Bot, K. de, Driessen, G., & Jungbluth, P. (1988). An exploration of the effects of the teaching of immigrant language and culture. Paper International Conference on Maintenance and Loss of Ethnic Minority Languages, Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands, August 28-30, 1988.

1. 7
,l
: j an exploration qf th. efÍÈËts of tàe teài?hibg .oÍ ifrnrsrànt ranguàgè and
criltriré
I(eËE de BoL Dept. öf
^pplied
LingulrticE
Geert Driessen, lnst. Íor S6§iaI 6nd BèàaVIoraI StudieE
Pàu1 Jungblutà. Í4E.t.. for Social and getravlciral.studlé§
UnivèrBity .ef lltjfiÉgen
Pqper f,er ths voik8hop 6n fiaÍnteflaïeÈ and. Ioes of, ethnic. oínorltï
lèíg,uageg, iloofd{1Jkerhout., Àug. 2g_3a, 1988
Draf,t, do nót qu5te Etc-

2. fntroduction
rn thÍs paper a deecription ie given of a rarge 6care inve'tÍgatlon
into the effect§ of the Teaching of líigrant Language and culture (T,íLC)
Íor TurkiEh, líoroccan and Spanlsh children in Dutch primary Echoola.
Since the data analyÉia ha8 etarted only recently, the emphaslÉ 1E here
on the backgrounda and the deEign of the rnveetlgatlon. rn addition,
the development of teets for language and cu.Lture ie deecrÍbed ln sone
detail and sone preliminary teat reeults are preaented.
In 1985' the rnstitute for soclar and Behavioral studle. (rr5l ancÍ the
Departnent of Applied Linguistics rere invited by the Dutch |ílnistry of
Education to set up an investÍgatíon into the effects and conÈequencer
of r!ÍLC in Dutch Échool'' As in moÈt countries rlth substantial numbera
of ismigrants, educational policy yith regard to Iinguistlc nlnoritiee
is not vj-thout controversiea in the HetherlandE. fn thls hiqhly
politicized climate the invitation of the tíinÍstry of Education raa not
accepted all that eagerly, eLnce it ras not at aII clear, vhat the
outcones of the reÈearch rould be, andr more lmportantly, rhat the
politlcal consequencea of the6e outcomea could be. In negotlatlone rith
representatives of the líinistry, it vae agreed to abandon the idea of
an evaluatíon that could Lead to a finar. decisl0n ar to the abolíEhment
or continuation of r!ÍLC in prÍnary education. The ínveetigation ahourd
aim at exp_lorlng the relation betreen TIÍLG and other aèpectÈ of
schools, teachers and pupila.
l{e decided to opt for a survey-type of ÍnveËtigatíon rather than a
(quael-)experimentaL
deËign íor three reaeons mainly:

3. Í
l. Recent Llterature on large EcEle eveluÉtione of language teachtng
aPthod6 and approeches Ehova thet Pveh ïith very Bophiatlcatèd
experinentar deslgn€ ln ,hich anythtng quentifl.ble te tsken lnto
aëcount, the anount ef variÈnse that can be explained by dlfferencee
1n teeehlng nethodology hardly ever totelE rÈrë thÉn S fi
2. The funde avellable rhere insufficl.ent to financë the type of
procees./product evaluation thle .toplc rould ëBlI fo.! claesrgom
obEervstlona and ln dèpth intervLers rtth teachera, parente and
children rould requlre much uore norley than the ggvernfient raa
yllllrlg to epend;
3. The evaluation of TIILC ae eueh preeupposee a clear picture of the
conponente of thle teaehing, Ín vhlch cóo,parabre nethod', BAtErlarE
and approaches are ueed ln all EchoolÉ. EarlÍer reseerch by the
ITs-tean had ehorn that thle ls not at aII the eaBe: there la en
aatonÍBhlng range of materlals and approacheEr that differ vldely 1n
quallty, g0 Z oÍ the teacherÉ, meny of them ,Íthout adequete
traÍnlng and Íacílit1ee, from dr.fferent educatlonar and politlcar
pointa of vler, use their ovn, hoee-nade naterialÉ that are n€ant to
be used by thle one teacher only.
In addltl.on, there are nuneroue other probJ.etle Íith T]íLC, auoh as
dlfferenceB tn ÉducatÍonar'background, EoeÍo-econooic status and Eocto-
porltlcat hlstory betveen teachere, narglnellEatlon of rlíLC ln nany
schoors, and the vlrtual abeence of profeeeional interactlon bÈtveen
ethnlc teachere and their Dutch eolleaguee. Glven thie Eítuation, ít
rould be ver)' easy to ehor thet rríLc ae 1t le gÍven nov in many Echoors
and by nany teachere doeg not leàd to educationa-l reeultE that are in
any renÉe corparable to the onee ebtalned by Dutch mlddle_clase
children.

