes in a way that was not arbitrary? To answer this question it is useful to revisit the work of enlightened educators of the 1960s who can be seen as pioneers of modern intercultural education through language teaching. The American linguist Howard Lee Nostrand, for example, was one of the first authors to present a systematic procedure for the solution to the problem. Through a sequence of five fundamental questions he managed to develop a plausible strategy for “selecting the essentials” (1966, p.10). A quarter of a century later the participants of a cooperative research project between the universities of Durham and Braunschweig analysed German and British textbooks for the teaching of English and German with


respect to the picture that was presented in them of the target culture. In order to do this they had to draw up a scheme containing the basic issues of any society and to identify the themes which a social anthropologist might have to investigate in any culture. The themes were: • social identity and social groups; • social interaction; • belief and behaviour; • social and political institutions; • socialization and the life-cycle; • national history; • national geography and; • stereotypes and national identity.

(Byram 1993:ff.) This list of themes proved to be useful for the actual analyses of the cultural representations of the two countries in the textbooks. A number of similar investigations in other countries followed. All these attempts were made for the secondary school, but the same problems arise if we introduce foreign languages in the primary school, with the additional difficulty of finding truly appropriate contents for this early age. A suitable strategy could be this: the teaching starts from the directly experienced environment of the children, but treats it in relation to the corresponding reality in target culture countries right from the start. The teachers do not neglect the children’s immediate surroundings, they do not deal with other ways of life at the expense of the children’s own, but they put the two in relation to each other. They take the topics provided in the existing primary school curricula as the starting point; they treat them thoroughly and adequately as would have been done in conventional pedagogy, but they introduce an intercultural perspective right from the beginning by relating them to the corresponding phenomena in the target culture. An excellent example of how this can be done is the programme elaborated in Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, for the teaching of culture in foreign language classes of public elementary schools. Because of the model character of this programme detailed excerpts are presented here. Culture Scope and Sequence: Kindergarten & Elementary School (Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland, USA, 1993) Food Students will: • identify typical meal patterns in the USA; • identify meal patterns in target cultures; • identify “national” dishes of selected target cultures; • identify and name foods that are common in the target cultures and compare and contrast with

common foods in the USA;


• identify and name sources of foods that are very important in the diets of the USA and the target cultures;

• identify cooking and eating utensils commonly used in the USA and the target cultures

(p.425). Clothing Students will: • identify typical clothing in the USA appropriate for each of the four seasons; • compare and contrast types of clothing worn in the USA and target cultures; • compare and contrast seasonal clothing needed in target culture countries; • identify and name selected occupations in the USA and target cultures that are related

to clothing; • identify and name places (stores, markets, etc.) in the USA and target cultures where

clothing may be purchased (p.426). Housing/Shelters Students will: • identify selected types of shelters in the USA; • identify and name typical shelters that exist in the USA and target cultures; • compare and contrast types of shelters in the USA and target cultures; • discuss utilities in shelters (running water, electricity, gas, etc.) in the USA and target

cultures; • discuss selected occupations related to utilities in the USA and target cultures

(p.426/7). Interpersonal Relations Students will: • use greeting and leave-taking behaviors (teacher, peers, visitors) appropriate to the

target cultures; • understand requests; • formulate polite requests; • use table manners appropriate in the target culture; • understand selected common gestures from the target culture; • understand varying degrees of politeness expressed in a request;(p.423/4)


Communication and Transportation Students will: • state name, address, phone number, birthday, age, citizenship, sex and describe oneself

physically; • understand spoken and written personal information about peers from the target

cultures including citizenship, name, address, phone number, birthday, age, sex, and physical description;

• initiate and respond to simple telephone communications; • identify and name common forms of transportation in the USA and in target country

cultures; • explain how transportation and communication link urban, suburban and rural

communities in the USA and target cultures (p.424). Leisure Activities Students will: • participate in age-appropriate games from the target cultures; • make and play with traditional toys from the target cultures; • identify leisure activities popular with peers in the target cultures; • identify, name and describe leisure activities popular with peers in the target cultures in

urban, suburban and rural areas (p.428). Literature (Teacher will read aloud and students will begin to read independently.) Students will: • recite and use gestures to express understanding of traditional rhymes from the target

cultures used by caregivers with preschool and young children; • listen to and understand simplified short narratives and/or read aloud by the teacher; • identify and appreciate illustrations in children’s literature from target cultures as a

reflection of the culture’s expression; • read and understand simplified short narratives and/or folk tales from the target culture; • read and demonstrate understanding of simple proverbs from target cultures (p.422).


Music Students will: • sing songs from the target cultures used by caregivers with preschool and young

children; • use authentic instruments and/or replicas of authentic instruments to explore music and

rhythm from the target cultures; • make simple replicas of authentic instruments from the target cultures; • perform simple modern and/or folk dances from the target cultures; • identify selected popular and/or classical music as examples of artistic creations from

the target culture (p.422) What makes this program so useful for our purposes, is the fact that it includes all the basic elements of human life, such as eating, clothing, housing and personal relations, that have to be treated in primary education anyway (with respect to the children’s home culture) and sets them in relation to the corresponding phenomena in the target culture(s). In this way, the intercultural element does not appear as an arbitrary addition to an established curriculum, but as a logical extension. There are, it is true, some important elements missing (e.g. the world of work and professions and that of the fine arts), but these can be added easily at the individual teacher’s discretion. A programme like this can never be exhaustive. 5. Exemplification In this chapter, a few examples will be presented. The exemplification will follow the model of the programme quoted in the previous chapter. 5.1 Food: My super breakfast The example is taken from “Pop goes the Weasel”, a programme for the teaching of English in German primary schools. Part 2: 4th form Author: Piepho, Hans-Eberhard and Gernandt-Reuß, Ulrike Publisher: Kamp Schulbuchverlag, Bochum, 1995 Comment The example informs (German) children about the two main versions of breakfast that are offered in many British hotels nowadays: English breakfast and continental breakfast. It is authentic in so far as the menu resembles the ones you can actually find in hotels all over the country. The danger of stereotypical thinking can be avoided easily by the teacher’s remark that, of course, not all hotels in Britain offer this kind and variety of breakfast and that an English breakfast can look quite different in small bed & breakfast places. The unit


is activity-oriented as the children can actually decide – and express in English – what their “super dream breakfast” would look like. Thus the linguistic component is not neglected. On the contrary, it is included in a way that allows for active joyful participation of all children. 5.2 Clothing: Una sfilata di moda The example is taken from a teaching unit that was practised at the Italian/German bilingual school in Berlin (3rd form). The Italian teacher, Enrica Boss, had asked the children one week before the “fashion show” to create a model of their own imagination and taste in order to present it to the class (and visitors) on a given day. Two examples of children’s presentations, prepared by themselves with the assistance of the teacher: Alessandra: Io sono Alessandra.

