31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Multilingual Literacy Practices in Theory and Practice in Day care Centres in Luxembourg
Claudine Kirsch, Valérie Kemp, Dzoen Bebic-Crestany
University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Presenting Author: Kirsch, Claudine;
Kemp, Valérie
The richness of literacy experiences at home and in settings of early childhood education and care (ECEC) shapes children's language and literacy trajectories and predicts their school achievements (Skibbe et al., 2011; Wasik et al., 2016; Wood et al., 2018). In ECEC contexts, the practice of interactive story reading such as dialogic reading has been given much attention because the rich and meaningful interactions between adults and children during literacy events contribute to children’s development of oral skills in one or several languages (Farver et al., 2013; Whitehurst et al., 1998). While home languages are the foundation on which to develop additional languages (Herzog-Punzenberg et al., 2017), literacy practices in multiple languages are still rare in ECEC (Kirsch & Bergeron-Morin, 2023). More research has emerged in the last years owing to the implementation of multilingual programmes in several European countries or states (e.g. Germany, Switzerland). This is also the case in Luxembourg, where the current project comes from.
Luxembourg has three official languages (Luxembourgish, French, German) but many more are spoken on account of the highly diverse population. At present, two-thirds of the children in ECEC do not speak Luxembourgish as their home language (MENJE, 2022). Following the 2017 Education Act on multilingual education for one- to-four-year-olds in ECEC, educators in day care centres are required to develop children’s skills in Luxembourgish (or French), familiarise them with French (or Luxembourgish) and value the children’s linguistic and cultural backgrounds. To promote language development, the national framework foresees that educators engage children in regular literacy activities in multiple languages, possibly with the assistance of parents inside the centres. A survey in 2020 found that most educators read and told stories in multiple languages, mainly in French, Luxembourgish and German, more rarely in Portuguese, though not every educator read every day (Kirsch & Aleksić, 2021). Like elsewhere, educators are frequently unsure of how to engage children in such complex practices and use translanguaging effectively in this process.
Translanguaging is the strategic deployment of a person’s entire semiotic repertoire to communicate and make meaning (García & Otheguy, 2020). It is the main pillar of translanguaging pedagogies which help teachers leverage the learners’ multilingual and multimodal resources for learning. These critical pedagogies can be transformative for learners and teachers as they empower the learners to connect home and school languages, valued equally. Literacy activities in multiple languages are part of the design of translanguaging pedagogies and have proven to develop students’ confidence in engaging in literacy, deepen their understanding of text, increase the diversity of the texts they produce, and promote their metalinguistic awareness (García & Kleifgen, 2019). There are, however, few studies on multilingual literacy practices with younger children.
Based on a longitudinal mixed-method project in Luxembourg, the present paper investigates literacy practices in multiple languages in three day care centres, focusing on educators who work with three-year-old children. In a qualitative study, we intended, firstly, to explore which literacy activities in which languages the educators offered over one academic year and in which ways they interacted with children. Secondly, based on these findings, we aimed to conceptualize the educators’ practices in relation to several dimensions, being inspired both by Hornberger’s continua of biliteracy (2022) and translanguaging (García, 2016; García & Kleifgen, 2019).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe participants in this study were educators whose ECEC institutions had taken part in a professional development course on collaboration with parents and literacies, offered by the research team. Among the volunteers, we chose three centres on account of their different geographical locations and different main languages. In two centres, the main language was Luxembourgish and the educators communicated in Luxembourgish as well as German and French, and even Portuguese if they knew this language. In the third centre, the main language was French. While the educators addressed the three-year-olds mainly in French, they also read to them in English.
Having received ethical clearance from the University of Luxembourg, we spent 76 days between September 2020 and October 2021 in the centres, observing the educators and children, and doing semi-structured interviews with the managers of the institutions and some of the educators. The observational data included fieldnotes, video-recordings, and thick descriptions. The interviews were transcribed as were most of the videos. We added details on the use of the participants’ semiotic repertoire to get rich and contextualised descriptions.