4. It vas dÈsided, therefore, not to look at thè efÍecte of TUL{ in
l§olation, but to look for rundLee of characterl.atlcs, or profiles, 1n
pupi-Is, teach.ere ànd ÉchooLE that èppear to reEul.t i.n good achi.evenents
of pupilB in a nutnber of reepecte. Ideally, a Turkieh child for yhom
TI,LC iE a part of the schoo.l. cuÍrleulqn dévelqpÉ BufÍlcient proflcJ.ency
1n both renguages (Turkish and Dutch) to uBè the language in ar.r. Íorr*J
and infornal domalne, Bcquires adequate cultursL knoíledge to deveJ,op
her oyn cultural pèrspectlve, and has general rchöo} reÈultE thet do
not difÍër eignlÍicantry fron that oÍ the everage Dutsh Íniddré-crEBB
chlld. Obvi.ouely, it can be 6horn qulte easi.Ly, that 6uch ideal
children arp hard tó Jlnd. on the other hand, there are chirdren vith
non-Dutch/non-líestern European baskgrounds rho do rerl at éshool, The
baaic Ldea behlnd our atqdy is to include euch varj-ety of type€ snd
chàrasteri.Btics oÍ pupils, tescherE and echools that ye c6n, 1n thè
end' give a proÍ11.e oÍ the idear chird ln eshools íith r[Lc deecrlbed
above, that can rerve ae a tearplate for future thlnkr.ng about educatlon
of ethnic nrinority chlld!.en.
TILS ln the tlètherlÉÍrdÈ
rn the Netherrande, educatlonai pollcy on T}íLC hae bee$ in a atate oÍ
constant flux j-n recent yearB, l0 to 15 yearE Bgo Tt{Lg raa,aet up tlth
the expli.cit goal to prepare nigraBt children for their return to the
hoÉe country, since the preÉence o{ mlgrant vorkere ln i{eetern Europe
;as seen by the government aE eÈEentia.Lly te[porary. In recent yeare,
the governnent ha' changed it' polnt of, vier and ras Íoreed to admrt
that the najorÍty of the migrant vorker' and their chlrdren vere lrkery
to Etay. ïhis did not nean that the idea oJ returning íaà no l-onger
re.l'evant for TIILC: many parentÉ clà1n thet they rrll rÈturn ,rlthin a

5. ' coupLe of yearë,, continua.l.Ly poEtponlng E flnà1. decieion on the
rsàtter' Accordlngly' the parente expect ,íLC tó prepare thelr chirdren
for (EèEondary) achool§ e.g. in Turkey or Spain, At the EeDÉ tlne the
parente rant tlre best opportunities fo! thelr qhitdren in ths Dutch
educstionÉI ayEteD, Elnee Lt ia obvious to tben, that only àdequete
educÈt1ofi can guard Bgalnat uneuploynent, So ultiuately. the perènte
expect the achool to alm at, and schleve, both theae goaLr. It should
be added' àovever' thÈt etànls groupa dlffer 1n the rerative iuportance
tàèy attribute to teeching Íor better opportunitLea ,here, and
'there" lledLter'raneEn groups iike the rtarlans snd spanlarde insl.t on
the uee of normal echooltine for the regurar Duteh cu*icuLu' rathÈr
than Íor TlíLc' rhirè Turrlsh and tíoroccan pàrÉntÉ rour.d tlke to see
nore schooltlEe devoted to TlrLC. For the latter groupe the Dutch
educational eyeten is a thread to the nainteaance oÍ thelr or, ianguage
End culture and there is B need Íor TI,LC aa soae Bolt oÍ counterrelght.
Ïn the tlght of this dlscus'io' 1t ie obviouely unrealletr.c to tsrk
about '11*, effegta oÍ ?I!LC, since airre, goals aDd accordlngly efÍects
dlfÍer betveen snd rithln ethnic groups.
One oÍ the naln polntÉ of dlscueel.on in the debate is the use of
schoo'r't1ne for TíLC' previous reeearch hae shorn tàat both parents Snd
(Dutch) teachere are convLnced thet rriErent chlldren reslry cen not
aÍford to mÍsa a part of the [ormal Duteh echool suriculun, Bince
they have Elresdy conEiderable trouble to keep up rlth their Dutch
slassnates, Even though there 16 eubetantla.L evLdence, bBth ln thp
US/Canada End Ln the iletherlànda (Appel 19g4, Theunlseen 19g6), to shor
that (yell rra[aged) blllngu'l te€ching doe' not necè68àr1ly lead to
lesËër echool EucsÈÈ€ for nLgràDt children, the generEL feelihg iE,
that tlDe Íor TÈLc la uÉÉd at the coet of the norDè.I. Dutch curriculun.
§r,
i
r.
í':
,fl
t"
i
I,
:
:

6. one of the aim6 oÍ our lnvestigation iB to gèt eone itore inÍornstion on
thi6 psint,
Another posBiblÉ eÍfect of TI{LC is ftentj.óned in a report by the
InepectoratÉ of the llinistry o{ Educatlon (1981, lgBZ}, It iÉ claimed
that for both sÉhool and classroom nanag.ement, T}íLC nrtght have negatlve
efÍects in thé aense that the normal program is interrupted, becauee
the DutÈh teacher vill 'aave, the more 6eriouÈ parte of thé ëurrl"culum
for thoee daye vhen Dutch and migrant Èhildren ere preBent. Thue the
tlmE Èpent on T}íLC for nigrant children iE, to a certaln extent, IËs6
effective for Dutch chi,Idren ln the sane clasa too. The feeling nay
lead to negative attitudes toyardr ïíLC by Dutch teacherB and parentB.
The picture of T!íLg rould be lnconplete iÍ the efÍecte expécted rould
only be negative, In the Iiterature on bilingual educatlon and
nothertongue teaching to migrant children a number oÍ posi.tive effectE
oÍ TI{LC have been mentloned:
r A part 6Í the Iearning/acquiaitlÈn oÍ general school EkiILE ia
achieved nore easIly through TIILC;
t l'Ílgrant chÍl.dren feel more at eaae at echool, becauÉe there are
teachers vho Epeak their language and are more aïare of their apeciÍlc
problens;
i Through Tl,tLC the selfconcept of migrant ëhlldren i-s etrengthened,
íhÍch nay Iead to better achíeveÍnentE at Ëchool;
* TI{LC serves as a bridge betreen echool and parenta/hone envíronment.
The proÉ and cona of ïllLC have leàd to quite heated ldeologlcal
debates, vhlle the amount of empj-rícal evldence eupporting variouÉ
claínÉ ÍE rather thin. The proJect dercrlbed herè doeÉ not slaln to

7. Í
solve all the dilermae, but it certainly adds ueeful 1nÍoroetlon to tàe
enpirical base.
The design of thÈ, inveatlgation
The EËln researoh gueetlone in our study rere the follovlng:
1. fhat are the eÍfects oÍ T}íLC on reading end vritj.ng skll.ls ln
LI?
2. Hhat Bre the effeetÉ of T}íLC on the acquÍeltÍon of knorledge of
oentral eferentE oÍ the Ll-cultl{re?
3. Íhat are thÉ Éffecta o{ T!íLC on achlevementÉ on teBtE for Dutch
Ianguage profÍëLency ànd arithhetÍea?
4, Ihat are the efÍeetg of T}íLC on the poeitlon of nigrant chlldren
in prlnary Bchools?
5. l{hat are the canÉequenceÉ, of TËLC f,or claaaroon End echool
orgenizatlon and manaqement?
líany coneepta mentloned ln the above researsh queetl.ona €re far f,ror
clèar. Ae mëfttlonëd earlí.er, re dón't knor vhat 'the' TI{LC Ín Dutch
echool8 la, and rhether the amount of ttBÈ avallsble 12 L/2 houtB per
reek vlthÍn nornal achooltlne) ie actually epent on 1t. Furthermore, 1t
ia not alraye clear yhat the firat language (Ll) le. In nany caeee
(Éap. Berber childrenl ve knor that the language taught ln ÍlíLC 1e not
the hone language. Add1tlonally, lnfof,sal rep{JrtE on hooe languàge uÉe
auggest an increaeed uÉe of Dutch 1n chlld-chlld intBractlona ln
nlgrant fanLlÍea.
leedlese to say, the concept oÍ 'culture, íB hlghly problematic, not
only beceuee decàdes of réBeareh have not led to a generally accepted