Ho ideato questo modello da indossare ovunque dove fa un po fresco di pomeriggio per andare a spasso o al ristorante. La gonna lunga è di pura lana vergine arancione. Il corpetto è di stoffa sintetica e colorata.

Nadine: Io sono Nadine. Ho ideato questo modello estivo da portare al mare di sera quando si va al

ristorante a mangiare la pizza. La gonna di pura seta morbida e trasparente è sostenuta in vita da un nodo –

è viola, arancione e grigia. In vita ho un nastro di seta bianco. Il corpetto è di maglia di lana bianca incrociata sulla schiena eannodata intorno al collo come sciarpia.

La collana è un filo di lana attorcigliata bianca e nera che ha come ornamante una perla di legno.

(Boss & Gräfe-Bentzien 1997:79) Comment Although the children in this lesson presented quite a number of fancy dresses and suits, the example was still very instructive as the two (national and linguistic) groups of children got to know each other’s preferences in clothing and it carried a lot of information about common ways of dressing in Italy and Germany. The teaching unit shows a perfect integration of linguistic and cultural learning as the pupils in their presentation had to use a considerable amount of language, which they did with high motivation as the objects were their own creazioni. It is obvious that the task was easier for the Italian than for the German children, but also the latter performed it very successfully: none of them made less than eight complete utterances.


Some of the words used in the fashion show are too specific to become part of the children’s active vocabulary, but Enrica Boss insisted on their learning at least 20 nouns and the following grammatical items: • passato prossimo: ho creato, ho ideato; • expressions like: di mattina, di pomeriggio; • position of the adjective: stoffa rossa, lana leggera. 5.3 Housing: Häuser und Hausnummern The source is the set “Von Schuhen, Brötchen, Hausnummern usw.”, Primarschul-materialien for the teaching of German. Editor: Endt, Ernst Publisher: Goethe-Institut, München, 1997 The author’s intention in the presentation of this material is to show the children how fascinating it can be to find out how people in other countries live and to compare this to the housing forms and conditions in their own country.

“It can be exciting for children to find out more about housing in other countries. As with the other topics in this series, the children’s attention is first drawn to objects and circumstances in their own surroundings, before they concern themselves with living conditions in other cultures. They set out to explore housing and living situations in their environment and subsequently compare these situations with those in other countries. They consult magazines and newspapers. With the help of their teachers, their parents, friends and possibly pen-friends they learn a lot about different living conditions in other parts of the world and about the reasons for the differences”. (Endt 1997:81, translated by Doyé).

The starting point is the study of house numbers in the environment of the children. Comment The approach to the topic of housing through house numbers is an intelligent device: house numbers are interesting in themselves. A walk up and down one single street makes you realize how many different forms there are. In addition, house numbers can tell you something about the house it represents and possibly also about the people who live in it. Thus the study of seemingly insignificant little objects can motivate the children to explore a whole sphere of life. A video-cassette to accompany the printed material is offered by the publishers, too. The editor also suggests that the children might build models of houses from simple raw material (cardboard, fabric, paper) with numbers and put them in a certain order according to the usual numbering arrangement in their town or area (and in others which they have got to know), e.g. even numbers on one side, uneven numbers on the other.


5.4 Leisure Activities: Para contar y así escoger e eliminar jugadores Popular Spanish children’s rhymes that can be used in the teaching of Spanish to children of other cultural origins. In French they are called “comptines”.

Un, dos, tres mi gatito se me fue por la calle San José a la vuelta le daré una taza de café con pan fran- cés. Al pasar por la montaña una pulga me picó, la agarré por las orejas y se me escapó. Tapón, pulsera, tabique y afuera!

Similar rhymes for the teaching of Swedish, Polish, Hungarian and Italian:

Ole dole doff Kinke lane koff Koffe lane binke bane Ole dole doff Ele mele dutki Gospodarz malutki Gospodyni garbata A córeczka smarkata. Egy, kettö, három, négy. Te kis kutya hová mégy? Nem megyek én messzire, Csak a világ végire. Ambarabà ciccì coccò Tre civette sul comò Che facevano l’amore Con la figlia del dottore. Il dottore si ammalò. Ambarabà ciccì coccò.

A lot more of these rhymes can be found in Doyé & Edelhoff (1992).


Comment Rhymes of this kind are well known all over the world. They are used at the beginning of many games to select (or eliminate) players for certain roles in subsequent activities. The two Spanish examples quoted here are very popular in Spain and Latin American countries and are therefore a good piece of cultural information for other children learning Spanish. The language is simple, and because of their rhythm the rhymes are easy to remember. The same applies to the rhymes from Sweden, Poland, Hungary and Italy. References Bloom, B.S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational

Goals. New York: David McKay. Boss, E. & S.Gräfe-Bentzien 1997. Fila, Sfilata. Berlin: BIL. Bruner, J. 1962. The Process of Education. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard. Bundesminister für Unterricht und Kultus 1993. Lehrplan der Volksschule. Wien:

Österreichischer Bundesverlag. Byram, M. (ed.) 1993. Germany. Its representation in textbooks for teaching German in

Great Britain. Frankfurt/ Main: Diesterweg. Byram, M. & G. Zarate 1997. Definitions, objectives and assessment of sociocultural

competence. In Sociocultural Competence in Language Learning and Teaching. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Council for Cultural Co-operation 1996. Modern Languages: Learning, Teaching,

Assessment. A Common European Framework of Reference. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Curtain, H. & C.A. Pesola 1994. Languages and Children – Making the Match. New York:

Longman. DES 1990. National Curriculum. Modern Foreign Languages. London: HMSO. Doyé, P. & Ch. Edelhoff 1992. Report on Workshop 8A. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Doyé, P. 1995. Lehr- und Lernziele. In Bausch/Christ/Krumm (eds.) Handbuch

Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tübingen, Basel: Francke, 161-166. Doyé, P. & A. Hurrell (eds.) 1997. Foreign Language Learning in Primary Schools.

Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Klippel, F. 1994. Cultural Aspects in Foreign Language Teaching. Journal for the Study of

British Cultures, 49-61


Knapp, K. & A. Knapp-Potthoff 1990. Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Zeitschrift für

Fremdsprachenforschung 1, 1990, 62-93. Kubanek-German, A. 1996. Kindgemäßer Fremdspra-chenunterricht. Zur Entwick-lung

eines Leitbegriffs früh beginnender fremdsprachlicher Lehre. Katholische Universität Eichstätt.

Ministerio de Educatión y Ciencia 1991. Real Decreto 1006. Madrid. Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione 1994 Decreto legislativo 297. Roma: Gazzetta

Ufficiale. Montgomery County Public Schools 1993. Culture Scope and Sequence – Kindergarten &

Elementary School. Montgomery County, Maryland. Nostrand, H.L. 1966. Describing and Teaching the Sociocultural Context of Foreign

Language and Literature. In A. Valdman 1966. (ed.) Trends in Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Skender, I. 1995. Eléments culturels dans l’apprentissage/-l’enseignement des langues

étrangères. In M. Vilke (ed.) Children and Foreign Languages. Zagreb: University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy.

