Seite 1/1 1_20161223_Inhaltsverzeichnis.docx Prorektorat Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften Universität Zürich Prorektorat Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften Hirschengraben 60 CH-8001 Zürich Telefon +41 44 634 22 21 Telefax +41 44 634 49 52 www.gsw.uzh.ch Memo Von Simone Hüsler An Sitzungsteilnehmer cc -- Datum 23. Februar 2017 Sitzung Sprachenpolitik vom 2. März 2017: Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Rückmeldungen zum Handlungsbedarf der Sprachenpolitik an der UZH (Memo) S. 2 - 3 2. Sprachenzentrum der UZH und der ETH Zürich: Language Policy für die UZH S. 4 - 8 3. Sabina Schaffner: The impact of language policy issues on program development and management at the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich Language Center S. 9 -28 4. Abteilung Internationale Beziehungen: Internationalisierungsstrategie der UZH 2014 – 2020 S. 29 - 34 5. Sprachenzentrum Technische Universität Braunschweig: Sprachenpolitiken an deutschen Hochschulen, Auswertung Umfrage vom 13.7.15 S. 35 - 70 6. Université de Lausanne: Règlement de politique linguistique S. 71 - 72 7. University of Groningen: Language Policy S. 73 - 88 8. University of Helsinky: Language Policy S. 89 - 112 9. University of Jyvaskyla: Language Policy S. 113 - 127 10. Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz Deutschland: Sprachenpolitik an deutschen Hochschulen S. 128 - 141 11. Cercles, Europäischer Verband der Hochschulsprachenzentren: Position Statement on Language Policy in Higher Education in Europe S. 142 - 146 12. The Dylan Project Booklet S. 147 - 182 Seite 1/2 1.2_20161223_Rückmeldung Sprachenpolitik.docx Prorektorat Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften Universität Zürich Prorektorat Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften Hirschengraben 60 CH-8001 Zürich Telefon +41 44 634 22 21 Telefax +41 44 634 49 52 www.gsw.uzh.ch Memo Von Simone Hüsler An -- cc -- Datum 23. Februar 2017 Rückmeldungen zum Handlungsbedarf der Sprachenpolitik an der UZH (ULB 2016-576) Internationale Beziehungen, Y. Inauen • Allgemeiner Bedarf Sprachenpolitik: Signaletik, Mensa. • In den Verträgen zum Studierendenaustausch werden Angaben zum nötigen Sprachniveau festgehalten, für die SEMP-Verträge muss das mit der europäischen Skala A-C festgehalten werden. Einzelne Institute haben eigene Regelungen. Weiter müssen sprachliche Anforderungen erfüllt sein für die Zulassung zum Studium. • Gründe für eine Language Policy sieht Y. Inauen in verschiedener Hinsicht. Es wäre z.B. einfacher zu entscheiden, ob und welche Sprachen in welchem Mass angeboten werden, wenn sich das mit einer Policy verbinden liesse. Beispielsweise der steigende Bedarf an Deutsch als Fremdsprache sollte gedeckt werden, wenn man das SUEZ als Dienstleistungsbetrieb sieht. Wenn man aber eine Sprachenpolicy hat, die auf Diversität zielt und breites Angebot, würde man vielleicht DaF-Kurse auswärts einkaufen. • Weiter gibt es gibt immer wieder Angebote (z.B. im Moment Koreanisch) bei denen entschieden werden muss, ob oder wer was anbietet. Da wäre es gut, Grundsätze zu haben (die gibt es vielleicht schon). • Unser Bedarf an DaF kann momentan klar nicht gedeckt werden bzw. es gibt immer wieder Diskussionen, ob wir ein Budget dafür haben. Viele Aspekte der Internationalisierung hängen aber damit zusammen. Auf der anderen Seite stellt sich die ETH auf den Standpunkt, dass keine einzelnen Aktivitäten von den Hochschulen separat finanziert werden sollten. Wenn das wirklich so ist, dann gilt das für die UZH ja auch. Vielleicht könnte/müsste auch ein Mechanismus, der Angebote absichert, wenn in anderen Bereichen Veränderungen geplant werden, Teil einer Sprachenpolicy sein. • Ein weiterer positiver Aspekt einer Sprachenpolicy könnte sein, dass Sprachen ev. für Studierende in einem Wahlbereich zu ECTS führen könnten, weil man beispielsweise definiert, dass eine gewisse Sprachfähigkeit erreicht sein soll beim Abschluss des Studiums. Rückmeldung International Scholars Center • Bedarf an englischsprachiger Übersetzung von UZH-Websites (Abt. Personal, Abt. Professuren), • Bedarf an englischsprachiger Übersetzung von UZH-Dokumenten in Zusammenhang mit der Anstellung (Abt. Personal) • Die ZDU sollten idealerweise auch auf englisch Auskunft geben können (mündlich und schriftlich). Rückmeldung Mobilität Die Immatrikulation sowie Modulbuchung sind nur auf Deutsch vorhanden. Es wäre gut, wenn gewisse Seiten der UZH (z.B. Informatikdienste oder die Haupt- und Dekanatsseite der PhF) in englischer Sprache bereitgestellt werden. Beim neuen Vorlesungsverzeichnis können immer noch Seite 2/2 1.2_20161223_Rückmeldung Sprachenpolitik.docx Prorektorin Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften beide Sprachen (DE/EN) angegeben werden, auch wenn das Modul auf Deutsch unterrichtet wird und nur englische Texte gebraucht werden. Verschiedene Briefe und E-Mails (z.B Prüfungseinladungen, Mahnungen zur Semestereinschreibung etc.) werden nur auf Deutsch versendet. Die EU wird ihre Programme (Erasmus+) aus Qualitätsgründen immer mehr auf eine Plattform bringen und auch Sprachtests einfügen. Wenn die Schweizer Universitäten da nicht mithalten können, wird eine Teilnahme an den Programmen mit der Zeit schwierig werden. Kommunikation, A. Zimmerli Aus unserer Sicht ist eine Language Policy erwünscht und sollte folgende Punkte/Themen abdecken: • Welches sind die offiziellen Sprachen der UZH? • Englisch: Welche Dokumente sollen zweisprachig sein, welche nicht? • UZH-Leitfaden zur sprachlichen Gleichbehandlung von Frau und Mann Bestehende Regelungen/Merkblätter: UZH-Terminologie-Datenbank, Merkblatt Impressum DeutschEnglisch, Terminologie-Datenbanken und Wörterbücher (UZH-Website) Seite 1/5 Sabina Schaffner/Language Policy JF GSW-RWF_20161108 Sprachenzentrum Language Policy für die UZH 1. Ausgangslage GEB E1 Erneut prüfen, ob die beiden Hochschulen – ggf. unter Berücksichtigung der Internationalisierungsstrategien – jeweils eine eigene oder eine gemeinsame Sprachenpolitik (Language Policy) verabschieden möchten. Stellungnahme des Sprachenzentrums: Verabschiedung einer Sprachenpolitik durch die UZH und die ETH: Das Sprachenzentrum unterstützt diesen Vorschlag, der schon bei der letzten Evaluation eingebracht worden war. Die damit verbundene Massnahme einer Prüfung der Einführung einer solchen Language Policy auf Hochschulebene war von beiden Hochschulleitungen abgelehnt worden. → Austausch über das weitere Vorgehen zwischen UL und SL ETH zum Thema nach Input durch die SL ETH an der UL/Sitzung vom 24. November 2016 2. Geschichte LP an der UZH • Language Policy-Teilprojekt zur Entwicklung einer Internationalisierungsstrategie (UL. vom 12. 3. 2009): nicht weiter verfolgt • Follow-Up Evaluation SUEZ 2008 von 2010: Für die UZH hat die Universitätsleitung in ihrer Grundsatzdiskussion festgehalten, dass die Bedeutung von Deutsch als Unterrichtssprache und die Bedeutung von Englisch als Sprache der Forschungsgemeinschaft herausragend sind. Zudem wird an der UZH aber auch grosser Wert auf ein breit gefächertes Sprachangebot gelegt. In diesem Angebot sollen sich die Anforderungen der Studienangebote und der Forschungskooperationen spiegeln, zum Teil auch die lebensweltlichen Aspekte der Studierenden. 3. Bestehende LP-Elemente an der UZH Modell Grin, François. 2010. Managing languages in academia: Pointers from education economics and language economics. Paper presented at the conference Professionalising Multilingualism in Higher Education, Luxembourg, 4 February, 9–10 (http://www.unige.ch/traduction-interpretation/recherches/groupes/elf/news/luxembourg-100205/LUX-UNI-TEX-2.pdf). A: Organisationsperspektive 1 1 Übersetzung auf Deutsch: S. Schaffner Seite 2/5 Sabina Schaffner/Language Policy AG Language Policy_20170117 – Makroebene: Universität, Fakultät – Mesoebene: Studienprogramm, sprachliche Praxis an einem Institut, . . . – Mikroebene: Modul (Seminar, Vorlesung,…) B: Sprachliche Tätigkeiten – Sprachen als Unterrichtsgegenstand – Unterrichtssprache (n) – Sprache(n) in der Forschung – Sprache(n) in der Verwaltung – Sprache(n) in der externen Kommunikation C: Aktionsebenen – Übergeordnete Policy – Organisationale Fragen – Didaktik Bestehende explizite Elemente (Bsp. Anforderungen in Studienprogrammen. oder in Internationalisierungsstrategie (Bsp.: 1.3 Informationen über die Angebote und Abläufe der UZH werden konsequent in Deutsch und Englisch zugänglich gemacht. Grundprozesse wie Einschreibung, Modulbuchung, Entwicklungsplanung sowie die wichtigsten Reglemente werden bei der Umsetzung der Zweisprachigkeit berücksichtigt.) bzw. implizite Elemente wie Internationalisierungsstrategie (z. Bsp.II.1 Die UZH fördert die Mobilität und internationale Erfahrung ihrer Studierenden.) B: Sprachliche Tätigkeiten → A: Organisationsperspektive ↓ A1: Sprache als Unterrichts- gegenstand A2: Unterrichts- sprache(n A3: Sprache(n) für Forschung A4: Sprache(n) für Verwaltung A5: Sprache(n) für externe Kommunikation Sprache(n) für externe Kommunikation C1: Aktionesebene Policy C2: Aktionsebene Organisationelle Fragen A1: Makroebene P. Welche Sprachen, bis zu welchem Niveau, für wen und mit welchen Mitteln? P. Gründe und Bereiche für Verwendung von Fremdsprachen in der Lehre?➛ RVO, Studienordnungen P. Gründe und Bereiche für Verwendung von Fremdsprachen in der Forschung? ➛ Studienordnungen P. Gründe und Bereiche für Verwendung von Fremdsprachen in der Verwaltung? ➛ HR, tbd. Studienordnungen P. gewünschtes Image der UZH; gewünschtes Studierendenprofil? ➛ Kommunikation UZH, CI, vgl. Internationalisie- rungsstrategie A2: Mesoebene A3: Mikroebene A1: Makroebene O. Finanzieller Aufwand? O. Bedarf an unterstützenden Dienstleistungen für Studierende und O. Bedarf an unterstützenden Dienstleistungen für Forschende ? O: Bedarf an unterstützenden Dienstleistungen für Mitarbeitende der O: Qualistässichernde Masssnahmen? A2: Mesoebene Seite 3/5 Sabina Schaffner/Language Policy AG Language Policy_20170117 C3: Aktionsebene Didaktik A3: Mikroebene Lehrende ? (➛ Sprachenzentrum) (z. Bsp. Sprachenzentrum) ? (➛Sprachenzen- trum) Verwaltung ? (➛Sprachenzentrum) A1: Makroebene D. Förderung der gewünschten Fertigkeiten ? D. Einfluss auf Gestaltung der Lehre? D. Folgen für Ausbildung auf Doktoratsstufe? D:Spezielle Themen in Bezug auf Mitarbeitende der Verwaltung? D: Spezielle Themen in Bezug auf Mitarbeitende der Abteilung Internationales? A2: Mesoebene A3: Mikroebene GP = übergreifende Policy; O = Organisationale Fragen; D = Didaktik; A1: Makroebene: Universität, Fakultät; A2: Mesoebene: Studienprogramm; sprachliche Praxis an einem Institut,...;A3:Mikroebene: Modul (Seminar,V orlesung…) 4. Mögliche Bausteine einer Language Policy für die UZH: tbd: A: Organisationsperspektive: B: Sprachliche Tätigkeiten → A: Organisationsperspektive ↓ A1: Sprache als Unterrichts- gegenstand A2: Unterrichts- sprache(n A3: Sprache(n) für Forschung A4: Sprache(n) für Verwaltung A5: Sprache(n) für externe Kommunikation Sprache(n) für externe Kommunikation C1: Aktionesebene Policy C2: Aktionsebene Organisationelle Fragen C3: Aktionsebene Didaktik A1: Makroebene P. Welche Sprachen, bis zu welchem Niveau, für wen und mit welchen Mitteln? P. Gründe und Bereiche für Verwendung von Fremdsprachen in der Lehre?➛ RVO, Studienordnungen P. Gründe und Bereiche für Verwendung von Fremdsprachen in der Forschung? ➛ Studienordnungen P. Gründe und Bereiche für Verwendung von Fremdsprachen in der Verwaltung? ➛ HR, tbd. Studienordnungen P: gewünschtes Image der UZH; gewünschtes Studierendenprofil? ➛ Kommunikation UZH, CI A2: Mesoebene A3: Mikroebene A1: Makroebene O. Finanzieller Aufwand? O. Bedarf an unterstützenden Dienstleistungen für Studierende und Lehrende ? (➛ Sprachenzentrum) (z. Bsp. Sprachenzentrum) ? O. Bedarf an unterstützenden Dienstleistungen für Forschende ? (➛Sprachenzen- trum) O: Bedarf an unterstützenden Dienstleistungen für Mitarbeitende der Verwaltung ? (➛Sprachenzentrum) O: Qualistässichernde Masssnahmen? A2: Mesoebene A3: Mikroebene A1: Makroebene D. Förderung der gewünschten Fertigkeiten ? D. Einfluss auf Gestaltung der Lehre? D. Folgen für Ausbildung auf Doktoratsstufe? D:Spezielle Themen in Bezug auf Mitarbeitende der Verwaltung? D: Spezielle Themen in Bezug auf Mitarbeitende der Abteilung Internationales? A2: Mesoebene A3: Mikroebene Seite 4/5 Sabina Schaffner/Language Policy AG Language Policy_20170117 5. Positionspapier und Forschung Cercles (Confederation of Language Centres in Europe): (2011): Position Statement on Language Policy in Higher Education in Europe (http://www.aulc.org/documents/language_policy.pdf) Hettinger, Andreas (2015). Sprachenpolitiken an deutschen Hochschulen. Auswertung der Umfrage vom 13. 07. 2015 (https://aks-intern.de/ Schaffner. S. (2013). The impact of language policy issues on program development and management at the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich Language Center. 11th International CercleS Conference. Helsinki, 2.-14.September 2010. In: Mansfield, Gillian / Little, David (Hg.): Language Learning in Higher Education, Volume 2/3385. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, S. 385-404. Berthoud, Anne-Claude; Grin, François; Lüdi, Georges (Hrsg.) (2013). Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism: The Dylan Project (Multilingualism and Diversity Management. Amterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company. Berthoud, Anne-Claude (Hrsg.) (2011). The Dylan Project Booklet. Université de Lausanne. (http://www.dylan-project.org/) 6. Beispiele LP an europäischen Hochschulen Die Auseinandersetzung mit sprachenpolitischen Fragen stellt sich an Hochschulen ausserhalb Grossbritanniens in den meisten Fällen im Kontext der Internationalisierung und ist deshalb auch geprägt von der Positionierung von Englisch als zweite oder wichtige zusätzliche Unterrichtssprache. In Hochschulen in traditionell mehrheitlich einsprachigen Ländern und/oder mit einem geringeren Internationalisierungsgrad (wie z. Bsp. Frankreich, Italien oder Spanien) ist die sprachenpolitische Diskussion in der Regel weniger weit entwickelt als in Hochschulen in mehrsprachigen Ländern und/oder Ländern mit einem hohen Internationalisierungsgrad) (z. Bsp. Deutschland, Niederlande). Letztere verfolgen in der Regel eine Politik der Zweisprachigkeit (Landessprache plus Englisch), während finnische Universitäten eine Politik der Dreisprachigkeit anstreben, in dem sie neben den beiden Landessprachen Finnisch und Schwedisch Englisch als internationale Sprache fördern. Deutschland → Keine expliziten LP-Dokumente, doch LP als Elemente von Internationalisierungsstrategie, Leitbildern etc. Niederlande University of Groningen. RUG Language Policy. An Inclusive1, Dual2-Plus3 Approach.:Preparing world class graduates and fostering our staff in a globalising world. (https://www.rug.nl/about-us/where-do-we-stand/education-policy/international-classroom/rug_language_policy.pdf ) (sehr umsetzungsorientiert und pragmatisch, klar auf Internationalisierungsstrategie ausgerichtet) Seite 5/5 Sabina Schaffner/Language Policy AG Language Policy_20170117 Finnland Language Policy of the University of Helsinki. From guidelines to practice towards functional multilingualism (Rector’s decision, 25 September 2014) (Best practice! Stringent, umfassend, berücksichtigt Implementierung) University of Jyvaskyla Language Policy (2012): Approved at the University Board meeting of 25 January 2012. (https://www.jyu.fi/hallinto/strategia/en/university-of-jyvaskyla-language-policy-2012/view) Schweiz In der Schweiz gibt es kein Beispiel einer umfassenden LP an Hochschulen. An der Universität Lausanne existiert jedoch seit 2003 eine „Commission de politique linguistique“ (Konsultativgremium der Universitätsleitung), deren Befugnis in einem Reglement festgehalten ist. Darin sind die Fakultäten, das Sprachenzentrum, die Abteilung Internationales und die Stände vertreten. In der Vergangenheit konnte das Sprachenzentrum darin seine Expertise einbringen und die Unterstützung einer Politik der Mehrsprachigkeit auf der Ebene der Unterrichtssprachen mitermöglichen. 7. Schlussfolgerungen Best practice bei der Entwicklung und Implementierung einer LP – Nachhaltigkeitskriterien • Commitment der Universitätsleitung, • Integration von wichtigen Partnern • Kombination von bottom-up und top-down-Elementen gemäss Universitätskultur • Einbindung der Expertise des Sprachenzentrums auf verschiedenen Ebenen Vorgehensvorschlag (Input für die Arbeitsgruppe als Vorbereitung eines Diskussionspapiers und ULA) • Definition der LP-Bereiche und Organisationsebene, bei denen sprachenpolitische Regelungen bestehen (incl. Erhebung der Anrechnungsregelung in aktuellen Studienprogrammen: siehe Punkt 3) • Definition von Qualitätskriterien einer wirksamen LP: z. Bsp. Anbindung an Internationalisierungsstrategie und Corporate Identity; Programmsicht und Unterstützung der spezifischen Anforderungen der Fachbereich; Mehrsprachigkeitsansatz (Zweisprachigkeit plus weitere Sprachen wo sinnvoll und an Schweizer Universität angemessen), Förderung der Employability • Bestimmung der LP-Bereiche und Organisationsebenen, in denen eine sprachpolitische Regelung empfohlen wird: siehe Punkt 4 DOI 10.1515/cercles-2012-0021   CercleS 2012; 2(2): 385 – 404 Sabina Schaffner The impact of language policy issues on program development and management at the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich Language Center Abstract: This article explores the impact of language policy issues on program development and management at the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich Language Center. Based on the analysis of the language policy approach of the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, the article reflects both current practices and policy elements with the help of the categories offered by François Grin (2010). Part of the data collected was also considered in 2011 while answering a questionnaire on Language Policy in Higher Education in Switzerland. The Swiss Institute of Multilingualism, in charge of gathering the data for Switzerland for the panEuropean project Language Rich Europe, managed by the British Council and cofinanced by the European Commission (British Council/European Commission 2010–2013), had approached our Language Center in this matter.1 In a wider context, the present survey is a case study reflecting the situation of two major Swiss Universities outside the European Union.2 The article shows that both the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich lack a consistent language policy document at institutional level, while showing a cautious approach to questions of future language governance. It argues that the impact of this approach leads to the constant readjustment of the strategic goals of program development by the Language Center’s director through regular needs analysis interviews with the stakeholders in the departments and faculties, and to a continuous fine-tuning of pedagogical formats by the heads of units. A further qualitative study will be be carried out in 2012 through focus group interviews with different stakeholder groups, e.g. deans, program directors, students and representatives of (doctoral) students’ unions, in order to collect more specific data as a basis for more detailed analysis and interpretation. 1  The project was initiated in 2010 by the British Council and aims to develop an index in order to compare the language environment in 20 European countries. The index will capture the following aspects: (foreign) language teaching, languages in the workplace, in the media and in public spaces as well as language policy. Several language types will be analysed: official state language(s), foreign languages, regional minority languages and immigrant minority languages (http://languagerichblog.eu/). 2 For case studies referring to the European Union, see e.g. Gâz 2011. Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 386   Sabina Schaffner Keywords: language policy, program development, internationalisation, languages of instruction, accreditation Sabina Schaffner: University of Zurich and ETH Zurich. E-mail: sabina.schaffner@sprachen.uzh.ch 1 Introduction: The language policy discussion at the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich The mission statements and strategic plans of both universities show commitment to student mobility and internationalisation as well as a fostering of the plurilingualism and employability of their future graduates. However, this strategic positioning offers only preliminary implications regarding the program development for the joint Language Center. In order to foster a more strategic positioning, the Executive Boards of both institutions were asked in 2009 to decide on the necessity of implementing a language policy at university level. This was a consequence of the external multi-level quality evaluation process of the Language Center run by the Zurich University Evaluation Office. 2 National and international discourse on language policy (in academia) 2.1 The current debate on multilingualism in Switzerland: intercomprehension does not always work The Language Policy of the Swiss Confederation is described in the Federal Act on National Languages and Understanding between the Linguistic Communities;3 it embraces, for example, among other measures, a quota system for the federal administration, a plurilingual profile of at least three national languages for ­administrative staff, fostering of exchange programs in secondary education, support for multilingual cantons, the creation of a National Center for Multilingualism and the extension of translation services. 3 5. 6. 2010; http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/ff/2007/6951.pdf Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 The impact of language policy issues   387 Whereas one can observe a functioning plurilingual practice in Parliament, linguistic practices show that intercomprehension is not always obvious as shown in the saying “Les Suisses s’entendent parce qu’ils ne se comprennent pas” [“The Swiss get along well because they don’t understand one another”; my translation]. Language skills in French have become an issue in the current election campaign of future members of the Swiss Federal Council from the Germanspeaking part of Switzerland, and there has even been a proposition by a Frenchspeaking member of the National Council to replace standard German by Swiss German as a lingua franca of internal communication. A number of studies on plurilingual practices in Switzerland have been carried out lately, such as the multi-level project “Language Diversity and Language Competence in Switzerland”4 or the international Dylan project, “Language dynamics and management of diversity”,5 which give some insight into the functioning of linguistic practices in companies, management, EU institutions and educational systems. 2.2 Languages in academia – an increasingly important issue Within the context of globalisation, language in academia has also become a mainstream topic at European conferences – in Geneva, Bern, Brussels, Luxemburg, Freiburg and Helsinki in 2010 alone. The main focus of these conferences is research on linguistic practices examined from the perspective of applied linguistics or pedagogy. Only recently have governance aspects become a topic of research undertaken by researchers such as François Grin, whose goal is to study and conceptualise the economic, social and political impacts of linguistic practices at universities and to describe the challenges resulting from these questions (Grin 2010). 3 Procedures for the analysis of Language Policy elements In his presentation “Managing languages in academia: Pointers from educa- tion economics and language economics”, François Grin offers a matrix for the 4 http://www.nfp56.ch/d.cfm?Slanguage=d 5 http://www.dylan-project.org/Dylan_en/home/home.php Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 388   Sabina Schaffner analysis of language policy challenges which combines the organisational perspective with the languages and types of activities on one hand, and the levels of action on the other, as follows (Grin 2010: 9–10): A: Organisational perspective – Macro level: university, faculty – Medium level: faculty or program, linguistic practice of an institute, . . . – Micro level: study unit (seminar, lecture) B: Languages and types of activities – Languages taught as subjects – Language(s) of instruction – Language(s) used in reserach – Language(s) of administration – Language(s) of external communication C: Levels of actions – General policy – Organisational questions – Pedagogy I have adapted the categories of Grin’s matrix to the reality of the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich (Table 1) in order to use it as a framework for the upcoming policy evaluation of language policy issues of the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich. In my surveys I concentrated on the categories “languages as subjects” and  “languages of instruction”, which are most directly linked to the Lan- guage ­Center’s mission and services and which were brought up in the evalua- tion process. The results of my research comprising, for example, suggestions on the level of governance, were presented to the Executive Boards of the Uni­ versity of Zurich and ETH Zurich in March 2010. The presentation included an overview of language policy in higher education within the European context, an overview of the existing language policy regulations of the institutions in- volved at macro and ­micro level, the impact of language policy on program development, as well as feedback and suggestions concerning future language ­policy development. Both boards formulated their reaction to the Language ­Center’s input, and did so to meet the measures proposed by the Evaluation ­Office, namely to check the necessity of developing a language policy at institutional level. Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 The impact of language policy issues   389 4 Language policy at the University of Zurich The Mission Statement of International Relations of the University of Zurich ratified by the Executive Board of the University on 2 March 20066 contains the following language policy elements: 2. Mobility and the internationalisation of teaching The University of Zurich fosters the integration of the international and ­particularly the European dimension in all degree programmes. . . .   So-called mobility windows have been set up to boost mobility in all ­degree programmes and at all levels – Bachelor’s, Master’s, Doctoral. . . . 6 http://www.int.uzh.ch/international/mission_en.html Table 1: Linguistic practices in academia (based on Grin 2010) Subjects Instruction Research Administration External Communication GP: What languages, up to what level, for whom – and for what reasons? GP: Should foreign languages be used? In which programs? Why? GP: Should foreign languages be used? For which research activities? Why? GP: Any reasons to use foreign languages in administration? GP: Institutional image aimed at; targeted student profile and recruitment O: What budget implications? O: What need for associated services for students and teaching staff (e.g. language center)? O: What need for associated services for students and teaching and research staff (e.g. language center)? O: What implications for internal by-laws? What need for support for admin staff? O: Setting up of language quality assurance P: How best to impart the skills aimed at? P: What impact on ways of teaching? P: Implications for training of PhD students? P: Specific issues concerning admin staff? P: Specific issues concerning international affairs officers GP = general policy; O = organisational questions; P = pedagogy Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 390   Sabina Schaffner  To encourage internationalisation at student level, programmes for international students and summer schools will be developed and German language courses provided. 7. Language Multilingual Switzerland lies at the very heart of Europe. The University of Zurich’s identity as a German-speaking university is to be cultivated especially at Bachelor degree level. Degree programmes are being promoted in English at the Master’s and Doctoral level. As for the internationalisation of teaching, the third statement is linked to concrete measures since the Language Center regularly offers German courses. The first and the second statements are partly linked with concrete measures, but none of the statements is consistently linked to strategic goal setting. As far as the commitment to internationalisation is concerned, we can observe that in the autum semester 2009 there were 4,370 foreign students, and within this group 1,991 German students, enrolled at the University of Zurich out of a total of 25,852 students. The majority of foreign students follow a program in the Faculties of Science, Law, and Economics. In the same semester, there were only 181 outgoing mobility students, and 158 incoming mobility students at the University of Zurich. The University of Zurich is a partner in a range of exchange programs such as Erasmus and ISEP (International Student Exchange Programs). Moreover, the University of Zurich has concluded bilateral university-wide agreements and faculty-wide agreements with several universities worldwide. Students of these partner universities are entitled to apply for an exchange semester or year at the University of Zurich.7 In a survey carried out by the Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities in 2008/09 on the implementation of the Bologna Reform, the relatively low degree of mobility was evaluated, showing that international mobility was more important than mobility within Switzerland.8 As for the outgoing students, a preference for universities in Germany, France, Italy, England and the US could be observed (CRUS 2008/09: 31–38). Though there is no coherent language policy document at university level for the language(s) of instruction, Chapter 7 of the Mission Statement on Internationalisation gives some general guidelines. More specific information on this issue is integrated into the regulations at the level of specific programs; decisions concerning the language of instruction seem to be linked with the academic culture of the discipline concerned, the degree of internationalisation on the part of 7 http://int.uzh.ch/out/program.html 8 http://www.crus.ch/die-crus/koordiniert-harmonisiert/projekt-bologna-ects.html?L=0 Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 The impact of language policy issues   391 teaching staff and the existence of joint degree Master’s programs. The current language of instruction in Bachelor’s programs is German. It is also the language of tuition in Master’s programs of the Faculties of Theology, the Medical Faculty, the Faculty of Veterinary Science and the Faculty of Arts, except for the foreign language departments (philological chairs), where the language of instruction may be the target language. In the Faculty of Science, the Economics Faculty and the Faculty of Law languages of instruction are German, or both German and ­English, whereas only a few programs are taught exclusively in English. Interestingly enough, the mission statement on internationalisation does not contain any statements focussing on Swiss students and outgoing mobility. One can find some hints regarding the fostering of plurilingual competence in the Guidelines on the Implementation of the Bologna Process at Zurich University of 1 March 2004: §12 Foreign languages and transferable competences (soft skills) In every program and at every study level a maximum of 15 ECTS can be awarded for the acquisition of specific language skills or other transferable skills (soft skills) [my translation].9 This paragraph defines the range of possible credits which can be awarded within Bachelor’s or Master’s programs for languages within elective, or compulsory elective, subjects. There was, however, at that time neither a strucutural framework nor a strategy at university level to define languages as an integral and compulsory part of all study programs. In 2007, the Executive Board specified the impact of language education, with regard to reaching the University of Zurich’s strategic goals, as follows: Principles of the Executive Board (Decision by the Executive Board of 20 September 2007) Languages on offer in Bachelor’s and Master’s programs a. The courses in modern languages of the Language Center are an important additional offer for students of the University of Zurich, supporting the institution in reaching its strategic goals (internationalisation, employability/competitiveness, English as the lingua franca of research . . .) b. In the Academic Record students receive on completion of their studies ECTS points awarded for core courses should be distinguished from ECTS points credited for optional or elective courses [my translation]. 