The Three-Phase EU-Speak projectEuropean Speakers of Other Languages:

Teaching Adult Immigrants and Training their Teachers

I

2

The problem EU-Speak set out to address Adult immigrants without home language literacy due to no/inadequate schooling • Take much longer than educated adults to reach A1 Common European

Framework of Reference for Languages; some never attain A1 (Condelli et al., 2003; Kurvers et al. 2010; Schellekens, 2011; Tarone et al., 2009) • They require three times longer to benefit from integration + vocational

programmes (e.g. Sweden’s; six or seven rather than two years) Visa status across Europe may be tied to achieving A2 or B1 CEFR. • There’s insufficient basic skills provision for beginning-level immigrants

past the age of compulsory schooling in a number of OECD countries. • There’s limited sufficient, specific teacher training and continued

professional development for those working with these adults as full-time or part-time teachers or volunteers

3

A professional organisation est. 2005 by researchers and teacher trainers in the

Netherlands, UK and USA:Low-educated Second Language and

Literacy Acquisition An international forum of practitioners, researchers and policy makers, from a range of disciplines, who promote the development of second language and literacy skills by adults past the age of compulsory schooling with little or no formal education prior to immigration.LESLLA holds an annual conference with venues alternate between English- and non-English-speaking countries, publishes proceedings, hosts a user-list. Visit: http://www.leslla.org

Palermo, 2018 host; Tilburg, 2005 inaugural host ------->

4

5

The starting point: evidence from decades of

researchAll adults – literate, non-literate, instructed or naturalistic - can attain high levels of linguistic competence in a second language (studies from the 1970s onwards, e.g. Vainikka & Young-Scholten 2011)Adults can learn to read for the first time in a second language (Kurvers, van de Craats, & van Hout; Young-Scholten & Strom/Naeb, 2006; 2009)

The small body of LESLLA research (several decades of case studies; ethnographic studies; action research; large-scale studies)

Influential studies: Condelli et al. (2003) What Works? 495 adults in classrooms in seven US states showed correlations between learner success in reading with active, individualised, relevant learning.

Kurvers et al. (2010): 322 adults from 39 countries (80% women; 61.3% no formal schooling) in the Netherlands took between 300 and 2700 hours to reach A1 CEFR; this was connected to a range of classroom and extra-classroom factors.

Condelli et al. (2010; see also Paget & Stevenson, 2014; Schellekens, 2011) These adult learners progress faster when taught by well-qualified teachers.

6

The EU-Speak project: three phases

2010-2012: European partnership exchange with workshops to share ideas on and experience with all components of LESLLA basic skills provision: approach; method; materials; assessment; policy; teacher training/development (Grundtvig 2010-1-GB2-GRU06-03528 )

2014-2015: European and US partners conducted surveys; consultation; draft curriculum; module pilot (Grundtvig 539478-LLP- 1-2013-1-UK-GRUNDTVIG-GMP)

2015-2018: six online modules each lasting six weeks, designed and to be delivered twice, in English, Finnish, German, Spanish, and Turkish (Erasmus+ 2015-1-UKo1-KA204-013485)

7

EU-Speak 3 partners

A n d r e a s Ro h d e U n i v e rs i t ä t z u K ö l nB e l m a H a z n e d a r B o ğ a z i ç i U n i v e rs i t y, I s t a n b u l M a r c i n S o s i ń s k i & U n i v e rs i d a d d e G r a n a d aA n t o n i o M a n j o n C a b e z a C r u z M i n n a S u n i & U n i v e rs i t y o f J y v ä s k y l äTa i n a Ta m m e l i n - L a i n eM a r t h a Yo u n g - S c h o l t e n ( l e a d ) N e w c a s t l e U n i v e r s i t y Yv o n n e R i t c h i e ( a s s ’ t m a n a g e r ) N a n c y Fa u x V i r g i n i a C o m m o n w e a l t h U n i v e rs i t yRo l a N a e b N o r t h u m b r i a U n i v e rs i t y

Advisory Board ( P h a s e 2 p a r t n e rs )P a u l a B o s c h U n i v e rs i t y o f A m s t e r d a mL a r r y C o n d e l l i A m e r i c a n I n s ti t u t e s fo r R e s e a rc h J o y K r e e ft P e y t o n C e n t e r f o r A p p l i e d L i n g u i s ti c s , Wa s h i n g t o n , D CM a i s a M a r ti n U n i v e rs i t y o f J y v ä s k y l ä

Info.eu-speak@ncl.ac.uk and www.eu-speak.com

The solution EU-Speak 3 is working on

Those working in some pedagogical capacity with LESLLA learners should understand (1) their situations; (2) their backgrounds; (3) their language + literacy learning trajectories and have (4) expectations reflecting their considerable potential.

