Note from the President

FIPLV News

European Language portfolio

Congress Calendar

Forum on Controversial Issues

News and Views

Books and Journals

21^st FIPLV World Congress (with SAALT)

Call for papers

Among my peregrinations in September, I was honoured to be one of a few invited to UNESCO to discuss what I believe to be a momentous and timely objective:  the development of a languages policy for UNESCO.

Few of those present were alive when UNESCO last produced a political document with a primary focus on languages policy per se, “L’Emploi des Langues Vernaculaires dans l’Enseignement”, in 1953.  Since then, there have been several other documents published by UNESCO where related issues - for example, linguistic and cultural diversity, linguistic minorities, endangered languages, rights of the individual and Linguapax, as well as forum declarations and recommendations - have impinged on languages and language policy.

The organiser of the expert meeting, Dr Linda King - Senior Program Specialist for Languages at UNESCO - drew upon the preceding declarations, recommendations and documents to provide a policy platform from which to generate the draft policy under discussion.  While this may appear an obvious point de partir, it was also insightful - and brilliant - as what she did was to integrate statements and positions already agreed by UNESCO.

Dr King ensured that the Draft UNESCO Position Paper, “Education in a Multilingual World”, had undergone several stages of revision through the expert group prior to the meeting.  Thus, the group - of diverse backgrounds and embracing a range of interests and expertise in languages - was quickly able to arrive at a united position of endorsing the paper (with minor changes) within the two days set aside.  This, as you can imagine, can be quite an irregular occurrence where languages are concerned.

To give you an idea of the participants, those present (in addition to Linda King and her team) included:

Ayo Bamgbose, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics (Nigeria)

Annie Brisset, Professor of the University of Ottawa (Canada)

Louis-Jean Calvet, Professeur en Linguistique (France)

Ernesto Couder, Director of Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indigenas (Mexico)

Denis Cunningham, President of FIPLV (Australia)

Tarcisio Della Senta, Former Director UN University (Switzerland)

Juan Carlos Godenzzi, Professor of Linguistics (Peru)

Maria Carme Junyent, Professor of Linguistics (Spain)

Irina Khaleeva, Rector of Moscow State Linguistic University (Russia)

Lachman Khubchandani, Director of Centre for Communication Studies (India)

Mirian Masaquiza, Former UN Fellow Indigenous Program (Ecuador)

Elite Olsthain, Professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel)

Henriette Rasmussen, Director of Greenland Publishing (Greenland)

Suzanne Romaine, Professor of Linguistics (UK)

Adama Samassekou, President of the African Academy of Languages (Mali)

While the policy paper is still for restricted distribution and cannot be cited (at this stage), Dr King deserves our congratulations for an excellent, timely initiative and a significant task professionally expedited.

Now, we await the publication of the policy and its desired, positive impact on the policies of the 190 UNESCO member states across the globe.

Denis Cunningham

President, FIPLV

djc@netspace.net.au

FIPLV in Portraits of Second Language Users

FIPLV is mentioned in the chapter on Second Language Learners’ Rights, by Francisco Gomes de Matos (Recife, Brazil) in the recent  volume Portraits of Second language Users, edited by Vivian Cook (University of Essex), published by Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, U.K.2002.

In  his survey article (Background to  linguistic rights; the rights of L2 students; recognition of learners’ rights; a typology of learners’ rights; Learners’ pronunciation, grammatical and vocabulary rights: some examples; expanding the range of learners’ rights ; teacher education / training and learners’ rights: a look at the twenty-first century) Gomes de Matos makes a novel distinction in the history of language teaching: humanism and humanizing. He states that "the traditional concept of humanism since the Renaissance has emphasized human welfare, values and dignity: the concept of HUMANISING centers on human linguistic rights, justice and communicative peace. Thus  HUMANIST teachers such as Comenius and Marcel, who emphasize human respect for the learner, are different from HUMANISING teachers such as  Curran, Gattegno, Moskowitz and Stevick. They in turn are different from those engaged in the UNESCO-FIPLV LINGUAPAX Program ( described in Crystal’s  entry on LINGUAPAX in The Penguin Dictionary of Language, 2nd ed. 1999), which started in 1987......"  The Brazilian colleague stresses that " while there have been many HUMANIST teachers, "HUMANISER' teachers are a slowly but steadily growing phenomenon, partly motivated by the rise of the awareness of linguistic rights which, in the case of language education dates from the early eighties. Contrasting the two movements ( humanism and humanizing) and the corresponding agents( humanist and humanizer) helps our understanding of the changes in the history  of language education  and of the important roles of language educators" (p.306).

