Language proficiency in upper secondary vocational education in the Netherlands and the use of the Common European Framework Marli Tijssen CINOP Pettelaarpark BP ‘s-Hertogenbosch Postbus

CINOP research into the organisation and proficiency of Dutch in upper secondary vocational education in the Netherlands,2003 Focus of Research: -what is the actual language proficiency of students? -is there a discrepancy between actual language proficiency and desired language proficiency for education and professional occupation? -what are the conditions and context of language teaching and learning ? -what means are provided to students to improve their language proficiency ?

Research design -written questionnaires for language teachers and vocational teachers, N = 210 -self assessment on language proficiency for students, N= 345 -followed by a test for reading, N= 328 -oral interviews with teachers, staffmembers and management, N= 40

Written questionnaire teachers organisational conditions and context of language education ( integration of language (CLIL) or separate language courses) the language proficiency of students in written and oral skills and examples of situations and can do statements of tasks to execute in school and on the working floor according to the levels of the CEF Estimates of perceived/actual language proficiency of students and estimates of desired proficiency

Estimates of student language proficiency by the teachers Descriptions of the different skills and competence levels ranging from A2 to C1 out of the Framework for Dutch as a second language ( based on CEF) Selection of descriptors for these levels Examples of situations and can do statements of tasks, both at school and at work

Perceived language proficiency (grade 1&2) 60 to 70 % estimate the language proficiency (reading A2-B1) insufficient for school, 10 % estimate the language proficiency on a higher level than needed for school 80 % estimate the language proficiency insufficient for professional occupation

Perceived language proficiency (grade 3 &4) 50% of teachers estimate written skills below B1 60 % of teachers estimate the language proficiency insufficient for school, especially the written skills 80% of teachers estimate the language proficiency insufficient for professional occupation

Self assesment of language proficiency by the students Examples of situations and can do statements of tasks on the different levels ranging from A2 to C1. No indication of levels Self assessment going from : bad, insufficient, sufficient, good

Self assessment by students ( grades 1 &2) > 2/3 of students estimate their reading proficiency level at B2 In reality: 7 % on A1 24 % on A2 52 % on A2-B1 17 % on B1-B2

Self assessment by students (grades 3 & 4) > 75% of students estimate their reading proficiency at C1 In reality: the level of reading proficiency is closer to B1 than to C1 in more than 50%

Discrepancy perceived, actual level and desired level for school, grades 1&2

Discrepancy perceived, actual level and desired level for work, grades 1&2

Discrepancy perceived, actual level and desired level for school, grades 3 &4

Discrepancy perceived, actual level and desired level for work, grades 3 &4

What means are provided to students? Focus on reading and writing -spelling -vocabulary -grammar Attention for strategies and learning skills Little attention for oral skills

To what extend is the CEF appropriate for description of language of instruction More coherence and better workable structure for teachers (contributes to improvement of their professional competences) Competence based descriptions more suitable for language of instruction than linguistic descriptions of L1 Descriptors applicable More transparancy and motivating for students (specially in combination with a language portfolio) Offers opportunity for reflection on language learning by students

But…. Can do statements have to be adjusted for specific tasks in education and specific tasks on the working floor Situations and examples have to be specified for the different vocational sectors Levels of A1 and C2 are not applicable Age factor: relation between thinking and language learning is problematic Results, no processes of language and conceptual development