• In most countries there’s little or no specific training/development for them to gain this knowledge; this is unlikely to change.

1. Training and development can be offered internationally, because those who work with these adults have much in common.

2. While English could be the lingua franca, because teachers teach their own languages, training/development should be offered in teachers’ languages, i.e. English and other languages.

9

Alpha delivery of modules; Beta 2017-2018

Vocabulary Acquisition Designed by University of Cologne, piloted Feb-March 2015 (60 participants); May-June 2017 Working with LESLLA Learners Designed by Virginia Commonwealth University, Feb-March 2016 (130 participants) Bilingualism and Multilingualism Designed by Boğaziçi University, May-June 2016 (99 participants)Language and Literacy in their Social Contexts Designed by University of Jyväskylä, Oct-Nov 2016 (100 participants)Reading Development from a Psycholinguistic Perspective Designed by University of Granada, February-March 2017 The Acquisition and Assessment of Morphosyntax Newcastle University and Northumbria University, Oct-Nov 2017

10

Evaluation

Feedback Questionnaires

Discussion forum analyses

The modules were supported by mentors; they evaluated themselves

11

The Working with LESLLA Learners module: Feedback questionnaire results

Cross-cultural interaction is lively, but cross-linguistic interaction non-existent until October when the project switched from language-based discussion forums to a single multi-lingual discussion forum. Participants can post in any of project language.

Teachers have expressed enthusiasm regarding the cross-cultural sharing of experiences; the current module finishes this week and we’ll soon know how well multi-lingual sharing works.

12

It was most helpful to suggest an idea and then

for another participant to make suggestions

on how to improve the idea.

Module participant feedback

Organization Knowledge & skills Participant engagement93% said it was well organized

86%said the publications deepened knowledge

89% enjoyed the international interaction

93% agreed six weeks was a good length

79% said the content deepened their knowledge

85% liked the on-line mode of learning

86% noted clear module objectives

79% said it helped their teaching

64% logged on at least three times a week

13

Module discussion forum analysis

of uptake of activities

14

Discussion forum data revealed that

15

Questions on the discussion forum: 53% completed most of these

Activities 24% completed: ‘World Map of Languages’ activity useful for working with students; expanded teachers’ knowledge of linguistic features of their students' languages. They were challenged by the recommendation that they try out an activity on comparing languages with their students.

59% completed: ‘Languages in the Household and Community’. They said this fostered interaction with their students; they employed various methods including questionnaires and interviews to implement this activity with students.

The project has been a success so far due to WORKING SMOOTHLY WITH

PARTNERS

16

TRANSNATION MEETING, GRANADA SEPTEMBER 2016

17

WORKING WITH AMERICAN PARTNERS

1. Can mean dealing with a state rather than the country States make many of their own laws and have their own policies, systems and programmes (e.g. sales and some other taxes are state or even county- or city-level) • Qualifications are state-based (e.g. for teaching, medicine; practicing

law)• Standards, curricula, tests are state-based

The federal government makes laws, imposes various policies, systems and programmes (e.g. income tax; refugee resettlement programmes;) • States cooperate on federal programmes to receive federal funding

but they are not invariably bound to do so (the state of Utah rejected No Child Left Behind federal funding during the Bush administration)

18

WORKING WITH AMERICAN PARTNERS

2. Means understanding what Americans are really like•Flexible, friendly, optimistic, direct, goal-driven, individualistic, not bureaucratic • There are rural-urban, regional, cultural and other differences• Might not get British humour!

•If educators, they know about the rest of the world and are part of a highly diverse sector •Those in adult immigrant education may have lived in developing countries (e.g. the Peace Corps started by JFK; it’s the US version of the UK Voluntary Service Overseas/VSO)

19

WORKING WITH AMERICAN PARTNERS

3. Means listening carefully and avoiding acronyms•Two countries separated by the same language (George Bernard Shaw) •Word meanings differ • In education: a module is a course and a course is a degree; staff

member is faculty member; school and college can mean university

•Different policies, programmes and systems mean that the acronyms we use usually differ

20

WORKING WITH PARTNERS•Don’t sweat the small stuff. It’s all small stuff. (Carson 1997) •But not to everyone (cultural differences).

21