8. Í
deÍinition of culture, but al:o because rith nigrant groups the ,orn,
cu-lture tpnds to deviate froB the cu].ture in the country of origin over
time' ThpreÍore cu-rturè"r knorledge taken for granted in riorocco ie not
availabfe and/or relevant in Holland, In other yords, the ,here and
nos' culture di{fers Írom the ,there and then, culture. At the Eiane
tine the 'there ànd then, cu-Iture is nore closely related to the
ofÍicial, high culture and accordingly nore likely to be taught at
school, yhile the ,here and noy, cuLture iE more reLevant for the
preaent situati.on oÍ the nigrant ch1ldren. In the devel0pment of the
tests Íor culture ye decided to opt Íor knorledge of cultural aspecte
as it ig likely to be taught at school.. Thls 1s not an altogether
satiafying solution, but a pragnatj.c choice íor the present
i nvestigatioo,
Finally, investigation of effects of rlíLC on vhat goes on in echoole
and clasaroomË is conplicated by thè ÍaEt that a part oÍ the
information required has to be gathered through Dutch teachers, and it
is not alrays evident that cultural, attitudee and xënophobia do not
play a role in the conveyance oÍ 'obJecti-ve, information. Ae paurston
{1982) ha8 shovn, teachers of nigrant children are part of a larger
supportive nètíork that is baaed on the exi-sténce of disadvantage., and
the Éurvival of the netyork depends to a certain extent on the
continuation of theEe dieadvantages.
Four different groups of informants eere tèEted/Íntervleredl
a. lligrant chil,drÈn in group g oÍ primary Echool (mean age l1_l2
b. Dutch children in group g;
c. TIíLC-teachers;
d. Dutch teachere.

9. -
For each Digrant child teeted, re gsthÈred indlvrduar. infornation from
both the Tl{Lc-teecher and the Dutch teachèr. Dutch chirdren (i.e. tbe
cLaEsnatee oÍ the nigrant chirdren teeted) rere included for tvo
rea6on§! first-ty. becaueè teBting ïaE easier rhen the yhole group took
part ln it, EÍnce 1t freed the teacher frots the tËBk oÍ dolng so'ethlng
e'Lse rith the Dutch chi.l.dren shrle the [igrant chi].dren yère berng
tested, secondry, to have a point of reÍèrence f,or the Dutch
eurrlculun. Data on Dutch chlldràn could tell ur more Ebout the irp.ct
of a particular school or claeE on echool achLevenents. It ni,ght be the
eaee that the Íact that a gJ.ven child attendB a certaln Échool Ln a
certtsLn environnent 1g nore important for (lack of) echool succeee than
the Íaet the child hee a migrant becksround. It hag heen auggeÉted
that in à ïelL-$Ensged school rÍth hlghly motlvated teachere 1t doeen.t
nake nuch difference vhether a chLld has a Dutch oa a rton_Dutch
background. rhlle lt probably does make E difference rhen thÈ
educetional setting 1E .Lees supportive tJungbluth 1gg6).
For practical rèaËona, our investlgation rËs restricted to ïurkieh.
lroroccsn and Spanieh children. The flrat tro groupË are by far the
lergeÈt nlgrant groupe 3.n Dutch prioary schoole, the thlrd group 18
nuch etaller, but lt rae deened Decesrary to include onÈ of the ,early,
nlgrÈnt group§ in the Btudy. A Ëtr'trfied random eel.estion of Échoolr
all over thè lletherLsndË led to the folloviag nunbèrÉ of Lnfornants:
chll.dren TlíLC-teacherE Dutch teaeherE
Turki.Eh
llorsecEn
363
246
-l
-l- 1"o
3

10. Spanish 42 -
I
Dutch L570
Table l, Nunbèr of infornant§
The number of Turkish and lioroccan children vae rufficj.ently high for
etatL6tica.L anÉIyses, rhich ïaÉ Írot alvayÉ the caÉë vith Spanlsh
children. To gíve an Ínpreesion of the repreeentativenese of our
eample: the ertlmatÈd nunber of óhildren in group I that Íor ïhon TIíLC-
facllitleE have bëèn applled for iÉ 23AA for TurkiEh, 18OO Íor
lloroccan, and 170 Íor Spanish (!,Íinistry of Educatlon 1984).
In ordÉr to get the information needed, the folloïlng teste and
ÍnËtrumèntà have been d€veloped:
1. Fór the migrant ohildren
*general. language pioficiency test Turkish/lloroccan/Spanish
.'Can-do' -self-evàIuetion test Turkísh/l{oroccan/Spaoish and Dutch
Ioeneral language proficléncy teet Dutch
lTe6t for arithmetiog (ln Dutch)
+Teat Turki.shllÍorocsan/§panleh culture
+Ouesti.onnalre on age, 6ex.e, Ianguage ueed at home, attítude tovarde
oïn country and the l{€thèrlande, estinated Dutch Ienguage
proficiency parent6, attitude torards T}íLC and school/tea€her.
2. For Dutch children
{GeneraI language proficiency teÈt Dutch
iTest for arithmetica
rQuesti-osnaÍre on attitudeÉ torardÈ Échool/teachÉr.
3. Fór ït{Lc-teachere
t0

