alignment between grammar in the dutch language curricula

Masterproef voorgedragen tot het behalen van de graad van
Master in de Meertalige Communicatie
2014
Vakgroep Vertalen Tolken Communicatie
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Filip Devos for his help and advice
throughout the process of writing this dissertation. His help has been indispensable for the
composition of the surveys used for this research. I would like to thank him for the time he
invested in reading through my dissertation. In addition, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Klaar
Vanopstal for her professional linguistic advice on this dissertation.
Furthermore, I would like to thank all the teachers of Dutch who participated in the surveys.
Without their help, this research would not have been possible. I would also like to express
my sincere gratitude to Charlotte Vandervennet, who made it possible for me to participate in
the “BaSO-meeting”.
Moreover, I would like to thank my parents, who have not only helped me to become familiar
with the subject of this dissertation, but have also supported me in pursuing my academic
dreams. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends, who have supported me
throughout my studies. Their support has been indispensable to me during my studies
Acknowledgements
1
1.1.2. Attitude research in Flemish secondary schools (Cappelle, 2011) ........................................ 5
1.1.3. Attitude research in Flemish primary schools (Vleminckx, 2012) ........................................ 7
1.1.4. Conclusion two attitude studies ............................................................................................. 7
1.2. CRITICISM MASQUILLIER AND LIPPENS (2013) ................................................................ 8
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................... 9
1.5. OUTLINE OF THE DISSERTATION ...................................................................................... 16
2. TERMS ............................................................................................................................................. 17
2.1.1. Educational networks .......................................................................................................... 17
2.2. FINAL ATTAINMENT TARGETS, DEVELOPMENTAL OBJECTIVES AND CURRICULA
........................................................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Developmental objectives .................................................................................................... 19
2.4. NEW FINAL ATTAINMENT TARGETS FOR PRACTICAL LINGUISTICS (SINCE 2010)
........................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.1. STRUCTURE OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM ............................................................................ 23
3.1.1. Primary education ................................................................................................................ 23
3.1.2. Secondary education ............................................................................................................ 24
3.1.2.1. First stage ..................................................................................................................... 24
3.1.2.2 Second stage .................................................................................................................. 25
3.1.2.3 Third stage ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.2. LEARNING AIMS OF VSKO FOR GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION ........................................ 26
3.2.1. Learning aims for the sixth year of primary education (VVKBaO) .................................... 26
3.2.2. Learning aims for the first year of secondary education (VKSO) ....................................... 27
3.2.2.1 A-level group ................................................................................................................. 27
3.2.2.2 B-level group ................................................................................................................. 29
4.1. RESEARCH SETTING ............................................................................................................. 31
4.2. RESEARCH RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 32
4.2.1. Are the teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and the first year
of Catholic secondary education familiar with their own Dutch language curriculum and the
Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education? ......................................................... 33
4.2.1.1 On a scale from 0 to 10, how familiar are you with the current Dutch language
curriculum of your own level of education? .............................................................................. 33
4.2.1.2. On a scale from 0 to 10, how familiar are you with the current Dutch language
curriculum of the other level of education? ............................................................................... 34
4.2.1.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.2. Do teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and the first year of
Catholic secondary education think that the grammar instruction of primary education is aligned
with the grammar instruction of secondary education (for the instruction of Dutch as well as
foreign languages)? ....................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.2.1 On a scale from 0 to 10, to what extent do you think that the learning aims for the
instruction of Dutch in the sixth year of primary education prepares the pupils for foreign
language instruction (French, Latin) in the first year of secondary education (especially
concerning grammar instruction)? ............................................................................................. 36
4.2.2.2 On a scale from 0 to 10, to what extent do you think that the Dutch grammar instruction
in primary education is aligned with the Dutch grammar instruction in secondary education? 37
4.2.2.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 38
4.2.3. What is the general opinion of the teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary
education and the first year of Catholic secondary education about the following topics? ........... 39
4.2.3.1 The new Dutch language curricula (according to the final attainment targets of 2010) 39
4.2.3.2 The amount of hours spent on Dutch grammar instruction within the instruction of
Dutch ......................................................................................................................................... 42
4.2.3.3 To what extent the schoolbooks align with the new curriculum for practical linguistics
................................................................................................................................................... 43
4.2.3.4 The interaction between teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary
education and teachers of Dutch in the first year of Catholic secondary education about the
instruction of Dutch ................................................................................................................... 44
4.2.3.5 Conclusion: .................................................................................................................... 45
4.2.4 Is there a significant difference in the opinion of teachers of Dutch between: .................... 47
4.2.4.1 Teachers in the sixth year of Catholic primary education vs. teachers in the first year of
Catholic secondary education .................................................................................................... 48
4.2.4.3 Experienced teachers (more than 10 years) vs. inexperienced teachers (one to ten years)
................................................................................................................................................... 54
3
4.2.4.4 Teachers who are familiar with the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of
education vs. teachers who are unfamiliar with it. .................................................................... 59
5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 65
1. INTRODUCTION
Recently, grammar education in primary as well as secondary education has been a much-
discussed and topical subject. Therefore, a lot of research has been carried out into this topic.
To begin with, Van Vooren (2008) conducted an inquiry into the grammatical knowledge of
students in their final year of secondary education in Flanders and the Netherlands. Pelgrims
(2012) carried out a study into the alignment between primary and secondary education. Only
one part of her research focused on the instruction of Dutch, including Dutch grammar, but
that part was limited. Furthermore, Cappelle’s research (2011) studied the attitude of Flemish
teachers of Dutch in secondary education towards grammar education by means of a survey.
Finally, Vleminckx (2012) analysed how Flemish teachers who teach in the three final years
of primary education feel about grammar education. Devos (2012) summarised these two
studies in ‘Over Taal’. Masquillier B. and Lippens M., chairpersons of the Dutch language
curriculum VVKBaO (Vlaams Verbond van het Katholiek Basisonderwijs) and VVKSO
(Vlaams Verbond van het Katholiek Secundair Onderwijs), responded to this summary. In
their contribution “Grammatica in het Vlaams lager en secundair katholiek onderwijs: een
verhaal van samenhang en continuïteit”, they criticise the way Cappelle’s (2011) and
Vleminckx’ research was carried out.
In the following sections, I will briefly discuss the three former studies on grammar
education, followed by Masquillier and Lippens’ criticism on Capelle (2011) and Vleminckx
(2012).
1.1.1. Research into grammatical knowledge (Van Vooren, 2008)
Van Vooren (2008) tested the level of grammatical proficiency in Dutch in Flanders and the
Netherlands. For this research, 359 students in their final year of secondary education, ASO1
in Flanders and VWO2 in the Netherlands, were questioned by means of a grammar test. The
test consisted of questions that reflect the final attainment targets for Dutch. This study’s
1 General secondary education (ASO): students receive a thorough theoretical basis, which prepares them for higher education or university. 2 Pre-university education: bears resemblance to ASO education. Students VWO usually move on to higher education or university.
5
research variables were: man versus woman, Latin versus non-Latin3, Flanders versus the
Netherlands and college versus athenaeum4.
The test revealed the following remarkable results:
1) The final attainment targets for Dutch were only reached for the spelling of words and the
spelling of verbs, both in Flanders and the Netherlands.
2) The students particularly had difficulties with the determination of word classes and
parsing. In Flanders the biggest issue for the students seemed to be word classes, whereas in
the Netherlands, students seemed to be struggling more with parsing.
3) On average, women scored slightly higher than men.
4) Students of Latin scored higher on the grammar test than non-Latin students.
5) On average, Flemish students scored higher than students from the Netherlands.
Furthermore, Flemish students grasped spelling of verbs and parsing better than students from
the Netherlands. However, students from the Netherlands scored higher on spelling of words
and on the determination of word classes than Flemish students.
6) The scores from students in athenaeums and colleges were almost identical.