9 http://www.sae.uzh.ch/dokumente/ARichtlinieUZH Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 392   Sabina Schaffner A subsequent survey carried out by the Language Center in autumn 2009 shows that all faculties, with the exception of the Economics Faculty, award ­credits for language performance in optional courses at Bachelor’s and Master’s level. Apart from differences existing between specific programs, the overview shows that the most credits are awarded in the programs of the Faculty of Science and to a lesser extent in the Economics Faculty. The number of credits awarded for languages in the Theological Faculty and the Faculty of Arts corresponds more or less to the suggestions defined in the Guidelines on the Implementation of the Bologna Process at the University of ­Zurich in 2004. For structural reasons, the Medical Faculty, the Faculty of Veterinary Science and the Faculty of Law have fewer opportunities to award credits for language performance. After presenting the results of the analysis of the documents containing language policy elements and regulations, which can be seen as an implicit language policy element at medium level according to Grin’s matrix, to the Executive Board on 11 March 2010, the Language Center’s director made the following suggestions regarding future language policy development: A language policy at the University of Zurich should at least contain statements on the following issues: Table 2: Accreditation of language policy performance at the University of Zurich Bachelor’s level Optional courses Bachelor’s level Compulsory elective courses Master’s level Optional courses Master’s level Elective courses Theological Faculty 14 20 Faculty of Arts studium generale HF 9–15; NF 3–6 Comparative Literature, History of Art studium generale HF 7.5–10.5; NF1.5–3 Faculty of Science 20–45 no restriction 4–24 no restriction Faculty of Law 6 6–12 Faculty of Economics 2 Medical Faculty 2 × 2 4 Vetsuisse Faculty 2 Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 The impact of language policy issues   393 – the use of national languages in teaching, publications and on a corporate identity level – the consequences of internationalisation on the language(s) of instruction concerning the linguistic and cultural preparation of students and teaching staff – mobility concerning the fostering of language skills of both incoming and outgoing students and the recognition of credits acquired for language ­performance – the fostering of individual multilingualism by crediting language performance (integration of the Resolution of the Executive Board of 20 September 2007) – the promotion of accreditation of language performance in the field of optional courses (transferable skills) and elective courses (contribution to study skills) In the Language Center director’s view, a language policy document should embrace statements at all levels and cover all the categories mentioned above. The concentration on the categories “languages as subjects” and “languages of Table 3: Suggested Language Policy elements to be developed at the University of Zurich Subjects Instruction Research Administration External Communication GP: What languages, up to what level, for whom – and for what reasons? GP: Should foreign lan­guages be used? In which programs? Why? GP: Should foreign languages be used? For which research activities? Why? GP: Any reasons to use foreign languages in administration? GP: Institutional image aimed at; targeted student profile and recruitment O: What budget implications? O: What need for associated services for students and teaching staff (e.g. language center)? O: What need for associated services for students and teaching and research staff (e.g. language center)? O: What implications for internal by-laws? What need for support for admin staff? O: Setting up of language quality assurance P: How best to impart the skills aimed at? P: What impact on ways of teaching? P: Implications for training of PhD students? P: Specific issues concerning admin staff? P: Specific issues concerning international affairs officers GP = general policy; O = organisational questions; P = pedagogy Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 394   Sabina Schaffner instruction” was motivated by their close link to the Language Center’s mission and services. Only the first suggestion introduces an element focussing on other categories (“research” and “external communication”) in order to complete the picture. The Executive Board decided that there was no need for a language policy document, nor for the adoption of principles at university level. It was argued, moreover, that the accreditation of language performance was regulated by the faculties’ policies concerning language. Members of the Executive Board agreed, however, that the awareness of the impact of language competence among the stakeholders and decision makers at faculty and university levels must be improved. In this context, the Language Center was called upon to analyze the input from the faculties and discuss it with the Center’s Board. The Executive Board stressed the importance of German as the language of instruction and English as the language of the research community. There was agreement that the promotion of a broad language offer mirroring requirements in the fields of study skills, research networks and to some extent students’ social needs should be guaranteed. From the perspective of governance, the Executive Board’s position on a ­macro level is very cautious. As for further policy discussion, the Language ­Center’s management was called upon to take up the initiative to pursue a regular exchange with the faculties and the Language Center’s Board of Trustees. 5 Language policy at ETH Zurich In the document ETH Zurich in the Global University Landscape: International Strategy of 19 November 2008, one finds the following statements that have implications for language policy:10 Objective 1: ETH Zurich will focus on recruiting talented students from Switzerland and around the world, especially at graduate level ­(master’s, doctoral, continuing education programmes). In this way, it will ensure that Swiss science, business and society have access to an adequate number of specialists. At the same time, quality is the top priority and a good student-tutor ratio is essential. 1.1 Focus the recruitment of Bachelor’s students on Switzerland and Germanspeaking countries, with the aim of achieving an appropriate balance between Swiss (4/5) and foreign (1/5) students. 10 http://www.global.ethz.ch/docs/strategy Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 The impact of language policy issues   395 1.2 Prioritise the recruitment of Master’s students, especially from those institutions and countries with which ETH already has a long-standing partnership. This applies particularly to EU countries, the USA, the countries in which ETH Zurich is the “leading house”, in accordance with the mandate of the State Secretariat for Education and Research (SER) (China, Japan, South Korea), and other high-priority countries for the SER (India, Russia, South Africa, Brazil, Chile). Table 4 shows the percentage of international students in 2009,11 which ­mirror ETH Zurich’s implemention of the objective. The objectives below, taken from the same strategy document, are even more directly linked to language issues:12 Objective 2: ETH Zurich will ensure that its graduates have the knowledge and skills to succeed in industry, business, science or the public sector in an increasingly global job market. Measures: 2.1 Provide support for students: as part of their education, during their ­studies they should have the opportunity to gain experience at other selected universities, e.g. in the form of exchange programmes, practical courses abroad or research projects at partner universities; appropriate financial and other support should be made available. . . . 11 http://www.fc.ethz.ch/facts/studierende/studierende 12 http://www.global.ethz.ch/docs/strategy Table 4: Percentages of foreign students at ETH Zurich BSc 7,628 students 17.5% MSc 3,701 students 33.8% Diploma students 9,087 students 11.9% PhD 2,258 students 46 % Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 396   Sabina Schaffner Objective 3: ETH Zurich will provide the services that are necessary to ensure the successful integration of foreign students, lecturers and employees. Measures: 3.4 Improve and if necessary expand the information and support available to international students, lecturers and employees, in order to support their integration in ETH and Switzerland. 3.5 Provide information in German and English, including administrative ­information, rules and regulations and web applications. . . . Objective 4: Support ETH staff in their work as members of an international community and as ambassadors for the university. Measures: 4.1 Encourage staff mobility, to enable staff to contribute to the process of internationalisation at the university. . . . 4.3 Promote opportunities for exchanges for employees with partner institutions and companies abroad. 4.4 Offer courses to encourage intercultural skills. Employees should learn techniques and methods to help them identify and satisfy the needs of an international clientele. 4.5 Ensure that the resources of the Language Centre are strategically attuned to the needs of employees. Though objectives 1, 2 and 3 are language-sensitive, language proficiency is not focused on either as an integral part or a prerequisite to reach these objectives. Regarding 4, the Language Center is explicitly mentioned as a partner whose services help the institution to achieve its goals. In practice, it is rather thanks to the Language Center’s initiative that its course offers are attuned to staff needs in general. There are, morevoer, initiatives by staff in specific units to ask for tailor-made training or coaching which should help them to cope with the challenges of internationalisation. From this perspective, the courses provided by the Language Center offers contribute to the implementation of objective 2 (supporting outgoing mobility through language preparation) and objective 3 (English version of the most important information on the Center’s website). According to the ETH strategy, internationalisation is fostered mainly at master’s and doctoral level: among the total number of 39 master’s programs offered in 2009, only two are taught in German, nine are taught in German and English as languages of tuition, and the majority (28 programs) are taught exclusively in English. There is a language policy document concerning the languages of ­instruction at ETH Zurich, the Directives of the Rector Concerning Languages of Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 The impact of language policy issues   397 Instruction of September 2009, valid from 1 October 2010.13 The document states that at bachelor’s level the language of instruction should as a rule be German, although from the second year on, tuition in English is possible with the approval of the departments concerned. Exercises and practical courses may also be offered in the national languages French and Italian. Master’s programs should generally be taught in English. There may be programs with instruction in both German and English, and a few taught exclusively in German. The Directives distinguish between main and ­minor languages of instruction and state that some programs may also be taught in French. Regulations pertaining to study programs must contain all information concerning language requirements and language(s) of instruction. Assessment and examinations are carried out, as a rule, in the language of instruction. Details and restrictions must be defined in the regulations. The Directives reflect a pragmatic, flexible and not primarily normative approach to the question by offering specific solutions which fit the needs of a program or respond to a linguistic challenge in a concrete situation. At ETH Zurich, the acquisition of credits in compulsory electives of the Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences (D-GESS) is mandatory for all students. Six credits must be acquired during a bachelor’s and two during a master’s program. In the Directive of the Rector concerning Compulsory Electives in the Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences (D-GESS) [“Weisung der Rektorin zum Pflichtwahlfach aus dem Bereich der Geistes-, Sozial- und ­Staatswissenschaften“] of 24 September 2007, the following regulation defines the accreditation of languages:14 6. A maximum of 4 ECTS may be acquired in language courses as compulsory electives. The following restrictions must be observed: In the case of the ­European languages English, French, Italian and Spanish only advanced ­language courses (starting from level B2) are accepted. Courses in German are accredited only at level C2. There are additional restrictions defined by the Study Commission of the ­Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences (D-GESS): Study offers may not be preparatory or introductory in character nor be “skills courses”. With this restriction, the study commission of D-GESS is trying to protect its program 13 http://www.rektorat.ethz.ch/directives/pdf_de/unterrichtssprache.pdf 14 http://www.gess.ethz.ch/studies/pwf/box_feeder/2012-08-02_Weisung_Rektorin_PWF_ EN.pdf Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 398   Sabina Schaffner because it does not want to become a pool of courses that other departments do not want to offer within their compulsory program. Courses designed to provide basic academic or professional skills cannot be accredited for the GESS Compulsory Elective. This means that courses on subjects such as Business English, Presentation Skills, [. . .] etc., cannot be accredited for the GESS Compulsory Elective.15 In practice, this further restriction means that offers in “English for Academic Purposes” cannot be part of the D-GESS program. Several attempts by the Language Center’s director to convince the Study Commission that academic linguistic skills are not the same thing as methodological skills were not successful. Only five out of 16 Departments offer programs which contain not only compulsory modules and compulsory electives from D-GESS, but also optional modules where language courses are also eligible. To conclude, ETH Zurich has more language policy regulations than the University of Zurich, which reflects a higher degree of internationalisation. An overall view of the language policy elements in the International Strategy and the ­Directives of the Rector concerning languages of instruction and compulsory electives in the Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences (D-GESS) show a lack of consistency between strategic goals and the fostering of language competence. The low number of credits for languages within compulsory electives, and the absence of electives where languages may also be credited in most of the bachelor’s and master’s programs, reinforce this situation. On 8 March 2010, after receiving the results of the analysis of the documents containing language policy elements and the conclusions, the Rector of ETH ­Zurich stated that there was no need for a language policy document or for the adoption of principles at ETH Zurich level. It was argued that ETH Zurich has ­admission requirements concerning the languages of tuition, i.e. German and English, and that the departments must monitor their study regulations and admission requirements in accordance with the new directive concerning the language(s) of instruction. The Rector confirmed her support for the position of the Study Commission of the D-GESS. She announced, however, that the departments would be asked to consider the possibility of crediting languages within their disciplinary or optional programs. From the perspective of governance, the Rector’s position is binding on a macro level, but pragmatic rather than based on strategic decisions in the field of 15 http://www.gess.ethz.ch/studies/pwf/GESS_PWF_EN.pdf Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 The impact of language policy issues   399 languages of instruction. Concerning further policy discussion, the departments will be called upon to review their own language policy guidelines, while the Language Center’s director is invited to maintain exchange with the departments on a regular basis. 6 Common language policy approach of the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich Both Executive Boards share the Language Center’s view that crediting language performance in the programs of both institutions could be more comprehensive. Since study programs are dense at bachelor’s and master’s levels, both Executive Boards have nevertheless declined to make general recommendations to their faculties or departments. The Language Center’s director is asked to broach the topic of crediting language performance directly with departments and faculties. 7 The impact of language policy on program development In the follow-up to the evaluation of the Language Center, the Language Center’s Board was required to adopt strategic principles of program development. Table 5 shows the scope of the Language Center’s services in 2009. The principles, based on suggestions from the Language Center’s director, which took account of the outcome of the language policy surveys and the positions of both Executive Boards, were adopted on 7 May 2010, as detailed below: Table 5: The Language Center’s services in 2009 Program for students 6,554 BA, BSc, MSc, MA and mobility students Program for doctoral students and staff: 1,537 participants German entry examination: 80 candidates Tandem learning: 860 partnerships Self-access center: 1,853 visits Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 400   Sabina Schaffner 7.1 German and English as linguae francae of teaching and research In the case of German as a foreign language, a broad range of pre-semester and semester courses is offered at all proficiency levels, for all skills and for all target groups, with a small increase in course offerings at beginner’s level. The program is designed to help students to cope with the linguistic and cultural challenges linked with their studies at the University of Zurich or ETH Zurich. Pre-semester courses therefore fulfill an important multifunctional role and are designed to ensure successful socialisation of students into an international students’ community and in the city of Zurich. The semester program contains general language courses, specific skills courses, lectures and exercises and film clubs, along with the courses in German for academic and specific purposes and a Swiss German language course. Language counseling and coaching in the fields of scientific writing and pronunciation are also offered.16 English Foundation and Core Skills as well as English for Specific Purposes courses are designed to help students in their studies and in preparing for their future careers. As for English for Academic Purposes modules, a range of offerings is maintained for all target groups in different skills at levels B2 to C2. Academic coaching and tailor-made training ensure a response to specific needs. Moreover, an e-learning platform is being developed with materials in scientific writing. For doctoral students and teaching staff, a broad range of modules in the field of scientific and teaching skills is offered. The module Teaching in English in a Non-English Speaking Environment, for non-native English-speaking teaching assistants, is offered jointly by the Center for University Teaching and Learning and the Language Center. The module aims to raise awareness of the nature and use of English as a lingua franca in academic settings, to analyse and practise aspects of rhetorical effectiveness when lecturing in English, to review the implications of teaching students from different cultural backgrounds, and to consider a range of simple didactic instruments designed to facilitate students’ learning at the University of Zurich. The format combines practical exercises with individual feedback and theoretical input on the interface between language, pedagogy and culture in higher education.17 16 http://www.sprachenzentrum.uzh.ch/angebot/sprachen/liste_total.php?sprachnr= 4&gruppe=99 17 http://www.sprachenzentrum.uzh.ch/angebot/sprachen/liste_total.php?sprachnr= 5&gruppe=99 Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 The impact of language policy issues   401 7.2 Modules for mobility Preparatory courses for the University of Zurich’s Entry Examination in German as well as for the examinations in Classical Greek and Latin are offered together with IELTS and TOEFL exam-preparation courses. Moreover, mobility coaching and tools, and workshops for autonomous learning in the self-access center support students in examination preparation, as well as in academic language training. The self-access center also offers students the opportunity to take the Test d’Evaluation du Français (TEF).18 7.3 Fostering individual plurilingualism According to the Language Center’s slogan, “More languages, more prospects”, the fostering of individual plurilingualism is an important goal. Apart from ­German and English, which cover about 50% of the course program, 12 (10 ­modern) languages are offered. In the case of the national languages, diversity of the language offer is an important principle, which implies the necessity of regular needs analysis with departments and faculties and the chairs in the Faculty of Arts. In the French and Italian course program, specific skills and aspects of language (listening, reading, speaking, writing, grammar, vocabulary, etc.) as well as socio-cultural and disciplinary competence are specifically developed alongside elementary language competence. The modular system covering all levels from A1 to C2 allows for flexibility in the course program, which takes account of both the Swiss cultural dialogue and the contemporary needs of international universities and their students. Language counseling helps students to plan their language learning strategically and to choose appropriate courses. The offer in other European languages (Modern Greek, Polish, Russian and Swedish) is based on curricula that foster all skills, including levels A1–A2 or A1– B1/B2. The offer of non-European languages covers Arabic, Chinese and Japanese at levels A1–B1/B2. The language training in these courses is more intensive at beginner’s level, comprising four weekly units of 45 minutes, whereas language courses in other languages are organised in two weekly units. The courses in all these languages encompass thematic features of academic life and build on the strategies of experienced language learners able to cope with steep progression.19 18 http://www.sprachenzentrum.uzh.ch/mobility/index.php 19 http://www.sprachenzentrum.uzh.ch/mobility/index.php Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 402   Sabina Schaffner 8 The impact of language policy on cooperation and quality management The principles of program development as described above demand a continuous fine-tuning of pedagogical formats and the fostering of a learning and teaching culture based on reflection. Moreover, continuous communication of relevant information on the reform process, decisions by the Language Center’s Board or the Executive Boards of the University of Zurich or ETH Zurich by the director and the heads of units is an important part of the Language Center’s culture. In the ­language units, teaching staff are involved in program development through SIGs, projects and workshops. Continuous in-service training and fostering of specialisation facilitate the implementation of ongoing challenges. The Language Center’s director also fosters translingual and interdisciplinary cooperation. The Language Center’s quality management system is based on an Organisational Integrated Quality approach which fosters the development of a common learning culture. Apart from established external evaluation such as the evaluation carried out by the Evaluation Office mentioned in this article, a core element of the Language Center’s quality management system is “360° feedback”, also known as “multisource feedback”. This involves employee development feedback that comes from different perspectives concerning the employee. In the Language Center’s case, the feedback comes from students, peers, and superiors (heads of units or the Director) as well from stakeholders (the Executive Boards of both universities as well as the deans and heads of departments and program coordinators). 360% feedback is a means of internal self-evaluation and has a formative function only. It appeals to teachers’ intrinsic motivation and interest in continuous development. It also fosters trust and cooperation among teachers and between teachers and superiors. Thus, 360° feedback offers a flexible model of constant quality improvement, stressing the individual teacher’s responsibility, while integrating forms of social learning in the units. 9 Conclusion This article has endeavored to reflect upon the impact of political decisions on program development and management. It was shown that the lack of a coherent language policy at the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich results in the delegation of some elements of policy negotiation at an intermediate level to the ­Language Center’s director. It has also illustrated the establishment of concrete language policy principles for program development as a way of coping with the Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 The impact of language policy issues   403 language policy situation, while defending language policy values of the Center’s management. Finally, the article has described how the Language Center strives towards teachers’ involvement in program development and for a teaching culture of continuous reflection and cooperation. References British Council/European Commission. 2010–2013. Language Rich Europe (EU Nr. 511780-LLP-1- 2010-1-UK-KA2-KA2NW). http://languagerichblog.eu/ (retrieved 26 November 2011). Bundesgesetz über die Landessprachen und die Verständigung zwischen den Sprachgemeinschaften (Sprachengesetz, SpG) vom 5. Oktober 2007 [Federal Act on National Languages and Understanding between the Linguistic Communities] http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/ff/2007/6951.pdf CRUS. Bologna-Koordination (eds). 2008/09. Bologna-Monitoring 2008–2011. Erster Zwischenbericht. http://www.unibas.ch/doc/doc_download.cfm?uuid= 85D747763005C8DEA399722AD356BCC4&&IRACER_AUTOLINK&& (retrieved 13 July 2011). Dylan Project. Language dynamics and management of diversity. http://www.dylan-project. org/Dylan_en/index.php (retrieved 13 July 2011). The GESS Compulsory Elective – Information for ETH students. http://www.gess.ethz.ch/ studies/pwf/GESS_PWF_EN.pdf (retrieved 30 November 2012). Gâz, Roxana Maria. 2011. Language policies in European Higher Education Area: Babes-Bolyai University – A case study. Romanian Review of International Studies 3(1). 51–69. Grin, François. 2010. Managing languages in academia: Pointers from education economics and language economics. Paper presented at the conference Professionalising Multilingualism in Higher Education, Luxembourg, 4 February, 9–10 (http://www.unige.ch/traduction- interpretation/recherches/groupes/elf/news/luxembourg-100205/LUX-UNI-TEX-2.pdf). Kommission Internationale Beziehungen und Ressort Internationale Beziehungen. Leitbild Internationale Beziehungen der Universität Zürich. Vom Universitätsrat genehmigt im April 2006 [Mission Statement of International Relations of the University of Zurich, authorised by the Executive Board of the University on 2 March 2006]. http://www.int.uzh.ch/ international/mission_en.html (retrieved 13 July 2011). Philippson, Robert: Language Policy and Education in the European Union. In Horbergner, Nancy (ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education, volume 1: Language policy and Political Issues in Education. Springer (in press) Swiss National Science Foundation. Nationales Forschungsprogramm NFP 56. 2005–2009. Sprachenvielfalt und Sprachkompetenz in der Schweiz [Language diversity and language competence in Switzerland]. http://www.nfp56.ch/d.cfm?Slanguage=d (retrieved 13 July 2011). Universitätsrat der Universität Zürich. 2004. Richtlinien über die Umsetzung des Bologna Prozesses an der Universität Zürich [Guidelines on the Implementation of the Bologna Process at Zurich University], 1 March. http://www.sae.uzh.ch/dokumente/ARichtlinieUZH. pdf (retrieved 13 July 2011). Working Group “ETH Zurich International”. 2008. ETH Zurich in the global university landscape. International strategy. http://www.global.ethz.ch/docs/strategy (retrieved 13 July 2011). Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 404   Sabina Schaffner Wunderli-Allenspach, Heidi. 2007. Weisung der Rektorin zum Pflichtwahlfach aus dem Bereich der Geistes-, Sozial- und Staatswissenschaften [Directive of the Rector concerning compulsory electives in the Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences (D-GESS)], September 24. http://www.gess.ethz.ch/studies/pwf/box_feeder/2012-08-02_ Weisung_Rektorin_PWF_EN.pdf (retrieved on July 13 2011). Bionote Sabina Schaffner is Director of the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich Language Center. Bereitgestellt von | UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich Angemeldet | 89.206.117.6 Heruntergeladen am | 29.12.13 11:28 05.12.2013/ASW/IRO Seite 1/6 Abteilung Internationale Beziehungen Internationalisierungsstrategie der UZH 2014-2020 Die Universität Zürich bewegt sich als exzellente und international ausgerichtete Forschungs- und Bildungsinstitution in einem dynamischen Umfeld. In diesem Zusammenhang ist sie mit einer Vielzahl von Herausforderungen konfrontiert. Die vorliegende Strategie schreibt institutionelle Ziele zur weiteren Internationalisierung der UZH fest, um künftige Entwicklungen in diesem Bereich erfolgreich zu bewältigen. Viele der im Papier genannten Massnahmen liegen in der Verantwortung der Fakultäten. Die Universitätsleitung möchte die Fakultäten in ihren weiteren Internationalisierungsaktivitäten unterstützen und geeignete Anreize bieten, um die institutionellen Ziele zu erreichen. Grundsätze Verbindlich für die Internationalisierungsstrategie der Universität Zürich sind die Strategischen Ziele 2020 der Universität, die vom Universitätsrat und der Universitätsleitung im Jahre 2012 verabschiedet wurden. Im Wesentlichen sind die folgenden Zielsetzungen für dieses Papier ausschlaggebend: 1. „Die UZH nimmt in der europäischen Forschungslandschaft eine führende Position ein. In ausgewählten Bereichen gehört sie zur Weltspitze. […]“ (Strategisches Ziel 1) 2. „Die UZH rekrutiert im Rahmen der Berufungsverfahren hervorragende Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler und bietet ihnen erstklassige Bedingungen. […]“ (Strategisches Ziel 3) 3. „Die UZH verfügt zur Erfüllung ihrer Aufgaben und für eine erfolgreiche internationale Positionierung über sehr gute infrastrukturelle Rahmenbedingungen. […]“ (Strategisches Ziel 7) Basierend auf diesen Grundsätzen wird eine Internationale Strategie für die folgenden Bereiche vorgeschlagen: die Universität als Institution, Forschung und Nachwuchsförderung sowie Lehre und Studium. 05.12.2013/ASW/IRO Seite 2/6 Abteilung Internationale Beziehungen Strategische Ziele Lösungsansätze I. Institution I.1 International House Die UZH bietet ein einheitliches, breit abgestütztes Angebot für die Betreuung internationaler Angehöriger von Stufe Bachelor bis Professur an. − Die Abteilung Internationale Beziehungen baut ein International House auf und führt dieses. In dieser Struktur werden die nicht-akademischen, zentralen Informations-, Beratungs- und Betreuungsangebote zusammengefasst (Einreise, Aufenthaltsbewilligung, Versicherungen, Wohnen, familiäre Angelegenheiten, etc.). − Das International House dient dazu, die internationalen Angehörigen der UZH und ihre Familien bei der Ankunft und während ihres Aufenthalts zu betreuen sowie sie mit anderen Angehörigen der UZH in Kontakt zu bringen, um so die Integration zu unterstützen. Dies geschieht durch die Organisation von Begrüssungsanlässen, Empfängen und Netzwerkveranstaltungen, die für Studierende und Forschende von Interesse sind. I.2 Sichtbarkeit Die UZH ist international als exzellente und breit diversifizierte Forschungs- und Bildungsinstitution sichtbar. − Die Kontakte mit schweizerischen Repräsentationen im Ausland (swissnex, Wissenschaftsrätinnen und -räte der Schweizer Botschaften, Generalkonsulate, Direktion für Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit DEZA) werden gepflegt und intensiviert. − Im Rahmen der Kontaktpflege mit den schweizerischen Repräsentationen im Ausland übernehmen Professorinnen und Professoren in Sabbaticals freiwillig eine Funktion als Botschafter/innen der UZH (z.B. Teilnahme an Alumni-Anlässen). − Die UZH koordiniert ihren internationalen Auftritt wo sinnvoll und möglich mit den anderen Schweizer Universitäten sowie mit dem Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation SBFI. − Die UZH berücksichtigt die wichtigsten Rankings mit der grössten Visibilität und setzt sich mit Verbesserungspotentialen auseinander. 05.12.2013/ASW/IRO Seite 3/6 Abteilung Internationale Beziehungen Strategische Ziele Lösungsansätze − Die Datenlage zu Indikatoren der Internationalisierung wird weiter verbessert, um ein umfassendes Monitoring zu ermöglichen. − Die strategischen Forschungsprojekte der UZH und insbesondere die Universitären Forschungsschwerpunkte werden gezielt global kommuniziert. − Die UZH definiert die für sie wichtigsten Bildungsmessen insbesondere für die Master- und Doktoratsstufe und ist an diesen präsent. I.3 Zweisprachigkeit Die UZH kommuniziert in Deutsch und Englisch. − Informationen über die Angebote und Abläufe der UZH werden konsequent in Deutsch und Englisch zugänglich gemacht. Grundprozesse wie Einschreibung, Modulbuchung, Entwicklungsplanung sowie die wichtigsten Reglemente werden bei der Umsetzung der Zweisprachigkeit berücksichtigt. I.4 Institutionelle Partner Die UZH kooperiert national und international mit strategisch wichtigen Partnern. − Auf universitärer Ebene wird die Mitgliedschaft der UZH in einem globalen Netzwerk exzellenter Universitäten geprüft. Es werden strategische Partnerschaften mit ausgewählten Universitäten aufgebaut. Der Austausch auf institutioneller Ebene wird mittels Mobilität in der Forschung und in der Lehre gepflegt und durch Mobilitätsstipendien unterstützt. Ebenfalls wird die Gründung eines eigenen Netzwerkes geprüft. − Die Fakultäten und Fächer pflegen ihre eigenen Partnerschaften und Netzwerke. I.5 Internationale Alumni Die UZH unterstützt ihre internationalen Alumni bei Bestrebungen zur Reputationsförderung der Universität im Ausland. − Alumni UZH erarbeitet eine Strategie, wie die internationalen Alumni organisiert und wie deren Netzwerke zu Gunsten der Universität genutzt werden können. 05.12.2013/ASW/IRO Seite 4/6 Abteilung Internationale Beziehungen Strategische Ziele Lösungsansätze I.6 Globales Engagement Als exzellente und international vernetzte Forschungsund Bildungsinstitution engagiert sich die UZH für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung der Gesellschaft. − Knowledge sharing: Die UZH fördert die Produktion von Wissen und den Aufbau von Fachkompetenz in Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern durch die Unterstützung von partnerschaftlichen Forschungskooperationen und Aktivitäten im Bereich des Capacity Building (z.B. Aufbau von Curricula). − Die bestehende Nord-Süd Kooperation bietet Anschubfinanzierung für Projekte in Forschung, Lehre und zum Kapazitätsaufbau mit Partnern in Afrika. Das Programm wird in ein Konzept überführt, das zusätzliche Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländer einschliesst. − Die bestehenden Förderinstrumente werden angepasst. Zusätzlich werden selektiv Stipendien für Forschende aus den entsprechenden Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern für einen Studienaufenthalt an der UZH vergeben. II. Forschung und Nachwuchsförderung II.1 Rekrutierung Die UZH rekrutiert Forschende aus den besten in- und ausländischen Kräften. − Stellen in der Forschung werden konsequent national und international ausgeschrieben. − Die Fakultäten werden zur Rekrutierung und Anstellung von internationalen Gastprofessuren ermuntert. Die UZH vergibt kompetitiv eine kleine Zahl von Gastprofessuren, welche die Ausstrahlung der UZH nachhaltig verstärken. II.2 Einwerbung von internationalen Drittmitteln Die UZH unterstützt ihre Forschenden bei der Einwerbung von internationalen Drittmitteln. − Die Universität prüft, ob die derzeitige Unterstützung der Forschenden bei der Einreichung von Drittmittelprojekten bei der EU, in den USA und allfälligen weiteren Partnern genügt. Dabei ist insbesondere die Anschubfinanzierung zur Ausarbeitung von Anträgen zu berücksichtigen. 