11. rBuestionnaire on sex, country 6f orlgin, length oÍ reaidence,
qusllfieatlons and teachj.ng experLence, coopÈrEtion vlth other
teachers, aLme and goè-1,§ ln TIÍLC
.Ouestlonnalre on lndividual pupi.Le concerning: number of chlldren
in ïlrlg-group, number of houre of, TIíLC, eetinated language
u8e/choise ln diÍferent donalne, ertlhated projiciency in orn
language.
4. For Dutch teacherB
rQueÉtlonnalré on j.Ínplemèntatlon oÍ intercultural èducation, changes
Ín progrem beqauee of TíLC, epeclal arrangenente Íor nÍgrBnt
children ÍolLoílng T!íLC, cooperation rj.th ThlC_tèacher
iQueBtlonnalre on lndlvldual puplIs concernlngÍ aupportive honè
clinate, nuobër of resits, achool achievementB, Echool competence,
characteriatics of fanlly, parente, contact' rlth echool, ethnlc
background, language u.e/chorce 1n diÍferent donalns, petrnated
Dutch languagè proflcÍency of parente, nuaber of houre and roeatron
of TI{LC (rithin or outaide achoolbuildLng}.
Sueqtlonnalrea and teete vere ÈÈt up ln eucb a ray that for each polnt
oÍ Ínteregt nore than one gource of Lnforration cosld be uged.
Since ve are stlLl Ín the procese of analyzing the data, and the
analysis is clearly not a vÉry slnple one, vè san preaent herÉ only
eone prelinlnary reeulte of the language and culture teste.
Flrat a more detailed deecription le glven of the development of the
teÈtE for language Énd culture.
For both fin€ntrlal ànd practlcaL reöÉonÉ aural proflciency vae nöt
te.ted aa such: alr teeting ras done qroupïlae ànd íith rrltten teBtÉ.
11

12. Í_
The nain reasong rere that ïe rould need to have a large number oÍ
traj.ned natlve sPeakers aË asters and that individual adminietration
and scoring of tests rould call for nore funds than re had available'
In order to get at least sone inÍornation about speaking ski'lls' T!'1LC-
teachers Yere asked to indicàte for each chiLd hov proficient he/Ehe
ïas. Àdditionall-y' ve added a self-evaluation teet on both epoken and
rritten skj'1ts to the normal proíiciency test'
For the developnent oÍ the language and culture teEt6 aims and goale
for TíLC aa mentioned in the l"iterature Yere gathered' It turned out'
that tlre aim6 and goafs nentioned rere so vague, in generaJ'' that they
could not serve aE a basis Íor test development' There{ore Ye included
a stage in Yhich a nunber of Dutch expert6 Yere interviered about their
vieYs on TI1LC and relevant test forms and contents' This 1ed to a
number of uaeful- suggestione and comments' One of the nore comPlex
comnents addressed thÈ problen of religion as a part of culture: on the
oBe hand testing culture Yithout religion rould be Íutite vith children
vith a Islamic background (líoroccan and most Turkieh)' on the other
hand, religj'on is nct officially part of TIíLC' It rae Euggested to
include at least some items on facta about religion'
0n the basi6 of a Iiterature seaIch, an inventory of tests of }anguage
proÍiciency in Turkish' Iloroccan-Àrabitr and SpaniËh vas made' The tests
that Bere mentiöned in the llterature and that re nanaged to lay our
handE on (Turkish: verhoeven 1986, Arabic: Hofman & Habib-AIlah 1982;
Lanbert & lloore -1985; vdwetering' Lkoundi & Teuni'ssen' Spanish: the
oí{icia.L test íor SFani§h abroad) turned out to be of no use Íor the
age-groups ln our j-nvestj-gatj'on'
absence of tests Ye could use ue had to dËveloP our orn
yas decided to develoP three dÍÍferent teatÈ for each
Given
tests.
the
II
t2