From Van Vooren’s research, one can conclude that the focus within linguistic education was
more on the communicative elements of a language rather than on the structural ones. In order
for the instruction of Dutch to be successful, the focus should be shifted more into the
direction of the structural linguistic elements, i.e. into the direction of grammar. (Over Taal,
2008)
1.1.2. Attitude research in Flemish secondary schools (Cappelle, 2011)
In Cappelle’s (2011) research, the attitude of Flemish teachers of Dutch in secondary schools
towards grammar education was examined. For this research, a survey was sent to all Flemish
secondary schools. A total of 255 respondents participated in the survey. The research
revealed the following remarkable results:
1) Flemish teachers of Dutch in secondary education were rather pessimistic about their
students’ level of grammatical proficiency. However, they were more optimistic about their
3 In Latin education classic languages are taught. Non-Latin does not contain any classic languages. 4 Athenaeum: ASO education organised by the Flemish Community, in England: State Secondary School, in America: State High School College: ASO education organised by the free Catholic educational system
6
students’ level of spelling. The attitudes of the teachers of Dutch seem to be in line with the
results of the grammar test in Van Vooren’s research (2008)
2) Three quarters of the teachers felt that their students’ general level of language proficiency
had dropped in recent years. Particularly teachers of the first stage 5observed this deterioration
in language proficiency.
3) Teachers of Dutch in secondary education felt that students performed well on oral and
written communication. On the other hand, they also felt that the students’ performance on
grammar and spelling was rather poor.
4) Almost half of the teachers thought that insufficient attention was paid to grammar
education in the Dutch language curriculum.
5) Forty percent of the teachers felt that schoolbooks did not pay enough attention to grammar
and spelling.
6) Women had a more negative attitude towards their students’ spelling, and men thought
more attention should be paid to grammar.
7) Experienced teachers had a more negative attitude towards their students’ level of
grammatical proficiency.
8) The deterioration in language proficiency was bigger in ASO students than in non-ASO
students. Furthermore, ASO teachers found grammar more important than non-ASO teachers.
9) First-stage teachers found grammar more important and spent more time on grammar than
teachers in the higher grades.
The deterioration in language proficiency was most remarkable in the first stage, which makes
the question arise as to whether the curricula for Dutch language instruction in primary and
secondary education have been aligned correctly. (Over Taal, 2012)
5 For more information on the educational system: see further
7
1.1.3. Attitude research in Flemish primary schools (Vleminckx, 2012)
Vleminckx (2012) carried out a similar study to Cappelle’s (2011); however Vleminckx
polled the attitude of Flemish teachers in primary - as opposed to secondary - education
towards grammar education. This research focuses on the curriculum and learning methods. A
total of 318 respondents participated in the survey. The following results were most
remarkable:
1) Three quarters of the teachers thought that their students’ general level of language
proficiency had declined. Especially teachers with more than thirty years of teaching
experience were strongly convinced of this.
2) Most teachers wanted to spend more time on grammar than the curriculum imposes.
3) No less than 80 percent of the teachers believed that Dutch grammar in primary education
was insufficiently aligned with Dutch grammar in secondary education.
4) The majority of the teachers thought that Dutch grammar instruction was not attuned to
French grammar instruction. Terms that were no longer mentioned in the Dutch language
curriculum, were still being used in French classes. Therefore, some subjects were first taught
in French, and then in the Dutch classes.
5) The large majority of the teachers took the view that within the current Dutch language
curriculum, students lack the basics to learn foreign languages.
1.1.4. Conclusion two attitude studies
The two attitude studies by Cappelle (2011) and Vleminckx (2012) show that teachers in
primary and secondary education disagree on the alignment between primary and secondary
education curricula. On the one hand, teachers in primary education feel that secondary
education should adjust its curriculum to the final attainment targets for grammar in primary
education (Vleminckx, 2012). On the other hand, teachers in secondary education feel that
grammar instruction should receive more attention in the Dutch language curriculum of
primary education (Cappelle, 2011). (Over Taal, 2012)
8
1.2. CRITICISM MASQUILLIER AND LIPPENS (2013)
The chairpersons of the Dutch language curriculum VVKBaO and VVKSO Masquillier and
Lippens (2013) responded to the article of Devos in ‘Over Taal’ (2012). They had a few
points of criticism to Cappelle’s (2011) and Vleminckx’ (2012) attitude studies:
1) It is unclear which of the three educational networks the respondents belong to (education
of the Flemish Community, publicly funded and publicly run education, publicly funded and
privately run education). 6 It is therefore hard to draw conclusions from these studies
regarding all curricula of all educational networks together.
2) Of all schools that Vleminckx addressed (2141 schools), only 318 teachers participated in
the survey. That seems to be less than 1% of the addressed teachers.
3) Some questions in Vleminckx’ survey have a rather suggestive tone e.g. “Do you agree
with the fact that the current curriculum spends less attention to grammar?” This question is
based upon the assumption that a curriculum for practical linguistics7 containing a lower
number of theoretical terms implies the reduction of grammar instruction.
4) The studies do not take into account whether or not the teachers have read the Dutch
language curricula, about which they express their opinion.
5) The respondents do not get the opportunity to give an example or to motivate their answers.
Therefore, it is unclear what their opinion is based upon.
6) The study reveals what teachers think, but does not reveal the facts.
Although the attitude studies reveal that teachers of Dutch in primary and secondary
education feel that there is not enough alignment between the Dutch language curricula of
both levels of education, Masquillier and Lippens (2013) claim that the alignment between the
curricula of primary education and secondary education is guaranteed in Catholic education.
6 For more information about the educational networks: see 2.1.1. 7 For more information on “practical linguistics”, see 2.3.
9
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This research aims to examine to what extent teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic
primary education and in the first year of Catholic secondary education agree with the
statement of Masquillier and Lippens that the Dutch grammar instruction in Catholic primary
education is aligned with the Dutch grammar instruction in Catholic secondary education. The
research takes into account the criticism on the studies of Cappelle (2011) and Vleminckx
(2012).
This research tries to provide an answer to the following questions:
1) Are the teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and the first year
Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education?
2) Do teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and the first year of
Catholic secondary education think that the grammar instruction of primary education is
aligned with the grammar instruction of secondary education (for the instruction of Dutch as
well as foreign languages)
3) What is the general opinion of the teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary
education and the first year of Catholic secondary education about the following topics?
a) The new Dutch language curricula (according to the final attainment targets of
2010) (feasibility for the pupils + balance between “language usage” and “language
structure”)
b) The amount of hours spent on Dutch grammar instruction within the instruction of
Dutch
c) To what extent the schoolbooks align with the new curriculum for practical
linguistics
d) The interaction between teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary
education and teachers of Dutch in the first year of Catholic secondary education about
the instruction of Dutch.
4) Is there a significant difference in the opinion of teachers of Dutch between:
a) teachers in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and teachers in the first year
of Catholic secondary education
b) Men and women
10
c) experienced teachers (more than 10 years) and inexperienced teachers (one to ten
years)
d) Teachers who are familiar with the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of
education and teachers who are unfamiliar with the Dutch language curriculum of the
other level of education.
1.4. ASSUMPTIONS ON THE OUTCOME OF THE RESEARCH
Based on the literature and related research, some assumptions can be made on the outcome
of this research.
Research question 1:
A survey of the schools cluster8 “Groeninge” (= Catholic education)9 shows that all teachers
(in the sixth year of primary education as well as in the first year of secondary education) are
familiar with the new Dutch language curriculum of their level of education. However, the
same survey reveals that the majority (65%) of the teachers are not familiar with the content
of the Dutch language curriculum (including practical linguistics) of the other level of
education. Although the survey of the schools cluster “Groeninge” is a small-scale survey, it
can be assumed that teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and the
first year of Catholic secondary education will be familiar with their own Dutch language
curriculum, but not with the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education.