05.12.2013/ASW/IRO Seite 5/6 Abteilung Internationale Beziehungen Strategische Ziele Lösungsansätze II.3 Förderung von jungen Wissenschaftlerinnn und Wissenschaftlern Die UZH unterstützt ihre Nachwuchskräfte beim Erwerb internationaler Erfahrung und bei der internationa-len Netzwerkbildung. − Die Teilnahme von Forschenden der UZH an internationalen Nachwuchsförderungsprogrammen (z.B. Summer Schools) wird unterstützt. − Kurzaufenthalte im Ausland zu Forschungszwecken von Nachwuchskräften der UZH werden stärker ge- fördert. − Die UZH bietet vermehrt Summer Schools an, um dem wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchs eine gute Plattform für den Aufbau und die Pflege ihres Netzwerkes zu bieten. III. Lehre und Studium III.1 Mobilität Die UZH fördert die Mobilität und internationale Erfahrung ihrer Studierenden. Die Universität und die Fakultäten legen Zielgrössen fest. − Das Angebot an aussereuropäischen Partneruniversitäten wird auf gesamtuniversitärer Ebene ausgebaut. Die Kommission Internationale Beziehungen unterstützt den Prozess für den Abschluss von Austauschabkommen auf dieser Ebene. − In den Studiengängen werden auf Bachelor- und Masterstufe Mobilitätsfenster eingebaut, damit ein Mobilitätsaufenthalt ohne Verlängerung des Studiums möglich ist. Davon ausgenommen ist die Medizinische Fakultät. − Die Prozesse der Anerkennung und Notenumrechnung der im Ausland erbrachten Studienleistungen werden verbessert und vereinheitlicht. − Studierendenaustausch beruht auf Reziprozität; entsprechende Angebote für Incoming-Studierende werden aufgebaut: Summer Schools, „Zurich Semester“ mit Deutschkursen und mit Kursen zu europäischer Kultur und Politik. 05.12.2013/ASW/IRO Seite 6/6 Abteilung Internationale Beziehungen Strategische Ziele Lösungsansätze − Andere Formen der internationalen Erfahrung für Studierende werden definiert (z.B. Praktika im Ausland, Summer Schools). III.2 Internationalisierung zu Hause Die UZH fördert die Integrati-on der internationalen Di-mension in allen Studiengän-gen. − Die Fakultäten der UZH legen fest, welche Kompetenzen ihre Studierenden erwerben sollen, um sich erfolgreich in einem internationalen Umfeld bewegen zu können. Sie prüfen, ob Anpassungen der Curricula notwendig sind. − Die UZH fördert Initiativen ihrer Forschenden und Studierenden, die zur Sensibilisierung für die interkulturelle Zusammenarbeit beitragen. III.3 Rekrutierung Die UZH rekrutiert insbesondere auf Master- und Doktoratsstufe aktiv exzellente Studierende im In- und Aus- land. − Die Prozesse der Zulassung werden beschleunigt, so dass eine schnelle Überprüfung der Zulassungsvoraussetzungen möglich wird. − Die laufende Zulassung von Doktorierenden wird ge- prüft. − Master- und PhD-Studiengänge werden ausser an der Medizinischen Fakultät vermehrt komplett in Englisch angeboten. − Die UZH prüft, ob Stipendien für herausragende internationale Studierende eingeführt werden sollen. Weiter prüft sie eine verstärkte Zusammenarbeit mit den Stipendienstellen des Bundes. III.4 Internationale Pro- gramme Der Aufbau internationaler Programme wird unterstützt. − Die Fakultäten werden ermuntert, Joint bzw. Double Degrees mit ausgewählten ausländischen Partneruniversitäten anzubieten. Sprachenpolitiken an deutschen Hochschulen Auswertung der Umfrage vom 13.07.2015 auf aks-intern Sprachenzentrum – Technische Universität Braunschweig, A. Hettiger (03.10.2015) Frage 1) Handelt es sich bei Ihrer Hochschule um eine Fachhochschule oder um eine Universität? n % Universität 31 63% Fachhochschule 18 37% Keine Angabe 0 0% 31 18 0 Handelt es sich bei Ihrer Hochschule um eine Fachhochschule oder um eine Universität? Universität Fachhochschule Keine Angabe Frage 2) Wie viele Studierende hat Ihre Hochschule? n % unter 5.000 7 14% 5.000 - 10.000 12 24% 10.000 - 15.000 7 14% 15.000 - 20.000 4 8% 20.000 - 25.000 5 10% über 25.000 14 30% Keine Angabe 0 0% 7 12 7 4 5 14 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 unter 5.000 5.000 - 10.000 10.000 - 15.000 15.000 - 20.000 20.000 - 25.000 über 25.000 Keine Angabe Wie viele Studierende hat Ihre Hochschule? Frage 3) Verfügt Ihre Hochschule über eine Sprachenpolitik bzw. über ein Strategiepapier, in dem auch sprachenpolitische Überlegungen enthalten sind? n % Ja, meine Hochschule verfügt über eine eigenständige Sprachenpolitik 2 4% Eine eigenständige Sprachenpolitik wird momentan erarbeitet. 3 6% Ja, meine Hochschule verfügt über ein Strategiepapier (z.B. eine Internationalisierungsstrategie), in dem auch sprachenpolitische Überlegungen enthalten sind 19 39% Ein Strategiepapier (z.B. eine Internationalisierungsstrategie), in dem auch sprachenpolitische Überlegungen enthalten sind, wird momentan erarbeitet 9 18% Nein 13 27% Keine Angabe 3 6% 2 3 19 9 13 3 Verfügt Ihre Hochschule über eine Sprachenpolitik bzw. über ein Strategiepapier, in dem auch sprachenpolitische Überlegungen enthalten sind? Ja, meine Hochschule verfügt über eine eigenständige Sprachenpolitik Eine eigenständige Sprachenpolitik wird momentan erarbeitet. Ja, meine Hochschule verfügt über ein Strategiepapier (z.B. eine Internationalisierungsstrategie), in dem auch sprachenpolitische Überlegungen enthalten sind Ein Strategiepapier (z.B. eine Internationalisierungsstrategie), in dem auch sprachenpolitische Überlegungen enthalten sind, wird momentan erarbeitet Nein Keine Angabe Frage 4) Ist Ihre Sprachenpolitik im Kontext des HRK-Audits „Internationalisierung der Hochschulen“ erarbeitet worden bzw. wird sie momentan in diesem Kontext erarbeitet? n % Ja 18 37% Nein 10 20% Keine Angabe 21 43% 18 10 21 0 5 10 15 20 25 Ja Nein Keine Angabe Ist Ihre Sprachenpolitik im Kontext des HRK-Audits „Internationalisierung der Hochschulen“ erarbeitet worden bzw. wird sie momentan in diesem Kontext erarbeitet? Frage 5) Wenn ja, haben Sie den HRK-Audit-Prozess als hilfreich für die Förderung der Sprachausbildung an Ihrer Hochschule erlebt bzw. empfinden Sie ihn als hilfreich? n % Ja 14 29% Nein 6 12% Keine Angabe 29 59% 14 6 29 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ja Nein Keine Angabe Wenn ja, haben Sie den HRK-AuditProzess als hilfreich für die Förderung der Sprachausbildung an Ihrer Hochschule erlebt bzw. empfinden Sie ihn als hilfreich? Frage 6) Wollen Sie noch weitere Erfahrungen mit Ihrer Beteiligung am HRK-Audit-Prozess teilen? n % Ja, und zwar folgende: 9 16% Nein 8 16% Keine Angabe 32 68% Ja, und zwar folgende: - Es war eine durchaus positive Erfahrung, da das SPZ sich als führend im Internationalisierungsprozess zeigte. - Auch wenn an meiner Hochschule noch keine hochschulübergreifende Sprachenpolitik besteht, was unsere Beteiliung am HRK-Audit der Auslöser, in Zukunft ein derartiges Konzept zu erstellen. - Die Empfehlungen waren zu unfokussiert, sodass unsere Einrichtung sie nicht zufriedenstellend implementieren konnte - intensiviert die Zusammenarbeit zwischen international offices und Sprachenzentrum intern - Durch das HRK-Audit haben sich die Kontakte zu den Fakultäten intensiviert und dadurch haben Sprachen an Bedeutung gewonnen, die Curricula wurden überarbeitet und die Fakultäten haben sich für das Thema geöffnet. - Einbeziehung recht spät (Formulierung des 'Sprachteils' der I-Strategie sollte innerhalb weniger Tage erfolgen) - Die AuditorInnen haben sich im Gespräch sehr positiv über die konsequent zentrale Ausrichtung der Sprachausbildung (inklusive Philologien) geäußert. - die Auditoren maßen dem Thema Sprachen bzw. Sprachenpolitik deutlich mehr Bedeutung zu als die Hochschule. Das Gespräch mit den Auditoren war sehr hilfreich und hat unsere Position gestärkt. 9 8 32 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ja, und zwar folgende: Nein Keine Angabe Wollen Sie noch weitere Erfahrungen mit Ihrer Beteiligung am HRK-Audit-Prozess teilen? Frage 7) Existiert neben (oder anstelle) einer hochschulübergreifenden Sprachenpolitik ein sprachenpolitisches Dokument, das ausschließlich in Ihrem Sprachenzentrum entwickelt wurde und auf die Sprachausbildung im Sprachenzentrum beschränkt ist? n % Ja 16 33% Nein 24 49% Keine Angabe 9 18% Bemerkungen zu Frage 7: - ein Leitbild, das auch sprachenpolitische Fragen anspricht - Wir haben einen Sprachenzentrum-Entwicklungsplan vor einigen Monaten verabschiedet. - Mission Statement - Ein Reglement zur Zweisprachigkeit - Es gibt neben dem Strategiepaier zur Internationalisierung mit eineigen wesentlchen sprachenpolitischen Positionen ein umfassendes sprachenpolitisches Dokument als Basis für Ausbildung und budgetierung am/des Sprachenzentrum/s - Es existiert eine so genannte Sprachenordnung, die Festlegungen trifft zur Art der Sprachkurse, Einbettung in Sprachniveaustufen gemäß dem GER, Einstufungsverfahren und Prüfungsverfahren, die für die MitarbeiterInnen des Sprachenzentrum bindend ist und gewährleisten soll, dass alle Pürfungen in allen Sprachbereichen vergleichbar beleiben. Ansonsten sind für uns 16 24 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ja Nein Keine Angabe Existiert neben (oder anstelle) einer hochschulübergreifenden Sprachenpolitik ein sprachenpolitisches Dokument, das ausschließlich in Ihrem Sprachenzentrum entwickelt wurde und auf die Sprachausbildung im Sprachenzentrum beschränkt ist? Dokumente des AKS oder auch der Wulkowgruppe grundsätzlich wichtig für unsere Arbeit am Sprachenzentrum. - Ordnung - Eine eigenständige 'Sprachenpolitik' war schon mehrfach im Gespräch und ist auch noch nicht vom Tisch. Zuständig fühlt sich zum einen das Sprachenzentrum, aber auch die philologischen Fächer und der Vizepräsident für Internationalisierung. - Wir haben unsere eigene Prüfungsordnung. Es ist zwar keine genaue "Sprachpolitik", aber in Zusammenhang mit den Studierenden fundiert es auch als solche. - Die Wichtigkwit von Sprachkenntnissen wird ständig hervorgehoben. Den Studenten wird ans herz gelegt, Auslandsaufenthalte im Sinne eines Praktikums oder Teilstudiums zu nutzen. Oft wird Internationalisierung zu einseitig interpretiert als Hereinholen ausländischer Studenten, deren Betreuung über Mentorenprogramme und die dafür erforderliche deutschausbildung. Das UNIcerert-Ausbildungssystem wurde vor mehr als 20 Jahren installiert und wird anerkannt für die Fremdsprachenausbildung. Eine gewisse Bandbreite an unterschiedlichen Sprachangeboten wird unterstützt. - Vom Sprachenzentrum wurden gezielte Fragestellungen an die Hochschulleitung gerichtet, deren Beantwortung zur Entwicklung einer Sprachenpolitik beitragen würde. Frage 8) Halten Sie eine Sprachenpolitik bzw. sprachenpolitische Erklärungen grundsätzlich für sinnvoll im Hinblick auf die Verbesserung der Sprachausbildung an Ihrer Hochschule? n % absolut sinnvoll 29 59% überwiegend sinnvoll 14 29% weniger sinnvoll 3 6% gar nicht sinnvoll 1 2% Keine Angabe 2 4% Bemerkungen zu Frage 8: - Im Rahmen der "Internationalisierung" werden die Sprachen vernachlässigt zu gunsten von internationale Technology Transfer mit ausländischen Firmen bzw. Hochschulen. - Sprachenpolitische Grundsätze, die von den Unileitungen mitgetragen werden, sind der Garant für die Qualität der Sprachausbildung: Sie gewährleisten, dass Sprachausbildung als Aufgabe der Hochschulen verstanden wird und dafür die entsprechenden poersonellen, räumlichen und materiellen Rahmenbedingungen vorgehlaten werden. - Ja, absolut sinnvoll, daher habe ich vor 3 Jahren die Initiative ergriffen und einen Runden Tisch zur Sprachenpolitik initiiert, dem Vertreter der Hochschulleitung, der Verwaltung sowie aller Fakultäten angehören. - Es hängt mit der Sprachenpolitik zusammen: Ziele, Mittel, usw. Pauschal kann ich nichts sagen. - Letztlich wird Sprachpolitisches immer als "Mission Statement/Leitbild" betrachtet. Wie dann die Umsetzung aussieht, wird auch von der Haltung der Fakultäten zu Sprachanforderungen bzw. der Einbettung des Erwerbs von 29 14 3 1 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 absolut sinnvoll überwiegend sinnvoll weniger sinnvoll gar nicht sinnvoll Keine Angabe Halten Sie eine Sprachenpolitik bzw. sprachenpolitische Erklärungen grundsätzlich für sinnvoll im Hinblick auf die Verbesserung der Sprachausbildung an Ihrer Hochschule? Fremdsprachenkenntnissen in die einzelnen Studineordnungen abhängen. Den meisten Studienrichtungen sind der Erwerb von Frmedsprachenkenntnissen 3-6 LP "wert" - Überwiegend sinnvoll, wo man sich auf die Erfüllung der strategischen Ausrichtung berufen könnte. Weniger sinnvoll, da dadurch strategische Vorgaben gemacht werden, die u.U. am Bedarf der Studierenden vorbeigehen. (Es besteht bei strategischen EntscheidungsträgerInnen der Universität eine gewisse Sehnsucht nach strategischer Regulierung...) - Nur wenn sie auch umgesetzt werden. - Sinnvoll ist die Sprachenpolitik nur, wenn sie nicht nur existiert, sondern umgesetzt und von verschiedenen Akteuren an der HS mitgetragen und unterstützt wird. - Eine solche sprachenpolitische Erklärung sollte unbedingt in hochschulinterne Dokumente einfließen. Ein Formulierungsvorschlag seitens des AKS wäre sinnvoll und notwendig. - Ich halte den Prozess der Entwicklung einer hochschuleigenen Sprachenpolitik insofern für wichtig, als auf diese Weise wesentliche Fragen zur Bedeutung von Sprachen, ihrem Stellenwert, ihrer Integration in die Studiengänge etc. überhaupt erst einmal in einem größeren Forum thematisiert und schließlich geklärt werden können. - Da unser Sprachenzentrum nur "Service-Einrichtung" als Zentrale Einrichtung ist, können die Studiengänge über das Wohl oder Wehe der Sprachausbildung entscheiden. Das kann je nach Bestzungslage gut laufen, aber auch ganz schnell ins Gegenteil umschlagen. Das SPZ selbst hat darauf nur sehr wenig Einfluss, egal welches Papier wir vorlegen würden. Es wäre mit einem Hanstreich irgendwann auch wieder vom Tisch. Frage 9) Wird Ihrer Einschätzung nach Mehrsprachigkeit an Ihrer Hochschule überwiegend eher als Problem oder eher als Chance betrachtet? n % Eher als Problem 12 24% Eher als Chance 26 53% Keine Angabe 11 22% Bemerkungen zu Frage 9: - Wir sind eine Technische Universität, Sprachen werden eigentlich hauptsächlich instrumentell betrachtet. - Wird in unserer Hochschule gar nicht als Thema wahrgenommen. - Mehrsprachigkeit wird dann als Chance gesehen, wenn es um English + x geht. Kern der jetzigen sprachenpolitischen Diskussionen ist die massive Förderung von Englisch, erkauft mit einer Reduzierung der Angebote in allen anderen Sprachen, die als nicht mehr so wichtig angesehen werden. - weil Mehrsprachigkeit bei uns nur Englisch bedeutet. - Fokus auf Englisch. Hintergrundsprachen nicht anerkannt. Mobilität nicht diferenziert. - Die meisten Studiengänge konzentrieren sich eher auf die Sprache Englisch und es ist relativ leicht, die Fakultäten davon zu überzeugen, Englisch curricular zu verankern. Bei den weiteren Sprachen bedarf es sehr viel mehr Überzeugungsarbeit und manchmal wird die Notwendigkeit einfach nicht gesehen. - An unserer Hochschule wird Mehrsprachigkeit "angeblich" als Chance (und Markenzeichen) präsentiert. Es gibt aber leider kein richtiges, vernünftiges Konzept dazu. 12 26 11 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Eher als Problem Eher als Chance Keine Angabe Wird Ihrer Einschätzung nach Mehrsprachigkeit an Ihrer Hochschule überwiegend eher als Problem oder eher als Chance betrachtet? - An der Uni […] wird momentan sehr viel Wert auf Englisch gelegt. Mehrsprachigkeit ist eher sekundär und wird als nice-to-have angesehen. - Es herrscht bei einigen Entscheidungsträgern immer noch der Tenor vor, dass Englisch wohl als lingua franca ausreichend sei, um sich in der Fachwelt zu verständigen. Wir müssen ständig unser Angebot begründen können, obwohl es sich bei den meisten Sprachen nur im Anfängerbereich oder weiterführenden Anfängerbereich. Wir müssen ständig darauf verweisen, dass landessprachliche und interkulturelle Kenntnisse für einen erfolgreichen Auslandsaufenthalt unumgänglich sind, wenigstens "Überlebensniveau". Wir betonen immer wieder die Notwendigkeit der Mehrsprachigkeit, müssen uns aber ständig rechtfertigen. Frage 10) Können Sie dieser Aussage zustimmen, die auf eine weitergefasste Mehrsprachigkeit zielt: „Der Wert von Sprachen neben Deutsch und Englisch wird an meiner Hochschule im Großen und Ganzen erkannt und wertgeschätzt.“ n % trifft voll zu 5 10% trifft überwiegend zu 18 37% trifft weniger zu 18 37% trifft gar nicht zu 5 10% Keine Angabe 3 6% Bemerkungen zu Frage 10: - Es sind eher Lippenbekenntnisse. - Die Hochschule ist zu groß, als dass eine einheitliche Linie zu erkennen wäre. Allerdings wird dem Sprachenzentrum aktuell eine relativ große Sprachenpalette zugebilligt. - s. o. - Die Ursache dafür ist m.E., dass die Verantwortlichen in den Hochschulleitungen mit der Förderung weiterer Sprachen sofort Kosten auf sich zukommen sehen, die sie sich nicht leisten können oder wollen. - Nice-to-have - ich befürchte aber, dass bei der kleinsten Budgeteinschränkung die Diskussion aufkommt, warum wir 16 Sprachen im Angebot haben. - Wir haben das Große Glück, dass unsere Hochschulleitung unsere Arbeit schätzt und so weit möglich unterstützt. 5 18 18 5 3 0 5 10 15 20 trifft voll zu trifft überwiegend zu trifft weniger zu trifft gar nicht zu Keine Angabe Können Sie dieser Aussage zustimmen, die auf eine weitergefasste Mehrsprachigkeit zielt: „Der Wert von Sprachen neben Deutsch und Englisch wird an meiner Hochschule im Großen und Ganzen erkannt und wertgeschätzt.“ Frage 11) Können Sie dieser Aussage zustimmen, die auf den Aufbau interkultureller Kompetenzen zielt: „Der Wert von Sprachen wird an meiner Hochschule auch in seiner kulturellen Dimension erkannt und wertgeschätzt.“ n % trifft voll zu 6 12% trifft überwiegend zu 22 45% trifft weniger zu 17 35% trifft gar nicht zu 1 2% Keine Angabe 3 6% Bemerkung zu Frage 11: - Hängt sehr stark vom Studiengang ab - Jedoch hauptsächlich als Lippenbekenntnis, ohne dass sich diese globale Wertschätzung in konkreten Umsetzungen niederschlägt. - man hält das hier aber für sprachenunabhängig - Dies wird zwar immer wieder erwähnt, hat aber nur Schlagwortcharakter -- was zum Teil damit zusammenhängt, dass sich selbst die Experten sehr, sehr schwer tun, das Konzept der 'Interkulturelle Kompetenz(en)' in sinnvolle didaktische Maßnahmen oder Trainings zu operationalisieren. - Wird wohl zu wenig begriffen und kann immer nur im Gespräch verdeutlicht werden. 6 22 17 1 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 trifft voll zu trifft überwiegend zu trifft weniger zu trifft gar nicht zu Keine Angabe Können Sie dieser Aussage zustimmen, die auf den Aufbau interkultureller Kompetenzen zielt: „Der Wert von Sprachen wird an meiner Hochschule auch in seiner kulturellen Dimension erkannt und wertgeschätzt.“ Frage 12) Können Sie dieser Aussage zustimmen, die auf die Persönlichkeitsbildung zielt: „Der Wert von Sprachen wird an meiner Hochschule auch in seiner persönlichkeitsbildenden Dimension erkannt und wertgeschätzt.“ n % trifft voll zu 1 2% trifft überwiegend zu 23 47% trifft weniger zu 20 41% trifft gar nicht zu 2 4% Keine Angabe 3 6% Bemerkungen zu Frage 12: - Hängt stark vom Individuum ab - Ob man dieser Aussage zustimmen kann oder nicht, hängt sehr von den verschiedenen Fächern ab. In den Geisteswissenschaften und Wirtschaftswissenschaften wird das stärker erkannt als in den Natur- und Technikwissenschaften sowie der Medizin. - Die Antworten für Frage 11 und 12 kommen natürlich aus der Perspektive der Sprachenzentren. Nur in den seltensten Fällen würde man dem eigenen Sprachenzentrum gegenüber formulieren, dass das alles keinen Wert hat. - Dies spielt im Bologna-System der Workloads kaum mehr eine Rolle. - Zu Frage 11 und 12: rhetorisch ja, überwiegend wertgeschätzt (als politische Aussage) - im Detail und auf der Handlungsebene eher nein.., 0 5 10 15 20 25 trifft voll zu trifft überwiegend zu trifft weniger zu trifft gar nicht zu Keine Angabe Können Sie dieser Aussage zustimmen, die auf die Persönlichkeitsbildung zielt: „Der Wert von Sprachen wird an meiner Hochschule auch in seiner persönlichkeitsbildenden Dimension erkannt und wertgeschätzt.“ - Leider setzt sich außerhalb unseres Sprachenzentrums kaum jemand mit diesem - äußerst wichtigen Dimension des Sprachunterrichts auseinander. Das fachliche ist meist fordergründig. Frage 13) Spiegeln sich diese Einstellungen auch in sprachenpolitischen Dokumenten Ihrer Hochschule? D.h.: Finden sich in den sprachenpolitischen Strategien Ihrer Hochschulen auch Formulierungen, die nicht rein funktional sind und auf die übergreifenden Dimensionen der Sprachausbildung (Mehrsprachigkeit als Wert an sich, interkulturelle Dimension, persönlichkeitsbildende Dimension etc.) eingehen? n % Ja, und zwar folgende: 8 16% Nein 16 33% Keine Angabe 25 51% Ja, und zwar folgende: - Auf interkulturelle Kommunikation wird Wert gelegt. - Bezug zur Entwicklung der Lernerautonomie und zum kulturellen Lernen im Mission Statement des Sprachenzentrums - Positionspapier zu zweisprachigen Diplomen - Die Förderung von Mehrsprachigkeit und Interkultureller Kompetenz wird im Strategiepapier zur Internationalisierung in bezug auf den Arbeitsmarkt und studentische Mobilität als Aufgabe der Hochschule formuliert. - Im Entwurf wird auf all diese Bereiche eingegangen. - Mehrsprachigkeit, interkulturelle Dimension - Das Sprachenzentrum unterstützt die studienerfolgsorientierte individuelle Mehrsprachigkeit, die Interkulturalität der Lerner und damit die interkulturelle Kompetenz aller Mitglieder der Hochschule 8 16 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ja, und zwar folgende: Nein Keine Angabe Spiegeln sich diese Einstellungen auch in sprachenpolitischen Dokumenten Ihrer Hochschule? D.h.: Finden sich in den sprachenpolitischen Strategien Ihrer Hochschulen auch Formulierungen, die nicht rein funktional sind und auf die genannten übergreifenden D Frage 14) Wer war (oder ist) an Ihrer Hochschule beteiligt an der Ausarbeitung einer Sprachenpolitik? n % Präsidium 26 53% Fakultäten 19 39% International Office 23 47% Sprachenzentrum 30 61% Vertreter aus Technik und Verwaltung 5 10% Studierende 10 20% Weitere 6 12% Keine Angabe 14 29% Weitere: - International Relations Office - Strategiekommission Internationalisierung - Beirat für Internationales, Vorsitz Präsident Bemerkungen zu Frage 14: - Die Sprachenpolitik wird in einer Rektoratskommission ausgearbeitet, in der die o.g. Statusgruppen vertreten sind. - Sprachenzentrum ist nicht Teil der Internationalisierungsstrategie (Entscheidung des Vizepräsidenten) - ...jeweils nur einzeln berufene Vertreter - Der Entwurf stammt von mir (Geschäftsführung Sprachenzentrum) und einer DaZ-Professorin, der Feinschliff wurde vom Runden Tisch zur Sprachenpolitik vorgenommen (s.o.). 26 19 23 30 5 10 6 14 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Präsidium Fakultäten International Office Sprachenzentrum Vertreter aus Technik und Verwaltung Studierende Weitere Keine Angabe Wer war (oder ist) an Ihrer Hochschule beteiligt an der Ausarbeitung einer Sprachenpolitik? - Waren im Rahmen des Beirats für Internationales an der Ausarbeitung des Strategiepapirs zur Internationalisierung beteiligt. - Die anderen Akteure auch später, aber zunächst top-down. - Englisch und Deutsch sind als Pflichtfächer in den Studien- und Prüfungsordnungen der Fakultäten festverankert, aber eine Sprachenpolitik wurde bislang nicht ausgearbeitet. Meine Bemühungen bzw. meine formulierten Vorschläge, Sprachen und Interkulturelle Kompetenz im Leitbild der Hochschule zu verankern, wurden schlicht ignoriert. - Vordergründig übernimmt dies das SZ. IO und Präsidium stehen hierzu aber positiv und wr bekommen ab und an Impulse vom Gender Büro, Studierenden und vereinzelten Professoren. - Der Prozess beginnt erst gerade. Die Beteiligten neben dem Sprachenzentrum und dem Präsidium stehen noch nicht fest. Frage 15) Haben Sie als VertreterIn des Sprachenzentrums den Auftrag Ihres Präsidiums erhalten, eine Sprachenpolitik (im Entwurf) auszuarbeiten? n % Ja 9 18% Nein 35 71% Keine Angabe 5 10% Bemerkungen zu Frage 15: [Antworten getilgt, um Anonymität zu wahren.] 9 35 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Ja Nein Keine Angabe Haben Sie als VertreterIn des Sprachenzentrums den Auftrag Ihres Präsidiums erhalten, eine Sprachenpolitik (im Entwurf) auszuarbeiten? Frage 16) Wurden parallel zur Ausarbeitung Ihrer Sprachenpolitik auch Umsetzungsmaßnahmen entworfen? n % Nein, bisher blieb es bei primär strategischen Aussagen 13 27% Ja, auch an Umsetzungsmaßnahmen wurde/wird gearbeitet 14 29% Keine Angabe 22 45% Bemerkung zu Frage 16: - Als Teil des Entwicklungsplans. - Die Diskussion hat kaum erst begonnen, da wären konkrete Maßnahmen verfrüht. - Das SZ meiner Universität nimmt seit seiner Gründung immer schon einen hohen Stellenwert ein. Spezielle Umsetzungsmaßnahmen sind daher nicht erforderlich, denn diesbezügliche Maßnahmen weden permanent und kontinuierlich getroffen, soweit ihre Notwendigkeit erkannt wird. - sind mir jedenfalls in ihrer Konkretheit nicht bekannt - ...die würden sofort Geld kosten - Im Rahmen von Zielvereinbarungen mit dem Land werden regelmäßig Umsetzungsmaßnahmen formuliert und auch im Papier zum Internationalisierungsaudit sind Ziele formuliert worden. - Es gibt ein Sprachenzentrum […]. Dies scheint für die Hochschule als Sprachenpolitik schon genug zu sein. - Es wird an Umsetzungsmaßnahmen gearbeitet, die auf dem Konzept und den Empfehlungen des Sprachenzentrums basieren. Darüber hinausgehende Dokumente zur Sprachenpolitik gibt es bislang wie gesagt nicht. 13 14 22 0 5 10 15 20 25 Nein, bisher blieb es bei primär strategischen Aussagen Ja, auch an Umsetzungsmaßnahmen wurde/wird gearbeitet Keine Angabe Wurden parallel zur Ausarbeitung Ihrer Sprachenpolitik auch Umsetzungsmaßnahmen entworfen? Frage 17) Falls Umsetzungsmaßnahmen die sprachenpolitischen Aussagen flankieren, wurden bzw. werden auch Finanzierungswege thematisiert (Beteiligung der Fakultäten, Studienqualitätsmittel etc.)? n % Ja, und zwar in folgender Weise: 13 27% Nein 13 27% Keine Angabe 23 47% Ja, und zwar in folgender Weise: - Finanzierung wurde als eigene Internationalisierungsmaßnahme definiert. - Unterstützung durch zusätzliche Mittle (Präsidialbudgets, International-OfficeGelder, usw.) - Im Rahme der Internationalisierungsstrategie Zugrigg auf einen Internationalisierungsfonds. - Erhöhung von Gebühren, Vergrößerung der Lerngruppen, Reduktion von Angeboten zugunsten von Englisch - Die Finanzierung erfolgt bislang zentral nach mit allen Fakultäten verabredeten Parametern. - aber bisher hat das Präsidium jegliche finanzielle Investition in die vorgeschlagenen Maßnahmen abgelehnt und die Entscheidung an die Fakultäten delegiert. - das weiß ich nicht - SQM, Drittmittel, Beteiligung der Fakultäten, HP 2020 - Das SZ bekommt Vorab-Abgaben aus diversen finanziellen Töpfen und wird bei zusätzlichen Vergaberunden systematisch einbezogen. Bei der Schaffung von Stellen werden besonders die im Sprachenkonzept genannten Kernsprachen gefördert. 13 13 23 0 5 10 15 20 25 Ja, und zwar in folgender Weise: Nein Keine Angabe Falls Umsetzungsmaßnahmen die sprachenpolitischen Aussagen flankieren, wurden bzw. werden auch Finanzierungswege thematisiert (Beteiligung der Fakultäten, Studienqualitätsmittel etc.)? - Es gab eine […] Förderinitiative, die wir hierfür in Anspruch genommen haben. Zusätzlich können Teile unseres Studienzuschuss-Etats hierfür eingesetzt werden. - Die Fakultäten finanzieren die Pflichtkurse Englisch und Deutsch - Qualitätssicherungsmittel - QVM, Beantragung von Mitteln im Rahmen eines großen Projektantrags Frage 18) Existiert an Ihrer Hochschule ein regelmäßig zusammenkommendes Gremium, das sich mit Sprachenfragen beschäftigt? n % Nein, existiert nicht 24 49% Ja, ein Internationalisierungsrat 11 22% Ja, ein Beirat für das Sprachenzentrum 7 14% Ja, eine Kommission für das Sprachenzentrum 4 8% Anderes 10 20% Keine Angabe 1 2% Anderes: - eine Arbeitsgemeinschaft International - ein Beirat für das Re-Audit Internationalisierung der HRK - Beirat für Internationales - Runder Tisch zur Sprachenpolitik - Mtarbeiterversammlung des Sprachenzentrums - will das Präsidium explizit nicht - Es existiert ein AK Internationales, und wir bemühen uns, das Thema Sprachen/Sprachenpolitik dort zu platzieren. - Es gibt einen Beirat für das Internttionale Univ-Zentrum, zu dem das SZ gehört. - im Grunde nur die Mitglieder des Sprachenzentrums mit gelegentlichem Feedback ans Präsidium. Allerdings sind wir in unseren Teamsitzungen hauptsächlich mit aktuellen TOPs beschäftigt und kommen kaum zu sprachpolitischen Fragen für unsere Hochschule. - 24 11 7 4 10 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Nein, existiert nicht Ja, ein Internationalisierungsrat Ja, ein Beirat für das Sprachenzentrum Ja, eine Kommission für das Sprachenzentrum Anderes Keine Angabe Existiert an Ihrer Hochschule ein regelmäßig zusammenkommendes Gremium, das sich mit Sprachenfragen beschäftigt? Frage 19) Besteht an Ihrer Hochschule ein internationaler Austausch mit Hochschulen anderer Länder über sprachenpolitische Fragen? n % Ja, und zwar mit Hochschulen in folgenden Ländern: 9 18% Nein 40 82% Ja, und zwar mit Hochschulen in folgenden Ländern: - Finnland Italien Luxemburg - mit Vertretern anderer Sprachenzentren über die CercleS Focus Group Language Policy - USA; CANADA; TÜRKEY; ISRAEL; BELGIEN, IRLAND, GB, FINNLAND, SCHWEIZ u.a. - Weiß ich nicht, wir haben internat. Partner, wo so etwas auch thematisiert wird, auf Präsidiumsebene weiß ich das nicht - Russland - mit sehr vielen verschiedenen Ländern als Eigeninitiative unseres Sprachenzentrums und unseres Leiters - z.B. Russland 9 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 Ja, und zwar mit Hochschulen in folgenden Ländern: Nein Besteht an Ihrer Hochschule ein internationaler Austausch mit Hochschulen anderer Länder über sprachenpolitische Fragen? Frage 20) Falls ja, in welcher Form erfolgt dieser Austausch? n % Folgendermaßen: 6 12% Keine Angabe 43 88% Folgendermaßen: - Regelmäßige Treffen - 1-2 Treffen pro Jahr, Email-Austausch - sehr unterschiedlich, persönlich eTreffen, EMail, Gedankenaustausch der Internationalen Büros,Gespräche der Vizepräsidenten oder einzlner Wissenschaftler - Besuche, Projekte - Workshops, Treffen, Erasmus-Mobilität, Kontakt durch verschiedene Kanäle, etc.... - Dozenten- und Studentenaustausch 6 43 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Folgendermaßen: Keine Angabe Falls ja, in welcher Form erfolgt dieser Austausch? Frage 21) Am 22.11.2011 erschien die Empfehlung „Sprachenpolitik an deutschen Hochschulen“ der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK) und listete die im Folgenden genannten sprachenpolitisch relevanten Bereiche auf. Welche dieser Bereiche werden auch in der Sprachenpolitik Ihrer Hochschule berücksichtigt? n % Antrags-, Begutachtung- und Berichtswesen 6 12% Publikationswesen 11 22% Fachveranstaltungen 13 27% Promotionsphase 6 12% Studienbezogene Informations- und Beratungsangebote 18 37% Spracherwartung (an Studierende und Lehrende) 19 39% Lehrveranstaltungen 29 59% Information und Außendarstellung 20 41% Beratung und Service sowie Schulung des Verwaltungspersonals 24 49% Unterstützung des Wissenschaftlichen Personals (v.a. für Englisch) 23 47% Keine Angabe 17 35% 6 11 13 6 18 19 29 20 24 23 17 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Antrags-, Begutachtung- und Berichtswesen Publikationswesen Fachveranstaltungen Promotionsphase Studienbezogene Informations- und… Spracherwartung (an Studierende und… Lehrveranstaltungen Information und Außendarstellung Beratung und Service sowie Schulung des… Unterstützung des Wissenschaftlichen… Keine Angabe Am 22.11.2011 erschien die Empfehlung „Sprachenpolitik an deutschen Hochschulen“ der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK) und listete die im Folgenden genannten sprachenpolitisch relevanten Bereiche auf. Welche dieser Bereiche werden auch in der Sprachenpolit Bemerkungen zu Frage 21: - Es gibt kein Dokument, das sich mit diesen Aspekten in geordneter Form beschäftigt. - Im Papier zur Internationalisierungsstrategie werden neben den genannten die folgenden Aspekte genannt: interkulturelle und sprachliche Vorbereitung/begleitung von Mobilitätsaufenthalten dt. und internationaler Studierender; Festlegung von Schwerpunktregionen für entsprechend zu fördernde sprachl. und interkulturelle Kompetenz Spracherwartungen werden in der zentralen Zugangsordnung festgelegt und ggf. in denen der Fächer spezifiziert.. - Der Entwurf unserer Sprachenpolitik enthält folgende Abschnitte: 1. Einleitung: Vision und Ziele 2. Kontext und Rahmenbedingungen 3. Unterrichtssprachen 4. Unterrichtete Sprachen und Sprachvermittlung 5. Sprachgebrauch im Universitätsalltag 6. Sprachgebrauch in der Außendarstellung 7. Implementierung der Sprachenpolitik 8. Zusammensetzung des Runden Tisches zur Sprachenpolitik - v.a. die institutionelle Dimension ist vordergründig wichtig und erlebbar (Übersetzung von Webseiten, Formulare in Englisch, Fortbildung der MA) - Die Uni-S steht erst am Anfang der Entwicklung, deshalb sind die Antworten eher vage ... - Wir stehen hier immer noch am Anfang. - Zwar gibt es kein Strategiepapier zur Sprachenpolitik, allerdings werden manche der oben genannten Bereiche durch verschiedene Maßnahmen der Hochschule berührt. Frage 22) Enthält Ihre Sprachenpolitik eine explizite Aufforderung zur Förderung des Deutschen als Wissenschaftssprache? n % Ja 7 14% Nein 18 37% Keine Angabe 24 49% Bemerkungen zu Frage 22: - Wird aber trotzdem angeboten und sogar ausgebaut. - Unsere des SZ ja, bei der universitären bin ich nicht sicher, aber es sollte logischerweise so sein - will unser Präsidium auch gar nicht, im Gegenteil […] - Differenziert, wo nötig. - Dieses Thema wurde in unserer Internationalisierungskommission stark diskutiert. Die Fakultäten haben unterschiedliche Einstellungen dazu. 7 18 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ja Nein Keine Angabe Enthält Ihre Sprachenpolitik eine explizite Aufforderung zur Förderung des Deutschen als Wissenschaftssprache? Frage 23) Wie konkret wird Ihre Sprachenpolitik? n % Nicht konkret 11 22% Konkrete Sprachen werden benannt 13 27% Konkrete Niveaustufen als Zielgrößen 16 33% Konkrete Zielmarken für die Anzahl englischsprachiger Studiengänge 6 12% Anteil der Leistungspunkte aus Sprachkursen in Studiengängen 14 29% Ausrichtung an Partnerschaften und Schwerpunktregionen 10 20% Weitere konkrete Bereiche: 0 0% Keine Angabe 16 33% Bemerkungen zu Frage 23: - Konkrete Festlegungen werden nicht getroffen, um auf zukünftige, derzeit nicht absehbare Bedarfe flexibel kurzfristig reagieren zu dürfen. Dass Englisch und DaF unverzichtbar sind, versteht sich in der derzeitigen Situation von selbst. Festlegungen, die konkrete Sprachen und Leistungspunkte betreffen, finden sich in den einschlägigen Studien- und Prüfungsordnungen. Dort werden auch Niveaustufen genannt. - Wir halten es für wünschenswert, konkrete Sprachen / Maßnahmen / Ziele zu nennen und arbeiten daran. - Anstelle konkreter Zielmarken für die Anzahl englischsprachiger Studiengänge enthält der Entwurf Kriterien für die Auswahl einer anderen Unterrichtssprache als Deutsch. - an meiner Einrichtung gibt es auch konkrete inhaltliche Schwerpunkte für die Englischausbildung 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Nicht konkret Konkrete Sprachen werden benannt Konkrete Niveaustufen als Zielgrößen Konkrete Zielmarken für die