When analysing the data, we coded the type of literacy activities (e.g. reading, singing, rhyming, writing) but, in this paper, will focus on reading or telling stories. These activities were coded in relation to the language use and the type of books as well as the adults’ and children’s type of engagement (i.e. browsing, reading/ telling a story, encouraging narration). These codes enabled us to compare the practices across the centres and between the educators from various perspectives. To develop a deeper understanding of the pedagogical practices, we analysed the interactions in literacy events based on conversation analysis from a sociocultural perspective (Seedhouse, 2007). We thereby focussed on the strategies that the educators and children deployed to encourage participation and promote understanding. The interviews, which were analysed with thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), were used for triangulation purposes. Finally, to conceptualize the educators’ understanding, we drew on the continua of biliteracy (Hornberger, 2022) and translanguaging (García, 2016; García & Kleifgen, 2019) and compared the literacy practices on the following four continua: literacy (skills – social practice), pedagogy (behaviourist – social constructivist), multilingualism (language – languaging), and language (monolingual– multilingual).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings showed that the educators had different understandings of literacy embedded in different pedagogies based on different learning theories. Some educators understood literacy as skills to be developed and engaged children in a few question-answer games following behaviouristic practices. The aim seemed to be the development of language skills at the word or sentence level, and the perceived outcomes were related to cognitive and emotional benefits. Other educators understood literacy as a social practice and helped children make meaning of texts in multiple languages. Using dialogic reading, they engaged the three-year-olds in discussions around longer and more complex texts which they related to children’s experiences. Language and literacy development were perceived in a holistic way.
All educators used at least two languages, but most used several to activate children’s semiotic repertoire. While some educators translanguaged rarely, others did so in every observation. The first group tended to separate languages, possibly based on the belief that the use of two languages confuses children. By contrast, other educators used their entire repertoire and encouraged children to do so as well to ensure understanding and participation.
When combining these findings, it became apparent that the educators who were implementing more social-constructivist pedagogies were also those who perceived literacies as social practices and frequently drew on children’s entire language repertoire to help them understand stories and express themselves in meaningful ways.
Overall, the findings show that national programmes that call for literacy in multiple languages can be implemented successfully but that educators require guidance and training on various levels. Professional development courses and initial education could deepen educators’ understanding of learning theories, language development, multilingualism, and literacy, help them understand the interplay of these dimensions, and encourage reflection on their own practices.
ReferencesBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Farver, J. A. M., Xu, Y., Lonigan, C. J., & Eppe, S. (2013). The home literacy environment and Latino head start children's emergent literacy skills. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 775–791.
García, O. (2016). Becoming Bilingual and Biliterate. Sociolinguistic and Sociopolitical Considerations. In C. Addison Stone, Elaine R. Silliman, Barbara J. Ehren, Geraldine P. Wal-lach (Eds.) Handbook of language and literacy. Development and disorders. Second edition. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 145–160.
García, O., & Otheguy, R. (2020). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Commonalities and divergences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(1), 17–35.
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2019). Translanguaging and Literacies. Reading Research Quarterly 55(4),553–571.
Herzog-Punzenberger, B., Le Pichon, E. M. M., & Siarova, H. (2017). Multilingual education in the light of diversity: Lessons learned. Publications Office of the European Union.
Hornberger, N. (2022). Researching and teaching (with) the continua of biliteracy. In Educational Linguistics 1(1), 108–133.
Kirsch, C. & Aleksić, G. (2021). Multilingual education in early years in Luxembourg: a paradigm shift? The International Journal of Multilingualism, 18(4), 534–550.