From the Regions

Nordic-Baltic Region, FIPLV

With thanks from the Latvian participants at Nordic-Baltic Seminar, Tallinn

It is always valuable and rewarding to exchange views and to enrich ourselves both professionally and crossculturally. The Nordic-Baltic seminar organized by SUKOL in Tallinn, Estonia, June 26–29 gave a perfect opportunity to systematize, generalize and reflect on the most recent developments and findings in language teaching/learning in Europe and the world. The seminar was perfectly organized by our Finnish colleagues, it had a very good timing and had been very well thought over.

We really appreciated the chance of sharing experience about such most topical issues as Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, European Language Portfolio, effective use of IT, etc. which were considered from different facets. It was very important for both Baltic and Scandinavian teachers to get to know about one another more when comparing the educational systems in the participating countries and measuring ourselves against the levels achieved and the approaches practiced.

It was very positive that quite a lot of time was allocated for questions and discussions. When listening to the plenary speeches and taking part in the workshops we understood that we are on the right track in Latvia and in step with the achievements in language learning in other countries. We were happy that among others the presentations of the Latvian speakers also got a positive response and caused a discussion which is a good sign of involvement.

It was a pleasure that all the colleagues were open to friendly discussions and that there was a genuine interest to learn something more not only about the educational systems, but also about historical, cultural issues, e.g. John’s Day which is a national festivity in Latvia and was celebrated just before coming to Tallinn seminar.

The seminar organizers had thought about a rich cultural programme. Lunch in the open ethnographical museum gave a good insight into the Estonian culture and a perfect chance for socializing, getting to know each other closer.The farewell party turned out to be an impressive event with lots of fun, improvisation and other activities. Without any special preparation the Baltic and Scandinavian teachers proved that they are devoted, creative, talented, ready for enjoyment. We really merited from such meetings and warm human contacts.

We appreciated and were immensely pleased about the sponsorship arranged by SUKOL for the 10 delegates from Latvia to attend the seminar. We are most thankful to the President of SUKOL Leena Hämäläinen, as well as Päivi Koivistoinen-Toivonen for absolutely perfect organization of this seminar, for their efforts and long hours spent on working on the agenda issues, sponsorship problems and other countless things to make this seminar a success.

Thank you – you were excellent!

Diana Rumpite, assistant professor, Latvian Association of Language Teachers (LALT), lvasa@latnet.lv

by Cecilia Nihlén

The use of portfolios in educational settings has increased tremendously in many countries around the world during the last five years – from pre-school to upper secondary school and also at university level. Teachers have recognised the portfolio as a powerful learning tool, which helps to develop the learners’ metacognitive skills. The new approaches to curriculum and instruction of the last decades have encouraged students to be active learners. New ways of assessing students’ performance have emerged and the portfolio has also become an important evaluation tool.

When designing a portfolio system it is important for the creator to ask the following questions: What is the purpose of the portfolio? What should the contents be? How should the contents be assessed? What should the portfolio look like –  a binder, a folder, or could it be digital? How should it be organised? Who is the audience? It is essential to determine who owns the portfolio, the student or the teacher, since it will determine the purpose and the contents.

Portfolios are thoughtful collections of student work meant for active and long-term review. The teacher is initially responsible for introducing a structure of what to collect and why. The students must be actively involved when choosing the contents and the teacher should discuss criteria for selection with individual students. For each entry the student must motivate his or her selection of work by adding a reflection tag, e.g. I chose this piece for my portfolio because… The transfer of ownership from teacher to student is a gradual process that evolves over time. Younger learners naturally need more support and guidance than older learners do. Parents can also be part of the portfolio selection and become involved in their child’s learning process. The parents are usually invited to be the audience at student-led portfolio conferences at school. This is when the students take the lead in telling their story of learning.

There are many different kinds of portfolio systems used in schools: showcase portfolios, working portfolios, process portfolios, assessment portfolios, cross-discipline and discipline-based portfolios, pass-along and graduation portfolios. They all have different purposes and there are many choices to make before you get started. The most common advice is to start small by collecting students’ work and in the beginning focus on one main purpose for the portfolio. It takes time to develop a portfolio system.

Portfolios can also be a tool for effective staff development and be used as an instrument to help evaluate teachers’ teaching. They provide means for teachers to reflect deeply about their teaching methods and curriculum. When listening to students talk about their collections of work a teacher gets a better sense of what his or her students are learning, how they are learning and how to help them in that process.

Note from the Editor: Cecilia Nihlén is a professor at the Department of Education, Göteborg University, Sweden. This paper was presented at a Plenary session on Friday June 28, 2002, at the Nordic-Baltic Seminar in Tallinn, Estonia and printed in ‘Tempus’ no. 6, 2002:8.