Anzahl englischsprachiger Studiengänge Anteil der Leistungspunkte aus Sprachkursen in Studiengängen Ausrichtung an Partnerschaften und Schwerpunktregionen Weitere konkrete Bereiche: Keine Angabe Wie konkret wird Ihre Sprachenpolitik? Frage 24) Enthält Ihre Sprachenpolitik eine explizite Referenz auf europäische sprachenpolitische Empfehlungen, also z.B. auf Bologna-Erklärungen oder andere zentrale europäische Dokumente? n % Ja, und zwar folgende: 10 20% Nein, nicht explizit 13 27% Keine Angabe 26 53% Ja, und zwar folgende: - Europäischer Referenzrahmen - Weißbuch über die allgemeine und berufliche Bildung „Lehren und Lernen – auf dem Weg zur kognitiven Gesellschaft“, Bologna-Erklärung "der Europäische Hochschulraum", Aktionsplan der Europäischen Kommission 2004-06 - Bologna - fast auf alle aktuellen, jeder Europäer 2 FS - Sprachenpolitiken verschiedener europäischer Hochschulen, Cercles Dokument - employability, Muttersprache und zwei Fremdsprachen; Mobilitätsfenster - Der Gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen - kurz nach Bpologna war das wohl der Fall - CERCLES Postion Statement on Language Policy in HE, ELAN-Studie, British Council "Language Rich Europe" etc. - Bologna 10 13 26 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ja, und zwar folgende: Nein, nicht explizit Keine Angabe Enthält Ihre Sprachenpolitik eine explizite Referenz auf europäische sprachenpolitische Empfehlungen, also z.B. auf Bologna-Erklärungen oder andere zentrale europäische Dokumente? Frage 25) Welche Inhalte Ihrer Sprachenpolitik halten Sie für besonders typisch für das Profil Ihrer Hochschule („Alleinstellungsmerkmal“)? n % Besonders typisch: 15 31% Keine Angabe 34 69% Besonders typisch: - Gegenüberstellung von lokal und global; Betonung auf Internationalisierung - Fachsprachen, Berücksichtigung von Nachbarsprachen, Lernerautonomie, Sprachen für den Beruf - Zweisprachigkeit Deutsch Französisch - Fachspezifische Ausbildungsgänge in mehreren Disziplinen bis Niveaustufe C2, Sprachenvielfalt, Sprachen als Wahlpflichtmodule in nahezu allen Studiengängen - starker Fokus auf Englisch, starke Partnerschaften mit China, Fokus auf Ingenieurwissenschaften - Integration der Sprachausbildung in die Studiengänge über ein universitäres Gesamtkonzept für Schlüsselqualifikationen; Qualitätssicherung durch akkreditiertes Ausbildungs- und Zertifizierungssystem - Bildung und Religion sind Schwerpunkte, daher, Latein, Invrit, Hebräisch, Russisch, als alternative Sprachanforderungen für Religionswissenschaftler, Schulfachspprachen auf B2/C1 Niveau für Zulassung zu Lehramtsmasterstudiengängen - Orientierung nach Osten (Russland/ Asien) - die Fachbezogenheit der Englischausbildung; die Studienbezogenheit in allen Sprachen; Deutsch als Fremdsprache als Bestandteil des Sprachenzentrums; - Die Ausweitung der 'Kernsprachen' auf die wichtigste Kooperationssprache, Niederländisch. Diese Fokussierung hatte zur Folge, dass es vermehrte Nachfrage von Mitarbeitern nach Kursen gibt, und diesen auch nachgegangen wird. 15 34 0 10 20 30 40 Besonders typisch: Keine Angabe Welche Inhalte Ihrer Sprachenpolitik halten Sie für besonders typisch für das Profil Ihrer Hochschule („Alleinstellungsmerkmal“)? - regionaler Schwerpunkt Mittel- Osteuropa (Historie der Hochschule und noch "relativ" viele Deutschlerner, Nähe), Gender und Diversity Leitfaden - Wir verfügen über einen 5köpfigen universitätsinternen Übersetzungsdienst. - Die Tatsache, dass Sprachen Bestandteil der Studiengänge sind. - Austausch von Lehrenden und Mitarbeitern, Erasmus u.a. Austauschprogramme Frage 26) Gibt es noch etwas, das Sie zu dieser Umfrage oder zu diesem Thema anmerken möchten? - An unserer Hochschule gibt es kein Sprachenzentrum, die fachsprachliche Ausbildung erfolgt in den Fachbereichen, die allgemeinsprachliche in einer zentralen wissenschaftlichen Einrichtung, - Wir haben kein richtiges Sprachenzentrum, sondern ein Fremdsprachenprogramm ohne große Organisation - Es ist schwierig, die Fragen zu beantworten, da wir die Historie der Sprachenpolitik an unserer Uni nicht ausreichend kennen und uns auch viele Dokumente nicht bekannt sind. Daher kann die Beantwortung nur vage bleiben. Sicherlich wäre es nicht schlecht, Ihre Befragung auch an das Rektorat zu senden. - Es hat sich als vorteilhaft und machbar erwiesen, sprachenpolitische Grundsätze im Zusammenhang mit der Internationalisierungsstrategie zu diskutieren und zu fixieren. Schwieriger ist es, aus einer sehr viel konkreteren Sprachenpolitik des Sprachenzentrums eine institutionelle Sprachenpolitik zu entwickeln. - Das Problem der Zwietsprachen wird häufig vergessen. Wertigkeit der DSH Prüfungen wird häufig uinterschätzt, Notwendigkeit der Anwesenheit an Sprachkursen wird durch übergeordnete Regelungen unterminiert. Studierende überbewerten häufig die mündliche Sprachausübung und haben kein ausgepägtes Terminologiewissen in der Fremdsprache. Grundle4gende Kenntnisse in Grammatik und Orthographie verkümmern; Alte Kulturtechniken wie das Lesen ( verschiedene Lesarten) sind nicht mehr bekannt, da Wissen "gegoggelt" wird. - gute Initiative! - Die Themen Internationalisierung und Mehrsprachigkeit sind ein rotes Tuch, insbesonder als sich das Präsidium weigert, die beiden Begriffe zu definieren, sondern sie je nach gusto uminterpretiert: internationale Studiengänge sind i.d.R. englischsprachig; internationale Gutachter sind nicht deutschsprachig; internationale Kontakte sind nichtdeutsch usw. - Eine Sprachenpolitik stützt sich auf eine soziolinguistische Analyse, die von Hochschule zu Hoschule unterschiedlich ist und, die noch nicht begonnen hat. - Jede Hochschule sollte eine Sprachenpolitik haben und für die Entwicklung von Sprach- und interkultureller Kompetenz personelle und finazielle Mittel zur Verfügung stellen. Die Leiter von Sprachenzentrum brauchen eine entsprechende Abminderung von der Lehre, um sich mit Fragen der Sprachenpolitik zu beschäftigen. - Es ist m. E. extrem wichtig, dass es ein richtiges, durchdachtes Konzept zur Mehrsprachigkeit gibt. Allerdings muss auch davor erklärt und verstanden, was Mehrsprachigkeit tatsächlich bedeutet und was sie konkret für unsere Universität bedeutet. An unserer Universität wird viel über Mehrsprachigkeit gesprochen, aber eine richtige, klare Definition dazu gibt es nicht; und eine vernünftige Implementierung dessen eben so wenig. Fazit: es wird viel über Mehrsprachigkeit gesagt, aber keiner weiß genau, was das tatsächlich ist! - Hilfreich! - Ich halte die hier aufgeworfenen Fragen für relevant und bin bemüht, eine Sprachenpolitik an meiner Hochschule zu initiieren, was allerdings durch eine Reihe von strukturellen Problemen erschwert wird. Frage 27) Wenn Sie wollen, können Sie hier den Namen Ihrer Hochschule und einer Kontaktperson nennen. Dadurch ermöglichen Sie eventuelle Rückfragen und den Einstieg in einen Dialog über sprachenpolitische Fragen. n % Meine Hochschule: 24 49% Keine Angabe 25 51% Règlement de la Direction Page 1/2 Règlement de la Direction Règlement No 1.4. Commission de politique linguistique BUTS ET COMPETENCES Art. 1 La Commission de politique linguistique (ci-après la Commission) est une commission consultative de la Direction. Elle aide la Direction à mettre en oeuvre une politique linguistique visant à promouvoir et à valoriser le plurilinguisme à l’Université. Cette politique s’inscrit notamment dans le cadre des processus d’internationalisation (Déclaration de Bologne) et en accord avec les lignes directrices établies par les organismes nationaux et internationaux en matière de langues. Elle entreprend de sa propre initiative ou sur demande de la Direction toutes les activités entrant dans le but énoncé au paragraphe précédent, touchant à des questions de politique linguistique, d’enseignement et d’apprentissage des langues – à visée académique et fonctionnelle – ainsi que de recherche et de développement. COMPOSITION Art. 2 La Commission comprend : un délégué de chaque faculté un délégué du Centre de langues (UNIL) un membre de la Direction un membre du Département de Formation et jeunesse (DFJC) l’adjoint aux Relations internationales un délégué de l’EPFL un délégué du corps intermédiaire un délégué de la FAE La Commission peut inviter toute personne susceptible de contribuer utilement à son travail. Page 2/2 Art. 3 Les membres de la Commission sont désignés par la Direction sur proposition de la faculté ou du corps représenté, pour une période administrative de cinq ans, ou pour la fin de cette période en cas de remplacement. ORGANISATION Art. 4 La Commission est présidée par l’un des délégués des facultés, élu par les membres de la Commission pour une période administrative. A défaut, elle est présidée par le membre de la Direction. La Commission s’organise elle-même. Art. 5 Le président convoque la Commission s’il l’estime nécessaire, ou à la demande de la Direction ou d’au moins deux membres de la Commission. Art. 6 Les convocations aux séances de la Commission, avec l’ordre du jour, sont envoyées au moins dix jours avant la date fixée. RAPPORT D’ACTIVITE Art. 7 En janvier de chaque année, la Commission présente à la Direction un rapport sur son activité pendant l’année civile écoulée. Dans le règlement, le masculin est employé à la forme neutre, c’est-à-dire qu’il désigne la fonction, indifféremment de la personne, homme ou femme, qui l’occupe. Adopté par le Rectorat de l’Université en novembre 2003 Actualisation du Règlement adoptée par la Direction dans sa séance du 13 juillet 2007 1 › 16 RUG Language Policy. An Inclusive1, Dual2-Plus3 Approach. Preparing world class graduates and fostering our staff in a globalising world. Abstract This paper illustrates the need for a consistent institutional language policy at the University of Groningen (RUG), given the fast developments in internationalisation at RUG and the changing needs from an increasingly diverse population of staff and students. The developments in the national and EU context show interesting examples and reveal the relevance of context and history. The recent discussion in academia marks the increasing dominance of English as a tool of communication in higher education and the need for more quality control. The academic experts also stress the importance of proficiency in the local language, and of intercultural competences, and advise to use an integrated content-based approach for language teaching and learning, development and support, based on new insights and technologies. Subsequently, this paper includes an advice for a language policy in line with the particular history and context of RUG, based on RUG’s mission and vision, and concludes with an advice for implementation. 1 Core definition inclusive: inclusive learning and teaching in higher education refers to the ways in which pedagogy, curricula and assessment are designed and delivered to engage students in learning that is meaningful, relevant and accessible to all. It embraces a view of the individual and individual difference as the source of diversity that can enrich the lives and learning of others (C. Hockings, 2010). 2 Dual: local language plus English as a medium of instruction. 3 Plus: fostering multilingualism on a more individual level/in specific programmes. 2 › 16 Task Force RUG Language Policy  Professor Frans Zwarts, Chair, Professor in Linguistics, former Rector RUG, University of Groningen  Bernd Waechter PhD, Director of the Academic Cooperation Association (ACA)  Robert Coelen PhD, Lector Internationalization of Higher Education, Vice-President International, Stenden University of Applied Sciences  Wijnand Aalderink MA, Director of Education and Communication Services/Career Services, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen  Kevin Haines EdD, Consultant, Teacher/Trainer in English, University of Groningen & University Medical Center Groningen  Grytsje van der Meer MA, Policy Advisor HR, University of Groningen  Estelle Meima MA, Coordinator Testing & Assessment and Lecturer in English, Language Centre, Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen  Kristel Modesti LLM, Legal Advisor, University of Groningen  Franka van den Hende MA, Policy Advisor International Relations/Project Manager International Classroom, University of Groningen  Marten Houkes MSc, Project Assistant International Classroom, University of Groningen. 3 › 16 Introduction During the past 10-15 years, RUG has taken major steps in becoming an international university. Nowadays we have over a hundred English-taught Master programmes, 21 English-taught Bachelor programmes and more than 20 joint programmes with international partners. This has resulted in 12% of our students and 18% of our academic staff coming from abroad. Moreover, approximately 20% of our students do part of their study abroad. In sum, we have reached our goals set for this phase. It is now time for the next steps. RUG is entering a new phase of internationalisation, in which internationalisation will be increasingly relevant for ALL staff and students, with a systematic approach of internationalisation as a quality instrument in education and research, and a monitoring system from which the added value of internationalisation will be evident. In 2013, the International Classroom (IC) project was started with the objective to qualify for the distinctive quality label for internationalisation (DQFI) awarded by the Dutch/Flemish accreditation agency “NVAO”, by demonstrating the added value and clarifying the institutional conditions of the international classroom. One of the first results of this IC project reveals that English language support should be directed more towards qualitative measures and contextualised needs, e.g. academic communication and study skills for students, and individual needs for staff. In earlier years (2004-2007), English language support was provided on a large scale for academic and supportive staff, with directives from the Executive Board for assessment and monitoring. Assessment was generally done at a voluntarily basis, except for the Faculty of Economics and Business. These directives have resulted in different faculty policies for assessing and monitoring English for current staff, and various or no language policies for hiring new staff. Meanwhile, the numbers of staff and students dealing with English in their work and study environment have grown immensely, and there has grown a strong need for good quality control. More recently, in 2012, the Executive Board started to offer free Dutch language courses for international students. This initiative received great enthusiasm from both the international and the Dutch students. In 2014, approximately 1,000 students are being expected to participate in a free Dutch language course. For international staff, faculties often pay for the Dutch language course, but there is no overall policy. Current language infrastructure Our RUG juridical and policy documents related to language and quality control are outdated. The English language directives from the Board date from 2004. The last version of the RUG Language Code of Conduct (“Gedragscode Voertalen”) dates from May 2003. This Language Code of Conduct is based on article 7.2 from our Dutch Law (“WHW”), which was included in 1992 for political reasons. The phrase ‘education and exams are in Dutch unless…’ illustrates the main concern then to protect the Dutch language. In 2011, the Dutch Education Council acknowledged the relevance of English in higher education in the context of a globalising world, in addition to the continuous importance of Dutch for Dutch culture and identity. The Council advised the Dutch government to require from all higher education institutions to establish a clear language policy, ensuring a good quality control of English and provision of Dutch language and culture for internationals. Considering the changes in the national as well as institutional context, it is clearly time for RUG to establish a new language policy. Urgency A few examples from the RUG context illustrate the urgency of a new language policy. In the current situation, there is no overall framework with common regulations to control the quality of English for staff. Although in the International Student Barometer (from 2009-2012), international students evaluate the academic English of their lecturers as “sufficient” (3.5/5.0), these scores are rather 4 › 16 average in an international comparison, and not satisfactory given our high ambitions for internationalisation. From a different perspective, the lack of Dutch language proficiency of many international staff and students hinders their inclusion in their new study, work and social environment. With most RUG governance bodies’ meetings held in Dutch and most policy documents written in Dutch this limits the access to governance bodies and senior management positions for our internationals. Moreover, outside the formal setting of the international classroom, conversations and small talk are often in Dutch. For students another language related problem is that they often lack good academic communication and study skills, in both English and Dutch. In addition to English and Dutch, many staff and students do not have a good command of a second or third foreign language which would be beneficial, for example, when they are going for study or work abroad. Finally, the results of our IC pilot project reveal clear needs for extended and new lines of language learning and support. National and EU context Our wider context shows similar developments. Both in the national and in the EU context of higher education, there has recently been an increased attention for language. In 2013, the Dutch government launched the action plan “Make it in the Netherlands” with the main objective to attract more internationals to stay in the Netherlands for work after their studies. Although the plan has a limited focus on certain fields or disciplines and economic gains, and lacks resources, it recognizes the high relevance of both the Dutch and English language in internationalisation of higher education. One of the planned activities is that NUFFIC will develop an online course in Dutch language, using the new opportunities of e-learning. One year earlier, in 2012, the EU Commission published the document “Rethinking Education: Investing in Skills for Better Socio-economic Outcomes”. For Europe, considering the massive increase in the global supply of highly skilled people over the last decade, language competences are particularly important for reasons of competitiveness, employability and mobility (Kelly, M. (2013). Language competences for employability, mobility and growth. In: European Journal of Language Policy). The EU commission advocates a “dual” language policy (local language plus English as a Medium of Instruction), inspired by a clear vision, integrated with other policies in learning and teaching (e.g. learning outcomes) and supported by innovative methods (e.g. Integrating Content and Language in Higher education, an HE-focussed interpretation of CLIL) and adequate guidance and monitoring. With more than 400 languages spoken in Europe, the EU Commission recognizes the value of multilingualism, being reflected in many projects including projects RUG participates in (Intl Uni project and MAGICC project). The first results of the Intl Uni project reveal that the majority of the HEIs offer programmes both in English and in the local language. Other HEIs have implemented a parallel or multilingual language policy, or have opted for English as a unique Lingua Franca. Support mechanisms in place tend to be more student than staff-focused and are primarily optional (from “Synthesis Report work package two”, January 2014). The Intl Uni project results also confirm that it is difficult, and often impossible, to distinguish language from culture (from “Synthesis Report work package three”, January 2014). Recent research has shown that foreign language learning is rather poor in Europe, with major differences between countries. In the new Erasmus Plus programme one of the conditions is that institutions should offer more flexible and cost efficient support for language preparation. The EU language policy is in line with the EU lifelong learning policy. 5 › 16 Policy examples We have been able to find some interesting institutional language policies. Recent literature on English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) tends to focus on cases in specific departments in universities, with the exception of Lauridsen (2013) and the European Language Council4 who take a broader perspective. This focus on programme level could be indicative of the absence of integrated policies across institutions. Yet, the University of Maastricht (2013) has developed a comprehensive “English, unless” policy, aligned with their Strategic Plan (2012), in the context of their learning and working environment, and the social and employability context. The Maastricht policy is supported by results from a survey among (international) employers in the Netherlands, which indicate that 47% require university graduates to have a sufficient language level with specific competences of English and Dutch, while government institutions tend to require even three different languages. Erasmus University in Rotterdam (EUR) has recently implemented a dual language policy. The “Englishness” or “Dutchness” of the environment in which staff members work and their specific role determines the extent to which they need to be proficient in both English and Dutch. A language matrix has been developed by EUR for assessing required language proficiency. Outside the Netherlands, juridical and political conditions are sometimes different. In Finland, there are two national languages: Finnish and Swedish. In her language policy (2007) the University of Helsinki shows to be very aware of her historical background and national bilingualism in relation to the internationalisation of the university. Multilingualism is seen as a strength and a resource for all members of the academic community. In Flanders, there are still severe limitations to offering English-taught bachelor programmes. In France, a recent government policy to allow French universities to teach in English caused a lot of controversy. In Italy, the “Politecnico di Milano” announced the teaching of all graduate education in English as of 2014, sparking quite a debate and even a case at the National Court. These various examples within Europe show the relevance of context and history. At the same time, with an increased use of English in European higher education there seems to be a common concern over the possible loss of linguistic and cultural diversity. English is often pointed out as a major threat to multilingualism. House (2003) rightly differentiates between language for communication, enabling communication in a specific context, and language for identification, loaded with culture and belonging to a certain group or culture. While English serves as a facilitator, setting a framework for an international classroom, it also opens doors to new languages and cultures inside as well as outside this classroom. Discussion in academia The recent discussion in academia also illustrates the relevance of context and history for language policies. The influence of the English language as a medium of communication in research has been dominant for a long time already (de Wit, 2012). Additionally, over the past twenty years there has been a tendency in higher education to teach in English as an alternative for teaching in one’s mother tongue. Although there are sufficient reasons why it can be important to teach in English, there are also unintended negative effects which need our attention. It is a common misconception that teaching in English is equivalent to internationalisation. This misconception can result in less attention for other foreign languages and not sufficient focus on the quality of English of staff and students for whom English is not their native language (de Wit, 2012). Consequently, such a perspective could lead to a decline of quality and diversity in higher education. The discussion about the language of teaching is influenced by the economic, political as well as the socio-cultural context. De Wit (2012) illustrates this with examples from Asia and Europe. In Asia, the approach seems more economically motivated and pragmatic: “English is the current common 4 European Language Council 6 › 16 language of communication in both research and teaching. If we want to stay connected to the rest of the world, we had better make use of that reality”. In Europe we see different approaches and debates. The aforementioned examples of Italy, France and Flanders reflect a strong political involvement and strong emotions in society. The debate in Northwest Europe has moved from political to more economic and academic. Whereas, in the 1990s, the Dutch parliament still demanded that teaching in English in higher education would be limited to a small number of programmes, there is now a common understanding that English is required to compete internationally, and there is a growing focus on the quality of teaching in English. This need for a more qualitative policy on teaching in English has also been recognised in Northern Europe. Among others, Bradford (de Wit, 2012) addresses some linguistic concerns combined with cultural and organisational challenges. Her linguistic concerns are related to the high number of staff and students involved, for whom English is not their mother tongue. The cultural challenges Bradford sees, concern the need of intercultural knowledge for developing internationalised curricula, more inclusive learning and teaching, and reciprocal cultural understanding. The organisational challenges she refers to are related to good and ongoing language support, not only for academic staff but extended to administrative and support staff. The cultural concerns addressed by Bradford are confirmed by Lauridsen and the European Language Council (2013): “It has become apparent that teaching difficulties are not simply a question of language but are rooted in profound cultural differences. Even in Britain, universities need to address the fact that they can’t just teach in English the way they teach native speakers”. Innovative methods for support From recent literature (for example Klaassen 2008, Airey 2011, Sandhu and Amara 2012, Lauridsen 2013) related to English Medium Instruction (EMI), it emerges that there are many new ideas and innovative methods for language training and support. Klaassen (2008) describes how training and support for staff should be integrated with the training and support of didactic and intercultural skills. The International Education Association of Australia provides a Good Practice Guide for teaching across cultures that integrates language development with intercultural awareness in good practice http://www.ieaa.org.au/documents/item/128. Our RUG Medical Faculty is currently introducing a reference model (Steinert 2010) to build a new approach to the professional language support of teachers in the G2020 programme, including needs analysis. The aforementioned authors describe the main adaptations for teaching in English (for example, in presentation and interaction), and give very practical recommendations (e.g. do not just translate your lecture, make a list of key terms, check pronunciation, practice and structure). Moreover, new technology (e.g. video) should provide the basis for individual reflection, feedback from teachers and peers, and be evidence for formative assessment. Lines of support Staff The Steinert model used at our RUG Medical Faculty can help us to define a well-balanced line of support for teachers and other staff including several complementary approaches (individual and group; formal and informal), meaning that programmes can make the combination of choices most appropriate to the context(s) in which staff are working. The (central) mentorship role ensures that development is continuous and fits in with the individual’s past experience as well as their future needs and ambitions. While part of the OWI5 role will involve mentoring through workshops and in other less formal settings, peer coaching implies that OWI will often be ‘mentoring the mentors’ or facilitating mutual support between staff (see Airey 2011). One fundamental idea would be that for 5 OWI = Onderwijsinstituut (Institute for Medical Education in English). 7 › 16 every staff role, a line of support will be developed that at least includes all of the above elements i.e. formal, informal, group, and individual. A blend of face-to-face and online approaches can be used, as in Airey (2011), taking into account the need to find the most appropriate blend of content knowledge, pedagogy and technology (Koehler & Mishra 2009). It is essential that there is a clearly defined line of support for all teaching roles and other staff roles to ensure continuity and evaluation. Students For students, language support should be closely related to the curriculum. Innovative methods for support can possibly be reports students have written as well as video recordings of meetings and presentations, and self-reflection reports. In the EU MAGICC project, different scenarios of tasks related to learning outcomes for multilingual and multicultural competences for students are being created, and e-portfolio models for students are being developed (http://www.unil.ch/magicc). Assessment For the assessment of the language needs of teaching staff, we recommend the use of global scales such as those developed at the University of Copenhagen by Soren & Staehr (2013). The advantage of such scales is that they can be applied to the actual context in which staff are teaching, while also being benchmarked to more detailed CEFR6-related descriptors. This also allows us to set a minimum level of C1 for the proficiency of academic staff teaching in English, while still assessing their use of the language in context. As much as possible, especially for the many staff falling within Category 3 (on the Copenhagen scales this is C1), this support should focus on work that staff have to do anyway (course or class preparation, presentation of teaching materials etc.) so that it adds a significant aspect to their actual work rather than presenting them with an additional “burden”. Clearly, academic staff falling within Category 2 (B2) or below on the Copenhagen scales will need extra language tuition beyond their work environment i.e. tailored language courses. For all other (non-teaching) staff, appropriate levels should be defined depending on the complexity of the English they need to use in their professional lives, which will differ significantly depending on the nature of the tasks they fulfil. For students, their language proficiency should be assessed in relation to the specific programme entrance requirements and learning outcomes/graduate attributes. The “Can do” descriptors from the European Framework should be used for assessment in addition to international tests to further develop academic communication and study skills throughout the programme. For example: Can-Do for essay writing at C1 = can write clear, well-structured expositions of complex subjects, underlining the relevant salient issues. Can expand and support points of view at some length with subsidiary points, reasons and relevant examples (Council of Europe 2001: 62). RUG language policy: aims and objectives From literature, developments and examples described above, it is clear that RUG needs a language policy that takes into account its specific history and context, actual strategic plan and internationalisation policy. RUG has a long history of internationalisation, and has always been open to other languages and cultures. The RUG mission states that we “prepare students for a life and career in a globalised world. RUG strives to be a truly international university and a major global player”. Our values illustrate how we do this: “we highly value our cross-disciplinary character; our work contributes to international developments. We work in a context of academic excellence and integrity, and embrace diversity. Being an international university should be reflected in, for example, an inclusive7 environment with equal rights and access for all staff and students, an international perspective throughout research disciplines and degree programmes, and an international perspective 6 CEFR: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. 7 Inclusive: understandable, accessible and relevant (Hockings, C. (2010)). 8 › 16 at the institutional level, reflected in all policies and regulations” (RUG Internationalisation Vision, 2014. This includes our language policy, as well as our policies on University Teaching Qualifications (UTQ/BKO and STQ/SKO), learning outcomes/graduate attributes8, international marketing and admissions, and the selection of our international partners. The aim of our new RUG language policy should be to make ALL staff and students feel at home and confident, and comfortable in using another language, so that we can all be effective in what we do, as we strive for academic excellence. We envision language proficiency as a competence both for effective participation and inclusion during study and work at RUG as well as for employability and international mobility in a life-long learning context. We intend to be a bilingual university, fostering individual multilingualism and enhancing linguistic and cultural diversity and awareness. In our perspective, language proficiency is strongly related to intercultural competences and with teaching and research related skills. If RUG wants to be a truly international university and prepare her students for a life and career in a globalised world, English is the “lingua franca” in education and research, a communication tool for transferring knowledge, competences and attitude, with maybe the exception of a few programmes and disciplines with a specific Dutch focus. Providing education and research in English is also a logical choice in order to attract an internationally diverse group of talented students and to conduct highlevel research. At the same time, RUG has strong regional roots and a long history of engagement with society. Dutch is part of our culture and identity. Additionally, as described in our internationalisation vision, we aim to “use diversity of staff and students as a resource”. Consequently, RUG’s mission and vision will result in an inclusive dual-plus language policy, accommodating the use of Dutch and English, and fostering multilingualism on a more individual level. Dual-plus language policy A dual-plus language policy fostering multilingualism will have the following implications. Accommodating the use of Dutch implies that ALL international staff and students at RUG should learn about Dutch language, culture and society to a functional level for their study, work and social environment, and be facilitated in their learning process. Accommodating the use of English implies a good quality control system, in particular for all non-native speakers of English, and language support integrated with intercultural competences and pedagogical skills, closely related to the curricula and to specific needs. Fostering multilingualism applies to, for example, our students going abroad for study, or our staff working with colleagues from different language and cultural backgrounds. While, in such specific contexts, proficiency in a third or even fourth language can be very useful, multilingualism is overall highly valued by employers and highly relevant for international mobility and understanding. Additionally, the five other world languages (German, French, Spanish, Portugese, Chinese) should be integrated in the curriculum of specific programmes. In the related policies, English language proficiency and intercultural competences should be an integral part of our University Teaching Qualifications (UTQ/BKO and STQ/SKO), as well as in programme learning outcomes/graduate attributes. Management and administration In management and administration, Dutch is the primary language at RUG, in accordance with Dutch society in general, while English is the secondary language. This implies that while RUG is managed and administered in Dutch (both internally and in relation to the Dutch authorities), the university also: 8 See Jones, E. and D. Killick (2013). Graduate Attributes and the Internationalized Curriculum. 