The survey of schools cluster “Groeninge” (2013) reveals that many teachers believe that
there is now a better alignment between the curriculum for practical linguistics in primary and
secondary education. However, the same survey shows that some teachers think that pupils
have to acquire less theory than before and therefore lack the basics to learn foreign
languages, such as French and Latin, in the first year of primary education. Furthermore,
teachers noticed that not all pupils have achieved the same level of language proficiency at the
beginning of secondary education. In their opinion, this could be due to a different approach
in primary schools. Although it is a small-scale survey, it can be assumed that teachers will
think that the curriculum for practical linguistics (and therefore of grammar as well) in
8 A schools cluster is a composition of schools that work together for certain areas (e.g. purchases, etc.) 9 This survey was carried out in December of the year 2013 and polled the attitude of teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and in the first year of Catholic secondary education of the school cluster “Groeninge” on the new Dutch language curriculum.
11
primary education is well aligned with the curriculum for practical linguistics in secondary
education. However, they will also think that the curriculum for practical linguistics does not
prepare the pupils enough to learn foreign languages in secondary education.
Devos (2012) came to a different conclusion. He carried out an exploratory study, in which he
polled the attitude of Flemish teachers of Dutch in primary and secondary education towards
grammar education. (Over Taal, 2012) The study revealed that teachers in primary education
feel that secondary education should adjust more to the final attainment target of primary
education. (Vleminckx, 2012) However, the study also showed that teachers in secondary
education think that grammar should receive more attention in primary education. (Cappelle
2011). Furthermore, teachers in primary education believe that pupils lack the basics to learn
foreign languages within the current Dutch language curriculum. (Vleminckx, 2012)
Although Devos’ study does not only focus on Catholic education, it could be assumed that
teachers of Dutch in Catholic primary and secondary education will think that the grammar in
primary education is insufficiently aligned with the grammar in secondary education, not only
concerning the instruction of Dutch but also concerning the instruction of foreign languages in
secondary education.
Pelgrims’ research (2012, p.78) shows that teachers in primary education believe that there is
not enough alignment between the Dutch language curricula of both levels of education, in
particular concerning practical linguistics. According to these teachers, grammatical terms
that are not taught in primary education do occur in the Dutch lessons in secondary education.
Therefore, teachers in secondary education start from the wrong starting point. Furthermore,
the teachers in primary education stated that the instruction of Dutch in primary education
focuses on a different aspect than the instruction of Dutch in secondary education. In primary
education, the instruction of Dutch focuses more on experience (with the emphasis on
language usage), whereas in secondary education, the instruction of Dutch focuses more on
theory (with the emphasis on language structure). The teachers in primary education also
believe that the terminology for the instruction of Dutch in primary education differs from the
terminology for the instruction of Dutch in secondary education. (Pelgrims, p.79)
Pelgrims’ research (2012, p.80-81) furthermore reveals that the majority of the teachers in
secondary education also believe that there is a gap between the curricula of both levels of
education. Although Pelgrims’ research focuses on all educational networks, and not only
Catholic education, it can be assumed that teachers will think that the Dutch grammar
12
instruction of primary education is insufficiently aligned with the Dutch grammar instruction
of secondary education.
The Belgian Minister of Education Smet stated during a meeting of the Commission of
Education and Equal Opportunities on 28 March 2013 that it was too early to see the results of
the new, improved final attainment targets for practical linguistics. 10 Because the survey of
the schools cluster “Groeninge” was carried out in December of the year 2013 and therefore is
more recent than Devos’ study (2012) and Pelgrims’ study (2012), it can be assumed that the
results of the survey will bear most resemblance to the results of this research. It can thus be
assumed that the teachers of Dutch of both levels of education will think that there is
sufficient alignment between the grammar within the Dutch language curricula of both levels
of education. Furthermore, teachers will believe that because of the new curriculum for
practical linguistics, pupils lack the basics to learn foreign languages in secondary education.
a) In Vleminckx’ research (2012, p.18), teachers in primary education think that with the new
curriculum for Dutch language instruction, the pupils with limited language skills can keep up
better. Furthermore, they believe that it has become easier to instruct grammar and that the
new curriculum for Dutch language instruction is more feasible for the pupils. Cappelle’s
study (2011, p.33) revealed that teachers in secondary education feel that the current final
attainment targets require less effort from pupils than before. Moreover, the survey from the
schools cluster “Groeninge” (2013) shows that teachers think that the new curriculum for
Dutch language instruction is attuned better to the level of the pupils. In their opinion, Dutch
language instruction has become more pleasant for the pupils because of the simplicity of the
new curriculum. Moreover, pupils with limited language skills perform well on practical
linguistics. On the other hand, some teachers in primary education feel that the new
curriculum for Dutch language instruction does not make it easier for pupils to keep up. They
state that the new curriculum arises discussions between the pupils and the teachers about
uncertainties due to the oversimplification of the curriculum for Dutch language instruction.
Based on these results of the survey and the two studies, it can be assumed that most teachers
will think that the new curriculum for practical linguistics is feasible for the pupils.
10 For more information on the new final attainment targets, see 2.4.
13
Vleminckx’ research (2012, p.18) also shows that teachers in primary education feel that
within the Dutch language curriculum, more theoretical terms should be included in the part
of “parsing” and the “word classes”, i.e. grammar. In this way, the basic theoretical terms
within the Dutch language curriculum would be more attuned to the basic theoretical terms
within the curriculum for foreign languages. In Cappelle’s research (2011, p.32-34) teachers
in secondary education take the view that the Dutch language curriculum, in particular the
curriculum for primary education, should pay more attention to grammar. They think that
good grammatical basics are indispensable to improve the linguistic skills of pupils.
According to the survey of the schools cluster “Groeninge” (2013), a lot of teachers in
secondary education are dissatisfied with the fact that the new Dutch language curriculum
focuses on linguistic skills, rather than on linguistic knowledge. In their opinion, firm basics
in practical linguistics are indispensable for pupils to learn foreign languages and therefore
they think that the new Dutch language curriculum should focus more on practical linguistics.
Furthermore, teachers in primary education believe that “language structure” 11 within the
new Dutch language curriculum does not reach far enough for pupils who want to follow
ASO education in secondary education. It can be assumed that teachers will take the view that
the Dutch language curriculum should focus more on “language structure” within the part
“practical linguistics”. 12
b) Vleminckx’ research (2012, p.5) revealed that only a minority (38%) of the teachers in
primary education believe that they do not spend enough time on grammar instruction within
the instruction of Dutch. Cappelle’s research (2011, p.34) revealed that most teachers in
secondary education take the view that they spend enough time on Dutch grammar
instruction. Although both studies do not only focus on Catholic education, it can be assumed
that most teachers will be satisfied with the amount of hours they spend on grammar
instruction within the instruction of Dutch.
c) There is no literature that can predict the opinion of the teachers about the alignment
between schoolbooks and the new curriculum for practical linguistics. The Minister of
Education Smet stated during a meeting of the Commission of Education and Equal
Opportunities on the 28 March 2013 that it was too early to notice the effects of the new final
attainment targets for practical linguistics because not all teaching materials had already been
11 For more information on language structure: see 2.3. 12 Although the studies of Cappelle (2011) and Vleminckx (2012) focus on all educational networks and not only on Catholic education, the results of this research can be similar to the results of Cappelle’s and Vleminckx’ studies.
14
adjusted to the new final attainment targets. Therefore, it can be concluded that most teachers
will think that the schoolbooks do not align with the new curriculum for practical linguistics.
d) Vleminckx’ research (2012) revealed that the large majority of the teachers in primary
education (64%) did not get in touch with the teachers in secondary education. On the other
hand, Pelgrims’ study (2012) shows that there are certain initiatives in some schools clusters
that encourage the interaction between teachers in primary and secondary education. An
example is the initiative of schools cluster “KSLeuven” (Katholiek Secundair Onderwijs
Leuven)13, where teachers in secondary education give teachers in primary education
feedback on the performance of their former pupils until they have reached their third year of
secondary education.
