Processes and outcomes in the European schools model of multilingual education

Bilingual Research Journal, Spring 2002 by Housen, Alex

Study B

Using the same type of data and measures as Study A, Study B compared patterns of English-L2 development by 92 Dutch, French, and Greek-speaking pupils across five different grade levels (Grades 3, 5, 7, 9, 11) in the ES of Brussels. Twelve of these pupils were studied longitudinally over a period of three years (from grades 3 to 5). Native English-speaking pupils again served as comparisons. This time the comparison group consisted of five Grade 5 and five Grade 7 pupils from the English-LI sections in the ES of Brussels.

Although the Dutch, French, and Greek pupils in this study learn English under the same curricular conditions (i.e., the same amount and type of classroom contact with the L2), the three groups are not the same in terms of the extra-curricular conditions of their L2 learning experience. French being the lingua franca both within the ES of Brussels and in the wider, out-ofschool context, it was hypothesised that the French-speaking pupils perceive the learning of English-L2 as less pertinent to their communicative needs than the Greek and Dutch pupils. The Dutch pupils in turn were predicted to perceive the learning of English as slightly less pertinent than the Greek pupils because Dutch, in contrast to Greek, is one of the official languages in the bilingual capital region of Brussels, although its presence in daily life is not strongly felt. In addition, the three L 1 groups also differ in the degree of typological proximity between their respective LI and the target language, Dutch being the closest to English, followed by French and Greek, in that order. It was hypothesised that this factor would also affect the rate and outcomes of English-L2 learning by the three groups. Figures 3 and 4 summarise the results of Study B.

The Dutch pupils dispose of a richer vocabulary and a more elaborate and accurate grammar than the French and Greek pupils, who are very much comparable. The difference is most pronounced in the early phases of education (i.e., primary school). The Greek and French pupils eventually manage to catch up with their Dutch peers in the course of secondary schooling as far as lexical growth is concerned and by Grade 11 all three groups have comparable lexical proficiency scores. All three groups also make significant progress in the domain of grammatical development, but this time, the Dutch pupils maintain their lead through the end of secondary schooling.

According to Housen (2002), typological proximity between the Li and the L2, rather than sociolinguistic status of the L 1, is the most likely explanation for the differences between the Dutch versus the French and Greek pupils. The many lexical and grammatical cognates in English and Dutch probably give the Dutch learners of English a considerable headstart in the learning process. Although the Greek pupils in the ES in Brussels were predicted to perceive the learning of English as the most pertinent to their needs, they did not learn English significantly better than the French pupils, who were predicted to perceive the learning of English as the least pertinent to their needs.