Kirsch, C. & Bergeron-Morin, L. (under review, minor revisions) Educators, parents and children engaging in literacy activities in multiple languages: an exploratory study. The International Journal of Multilingualism
MENJE. (2022). L'enseignement au Luxembourg en chiffres. Année scolaire 2021/2022. https://men.public.lu/fr/publications/statistiques-etudes/themes-transversaux/20-21-enseignement-chiffres.html
Seedhouse, P. (2007). On Ethnomethodological CA and “Linguistic CA”: A Reply to Hall. The Modern Languages Journal, 91(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00620.x
Skibbe, L. E., Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Jewkes, A. M. (2011). Schooling effects on preschoolers’ self-regulation, early literacy, and language growth. Early childhood research quarterly, 26(1), 42–49.
Wasik, B. A., Hindman, A. H., & Snell, E. K. (2016). Book reading and vocabulary development: A systematic review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37, 39–57.
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D, Valdez-Menchaca, M. C. & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552–558.
Wood, C., Fitton, L., & Rodriguez, E. (2018). Home literacy of dual-language learners in kindergarten from low-SES backgrounds. AERA Open, 4(2), 1–15.
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
Pre-service English Language Teachers’ Beliefs about Multilingualism
Seher Cevikbas
University of Hamburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Cevikbas, Seher
Multilingualism has long been a fact widely across Europe (Gogolin, 1994). Germany, one of Europe's major countries, has traditionally been a destination for immigrants in many different cultural and political forms (Gogolin et al., 2019). The migration movements have come with some interwoven variables, e.g., language, religion, gender, age, legal status as well as ethnic background (Vertovec, 2009). Of these variables, language diversity pertains to the most important factors that can be applicable to educational contexts (Gogolin et al., 2019), which means that schools and classrooms, especially foreign language classrooms are abundant in students with a variety of language backgrounds (Bonnett & Siemund, 2018). However, many areas of the educational system still exhibit the signs of “monolingual habitus” (Gogolin, 2021). It is argued that a “multilingual turn” is needed to attend to the disparity between multilingual society and monolingual approaches applied (Putjata et al., 2022). In order to make this change possible, focusing on teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism can be one of the departure points considering that teachers’ beliefs can play an important role in success and future opportunities of all students, in particular those from different language and cultural backgrounds (Lucas, et al., 2015). Portolés and Martí (2018) found that initial teacher training is beneficial in forming pre-service teachers’ beliefs about multilingual pedagogies. Understanding of teachers’ beliefs is crucial given that teachers’ beliefs are such a substantial predictor of what happens in the classroom (Borg, 2006). Teachers’ beliefs have a considerable impact on how they understand classroom situations, develop their practice, and treat practice-related challenges (Skott, 2015). Fischer (2018) produced the theoretical construct of teachers’ professional beliefs including seven dimensions: epistemological beliefs, beliefs about teaching, beliefs about the teachers’ role (self), beliefs about the students, beliefs about school in general, beliefs about teacher training, and beliefs from a social perspective as well as referring to their beliefs about linguistic and cultural diversity.
Language teachers, including English language teachers, play an important role in supporting students’ multilingualism. However, surprisingly language teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism and multilingual pedagogies have been scarcely examined in the related literature (Haukås, 2016). Considering this research gap, the current study focuses on pre-service English language teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism in the classroom at a state-run university in Germany, University of Hamburg, and seeks to investigate English language teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism in the classroom in depth. In particular, the study aims to answer the following research question:
How can pre-service English language teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism in the classroom be described?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study, which aims at exploring pre-service English language teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism in classroom in depth, is designed as a qualitative case study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), considering 11 participating pre-service English language teachers at the University of Hamburg as the case of this study. Participants are master’s students at the “Department of Teaching English Language and Literature” in the Faculty of Education and were taking the “Kernpraktikum” course in which they have the opportunity to observe classes in schools, gather teaching experience and reflect on it under the supervision of a mentor. The majority of the participants are female (82%, n = 9) with the age level in the range of 22 and 43 (M = 27,4). More than half of them were born in Germany (64%, n = 7) and a bit more than half of them were grown up multilingual (55%, n = 6). The majority of the participants study English as their first subject (80%, n = 9) and a small number of them study English as their second subject (20%, n = 2). A quarter of them study the teaching profession in Primar- und Sekundar Stufe I (primary and secondary level I) (27%, n = 3), and approximately three fourth of them study the teaching profession in Gymnasien (academic track of secondary education) (73%, n = 8). In addition, nearly all of them have experience in teaching multilingual classrooms (91%, n = 10).
The qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews and the interview guideline comprised of seven open-ended questions that were developed based on the teachers’ professional beliefs construct produced by Fischer (2018), referring to the linguistic and cultural diversity in schools and classrooms. The interviews which lasted ranging from 30-60 minutes were conducted as face-to-face and online Zoom meetings. The interviews were all transcribed verbatim and the data are analysed based on qualitative thematic analysis approach by Braun and Clarke (2006).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAccording to the preliminary results, the pre-service English language teachers believe that students with a multilingual background should have the opportunity to communicate in their home languages from time to time in English language classes. Further, they specify some situations in which students should be able to communicate in their home languages. One of these situations is need of clarification. For instance, one of the participants stated, “I would allow them to speak German or other home languages when discussing perhaps an exam, or how grades will be distributed or whatever”.
According to the study results, pre-service teachers also believe that speaking languages other than English in the classroom creates a positive climate because all the students in the class can be familiar with the new languages, in particular, with the new words and phonology of the new languages. Even so, some of them believed that this can lead to a negative classroom climate, as some students may feel excluded or do not feel that they belong to a certain group.
Code switching in the English language classrooms is another aspect mentioned by the participants. Pre-service English teachers believe that code-switching in an English language classroom is not negative, as students feel more confident to express their ideas though code switching. They also think that students switch between languages because they feel more comfortable in another language in their language repertoire.
Furthermore, the participants believe that students in the English language classrooms should be given the opportunity to discuss the subject in their home languages. They mention that students’ home languages can be a scaffold. They also highlight some kind of activities like group work in which students can discuss the activity with their peers speaking the same language and clarify it, which could be quite helpful for them.
ReferencesBonnet, A., & Siemund, P. (2018). Introduction. Multilingualism and foreign language education: a synthesis of linguistic and educational findings. In A. Bonnet, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Foreign language education in multilingual classrooms (pp. 1-29). John Benjamins.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Fischer, N. (2018). Professionelle Überzeugungen von Lehrkräften: vom allgemeinen Konstrukt zum speziellen Fall von sprachlich-kultureller Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 65(1), 35–51.
Fischer, N. & Ehmke, T. (2019). Empirische Erfassung eines „messy constructs“: Überzeugungen angehender Lehrkräfte zu sprachlich-kultureller Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 22, 411-433.
Gogolin, I. (1994): Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster u.a.: Waxmann.
Gogolin, I., McMonagle, S., & Salem, T. (2019). Germany: Systemic, sociocultural and linguistic perspectives on educational inequality. In P. A. J. Stevens, & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of race and ethnic inequalities in education (pp. 557-602). Palgrave Macmillan.
Gogolin, I. (2021). Multilingualism: A threat to public education or a resource in public education? – Euporean histories and realities. European Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 297-310.
Haukås, Å. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism and a multilingual pedagogical approach. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(1), 1-18.
König, J., Lammerding, S., Nold, G., Rohde, A., Strauß, S., & Tachtsoglou, S. (2016). Teachers‘ professional knowledge for teaching English as a foreign language: Assessing the outcomes of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 320-337.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey Bass.
Portolés, L., & Martí, O. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingual pedagogies and the role of initial training. International Journal of Multilingualism, 17(2), 248-164.
Putjata, G., Brizić, K., Goltsev, E., & Olfert, H. (2022). Introduction: Towards a multilingual turn in teacher professionalization. Language and Education, 36(5), 399-403.
Skott, J. (2015). The promises, problems, and prospects of research on teachers’ beliefs. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Ed.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs (pp. 13-31). Routledge.
Surkamp, C. & Viebrock, B. (2018). Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction. J.B. Metzler Stuttgart.
Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. Routledge.