Congress Calendar

2002

16-21 December 13th World Congress of AILA Theme: Applied Linguistics in the 21st Century. Venue: Singapore. Information: Anne Pakir, E-mail: aschead@nus.edu.sg rescomm@singnet.com.sg

2003

6-7 February 4th CER-FIPLV Conference. Theme: Foreign Language Teacher Education at the Beginning of 21st Century. Venue: Charles University, Prague. Info: Mary Hawker: janamos@ff.cuni.cz

17-21 February TAMA. Theme: Multilingual Knowledge and Technology Transfer. Venue: Pretoria, RPA.

5-7 March 10. Göttinger Fachtagung zur Fremdsprachenausbildung and der Hochschule. Thema: Emotion und Kognition im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Information: Dr. Klaus Vogel, georg-August-Universität, Sprachlehrzentrum, Weender landstraße 2, 37073 Göttingen.

25-29 March TESOL. Venue: Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

29-30 March LMS Språkdagar. Theme: Språk och Identitet. Venue: Luleå tekniska univeritet. Information: Gullevi Sandling, tel: + 0920-29 32 50, gullevi.sandling@bredband.net ; Maria Tuvemyr, tel.: + 0911-303 58, maria-be@algonet.se

7-10 May WorldCALL. Venue: Banff, Alberta, Canada.

15-18 June UNESCO Peace Conference Theme: Teaching and Learning for Intercultural Understanding. Human Rights and a Culture of Peace.Venue: Jyvaskyla, Finland. Information: UNESCO 2003, Jyvaskala Congress, PO Box 212, FIN-40101, Jyvaskala, Finland, E-mail: pirjo-leena.pitkanen@jyvaskylaan.com

19-26 June FMF-Kongress. Sprachenschwerpunkt: Niderländisch. Venue: Bremen. Information: FMF-Büro, U.BLIE@t-online.de

2-6 July 21st FIPLV World Congress (with SAALT) Venue: RAU, Auckland, South Africa.

24-29 July XVII International Congres of Linguists (CIL). Venue: Congress Palace, Prague: Czech Republic. Information: Anna Kotešovcová, Centre for Computational Linguistics MFF UK, Malostranské nám. 25, 118 00 Prague 1, Czech Republic. Email: cil17@cil17.org