Stern, H.H. 1968. (ed) Languages and the Young School Child. London: OUP. Zarate, G. 1997. The intercultural dimension: definition, objectives and evaluation. In

Byram & Zarate 1997.


Appendix 5.4 : Inventer pour apprendre, Jean-Marc CARÉ Au-delà d’un inventaire de techniques ou d’activités plus ou moins indépendantes les unes des autres, je voudrais présenter ici une conception méthodologique qui s’inscrit dans une pédagogie de la démarche plutôt qu’une pédagogie du programme. Cette tentative d’introduire plus d’initiative et de créativité dans l’enseignement/apprentissage des langues étrangères apparaît à la fin des années 70 en réaction à une méthodologie contraignante et répétitive. L’invention d’univers fictifs ou, la découverte en langue d’une réalité étrangère, passe par trois grandes fonctions discursives; décrire – raconter – argumenter. Nous commencerons par décrire. 1. DÉCRIRE Nous allons essayer d’inventer ensemble un environnement physique naturel: un paysage, un paysage imaginaire, un paysage de rêve. Modalités de l’invention: Une grille de 64 cases pour réaliser collectivement une carte géographique du paysage. Recours à la symbolique des couleurs: du bleu pour l’eau, du rouge pour le relief, du vert pour la végétation, du jaune pour les cultures. Remarques: d’autres supports sont envisageables: la rose des vents ou les points cardinaux, d’autres techniques: le rêve éveillé dirigé par exemple. Modalités de la description: La carte étant réalisée, on la décrira par étapes successives à partir du programme suivant, chaque étape étant une occasion d’apprentissage. 1.

DÉCRIRE décor, objets personnes

1.1. Identifier c’est + lexique (ça se dit, ça s’appelle)

(Nom et prénom) Il (elle ) s’appelle

1.2. Localiser dans l’espace

localisation absolue localisation relative (il y a)

il/elle habite à (adresse) il/elle vient de...

1.3. Quantifier - adverbes - forme négative -numéral

âge, date de naissance, poids, taille, etc.

1.4. Qualifier être + objectifs il/elle est... portrait physique et moral.

1.5. Comparer comparatifs, superlatifs

idem


ACTIVITES: on se place ici dans la perspective d’un apprentissage initial, avec des débutants complets. On explorera deux types d’activités: • activités d’apprentissage; • activités de projet. Activités d’apprentissage. Exemples: 1.1. Identifier Identifier des objets: jeu de Kim, jeu de découverte (objets à identifier au toucher), repérage d’items dans un ensemble (encyclopédies visuelles), jeux de tombola, mots totems, puzzles d’objets, etc. Identifier des personnes: s’identifier soi-même, jeux de portraits, identifier autrui (jeu des célébrités), puzzles de portraits, etc. (conceptualisation: notion de genre, l’article, le généralisant/le particularisant). 1.2. Localiser Localiser des objets dans l’espace: mise en espace d’objets (réponses physiques), jeux de repérage de lieux, jeux d’orientation, jeux de rallyes, etc. Localiser des personnes: étude de l’adresse, inventer des adresses françaises fictives. 1.3. Quantifier Quantifier des objets: inventaires, problèmes mathématiques simples, simulation de relations marchandes (tarifs). Quantifier des personnes: âges. Âge moyen, pyramide des âges, date de naissance, statistiques, etc. 1.4. Qualifier Qualifier des objets (forme, taille, aspect): jeu de l’objet mystérieux, analogies ou différences entre deux objets, etc. Qualifier des personnes: tous les jeux de portrait, avis de recherche..., portraits-robots, etc. 1.5. Comparer Comparer des objets: jeu de la pomme de terre, la brocante, relations marchandes, etc. Comparer des personnes: jeu du casting, jeu de l’embauche, etc. Activité de projet: Inventer un environnement fictif (rural ou urbain) et l’habiter. Cette création, dans le cas où il s’agirait par exemple de tenter de créer un environnement français ou francophone, pourrait constituer la base d’un échange, l’interlocuteur français ou francophone jouant alors le rôle de référent culturel et d’informateur linguistique.


2. RACONTER RACONTER Quelque chose...

genres de récits pour....

DÉCRIRE + localiser dans le temps rapporter le discours d’autrui

fait divers événement, incident ..... (IMPARFAIT + PASSE COMPOSÉ + PASSIF) rapports, comptes-rendus, procès verbaux, article de journal, etc. (IMPARFAIT / PASSE COMPOSÉ / PASSIF)

S’EXCUSER EXPLIQUER INFORMER CONTESTER CRITIQUER CONVAINCRE

marqueurs temporels (il était une fois...) Choix des temps: stylistique

CONTE, LÉGENDE (IMPARFAIT + PASSE SIMPLE) FORMES ROMANESQUES (aventure, voyage, amour, policier, etc.).

ÉMOUVOIR DISTRAIRE ÉMERVEILLER

Activités d’apprentissage:

Vivagramme: acheté

hier, la semaine dernière vu lundi dernier, il y a un mois j’ai perdu N retrouvé oublié vendu allé je suis entré à N retourné parti

Je me souviens (l’année dernière, c’était bien) un beau livre d’histoire

On avait beaucoup de temps pour jouer On était .................................................. .................................................. On faisait ................................................... ...................................................


Retard simulé, inventer des excuses:

Excusez-moi, j’ai raté l’autobus j’ai oublié l’heure je n’ai pas... je me suis...

Avant j’étais............................. Maintenant je suis............................... ............................ ............................... ............................ ...............................

Interrogatoire

Où étiez-vous hier? Qu’avez-vous fait entre 18h et 20h?

Mimodramme

Mime (non verbal) récit qu’est-ce qu’il/elle a fait?

Mensonge ou vérité?

acheté..... X a vendu..... vrai ou faux? trouvé.....