Within this schools cluster, the “Platform BaSO”14 also organises events where teachers in
primary and secondary education meet around a certain subject. The same platform organises
visiting days, on which teachers in primary education can observe how teachers in secondary
education teach and the other way around. (Pelgrims 2012, p.70-71) In Ostend, meetings were
organised for teachers in primary and secondary education to discuss the terminology in the
instruction of Dutch. Furthermore, refresher courses were organised to give teachers in
secondary education the opportunity to get acquainted with the teaching methods in primary
education. (Pelgrims 2012, p.75)
Also, the study group BASO15 of the schools cluster “Groeninge” organises a yearly event,
where teachers from primary and secondary education meet around a certain theme. This year,
on 26 February 2014, the study group organised an event around the theme “Instruction of
Dutch - practical linguistics”. On this day, teachers of Dutch in the last two years of primary
education and in the first stage of secondary education received the opportunity to exchange
their opinions on the instruction of Dutch, and in particular practical linguistics.
(Vandervennet, C., personal communication, 26 February 2014)
Despite these initiatives, Pelgrims’ study (2012, p.80) also revealed that teachers in primary
education take the view that there is a lack of communication between the two levels of
education. Although there are initiatives that encourage the interaction between both levels of
education and although the studies of Vleminckx (2012) and Pelgrims (2012) do not only
13 Catholic Secondary Education Leuven 14 This platform consists of 5 schools clusters of the Catholic primary education in Leuven, the management teams of the “eerstegraadsscholen” (schools that only offer the first stage of secondary education) and the management teams of schools that offer TSO and BSO education, the CLB (Centrum voor Leerlingenbegeleiding; Pupil Guidance Centres) and collaborators of the KSLeuven. 15 BaSo = Basis- en Secundair Onderwijs; primary and secondary education
15
focus on Catholic education, it can be assumed that teachers will indicate that there is little or
no interaction between the teachers of Dutch in primary and secondary education about the
instruction of Dutch.
Research Question 4:
a) Devos’ exploratory study (Over Taal 2012, p.137) shows that primary school teachers feel
that secondary education should adjust its Dutch language curriculum to the final attainment
targets for grammar instruction in primary education. However, teachers in secondary
education feel that grammar instruction should receive more attention in the Dutch language
curriculum of primary education. Although this exploratory study focuses on all educational
networks, it can be assumed that both teachers in primary and secondary education will take
the view that there is no alignment between Dutch grammar instruction in primary and
secondary education. Moreover, based on the assumptions made for research question 3a, it
can be assumed that both the teachers in the sixth year of primary education as well as the
teachers in the first year of secondary education will think that the new Dutch language
curriculum is feasible for the pupils and that the new Dutch language curriculum should pay
more attention to the part “language structure” (including grammar). Also, based on the
assumptions made for research question 3b, it can be assumed that both the teachers in
primary education as well as those in secondary education will be satisfied with the amount of
hours they spend on grammar instruction within the instruction of Dutch.
There is no literature that can predict a difference in opinion between the teachers in primary
education and the teachers in secondary education concerning the alignment between the
schoolbooks and the new Dutch language curriculum and concerning the interaction between
teachers of Dutch in both levels of education about the instruction of Dutch.
b) Cappelle’s study (2011, p.68) reveals that in secondary education, women think that they
spend more time on Dutch grammar instruction than the amount of time that men think they
spend on Dutch grammar instruction. Furthermore, the study shows that more men than
women think that the Dutch language curriculum should focus more on grammar instruction.
On the other hand, the research also reveals that in general, male and female teachers have a
similar opinion about the instruction of Dutch in secondary education. Based on the results of
Cappelle’s study, it can be assumed that there will be a difference in opinion between men
and women in the first year of secondary education concerning the amount of time spent on
Dutch grammar instruction and concerning the balance between “language usage” and
“language structure” in the Dutch language curriculum. There is no literature that can predict
16
a difference in opinion between male and female teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of
primary education.
c) Cappelle’s research (2011, p.68) reveals that in secondary education, inexperienced
teachers spend slightly more time on grammar instruction than experienced teachers. The
research also reveals that experienced teachers think that more attention should be paid to
grammar instruction within the Dutch language curriculum, whereas inexperienced teachers
do not think so. Based on these results, it can be assumed that there will be a difference in
opinion between experienced and inexperienced teachers in the first year of secondary
education concerning the amount of time spent on grammar instruction and concerning the
balance between “language usage” and “language structure” within the Dutch language
curriculum. There is no literature that can predict a difference in opinion between experienced
and inexperienced teachers in the sixth year of primary education.
d) There is no literature that can predict a difference in opinion between teachers who are
familiar with the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education and teachers who
are not familiar with the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education.
1.5. OUTLINE OF THE DISSERTATION
This dissertation will start with the explanation of a few terms that are necessary to
understand in order to make a correct interpretation of the results and to gain insight into the
subject of this research. After this, a short overview of the educational system in Flanders is
given for the same reason. This overview is followed by an explanation of the research setting
and an overview of the results, which are listed per research question so as to give a clear
overview. Finally, a general conclusion will be drawn.
17
2.1. EDUCATIONAL NETWORKS AND EDUCATIONAL UMBRELLA BODIES
According to the official website of the Flemish government, education in Flanders is divided
into two kinds of education: publicly run education and privately run education. Publicly
run education is education organised by or for the government. Privately run education is
education that is not organised by the government.
2.1.1. Educational networks
These kinds of education are subdivided into three educational networks according to the
publication Structuur en organisatie van het onderwijssysteem of the Flemish government
(2007, p.9):
1) Education of the Flemish Community16: Education organised by the public body called
“Het Gemeenschapsonderwijs”. The constitution requires this kind of education to be neutral.
This implies that the religious, philosophical or ideological beliefs of the parents and the
pupils must be respected.
2) Publicly funded and publicly run education17: This kind of education consists of
municipal education (organised by local authorities) and provincial education (organised by
provincial authorities)
3) Publicly funded and privately run education18: This kind of education is organised by a
private person or a private organisation. Privately run education mainly consists of Catholic
schools, but apart from those schools, orthodox, Jewish, Protestant and Islamic schools also
form part of privately run education. In addition, there are schools that are not bound to a
particular religion, for example the ‘method schools’. 19
2.1.2. Educational umbrella bodies 20
According to the official website of the Flemish government, educational umbrella bodies are
associations of governing bodies. The umbrella body for the Education of the Flemish
Community (1) is called GO! and is organised by the Flemish Community.
16 In Dutch “Gemeenschapsonderwijs” (GO) 17 In Dutch “Gesubsidieerd officieel onderwijs” (OGO) 18 In Dutch “Gesubsidieerd vrij onderwijs” (VGO) 19 These are schools that adopt particular educational methods. 20 Van Dale describes it as follows: “a merger of two or more schools’ administrative departments”
18
The publicly funded and publicly run education (2) consists of two umbrella bodies: the
“Onderwijssecretariaat van de Steden en gemeenten van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap
(OVSG)”21, and the “Provinciaal Onderwijs Vlaanderen (POV)”22.
Finally, the Catholic schools of the educational network “publicly funded and privately run
education (3)” are associated in the umbrella body called “Vlaams Secretariaat van het
Katholiek Onderwijs” (VSKO).23
This dissertation will only focus on the Flemish schools that belong to the educational
umbrella body “VSKO” because one of the points of criticism of Masquillier and Lippens
(2013) was that in the studies of Vleminckx (2012) and Cappelle (2011), it was unclear which
educational networks the respondents belonged to. Moreover, Lippens and Masquillier belong
to the umbrella body “VSKO” and therefore, they only make claims about the curricula in
Catholic primary and secondary education.