13. Í
Iànguage group! a rrltten global proflolency test, a self-evaluation
test on epoken aird rrltten }angur;e and a rrittën te.t oÍr culture. AE
nentioned earrier, the serj-evaluation te§t vas added to get at least
EorBe infornatlon about surEl profisiency snd lietenlng comprehen8lon.
Àn addltional. reseon ïaE, that other reÉearoh on language attrition (de
Bot & LLnteen lgg8, leltens tggg) ÈuggeBtE thEt seLf reports on
Ianguage proflclency ehould not be looked et ae conpletply equlvalËnt
to nornEr proficlency tÈEtsr Bince the correlation betreen the tro le
felrly 1oïr ln general exprainlng r-esa that 3oï oÍ the varlEnce, and
accordlngLy, and because they nay yelL teat diÍÍerent aepecte. rt courd
be the Èasp, thet i.n selí reporta an attitudlnal conponent pteya Én
inportant ro.l,e, in aituÉtionE vhere ëoBpÈtence 1n E lEnguEge j.s nore
than a terhnlcal Ëkill, the feëli.ng of being proficient nay be nore
inportant than, and not really based on, ,real, proficÍency. It Ls not
insonseivable that su6h is the càÈe rlth i'nigrenta and their children,
The orn .l.anguege Eervee Éa àn important eynbol oÍ ethnlclty, even
though Èpeskers rnèy not be very proÍlci.ent in it (FiEhmBD 19gs), Thè
epplication oÍ the serf-evaluation teEt can give uE sone ldea of thie
type oÍ perceived proÍiciency.
For the Éelf-evaluetlon ve declded to uee Clark,s ,Can_do Èca1É8,
(1981). In these sca_Lea, a number of (i.ncreaeingly difÍteult) language
u8e eltuatÍone are descrÍbed for different subeklLIe (lietenlng,
speaklng, reading, vrÍting). and the Ínfornant ha5 to indicate on a 5-
pointecale hor difficult theae EituationE are for them ag Íar as
Ianguage uEe le concerned. After Éome pretestlng the foLlorlng language
uae Bituatíone appeared to be ueable Íor sur test:
Eeadlng: a. read and underetand a conlë strip in;
b. read and underetand a chlldren,s book;
t3

14. c. understand tasks described in school bookel
llritlng: a, rrite dorn a hort shoppj.ng liÈt;
b. rrite dorn vords dictated by the T}tlC-teacheri
c. yrite è Éhort essay about rhat you vou-Id like to be in
the future;
Speaking: a, explai"n to a (Èàme languége) frÍend hor your houÉÉ
Iooks U-ke;
b. explaín to a (sane language) friend rhat you have
done at school duri,ng a certain day;
c. explaln to a (ÉamÉ language) Írlend hor to run a
casEette-taperecorder I
Listening: a, lJnderstand à nursery rhyne the first time yóu hèar
it;
b, [Jnder6tand the TíLC-teacher's queeti.onsl
c. Understand a convereation betveen tvo people.
The iteÍ0Ë vere Éelécted ln such a ïay that both fornal and j,nformal
domaíns vere included. Because oí the inclusion oÍ the fornal/i-nformal
diEtinctíon, it ras very dlfficult tq eelect three i.teEs of increaÉlng
dlfficulty for each subekill. In a nunber of caser the three ÍtemÉ per
skill are unlikely to form a real scale.
ïhe Dutch version of thiÉ test yaa translated for a try-out. The
pupils' ovn lanEuage proficiency appeared to be too linited to
understand the teÉt. It vas decided, therefore, to preaent the Can-do
scales on Turkish, Spaniah atd Horoccan ln Dutch. Each pupll did both
lhe v.Èrsion on Dutch and the vÈrELon on their orn language.
For th€ developneeL of the normal proÍiciency testg natlve Epeakpr
Btudent aÈÈistants for Turkish and Spanish, and doctoral etudents of
14

15. -
ArBblE took part in the tnveetlgetion. fn order to get an lnpreaËion oÍ
the toplcs, approaches and lengl jge use during TILC-J.eEIEon€, claesroon
obEervàtlons yere csrried out. ThÈ next atep ras àn analysie of
teashing neterial ueed Ln TIILC for the three 1anguagee. It ,És deci.ded
to uÉe the language used in the teachlng Daterial Es àn anchor.
The analysle of teaching Eaterial also provided us vith lnfornation
about topica, tTpee of exerciseÈ and tyFee of testE re could uee.
Slnce re alned at developlng a globÈl proficlency teEt, itetsa yere
telested on d1ÍÍerent deecriptLve levels {spelling, syntax, vocabulary,
ldiona and pragnatics). Tertfor'lat8 included blankfllllng, multlp.Le-
choice and matching. The natching Íornat rae used, berauee in contraËt
to the other fortsatE thlE formàt requi.eE no vriting proÍlclency on the
part oÍ the puplle' AJ.though the developrent of the tests for the three
Ianguages ran paràtlel, the reeulting tëstr differed conElderably for
obvioua reaÉons. It should be Étre8aed here, that in our inveÉtigation
re never lntended or intend to nEke corparlEona betreen Isnguage
groupg.
0n the baaiË of classrooÍi obÉervatione and analyaee of teachl-ng
naterlalÉ a large aet of test itema eaB dÈveloped for each language and
curture, A repre8entattve serèction from thíe eet raB Eent to a nunber
of experienced rt{LC-teachera, and thelr com*enta vëre uÉed to nake
flrst drafts of the tÉEts. Thèee versione lere ueed in a try-out at tÍo
different BChool-E per language group. The aln oÍ the try-out var to get
an Ímpreeelon of the revel of difflcurty of the iteme and the ti,ne
needed tö Íinieh the test. This try out ïaa not reËIly a preteetÍng of
the teata, beceuse the nuhber of pupils involved vaE Emall. RÉa.L
preteStlng could have involued the inslueion of large numberE of pupÍI8
and teacher.. Thie rae deeÍlpd undeairabra, becauee this vourd enhance
the rlek of test beconlng avallable for many TlÍLC-teachers, rho
l5