A Model for Europe: Bilingual Education

Reinhold Freudenstein

The current European language situation

At the moment this is the language situation within the European Union. Of its 370 million citizens about 25 per cent speak German as their mother tongue, about 17 per cent speak French or English each, 16 per cent Italian, eleven per cent Spanish and six per cent Dutch. The rest of the languages spoken within the Union, e.g. Swedish, Finnish, Portuguese or Danish, cover less than three per cent each. A closer look at the language abilities of Europeans shows that about half of the entire population can speak English, either as their mother tongue or as a foreign language, 34 per cent German, 31 per cent French, 18 per cent Italian and 14 per cent Spanish. In other words: 51 per cent of European Union citizens cannot speak any official Union language except their mother tongue. The situation in incoming member states of the European Union, including Poland, should not be very much different. This is alarming because effective communication in a variety of languages is a necessary prerequisite for a working political, economic, social and cultural union in a complex society like Europe.
Today we are still far away from school systems aimed at educating young people for a new political system. Foreign-language teaching in the various countries of the Union is different in quality as well as in quantity. While in Germany all children have to learn at least one foreign language at school, other countries offer no compulsory foreign-language instruction at this level at all. Of the more than 80 million pupils in the European Union 89 per cent have studied a language, eleven per cent have not. But the disturbing fact is that in spite of all instructional efforts 35 per cent of the pupils cannot hold a conversation in the foreign language they have learned and 24 per cent are unable to speak it. This is simply due to the fact that foreign-language teaching in most European schools follows traditional goals of educational values that have long ceased to exist. The same is true for language instruction in our universities. After the Second World War an American educationalist summarized the standards of German universities like this: "They are the best institutions for higher education there are - for the 19th century." If he had to evaluate the situation today - that is more than 50 years later - he could say exactly the same. In spite of curricular innovations like "communicative competence" or "language acquisition" (instead of "language learning") it is grammar instruction, translation and a focus on literature that still dominate most foreign-language classrooms. 120 years ago Wilhelm Viëtor, a prominent German university professor for English, became very famous when he challenged his profession by saying that foreign-language teaching must find a new orientation different from the learning of the classical languages, Latin and Greek (Viëtor 1882). A century later those responsible for language instruction still haven't found that orientation yet. This is well documented in a publication entitled "Mister Knickerbocker und die Grammatik - oder warum der Sprachunterricht nicht umkehrt" (Aliusque Idem 1986); one hundred years later Viëtor's complaints and his recommendations for a better foreign-language instruction are still valid. Compared to yesterday there are, of course, various differences. Textbooks look more colourful, learning materials are available in a greater variety, and teaching strategies have become more flexible. But the focus on theory and the neglect of communicative skills have not changed at all. Grammar instruction is still the most popular subject. 40 to 60 per cent of the time available in German high schools for language instruction is devoted to formal - and not to communicative - aspects of language (Zimmermann 1984:31). This is why many people, after having left school, study the same languages again in adult education classes, private language schools or company in-service courses in order to learn what they really need language-wise for their jobs and leisure time. No wonder, therefore, that another language professor in Germany recently proposed discontinuing language teaching at school level altogether because language teachers were obviously not in a position to teach modern languages for the purpose of everyday communication (Edmondson 1999:115). "Die Schule," he summarised, "kann die benötigte Mehrsprachigkeit nicht vermitteln."
In order to qualify European citizens linguistically for the world of tomorrow, various proposals have been made which include strategies for a new language policy in Europe. The Commission of the European Union in Brussels has suggested that all young Europeans should learn at least two foreign languages at school. One of its slogans during this 2001 European Year of Languages even is: "We can all learn to speak three languages." In many countries this goes without saying; it therefore should become a standard language requirement. My favourite example is the language situation in Luxembourg. A young lady who wants to sell flowers at Luxembourg main railway station has to know at least four languages: her native dialect (Lëtzebuergesch), German, English and French. Many other people there know some Italian and Spanish as well. Only in such a way can one take full advantage of European citizenship, move more easily between countries and more easily find a job in the single market, because linguistic skills are attractive to employers. Unfortunately, however, most of the programmes sponsored by European Union funding are primarily aimed at persons older than 16 or 18 years, e.g. university students, apprentices or trainees.
Another very popular suggestion is to start foreign-language teaching in primary school. In some European countries, e.g. in Austria, Finland and in some of the German federal states, this is already common practice. Two years from now foreign-language teaching will have been officially introduced in all German primary schools. So English and French can be learned systematically at an early age. In German border regions, as in the case of Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark, Lower Saxony and the Netherlands or Saxony and Poland, parents even have the choice of less widely spoken languages like Danish, Dutch or Polish. In most cases language learning at primary level starts in grade 3. Actually it could start much earlier as has been successfully done in the private Waldorf school system since 1919 (Jaffke 1994; Jaffke & Maier 1997). So far, Baden-Württemberg is the only German federal state that has introduced early language teaching when children start school at the age of six. But others will follow in the foreseeable future.
A further proposal for a new language policy in European schools is to replace long-term language learning of seven to nine years of instruction by short-term intensive or compact courses of no longer than four years so that a greater number of languages can be offered - not only English, French or German as in most European states. Such programmes have been tested with good results in many countries. In 1974 a German high school teacher successfully taught a traditional one-year programme in French in 20 days (Preisendörfer 1974). In 1989, the Fédération Internationale des Professeurs de Langues Vivantes published the results of its international symposium on multilingual education through compact courses (Freudenstein 1989). It has also been suggested to introduce courses in multilingual comprehension for people speaking different languages. These initiatives have been highly praised at foreign-language conferences and congresses, but they have not changed the traditional, boring and ineffective way of current language instruction.
Last but not least, the idea came up to let native speakers take over language instruction exclusively in European schools (Freudenstein 1991:414, 1996:53). For the traditional language-teacher profession, this is, as you can imagine, a very unpopular view, but in a future United States of Europe it seems to be a realistic perspective. The entire population of the European Union enjoys freedom of residence and each citizen can work in whichever member state they want. So all it needs is revised initial teacher-training and a greater flexibility among language teachers to move from one country to another, similar to someone in the United States who moves from Virginia to Florida or from Ohio to California.
None of these ideas and recommendations have so far resulted in any basic, comprehensive change of language policy across borders, and language instruction or language methodology have also only been marginally affected. In order to prepare young Europeans linguistically for their multilingual world of tomorrow, other ways have therefore to be found for European schools to become a unity in spite of all diversity. For me, a promising one seems to be bilingual education.

A European concept for bilingual education

When I speak of bilingualism in the context of school instruction in Europe I am not thinking of persons who master two languages equally well from the time they first learn to speak. Therefore the advantages and disadvantages of bilingualism as discussed in Canada or in the United States of America cannot be applied to our situation. Bilingual education in Europe primarily means the learning of other subjects through the use of a foreign language (in German: fremdsprachlicher Sachfachunterricht) so that the new language becomes a tool rather than an end in itself. Normally this kind of bilingual instruction starts in the third year of high school after two years of intensified foreign-language learning when pupils are 12 or 13 years old. Geography and history are the most popular subjects, but biology, mathematics, physical education and other subjects could also be part of the bilingual curriculum. The languages most commonly chosen are English and French. This is in agreement with the results of a public opinion poll conducted among citizens of the European Union. According to this survey 78 per cent said English would be useful to learn and 45 per cent voted for French. German was ranked third (34 per cent), followed by Spanish (15 per cent). The number of schools across Europe that offer bilingual options is still very small. In Germany out of more than 63,000 schools only about 200 cover subjects in a language other than German; that is considerably less than half a per cent. 120 of them run programmes in English, 50 in French; the rest of the schools have either chosen Dutch, Spanish, Czech, Italian or Russian. Nevertheless the popularity of bilingual educational institutions is constantly growing, and so is the number of articles on this issue in professional journals. At the Foreign Language Research Information Centre at Marburg University in 1990 only 12 articles in European journals on foreign-language teaching were listed offering papers on bilingual teaching; today the number is 338.