2.2. FINAL ATTAINMENT TARGETS, DEVELOPMENTAL OBJECTIVES AND
CURRICULA
2.2.1. Final attainment targets
According to the website of the Flemish Ministry of Education and Training, the final
attainment targets for secondary education are “Minimumdoelen die de overhead
noodzakelijk en bereikbaar acht voor een bepaalde leerlingenpopulatie in het gewoon
secundair onderwijs. Met minimumdoelen wordt bedoeld: een minimum aan kennis, inzicht,
vaardigheden en attitudes, bestemd voor die leerlingenpopulatie”24[“Minimum targets, which
the government considers necessary and attainable for a particular group of pupils in
mainstream secondary education. By “minimum targets” the following is meant: a minimum
of knowledge, insight, skills and attitudes, intended for this particular group of pupils”
(Translation, ED)]
The website of the Flemish Ministry of Education and Training states that these final
attainment targets for secondary education are determined for the core curriculum of the A-
level group in the first stage (first year A-level and second year of the first stage).25 From the
second stage onwards, these final attainment targets are determined per stage for every type of
education.
19
The same website describes the final attainment targets for primary education as follows:
“Eindtermen voor het lager onderwijs zijn minimumdoelen die de overheid noodzakelijk en
bereikbaar acht voor een bepaalde leerlingenpopulatie. Met minimumdoelen wordt bedoeld:
een minimum aan kennis, inzicht en vaardigheden en attitudes bestemd voor die
leerlingenpopulatie.”26[“Final attainment levels for primary education are minimum targets
the government considers necessary and attainable for a particular group of pupils. By
“minimum targets” the following is meant: a minimum of knowledge, insight, skills and
attitudes intended for this particular group of students” (Translation, ED)]
For primary education, the final attainment targets are only determined for the end of primary
school. 27 The final attainment targets can be subject-related or cross-curricular. “Cross-
curricular” means that the minimum targets do not belong to a certain discipline but that
several projects and subjects work towards these minimum targets. Pelgrims’ dissertation
(2012) states that schools that apply these final attainment targets are result-oriented and have
to be able to prove that they are working towards these final attainment targets.
2.2.2 Developmental objectives
The final attainment targets are not to be confused with the developmental objectives.
For primary education, the website of the Flemish Ministry of Education and Training
describes the developmental objectives as follows: “Ontwikkelingsdoelen voor het
buitengewoon basisonderwijs zijn doelen op het vlak van kennis, inzicht, vaardigheden en
attitudes die de overheid wenselijk acht voor zoveel mogelijk leerlingen van de
leerlingenpopulatie”28 [“Developmental objectives for special primary education are targets
concerning knowledge, insight, skills and attitudes the government considers desirable for as
many pupils as possible of a particular group of pupils” (Translation, ED)]
The developmental objectives for primary education only apply to special education and are
determined per type of special education.
The same website describes the developmental objectives for secondary education as
follows: “Ontwikkelingsdoelen in het gewoon onderwijs zijn minimumdoelen op het vlak van
kennis, inzicht, vaardigheden en attitudes die door de overheid wenselijk geacht worden en
die de school aan alle leerlingen van de B-stroom van de eerste graad moet aanbieden.” 29
26 http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/curriculum/basisonderwijs/faq/definitie-eindtermen.htm 27 http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/curriculum/basisonderwijs/lager- onderwijs/leergebieden/nederlands/algemeen.htm 28 http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/curriculum/basisonderwijs/faq/definitie-eindtermen.htm 29 http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/curriculum/secundair-onderwijs/eerste-graad/algemene- uitgangspunten/index.htm
knowledge, insight, skills and attitudes the government considers desirable and which schools
have to offer to all pupils of the B-level group in the first stage of secondary education”
(Translation, ED)] The developmental objectives for secondary education only apply to the
core curriculum of the B-level group in the first stage (first year of the B-level group and
preparative class for vocational education) and are determined for all pupils in the B-level
group of the first stage. The developmental objectives can also be subject-related or cross-
curricular.
2.2.3. Curricula
Pelgrims (2012, p.37) states that a curriculum describes the learning aims and the final
attainment targets the students must have achieved for a specific subject. The curriculum
makes a distinction between core material (material all students have to acquire) and
additional material. This enables teachers to differentiate their instruction. The curricula are
usually drawn up by the governing body of a school, but this task is often passed on to the
umbrella bodies of the governing bodies. The curricula have to be approved of by the
educational inspectorate. They check whether the curricula comply with the final attainment
targets and the developmental objectives. This dissertation only focuses on the curricula of the
educational umbrella body “VSKO”.
2.3. PRACTICAL LINGUISTICS WITHIN THE INSTRUCTION OF DUTCH 30
According to the Dutch language curriculum of VVKSO31 for the A-level group (2010, p.9-
15) the Dutch language curriculum for primary education consists of the following sections:
listening, speaking, reading, writing, practical linguistics, strategies and (inter)cultural
orientation.
The Dutch language curriculum of VVKSO (2010, p.7) for the first stage of secondary
education for the A-level group32 is structured differently and consists of three components:
“Linguistic skills”, “practical linguistics” and “literature”. The component “Linguistic skills”
consists of listening, speaking, reading and writing. The sections “strategies” and
“(inter)cultural orientation” in the curriculum of primary education are included in all three
components.
The Dutch language curriculum of VVKSO (2010, p.6) for the first stage of secondary
education for the B-level group only consists of two components: “Linguistic skills” and
“practical linguistics”. The sections “strategies” and “(inter)cultural orientation” are also
included in these two components.
This dissertation particularly focuses on the component “practical linguistics”. In the previous
Dutch language curriculum, practical linguistics was equalised with grammar, i.e. parsing and
the determination of word classes. (VVKSO 2010a, p.50)
According to Masquillier and Lippens (2013, p.3), the curriculum for practical linguistics in
primary as well as secondary education is divided into “reflection on language structure” and
“reflection on language usage”. “Language usage” refers to listening, speaking, reading and
writing. When pupils reflect on “language structure” it refers to the reflection on the language
they as well as others use, i.e. sounds, words, sentences, texts, meanings and spelling.
This dissertation particularly focuses on the determination of word classes and parsing.
According to the curriculum for practical linguistics of VVKBaO33 (2010, p.41) grammar can
be understood in the broadest sense or in the strict sense of the word. In the strict sense,
grammar can be understood as parsing and the determination of word classes. In the broadest
sense of the word, grammar can be understood as the composition of phonology (sounds),
30 According to the Dutch language curricula of the “VSKO” 31 Vlaams Verbond van het Katholiek Secundair Onderwijs; Flemish Association of Catholic Secondary Education 32 More information on the Flemish school system: see point 3 33 Vlaams Verbond van het Katholiek Basisonderwijs; Flemish Association of Catholic Primary Education
22
word classes, morphology (formation of words), syntax (parsing), textual grammar and
semantics (meaning of words) of a language. Although the current Dutch language curriculum
prefers to use grammar in the broadest sense of the word, this dissertation particularly focuses
on grammar in the strict sense of the word.
2.4. NEW FINAL ATTAINMENT TARGETS FOR PRACTICAL LINGUISTICS
(SINCE 2010)
In 2010, new final attainment targets for practical linguistics were introduced within the
instruction of Dutch. Uyttendaele (2013, p. 1-2) points out three reasons for these new final
attainment targets:
1) Research shows that many teachers take the view that there is no alignment between Dutch
grammar instruction in primary and secondary education.
2) Scientific research revealed that the components parsing and determination of word classes
do not contribute enough to the linguistic competence of children.
3) Research shows that children only reach the required abstraction level for parsing and the
determination of words at the age of 14 or 15. Therefore, parsing and the determination of
words should be taught in the second stage of secondary education.
For the reasons mentioned above, the following adjustments have been made in the final
attainment targets for practical linguistics:
1) The amount of grammatical terms and concepts for the instruction of Dutch in primary
education has been reduced drastically. The continued reflection on language structure, in
particular the components parsing and the determination of words, has been shifted from
primary education and the A-level group in the first stage of primary education to the second
stage of secondary education.
