English in Inclusive Multilingual Preschools. Kirsten Birsak de JerseyЧитать онлайн книгу.
learning objective and the medium of communication. … The underlying assumption is that in order to be ‘good’ FL teachers, teachers need to have a high level of proficiency in the target language. This is related to notions of teachers as role models catering for a) high quality language input and b) opportunities for inter-/transcultural learning. (p. 12)
Teaching the target language as the means of communication requires maximum opportunities for learners to be exposed to and to actively use the language. This has given rise to the debate as to whether in principle learners should only encounter the foreign target language and exclude the language of instruction (in my context: German). While it is of course important for teachers to be able to judge if and when it is appropriate to address children’s needs in their first language (if the teacher is able to do so in multilingual contexts) or in the language of instruction, teachers require a solid communicative English language competence to be able to manage the classroom discourse in the foreign language – or, as Cameron (2001) puts it, to confidently
use the foreign language for the full range of functions that are created by activities and tasks in lessons”. Teachers need to be able to use the language continually. This entails “that teachers have a repertoire of language for classroom management and organisation, for discipline, for giving feedback, talking about language and for chatting with children more informally. (p. 200)
In preschool giving feedback on progress in English predominantly takes place in the form of giving praise. Talking about language involves comparing words in different languages and naming the various mother tongues in the classroom, rather than talking about English. Preschool children acquire language through listening and actively doing things with objects that are topic-related, language is resulting from actively doing things that are accompanied by language (Oomen-Welke, 2016, p. 293). Tracy (2008) emphasises that preschool teachers support children’s language development best if they communicate naturally with the children: “Lerner benötigen natürlichen und reichhaltigen Input, kein Training. … Man sollte sich den Kindern gegenüber wie normale Gesprächspartner verhalten … [und] mit ihnen viel und mit Freude kommunizieren” (p. 167).
Despite various general descriptions of a teacher’s classroom language (as the ones summarized above), studies on the professional development of teaching primary English as a foreign language conclude that
there is a lack of comprehensive empirical evidence regarding … [the] effectiveness …[of] various established principles of ‘good’ FL teaching – i.e., communicative FL teaching, playful and active FL teaching, functional language use, variety of teaching methods, individual support and differentiation, using mistakes as a resource. (Wilden & Porsch, 2017, p. 7)
Non-native speakers of English in particular, as a study comparing advantages and disadvantages of native to non-native speakers of English has demonstrated, are likely to use the language of instruction more often if their communicative English language competence is of a low level in comparison to those who speak more fluently. The level of English proficiency not only influences the amount of English spoken during the lesson, but it also influences the actual teaching process. Teachers with a low level of communicative competence were found to be “inclined to adopt a more controlled and cautious pedagogical approach” (Medgyes, 2001, p. 435).
At the same time, as has already been said, Cameron maintains rightly that the language of instruction should not be excluded completely (Cameron, 2001, p. 200). This is also true for multilingual contexts. Although the context here is one in which many children at the beginning of their preschool life cannot speak German and learn to become proficient at different rates, the language of instruction remains the language of communication. As a result, after a year many of the children can understand basic German or more, and other children can also speak it. The teachers are well on the way to being able to communicate with the children for another two years while the children develop their German language competences more and more. There are also children whose mother tongue is German. Therefore, preschool teachers habitually use the language of instruction in their classroom routines, regardless of who understands them and who does not. It becomes the common language that is used between the preschool teachers and the children. Cameron clarifies her suggestion that the language of instruction should not be excluded by saying that if there is a common language that the children and the teachers share it would be very unnatural not to use it (p. 200). The relevance of this suggestion has been confirmed by my observations: children often keep using the language of instruction while the teacher continues talking in the target language. Nonetheless, it is of course appropriate to encourage the children to speak English and to establish the routine of speaking more and more English in class. But it would be inappropriate to force them. Emotional situations, confusions, critical incidents and some questions may require the common language of instruction so that issues can be appropriately solved. Similarly, it can be used to quickly abate any interruptions or disturbances to the flow of the lesson. But not only as seen from the needs of children but also from the perspective of some researchers the use of the language of instruction in English teaching may have its place. Butzkamm (2008) is a case in point. He put forward the idea of distinguishing between message- and medium-orientated- communication (→ chapter 5.7.4) to optimize the target language contact time and states that instead of pretending that a common language does not exist, the teachers should selectively use it (p. 327; translated by Birsak de Jersey). Through conscious use message- and medium orientated- communication in the classroom it is possible to give children a high quantity of repeated exposure of the target language:
Kindliche Lernende brauchen Wiederholungen. Nur wenn die gelernten Strukturen ständig wiederholt werden, bleiben die Lerninhalte nachhaltig im Gedächtnis verankert. Sie können dann auch nach längerer Pause mit geringem Aufwand wieder abgerufen werden. Die erwachsenen Personen, die den Bildungsprozess begleiten, sollten die Zielsprachen dabei konsequent verwenden. Nur so können die Kinder lernen, dem Gesagten Sinn zu entnehmen. Durch Wiederholungen und Abwandlungen wird das Erlebte gefestigt. Dann kann es auch in anderen Situationen angewandt werden” (Stern, 1994, p. 19; as cited in Boeckmann).
To conclude, it can be assumed at this point, that a confident, flexible communicative English language competence is an important precondition that accounts for the quality of teaching while at the same time teachers need to learn when it is appropriate to resort to the commonly shared language of instruction if it is available. As all of the preschool teachers that have taken part in my case study are non-native speakers of English (→ chapter 3.2), there is a gap between the communicative English language competence that is required and what teachers are actually able to do. The participating teachers do not feel confident to speak English continually and spontaneously. Therefore, a focus on developing preschool teachers’ classroom discourse competences will be integrated in my teacher education project. I will look at the possibility of developing participating teachers’ speaking skills from the level they are at in a way that assists them to create a task language classroom (→ chapters 5.7.4 and 5.8).
4.3.2 Pedagogical content knowledge
Apart from a sound communicative English language competence, prospective English teachers need to be able to “make it [the target language] comprehensible to others” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). This knowledge came to be termed pedagogical content knowledge in 1986 for the first time by Shulman. He defined it as “content knowledge that embodies the aspects of content most germane to its teachability … [that is] the ways of representing and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible to others” (p. 9).
Through pedagogical content knowledge, teachers develop “the capability to transform content into accessible learning forms” (Burns & Richards, 2009, p. 3). It consists of both theory and practice and the inter-relationship of these two components and ultimately culminates in knowledge of how to teach and how to facilitate learning.
The question of what this knowledge base consists of has been explicitly addressed by research conducted in connection with finding out how teachers develop professionally. This required addressing the question of what qualifies as the knowledge base of second language teacher education to begin with (Freeman & Johnson, 1998, p. 407; Johnson, 2009, p. 21).