The case for bilingual education

Wherever schools offer bilingual schemes there have been only good reports and positive results from their work. Teachers involved in bilingual instruction find that their pupils are highly motivated and more interested in the foreign language than in traditional textbook oriented courses. This is mainly due to the fact that the learning process is concentrated on subject matter which seems to be of greater relevance to those who study it. When using English, German or French as a second language pupils are no longer forced to describe the position of pronoun objects, to think about the use of the past perfect in indirect speech or to distinguish between can or able. They instead learn about the lives of people in other countries, are involved in project work or look into historical facts which they like to find out and not because the linguistic progression of their foreign-language curriculum happens to give them the opportunity to deal with them. School subjects taught and learned in another language are part of the regular instructional programme. In my view, therefore, language policy in the whole of Europe should be based on this model. Why should it not be possible in a multicultural and multilingual society to introduce bilingual instruction of the form described as the standard educational scheme? If foreign-language learning starts at primary level where language learning cannot be based on cognitive insights, but is focused on children's interests and is more play-oriented, then there are good chances that after four years of language experience of this nature various school subjects could be taught in a foreign language. This means that each school in Europe could become an institution of bilingual education. Such a language programme is not only suitable for the highly talented children, but for each and every one. In bilingual programmes children would learn to use and accept different languages in a natural way for their general education and not purely for the sake of learning another language for grammatical, literary or cultural reasons. This new direction in language acquisition would show that it is not the fault of the child when he or she fails to learn other languages but it is the wrong methods which we use to teach them. Bilingual education is a sound way of teaching young people to communicate equally well in at least two languages. There is no other educational scheme that teaches foreign languages for communicative use in a better, faster and more lasting way.

Problems to be solved

It is certainly not easy to achieve such a goal. To introduce a bilingual scheme into existing traditional educational systems is a difficult task which will certainly take a long time to implement. This is true for the individual state and the more so throughout Europe. Let me just mention a few problems which have to be solved in the decades to come. First of all there must be a political will for an educational reform of this kind. Equally important is public support. If politicians, educationalists and the common people in Europe are not convinced that bilingual education can better qualify pupils for the challenges of tomorrow, then it will not work. Another question that has to be discussed and decided upon is the relationship between subject matter and foreign language, particularly in connection with the evaluation process. In history for instance: are historically relevant facts and insights or are language skills to be given priority? A bilingual school system also needs entirely new teaching materials. It is still not known yet whether authentic textbooks in various subjects from other countries will serve the purpose. Most probably, new media and telecommunication networks can play an increasing role as instructional tools in future. Finally, and most of all, teacher training and in-service training has to be reconsidered and reorganised. Teachers for bilingual schools should be specifically trained to teach their mother tongue as a foreign language and they should also have studied a school subject which can be taught in a foreign language. I am convinced that in the long run only native speakers are best qualified for this kind of instruction.
The way ahead
I know that my views on a future language policy for and in Europe are not very popular particularly among foreign-language teachers who have been trained in the traditional way and who fear they will lose their jobs. But are teachers who have been trained in philology, historical linguistics, who have to learn Old and Middle English really well prepared to teach a living language? Are teachers who speak the language they are supposed to teach as a foreign language themselves the best instructors in an educational system for the 21st century? If we really want to consolidate a multilingual society on the basis of multicultural and multi-ethnic groups of citizens in Europe we have to implement reforms which certainly are unpopular. I hope that fifty years from now the results of those reforms will be taken for granted.