2) The new final attainment targets aim at a better alignment between primary and secondary
education (vertical alignment) as well as a better alignment between the several languages that
are instructed in primary and secondary education (horizontal alignment). Minister of
Education Smet stated during a meeting of the Commission of Education and Equal
Opportunities on the 28th of March 2013 that this is the reason why the learning pathway for
practical linguistics in primary and secondary education now tends to be more cyclical. Some
grammatical terms that have already been taught in practical linguistics in primary education,
are revised in secondary education, but treated more thoroughly.
23
3.1. STRUCTURE OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM
According to the publication “Onderwijs in Vlaanderen: een brede kijk op het Vlaamse
onderwijslandschap” of the Flemish government there are four levels of education:
- Pre-school: ages 2,5 until 6
- Primary education: ages 6 until 12
- Secondary education: ages 12 until 18
- Higher education and universities: ages 18 until …
This dissertation only focuses on primary and secondary education, in particular the sixth year
of primary education and the first year of secondary education. 34
3.1.1. Primary education
According to the publication “Onderwijs in Vlaanderen: een brede kijk op het Vlaamse
onderwijslandschap” of the Flemish government, mainstream primary education consists of
six consecutive years of study. A child usually starts primary education when education is
compulsory, i.e. at the age of 6. This dissertation focuses on the sixth year of mainstream
primary education, i.e. when children are at the age of around 12.
In addition to mainstream primary education, there is also special primary education. This
kind of education is intended for children who temporarily or permanently need special help.
The duration of special primary education is usually seven years. Pupils who were in special
primary education usually start normal secondary education at the age of 13.
Apart from these two kinds of primary education, there is also integrated primary
education, which is a collaboration between mainstream and special primary education.
34 Explanation: see further
3.1.2. Secondary education
According to the website of the Flemish Ministry for Education and Training, secondary
education consists of six study years, divided into three stages, each consisting of two study
years.
3.1.2.1. First stage35
The first stage consists of an A-level group and a B-level group.
- A-level group: most pupils who were in mainstream primary education belong to this group.
In the first year of the first stage, all pupils follow the same subjects, only a very small
package of the lessons is divided into choice subjects. In the second year, pupils can choose
from several basic types of education, in addition to a number of compulsory subjects all
pupils have to take. After the second year of the first stage, pupils can choose a branch of
study from the four different types of education. 36
- B-level group: this group consists of pupils with special needs, pupils who have already
experienced learning delays in primary education and pupils who are not able to attend a type
of education that is largely theoretical. Once these pupils have finished the first year of the B-
level group successfully, they can either choose to move on to the second year of the B-level
group or they can move on to the first year of the A-level group. In the second year of the B-
level group, pupils can choose between several vocational trainings, in addition to a
compulsory package of subjects all pupils in the B-level group have to take. This second year
of the B-level group prepares the pupils for one of the branches of study in the second stage of
vocational education. (BSO)37
35 This dissertation only focuses on the first year of the first stage in secondary education 36 More information on the types of education: see further 37 Beroepssecundair onderwijs
25
1) ASO (General Secondary Education)38: students receive a broad theoretical training, which
prepares them for higher education or university.
2) BSO (Vocational Secondary Education)39: students learn a vocation, in addition to the
general education they receive.
3) KSO (Secondary Education in Arts)40: students take subjects about art, in addition to the
broad, general education they receive. When students successfully graduated from secondary
education in arts, they can either practise a profession or move on to higher education.
4) TSO (Technical Secondary Education)41: students mainly receive general and technical
subjects, in addition to practical classes. After having graduated from technical secondary
education, students can either practise a profession or move on to higher education.
3.1.2.3 Third stage
In the third stage of secondary education, the types of education are more specified, in order
to prepare the students for their future choice of profession or for their future studies in higher
education. For students in vocational secondary education, who want to obtain a diploma of
secondary education instead of a study certificate, there is also a third year in the third stage
of secondary education. Students who want to specialise in their specific profession, can also
move on to this third year.
38 “Algemeen Secundair Onderwijs” 39 “Beroepssecundair Onderwijs” 40 “Kunstsecundair Onderwijs” 41 “Technisch Secundair Onderwijs”
26
3.2. LEARNING AIMS OF VSKO FOR GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION
This dissertation will only discuss the learning aims for grammar instruction of VSKO. This
is because this dissertation particularly focuses on the alignment between the learning aims
for grammar instruction of the last year of Catholic primary education and the learning aims
for grammar instruction of the first year of Catholic secondary education.
3.2.1. Learning aims for the sixth year of primary education (VVKBaO)
The curriculum for practical linguistics, including grammar instruction, makes a distinction
between three levels of mastery:
1) Pupils have not achieved the learning aim yet, but have already taken note of the learning
aim.
2) The learning aims are explicitly instructed and pupils have achieved the learning aim
within the instruction of Dutch
3) Pupils use the achieved learning aim outside of the instruction of Dutch, i.e. in their
personal environment
This dissertation will only discuss the learning aims of the second level of mastery for the
sixth year of Catholic primary education. The learning aims that regard specific grammar
instruction (the determination of word classes and parsing) are the following:
- Learning aim Tb. 9.2 (cf. final attainment target 6.5):
Pupils can reflect on the structure of words, how they are composed and how they can be
analysed.
Pupils can use the terms ‘derivative’, ‘prefix’ and ‘suffix’.
Pupils can reflect on the article that belongs to a noun.
Pupils can use the terms ‘person’, ‘1st person’ (I-we), ‘2nd person’ (you singular and plural)
and ‘3rd person’ (he, she, it, they)
Pupils can reflect on the fact that verbs in the past tense do or do not change in sound.
Pupils know that they ‘unconsciously’ use rules to make or understand sentences.
27
Pupils reflect on other constituents than the subject that give an answer to the following
questions: About whom or about what is something said in the sentence? Who does
something? Who is or becomes something?
Pupils reflect on other constituents than the subject that give an answer to the following
questions: Which words say what, to whom or for whom, when, where, how, with what,
because of what… someone does something or when, where, with what, because of what…
someone is or becomes something?
- Learning aim Tb. 14.10 (cf. final attainment target 6.5 and 6.7):
Pupils know that a constituent can consist of a word or a phrase and are able to use the terms
‘phrase’ and ‘constituent’.
3.2.2. Learning aims for the first year of secondary education (VKSO)
3.2.2.1 A-level group
The curriculum for practical linguistics contains the following learning aims that regard
specific grammar instruction:
Learning aim 3 (cf. final attainment target 24):
In concrete and relevant situations where pupils have to use their linguistic skills, pupils can
at their level reflect on:
- Vowels, words, sentences and texts;
- Spelling;
- Meanings
Pupils are willing to do the following things at their level:
- Reflect on language usage and language structure
- Use the acquired insights in their linguistic acts
Learning aim 13:
Pupils must know that new words for languages are created through new concepts and
derivation, but also through compounds and derivatives.
Learning aim 14 (cf. final attainment targets 24 and 26):
28
Pupils are able to reflect on aspects of language structure and use the right linguistic terms for
those aspects (cf. learning aim 15)
a) Pupils are able to reflect on words, the formation of words and word classes and are able to
reflect on the usage and the formation of several word classes
b) Pupils are able to reflect on gender, singular, plural and the flexion of words, when they are
determining the word classes
c) Pupils are able to reflect on person, number, stem and ending, and the tense when they are
determining verbal forms
d) Pupils are able to reflect on sentences and recognize the duality in them
e) Pupils are able to reflect on constituents and know that they can consist of one word or a
group of words
f) Pupils are able to reflect on sentences and constituents and can indicate, replace and
identify, subject, direct and indirect objects
g) Pupils are able to reflect on the nominal predicate and the verbal predicate in a sentence
and identify the finite verb in the predicate
Pupils are able to use the linguistic terms that belong to all Dutch language learning aims. The
list of linguistic terms pupils must know, consists of eight categories. Two of those categories
are grammatical: the morphological category and the syntactic category. The list makes a
distinction between basic terms (terms that can also be found in the final attainment targets)
and additional terms (terms that are useful for the instruction of foreign languages). The list
also makes a distinction between terms that can be found in the final attainment targets and
terms that do not occur in the final attainment targets. Moreover, terms that were already
instructed in primary education are indicated with an asterisk.