9 › 16  communicates both in Dutch and English in such a way as to ensure that staff and students are in a position to perform their functions in the organisation regardless of linguistic and cultural background  ensures that students and staff who are not (yet/sufficiently) proficient in Dutch are able to communicate with relevant administrative staff in English  ensures that communication regarding the rights and duties of staff and students are available both in Dutch and in English  ensures that formal, written communication in letters/mails/documents is available both in Dutch and in English  ensures that communication on the RUG website with relevance for non-Dutch speaking students, staff members and/or their internal or external audiences is available in English. 10 › 16 Recommendations Overall  To establish an INCLUSIVE, DUAL PLUS language policy in line with RUG mission and vision, interrelated with RUG policy on University Teaching Qualifications (UTQ/BKO and STQ/SKO), HR policy on staff recruitment, development and support, learning outcomes/graduate attributes, and international marketing/admissions, implying that: ALL staff and students should master Dutch and English to a level required for their work, study and social environment, in an integrated approach with intercultural and didactic skills. The PLUS component adds that other languages than English and Dutch should be fostered and supported on a more individual level (for students and staff) and in specific programmes.  To foster an inclusive multicultural learning environment; all staff should possess the intercultural competences required for their work environment during their first year of teaching whereas students will develop these during their BA. For English  For staff, to establish an overall quality control framework for assessing and monitoring (in terms of “CAN DO”9) the English of all staff (academic and administrative) and provide adequate feedback and a line of support  For students, to define both the required level of English related to academic communication and study skills in the entry requirements and in learning outcomes/graduate attributes, at programme level, and provide an adequate line of support. For Dutch (language and culture)  To define and establish a functional level of Dutch for international staff and international students10 in their specific study, work and social environment and for future employability and mobility, and provide an adequate line of support. For other languages  To offer and support learning and development of other languages than English and Dutch on a more individual level and in specific programmes, resulting in provision for learning German, French, Spanish, Portugese and Chinese including the options for on-line learning, fostering effective participation and inclusion during study and work at RUG and future employability and mobility in a life-long learning context.  To offer all students the opportunity to take TOEFL/IELTS or other internationally recognised language tests at RUG. For multiculturalism  Tailor-made training/feedback will be offered to staff to support them in teaching in a multicultural classroom and environment. Multicultural competences11 will be made an integral part of UTQ and STQ. 9 CAN DO statements refer to competences defined in Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, 2001). 10 International being defined here as non-native Dutch speakers. 11 Multicultural competences for staff and students will be defined and specified within the specific functional context. 11 › 16  Students will work on multicultural communication skills while taking their respective courses, collecting evidence/samples of their intercultural skills and with the opportunity to gather them in an e-portfolio, and may also be offered a multilingual/ multicultural module to take as an elective, for extra credits. For overall management  To implement this language policy for formal communication (internal and external) in management and administration. 12 › 16 Advice for implementation This policy document is intended to be used for debate, policy-making and discussion with all stakeholders and for our international profiling. In establishing this new language policy, inspired from our overall mission and vision, it will be crucial to involve ALL various stakeholders. Several work packages have been defined to elaborate on the drafted policy. Working groups – with academic and non-academic staff and students, covering a wide range of expertise and experience – will be given the task to develop specific policies and activities within the defined work packages.The following work packages have been defined: First phase (March/April):  work package student policies and support Chaired by O&S, include Language Centre, admissions, quality control/educational expertise, Student Service Centre, student. From Task Force: Frans Zwarts, Estelle Meima. Issues to address: assessment of entry and exit English language proficiency levels and competences for students, use of internationally accepted tests, diploma recognition, integration of language and intercultural competences in learning outcomes/graduate attributes, development of a more integrated line of support for language and intercultural competences, language learning and support for Dutch, and for other languages on a more individual level and in specific programmes. Use of e-portfolio and e-learning.  work package HR policies for staff recruitment, development and support Chaired by HR, include Language Center, quality control/educational expertise, ESI, O&S, lecturers From Task Force: Frans Zwarts, Kevin Haines, Franka van den Hende Issues to address: requirements and overall framework for assessment and monitoring of English, feedback and lines of support for RUG staff (academic and administrative); reassessment of recruitment policies, promotion of language advancements, integration of language and intercultural competences in university teaching qualifications, language learning and support for Dutch, and for other languages on a more individual/programme level.  work package inclusiveness. Chaired by ???, include Language Centre, lecturer in intercultural communication, ESI, O&S, HR, Communications, NEXT project? student. From Task Force: Wijnand Aalderink, Franka van den Hende. Issues to address: effective inclusion of students and staff from diverse backgrounds at RUG and in Dutch society, Dutch language and culture courses, Intercultural Effectiveness Tool, buddy/mentor system, on-line courses, intercultural events, projects with companies.  work package legal affairs. ABJZ. From Task Force: Kristel Modesti. Issues to address: guidelines, if and what RUG documents, national and European Code of Conducts, procedures or other information must be available in both Dutch and English, under binding Dutch administrative and other laws. In particular, make it possible to raise an objection or complaint to a decision in English (in those cases that are now, by law, dealt with in Dutch) and allow and facilitate the complaint commission to deal with the objection or complaint in English. To update the RUG Language Code of Conduct. Second phase (May):  work package finance. Chaired by FPB, include Director HR, O&S, Language Centre, ESI. From Task Force: Frans Zwarts, Franka van den Hende. Issues to address: RUG investments and students contributions (tuition fee, additional service package) for language learning and support. 13 › 16  work package marketing and communications. Chaired by Communications, HR, O&S, Language Centre. From Task Force: Frans Zwarts, Franka van den Hende. Issues to address: create internal and external awareness through marketing and communication among staff and students about the “inclusive dual plus” language policy in general, the opportunities to learn English and Dutch, other languages, about Dutch culture and society, and the language conditions for students and staff. To be included in brochures, websites etc. For reasons of time, efficiency and an integrated approach, the advice is to position all work packages under the Task Force Language Policy of the International Classroom project. All working groups report to the Task Force. The proposals from the working groups will be discussed and integrated into one overall proposal in the Task Force. With advice from the IC project group and IC expert group, the proposals will be presented for decision-making to the Executive Board before July 2014. 14 › 16 References Airey, J. (2011). Talking about teaching in English: Swedish university lecturers’ experiences of changing teaching language. In: Ibérica, 22 (pp. 35–54). Broomans, P., Jensma, G.Th., Vandevoorde, H., & M. Van Ginderachter (2008). Introduction. In P. Broomans, G.Th. Jensma, H. Vandevoorde & M. Van Ginderachter (Eds.), The beloved mother tongue. Ethnolinguistic nationalism in small nations: Inventories and Reflections (Groningen Studies in Cultural Change, XXXIII) (pp. ix-xi). Caroll, J. & J. Ryan (2005). Teaching international students. Improving learning for all. Routledge. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. European Commission (November 2012). Rethinking education: investing in skills for better socioeconomic outcomes. Strasbourg. COM (2012) 669. European Commission (July 2013). European higher education in the world. COM (2013) 499. Haines, K., E. Meima. & M. Faber (2013). Formative Assessment and the Support of Lecturers in the International University. In Tsagari, D., S. Papadima-Sophocleous, and S. Ioannou-Georgiou (eds.): International Experiences in Language Testing and Assessment. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH. Harlin, E.M. (2013). Watching oneself teach – long-term effect of teachers’ reflections on their videorecorded teaching. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2013, 1–15. Hockings, C. (2010), Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of research. House, J. (2003). English as a Lingua Franca, a Threat to Multilingualism? In: Journal of Social Linguistics 7 (4). Jones, E. and D. Killick (2013). Graduate Attributes and the Internationalized Curriculum: Embedding a Global Outlook in Disciplinary Learning Outcomes. In: Journal of Studies in International Education 17(2), (pp.165–182). Kelly, M. (2013). Language competences for employability, mobility and growth. In: European Journal of Language Policy. UK: Liverpool University Press in association with the European Language Council. Klaassen, R.G. (2008). Preparing lecturers for English-medium instruction. In R. Wilkinson, & V. Zegers (eds.), Realizing Content and Language Integration in Higher Education (pp. 33–42). Maastricht: Maastricht University. Koehler, Matthew J. and P. Mishra. (2009). What is the technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Language Proficiency at Maastricht University (2013). Policy note on the contribution of languages to functioning in an international environment. Lauridsen, K.M. (2013). Higher Education Language Policy. Working Group under the European Language Council. In: European Journal of Language Policy, 5(1) (pp. 128–138). Leask, B. and J. Wallace (2011). Good practice report learning and teaching across cultures. AGOLT: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Sandhu, S. and F.M. Amara (2012): Theories and Practical Steps for Delivering Effective Lectures. Journal of Community Medicine and Health Education 2: 158 SOG Policy Paper (2014). Assuring the mastery of English by academic staff at the University of Groningen, January 2014. Soren, J.M.K. & L.S. Stæhr (2013). The development of the Test of Oral English Proficiency for academic Staff (TOEPAS) http://cip.ku.dk/forskning/cip_publikationer/CIP_TOPEPAS_Technical_Report.pdf/ 15 › 16 Steinert, Y. (2010). Faculty development: From workshops to communities of practice. In: Medical Teacher 2010, 32 (pp. 425–428). Wächter B. & F. Maiworm, English-taught Programmes in European Higher Education, ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education, Bonn: Lemmens, 2008. Wit, H. de. (2012). An introduction to higher education internationalisation. Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation (CHEI), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. Wit, H. de and N. Ripmeester (2012). Het behouden van buitenlandse studenten voor de Nederlandse arbeidsmarkt; een vergelijkende analyse van beleidsplannen en initiatieven in vier Europese landen: Duitsland, Denemarken, Zweden en Finland. 16 › 16 Relevant links Action plan OCW/SER Make it in the Netherlands: http://www.internationalstudy.nl/sites/default/files/Gedragscode Advice Dutch Education Council: http://www.onderwijsraad.nl/publicaties/2011/weloverwogen- gebruik-van-engels-in-het-hoger-onderwijs/item4497 Assessment framework NVAO for internationalisation: http://www.nvao.net/page/downloads/Beoordelingskader_BKK_Internationalisation_14-11-2011.pdf Code of conduct for international students in higher education: http://www.internationalstudy.nl/sites/default/files/Gedragscode EU Commission document: http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/rethinking/com669_en.pdf EU Intl Uni project: http://intluni.eu EU MAGICC project: http://www.unil.ch/magicc Good practice principles for teaching across cultures: http://www.ieaa.org.au/documents/item/128 LANGUAGE POLICYOF THEUNIVERSITY OFHELSINKI FROMGUIDELINESTOPRACTICE: TOWARDSFUNCTIONAL MULTILINGUALISM Rector’s decision, 25 September 2014 CONTENTS I LANGUAGEPOLICY 47 1. Context 47 2. Purpose 48 3. Status of languages at the University 48 3.1 The University and the national languages Finnish and Swedish 48 3.2 The international University 49 4. Languages in teaching 50 4.1 Use of languages in teaching and supervision 50 4.2 Instruction in language and communication skills 50 5. Languages in research 51 6. Languages and the University’s community relations 51 7. Languages in services 52 II IMPLEMENTATIONANDMONITORINGOFTHELANGUAGEPOLICY 53 1. Teaching and studies 53 2. Research 54 3. Languages in the University’s everyday operations and services 55 4. Language skills of the staff 57 5. Communications and community relations 58 6. Monitoring 59 APPENDIX:Regulationsandterminology 60 47 I LANGUAGEPOLICY 1. Context Languages are resources for the University community. • At the University, bi- or multilingualism and internationalism are an asset for everyone. The University supports students and staff in their efforts to improve their language skills. Language skills are a requirement for participating in international research, a path to understanding other cultures, and a tool for promoting one’s own culture. Multilingualism and knowledge of one’s own and other cultures promote creative thinking and a community spirit. As an educational institution, the University safeguards the national languages. • The University of Helsinki bears a particular responsibility for Finland’s national culture as well as for the position of the national languages (Finnish and Swedish) as languages of science. With its language choices, the University of Helsinki supports the development of Finland’s national languages as the languages of research and academic education, as well as their role as tools for social interaction. It is the University’s responsibility to ensure that its research serves society and that the new information it generates becomes a part of the general education and culture shared by all. Through its language choices and policies, the University of Helsinki also promotes the competitive edge of graduating Bachelor’s, Master’s and doctoral degree holders on the employment market in Finland and abroad. 48 As a research institution, the University bears responsibility for internationalisation. • TheUniversityoperatesinaninternationalenvironment,andtheUniversityis anattractivedestinationforinternationalstudents,teachersandresearchers. The English language has become an academic lingua franca, and as an international institution, the University of Helsinki participates in this development. The University promotes fluent communication and interaction between people from different linguistic backgrounds who share English as a common language. In addition, the University believes that learning and using other languages is valuable. The University combines an international outlook with its responsibility for protecting the country’s national languages. 2. Purpose By formulating a language policy, the University • Ensuresthatthelanguageandcommunicationmethodsusedinitsresearch, teaching,administration,servicesandcommunicationsareappropriateand understandable,andthatthestandardofthelanguageusedreflectsthehigh quality of the University’s operations • Raiseslinguisticawareness,buildswell-functioningbilingualism,highlights multilingualism as a strength and encourages the parallel use of different languages • Meets the challenges of internationalisation • Secures the position of the national languages in research communication and teaching • Supports and enhances the implementation of the University’s official bilin- gualism • Draftsguidelinesforteachingandresearchconductedindifferentlanguages 49 3. Status of languages at the University 3.1 The University and the national languages Finnish    and Swedish The University of Helsinki maintains and develops an active and functional bilingual policy. Since the University is the academic flagship for an officially bilingual society, its own bilingual efforts must be active and efficient. Its Swedish-language education corresponds to the requirements set by the bilingual society, the labour market and legislation. The constant development of scientific terminology in the national languages is important so that information on science can be accessed by all Finns. The University of Helsinki is aware of its special position, particularly in terms of the development of Finnish as an academic language. 3.2 The international University Conducting international teaching and research requires actively using foreign languages. The University recruits international students who meet the University’s requirements for skills in Finnish, Swedish or English. The staff are also becoming increasingly international in terms of background and competences, which is an asset for the University. 3.2.1 The English language and its status • The provision of education in English supports the University’s educational objectives and is not in conflict with the development of the status of the national languages. • Increasing and developing teaching in English are part of the effort to create aninternationallearningenvironment.Thissupportsthepresenceofdiffer- entvalues,worldviewsandargumentationtraditionsinteaching.Thecultural dimension and inter-cultural interaction will be integrated into teaching, supervision and guidance and services. • A person with no skills in Finnish or Swedish can serve at the University of Helsinki in positions which do not require such competence. Proficiency in English, however, is usually required in such cases. 50 3.2.2. The status of other foreign languages • Global developments and European integration have generated a need for skillsinotherforeignlanguagesinboththeacademiccommunityandFinnish society at large. The status of the Nordic languages is important particularly in terms of Nordic mobility and cooperation. • The multilingual skills of students, researchers and staff are exploited in the development of the University’s international efforts. 4. Languages in teaching 4.1 Use of languages in teaching and supervision • TheUniversityprovidesmultilingualteachingbyofferingteachinginFinnish, Swedish and English. • The University develops flexible language use in different situations. Multi- lingualteachingisusedtogeneratelivelysocialandlinguisticinteraction.The assumptionisthatFinnish-speakersunderstandSwedish,Swedish-speakers understand Finnish and that everyone understands English, even though individuals may not be fluent in the languages in question. In many situations, these languages may be used in parallel. • Bilingualism can also entail using a teaching language that is different from the language of study. For example, students may attend teaching in Swedish or English, but complete the associated assignments and examinations in Finnish. • The University focuses particular attention on the quality of the Finnish, SwedishandEnglishusedinstudies,teaching,andthesesanddissertations. • When determining the learning outcomes for English-language instruction and the Finnish students participating in it, the University will ensure that students also become familiar with the basic terminology of the field in one of the national languages. • The University has adopted the concept of the bilingual degree, in which at least one third of the content of the degree is completed in each of the national languages and a specific competence level for the second language of the student is included in the degree’s learning outcomes. 51 • OpenUniversityteachingandcontinuingeducationalsoimplementtheUniversity’s language policy, even though in some cases it is necessary to apply the policy in a way that better suits the target groups of the education and the particularities of the educational mission. 4.2 Instruction in language and communication skills • High-qualitylearningrequiresthedevelopmentofcommunicationandinter- actionskillsinparallelinthenativelanguageandinotherlanguagesrelevant to the field. All first-cycle degrees completed at the University include a set amount of communication and language studies (minimum 10 cr), which comprise spoken and written communication in the native language, the secondnationallanguageaswellasstudiesinoneormoreforeignlanguages. • TheUniversityoffersawiderangeofteachingindifferentlanguagestomeet the requirements of both the academic world and the employment market, with consideration for the special needs of students who do not speak either of the national languages. • TheUniversityeducatesgenuinelymultilingualexpertswhocanshiftbetween languages effortlessly in real-life situations. In the bilingual degree model, the competence level for the second language is set, and language support in that language is available for the students. 5. Languages in research • Language is a key tool in the academic community. Extensive language and communication skills are part of a researcher’s professional competence. • EventhoughtheUniversityrecognisesthepositionoftheEnglishlanguageas dominant in many disciplines, it also promotes the preservation and future of the national languages as active, full-fledged academic languages. 6. Languages and the University’s    community relations 52 • The University ensures that its research serves society and that new information is available to all through a variety of channels. For this reason, the University encourages researchers to also publish and disseminate expert information in the national languages beyond traditional research publication channels, e.g., through audiovisual and social media. • ThecommunityrelationsmissionrequiresthattheUniversityadaptthelanguage of its communication to each target group and situation. In international community relations, the language most appropriate for the situation will be used. • A core component of the University’s community relations mission is the creationandmaintenanceofadomesticterminologyfordifferentdisciplines. • Wheninteractingwiththerestofsociety,theUniversityencouragesemployers to be increasingly receptive to people of diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. • The University’s alumni activities comply with these language policies according to the practical needs of different units. The centralised alumni activities of all University units are bilingual (Finnish and Swedish), and when appropriate, English is used. 7. Languages in services • ServiceprovidersdeveloptheSwedish-andEnglish-languageservicesthatare needed by clients and staff. Support services for Swedish-speaking students are to be ensured. • Units which are responsible for Swedish-language education in a particular fieldaretoensurethattheiradministrationalsoincludesasufficientnumber of staff members who are competent in Swedish. • Servicesforinternationalstudents,teachersandresearcherswillbedeveloped from the perspective of client needs and the appropriateness of the services. • Students have the right to use Finnish or Swedish in handling their own affairs and to receive written documents, decisions and responses, forms, examination questions and entrance examinations as well as admissions and academic guidance in Finnish or Swedish. 53 • Information of a fundamental and permanent nature as well as information which relates to the protection of the rights of the students and staff will be made available in Finnish, Swedish and English. 54 II IMPLEMENTATIONAND MONITORINGOF THELANGUAGEPOLICY 1. Teaching and studies • The University will arrange instruction in spoken and written communication in the students’ native language (Finnish or Swedish) to ensure the developmentofthestudents’communicationcompetencethroughouttheir degree studies. • WhentheUniversityrecruitsinternationalstudents,thenecessarylanguage skill level in English, Finnish or Swedish will be determined together with the faculty’s admissions criteria. The faculty makes its decision regarding the required language skill level within the University’s general admissions policies for new students. • Thecommunicationandlanguagestudiesrequiredfordegreeswillbescheduled for the beginning of the studies in the template study schedules. The development of the students’ language and communication skills during the studies will be considered during personal study plan supervision. The benefitsofmultilingualismwillbeemphasised,andstudentswillbeprepared for the possibility that the language of teaching and studies may not be the student’s native language. • FacultieswillincreasecooperationbetweenFinnish-andSwedish-language teaching and take advantage of the competence of the Language Centre to integratelanguageandcommunicationstudiesintosubject-specificteaching. • Nordic partners will be used in the development of teaching offered. • The faculties will include the practical implementation of the students’ right to receive examination questions in Finnish or Swedish in their operations manual.Toensurethequalityandreliableprovisionoftranslationsofexamination questions, a centralised service will be established at the University’s 55 LanguageServicesunitintheLanguageCentre.Facultiescanusethisservice to acquire the necessary translations. • TeachersprovidingEnglish-languageteachingaswellasstudentsinEnglish- languageprogrammeswillbeofferedlanguageandcommunicationsupport intended to increase their competence to work and study in English in a multicultural academic environment. • TheLanguageCentreandtheCentreforResearchandDevelopmentofHigher Education(YTY)willintegratesupportforteachersprovidingteachingintheir non-native languages into the pedagogic staff training organised by YTY. • The language of examinations and assignments will be indicated in the StudentRegister,andthenumberofcreditscompletedineachlanguagewill be monitored. In the bilingual degree model, the language of teaching and the language of examinations and assignments for individual courses are primarily the same. • International degree students will be offered Finnish and Swedish studies, whichwillhelpthemfindemploymentthatfitstheirqualificationsinFinland aswellasabroad.Toarrangetheteaching,theUniversitywillcooperatewith different institutions in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. 2. Research • Researchers are encouraged to write a brief, straightforward description in Finnish or Swedish in the TUHAT research database of their research pub- licationsinEnglishandinotherlanguages.Researchersarealsoencouraged to write a brief, straightforward description in English of all their research publications. At a minimum, researchers should add Finnish, Swedish and English keywords into the TUHAT system. • The University of Helsinki carries the overall responsibility for the Bank of Finnish Terminology in Arts and Sciences project, which it is currently coordinating on a fixed-term basis. In this way, the University serves as an international and national forerunner in creating a foundation for the development and spread of parallel language use. Terminology work can be counted towards doctoral studies or the 1,600-hour workload for teaching and research staff. 56 • The University shall ensure sufficient resources for the Language Services unit in the Language Centre to enable the language revision of both publications and research funding applications in different languages. Applications will be developed together with research funding advisors and the language revisors at Language Services. 3. Languages in the University’s everyday    operations and services • The parallel use of Finnish, Swedish or English is agreed at the units or in different situations on both general and case-by-case bases. The units will also discuss the University’s language policy and their unit-specific application in appropriate events and situations. • Unit coordinators and leadership will address language issues so that all members of the community are aware of the language practices and communications policy followed at the unit. • A “language team” will be established at the University. Units wishing to discuss and decide on the use of languages in different situations can invite the language team to work on the matter together with unit representatives. The language team will include experts on language use as well as on language learning and learning through interaction from different University units (Language Centre, language disciplines, experts in intercultural and speech communication, etc.). The team’s operations will be developed and coordinatedbytheLanguageServicesunitoftheLanguageCentre.Theduties of the language team include › Discussing language issues together with units › Offering examples and templates for best practices › Providing suggestions for the development of language activities › Supporting the implementation of measures and their monitoring • CentralAdministrationwilldraftguidelinesonhowtheuseoflanguageswill beagreedinofficialcontextsandwhendecisionsaremadeinmeetings,work groups or other equivalent organs. • Central Administration will publish examples of best practices on how multilingual communication can work in units’ everyday operations and how it 57 can be learned. These examples will highlight flexible language and communication models from real-life situations. • TheTrainingandDevelopmentunitatCentralAdministrationwillintegrate language and interaction themes into the University’s in-house training for superiors and leadership, as well as into the events and materials provided for new employees. • Services will be provided in different languages according to client needs. ExternalserviceproviderswhoofferservicestoUniversitystaffandstudents will be informed of the University’s language policy. When negotiating services, it must be ensured that the service is available in Finnish, Swedish and English. • Support services, such as the IT support Helpdesk and providers of study guidance and student advice, will ensure that the service is available in Finnish, Swedish and English. The operations manual page on the intranet (Flamma) has a clear description of how the responsibility for and the availability of services has been organised. • The units will consider the University’s multilingual policies in all their operations. When planning any extensive projects requiring translation, units must contact the Language Services unit in the Language Centre at an early stage.TheUniversityshallensuresufficientresourcesforLanguageServices for the translations. Regulations of the University of Helsinki (section 20): “A member of an administrative organ may use Finnish or Swedish at a meeting of the administrative organ. Another language may also be used if, for a specific reason, using a foreign language is appropriate.” 58 4. Language skills of the staff • Language and communication skills related to job duties will be addressed in development discussions and unit-specific skills assessments. • Therequiredskilllevelwillbedeterminedonajob-specificbasiswhenrecruit- ingnewstaff.Thelanguageandcommunicationskillsrequiredintheposition will be demonstrated by the applicant during recruitment with certificates and/or interviews. The unit will determine who is responsible for the task of assessing the skills. • Teaching staff will develop their language and communication skills so that students are able to request supervision of theses and other guidance in Finnish, Swedish or English. • Internationalstaffmemberswillbeencouragedtocommittoacquiringskills in Finnish and Swedish. Studies in Finnish and Swedish will be included in the overall workload of 1,600 hours for teachers without the necessary language skills, or in the work hours of other employees, as agreed between the superior and the employee. This ensures that employees can allocate time for their language studies alongside their other work duties. • The Language Services unit of the Language Centre will offer teaching in Finnish or Swedish in the workplace customised to enable the whole com- munitytoengageinlanguageteachingandlearning,andconsequentlyinthe integration of the employee into the work environment (“language team”). • ForFinnish-andSwedish-speakingemployees,studiesinthesecondnational language and foreign languages as well as teaching or other work in foreign languages will be considered in recruitment and in work hour planning. 