Faits et gestes

X, personnage célèbre a.......... etc. Activités de productions • comptes rendus d’expérience

de réunion

• récits de voyage d’aventure

• matrices narratives le tarot des mille et un contes

cartes noires (énigmes policières) le roman rose

• production de scenarii


Pour introduire le récit, la narration, on inventera des identités fictives d’allemands, d’anglais, de français qui vont pouvoir habiter le paysage que nous avons inventé hier. Cette invention passe par deux étapes: • un questionnaire d’identité qui doit permettre de réaliser le fac similé d’une carte

d’identité. C’est une nouvelle occasion d’apprentissage à chaque rubrique. Pour inventer, par exemple, des patronymes bien français, on peut réutiliser le vocabulaire déjà acquis lors de la description du paysage: LAFORÊT, DUPONT, DULAC, DESPREZ, DELACAMPAGNE, VALLON, LAVIGNE, etc. Mais il faudra aussi introduire du vocabulaire nouveau: on aura recours aux adjectifs formés sur des noms de régions: PICARD, LENORMAND, LORRAIN, etc.; des noms de professions: VIGNERON, VACHER, BERGER, CHARPENTIER, etc., des noms d’animaux: LECERF, LELIÈVRE, LELOUP, CHEVAL, etc. et des adjectifs permettant de faire le portrait physique ou moral d’un personnage: LEBRUN, PETIT, LEGRAND, LEDOUX, LETENDRE, etc.;

• une biographie retraçant les grandes étapes de la vie de chaque personne, un récit de

vie. Ce texte, à la manière des biographies de personnages célèbres peut être rédigé au présent de narration.

On peut aussi, pour ce genre de texte, proposer des aides sous la forme de textes à

compléter. Les identités étant constituées, on apprend à se connaître en commençant par son voisin immédiat. Quand on se connaît suffisamment dans le groupe, on peut passer à une autre activité: le jeu des rumeurs. Chaque personne rédige, sur le mode: on dit, raconte m’a dit j’ai entendu dire

que

M. X le boulanger

verbe présent ou passé composé fait

complément des fouées

Les rumeurs sont ramassées et redistribuées de manière aléatoire. Chacun décide alors, soit de les divulguer, soit de les tenir secrètes.


3. ARGUMENTER Exprimer

son accord nuancer: oui, mais..... ou son désaccord négation, dénégation, contestation, etc. expliquer justifier parce que, puisque en résumant, développant, citant, commentant, paraphrasant.... pour sanctionner (menaces), dissuader, interdire, convaincre, flatter, persuader... critiquer

Activités d’apprentissage

Le point de vue de SIRIUS: pourquoi, pourquoi... ou le jeu du pourquoi.

Toujours vrai, faux, on ne sait pas Ex.: – un champion doit s’entraîner avant un match. – l’alcool n’est pas bon pour la santé.

Pour ou contre? la majorité à 16 ans, l’énergie nucléaire, le service militaire obligatoire, etc.

La prise de décision: décider collectivement d’un projet de voyage, de la décoration de

la classe...

Le dilemme: coupable, responsable, etc.

Le débat

Les simulations: par exemple, simulation de conseil municipal. Exercices d’échauffement 1. Le jeu du pourquoi/pourquoi: Quelqu’un émet une opinion personnelle. Exemple: moi je pense que les jeunes sont des dangers publics en voiture.


Pourquoi des dangers publics? − Parce qu’ils vont trop vite.

Pourquoi vont-ils trop vite?

− − −

2. Pour ou contre: On établit collectivement une liste de débats de société: l’énergie nucléaire / la peine de mort / l’avortement, etc. En groupes de 2 POUR OU CONTRE donner des arguments. 3. VRAI/FAUX/On ne sait pas Chacun écrit ce qu’il pense être sa vérité. Par exemple: • il faut toujours réfléchir avant de parler; • les femmes sont plus généreuses que les hommes; • la lâcheté est un vilain défaut.

En groupe de 3, on s’entend sur: vrai/faux/on ne sait pas DILEMME Une jeune femme, délaissée par un mari trop pris par son métier, se laisse séduire et va passer la nuit chez son séducteur, dans une maison située de l’autre côté de la rivière qui traverse la petite ville où ils habitent. Pour rentrer chez elle, le lendemain, au petit matin, avant le retour du mari, elle doit retraverser le pont. Mais un fou menaçant lui interdit le passage. Elle court alors trouver un vieux passeur qui traverse encore la rivière en barque. Il lui demande le prix du passage. Elle n’a pas d’argent. Elle explique et supplie. Il refuse de travailler sans être payé. Elle va alors retrouver son amant et lui demande l’argent du passage. Il refuse sans explications. Elle se souvient d’un ami célibataire qui habite du même côté de la rivière et qui lui voue depuis toujours un amour idéal, mais à qui elle n’a jamais cédé. Elle lui raconte tout et lui demande son aide. Il refuse: elle l’a déçu en se conduisant si mal. Elle décide alors, après une nouvelle tentative vaine auprès du passeur, de repasser le pont. Le fou la tue.


DÉBAT − Qui est coupable? Le mari, la femme, l’amant, le fou, l’ami, le passeur? − Quel est le personnage le plus ignoble, le plus sympathique? − Que pensez-vous de la femme? − etc.


Appendix 5.4 : Notes relatives à la mission dans “l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine” Propositions du Département “Echanges” en contribution à la mission dans “l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine” 1) Propositions d’activités pédagogiques 2) Propositions de conseils pour entreprendre un projet d’échange 3) Propositions de carnets d’adresses 4) Propositions de dispositifs permettant un suivi 1. Propositions d’activités pédagogiques: trois grands types Les types d’activités d’échange sont en grande partie déterminés par le support matériel choisi pour les échanges. Dans le cas du fax qui donne la possibilité de transmettre et recevoir sans délais d’acheminement de l’écrit et des images sous formes de lignes et de jeux noir, blanc, gris (photos retravaillées, dessins,schémas,bandes dessinées): 1.1 Création commune La situation d’échanges peut être exploitée pour une création à réaliser en commun.Il y a là double travail collectif, dans chacune des classes concernées d’une part et entre les deux classes d’autre part Cette création peut être: • un roman, un conte, un récit d’aventure, de science fiction, de roman policier, de pièce

de théâtre, etc.; • une bande dessinée; • une exposition; • une forme peut être définie en agençant plusieurs de ces types de production etc. La forme finale de la production est le premier choix déterminant, le second à faire est celui de la dimension d’expression prioritairement sollicitée, soit l’imaginaire, la situation fictive, soit la captation du réel.