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper
The Place of Global Issues in Foreign Language Classes from the Perspective of English Lecturers
Kadriye Dimici
İzmir Democracy University, Turkiye
Presenting Author: Dimici, Kadriye
Global education is an approach that aims to increase students' knowledge and awareness of the world they live in by addressing global problems in the lessons (Erfani, 2012; Jacobs & Cates, 1999). In this framework, global issues are handled in the lessons, and education can have a transformative function, rather than being in a structure that conveys information. English teachers have one of the biggest responsibilities in the transformation of foreign language learning from a scope in which only grammar rules and the characteristics of the target culture are conveyed to a scope where global issues are discussed and students have knowledge about various subjects and have the opportunity to convey their opinions by using the learned language as a tool (Byram, 1989; Erfani, 2012; Hosack, 2011; Pratama & Yuliati, 2016). The communicative approach and content-based instruction, which are popular methods of foreign language teaching, also suggest that meaning is significant for language education and language teachers could be considered lucky because they have a wide range of topics to include in their classes (Jacobs & Cates, 1999). Although there is no limitation as to what the global issues are, the ones most mentioned could be listed as gender equality, migration, environmental problems, health, poverty, respect, solidarity, and peace (British Council, 2009; UN, 2023). However, global foreign language coursebooks usually deal with topics regarded as harmless (British Council, 2009; Erfani, 2012; Pratama ve Yuliati, 2016) and they do not focus on controversial topics that affect the different parts of the world although this would be more useful for students in terms of connecting the language learning and daily life issues (Akbana & Yavuz, 2020). On the other hand, it is often emphasized by foreign language teaching authorities such as CEFR and TESOL that global issues are important and should not be ignored in EFL classes (Council of Europe, 2020; Erfani, 2012). Thus, adding national or local materials to the curriculum is important for language teachers because they may be suited to the needs of students more (Jacobs & Cates, 1999).
In light of this situation, it seems feasible to organize English lessons under the scope of global issues (Arslangilay, 2017; Cates, 2002; Yakovchuk, 2004). Considering the age and developmental levels, interests, and future lives of the students, it seems necessary to address global issues, especially in the university environment. For this reason, it is important to investigate the place of global issues in the English courses offered at the university and this study aims to determine the current situation regarding the use of global issues in English preparatory classes by taking the views of English lecturers. The answers to the following research questions are sought in this study:
1 What are the opinions of the English lecturers about using global issues in their lessons?
2 How do the English lecturers use global issues in their lessons?
3 How does the cultural and social profile of the classroom affect the instruction of English lecturers?
Despite the existence of some studies on the use of global issues in foreign language teaching in other countries (Cates& Jacobs, 2006; Erfani, 2012; Pratama & Yuliati, 2016; Yakovchuk, 2004), studies on this are rare in the context of Türkiye (Akbana & Yavuz, 2020; Arslangilay, 2017; Başarır, 2018). Therefore, this study is especially significant for revealing the current situation and guiding the decision-makers and practitioners in terms of utilizing global issues in language teaching.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used
The holistic case study design, one of the qualitative research methods, was used because the study aimed to analyze the use of global issues in foreign language classes in depth with an integrative approach. (Yin, 2003). The researcher prepared a semi-structured interview form consisting of 7 main questions. The questions in the form were prepared considering the related studies and experience of the researcher as an English lecturer herself and a researcher working on multicultural education and curriculum development. After the form was arranged, an expert opinion was taken from two academicians working in the department of Curriculum and Instruction. Based on their suggestions, some minor editions were made to make the interview questions clearer. A pilot interview was conducted with an English lecturer and the understandability of the questions was tested.
The data were obtained from 13 English lecturers working at five different universities in Izmir, Türkiye. İzmir is a developed city in the west of Türkiye and there are lots of universities in the city. The reason for choosing that city to get the data was because the researcher also worked and lived in İzmir, making it easier for her to reach the participants face to face and visit their workplaces. By using a maximum variation sampling method, the researcher tried to include lecturers from different genders, different nationalities, and different years of working experience. Two of the lecturers were not Turkish and there were 9 female and 4 male participants. Their work experience ranged from 4 to 25 years.