59 Regulations of the University of Helsinki (section 52): “A foreign citizen or a non-native Finnish citizen appointed to a teaching or research position may be required to acquire a reasonable level of proficiency in Finnish or Swedish within a certain period of time, if deemed necessary. This requirement shall be mentioned in the call for applications.” 5. Communications and community relations • The names of the University’s faculties, departments, units and independent institutes will be in Finnish, Swedish and English. When new units are established or names changed, the official preparing the relevant decision will ensure that the names are confirmed in at least these three languages. Job titles and the names of disciplines will be similarly confirmed. • The University’s strategic and other key documents will be published in Finnish, Swedish and English. • The University’s brochures of central importance will be made available in Finnish, Swedish and English. Decisions to provide brochures in other languages will be made on a case-by-case basis. • Signs will be in Finnish, Swedish and English. • TheUniversity,itsfaculties,departmentsandindependentinstituteswillhave intranetandInternetpagesinFinnish,SwedishandEnglish.Thecontentand scope of these pages may be different for each language version, but all versions should include up-to-date descriptions of and contact information for theunitsothatanexternalpersoncaneasilyobtaintherequiredinformation. • The University supports the efficient and appropriate presentation of the research results of its staff in public speaking and communication. The University provides language and communication training both in its doctoral schools and as staff training. 60 6. Monitoring The Academic Affairs Council (ONE), the Research Council (TINE) and the committee for Swedish-language affairs (Svenska verksamhetsnämnden) monitor the implementation of the language policy. The language policy will be updated when necessary based on monitoring and feedback, at least during every other strategic period. The implementation of the language policy is part of the University’s operations management process and the annual monitoring of the implementation of objectives. • The implementation of the University’s multilingual policies in studies will be monitored based on developments in the number of credits completed in different languages. • TheUniversitywillmonitorthelanguagesofpublicationsthroughtheTUHAT research database. • Staff participation in language training is monitored as part of the training statistics in the University’s annual reporting. • Surveysbythemeortargetgroupwillbeconductedaspartofthemonitoring at the rector’s discretion. Suggestions on topics may be made by the Aca- demicAffairsCouncil,theResearchCouncilandthecommitteeforSwedishlanguage affairs. • Faculties and departments report on their implementation of the language policy as part of their annual reporting. • The University examines its language policy and use of languages from dif- ferentperspectives.TheexpertiseavailableattheUniversitywillbeexploited when monitoring and analysing the implementation of the language policy. 61 APPENDIX:REGULATIONSAND TERMINOLOGY Language-related legislation at the University of Helsinki The position of the national languages, Finnish and Swedish, at universities is set in Finnish legislation. The status of the national languages is defined in the Universities Act (558/2009), the Government Decree on Universities (770/2009) as well as the Act on the Knowledge of Languages Required of Personnel in Public Bodies (424/2003). The use of languages other than Finnish or Swedish in teaching has also been set in the Universities Act. The above legislation regulates the University’s official teaching and degree languages, the language of administration, the language skills required of staff as well as the language rights of members of the University community. The Regulations and Strategic Plan of the University of Helsinki guide the implementation of the statutory requirements regarding the national languages as well as the relevant practices and objectives at the University of Helsinki. Universities Act (558/2009) Section 11 Languages of instruction and degrees The languages of instruction and examination in the University of Helsinki and the University of the Arts Helsinki are Finnish and Swedish. The language of instruction and examination in Aalto University shall be governed by the provisions on the language of instruction and examination of its constituent schools in section 9 of the Universities Act of 1997 (645/1997). The language of instruction and examination of Åbo Akademi University, Hanken School of Economics, and the Swedish School of Social Science of the University of Helsinki shall be Swedish. The language of instruction and degrees in other universities shall be Finnish. (29 June 2012/414) 62 In addition, the university may decide to use a language other than that referred to in subsection 1 as a language of instruction, examinations and degrees. Section 12 Education of persons proficient in Swedish Åbo Akademi University, Hanken School of Economics, the University of Helsinki, the University of the Arts Helsinki, and Aalto University shall be responsible for educating a sufficient number of persons proficient in Swedish for the needs of the country. Section 35 Language proficiency requirements and administrative language Provisions concerning the proficiency of teaching and research personnel and other personnel in the Finnish and Swedish languages shall be enacted by Government Decree. Provisions concerning the language proficiency required of Åbo Akademi teachers are laid down in Section 78. Other regulations and decisions Act on the Knowledge of Languages Required of Personnel in Public Bodies (424/2003) (laki julkisyhteisöjen henkilöstöltä vaadittavasta kielitaidosta) Language Act (423/2003) (kielilaki) Non-Discrimination Act (21/2004) (yhdenvertaisuuslaki) Government Decree on Universities (770/2009) (valtioneuvoston asetus yli­ opistoista) GovernmentDecreeonUniversityDegrees(794/2004)(valtioneuvostonasetus yliopistojen tutkinnoista) Government Decree on the Demonstration of Proficiency in the Finnish and SwedishLanguagesinCivilService(481/2003)(Valtioneuvostonasetussuomen ja ruotsin kielen taidon osoittamisesta valtionhallinnossa) Regulations of the University of Helsinki (2009) RegulationsonDegreesandtheProtectionofStudents’RightsattheUniversity of Helsinki (2011) Presentation and meeting procedures at the University of Helsinki (2010) 63 Strategy for the National Languages of Finland The Strategy for the National Languages of Finland (2012) is one of the flagship projects under Prime Minister Katainen’s Government Programme. Its starting points are the basic linguistic rights of individuals and the benefits and strengths arising from a bilingual society. The responsibility for the implementation of the strategy is divided among a number of bodies, with the Ministry of Justice carrying the general responsibility for monitoring. The Appendix provides practical tools for different kinds of administrative situations. http://vnk.fi/julkaisukansio/2012/j04-kansalliskielistrategia -nationalsspraksstrategi-j07-strategy/PDF/en.pdf 64 LanguageterminologyattheUniversityofHelsinki The languages of instruction and degrees at Finnish universities have been set in the Universities Act. The languages of instruction and degrees at the University of Helsinki are Finnish and Swedish. In addition, the University may decide to use another language as a language of instruction, degrees and examination. Swedish is the language of instruction and degrees at the Swedish School of Social Science. The administrative language is the language of operations and decisions in an administrative organ. The administrative language in the University of Helsinki is Finnish. In the Swedish School of Social Science, the administrative language is Swedish. The working language is determined according to the needs of the work or position. More than one working language may be used, and they may be used in parallel. The working language will be decided at the unit, and the principle of receptive multilingualism will be applied to the extent possible. Receptive multilingualism implies that participants in a conversation both speak their respective native languages, but are sufficiently proficient in the language used by their partner to understand it. Parallel language usage entails language use situations in which two or more languages are equal, and the decision to use a particular language is based on the speaker’s judgement on which language is most appropriate for the specific situation. Parallel language usage can also mean two events with identical content being arranged in parallel in two different languages. Parallel language usage also enables the use of more than one language in a particular language use area or situation, so that, e.g., some speaker or speakers use Finnish and others English, or some speaker or speakers use Swedish and others Finnish. Partial language competence means that an individual possesses different levels of command over the areas of language competence (speech, writing, speech comprehension, reading). At the University, partial competence can mean the capacity to understand texts in one’s field in languages in which the individual has no spoken or written skills. HELSINKI.FI/YLIOPISTO Tämä julkaisu on saatavissa myös yliopiston verkkosivuilta Denna publikation finns även på universitetets hemsida This publication is available on the internet at helsinki.fi/strategia/pdf/kieliperiaatteet.pdf UNIGRAFIAHELSINKI2014 UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ Approved at the University Board meeting of 25 January 2012 UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ LANGUAGE POLICY 2012 University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 I CONTENTS BACKGROUND AND AIMS OF THE LANGUAGE POLICY...........................................................1 1 UNIVERSITY AS A WORK COMMUNITY..................................................................................3 2 UNIVERSITY AS A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT....................................................................6 3 UNIVERSITY AS A SOCIETAL AGENT.......................................................................................9 4 MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP............................................................................................11 5 BACKGROUND MATERIAL .......................................................................................................12 Appendix: Rector’s appointment letter University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 1 BACKGROUND AND AIMS OF THE LANGUAGE POLICY The strategic direction of the University of Jyväskylä is to be among Finland’s leading and most successful multidisciplinary research universities, in which the tradition of education provided in Finnish is combined with modern internationality. Although the University has strong Finnish-speaking traditions, it is today a multilingual and multicultural academic environment whose students and staff e.g. in 2011 represented approximately 90 different nationalities. In the future, the diversity of society will be even more visible in the University’s day-to-day activities. Multilingualism and multiculturalism are to be seen as resources that are systematically utilised within the entire University community. The University of Jyväskylä Language Policy is intended to anticipate and respond to the challenges of the increasingly global society, and to promote the University’s internationalisation. The Language Policy aims to specify the University’s strategic objectives and to promote dynamic multilingualism in all University operations. Moreover, its aim is to raise linguistic and cultural awareness of staff and students in all fields of activities. This Language Policy defines the general principles of language use for the entire University of Jyväskylä community. Individual units are to use this foundation for building the practices that their particular disciplines and activities require. The starting point for the Language Policy is the notion of language as communicative and interactive competence. Language is used to construct and convey information, which is why language is an integral part of research, education, and societal interaction. Every researcher and teacher acts as a model for language usage in her/his discipline. Modern multilingualism presupposes from individuals rapid reaction, flexibility and readiness to utilise even limited language skills, as well as an open mind and a positive attitude to languages and language use. Modern multilingualism thus includes the idea of partial language competences and of spontaneous co-existence of parallel languages in meeting the communication needs of various situations. The language user does not need to master all the languages in her/his repertoire at the same level in all situations, and in some contexts it may well be feasible to use several languages that come naturally to the communication partners. The opportunity to use different languages increases equality of participation and access to communication. Current legislation concerning universities grants them considerable powers to decide on the language of instruction and on the other languages used in their activities. In compliance with the Universities Act (558/2009), thelanguage of instruction, examination and administration at the University of Jyväskylä is Finnish, but the University may also make its own decision to use other languages in research and instruction. In administrative matters, however, individuals have the legal right to use Finnish or Swedish in matters which concern them. In practice, the working languages at the University of Jyväskylä are Finnish and English. In addition to them, the faculties and departments use other languages that are strategically significant for their activities. The University of Jyväskylä is a prominent national and international actor in language-related research and education. As such, its possibilities to rely on research information which University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 2 supports modern multilingualism and multiculturalism are excellent. The University’s long traditions of acting as a major force in the fields of language and culture are evident from the following:  The first Finnish-speaking teacher training college, later to become College of Education and then the University of Jyväskylä, was founded in Jyväskylä in 1863.  Languages, culture, and social change processes form one of the strategic core fields of the University of Jyväskylä. This is manifested both in its specifically assigned national missions (Sign Language Centre, Network for Language Education Policies, National Certificates of Language Proficiency) and in its own concrete practices (Language Campus, integration of language teaching with degree education).  The University of Jyväskylä has a particularly strong profile in applied language studies (including research into language, language use and language learning) and in exploring the social significance of language, communication and interaction. Research and development in these fields focus specifically on areas with a strong societal impact and a current need for new information.  University-level studies in Finnish Sign Language as a mother tongue and as a foreign language can only be pursued at the University‘s Sign Language Centre, which is also responsible for research in the field.  Internationally acknowledged research related to university language policies is conducted at the University of Jyväskylä. The interconnection of language and culture, internationality, multiculturalism, and diversity are approached at the University of Jyväskylä from both a Finnish and an international research perspective. As a Finnish-speaking university, the University of Jyväskylä also shoulders its responsibility for preserving bilingualism in Finland. Modernising the teaching of Swedish and exploring the role of Swedish in various disciplines are particular areas of attention. Implementing the Language Policy in practice requires commitment from the entire University community, but the University management and unit management carry a particular responsibility for this process. With their own example and activities, the University management and supervising personnel are in the key position in making the Language Policy an everyday practice of the University. The University of Jyväskylä Language Policy is primarily guided by the needs of staff, students and society. Accordingly, this Language Policy document is divided into three sub-areas: (1) University as a work community, (2) University as a learning environment, and (3) University as a societal agent. University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 3 1 UNIVERSITY AS A WORK COMMUNITY In accordance with its Strategy and Personnel Policy, the University of Jyväskylä is a competitive employer and an attractive work community with an international recruitment policy for talented experts. The University makes efficient use of its staff’s expertise, taking good care of them and their work environment. The Language Policy defines what this means when the University is examined as part of an international and multilingual operating environment. The University of Jyväskylä takes its Language Policy into consideration when recruiting staff and enhancing their competences. Special attention is paid to how new staff are received, inducted and mentored, and how their continuous competence and career development are promoted in line with the goals of the University’s Academic Life programme. These presuppose both internationally renowned, top-level research and education and wellorganised and comprehensive support services of high standards for the Language Policy goals to become true. Furthermore, the entire academic community are encouraged to active multilingual interaction in different forums. The University management and unit management have a particular responsibility for implementing the Language Policy.  The University and unit management are to ensure the staff’s right to equal communication, as well as provide for the conditions for an open and barrier-free access to communication.  The preconditions and needs of the various disciplines, units and employees are diverse. Because of this, the management will proactively consider the fluency of daily routines and level of occupational wellness while implementing the Language Policy, making joint agreements on the structures, actions and responsibilities established, documenting them clearly and resourcing them sufficiently.  The Language Policy principles are addressed in development discussions and observed in work plans. Equal and barrier-free communication is the right and obligation of every member of the University of Jyväskylä work community. Equal communication is based on a dynamic and dialogical communication climate, which values the participants’ opportunity to understand the content and progress of the communicative situation as well as to share their thoughts and ideas in a way that they feel their own. Barrier-free communication, on the other hand, implies that communication reaches everyone and is linguistically clearly comprehensible. University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 4  The University’s principal working languages are Finnish and English, taking into account the administrative and legal role of Swedish.. At unit levels, other languages relevant to their activities are also used. Special attention in the University-level official communication for internal purposes is paid to the appropriateness, clarity and comprehensibility of the language used (Administrative Procedure Act 434/2003; § 9).  The overall principles of language use are transparency and flexibility. Finnish and nonFinnish-speaking staffare offered equal opportunities to obtain information and to participate in the discussion in their work community. Languages are used flexibly, clearly, and in parallel, according to the situation.  Administrative and support services are available in Finnish and in English. The administrative and support staff are supported in developing and maintaining the good language and communication competences that are necessary in their duties.  All essential University-level documents, guidelines, descriptions of services, forms, and information systems used at work are available in Finnish and in English. All internal bulletins in Finnish, which are addressed to the entire staff, will be available at least as English summaries. Moreover, the texts and their backgrounds must be adequately explained and interpreted, as mere literal translation is not always enough.  The organisational terms, staff titles, degree titles, and other central university-related terminology will be collated into an organisational glossary, which is available for the entire University community in Finnish and in English, as part of the MOT online dictionary.  Non-Finnish-speaking staff will be taken into consideration in various kinds of University events by using different languages flexibly, e.g., by providing presentation materials in English for an event run in Finnish and by providing Sign Language interpretation.  The University has an up-to-date and barrier-free website with Finnish and English as its principal languages. PR and information materials are also prepared in other languages in order to strengthen strategic partnerships and student and staff recruitment, for example.  The University campus and building signs will be visually transparent and barrier-free. They are provided in Finnish and in English, along with appropriate attention to the cultural and historical traditions of the campuses and to the needs of external target groups. The staff can act flexibly and naturally in multilingual and multicultural settings.  The staff members are responsible for developing their language and cultural competences to meet the needs of their duties. University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 5  The language and communicative competences presumed in various jobs are considered in personnel recruitment and appraisal. This requirement specifically concerns the Finnish and English proficiency of both teaching and research staff and administrative and support staff. A multilingual competence of an applicant is regarded as an additional merit both in recruitment and in career development.  It is the right and obligation of all international staff to develop their competences in Finnish language and culture. The expected learning outcomes for this are defined on the basis of the duration of employment, nature of work, and the employee’s personal goals. It is the task of the departmental managers and supervisors to encourage their employees through e.g. work plans and development discussions to develop their Finnish skills on a long-term basis. .  Teachers and counsellors of multilingual and multicultural student groups are expected to be proficient in the language of instruction (minimum level C1 in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) as well as to have developed intercultural competence. The language and cultural competences of support staff must also be ensured.  The research information produced at the University is systematically consulted when staff development programmes are being designed in languages, cultures and communication. University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 6 2 UNIVERSITY AS A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Knowledge, competence and expertise are built through language. The entire University community is encouraged to enhance their multilingual and multicultural competence. This process includes fostering knowledge of Finnish language and culture, diversifying communication skills in the second national language and foreign languages, and promoting cultural awareness and competence in general. These are also key means to increase the international visibility of the University, attractiveness of its learning environments, and employability and social integration of its students. The graduates of the University will have multiple and top-level language, communication and cultural competences and ability to act in multilingual and multicultural settings.  Finnish-speaking graduates are expected in working life to have excellent written communication, speech communication and presentation skills in the mother tongue, as well as fluent English skills. Purposeful learning of other languages gives a clear competitive advantage in the labour market, but also partial competences increase possibilities to interact in different contexts and settings. . All students will be offered opportunities to develop multiple language skills and intercultural communication competences as part of their studies.  Increasing multiculturalism and multilingualism of Finland will be taken into account in all training for teachers and other education specialists, and their intercultural pedagogical skills will be systematically developed.  Systematic attention is paid to ensure that the Finnish students completing Englishmedium degree programmes also master scientific communication in their fields in the mother tongue.  Non-Finnish-speaking students are expected to have the required proficiency level in English or Finnish (or in another language of instruction) at entry to university, as that is a prerequisite for fluent and successful completion of studies. The degree students who study in English are encouraged and guided to acquire sufficient Finnish skills in order to facilitate their social integration and potential employment in Finland. Multiple language and cultural competences are labour market advantages for these students, as well.  Expected learning outcomes in language and cultural studies will be included in the outcomes descriptions of the degrees. Students will be guided via personal study plans (PSP/HOPS) to systematically develop their language and communication competences as part of their expertise in the scientific field in question. In this way, language and communication studies become an integral part of their pathway through disciplinespecific studies. University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 7  The learning objectives, modes of study, statutory exam contents, and assessment criteria for compulsory Academic Swedish will be developed to better meet current needs.  Students are responsible for developing their own ability to participate and interact in multilingual and multicultural settings. They should also be able to identify and describe their own competence e.g. in recruitment situations.  Systematic support is offered on Finnish and English scientific communication in order to ensure the quality of theses and assignments. Support will also be offered in other languages, if necessary. Furthermore, students should also be able to communicate on their discipline to both professionals in their field as well as to the general public, and support will also be available for these purposes. The Finnish language is the cornerstone of our international university.  In providing instruction in Finnish, all teachers are responsible for fostering good standards in the language. Particular attention is paid to both oral and written scientific communication.  The pedagogical approaches used in teaching are tuned to develop and diversify students’ interactive skills.  Incoming exchange students are offered studies in Finnish language and culture.  Sign Language education focuses specifically on developing students’ strong Sign Language communication competence and functional bilingualism.  Despite encouragement to publish on the most distinguished international forums, the University is also committed to promoting publishing in Finnish and to developing Finnish as a language of science. A multilingual and multicultural operating environment is the starting point and resource for teaching.  International student mobility offers a significant learning environment for students to develop their language and cultural competences. Students are encouraged to international mobility e.g. through systematic personal study plan (PSP) guidance. The multilingual and multicultural home campus is also a learning environment that promotes students’ language and cultural competences, which is why it is to be systematically utilised and developed.  New learning environments and social media are utilised in making both the instruction and the learning environment more international (networking, projects, and other international contacts). University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 8  Language plays a more prominent role in knowledge and competence building when teaching and learning is done through a foreign language, rather than in the mother tongue. This requires special awareness from the teacher, as well as mastery of intercultural pedagogy and guidance in the language of instruction. The competences and experiences of the multilingual and multicultural student group can be utilised to add to the international dimension of instruction and expected learning outcomes. The communication skills and intercultural competences of both teachers and counsellors will be systematically developed and also taken into account in recruitment and in the appraisal system.  Good communication skills in English are also essential for the non-teaching staff in order to ensure a smooth progress of international students’ studies and to facilitate their integration in the University community and Finnish society. Systematic support for the non-teaching staff’s intercultural communication skills will also be offered.  In order to enable international exchange, each faculty will offer a sufficient yearly amount of bachelor-level studies in English. The content descriptions of these studies are to be confirmed well before the application period of incoming exchange students closes.  The main documents and instructions needed in studies and in teaching must be easily found online also in English. University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 9 3 UNIVERSITY AS A SOCIETAL AGENT In order to serve the third mission of universities, the Language Policy will be visible in the University of Jyväskylä’s societal interaction through  both graduated experts and experts working at the University  participation in public discussion and societal debates  scientific publications and popularisation of science  provision of education  communications and PR. The University has an interactive relationship to society and its phenomena, and it will maintain and promote this dialogue through its activities. The University acknowledges the significance of research and education for building the Finnish as well as the global society and their future, including language policy issues. According to the University of Jyväskylä strategy and communication policy definitions, everyone has the right and obligation to actively discuss with both internal and external interest groups and communicate on themes related to their own work and area of expertise to these groups. Information on research will be actively and comprehensibly shared both with the academic communities and society at large. The University educates future experts who are aware of the linguistic and discourse characteristics of their discipline and able to convincingly communicate on their professional competence and expertise both within their own field and to external target groups and the general public. The University’s provision of education reflects the agreed language policy guidelines through a wide variety of languages offered, as well as through studies which aim at enhancing language awareness and integrate subject studies with language, communication and cultural skills.  The University of Jyväskylä will communicate on its activities mainly in Finnish and in English. Other languages are also used when necessary. The communication is tailored to meet different information needs and cultural conventions, and the content is customised for each target group. The faculties and departments are encouraged to use various languages in their communication and other activities, in compliance with the traditions and needs of the disciplines they represent.  Each discipline has its own distinct linguistic and communicative conventions. It is important for the various actors at the University to be conscious of the language usage and communication typical of their discipline, and of how the general public should be addressed regarding the discipline.  The University supports faculty and departmental staff’s engagement in societal debate by providing language and communication services and forums for participation. Such participation will be strengthened, and the staff encouraged to it through language, communication and presentation skills training. University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 10  The University’s experts have a social responsibility to communicate on research also in Finnish. In this way the University will continue to contribute to the preservation of Finnish as a language of science.  