1.2 Problématique commune La situation d’échanges peut être exploitée pour traiter un thème choisi en commun. Une production commune est là aussi visée mais le processus de travail sera prioritairement basé sur la mise en relation et la dialectique des points de vue, connaissances, informations, savoirs différents que les partenaires peuvent avoir et rechercher sur le thème. 1.3 Correspondance La situation d’échange est exploitée pour développer des correspondances. L’accent dans ce cas sera mis sur l’écriture à la première personne, l’émergence de thèmes singuliers et le développement progressif de la classe comme un agencement collectif de subjectivités singulières. Tous ces types d’activités ne sont pas bien évidemment cloisonnée et des métissages sont en imaginer 1.4. Exemples pour commencer Exemples d’activités pour le démarrage d’un projet d’échange (sensibiliser aux processus de correspondance qui n’est pas seulement de l’échange d’informations) à mettre en oeuvre au sein du stage comme simulation d’activités destinées aux élèves: “Une image, des mots”: travaux basés sur les principes: premier temps: − je réalise l’image qui correspond le plus quand je pense à mon pays qui représente le plus à mes yeux.........……ma ville que j’aime.................. mon école que je n’aime pas mes copains mon maître moi etc. − j’envoie cette “lettre- image” à un autre groupe dans la classe/dans le stage (et

réciproquement). Sur la consigne à ce message visuel,que vous recevez, répondez, réagissez avec des mots (en français), j’écris les mots qui me vienne à l’esprit et dont je dispose en français. On peut aussi imaginer une possibilité de mots dans les deux langues qui donne lieu ensuite à une traduction.


deuxième temps: (en sous groupe, à partir des différentes productions individuelles, réalisation de collage) − jurnal fax (cf. Clemi); − récit, conte, roman collectif (Matrice et écriture des séquences par le jeu des

correspondances); − travaux d’écriture et production d’images sur thème à partir du principe -quand je pense à la forêt, la mer, les animaux sauvages tel conte telle fête tel jeux,.................j’imagine, je sais, je cherche à savoir − simulation globale (cf. J.M.Caré) − enseignement mutuel: compte tenu des objectifs asymétriques du point de vue de la

langue française entre les élèves macédoniens qui apprennent le français en tant que langue étrangère et les élèves français qui l’apprennent aussi,mais entant que langue maternelle, on pourrait imaginer également des activités du type “j’apprends à l’autre” travail métalinguistique sur sa propre langue. Exemple: les “genres en français” peut donner lieu à des exercices très rigolo. Ex: l’accord au pluriel, etc.

2. Propositions de conseils pour entreprendre un projet d’échange: passages

«obligés» dans le développement d’un projet pédagogique basé sur l’échange 1. trouver un partenaire, 2. élaborer le projet en commun:

− définir les objectifs visés (par chacun des enseignants sans en craindre l’asymétrie); − définir les étapes, les tâches et y identifier les objectifs attachés à chacune d’elles; − définir le type des productions intermédiaires et finales; − négocier un calendrier et le respecter; − construire un dispositif d’évaluation – critères et modalités -adapté au projet retenu; − se mettre d’accord sur les modalités de communication entre les enseignants

animateurs du projet. 3. Propositions de carnets d’adresses Les outils que nous pouvons proposer pour l’instants sont: • le réseau des écoles Freinet site internet: http://freinet.org/corinter; • le réseau des écoles françaises européennes (Le secrétaire général de cette association,

M.Claude Vercoutère, informé par nos soins de cette demande de “l’ex-République


yougoslave de Macédoine” va adresser la proposition aux écoles mobilisées dans cette association. Il va également nous adresser une documentation);

• le réseau des écoles associées à l’Unesco (contact M. Guerchon); • le site du département “Echanges” du Ciep: http://www.ciep.fr, cliquez “échanges”. 4. Propositions de dispositifs permettant un suivi (pour commencer) Etablissement d’une liaison fax régulière pendant le stage à Skoplje (prévu en mai 99) entre les participants macédoniens et le département “Echanges”; les participants à partir de l’élaboration de leur projet poseraient des questions auxquelles nous répondrions en ce qui concerne les aspects relatifs aux processus de la pédagogie de l’échange. En fin de stage, les participants seraient invités à rédiger leur projet pour publication sur notre site, rubrique “Bourse d’échanges”. On pourrait également imaginer (et “vendre”) l’idée d’un séminaire présentiel ou (gratuit) via Internet, invitant les enseignants des écoles de France qui auraient engagé des projets avec les écoles macédoniennes pour des mises en relation de leurs pratiques, leurs problèmes, leurs questions, etc. Document de travail en cours (à suivre) MM., février 1999


PEDAGOGIE DE L’ECHANGE: BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Education et communication interculturelle, ABDALLAH- PRETCEILLE Martine et PORCHER Louis PUF_Education-1996, 192p La pédagogie des rencontres interculturelles, COLIN Lucette et MULLER Burkhard, Anthropos Paris 1996-297p Le plaisir de partager: un partenariat scolaire européen, Intégration et Multiculturalisme en Europe, coordonné par SALVADORI Eléonora Ed Ibis 1995-152p Compétences transculturelles et échanges éducatifs, BAUM-GRATZ Gisèle, Hachette, Paris 1992-174p Pour une pédagogie des échanges, coord par ALIX Christian et BERTRAND Gilles, Numéro spécial du Français dans le Monde-Recherches et Applications- février – mars 1994 –192p Représentations de l’étranger et didactiques des langues, ZARATE Geneviève Didier Paris 1993-150p Nous et les autres TODOROV Tzvetan Seuil 1989 192p Organiser des échanges éducatifs AEDE (association européenne des enseignants Hachette – Education-Nouvelles Approches 1993-111p Les boites aux Lettres vidéo CIEP coord-MAURICE Micheline 1993 (cassettes vidéo et livrets) Vidéo et pédagogie interculturelle, ERIKSEN TERZIAN Anna Anthropos1998,206 p.,


Appendix 5.4 – Deuxième partie : Bourse d’échanges, CIEP CIEP – Office français pour le développement de l’éducation dans le monde Département des Echanges et de l’Enseignement International

Bourse d’échanges

sur notre site internet: http://www.ciep.fr

Le CIEP met à votre disposition une Bourse d’échanges pour vous aider à entrer en contact avec des enseignants de différents pays du monde qui comme vous cherchent à établir un partenariat scolaire, à constituer une équipe pédagogique internationale pour démarrer une belle aventure éducative. Une des caractéristiques de cette Bourse d’échanges est de considérer que la “recherche de correspondants” est une démarche pédagogique, démarche qui concerne non seulement l’enseignant promoteur du projet mais aussi ses élèves. Mode d’emploi Envoyez nous votre proposition, en la rédigeant selon le “petit guide” ci -joint et en l’adressant soit: − par courrier: CIEP-Deei,1av L.Journault, 92318 Sèvres cedex, − par fax: 00 33 (0)1 45 07 60 56; − par courriel: [email protected] Nous la publierons sur notre site internet. Nous renouvellerons les publications tous les deux mois. Pour consulter les propositions: − connectez vous sur Internet; − branchez vous sur notre site à l’adresse: http://www.ciep.fr − cliquez “échanges”, puis “Bourse d’échanges”. Les enseignants intéressés par votre annonce, prendront directement contact avec vous. Dès que vous aurez trouvé un partenaire, informez-nous. Si vous n’avez pas encore la possibilité d’accès à Internet, nous pourrons sur votre demande vous adresser la version papier de la Bourse d’échanges.


Petit guide pour la publication de vos propositions Chaque proposition sera exprimée comme suit: 1° une “petite annonce”, proposition résumée en quelques lignes, identifiant le professeur, les coordonnées de l’établissement, les élèves concernés et le type de projet envisagé.