References

Aliusque Idem. 1986. Mr Knickerbocker und die Grammatik - oder warum der Sprachunterricht nicht umkehrt. München: Hueber.
Edmondson, Willis J. 1999. "Die fremdsprachliche Ausbildung kann nicht den Schulen überlassen werden!" In: Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 2:115-123.
Freudenstein, Reinhold (ed.). 1989. Multilingual Education through Compact Courses. An FIPLV Publication. Tübingen: Narr.
Freudenstein, Reinhold. 1991. "Fremdsprachen in der Schule im Jahr 2000 und danach. Thesen zur langfristigen Reform des neusprachlichen Unterrichts". In: Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 4:409-415.
Freudenstein, Reinhold.1996. "Foreign-language teaching after the year 2000." In: James E. Alatis et al. (eds.). Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1996. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 43-54.
Jaffke, Christoph. 1994. Fremdsprachenunterricht auf der Primarstufe. Seine Begründung und Praxis in der Waldorfpädagogik. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.
Jaffke, Christoph & Magda Maier. 1997. Fremdsprachen für alle Kinder. Erfahrungen der Waldorfschulen mit dem Frühbeginn. Leipzig: Klett.
Krashen, Stephen. 1996. "The case against bilingual education." In: James E. Alatis et al. (eds.). Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1996. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 55-69.
Pilzecker, Burghard. 1999. "Der Niedergang der Bilingual Education in den USA." In: Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 1:83-86.
Preisendörfer, Hans. 1974. "Ein Jahrespensum Französisch in 20 Tagen? Intensivkurs für Schüler der Sekundarstufe - ein Modell." In: Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts 3:283-293.
Viëtor, Wilhelm (Quousque Tandem). 1882. Der Sprachunterricht muss umkehren. Ein Beitrag zur Überbürdungsfrage. Heilbronn: Henninger.
Zimmermann, Günther. 1984. Erkundungen zur Praxis des Grammatikunterrichts. Frankfurt: Diesterweg.

Note from the Editor: Reinhold Freudenstein is a Professor Emeritus at Philipps-Universität, Marburg (Germany) and Honorary Counselor of FIPLV. This paper was presented at the 3rd CER-FIPLV Congress in Poznan

MLTAQ & AFMLTA

CALL FOR PAPERS

Languages: Babble, Babel & Beyond

Brisbane, July 10-12th 2003

The MLTAQ in conjunction with the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teacher Associations is pleased to announce the Australian National Language Teachers Conference, July 2003.

This event promises to be the largest of its kind ever held "down under" bringing together language educators from across the country and the world. Involvement in the programme will stimulate and challenge participants to reflect deeply on the past, present and possible future issues surrounding languages learning and teaching. The conference will also provide a forum for the sharing of ideas, research findings and best practice approaches to language teaching and learning in Australia and from around the world. A wide range of interested commercial organisations will have exhibitions of their products.

The theme of the conference is "Languages: Babble, Babel & Beyond" and reflects the ever-changing nature of languages and approaches to language teaching & learning. It is anticipated that sub-themes will include:

• Languages Other Than English (LOTE) and second language teaching methodology
• Linguistics and theories of language
• Technology in language learning
• Vocational Education & Training (VET)
• Intercultural communication
• Effective classroom pedagogy
• Task-based learning & teaching
• Outcomes-based education
• LOTE's place in New Basics
• Rich Tasks
• English as a Foreign Language (EFL)

Interested parties are invited to submit papers for presentation at the conference. These should take the form of, but not exclusively, proposed plenaries, workshops, presentations, discussions and demonstrations of technologies. Sessions are expected to be of approximately 45mins duration, dependent on the nature of the proposal. Interactive or practical workshops are encouraged. Computer suites may be available.

Abstracts, of no more than 300 words, should be submitted by email in the first instance to conference2003@afmlta.asn.au by December 1st 2002. Early submissions would be appreciated.

The conference will be held at the Brisbane Hilton International Hotel. Located in the heart of the Brisbane CBD the Hilton offers unsurpassed facilities for local and non-local attendees alike with many vibrant restaurants, theatres and shopping outlets close by. The central city location also provides excellent access to public transport including buses, trains and ferries.

Brisbane, the capital of the state of Queensland, is considered Australia's most livable city. It has a population of approximately 1.5 million people and features excellent tourism opportunities. These include museums, galleries, parks & gardens, wildlife sanctuaries and a river to explore on one of several cruises. Many of these are but a short walk from the Hilton Hotel. The temptations offered by the famous Gold and Sunshine Coasts are only an hour away by train or car.

Brisbane offers mild winter weather with bright sunny days, low rainfall and an average temperature range from 12-22 degrees Celsius. Due to these conditions Winter is often considered the best time of the year.

The social programme will provide delegates with opportunities to meet colleagues and renew old acquaintances for the purpose of both networking and socialising informally.

The conference organising committee invites you to consider planning to come to Brisbane in July 2003 and be part of this exciting event. Please assist with our planning by registering your interest by simply emailing your name and contact details to conference2003@afmlta.asn.au We will keep you updated as preparations continue.

It is expected that registration will be available commencing the second half of 2002. Conference brochures will be distributed through the AFMLTA and its state affiliates, as well as directly available from the website at http://www.afmlta.asn.au/

 For further information or any queries, please contact conference2003@afmlta.asn.au

NZALT

Napier, New Zealand, June 28 – July 4, 2002

1          Background

Having attended the two recent NZALT Conferences in Dunedin (1998) and Rotorua (2000), I again made a commitment to attend the 2002 event in Napier.  NZALT is one of the most active FIPLV members south of the equator and hosts excellent conferences.

