In times of stability, it is relatively easy – or so it seems – to educate students for a ‘known’ future. My argument in this chapter is that we live in a time of multiple transitions (Rotmans, 2015), multiple crises (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Wahl, 2016; Sayer, 1994; Harvey, 2000; Jessop, 2012) and an unknown future. We are heading for an unknown future which, because of climate change, in its two extremes may either end in complete destruction or may be shaped by a shift towards a new sustainable balance: either a breakdown or a breakthrough (Wahl, 2016). Turbulent times tend to be fertile podia for a wide array of narratives that seek to make sense of the crisis, and which present imaginaries about the future. According to Jessop (2002), capitalism develops in a sequence of spatio-temporal fixes that each end in a crisis and then lead to competing narratives. This chapter claims that it is important for the educational community – and for society at large – to develop sufficient critical language awareness in order to be able to both critically analyse and evaluate existing narratives. In addition, it is important to be able to articulate our own narratives so as to be empowered to participate in this process of imagining and co-creating the future (Kress, 2000; Harvey, 2000).
This paper describes teacher educators’ understanding of language for classroom communication in higher education. We argue that teacher educators who are aware of their personal practical knowledge of language have a better understanding of their students’ language use and provide better support for knowledge construction. Personal practical knowledge originates from teachers’ professional practice and is based on their past experience, current awareness and future expectation. Data from focus group interviews with teacher educators (N = 35) were used for content analysis. Findings demonstrate an emerging conceptualization resulting in two language modalities of personal practical knowledge, speci ed as: ‘language-sensitive and interpersonally oriented’ and ‘language-focused and pedagogically oriented.’The insights contribute to building a professional practical knowledge base of language and communication-oriented teaching.
Background to the problem Dutch society demonstrates a development which is apparent in many societies in the 21st century; it is becoming ethnically heterogeneous. This means that children who are secondlanguage speakers of Dutch are learning English, a core curriculum subject, through the medium of the Dutch language. Research questions What are the consequences of this for the individual learner and the class situation?Is a bi-lingual background a help or a hindrance when acquiring further language competences. Does the home situation facilitate or impede the learner? Additionally, how should the TEFL professional respond to this situation in terms of methodology, use of the Dutch language, subject matter and assessment? Method of approach A group of ethnic minority students at Fontys University of Professional Education was interviewed. The interviews were subjected to qualitative analysis. To ensure triangulation lecturers involved in teaching English at F.U.P.E. were asked to fill in a questionnaire on their teaching approach to Dutch second language English learners. Thier response was quantitatively and qualitatively analysed. Findings and conclusions The students encountered surprisingly few problems. Their bi-lingualism and home situation were not a constraint in their English language development. TEFL professionals should bear the heterogeneous classroom in mind when developing courses and lesson material. The introduction to English at primary school level and the assessment of DL2 learners require further research.