Dans cette “petite annonce”, deux éléments seront “cliquables”: le mot “projet” et le mot “établissement”: 2° En cliquant sur le mot “projet” on pourra lire deux lettres: * une lettre que l’enseignant promoteur du projet aura écrite pour expliquer pourquoi il veut mener un tel projet, qu’est ce qu’il en espère pour ses élèves, pour lui, pour sa pédagogie; comment il envisage de le mener, quels sont ses moyens institutionnels et techniques, quels sont ses manques aussi qu’il faudra surmonter,etc.. * une lettre des élèves (libre de ton, de thème et de forme), qui sera le premier geste d’échange qu’ils feront pour contribuer à la concrétisation de leur projet. 3° En cliquant sur “établissement”, on pourra lire: une lettre du professeur ou de son chef d’établissement qui donnera quelques éléments de connaissance sur son établissement afin de permettre à ses futurs partenaires de le découvrir ou au moins de l’entrevoir (sa situation géographique,son implantation historique et sociologique, le nombre d’élèves et de professeurs, les langues enseignées, la répartition des cours dans la journée, etc...)


Un exemple de GRANDE-BRETAGNE, Michaël HORSBY, professeur de français à Lockyers Middle School, Blandfort road, CORFE MULLEN, Dorset, Grande Bretagne BH 21 3HQ., souhaite engager un projet de correspondance par lettres video entre ses élèves (13-14 ans) et des élèves de France ou d’un autre pays francophone. Chère ou cher futur(e) collègue, Ce que j’envisage pour une correspondance vidéo avec des collègues francophones, c’est l’établissement d’un contact entre notre collège et un collège à l’étranger, plutôt qu’un contact entre deux classes particulières. Notre «problème» est que les élèves nous quittent après la 8° (quand ils ont 13 ans, c’est-à-dire la deuxième année dans la plupart des collèges) après avoir étudié deux ans de français et par conséquent au moment où ils commencent à élargir leurs connaissances de la langue et où ils peuvent communiquer pour de vrai. Ils subissent une rupture dans leur scolarité en changeant de collège? Je voudrais proposer une correspondance vidéo à une classe de 8° dans notre collège chaque année, tout en me rendant compte que le groupe d’élèves changera d’année en année. Pour cette année, j’ai une classe qui est relativement bonne et dans laquelle il y a quelques élèves qui présentent de grandes dispositions pour les langues. Il y a 30 élèves, dont 14 garçons et 16 filles. Le collège se trouve dans un petit coin rural dans le sud de l’Angleterre, près du port de Poole (qui a des liens avec Cherbourg) dont la population est plus ou moins bourgeoise. J’hésite à décrire mes élèves comme typiquement anglais, mais l’ouverture sur un autre monde, grâce à la correspondance vidéo, leur ferait du bien!

Michaël HORNSBY Lettre des élèves / Chers futurs correspondants, Lockyers middle sckool 8th year would like a french school’s 8th year to participate in an exchange of video’s. We would like to send you a video in french and in english about our school and you to return a video in french and in english. Hope to hear from you soon. La 8ème année de Lockyers middle school recherche un collège en France (ou dans un pays francophone) qui participerait à un échange de lettres vidéo. Nous vous enverrons des vidéos en français et en anglais et vous ferez de même de votre part. A bientôt. R.S.V.P.

Michaël Wathins, Joseph Murphy et les autres camarades


Appendix 6: Evaluation and prospective sheet / Questionnaire d’évaluation et de prospective Nombre total de réponses: 29 Francophones: 10 Anglophones: 10 Germanophones: 9 1. Has Workshop no. 1 helped you to identify and understand a foreign language methodology

that is coherent with the conditions of primary schools in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”? L’Atelier n° 1 vous a-t-il permis d’identifier une méthodologie d’enseignement de langue vivante cohérente avec les données de la situation de l’école primaire en Macédoine?

yes/oui: francoph: 9 angloph: 5 germanoph: 4 Total = 18 no/non: " : 0 " : 0 " : 0 Total = 0 partly/partiellement: " : 1 " : 4 " : 5 Total = 10 Non-réponse : 1 2. At the end of Workshop no. 1 do you have the impression of being able to explain this

methodology to colleagues teaching the same language as you? A la fin de cet Atelier n° 1 avez-vous l’impression d’être à même d’expliquer cette méthodologie à des collègues enseignant la même langue que vous?

yes/oui: francoph: 8 angloph: 8 germanoph: 8 Total = 24 no/non: " : 0 " : 0 " : 1 Total = 1 only for a start/seulement pour un début: francoph: 4 angloph: 2 germanoph: 0 Total= 6 3. Does Workshop no. 1 require a follow-up with a few more training and deepening sessions?

L’Atelier n° 1 nécessite-t-il un suivi par d’autres sessions de formation et d’approfondissement?

yes/oui: francoph: 10 angloph: 10 germanoph: 8 Total = 28 no/non: " : 0 " : 0 " : 1 Total = 1 once a year/ une fois par an: francoph.: 3 angloph: 3 germanoph: 5 Total = 11 twice a year/ 2 fois par an: " : 7 ": 7 " : 3 Total = 17 only for teacher trainers/ seulement pour les formateurs?

francoph.: 1 angloph.: 1 germanoph.: 3 Total= 5 for all language teachers/pour tous les enseignants de langues?

Francoph.:3 angloph.: 4 germanoph: 6 Total = 13 Non-réponses: 11


4. Could you rate your appreciation of subjects that have been dealt with (from 1 to 5)? / Pouvez-vous donner une appréciation des thèmes traités (selon une échelle de 1à 5)?

Non-réponses/non compris: 8 (Certains ont cru qu’il fallait classer les rubriques ci-dessous de 1 à 5.) Plenary sessions/ Séances plénières: 1 (6 fois) 2 (2 fois) 3 (1 fois) 4 (5 fois) 5 (4 fois) Physical Education, games, Expressive arts/Activités ludiques, physiques et expressives: 1 (0fois) 2 (2 f) 3 (4 f) 4 (5 f) 5 (9 fois) Intercultural Education, Songs, rhymes and stories/ 1(0 fois) 2 (2 fois) 3 (4 fois) Education interculturelle, chansons, comptines et contes: 4 (8 fois) 5 (5 fois) Invention for better learning/ Inventer pour apprendre: 1(0 fois) 2(0 fois) 3 (7 fois) 4 (3fois) 5 (8 fois) Organising an exchange/Organiser l’échange: 1 (1 fois) 2 (3 fois) 3 (4 fois) 4 (3 fois) 5 (9 fois) Comment/commenter: «Déséquilibre, trop de théorie» = 1 fois „Mehr praxisbezogen u. Musterstunden“ = 2 fois „Nicht genug expressive u. physische Aktivitäten“ = 1 fois „Recht gute Behandlung aller Themen“ = 2 fois „Manche Spiele u. Geschichten nicht für 4. Klasse geeignet“ =1 fois 5. Could you give your appreciation on the conditions of language diversity during this

Workshop no. 1? Was it an enrichment or a difficulty? Could you have enough interactions with other groups? Please comment. Pouvez-vous donner votre appréciation sur la situation de diversité des langues pendant cet Atelier n° 1? Etait-ce un enrichissement ou une source de difficultés? Avez-vous assez d’échanges avec les autres groupes? Veuillez commenter.