It was also another opportunity to forge closer trans-Tasman collaboration and friendship, initiated by my attending their conference in 1983 and replicated by many others over the years, who crossed „the ditch” between Australia and New Zealand.

2          Introduction

Completing a busy term as Acting Principal, I was happy to escape "Oz" by boarding the Air New Zealand flight at 1900 on 28 June.  Four hours later, I was in Wellington at 0100 local time.

A 1010 departure on a 20-seater for Napier next morning, saw me there an hour later.  This flight also led to a working session where I was joined by NZALT President, Jan Robertson, in particular as well as Judy Lafdal and Elizabeth Collins.  I had to prepare the response to the official Maori welcome (Powhiri) and needed to do some homework, under Jan’s capable tutelage.

3          Third NZALT National Biennial Conference

As usual, the NZALT conference was conducted in conjunction with the Sasakawa Conference for Japanese.

3.1       The Participants

It is a credit to NZALT and the organisers of the conference that over 340 participants attended this excellent conference - especially when one considers the total NZALT membership of 560.  There are not too many associations that can boast a 60% membership attendance at the national conference.

Most participants came from New Zealand but there were also Henriette Walter of France, Rinelle Evans of South Africa, while Tony Liddicoat (incoming AFMLTA President) joined me from Australia.  I was also particularly delighted to catch up with Jan Robertson (NZALT President), Gail Spence and Simon Curnow (former NZALT Presidents), Lesley Parris (Conference organiser), Laytee George (2000 Conference Organiser), and others.

3.2       The Program

The first day (30 June) was devoted to language specific (ie Chinese, French, German, Japanese and Spanish) sessions, before the opening cocktail party and guest speaker.  These took place at the War Memorial Centre, which would be the conference venue, a short walk from the Art Deco style city centre - rebuilt after earthquake damage in 1930.

The second day saw the official opening held at the War Memorial Centre, looking out over the vast Pacific Ocean to the east.  As is to be expected in New Zealand, the Opening Ceremony began with the official Maori welcome, or Powhiri.  This time, I was given the honour of being the male to respond first on behalf of the Conference participants - in Maori, French and English!  Jan Robertson was then able to follow as second speaker and was invited to use German.  The Opening Ceremony closed with the first plenary presentation by Professor Emerita Henriette Walter, who addressed the topic of „The Challenge of Foreign Language Learning”.

Further plenary sessions included:

•          Tony Liddicoat: „Language, Culture and Future Directions in Language Education”

•          Gail Spence: „Reflections on Quality Teaching : What Teachers Believe and Why It Matters”

The program was „fleshed out” by another twenty generic workshops, where I was very happy to attend Rinelle Evans’ „Low Interactivity during Television Language Lessons”, while presenting two of my own: „Language Teaching - the Future of the Profession” and „Language Equity on the Web”.

The Closing Ceremony (3 July) also featured a Summit Panel, „The Language Wave”, where several perspectives were presented on the teaching of languages.

Various meetings completed a full program, including the NZALT AGM.  I was particularly happy to see Gail Spence awarded an honorary life membership at this event.  Congratulations Gail!

4          Socio-Cultural Activities

The New Zealanders do it well!  From the opening cocktail party (with speaker), language-specific dinners (1 July), the café crawl Conference Dinner in Art Deco Napier (2 July), and a wine tour (which I missed), there was something for all.  If this were not enough, many excellent dining facilities were available nearby, allowing for enjoyable networking - while promenades along the Art Deco malls and streets, in local parks and gardens or on the beach of black volcanic pebbles, provided calmer options.

5          Conclusion

The Third NZALT National Biennial Conference was again quite excellent and a credit to its organisers, Lesley Parris and her team.  My heartiest congratulations are extended to them and all others who assisted.

6          The Return

Further conviviality was to be enjoyed that final evening (3 July), as I stayed to spend time with members of the NZALT Executive and Rinelle Evans.

A leisurely return the next day (4 July), saw a chat at the Hawkes Bay Airport with Henriette Walter and Hélène Guillebert, before arriving in Auckland (1330-1530) and returning to Melbourne at 1730 local time.

Denis Cunningham

President - FIPLV

19 July 2002

TAMA 2003

"TermNet and the National Language Service of South Africa are organizing the 6th International Conference on Terminology in Advanced Management Applications (TAMA 2003), with special emphasis on "Multilingual Knowledge and Technology Transfer", in Pretoria, 17-21 February 2003. For further details, see http://www.tama-sa.gov.za/

TESOL

CALL FOR PAPERS 2003

TESOL Journal Special-Topic Issue

Promoting L2 Literacy

Coeditors: Nancy Clair and Marjorie Terdal

The Autumn 2003 issue of TESOL Journal will focus on classroom-based practices and current scholarly perspectives related to ESOL literacy development. The purpose of this special-topic issue is to bring together a variety of perspectives and current practices related to ESOL literacy education from the range of settings in which it occurs, including ESL and EFL contexts; schools, workplaces, community centers, homes; and with children and adults.

