Efforts to create age-friendly cities progressively intersect with goals for environmental sustainability. The older people’s beliefs, behaviours and financial aspects regarding environmental sustainability in their lives are an understudied topic and not well understood. Therefore, a representative survey was conducted using the psychometrically sound and comprehensive SustainABLE-16 Questionnaire. A total of 388 respondents, who were community-dwelling older people in The Hague, filled out the survey completely. Overall, the mean scores on the SustainABLE-16 for finance- and environment-driven pro-environmental behaviours, beliefs and the financial position among older people were positive for all districts of The Hague. Using the outcomes of the survey, a total of six unique typologies were identified through a two-step process combining hierarchical and k-means cluster analyses. These six typologies are 1 the staunch non-believers, 2 the finance-driven non-believers, 3 the everyday individuals, 4 belief-driven people with limited financial resources, 5 believing non-responders, 6 the affluent and engaging people. These six typologies each require different approaches from policymakers. Sustainabilityrelated policies should ideally focus on groups with high scores for pro-environmental behaviours but who have shortcomings in knowledge how to improve one’s everyday lifestyle and groups who lack the necessary financial means to live a more sustainable life.
MULTIFILE
Introduction The CEFR offers a framework for language teaching, learning and assessment for L2 learners. Importantly, the CEFR draws on a learner’s communicative language competence rather than linguistic competence (e.g. vocabulary, grammar). As such, the implementation of the CEFR in our four years bachelor program Teacher of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) caused a shift in didactic approach from grammar-based to communication-centered. It has been acknowledged that didactic approaches associated with the CEFR are scarcely documented (Figueras, 2012) and the effectiveness on learner outcomes have not been investigated systematically. Moreover, for many languages the levels of the CEFR are not supported by empirical evidence from L2 learner data (Hulstijn, 2007). Purpose We will i) describe our communication-centered approach in detail and iii) present some preliminary findings on the effectiveness of this approach on student’s outcomes. Method We followed four student cohorts longitudinally: students in the first cohort (n=14) were taught in a grammar-based curriculum, students in the second (n=6), third (n=9) and fourth (n=14) cohort in a communication-centered curriculum. Data involved production (interviews) videos that are transcribed using ELAN. Results Comparing students in their first and second year, results show that students who followed a communication-based curriculum show more grammatical variability as compared to students who followed a grammar-based curriculum. Conclusions Interestingly, the communication-centered approach stimulates the development of linguistic competence. We attempt to fit the empirical evidence of L2 learners within the CEFR-levels. References Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66, 477 – 485. Hulstijn, J. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: quantitave and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 663 – 667.