Enrichissement: 14 Difficulté: 3 Perte de temps:4 Expérience unique, défi, plaisir: 3 Feeling a part of Europe: 1 Assez d’échanges avec les autres groupes: 4 Peu ou pas assez d’échanges avec les autres groupes: 4 Satisfactory: 2 Everything exciting & practical: 2 But tiring: 1 Wünschen alles auf Deutsch: 3 5.1. Would you prefer working with colleagues of the same language group only?/

Auriez-vous préféré travailler seulement avec les collègues du même groupe de langue? Total: 12 oui et 15 non (très également répartis entre les 3 langues) Opinions très divisées.


6. How did you appreciate the contacts: Comment avez-vous apprécié les contacts:

Non-réponses (ou non compris): 13 with other participants/avec vos collègues? Bons: 6 Excellents:10 with the trainers’ team/avec l’encadrement? Bons: 6 Excellents: 10 hierarchy/avec votre hiérarchie? Bons: 5 Excellents: 5 Pas de vrais contacts/pas vraiment “présents” (?): 2 7. Was there enough discussion time devoted to your questions and doubts? Avez-vous eu assez de temps pour discuter vos questions et présenter vos doutes? Non-réponses: 2 Oui: 24 Non: 3 Pas assez parlé de nos attentes: 1 SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE/PROPOSITIONS POUR L’AVENIR. 1. What kind of documentation would you appreciate in future for your information? De quelle documentation voudriez-vous disposer à l’avenir? Comment/commenter: Non-réponses/hors sujet: 8 Souhait de matériels + documents pour la classe: 6 " " matériels-élèves et manuels: 5 " " documents didactiques et théoriques: 5 " " tests et matériels d’évaluation: 4 " d’exemples pratiques transposables: 2 Besoins de documents en allemand: 4 " de documents sur l’Europe: 1 " de documents de psycholinguistique: 1 " d’une Newsletter sur l’apprentissage précoce des langues:1 Autres demandes: Affiches: 1

Doc. audio/CD: 2 Doc. vidéo: 3

Doc.écrits: 1 et le rapport de l’Atelier n° 1: 1


2. Your proposals in relation with further training sessions and about implementing foreign language learning in primary schools: Faites vos propositions concernant de futurs ateliers et sur la mise en place des langues vivantes à l’école primaire:

Non-réponses et hors sujet: 13 Moins de théorie: 1 More practical sessions: 4 More training: 1 Leçons d’illustration, Musterstunden, Teacher presentations: 7 More developping material, Aufbau einer Stunde: 2 Echange d’Unités didactiques et de productions d’enseignants: 2 Inclure davantage d’écoles dans cette expérience: 1 Etablir des Ecoles européennes en Macédoine: 1 Provide informations about early foreign language learning abroad: 2 3. Your proposals in relation with school exchanges in and outside “the former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia”: Faites vos propositions concernant les échanges interscolaires avec des classes de Macédoine et de l’étranger:

Non-réponses: 7 Promouvoir les échanges à l’intérieur de la Macédoine: 4 " des rencontres de classes macédoniennes: 1 " les échanges à tous les niveaux scolaires: 1 " des échanges tous azimuts géographiques: 4 " " " d’abord avec les pays francophones: 2 " " " d’abord avec des classes allemandes: 2 " " " avec des classes apprenant la même lang. étrangère: 1 Construire un réseau d’échanges: 1 Pour échanger des documents pour la classe: 2 Construire une banque de données: 1 Pour échanger des projets sur thèmes communs: 1 " " des projets similaires:1 Associer des familles macédoniennes émigrées dans le pays avec lequel se fait l’échange: 1 Imposer une date-limite pour mettre en place l’échange: 1 «L’échange hors Macédoine dépend de vous»: 1 Utiliser tous les supports possibles: 1 Organiser des séminaires internes pour échanger nos expériences: 1 Organiser des séminaires réguliers: 2


A FEW MORE QUESTIONS IN RELATION WITH THE USE OF SEVERAL LANGUAGES IN THIS WORKSHOP/ QUELQUES QUESTIONS DE PLUS QUANT A L’EMPLOI DE PLUSIEURS LANGUES DANS L’ATELIER.

1. Did you feel any benefit of working together with other languages?

Ressentez-vous quelque profit d’avoir travaillé ensemble avec les autres groupes de langues?

Non-réponses:1 Oui: francoph: 7 angloph: 9 germanoph: 8 Total= 24 oui et 1 "oui mais" Non: " : 2 " : 0 " : 1 Total= 3 non 2. If yes, in what way?/Si oui, de quelle façon? Non-réponses ou non compris: 8 Gros bénéfice: 2 Bénéfice communicatif: 2 Intéressant d’écouter d’autres langues: 4 Multiculturel: 1 Bonnes discussions et échanges d’idées: 2 Fastidieux: 1 Pratique et autres idées de jeux et techniques communicatives grâce aux lang.: 6 Contribue à l’idée des langues européennes vues comme une unité: 1 Une seule langue étrangère ne suffit pas aujourd’hui:1 «J’apprendrai les deux autres langues»: 2 «J’ai amorcé un nouvel apprentissage de langue»: 5 «J’ai mieux compris grâce aux traductions», Steigerung der Konzentration: 3 3. If not, in what way?/Sinon, de quelle façon? Non-réponses: 28 Cela rallonge et alourdit: 1 4. How would you envisage solving the language diversity in a seminar?

Comment envisageriez-vous de résoudre la question de la diversité des langues dans un séminaire?

Non-réponses: 15 Plus de contacts entre participants: 1 Trois langues, excessif: 1 Garder des groupes séparés: 2 Davantage de thèmes traités séparément: 3 Procurer des interprètes: 1 Davantage de travaux de groupes: 1 Interprétation simultanée: 1 Tous les documents en trois langues: 3 Continuer sur le modèle de l’Atelier n°1: 1 Animateurs-formateurs travaillant seulement dans une langue: 1


Appendix 7 : Protocole et calendrier d’échange interscolaire international Ce document doit servir à programmer le travail et à en contrôler le déroulement: chaque enseignant le remplira comme un journal de bord et en adressera une photocopie aux coordinateurs et une autre au CELV de Graz (pour le groupe de pilotage). LES PRINCIPES 1. Symétrie des objectifs: tout déséquilibre dans les projets de chaque classe partenaire, en

ce qui concerne leur volume, leur rythme ou leur thématique serait préjudiciable au sérieux et à la viabilité de l’échange.