The data was collected during the spring term of the 2021-2022 academic year. The duration of the interviews changed from 15 minutes to 41 minutes with a total record of 310 minutes.
A content analysis technique was used by following the steps suggested by Creswell and Poth (2018). First data was managed and organized. Then the process of reading and taking notes of ideas was practiced followed by defining codes and classifying them into themes. Then, comments were developed and the data was reflected and visualized in the final step.
The precautions related to the trustworthiness and credibility of the study were taken such as providing a detailed explanation of the participants and triangulation of sources. Ethical approval for this study was taken and the participants were provided with a consent form and assured of confidentiality. Pseudonyms were used for each participant.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings were categorized in terms of three themes in this study: 1) Opinions on the use of global issues in EFL classes, 2) How to use global issues in ELT classes, and 3) Cultural diversity in class and global issues. Related to the first theme, the findings showed that the lecturers generally had a positive view of the use of global issues in English teaching. However, they also expressed that some topics should be avoided because they are considered dangerous or sensitive. The lecturers listed the advantages of using global issues in their lessons as raising awareness, sharing ideas, improvement in the skills of research and higher-order thinking skills whereas they mentioned few disadvantages as personalization of some issues, transfer to L1 and deviating from the main topic of the lesson.
In terms of using global issues in their classes, most of the lecturers regarded the existence of a strict curriculum, a global coursebook and a standardized assessment system as barriers to the use of global issues. But there were a few lecturers who used their materials utilizing global issues and did not consider this a problem as long as they covered the objectives in the curriculum. They usually mentioned the use of posters, videos, writing reflection papers, doing research, infusing global issues into questions and language exercises and discussions to address the global issues in language classes.
Cultural diversity in class was usually stated to be effective while using global issues since the discussion around these topics was enriched and provided mobility in class through the existence of students from different cultural backgrounds.
In light of the findings, it could be said that global issues need to take place in foreign language teaching at every step from curriculum design to assessment.
ReferencesAkbana, Y. E., & Yavuz, A. (2020). Global issues in EFL teaching: EFL lecturers’ voices at a state university. Kahramanmaraş Sutcu Imam University Journal of Education, 2(1), 83-102.
Arslangilay, S.A. (2017). Küresel sorunların İngilizce öğretim programlarındaki yeri. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 1-12.
Başarır, F. (2018). An action research on development of students' language skills and awareness of global issues through theme-based English teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Çukurova University, Adana.
British Council (2009). Equal opportunity and diversity: The handbook for teachers
of English. Retrieved from:
https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/eod_handbook.pdf
Byram, M. (1989). Cultural studies in foreign language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cates, K. A. (1990). Teaching for a better world: Global issues and language education. Human Rights Education in Asian Schools, 5, 41-52.
Cates, K., & Jacobs, G. M. (2006). Global issues projects in the English language classroom. In G. H. Beckett & P. C. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. 167-180). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for
languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe. Retrieved from: www.coe.int/lang-cefr
Creswell, J.W. & Poth, C.N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing
among five approaches (4. ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Erfani, S. M. (2012). The rationale for introducing “global issues” in English textbook development. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2412-2416. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.11.2412-2416
Hosack, I. (2011). Foreign language teaching for global citizenship. Policy Science,
18(3), 125-140.
Jacobs, G. M., & Cates, K. (1999). Global education in second language teaching. KATA, 1(1), 44-56.
Pratama, H. & Yuliati (2016). Global education in English classroom: Integrating
global issues into English language teaching. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 6(9), 719-722. doi: 10.18178/ijssh.2016.6.9.739.
UN (United Nations). (2017). Global issues overview. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues
Yakovchuk, N. (2004). Global issues and global values in foreign language education: Selection and awareness-raising. Retrieved from: http://www.elted.net/issues/volume-8/index.html
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Thousand Oaks, California.
|