Scientific writing in Finnish, English and other languages is increasingly important for the University’s national and international visibility. Specific training in academic writing and presentation skills, as well as language services, are provided to assist research communication intended both for the research community and for the general public. The students graduating from the University of Jyväskylä will have had the opportunity to develop a broad language and communication repertoire during their studies, and they will regard language skills as an integral part of academic expertise. This includes the readiness to convincingly communicate on their discipline to different audiences and in different job positions, both in their mother tongue and – in international contexts – in more than one foreign language. Students are also encouraged throughout their studies to demonstrate their growing expertise and to participate in public discussions and societal debates. University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 11 4 MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP After the University of Jyväskylä Board has approved the Language Policy, the practical arrangements and actions related to its implementation at University, unit and individual levels will be agreed upon. For this purpose, the Language Policy Working Group will draw during spring 2012 a detailed action plan, in which the necessary actions and the respective actors in charge of them are specified. It is the responsibility of the University and unit management to ensure that the measures determined in the Language Policy are fully implemented at the University of Jyväskylä. Sufficient resources for the support services and training must be ensured in order to adequately support the concretisation of the Language Policy. In evaluating and developing the Language Policy, efficient use will be made of the University’s own research into language, language policy, communication, and culture. In addition, internationally acknowledged, research-based indicators will be utilised. The followup of the Language Policy is intended to form a natural part of the assessment and development of staff, units, and university in general. The University management will appoint a Language Policy Committee in charge of the monitoring and evaluation of the Language Policy implementation at university, unit and individual levels. University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 12 5 BACKGROUND MATERIAL Acts  Universities Act 558/2009  Administrative Procedure Act 434/2003  Language Act 423/2003 Strategies and policy documents  University of Jyväskylä Strategy 2017: Excellence and Dynamism  Ministry of Education and Culture: Strategy for the Internationalisation of Higher Education Institutions in Finland 2009–2015  Jyväskylän yliopiston laatupolitiikka – jatkuva oman toiminnan kehittäminen 2010 (University of Jyväskylä Quality Policy 2010)  Jyväskylän yliopiston viestinnän strategiset linjaukset 2009, 2010 (Strategic Guidelines for Communications at the University of Jyväskylä)  Jyväskylän yliopisto: Rahoituksen jakamisen suuntaviivat vuosille 2010–2012 (University of Jyväskylä: Guidelines for Funding Allocation 2010–2012) Language policies  University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2004  The latest language policies and programmes of other universities Working group reports  Development Group for International Staff Services: Final Report 2011  International Campus Working Group: Final Report 2003 Further material  Ministry of Education and Culture: High-quality, profilised and effective international university - Proposal for a reform of the university financing model from 2013 University of Jyväskylä Language Policy 2012 13 APPENDIX 1 Note Rector Aino Sallinen appointed a Language Policy Working Group on 15 February 2011. The working group was commissioned to prepare a draft for the University of Jyväskylä Language Policy and to support the integration of this policy in the operational agenda of the University’s strategy and other activities. The group’s term of office lasted from 15 February to 31 December 2011. It was chaired by Professor, Director Anne Pitkänen-Huhta (Department of Languages) and the members were Lecturer Eija Aalto (Department of Teacher Education), Head of Planning and Development Päivi Fadjukoff (Agora Center), Project Researcher David Hoffman (Finnish Institute for Educational Research), University Teacher Jaana Keski-Levijoki (Sign Language Centre), Head of International Office Tuija Koponen (University Services), Secretary of International Affairs Sanna Patja (Student Union of the University of Jyväskylä), Professor, Researcher Mika Risku (Institute of Educational Leadership), Lecturer Anne Räsänen (University Language Centre) and Researcher Taina Saarinen (Centre for Applied Language Studies). Head of Internationalisation Anna Grönlund-Qvarnberg (University Services) acted as the Group’s secretary. The group met eleven times during its term, held a joint meeting with the ISS Development Group on 20 September 2011, and organised a language policy panel open to the entire University community on 12 October 2011. To lay a foundation for the work, the group examined the University of Jyväskylä Strategy and other strategic documents relevant to the Language Policy, legislation related to languages, and the language policy programmes and principles of other universities. The working group wishes that all the faculties and independent institutes be asked to comment on the Language Policy before it is handled by the University Board. The working group proposes that its term of office be extended until 31 May 2012. This would allow the group to draw a more detailed action plan, including a clearer specification of responsibilities, as well as English versions of the documents, necessary for implementing the Language Policy. Jyväskylä, 11 January 2012 Anne Pitkänen-Huhta Eija Aalto Päivi Fadjukoff David Hoffman Jaana Keski-Levijoki Tuija Koponen Sanna Patja Mika Risku Anne Räsänen Taina Saarinen Anna Grönlund-Qvarnberg Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 Sprachenpolitik an deutschen Hochschulen HRK Hochschulrektorenkonferenz Die Stimme der Hochschulen Ahrstraße 39 D-53175 Bonn Tel.: 0228/887-0 Fax: 0228/887-110 post@hrk.de www.hrk.de 2 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 Zusammenfassung Wissenschaft ist ihrem Wesen nach international. Diese Internationalität geht notwendigerweise sowohl mit Multikulturalität als auch mit Multilingualität einher. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird seit einiger Zeit (nicht nur) in Deutschland der zunehmende Gebrauch des Englischen als Lingua franca in wissenschaftlichen Kontexten kritisch diskutiert und unter anderem nach der Zukunft des Deutschen als Wissenschaftssprache gefragt. Die Hochschulen haben auf die Herausforderung der Internationalisierung mit der verstärkten Verwendung der englischen Sprache in Forschung und Lehre reagiert. Hiermit wurde die Voraussetzung geschaffen, um herausragende nicht-deutschsprachige Spitzenwissenschaftlerinnen und Spitzenwissenschaftler für eine Forschungstätigkeit in Deutschland zu gewinnen. Ebenso konnte die Attraktivität einzelner Studiengänge für ausländische Studierende gesteigert werden. Im Zuge dieser Entwicklung sind für die Hochschulen neue Problemstellungen entstanden: • Die in der Forschung immer häufiger anzutreffende zwingende Nutzung des Englischen kann die Arbeitseffektivität und -effizienz von Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern einschränken. Gleichzeitig führt die unzureichende Berücksichtigung von nichtenglischsprachigen Veröffentlichungen zu unerwünschten Wettbewerbsverzerrungen. • Im Bereich des Lehrens und Lernens hat sich gezeigt, dass nicht alle internationalen Studierenden die erwarteten sprachlichen Voraussetzungen für ein englischsprachiges Studium mitbringen. Auch verfügen nicht alle Lehrenden zwangsläufig über die erforderlichen Kenntnisse, um auch auf Englisch exzellente Lehre sicher gewährleisten zu können. • Die personelle und institutionelle Ausstattung der Hochschulen berücksichtigt häufig die im Rahmen der Internationalisierung entstandenen neuen Anforderungen nicht in ausreichendem Maße. • Die Hinwendung zu ausschließlich englischsprachiger Kommunikation in Forschung, Lehre und Lernen geht zu Lasten anderer Sprachen und gefährdet damit die Sprachenvielfalt. Sie konterkariert die Bemühungen der auswärtigen Kulturpolitik, der deutschen Sprache weltweit mehr Ansehen zu verschaffen, sowie auch die Bestrebungen der Europäischen Union, Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa zu fördern. • Nicht zuletzt ist es ein wichtiger Aspekt des internationalen Austausches, dass ausländische Studierende und 3 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler die Kultur und Sprache des Gastlandes kennen lernen. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es erforderlich, Mehrsprachigkeit sowohl auf nationaler wie auch auf internationaler Ebene erfolgreich in der Wissenschaft zu verankern. Ziel ist es, in den Hochschulen ein verstärktes Bewusstsein für sprachenpolitische Fragen und damit einen bewussten Einsatz von unterschiedlichen Sprachen im Hochschulalltag zu fördern. Nur eine sinnvolle Gewichtung der nationalen Sprache, d. h. des Deutschen, der „internationalen“ Sprache Englisch sowie weiterer Sprachen wird langfristig wirkliche Mehrsprachigkeit fördern. Obwohl aus deutscher Perspektive geschrieben, verstehen sich die hier vorgelegten Empfehlungen vor diesem Hintergrund als ein Beitrag zur Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa. Empfehlungen • Um Mehrsprachigkeit zu fördern und langfristig das Deutsche als Wissenschaftssprache zu erhalten, ist ein reflektierter Umgang mit sprachenpolitisch relevanten Entscheidungen erforderlich. Insbesondere sollten die Akteure auf allen Ebenen Gestaltungsräume identifizieren und unter Berücksichtigung des Ziels einer Mehrsprachigkeit in der Hochschule ausformen und nutzen. Die sprachliche ist dabei nur eine Dimension der internationalen Kultur einer Hochschule. Kulturelle Diversität an den Hochschulen erfordert von allen Akteuren eine Bereitschaft zum Umdenken, angefangen beim Gesetzgeber über die ministerielle Exekutive bis hinein in die Selbstverwaltungsabläufe der Hochschulen. • Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler sowie Studierende an deutschen Hochschulen sind gefordert, zusätzlich zum Deutschen zumindest ausreichende Kenntnisse in einer international verbreiteten Fremdsprache – in der Regel Englisch – zu erwerben, die sie befähigen, international zu agieren. Der Erwerb weiterer Fremdsprachenkenntnisse ist unter Umständen fachspezifisch erforderlich und im Sinne einer Mehrsprachigkeit wünschenswert. Demgegenüber wird von ausländischen Studierenden und Wissenschaftlern die Bereitschaft erwartet, in angemessenem Umfang Deutschkenntnisse zu erwerben. • Die Hochschulen als Institutionen sind gefordert, eine institutionsspezifische Sprachenpolitik zu formulieren, die sowohl zum Erhalt des Deutschen als Wissenschaftssprache beiträgt als auch den qualifizierten Erwerb und Einsatz anderer Sprachen fördert. Um dieses doppelte Ziel zu erreichen, müssen die Hochschulen in die Lage versetzt werden, ein angemessenes Sprachenausbildungs- und Unterstützungsangebot vorzuhalten. Soweit der Erwerb von Sprachkenntnissen erforderlich ist, sollte dieser als verbindliches Element in die Studiengänge integriert 4 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 werden. Die institutionelle Sprachenpolitik einer Hochschule sollte neben ihrem Leitbild und Profil auch ihre geographische Lage und ihr regionales Umfeld berücksichtigen. • Die Politik ist gefordert, die für die genannten Ziele erforderlichen Rahmenbedingungen zu schaffen. Sie muss die notwendigen Ressourcen bereitstellen und an den Hochschulen für eine angemessene Personalausstattung, hinreichende Finanzierung von Sprachenforschung und Sprachenzentren sowie für die erforderlichen Serviceleistungen für die Wissenschaftler (z. B. Übersetzungen, Korrekturlesedienste, Dolmetscher) Sorge tragen. Zudem ist die Finanzierung des Aufbaus europäischer bibliometrischer Instrumente für nicht-englischsprachige Publikationen erforderlich, um eine angemessene Berücksichtigung von Publikationen sicherzustellen, die in einer anderen als der englischen Sprache erscheinen. 5 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 1. Einleitung Die deutschen Hochschulen befürworten eine globale Konzeption ihres Handelns und ihre damit einhergehende Internationalisierung nachdrücklich. Eine laufende Überprüfung der Erfolge und Auswirkungen der angestoßenen Reformen sowie eine ständige Anpassung und Optimierung der Internationalisierungsmaßnahmen sind dabei selbstverständlich. Hierzu gehört auch die Auseinandersetzung mit der Sprachenfrage, die durch die fortschreitende Internationalisierung an Bedeutung gewinnt. Seit einiger Zeit wird in Deutschland der zunehmende Gebrauch des Englischen als Lingua franca in wissenschaftlichen Kontexten kritisch diskutiert und nach der Zukunft des Deutschen als Wissenschaftssprache gefragt. Eine Spezifikation im Rahmen der Globalisierung stellt der europäische Konvergenzprozess mit seinen besonderen Zielsetzungen und vielfältigen Auswirkungen auf die Hochschulen dar. Die BolognaErklärung der europäischen Bildungsminister nimmt dabei konkreten Bezug auf die Sprachenfrage, indem sie feststellt, dass die angestrebte Errichtung eines europäischen Hochschulraums "unter uneingeschränkter Achtung der Vielfalt (...) der Sprachen“1 stattfinden solle. Auch der Europäische Rat und die EU-Kommission setzen sich explizit für Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa ein und fordern u.a., "dass für junge Menschen (...) während der Berufs- und Hochschulausbildung ein breit gefächertes und hochwertiges Unterrichtsangebot in den Bereichen Sprachen und Kultur bereit steht, das sie zwecks Integration in die Wissensgesellschaft in die Lage versetzt, mindestens zwei Fremdsprachen zu beherrschen."2 Die wissenschaftliche Mehrsprachigkeit Europas mit mehreren ausgebauten Wissenschaftssprachen stellt einen Standortvorteil dar, den es zu erhalten gilt. Die hier vorgelegten Empfehlungen sind aus deutscher Perspektive geschrieben. Gleichwohl ist es ihr Ziel, einen Beitrag zur Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa zu leisten. Die deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen haben sich in verschiedenen Erklärungen und Memoranden mit der Rolle des Deutschen als Wissenschaftssprache auseinandergesetzt.3 Die in diesem Zusammenhang formulierten Überlegungen bilden die Grundlage für die weitere Auseinandersetzung mit diesem Thema. 1 "Der Europäische Hochschulraum. Gemeinsame Erklärung der Europäischen Bildungsminister", 19. Juni 1999, Bologna. 2 Mitteilung der Kommission "Mehrsprachigkeit: Trumpfkarte Europas, aber auch gemeinsame Verpflichtung", 18.9.2008, KOM(2008) 566 endgültig; Entschließung des Rates vom 21. November 2008 zu einer europäischen Strategie für Mehrsprachigkeit, (2008/C 320/01) 3 Gemeinsame Erklärung der Präsidenten von AvH, DAAD, GoetheInstitut und HRK (18.2.2009) "Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache", AvH: "Sprachenpolitische Leitlinien der AvH" (Juni 2009), GATE: "Nationaler Kodex für das Ausländerstudium an deutschen Hochschulen" (Beschluss der HRK-Mitgliederversammlung, November 2009), DAAD: "Memorandum zur Förderung des Deutschen als Wissenschaftssprache" (Februar 2010). 6 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 2. Die spezifische Problemstellung der Hochschulen Eine globale Konzeption der Hochschule als Institution erfordert eine Antwort auf die Frage, wie im akademischen Bereich mit unterschiedlichen Sprachen, insbesondere der Landessprache und dem Englischen, aber auch mit anderen Fremdsprachen umgegangen werden soll. Die Hochschulen stehen hier vor einem Zielkonflikt: Zum einen erfordern exzellente Forschung und Lehre eine breite Verankerung auf internationaler Ebene, zum anderen gilt es, die in der eigenen ausgebauten Wissenschaftssprache angelegten Möglichkeiten weiterzuentwickeln sowie die Kommunizierbarkeit von Forschungsergebnissen in die Gesellschaft sicherzustellen. Auf diese doppelte Herausforderung müssen die Hochschulen eine institutionelle Antwort finden. Für die unterschiedlichen Personengruppen an den Hochschulen ergibt sich dabei jeweils eine spezifische Situation.4 • Lehrende an deutschen Hochschulen Die hohe Anzahl englischsprachiger Studienangebote deutscher Hochschulen zeigt, dass die Hochschulen in der Lehre auf die Anforderungen der Internationalisierung reagiert haben. Allerdings verfügen nicht alle Lehrenden zwangsläufig über die erforderlichen Kenntnisse, um auch auf Englisch exzellente Lehre sicher gewährleisten zu können. Umgekehrt gilt für ausländische Dozentinnen und Dozenten, dass Deutschkenntnisse (oder deren Erwerb) die Integration an der deutschen Hochschule und in die Gesellschaft erleichtern. Zudem sind für die Kommunikation im Rahmen der akademischen Selbstverwaltung in der Regel solide Kenntnisse der Landessprache erforderlich. • Ausländische Forscherinnen und Forscher Innerhalb der Hochschulen ist es in vielen Bereichen heute möglich, auf Englisch zu forschen. Dies ist eine wichtige Voraussetzung, um herausragende nicht-deutschsprachige Spitzenwissenschaftlerinnen und Spitzenwissenschaftler für eine Forschungstätigkeit in Deutschland zu gewinnen. Allerdings führt die zunehmende Verwendung der englischen Sprache dazu, dass ausländische Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler ggf. vorhandene Deutschkenntnisse nicht nutzen (können) und damit wichtige Ressourcen und Potenziale, auch im Hinblick auf eine längerfristige Beschäftigung in Deutschland, ggf. ungenutzt bleiben. Umgekehrt gilt auch für ausländische Forscherinnen und Forscher, dass Deutschkenntnisse (oder deren Erwerb) die Integration an der deutschen Hochschule und in die Gesellschaft erleichtern und des 4 Die folgenden Ausführungen fokussieren sprachenpolitisch relevante Aspekte. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit interkulturellen Anforderungen würde, obwohl in diesem Kontext ebenfalls von Belang, den Rahmen des vorliegenden Textes sprengen und muss daher an anderer Stelle erfolgen. 7 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 Weiteren in der Regel für die Kommunikation im Rahmen der akademischen Selbstverwaltung erforderlich sind. • Ausländische Studierende und Doktorandinnen und Doktoranden Ausländische Studierende und Doktoranden sind an deutschen Hochschulen hoch willkommen. Eine international zusammengesetzte Studierendenschaft ist bereichernd und trägt zu einem anregenden und internationalen Lernumfeld für alle Studierenden bei. Gemeinsam mit ihren deutschen Kolleginnen und Kollegen tragen internationale Doktoranden zur Weiterentwicklung der Forschung und zum Erkenntnisfortschritt bei. Darüber hinaus ist es für den Standort Deutschland vor dem Hintergrund der demografischen Entwicklung von entscheidender Bedeutung, Fachkräfte für die deutsche Wirtschaft qualifiziert und in ausreichender Anzahl auszubilden. Zudem sind die ausländischen Absolventinnen und Absolventen Deutschlands zukünftige Partner und Multiplikatoren in Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft und Kultur. Mithilfe englischsprachiger Studiengänge und Graduiertenprogramme treiben die Hochschulen ihre Internationalisierung voran und ziehen Studierende und junge Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler aus aller Welt an. Die dabei erfolgende Öffnung der Hochschulen für Studierende und junge Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler, die über keine oder nur geringe Deutschkenntnisse verfügen, eröffnet neue Chancen, bringt aber auch neue Herausforderungen mit sich. Insbesondere führen englischsprachige Lehrangebote nicht zum intendierten Ziel, wenn aufgrund unzureichender Englischkenntnisse der Lehrenden oder Lernenden und fehlender Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten in der Landessprache weder die angemessene wissenschaftliche noch die gewünschte persönliche Integration in die deutsche Hochschule und ihre Umgebung erreicht wird. Seitens der ausländischen Studierenden und ihres Umfelds besteht darüber hinaus die – z.T. unausgesprochene – Erwartung, dass ein Studium in Deutschland auch zu entsprechenden Deutschkenntnissen und Kontakten mit der deutschen Gesellschaft führt, die eine langfristige berufliche Perspektive in Deutschland eröffnen. Die Chancen ausländischer Arbeitskräfte auf dem deutschen Arbeitsmarkt werden durch die Kenntnis des Deutschen und Englischen (oder anderer Fremdsprachen) erheblich gefördert. • Deutsche Studierende und Doktorandinnen und Doktoranden Fremdsprachenkenntnisse stellen – bei gleichzeitiger Festigung der muttersprachlichen Kompetenz – für die Studierenden eine wünschenswerte Qualifikation und einen kompetitiven Vorteil für ihr späteres Berufsleben in einem globalisierten Arbeitsumfeld dar. Der Mehrwert fremdsprachiger Lehrveranstaltungen ist allein vor diesem Hintergrund offensichtlich. Allerdings kann sich dieser positive Effekt für Studierende mit unzureichenden Fremdsprachenkenntnissen auch in sein Gegenteil verkehren. Dies gilt nicht nur für englischsprachige Lehrveranstaltungen, sondern 8 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 auch für englischsprachige Doktorandenkollegs und Graduiertenschulen. Auch hier kann es sich für NichtMuttersprachler als nachteilig erweisen, wenn die Kommunikation durchgehend in englischer Sprache erfolgt. Ferner strebt eine immer höhere Zahl von Studierenden und Doktorandinnen und Doktoranden der deutschen Hochschulen im Rahmen ihres Studiums oder ihrer Promotion einen Auslandsaufenthalt an, ohne dass sie in jedem Fall über die erforderlichen Sprachkenntnisse verfügen (d. h. zumindest über Grundkenntnisse der Sprache des Gastlandes sowie ausreichende Kenntnisse der jeweiligen Unterrichtssprache). Auf diese Weise wird der Erfolg des Studienbzw. Forschungsaufenthaltes gefährdet. 3. Handlungsfeldspezifische Situationsanalyse und sich daraus ableitende Empfehlungen 3.1 Forschung Im Forschungsbereich führt das Bemühen um möglichst effiziente Kommunikationsprozesse nicht nur im internationalen, sondern auch im nationalen Kontext immer häufiger zur ausschließlichen Verwendung der englischen Sprache, sowohl im Antrags- und Berichtswesen als auch bei Fachveranstaltungen. Dies gilt in besonderer Weise im Publikationswesen, da die bestehenden bibliometrischen Datenbanken auf englischsprachige Publikationen ausgerichtet sind und Veröffentlichungen in anderen Sprachen bestenfalls unzureichend berücksichtigen. Die sich aus dieser Situation ergebende zwingende Fremdsprachennutzung kann die Arbeitseffektivität und -effizienz von Wissenschaftlern beschränken. Sie kann darüber hinaus für die Vermittlung von national bzw. gesellschaftlich relevanten Forschungsergebnissen nicht adäquat sein sowie langfristig den Zugang zu der älteren, nicht englischsprachigen Literatur erschweren. Zudem führt die unzureichende Berücksichtigung von nicht-englischsprachigen Veröffentlichungen zu unerwünschten Wettbewerbsverzerrungen. • Antrags- und Berichtswesen Situation: Nicht nur auf europäischer Ebene, sondern zunehmend auch im deutschen Kontext wird erwartet, dass Anträge und Berichte auf Englisch verfasst werden. Empfehlung: Eine zu ausgeprägte Dominanz des Englischen kann Innovation behindern. Im Antrags-, Begutachtungs- und Berichtswesen sollten daher nicht nur die jeweiligen Traditionen der Fächer und ihre regionalen Bezüge berücksichtigt werden, sondern es sollte auch die Sprache möglichst frei gewählt werden können. Anträge sollen grundsätzlich auch auf Deutsch oder einer anderen verbreiteten Wissenschaftssprache gestellt werden können, auch auf EU-Ebene. Es ist sicherzustellen, dass hierfür sprachlich entsprechend versierte Gutachter eingesetzt werden. Bei der EU können bereits jetzt Zwischenberichte in verschiedenen Sprachen eingereicht werden. Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler 9 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 sollten stärker ermutigt werden, diese Möglichkeit auch wahrzunehmen. • Publikationswesen Situation: In der Forschung ist es in vielen Bereichen heutzutage üblich, auf Englisch zu publizieren. Die bestehenden bibliographischen Datenbanken und Zitationsindices sind auf englischsprachige Publikationen ausgerichtet und berücksichtigen Veröffentlichungen in anderen Sprachen nur unzureichend. Empfehlung: Es ist erforderlich, das Potenzial bestehender Wissenschaftssprachen, wie des Deutschen, als Publikationssprachen weiterhin zu nutzen und diese in ihrer Bedeutung als Wissenschaftssprachen zu stärken. Dies geschieht beispielsweise, indem deutsch- und englischsprachige Zeitschriften parallel geführt werden.5 Für nicht-englischsprachige Autoren sollen Übersetzungen gefördert bzw. Korrekturlesedienste angeboten werden.6 Zudem soll auf europäischer Ebene eine Alternative zu den aktuell genutzten bibliometrischen Instrumenten etabliert werden, die muttersprachliche Publikationen verstärkt berücksichtigt. Hier ist zu prüfen, ob eine Zusammenarbeit mit Wissenschaftsräumen außerhalb Europas, zum Beispiel mit asiatischen Ländern, sinnvoll sein kann. Auch zu dem angelsächsischen Verfahren der Messung von Forschungsleistungen anhand von Zitationshäufigkeiten sollten alternative europäische Verfahren entwickelt werden. Bei der Leistungsorientierten Mittelvergabe (LOM) wie auch bei Berufungen sind die durch die aktuelle Situation entstehenden Verzerrungen zu berücksichtigen. Nicht zuletzt sind auch bei Empfehlungen zur internationalen Publikationspraxis, die im Rahmen von Evaluationsprozessen abgegeben werden, sprachenpolitische Implikationen zu beachten. • Fachveranstaltungen Situation: In wachsendem Maße werden in einigen Disziplinen die Vorbereitung und Durchführung von Veranstaltungen in Deutschland mit mehrheitlich oder ausschließlich deutschsprachigem Publikum auf Englisch abgehalten. Empfehlung: Die Hochschulen sollen bei Veranstaltungen und deren Vorbereitung eine verstärkte Sensibilität für Sprachenfragen entwickeln. Idealerweise sollen Veranstaltungen in Deutschland und mit deutschsprachigem Publikum auf Deutsch stattfinden, wobei ggf. fachspezifische Unterschiede zu berücksichtigen sind. Internationale Veranstaltungen sollten mit Simultandolmetschern 5 Dies geschieht z.B. erfolgreich bei der Zeitschrift „Angewandte Chemie“. Ferner bieten verschiedene wissenschaftliche Fachgesellschaften, wie etwa der Verein für Socialpolitik oder die Deutsche Statistische Gesellschaft, ihren Mitgliedern je eine Vereinszeitung auf Deutsch und auf Englisch an. Auch das könnte für andere Fachgesellschaften ein Vorbild sein. 6 In diesem Zusammenhang ist die Initiative der VW-Stiftung, die Übersetzung deutschsprachiger wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten zu fördern, als positives Beispiel erwähnenswert. 10 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 abgehalten werden oder das Konzept der rezeptiven Mehrsprachigkeit zugrunde legen, bei der die Beteiligten jeweils die eigene Sprache sprechen, die des Anderen aber hinreichend verstehen können. Gegenüber Fachgesellschaften soll auf eine analoge Verfahrensweise gedrungen werden. • Promotionsphase Situation: Vermehrt werden auch in Deutschland englischsprachige Doktorandenkollegs und Graduiertenschulen angeboten, um die Internationalisierung zu fördern und vermehrt ausländische Doktorandinnen und Doktoranden anzuziehen. Diese Kollegs können bei sprachlich nicht entsprechend versierten deutschen Doktoranden und Dozenten allerdings zu Verständnis- und Kommunikationshürden führen. Umgekehrt können auch auf Seiten der ausländischen Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer unzureichende Englischkenntnisse die angemessene wissenschaftliche Integration behindern. Zudem besteht die Gefahr der Frustration, wenn trotz eines Aufenthalts in Deutschland keine Deutschkenntnisse erworben und Kontakte zu Einheimischen geknüpft werden können. Empfehlung: Teilnehmer von Doktorandenkollegs und Graduiertenschulen sollten bei Bedarf die Möglichkeit haben, die benötigten Deutsch- bzw. Fremdsprachenkenntnisse mit Hilfe entsprechender vorbereitender und begleitender Kurse zu erwerben und sollten dazu ermutigt werden, diese Angebote wahrzunehmen. Um Kommunikationshürden zu vermindern, soll in den Veranstaltungen verstärkt auf das Prinzip der rezeptiven Mehrsprachigkeit gesetzt werden. Dabei muss berücksichtigt werden, dass die Promovenden in der Regel unter einen hohen zeitlichen Druck stehen. Vor diesem Hintergrund sollten bereits bei der Zulassung zur Promotion klare sprachliche Standards kommuniziert werden. 3.2 Lehre und Lernen Die deutschen Hochschulen haben sich erfolgreich für die internationale Ausrichtung und Attraktivität ihres Lehrangebots eingesetzt. Hierbei spielen naturgemäß englischsprachige Veranstaltungen bis hin zu komplett englischsprachigen Studiengängen eine besondere Rolle. Allerdings hat sich gezeigt, dass nicht alle Lehrenden zwangsläufig über die erforderlichen Kenntnisse verfügen, um auch auf Englisch exzellente Lehre sicher gewährleisten zu können. In der konkreten Implementierung von fremdsprachigen Lehrangeboten wird darüber hinaus deutlich, dass die hiermit verbundenen erhöhten Anforderungen an Studierende und Lehrende zu neuen Herausforderungen führen, nicht nur in sprachlicher und interkultureller Hinsicht, sondern auch im Hinblick auf inneruniversitäre Traditionen. Dabei zeichnet sich zudem ab, dass der Ausbau der englischsprachigen Studienangebote vor dem Hintergrund begrenzter finanzieller und 11 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 personeller Ressourcen häufig zu Lasten von Angeboten in anderen Fremdsprachen geht. • Studienbezogene Informations- und Beratungsangebote Situation: Die deutschen Hochschulen setzen sich dafür ein, ihre Informationsangebote zunehmend auch internationalen Interessenten zugänglich zu machen. Gleichwohl liegen viele grundlegende Informationen, Dokumente und Formulare aus Kapazitätsgründen nur in deutscher Sprache vor. Auch Beratungsund Serviceangebote sind häufig deutschsprachig. Viele Informationen sind einem internationalen Publikum damit nicht zugänglich. Ausländischen Studierenden und Wissenschaftlern wird damit der Einstieg in den deutschen Studien- und Forschungsalltag auf diese Weise unnötig erschwert. Empfehlung: Über das allgemeine deutschsprachige Angebot hinaus sollen die Hochschulen ihr fremdsprachiges Internetangebot konsequent weiter ausbauen und Beratungs- und Serviceleistungen auch in Englisch sowie – je nach Fach und internationalen Kontakten – in weiteren Sprachen anbieten. Auch sollen häufig verwendete Formulare und grundlegende Dokumente ins Englische und weitere wichtige Fremdsprachen übersetzt werden.7 Darüber hinaus wird den Hochschulen empfohlen, sich einen Überblick über die an der Hochschule vorhandenen sprachlichen Kompetenzen verschaffen, damit auf diese im Bedarfsfall zurückgegriffen werden kann. • Spracherwartung Situation: Insbesondere ERASMUS-Studierende und Studierende englischsprachiger Programme verfügen häufig über nur geringe Deutschkenntnisse. Von den Anbietern englischsprachiger Programme wird „aus Marketinggründen“ zum Teil betont, dass Deutschkenntnisse für das Studium in Deutschland nicht erforderlich seien. In der Praxis führt dies für die Betroffenen oft zu Problemen und Frustrationen. Unzureichende Deutschkenntnisse behindern die akademische und persönliche Integration in die deutsche Hochschule und ihr Umfeld erheblich. Des Weiteren besteht seitens der ausländischen Studierenden und ihres Umfelds die – z.T. unausgesprochene – Erwartung, dass ein Studium in Deutschland auch zu den entsprechenden Deutschkenntnissen und Kontakten mit der deutschen Gesellschaft führt. Umgekehrt gilt dies auch für Studierende und Doktoranden der deutschen Hochschulen, die im Rahmen ihres Studiums oder ihrer Promotion einen Auslandsaufenthalt anstreben. Empfehlung: Die Hochschulen sollten der sprachlichen Qualifikation aller Studierenden besondere Beachtung schenken. Für ausländische Studierende gilt, dass Deutschkenntnisse Integration und Studienerfolg fördern. Dort, wo Studierende ohne 7 Hierbei ist allerdings darauf hinzuweisen, welche Sprachversion von Prüfungsordnungen und sonstigen rechtlichen Akten die letztlich verbindliche Fassung ist. 12 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 Deutschkenntnisse zum Studium zugelassen werden, sollten sie ermutigt werden, im Verlauf ihres Studiums deutsche Sprachkenntnisse zu erwerben. Der Umfang der erwarteten bzw. zu erwerbenden Deutschkenntnisse muss dabei in einem angemessenen Verhältnis zu den angestrebten Studienzielen stehen. Die Hochschulen sollten entsprechende Kurse anbieten und sie als verbindliche Module in die Studiengänge integrieren. Hierbei kann es auch erforderlich sein, innovative Lernszenarien zu entwickeln und zu implementieren, die den unterschiedlichen Bedürfnissen, Erwartungen, Zeitbudgets und Lernzielen gerecht werden Partnerschaftsverträge mit ausländischen Hochschulen sollten die Sprachenfrage ebenfalls berücksichtigen (beispielsweise angemessene Vorbereitung der eigenen Studierenden vor Auslandsaufenthalten und Sicherstellung von Sprachangeboten für Gaststudierende und -wissenschaftler). Studierende einer deutschen Hochschule, die im Rahmen ihres Studiums einen Auslandsaufenthalt anstreben, sollten zur Sicherung von Studienerfolg und Integration über Kenntnisse der Sprache des jeweiligen Gastlandes verfügen. Diese sollten in einem angemessenen Verhältnis zu den angestrebten Studienzielen stehen. Auch ausländische Lehrende sollten nach einer angemessenen Zeit ausreichende deutsche Sprachkenntnisse erwerben. Dabei sollten sie von den Hochschulen umfassend unterstützt werden. • Lehrveranstaltungen Situation: An den deutschen Hochschulen wurde in den vergangenen Jahren eine hohe Anzahl englischsprachiger Studienangebote eingerichtet, um die Lehre zu internationalisieren und ausländische Studierende anzuziehen. Auch in regulären Studiengängen spielt Englisch in wachsendem Maße eine wichtige Rolle. Allerdings verfügen nicht alle Lehrenden zwangsläufig über die erforderlichen Kenntnisse, um auch auf Englisch exzellente Lehre sicher gewährleisten zu können. Englischsprachige Angebote stellen auch einen Teil der Studierenden vor Verständnis- und Kommunikationsprobleme und können damit die Qualität der wissenschaftlichen Debattenkultur einschränken bzw. den Erkenntnisprozess beeinträchtigen. Empfehlung: Bei Studierenden grundständiger Studiengänge erscheint es sinnvoll, zunächst die Kompetenz im Deutschen zu stärken, um ein sicheres wissenschaftssprachliches Agieren zu ermöglichen. Eine Einführung in den englischsprachigen Wissenschaftsdiskurs kann darauf aufsetzen. Grundständige Lehrveranstaltungen sollten daher in der Regel deutschsprachig sein8 , bei Bedarf allerdings die Rezeption englischsprachiger und sonstiger fremdsprachiger Literatur einschließen. Gleichzeitig ist der Erwerb einer oder weiterer Fremdsprachen im Hinblick auf 8 Fachspezifisch kann es allerdings auch angezeigt sein, zu anderen Lösungen zu kommen. Diese sind ggf. sorgfältig zu prüfen. 13 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 akademische und berufliche Perspektiven nachhaltig zu unterstützen. Sprachkurse – inklusive Deutschkurse – sollten daher mit Leistungspunkten honoriert werden. Im Bereich der weiterführenden Studiengänge erscheint demgegenüber eine größere Varianz möglich und sinnvoll. 