2. Symétrie des moyens: les moyens de production et surtout de communication mis en

œuvre peuvent provoquer des retards importants; d’où la nécessité de les harmoniser au mieux pour éviter aux partenaires des rythmes chaotiques.

3. Respect du calendrier: l’harmonisation des rythmes exige un échéancier commun; celui

qui est proposé ci-dessous est minimal et espacé, ce qui n’empêche pas les classes partenaires de pratiquer un échange plus intensif si elles le désirent et le peuvent.

4. Statut de la langue: la finalité éducative et fonctionnelle de la langue ne doit pas être

dénaturée par une considération insuffisante des préférences des enfants ou par un renversement des priorités.

Il s’agit bien de produire de l’oral (enregistré), de l’écrit ou de la vidéo en vue d’informer la classe partenaire ou de lui demander des informations; ce qui veut dire que, dans la pratique de classe, c’est la langue (et son acquisition) qui est au service de l’échange et non l’échange qui est au service de la langue. Cette pédagogie a été pensée pour se décentrer des apprentissages formels, pour décloisonner la langue vivante par rapport au reste des programmes, lui rendre sa finalité sociale et intellectuelle et toute sa dimension transdisciplinaire. Bref, pour sortir la langue vivante de son horaire étriqué et de sa marginalité, la faire croître et prospérer hors du carcan de la classe et de l’école et la rapprocher le plus possible du statut de la langue maternelle ou première de l’école.


FICHE-CONTACT

à remplir par chaque enseignant

1. Identification des classes-partenaires:

Classe de 4e primaire de Macédoine: − adresse: − téléphone: fax: − nom de l’enseignante:

Classe-partenaire de l’échange:

− adresse: − téléphone: fax: − nom de l’enseignante:

Autre classe impliquée dans l’échange:

(adresse, tel./fax, nom de l’enseignante)

2. Finalités éducatives de l’échange:

Par exemple: présence de la langue dans le quotidien des élèves: utilisation de la langue dans d’autres matières. Lesquelles? préparation d’un voyage et d’une rencontre.

3. Premières hypothèses de projet:

En avez-vous discuté avec les élèves? En avez-vous discuté avec la classe partenaire? Quels thèmes ou contenus semblent intéresser vos élèves?

NB: ne rien décider avant plusieurs échanges préalables. Voir calendrier ci-dessous. 4. Moyens de communication utilisés:

A. dans le sens Macédoine vers l’étranger (cochez les mentions utiles). au début: téléphone:

télécopie: voie postale (trop lente en Macédoine): voyageurs: valise diplomatique: courrier électronique


plus tard en cours d’année: budget pour frais postaux: équipements disponibles: demandes d’équipements en cours

− auprès de services culturels étrangers: − auprès d’institutions internationales:

existence ou possibilité de recours à un téléphone/fax privé − familles: − firmes:

B. dans le sens étranger Macédoine (cochez les mentions utiles). téléphone: télécopie: voie postale (trop lente en Macédoine): voyageurs: valise diplomatique:

courrier électronique

plus tard en cours d’année: budget pour frais postaux: matériels techniques disponibles: recours possible à un téléphone/fax privé: demande d’équipements en cours d’année:

− auprès de quelles institutions?

C. Outils de communication communs aux classes-partenaires:

Équipements accessibles: Chaque envoi peut-il parvenir à destination sous 7 jours? oui non

5. Calendrier des échanges

Les intervalles entre deux échéances sont les temps de réponse du partenaire. Avant le 30 novembre 1999:

contact entre enseignants: − le......... 10.99: envoi de..... − et le..... 10.99: envoi de.....

premier envoi d’élèves (salutations, présentation des élèves, de la classe):

− le......... 10.99: − et le..... 10.99:

premières propositions de projet pédagogique discutées entre enseignants:

− le......... 11.99: − et le..... 11.99:

première grande discussion du projet pédagogique au sein de chaque classe:

− le......... 11.99: − et le..... 11.99:


deuxième envoi d’élèves (description de leur quartier, ville ou village; expression de leurs goûts, loisirs et sports préférés):

− le......... 11.99: − et le..... 11.99:

Avant Noël 1999:

deuxième grande discussion du projet pédagogique au sein de chaque classe avant décision (contenu, production finale visée, moyens de production, moyens de communication):

− le......... 12.99: troisième envoi d’élèves: propositions de projet et réponses détaillées, comme suit: 1. Productions finales au terme du projet de l’année:

− production envisagée (écrit, graphique, audio, audiovisuel, autre): − supports ou médias disponibles (cassettes audio, vidéo, autres):

2. Productions intermédiaires d’élèves prévues et leurs dates:

Avant le 31 janvier 2000 Établissement par les enseignants du calendrier définitif des productions précisant le contenu à chaque étape (comme dans l’exemple ci-dessous):

− le......... 01.2000: − et le..... 01.2000:

Exemple: description (texte, images, graphismes et son) de la région de Macédoine où pourrait avoir lieu la rencontre finale ou le camp international de jeunes en 2001: projet englobant des thèmes de géographie, d’histoire, d’histoire de l’art, la musique et le sport. La classe-partenaire préparerait dans le même esprit un ensemble de productions transdisciplinaires informant la classe de Macédoine sur le pays/la région avec lequel/laquelle se fait l’échange.

Avant le 15 mars 2000 Retours d’informations ou questions de chaque classe sur les productions du partenaire:

− le......... 02.2000: − et le..... 02.2000:

deuxièmes productions intermédiaires d’élèves:

− le......... 03.2000: − et le..... 03.2000:

et ainsi de suite tous les mois, à raison de deux échanges par mois:

− le......... (fin) 03.2000: − et le..... (fin) 03.2000: − le......... 15.04.2000: − et le..... (fin) 04.2000:


− le......... 15.05.2000: − et le..... (fin) 05.2000:

Avant le 25 juin 2000:

Derniers envois/productions finales: − le......... 06.2000: − et le..... 06.2000:

Derniers retours d’informations et programmation de la reprise de l’échange pour septembre 2000:

− le......... (fin) juin 2000: − et le..... (fin) juin 2000:

6. Bilan de la première année de l’échange

A. Motivation et degré d’investissement des élèves. Décrivez, donner des exemples. B. Auto-évaluation des élèves à l’aide du Portfolio du Conseil de l’Europe. Précisez

en termes de savoir-faire et de comportements les compétences acquises et identifiées par vos élèves.

C. Évaluation des élèves par l’enseignant de la classe. Décrivez les résultats en

fonction de vos objectifs et programmes institutionnels. D. Évaluation des élèves par l’enseignant de la classe partenaire selon ses critères

habituels.

acrobat distiller, job 2archive.ecml.at/documents/reports/rwsrepstruga1999e.pdf · european centre...

Documents