The coeditors welcome submissions that are written in a clear, accessible style. Scholarly perspectives, like all submissions, should include direct implications for TESOL Journal readers' own professional practice. Possible contributions include, but are not limited to:

-          innovative practices for promoting ESOL literacy

-          sociocultural factors in literacy development

-          literacy development for learners with limited L1 literacy

-          developing multiple literacies

-          administration of literacy programs

-          linking literacy practices in the classroom to other contexts (e.g., workplace or community)

- viewpoints on ESOL literacy learning from an international perspective

-          literacy development for learners literate in non-Roman alphabet languages

- using authentic materials to promote ESOL literacy

- assessing ESOL learners' English literacy.

These topics listed are meant to be illustrative, not restrictive.

Submissions may address related areas, or more than one of the areas, and are welcome in all departments: feature articles, perspectives, reviews, tips from the classroom, and heard on the Web. All submissions must conform to regular TESOL Journal submission guidelines, with the exception that three hard copies are requested of all submissions, regardless of the department. The deadline for submissions is January 6, 2003. Submissions should be sent to the following address.

Marjorie Terdal, Applied Linguistics, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 USA (Queries only to terdalm@pdx.edu and nclair@attbi.com)

Publications received

English Teaching Forum. The Department of State Regional Printing Center in Manila, Philippines. vol. 40, nos. 1 & 2, 2002.

Global Issues in Language Education Newsletter. National Special Interest Group of the Japan Association of Language Teachers (JALT), Issues: 46 May and 47 August 2002.

English Teachers’ Journal. English Inspectorate, Ministry of Education, Jerusalem, Israel. June 2002.

Les langues modernes. Bulletin de l’Association des professeurs de langues vivantes (a.p.l.v.), nu. 2, avril – mai - juin, 2002.

LMS Lingua. Riksföreningen fór Lärarna i Moderna Språk. Nr 3, 2002.

Neofilolog. Czasopismo Polskiego Towarzystwa neofilologicznego. No. 21, 2002.

Neusprachliche Mitteilungen aus Wissenschaft und Praxis, Herausgegeben vom Fachverband Moderne Fremdsprachen im Pädagogischen Zeitschriftenverlag (FMF), H. 2 & 2,  2002.

New Routes. DISAL S.A. Distribuidores Associados de Livros, São Paulo.  nos. 17 April, 18 July, 2002.

Polyglot. Journal of the new Zealand Association of Language teachers, Inc. no. 25. Autumn 2002.

SAVTO Tydskrif vir Taalonderrig / SAALT Journal for Language Teaching. Vol. 36, June  2002.

Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia III. Poznań, Wydział Neofilologii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.

Tempus. Journal of SUKOL, Finland. nos. 5 & 6. 2002.

TESOL Matters. Vol. 12 No. 3, June, July, August  2002.

2–5 July 2003

Rand Afrikaans University / Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit (RAU)

Auckland Park, South Africa

Conference Theme and sub-themes

Identity and creativity in language education

Language education and identity

Language Policy and Planning

Linguistics in the classroom

Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

Literary Studies

Textual Studies

Assessment

Language Research

Other language related topics

Modes of Presentation

Papers: 30 minute

Workshops: One hour; two hours ● Poster sessions ● Panel Discussions

More information

htpp://general.rau.ac.za/fiplv

Electronic registration form, brochure, etc.:

Conference Secretariat:

Trudie Strauss: gps@lw.rau.ac.za  or  fiplv@rau.ac.za

Conference organisers:

 Anna Coetzee aec@rau.ac.za  tel.: 27(11)489 2698, fax.K27(11)489 3061

 Wilhelm van Rensburg wajvr@edcur.rau.ac.za tel.: 27(11)489 3208.  http://general.rau.ac.za/fiplv

Notes for Contributors

Contributions, announcements and letters should be sent to the Editor’s address, by post or e-mail. Advertisements should be sent to Dieter Herold (see back cover). Short contributions (up to 250 words), such as letters and announcements, can be type-written. Longer contributions should be accompanied by a PC-readable disc, with the article both in the original WP format (e.g. WordPerfect, AmiPro, Word for Windows) and in ASCII form (i.e. a .TXT file). Please provide a brief bio-statement with the office address. Contributions and discs are non-returnable. The Editor reserves the right to make editorial changes in any manuscript. The author will be consulted if substantial changes are envisaged.