以下の論文の読後ログ。
- Robert B. Kaplan , Richard B. Baldauf Jr & Nkonko Kamwangamalu (2011) Why educational language plans sometimes fail, Current Issues in Language Planning, 12:2, 105-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2011.591716
12の要因
著者らがあげている失敗に導く要因は次の12個。必ずしも真新しいものではないが重要なものばかりだろう。
- The time dedicated to language learning is inadequate.
- Indigenous teacher training is not appropriate or effective.
- Native speakers cannot fill the proficiency and availability gap.
- Educational materials may not be sufficient or appropriate.
- Methodology may not be appropriate to desired outcomes.
- Resources may not be adequate for student population needs.
- Continuity of commitment may be problematic.
- Language norms may be a problem.
- International assistance programmes may not be useful.
- Primary school children may not be prepared for early language learning.
- Instruction may not actually meet community and/or national objectives.
- Language endangerment may increase.
早く始めたって無意味
A decade or more of experimentation demonstrated that English at intermediate school was not sufficient to develop proficiency, so another legend - that early introduction to English would be the panacea - spurred an international belief that English language education should begin at thefirst grade, or even better, in kindergarten (p. 106)
There has been a strong belief that learning is better among the young and that aging has a negative effect on language acquisition -- that is, children -- the younger the better -- are good language learners, while older people are poor language learners. These views are not consistently supported by research. Many studies of SLA focused on the age of learners have resulted in mixed conclusions; no single variable (i.e. age) can be a salient predictor of success in language acquisition (see, e.g. Zuengler & Miller, 2006). (p.115)
この指摘に限らず、国際誌の言語政策の論文はこういう「英語の早期開始なんて意味ないのに、政治家や大衆はいつまでもしがみつくよなー」という論調が多い気がする。なぜか日本の英語教育政策論議では意外とそういう声を聞かない（という印象）。「国語が大事」の声にかき消されているだけだろうか。
L2習熟には10年
It is a reasonably well-documented reality that it may take as long as 10 years to acquire fluency in a language, depending on the degree of difference between the structure of the first language and that of the second ... in Bangladesh where English is taught from Grade 1 to Grade 10 and occupies about 20% of the curriculum -- the results may be far from satisfactory (p.107)
言語習得には長期にわたる地道な学習が必要だというのは誰しもが同意することだが、目安だとしても「10年」という具体的な数字を出すのはなかなか勇気がいるところ。大御所の論文だからこそという感じ。
自国の教師不足、ネイティブスピーカー頼み
自国の英語教師の不足を前にして、教員養成よりもネイティブスピーカー（アシスタント、非教員）を優先する状況。教師不足とネイティブ神話の悪魔合体のような状況についての指摘。日本だけでなく、他国でも同じような状況だということがわかる。
国の規模という要因
small countries are rarely able to develop appropriate instructional materials in competition with those imported from the aiding country partly because the expense of doing so is high and partly because the limited markets in developing polities do not make it economical to produce and distribute locally prepared materials. (p.110)
日本だと膨大にあることが自明だからなのかあまり指摘されないが、国の規模（あるいは母"国"語話者の規模）の経済効果は重要。ある閾値を下回ると教育リソースの流通が一気に変化する。量的というより質的に重要な変数。
予算のなかでもとくに不安定な教育予算
the next feature most susceptible to change has to be sustained funding for any feature of the system ... Educational budgets are among the most frequently reduced segments of national operating expenses; they are perceived among bureaucrats as most easily adjusted to provide resources for new fiscal demands (see, e.g. Kaplan & Baldauf, 2007). (p. 113)
妥協策としてのCLIL
初耳。日本だとCLILの理念的な話ばかり聞き、この手の政治的な側面はあまり聞いてこなかった。
In 2002, the European Council in Barcelona called for a plan designed to improve language education, specifically in two languages for everyone from an early age. The problem became as to how to find time in the already crowded curriculum for language teaching, and the solution proposed was to employ Content and Language Integrated Learning -- a system in which curricular information and language learning were wedded (see ‘Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity’, 2003). (p.117)
政策過程の問題点に関する指摘
政策過程の重要性についての指摘。具体的に実証しているわけではないが。
The fact remains that policy decisions in Ministries of Education are largely in the hands of professional bureaucrats to the exclusion of all other segments of the population (Kaplan & Baldauf, 2007). (p.119)