16. accordingly, and quite understandably, could train thej.r puplls Íor
this test. llany TIrLC-tFache-.§ vere arare of the politicaL Eignj,ficance
of this inveetigati.on,
The final version of the language test consisted of 128 Ítems for the
Spanish test, 48 ltems for the !íoroccan-Arabic test and 84 ítema for
the Turkish test. The differences in numbera are due to the numbere of
items pupiJ.a appeared to be able to handle in thÉ try-out. The LeÈta
for cuLture consisted of 20 items for 5pani6h, 27 items for líoroccan
and 24 itens for Turki6h. The líorocean test yaB preBented in a
bilÍngual ( Dutch./Àrabic ) veraion, because re had already strong
indications that a large portion of the group vould be unabl.e to read
Arabic, Topics dealt ïith in the culture test6 íene: history,
geography, facts about religion and famj.Iy relations.
As mentioned Éarlier, ye have only recently started analyzing the data.
For all tests, Cronbach's alpha appeared to be .gS or higher, StiII,
the teÉtE appeared to difÍer considerably in difficulty, Table 2, lists
Lhe percentage of pupils rho scored less than 502 correct:
Turk ish / language
íorocëan/language
Spanish / I anguage
Turkish lcul"ture
tÍoroccan /cu l t ure
Spanish /cu!ture
Table 2. percentage of pupils
6Lt
10v.
rith less than 507. correct
For lloroccan, 34lZ aÍ the pupils could notU the language teËt at aII,
mainly becauBe they cannot read Arabic.
16

17. A f,actor enalyeis on tbe can-do acareE produced à onè-factor ÉoruttgÀ
for Turki8b, explalnJ.ng 4gÍ oÍ the varience, and for Dutch overarr
{i.p. Íor the thrÉe groupa taken together), ëxpl.aLning 493 oí the
variànce' AppsreDtry, neither production ve. pereeption, nor epoken vs.
vritten rnade a elgniÍicent dlfÍerence. For l{oroccan language a tro_
Íactor aolutlon ràs found. The tro Íaëtora relate clÉàr}y to e
dlëtiDstión betreen rritten and spoten lenguage, Also Íor Spanleh a
tvo-factor Eolutim ïaa found, llerÉ tha tro factors appÈBr tó be
related to nore eèsy vE. Dore difficult language uee situEtions. FEctor
Énal,yaee for Dutch san-do scalee produced sn uninterpretablq three_
faetor solution for the spanieh Ehildren and one-factor solutlons Íor
the Turkish end lloroccan ehildren.
SoBe Íurther analysee have been cÈrrièd out on the ïoroccan language
teËts' Fir'tr the correratlon eoef,Ílciènt betïeen can-do |íoroccen end
can-do Dutch appeBred to be -,16 {ne}, Appareatly, the can_do scales
are really language related, they neaeure not Just a general -Isnguagë
factor or llnguistLc se]ÍconÍidence. Thia coeÍÍlelent also euggeete
that taking the tro can-do ecares one Bhortly after the other doee not
Ieàd to transÍer of reBponse§.
The correlatlon betreen general language proÍÍciency ecore aod can_do
líoroccan vas.55 (p<.Ol). Thls le Ín line rith earlÍer rèsearch on the
relation betíeen self-evaluation and global proflcÍeney neaeuree. The
tro are not indepèndent, but thElr overlap j-e èxtenÉrve. Later on ïe
rill also look at the children attlt.udes torarda school and torarde
lÍvJ-ng'in the tíetherlands and eee ïhÉther theee ecJres can explaln sone
of the varlanse 1n the can-do acales.
l7