29
3.2.2.2 B-level group
The learning aims for the B-level group that regard specific grammar instruction are similar
but much more limited. Moreover, the learning aims correspond with the developmental
objectives and not with the final attainment targets. Therefore, this dissertation will only
mention the differences with the learning aims of the A-level group.
Learning aim 3 (cf. developmental objective 31):
This learning aim is the same as learning aim 3 of the A-level group
This learning aim is the same as learning aim 4 of the A-level group.
Learning aim 13 of the A-level group is not a learning aim for the B-level group
Learning aim 8 (cf. developmental objective 31, 33):
This learning aim corresponds to learning aim 14 of the A-level group except for some points:
- (compared to 14a) Pupils do only have to reflect on the usage and formation of word classes
from the list with linguistic terms.
- (compared to 14b) Pupils do not have to reflect on gender of words, when they are
determining word classes
- (compared to 14c) Pupils do not have to reflect on person and number. Moreover, pupils
only have to reflect on present and past tense when they are determining verbal forms
- (compared to 14d) Pupils do not have to recognise duality in sentences
- (compared to 14e) Pupils do not have to reflect on constituents and do not have to know that
they can consist of one word or a group of words
- (compared to 14f) Pupils only have to be able to reflect on sentences and only have to
recognise, indicate, replace and identify the subject
- (compared to 14g) Pupils only have to identify the finite verb in a sentence
Compared to learning aim 15 of the A-level group, the list of linguistic terms is much shorter
and much more limited, i.e. pupils in the B-level group have to know less linguistic terms than
pupils in the A-level group.
30
4. RESEARCH
This research tries to provide an answer to the following research questions:
1) Are the teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and the first year
Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education?
2) Do teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and the first year of
Catholic secondary education think that the grammar instruction of primary education is
aligned with the grammar instruction of secondary education (for the instruction of Dutch as
well as foreign languages)
3) What is the general opinion of the teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary
education and the first year of Catholic secondary education about the following topics?
a) The new Dutch language curricula (according to the final attainment targets of
2010) (feasibility for the students + balance between “language usage” and “language
structure”)
b) The amount of hours spent on Dutch grammar instruction within the instruction of
Dutch
c) To what extent the schoolbooks align with the new curriculum for practical
linguistics
d) The interaction between teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary
education and teachers of Dutch in the first year of Catholic secondary education about
the instruction of Dutch
4) Is there a significant difference in the opinion of teachers of Dutch between:
a) Teachers in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and teachers in the first
year of Catholic secondary education
b) Men and women
c) experienced teachers (more than 10 years) and inexperienced teachers (one to ten
years)
d) Teachers who are familiar with the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of
education and teachers who are unfamiliar with the Dutch language curriculum of the
other level of education.
4.1. RESEARCH SETTING
To obtain a general opinion of the teachers of Dutch in Flanders, two surveys (see appendix 1
and 2) were composed with the help of Prof. dr. Devos. One survey (see Appendix 1) was
sent to all Catholic Flemish primary schools, directed at teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of
primary education. The other survey (see appendix 2) was sent to all Catholic Flemish
secondary schools, directed at teachers of Dutch in the first year of secondary education. To
reach as many teachers as possible, a list with all the Catholic primary and secondary schools
in Flanders was consulted. This list can be found on the website of VSKO (Vlaams
Secretariaat van het Katholiek Onderwijs). The surveys took into account the criticism of
Masquillier and Lippens (see 1.2) in the following points:
1) The surveys were only sent to Flemish Catholic schools, so as to be able to draw
conclusions for the curricula of only one educational network
2) The surveys did not contain any questions with a suggestive tone
3) The surveys contain research questions concerning the teachers’ familiarity with their own
Dutch language curriculum and the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education
4) Each question is provided with an empty space, where the respondents can motivate their
answers
To provide an answer to research question 3 (see above), 16 separate groups were created.
Sixth year of Catholic primary education:
- men, experienced42, familiar43
- men, experienced, unfamiliar44
- men, inexperienced45, familiar
- men, inexperienced, unfamiliar
- women, experienced, familiar
- women, experienced, unfamiliar
- women, inexperienced, familiar
- women, inexperienced, unfamiliar
First year of secondary education:
42 = more than 10 years of experience 43 “familiar” = familiar with the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education 44 “unfamiliar” = unfamiliar with the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education 45 = less than 10 years of experience
32
- men, experienced46, familiar47
- men, experienced, unfamiliar48
- men, inexperienced49, familiar
- men, inexperienced, unfamiliar
- women, experienced, familiar
- women, experienced, unfamiliar
- women, inexperienced, familiar
- women, inexperienced, unfamiliar
The general composition of the answers can be seen in the tables below. The results are given
in percentages:
primary education secondary education
4.2. RESEARCH RESULTS
Based on the research described in 4.1, an answer is given to each of the four research
questions mentioned in 1.3. Each question is treated separately, in order to maintain a clear
overview. All results are given in percentages.
46 = more than 10 years of experience 47 “familiar” = familiar with the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education 48 “unfamiliar” = unfamiliar with the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education 49 = less than 10 years of experience
33
4.2.1. Are the teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and the first
year of Catholic secondary education familiar with their own Dutch language
curriculum and the Dutch language curriculum of the other level of education?
For this research question, the Flemish teachers of Dutch were asked the following questions:
1) On a scale from 0 to 10, how familiar are you with the current Dutch language curriculum
of your own level of education?
2) On a scale from 0 to 10, how familiar are you with the current Dutch language curriculum
of the other level of education?
For both questions, the teachers could indicate a number from 0 to 10, 0 meaning ‘not at all
familiar’ and 10 meaning ‘very familiar’. The two questions are discussed separately so as to
give a clear overview. For every question, a distinction is made between the answers of
teachers in primary education and the answers of teachers in secondary education.
4.2.1.1 On a scale from 0 to 10, how familiar are you with the current Dutch language curriculum of
your own level of education?
Graph 1a and 1b display the results for this question:
Primary education: Secondary education:
Graph 1a: percentages familiarity with own Graph 1b: percentages familiarity with own language curriculum Dutch language curriculum
34
As can be seen in Graph 1a and 1b, most teachers of Dutch (both in primary and in secondary
education) are familiar with their own Dutch language curriculum.
4.2.1.2. On a scale from 0 to 10, how familiar are you with the current Dutch language curriculum of
the other level of education?
The results for this question are given in Graph 2a and 2b:
Primary education Secondary education
Graph 2a: percentages familiarity with Dutch Graph 2b: percentages familiarity with Dutch language curriculum of the other level of language curriculum of other level of education education
Graph 2a shows that, from the teachers in the sixth year of primary education, no less than
80% give a score from 0 to 5, which means 80% of the teachers in the sixth year of primary
education are not at all to a little bit familiar with the Dutch language curriculum of secondary
education. Graph 2b indicates that, from the teachers of Dutch in secondary education, 38%
give a score from 0 to 5, which means that 62% of the teachers of Dutch in secondary
education are familiar to very familiar with the Dutch language curriculum of primary
education.
