Language proficiency in upper secondary vocational education in the Netherlands and the use of the Common European

Framework

Marli TijssenCINOP

Pettelaarpark 1 5200BP ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Postbus 1585 www.cinop.nl

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

Verschil geschat niveau en gewenst niveau voor de opleiding

6 9

5047

4947

31

40

3236

14

913

945

0

15

30

45

60

Gesprek Luisteren Schrijven Lezen%docenten

1½ à 2 lager ½ à 1 lager gelijk ½ à 1 hoger 1½ à 2 hoger

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

Verschil geschat niveau en gewenst niveau voor het beroep

23

15

57

66

5357

1921 23

28

0 0 0 0

24

13

0

15

30

45

60

75

Gesprek Luisteren Schrijven Lezen%docenten

1½ à 2 lager ½ à 1 lager gelijk ½ à 1 hoger 1½ à 2 hoger

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

Verschil geschat niveau en gewenst niveau voor de opleiding

1613

67

5155

52

19

32

23

29

103

105 5 5

0

15

30

45

60

75

Gesprek Luisteren Schrijven Lezen%docenten

1½ à 2 lager ½ à 1 lager gelijk ½ à 1 hoger 1½ à 2 hoger

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

Verschil geschat niveau en gewenst niveau voor het beroep

3734

56

47 46 47

13

27

1719

0 0 0 0

26

31

0

15

30

45

60

Gesprek Luisteren Schrijven Lezen%docenten

1½ à 2 lager ½ à 1 lager gelijk ½ à 1 hoger 1½ à 2 hoger

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