18. Orre of,, th6 leèsonr for thè àSpltèài.ioh of the can-do è§eleE rBB, that
g1öbël ÉroJiclency teÉtiÍls did not dëe] rith speaking and listening
sktllÈ, ïhsefe::e the can'da st:eles vere eubdivlded intq a part on
readlng/eritiag íBlll and e par:l on apeökiag/li§tenlng (§L).. Table 3.
eontains the nean scores for B}l è§ §L íor Dutoh and lrorÓceanl
Rlí/Dutch 4' 3
SL/Dutch 4.3
Bl{;/íoroccan 2.9
Sl/lllorotrtran 3, i
Table 3' !íeanE fGr Rta and'SL §ubBcàlÈÈ
ïh€ co.rrelatlon bet$eën the B!{'scale and the §L-eca.Le ra§ .88 ' fsi
Dutch Errd .57" Íox !!orosca,n, Both th-e neaa§ atid the ogrïelatioÀE Èho*
ttral f,or íplocean the dlÉcrépaocy bet*een nY àttd SL trÉ nuch ilóte
evj.deít thao Íor Dutch. Thia i6 probably due to the Íscè thàt. atl
Èki1.I6 aré uèed in Éshool,
"hi,Ie
yritiag in àrabic Le llmited to the
ïltlc-l ssons.
llore inportantly, the corïslat16ns xith global proÍiclency- Éc§rtg ànd
Rtt/§L appearÈd to dtíÍer cÈn€iderablyr
GIobaI proÍicÍency
RI{
.66.t
§L
.30..
This Ë.Iearly shor6 that thÈ can-do ËcËIes do indeed add sóhething tö
the qlobal proftclëney ÈsoÍe6, Leterr ón tÍe siII conpare the SL scoreÉ
rith teacher ratingB oÍ proficiency,
1À

19. -1:1r!;-.i-ii::in r :r-j :
-
À Íl'nal point concern. the 4èE,,Ge betreen the tro r.nguÉge'. Be.Euse
Èach child did both the Dutch and the orn language verEiÈn of the car_
do ecales, re can salculate a neaeure oÍ balanee by Elnply aubtíacting
the second fron the f,lrst. A negative seore ruggeste higher proÍlclency
ln the ovn language, ecoree around zero Ére indleative of a balance,
ehlle poEltivë EcoreÈ point to higher proficiency l'n Duteh, Flgure 1.
presenta frequepcy dirtrlbutlong for alL !íóroocan children:
fi idp.r i r,t
8ËLFiirl
f,.-,q:rri
rA
a'
I
Ër
I
!
.::6
tÈ
l!
t7
1S
l4
:
-J,s I
'-"'lr
Í'ï l"
*È-J
i
-l'3 l-
'-l Ir
_-ï|ffi.r
*.il-_
-_-
-
-
rE-
_rlG--
_rI
:''l ix
,t.-'l_
l, ,. . +.. , , I. . ,. +. . . . l, . .,.F. . . . i., . . +. , ., I.... +,... t
os16?4j;'+q
Histtqran Fr-Equentry
F1g. l. Frequency dLatributlons for
líorocegn,
Flguree 2. and 3. preÉent the eane data
Rf:
'balance' bptyeen Dutch aöd
for the tvo auhecal.ea SL Énd
19

20. Li
;.j
i. Lt
'1" rl
Frt.r.#ffiEttDEtaE
,
;#+#.#;.nf,#FB#inEF!*rm
igl|Ftlq@r#qs*IffiÈit$r
j!ÍF@*r$
lm,w*
I
I eH*s
lnwqx
t' I ti ,jtzr j t:.
P I 1:i q,1ii.;i1i Èr,eq,-1,1,,1 r,
,-.."-rlJFt:
:
Fig.
,=t
i
:
.ii
i .1.
.i li
i r,l
i11
ii
2. Frequency distributlons for ,ba-Iance, SL.
-r,I i
,#
"' iw
í;,;
, . e@{tffiÈ}ilts
i, - , t6fÈ
..11 I
. l*Ws#esHq*rHrrffir
t%
lmFeËq*rFíEËft
I
I ryïEA
I....,. ,,..,I. ,
;- i'=
iir :-.t t,q, ._1m Frr;l,.rEr :y
Fig.3. Frequency dlstributions for ,ba]"ance,
Bt{,
, - r- . " . I
its J-t1

21. There ls .eome d1Íferense betreen theee tro dlstrl'butlor§. ?hlË Eugge§t6'
àt lëast sBne tlsited inpaet 6n tbe ePoBelt laíBrragë .by th§ hone
eDvlrqtaent. Lster on ïe rlli relqte iheee data rith da-ta on languege
riËÈd àt horÍle.
In thiÉ Faper an attehpt LB BadÉ te pretelrt ri f,lr'§t iketch of our
lnvèatlgEtlon on effects of T!íLC on qutch EchoolE. The nore lnterestlng
pert crf, the dnatyÉé§, ln vh:,ch language neaBures are .related tÈ bqndle6
of charàeteÍ16tÍcÉ of pupilB. teaohera and echcolg 1e likely to bÉ
JinÍehed nsar lhe end of thla year,
Eef,erehoeE
(to be addÉd>
2L