35
4.2.1.3 Conclusion
Both teachers of Dutch in primary education as well as teachers of Dutch in secondary
education are familiar with their own Dutch language curriculum. Moreover, most teachers in
primary education are not familiar with the Dutch language curriculum of secondary
education. On the other hand, most teachers in secondary education are familiar to very
familiar with the Dutch language curriculum of primary education. It can be concluded that
teachers of Dutch in the first year of secondary education are more familiar with the Dutch
language curriculum of the other level of education than the teachers of Dutch in the sixth
year of primary education. These results are in accordance with the assumptions made in 1.4.
4.2.2. Do teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic primary education and the first year
of Catholic secondary education think that the grammar instruction of primary
education is aligned with the grammar instruction of secondary education (for the
instruction of Dutch as well as foreign languages)?
For this research question, the teachers were asked the following questions:
1) On a scale from 0 to 10, to what extent do you think that the learning aims for the
instruction of Dutch in the sixth year of primary education prepares the pupils for foreign
languages (French, Latin) in the first year of secondary education (especially concerning
grammar instruction)?
2) On a scale from 0 to 10, to what extent do you think that the Dutch grammar instruction in
primary education is aligned with the Dutch grammar instruction in secondary education?
For both questions, the teachers could indicate a number from 0 to 10, 0 meaning ‘no
alignment’ and 10 meaning ‘total alignment’. The two questions are discussed separately so
as to give a clear overview. For every question, a distinction is made between the answers of
teachers in primary education and the answers of teachers in secondary education.
36
4.2.2.1 On a scale from 0 to 10, to what extent do you think that the learning aims for the instruction
of Dutch in the sixth year of primary education prepares the pupils for foreign language
instruction (French, Latin) in the first year of secondary education (especially concerning
grammar instruction)?
Graphs 3a and 3b show the results for this question:
Graph 3a: Alignment between Dutch language Graph 3b: Alignment between Dutch language curriculum and curriculum for foreign languages curriculum and curriculum for foreign languages
According to graph 3a, no less than 66% of the teachers in the sixth year of primary education
gave a number from 0 to 5, which means that 66% of the teachers think that the learning aims
for grammar instruction within the instruction of Dutch do not prepare the pupils enough for
foreign language instruction, in particular grammar instruction, in the first year of secondary
education.
Graph 3b shows that no less than 65% of the teachers of Dutch in the first year of primary
education indicate a number from 0 to 5, which means that no less than 65% of these teachers
in secondary education think that the learning aims for grammar within the instruction of
Dutch do not prepare the pupils enough for foreign language instruction, in particular
grammar, in secondary education.
Teachers indicate several reasons for their opinion: Within the instruction of Dutch, grammar
instruction receives insufficient attention in primary education. Pupils have to learn far less
grammatical terms than they used to: the grammatical terms “past participle”, “pronoun”,
“direct object” and “indirect object” are not instructed anymore. Therefore, the level of the
37
pupils drops, whereas good knowledge of Dutch grammar is necessary to learn foreign
languages. Some grammatical terms (direct and indirect object) are first taught in French
and Latin classes and then in Dutch classes, because the grammatical terms have not been
taught in primary education. In primary education, pupils do not have to be able to divide
sentences into constituents, whereas in secondary education, teachers often use this method to
instruct foreign languages. Due to the oversimplification of the Dutch language curriculum,
there are a lot of uncertainties about some grammatical terms. The following quotes from
primary school teachers confirm these opinions: “Last year, I took one class of Latin in
secondary education. At that moment, I noticed that the teachers of Latin had to teach a lot of
grammatical terms first during the first weeks”. “A survey, filled out by the parents of pupils
in the first year ASO (last year they were pupils in the 6th year of primary education) shows
that pupils in the first year of ASO have the most difficulties with French. The speed is much
higher” However, some teachers indicate that pupils with strong language skills in primary
education, who mostly choose a branch of study in secondary education with a lot of
languages, can learn the grammatical terms in foreign language instruction very easily.
4.2.2.2 On a scale from 0 to 10, to what extent do you think that the Dutch grammar instruction in
primary education is aligned with the Dutch grammar instruction in secondary education?
The opinion of the teachers of Dutch about this question can be derived from Graphs 4a and
4b:
Graph 4a: Alignment between Dutch grammar Graph 4b: Alignment between Dutch grammar
instruction in primary and secondary education instruction in primary and secondary education
38
Graph 4a shows that the opinions of the teachers in primary education are equally divided.
47% of the teachers in primary education indicate a number from 0 to 5, which means that
47% think there is little or no alignment between Dutch grammar instruction in primary and
secondary education. A similar division in the opinions of the teachers in secondary education
is shown in graph 4b. According to graph 4b, 53% of the teachers in secondary education take
the view that there is little or no alignment between Dutch grammar instruction in primary and
secondary education. The teachers who think that there is alignment between the curricula of
both levels of education indicate several reasons for their opinion: Both levels of education
worked together to draw up the curricula. The reason for the adjustments made in the Dutch
language curricula is to guarantee a perfect alignment between both levels of education. I
trust the people who put together the curricula. There is a better alignment between both
levels of education than before (thanks to the adjustments in the curricula). Pupils in the first
year of secondary education tell us that they do not experience any problems in the lessons of
Dutch. Parents confirm that their children do not experience any problems concerning Dutch
language instruction in secondary education. All pupils start with the same basics in
secondary education. Secondary education then moves on from that point. If teachers in
primary education follow the Dutch language curriculum, pupils do not experience any
problems.
Teachers who think that there is no alignment between the Dutch language curricula indicate
the following reasons: different methods; teachers in secondary education do not know the
starting point from pupils in the first year of secondary education; some primary schools do
not follow the Dutch language curriculum entirely; in primary education, teachers instruct
different grammatical terms than the grammatical terms that teachers in secondary education
instruct.
4.2.2.3 Conclusion
Most teachers think that the learning aims for Dutch grammar instruction in primary
education do not prepare the pupils enough for foreign language instruction in secondary
education. Therefore it can be concluded that most teachers think there is no alignment
between Dutch grammar instruction in primary education and grammar instruction within
foreign language instruction in secondary education. Moreover, the opinions of the teachers
concerning the alignment between Dutch grammar instruction in primary and secondary
education are equally divided. Teachers with a rather negative attitude towards the alignment
between Dutch language instruction in primary and secondary education do not think that the
39
Dutch language curricula are the cause of this misalignment. This is partially in accordance
with the assumption given in 1.4.
4.2.3. What is the general opinion of the teachers of Dutch in the sixth year of Catholic
primary education and the first year of Catholic secondary education about the
following topics?
The four topics are discussed separately in order to keep a clear overview. After that, a
general conclusion is given.
4.2.3.1 The new Dutch language curricula (according to the final attainment targets of 2010)
Graphs 5a and 5b show the opinion of the teachers about the feasibility of the Dutch language
curriculum:
Graph 5a: Feasibility new Dutch language Graph 5b: Feasibility new Dutch language curriculum curriculum
Graphs 5a and 5b prove that the large majority of the teachers in primary as well as secondary
education take the view that the new Dutch language curriculum is feasible to very feasible.
No less than 96% of the primary school teachers give a number from 7 to 10. Moreover, 90%
of the teachers in secondary education give a number from 7 to 10. The most important
reasons teachers indicate are: it is more feasible for non-native speakers; a lot of elements
(e.g. grammatical terms) are left out now; the Dutch language curriculum has been strongly
simplified, which makes it easier than before; pupils have to know less than before; because
40
the subject material has been reduced much more, there is more time for revision and
exercises; most pupils perform very well on the subject of Dutch; the instruction of Dutch puts
great emphasis on linguistic skills; pupils with limited language skills can keep up better; the
curriculum is more adjusted to the social environment of the pupils; the Dutch language
curriculum is not challenging; the change in approach, which implies the pupils have to
reason starting from the meaning, makes Dutch grammar more understandable for pupils
with limited language skills.
Graphs 6a and 6b indicate how teachers think about the balance between “language usage”
and “language structure” within the curriculum for practical linguistics. The question teachers
had to

alignment between grammar in the dutch language curricula

Documents