3.3 Institutionelle Dimension Internationalität ist nur dann glaubhaft und wirksam, wenn sie alle Dimensionen des hochschulischen Handelns umschließt. Neben Forschung und Lehre müssen daher auch interne und externe Verwaltungs- und Kommunikationsprozesse miteinbezogen werden. Information, Beratung und Betreuung ausländischer Wissenschaftler und Studierender sowie die Vielzahl europäischer und anderer internationaler Förderprogramme verlangen nicht nur die Kenntnisse der jeweiligen Hochschul-, Wissenschafts- und Fördersysteme, sondern ebenso die entsprechenden Sprachkenntnisse, ohne dass die jeweiligen Personalpläne entsprechend dotierte Stellen in ausreichender Anzahl ausweisen. Ihre Außendarstellung haben die Hochschulen mittlerweile – zumindest teilweise – auf ein internationales Publikum ausgerichtet. Allerdings stellt die Sicherstellung einer angemessenen Qualität im fremdsprachigen Internetauftritt der Hochschule teilweise noch eine Herausforderung dar. Zudem liegen viele grundlegende Informationen, Dokumente und Formulare aus Kapazitätsgründen nur in deutscher Sprache vor. Auch Beratungs- und Serviceangebote werden häufig nur auf Deutsch angeboten. Viele Informationen sind einem internationalen Publikum damit nicht zugänglich. Ausländischen Studierenden und Wissenschaftlern wird der Einstieg in den deutschen Studien- und Forschungsalltag auf diese Weise unnötig erschwert. • Information und Außendarstellung Situation: Die deutschen Hochschulen richten ihre Internetauftritte zunehmend auf ein internationales Publikum aus, allerdings liegen viele Informationen nach wie vor nur auf Deutsch vor. Zudem stellt die Sicherung einer angemessenen fremdsprachlichen Qualität teilweise noch eine Herausforderung dar. Empfehlung: Allgemeine Informationen, der Internetauftritt und die sonstige Außendarstellung einer Hochschule sollten zumindest zweisprachig in Deutsch und Englisch erfolgen. Eine weitere Differenzierung sollte in Übereinstimmung mit den Außenkontakten der Hochschule stattfinden. Hierbei ist auf die Qualität der fremdsprachigen Darstellung zu achten. • Beratung und Service sowie Schulung des Verwaltungspersonals Situation: Vor dem Hintergrund einer zunehmend internationalen Studierendenschaft und eines kulturell diversen Lehrkörpers sehen sich Hochschulangestellte neuen Aufgaben gegenüber. Im Hinblick auf die Betreuung ausländischer Wissenschaftler und Studierender sowie auf Informations- und Beratungsangebote und die Vielzahl 14 HRK Empfehlung der 11. Mitgliederversammlung der HRK am 22.11.2011 europäischer und anderer internationaler Förderprogramme sind sie nicht nur gefordert, die jeweiligen Hochschul-, Wissenschafts- und Fördersysteme zu kennen, sondern ebenso die entsprechenden Sprachkenntnisse vorzuhalten. Diese gestiegenen Ansprüche spiegeln sich jedoch nicht in den jeweiligen institutionellen Stellenplänen wider, die häufig entsprechend dotierte Stellen nicht in ausreichender Anzahl ausweisen. Empfehlung: Eine allgemeine Mehrsprachigkeit des Verwaltungspersonals wird nur in Ausnahmefällen erreichbar sein. Es muss allerdings sichergestellt werden, dass das Personal, das Kontakt zu ausländischen Studierenden und Wissenschaftlern hat, zumindest über Grundkenntnisse im Englischen verfügt. Eine verstärkte Gewinnung internationaler Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter sowie Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern mit Migrationshintergrund kann dazu beitragen, die Situation zu entspannen und eine Willkommenskultur an den Hochschulen zu etablieren. Zudem sollten die Hochschulen prüfen, ob die Bündelung aller für ausländische Studierende relevanten Verwaltungs- und Servicedienste an einer zentralen Stelle sinnvoll ist. Dies würde eine kompetente Stellenbesetzung mit Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern, die über entsprechende Sprachkenntnisse verfügen, erleichtern. • Unterstützung des Wissenschaftlichen Personals Situation: Für die internationale Sichtbarkeit der an einer Hochschule geleisteten Arbeit ist es wichtig, Ergebnisse nicht nur auf Deutsch, sondern auch auf Englisch zu publizieren. Allerdings verfügen nicht alle Angehörigen des wissenschaftlichen Personals einer Hochschule über die erforderlichen Kompetenzen, um auf Englisch zu publizieren. Empfehlung: Die Hochschulen sollen Kurse für wissenschaftliches Englisch sowie je nach Bedarf Redaktionshilfe für englischsprachige Texte anbieten. Confédération Européenne des Centres de Langues de l'Enseignement Supérieur European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education Europäischer Verband der Hochschulsprachenzentren Position Statement on Language Policy in Higher Education in Europe In 2009, CercleS established a number of Focus Groups, including one on Language Policy which met for the third time in Luminy, Marseille, France from 19th - 21st May 2011. The following position statement is based on analysis and discussions which took place during the three meetings. It is presented in the form of guidelines for Institutions in Higher Education. 0. Institutions in Higher Education should have a Language Policy Why? Language practices within an institution should be determined exclusively by the stakeholders in that institution and provide continuity over time in a constantly evolving context. How? By following these guidelines. 1. A Language Policy of an Institution in Higher Education should address issues for native and foreign languages Why? Fostering plurilingualism is a fundamental element of European Higher Education policy. How? By: - taking into account local specificities and the language needs of all parties. - actively promoting plurilingualism and institutional multilingualism. - guaranteeing access to language learning facilities based in Language Centres. - encouraging native speakers of other languages to use their own mother tongue. - enhancing linguistic and cultural diversity and awareness. - facilitating student and staff mobility. - fostering lifelong language learning. The exclusive use of English as a Lingua Franca threatens the quality of cultural and academic exchange. 2. A Language Policy of an Institution in Higher Education should address issues at all levels of the organisation (university, faculty, programmes, courses etc.) and be co-owned by all stakeholders and the whole university community (governing bodies, teaching, research, administrative staff and students) Why? The success of any policy depends on the commitment of all parties concerned. The practical implementation can only be as strong as its weakest link. How? Through debate and approval by the governing bodies after wide-ranging consultation of all stake-holders prior to implementation. By widespread publication and accessibility (institutional website, official documentation, marketing strategy). It is important that stakeholders differentiate clearly between needs and wants. 3. A Language Policy of an Institution in Higher Education should be coherent with external (European, national, regional and local) and internal strategic goals Why? Its efficiency depends on its coherence and its capacity to address the wide range of settings in which Higher Education Institutions play an important role. How? Through widespread permanent consultation. Language Policy should never become a political battle-field. 4. A Language Policy of an Institution in Higher Education should define responsibilities within the organisation Why? Language Policy must be shared across the board to reflect the commitment of all parties. How? By taking into account the specific skills of all parties, including Language Centres, in the process of decision making. Language Policy should not be delegated to Language Centres only. Parties should not be held responsible beyond their actual expertise and abilities. Cooperation and mutual understanding between Language Centres and International Offices should be encouraged. CercleS Language Policy Position Statement 2/5 5. Language Policies in Institutions of Higher Education should provide guiding principles to address the following issues: 5.1 Language appropriation Why? A Language Policy should accommodate changing linguistic circumstances and the social and political climate to foster mobility and employability in accordance with the Bologna Reform. How? By treating the following questions: - Which target languages should students acquire, to which level and why? - What are the entry language level requirements? By defining support infrastructure and services (e.g. Language Centres, training, coaching, language counselling, etc.) for students and staff. A Language Policy should define compulsory levels of language competence for students and lecturers, with finalising exit levels according to the requirements of the job market. A Language Policy should reflect existing and future exchange programmes and agreements, and should include provision of necessary language tuition to incoming foreign students. A Language Policy should define the minimum level of language competence of the host country’s language for mobility and international students. 5.2 Language of tuition Why? Research has demonstrated that the languages of instruction have an impact on the quality of the learning outcome. The languages of instruction contribute to the students' cognitive and cultural development. How? By defining which language(s) of instruction is (are) appropriate in a given programme and its global context. By defining support infrastructure and services (e.g. Language Centres, training, coaching, language counselling, etc.) for students and teaching staff. A Language Policy should guarantee programme coherence and cohesion while respecting the inherent historical characteristics of the subject. 5.3 Research Why? Future researchers have to be prepared for multilingual professional situations. How? By defining which languages are used for which research activities. CercleS Language Policy Position Statement 3/5 By defining support infrastructure and services (e.g. Language Centres, training, coaching, language counselling, etc.) for students and research staff. A Language Policy should reflect existing and future research cooperation agreements and networks. Linguistic skills should be taken into account in recruitment procedures and promotion of researchers. 5.4 Administration Why? The growing degree of internationalisation creates a need for plurilingual competence of administrative staff. How? By defining support infrastructure and services (e.g. Language Centres, training, coaching, language counselling, etc.) for administrative staff. Linguistic skills should be taken into account in recruitment procedures and promotion of administrative staff. 5.5 (Internal and External) Communication Why? Corporate identity is also determined by language use within the Institution. Foreign students and staff have a right to accessible information. How? By identifying the need for services such as translation, proof-reading and editing, and defining appropriate measures. High level language services, including but not limited to Language Centres, are a means to guaranteeing the quality of the University’s national and international image. 6. Language Policy design should be seen as a process. Why? Any Language Policy is the result of the context in which it is developed, and this context is subject to change at all times. A constant review process is necessary to maintain a high level of quality. How? Through a permanent process of debate and approval by the governing bodies. In a constantly changing environment, only a qualitative multi-disciplinary review process can guarantee that a Language Policy will remain appropriate, applicable and acceptable for all parties. CercleS Language Policy Position Statement 4/5 Participants: Dr. Sigrid Behrent, Zentrum für Sprachlehre, Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften, Universität Paderborn, Germany Anje M. Dijk, Talencentrum Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands Tom Grainger, CIELL, Faculté des Sciences de Luminy, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France Brendan Keenan, Unité Programme International, Commission International de l'Alliance des Grandes Ecoles, Rhône Alpes, Ecole Nationale des Travaux Publics de l'Etat, France Dr. Regina Mügge, Sprachenzentrum, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Germany Dr. Christoph Nickenig, Centro linguistico – Sprachenzentrum, Freie Universität Bozen – Libera Università Bolzano, Italy Astrid Nothen, SLI-Sprachlehrinstitut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg i.Brsg., Germany Dr. Sabina Schaffner, Sprachenzentrum der Universität und der ETH Zürich, Switzerland Leon de Stadler, Taalsentrum / Language Centre, Universiteit Stellenbosch / Stellenbosch University, South Africa Dr. Ruth Tobias, Sprachenzentrum, Fachbereich Gesellschaftswissenschaften und soziale Arbeit, Hochschule Darmstadt, Germany CercleS Language Policy Position Statement 5/5 The DYLAN Project Booklet Dylan Project Main Findings 2006 - 2011 19 Partners - 12 Countries 1 Booklet Eröffne dir neue W ege, werde mehrsprachig! Deurete strades nueves, empara de plu lingac! Ouvre ton esprit, vis plurilingue Open your mind, go plurilingual For more information about the DYLAN Project and its findings, please refer to our website (www.dylan-project.org) or the Dylan Book (www.dylan-project.org/book in preparation) Contents 0. Executive Summary 1. Project objectives and analytical framework 2. Main findings 3. Policy relevance of findings 4. Conclusions 5. Epilogue 00Executive summary 4 … a fresh look at multilingualism in a variety of settings ... Multilingualism is approached in terms of interrelationships between actual language practices, people’s representations about multilingualism, their declared choices, and the myriad contexts in which people are confronted with linguistic diversity. ... These links are examined in different practical situations: business meetings, procedures in official European bodies, and teaching in educational institutions. Depending on the setting, different ways of exploiting multilingualism emerge, in which larger and smaller languages can all play a part. The DYLAN Project provides... 4 5 ... a renewed understanding of the nature of multilingual interaction … tools for comparing ways of handling multilingual situations, and criteria for making better choices Communication strategies are not equal: some offer more advantages than others in terms of sharing and building knowledge in university education, getting members of a working team to contribute their expertise to a meeting, or ensuring that MEPs can participate equally well in political and policy developments in EU institutions. Different strategies can be assessed in terms of standard policy evaluation criteria such as efficiency and fairness. Alternatives can be compared in order to choose more efficient and fairer strategies. DYLAN proposes a systematic approach for applying these concepts to communication in multilingual settings. The approach also gives rise to a system of linguistic indicators with which individual situations can be characterised, options compared and trends monitored, in order to identify and encourage “best multilingual practice”. Multilingual practices are observed at close range, shedding light on what actually happens in interaction between people with different language profiles. This interaction is shown to be a much more complex process than just choosing one common language, or a fixed combination of official languages, or even switching back and forth between them. Besides the mere co-presence of several languages, actual multilingualism means drawing on one’s language repertoire, made up of more or less extensive skills in a variety of languages. The ways in which language repertoires are exploited are numerous, suggesting a flexible, inclusive approach to the use of Europeans’ language skills. People’s choices of communication strategies make sense: people take account of specific situations and adapt their linguistic resources in patterned ways – even the use of one dominant language is shown to display considerable flexibility. Actual communication strategies are not simple, unequivocal phenomena. They are formulated in official discourse that hides, but sometimes also reveals the complexity of motivations behind professed choices. Communication strategies emerge from multidimensional processes. These are top-down and bottom-up, they may be observed in institutions’ explicit policies, and pressure for language standardisation or, on the contrary, differentiation of language forms may be apparent, as shown by the investigation of multilingualism in European history. 11 Project objectives and analytical framework 6 Objectives The DYLAN research project - Language Dynamics and Management of Diversity - is a five-year Integrated Project funded under the EU’s 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technology development, carried out by researchers from eighteen universities in twelve European countries. The project addresses core issues of the Programme: Can a European knowledge-based society designed to ensure economic competitiveness and social cohesion be created within a European Union that is linguistically more diverse than ever, and, if so, how? How do organisations and individuals actually cope with this diversity? And in what way and under what conditions are “multilingual solutions” not just a response to a problem, but a genuine advantage for companies, European institutions and bodies, and higher education? These are three terrains which are particularly important with respect to multilingualism. The project addresses issues for which multilingualism has economic, political, educational and scientific implications: economic: strengthening economic performance through the implementation of linguistically diversified modes of control, problem management and problem solving in production, consumption and exchange; 6 7 The Analytical Framework The analytical framework of the project is designed to meet all these objectives. The development and use of multilingual repertoires in a number of situated contexts are approached in a way that is both relevant from the standpoint of scientific research and practical from the standpoint of actors who may use the framework later when selecting, designing, implementing and evaluating policies on linguistic diversity. At the same time, it remains flexible enough to accommodate new questions that emerge as a normal result of the internal dynamics of a practice-oriented research process. These requirements generate an analytical framework made up of four dimensions that constitute the project’s conceptual cornerstones: » actual language practices (with a focus on oral and interactional practices); » representations of multilingualism and linguistic diversity (what organisations and individuals say about multilingualism and linguistic diversity); » the language policies of states or other public bodies (particularly local, regional or national authorities, as well as supra-national organisations) and the language strategies of private-sector companies; » and the linguistic context (or language environment) in which agents operate. political: ensuring fairness in the treatment of various languages and their speakers, and contributing to social justice by facilitating access of all citizens to multilingualism; educational: contributing to the construction, transmission and use of knowledge; scientific: contributing to the development of a scientific approach to the management of linguistic and cultural diversity. With research teams from various parts of Europe, observations reflect a great variety of specific contexts: national, regional and local. DYLAN does not chiefly analyse the four conceptual dimensions, but focuses on the relationships between them. Their influence on one another proves to be considerable. This figure shows the expanded analytical framework: DYLAN Analytical Framework This figure showsThis figure shows the expanded language practices represen- tations policies & strategies context companies EU institutions educational systems efficiency and fairness forms of multilingualism in European history emergent varieties 8 The four dimensions and interrelationships are studied in different settings, which are described as terrains, namely companies, EU institutions and bodies, and higher education. In addition, the development and use of multilingual repertoires should be seen in connection with three additional sets of issues: efficiency and fairness; emergent varieties; and forms of multilingualism in European history. All eighteen research teams were asked to position their research questions with respect to this set of conceptual clusters and relationships, and then referred to this framework when contributing their own specific answers to the project’s central questions. The “Companies” terrain concerns the study of relationships between language practices, policies, and representations in selected companies throughout Europe (in France, Denmark, Scotland and Switzerland). Workplaces are a setting where major changes in the extent of multilingualism are observable as companies acquire more and more international partners, an increasing number of partnerships within and between companies scattered over various countries, and an increasing number of staff from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds who are working in the same teams, both physically and virtually. In this context, it is essential to understand more clearly how social actors mobilise multilingual resources in their professional practice, how they conceive, represent and actively shape the multilingual and multicultural character of their work and projects, and how they regulate, prescribe, enforce or reduce the multilingual dimensions of these dynamics. The “European institutions” terrain concerns the study of relationships between language practices, policies, and representations in selected contexts of the EU institutions (the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council, as well as MEPs from two member states (Germany and Slovenia). In these contexts, it is of particular interest to explore how EU institutions relate both multi-and/or monolingual as well internal and external communication to each other. The main focus is on studying what are the motivations for specific choice in different EUinstitutional milieus, and which are the language representations (ideologies) shaping specific multilingual communication within/between, and outside EU institutions. The “Higher education” (Educational system) terrain concerns the study of relationships between language practices, policies and representations in selected universities throughout Europe (in Belgium, Finland and the other Nordic countries, Italy, Romania, Spain and Switzerland). Its objectives are to determine how a rapidly changing context can modify language policies and strategies in specific institutions of educational systems, and how multilingualism is constructed in policies, strategies, representations and practices. It mainly explores new learning methods, such as multilingual education, in order to show how, and under what conditions, multilingualism can be an asset or an obstacle in the construction, transmission and use of knowledge. It further assesses how the frequently mentioned goal of acquiring two foreign languages in addition to one’s first language has materialised in different educational settings. A brief description of the terrains 8 9 “Efficiency and fairness” approaches multilingualism from the perspective of (public) policy evaluation. Its main thrust is the operationalisation of communication processes in multilingual settings in order to develop a set of indicators that can capture the “efficiency” and “fairness” of more or less multilingual ways of communicating. “Emergent varieties” investigates whether new forms of communication “emerge” in communication between actors with different linguistic repertoires in linguistically diverse settings, and focuses on the interaction between English as a lingua franca and multilingualism in this context. “Forms of multilingualism in European history” investigates changing representations of language, language use and multilingualism and the impact that these representations have on language selection in different terrains, with a focus on language education. Integration of different methodological orientations One of the original features of the DYLAN project is the adoption of a mixedmethods approach in order to cope with the wide range of questions it addresses. These methods are well established in the language sciences; on the basis of the hypothesis that the terrains analysed are regulated by different types of institutionalised language practices, they aim at understanding how forms of discourse are indicators of how the various institutions operate, as well as revealing the patterns of language use through a fine-grained analysis. They comprise discourse analysis, ethnography of communication, ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, analysis of the linguistic landscape as well as the use of secondary quantitative data sources. The latter type of information, in particular, characterises key features of the linguistic environment described in the research design and provides the backdrop for social actors’ choices regarding their language practices, as well as defining the actual context that many public policies and corporate strategies seek to influence. This input can then be processed using concepts from other disciplines, particularly policy analysis, in order to assess the advantages and drawbacks of alternative communication and language acquisition strategies. “Transversal issues” play a special role in the DYLAN project design and have particular importance for project integration. They address phenomena that appear in each of the three terrains which define the project’s other work packages. Transversal issues 22Main findings 10 The following pages sum up the main findings of five years of research. These findings can be divided into two basic categories: some are qualitative, shedding light on finegrained aspects of communication in a multilingual context; others are methodological, providing the necessary stepping stones for future work. Given the overarching aims of the research project, we will organise the presentation of findings around the following central questions: How do companies, European institutions and bodies and higher educational establishments draw on monolingual and/or multilingual resources, and which arguments do they use in doing so? How do individuals communicating in these terrains exploit monolingual and/or multilingual resources, and which arguments do they use in doing so? Under what conditions can multilingualism be seen as an asset or a drawback for companies, European institutions and bodies and higher educational establishments? What does “multilingualism as a resource” mean? In order to answer this question, we must first acknowledge that there are competing views of what multilingualism is. We will first approach the question from the corporate and institutional perspective, then look at the interactional, individual perspective and finally return to the definition of multilingualism when discussing the conditions for making the best use of it. aussi c an e JE SUIS PDG JE SUIS PDG Moi je pense que les multinationales ne réussiront leur implantation que si elles respectent la spécificité de l'endroit où elles s'implantent. Si elles veulent laminer les gens, ça ne va pas marcher à terme. 10 11 Corporate and institutional language policy Saviez-vous que les entreprises ont des manières très différentes de gérer les langues ? Our first question was how organisations in our three terrains respond to the challenge of the linguistic diversity prevailing in Europe and beyond. What is their corporate policy on the management of multilingualism? The answers to these questions are manifold, and involve more than a simple dichotomy between “monolingualism” and “multilingualism”. The easiest solution would seem to be a single corporate language, including for internal communication – the solution known as OLON (“one language only”). Until very recently, the single language was usually the local official or national language (for the sake of brevity, we generally refer to ‘official languages’); today it is often English. However, this seldom means that no other language is used. As an observer of the Danish context puts it, “most people think that the use of English as a corporate language means that no other languages are supposed to be used, even though they do actually use these languages.” On the one hand, organisations opting for the official language can no longer avoid at least some use of English. On the other hand, legislation (national, as in France, or regional, as in Catalonia), as well as demographic influence, pressure from the local workforce and the pursuit of efficiency and fairness, reinforce the role of local languages. These are maintained as the medium of instruction in higher education, as well as for internal communication with and among staff. The arguments presented concern both efficiency and fairness: “in order to make everyone feel at ease, to be understood by everyone”; “because you speak differently in your own language, more freely and openly, you feel more secure and selfconfident”; in Glasgow “it is good to use Gaelic in business because it helps keep the language alive and respects it as part of Scotland’s heritage.” In contrast, organisations can thus choose a form of institutional multilingualism as their language policy or regime. For example, the universities in Barcelona and Bolzano use three languages as a medium of instruction (official language + co-official, regional or minority language + English); the European Union is supposed to communicate with member states in the twenty-three official languages; Swiss national companies are trilingual in the country’s official languages; in some countries the government, companies and educational and research institutions are bound by law to use the official language(s) for many purposes, even if some would prefer English. Many organisations, even officially monolingual helps keep the language alive and respects it as part of Scotland’s In contrast, organisations can thus choose a form It’s interesting to know that a lot of the words and phrases we use in English come from other languages. Smashing, loch, slew and galore are all words that have come into English from Gaelic. postcard N° 4 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ postcard N° 14 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ moi aussimoi aussi Quand c'est moi qui dirige la réunion, j'essaie de parler la langue étrangère donc, en général c'est moi qui demande qu'on parle anglais. Je ne sais pas comment cela est reçu par mes collaborateurs et ça m'est complètement égal! 12 English ones, choose to communicate with their employees in a range of languages which they themselves can select from. They do so to enhance the quality of work and to strengthen people’s emotional involvement with the organisation. What applies to internal communication applies even more to external communication, because of legislation in the case of European institutions, and because of the maxim “Sell in the customer’s language” (and sometimes even “Negotiate purchases in the supplier’s language”) in the case of companies. It is true, however, that the necessary skills are often outsourced, particularly in the case of “exotic” languages – which in the Nordic countries can mean all foreign languages except English. Thus internal linguistic diversity may be much less than the total number of languages used, for instance on websites or in official documents. At another level, most higher educational establishments that were analysed argue in favour of using English as a medium of instruction in addition to official and/or minority languages, in order to create openings on the international academic market. Ved du at nogle mennesker tror, at man kun kan lære sprog, hvis man er særligt sprogbegavet? Most organisations analysed by the DYLAN teams espouse multilingualism either by declaring themselves officially multilingual or by acknowledging the linguistic diversity of their employees, members, students, etc. However, all these cases involve parallel communication with groups that speak different languages. This is usually done by translating and (on websites, for instance) by localising messages. This principle is known as OLAT (“one language at a time”). The view of multilingualism inherent in this principle seems “additive”, as distinct from “integrative”. Several of our teams carried out fine-grained observation and analysis of workplace practices in companies, European institutions and higher educational establishments. The aim was to understand which communication strategies or “methods” are used in settings with several languages that are not all spoken equally well by all the individuals concerned. As a first result, the common assumption that everyone speaks English was disproved. Participants adopt a wide range of strategies, and they do so in an extremely variable, flexible and dynamic way, constantly reassessing and readapting the solutions chosen in the course of an activity. On the basis of relevant sets of audio and video recordings in various settings, several teams helped produce a classification of strategies located on two axes. One axis compares “monolingual” strategies (“one language only” or OLON and “one language at a time” or Multilingual repertoires as a communicative, strategic and cognitive resource in interaction postcard N° 16 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ 12 13 There is obviously a great difference between speaking English (Italian, Arabic, etc.) at near-native level or with approximate skills. Thus English used as a lingua franca is not a variety of English like Indian or Singaporean English, but can be viewed as a field of “mixed” form of speaking that uses the whole range of the speakers’ repertoires. Hence, a lingua franca is by definition a kind of hybrid, “rough-and-ready” version of the language. In addition to their linguistic resources, participants make coordinated, systematic use of a whole range of multimodal resources. The choice of language(s) and of a mono-/multilingual mode at work meetings largely depends on the participants’ profiles and competence, as well as on the participation regime, for example the ways in which participants at a meeting (and their repertoire) are included in or excluded from the activity. In settings where participants are aware that their competence is asymmetrical, solutions that enable the multilingual situation to be managed are developed in the course of the activity, in a way that is suited to the details of the activity concerned. Such solutions are not pre-existing models that are simply adopted as they stand, but emerge in situ and change constantly. Invented by the participants and negotiated throughout their interaction, these rough-andready solutions allow maximum flexibility and adaptability to the context. As in companies and universities, the very complex situations found in European institutions and bodies encourage the emergence of intermediate, hybrid modes between monolingual and multilingual modes of communication, at the level of practices and social representation. These modes are very different from classic bilingual interactions in traditionally bilingual communities such as Puerto Ricans in New York, or Alsatians. In the three terrains studied (whether in work situations in companies, at meetings in European institutions, at official university events or in administrative exchanges), the analyses show that use of multilingual repertoires affects the way in which parWussten Sie, dass viele Unternehmen konsequent auf den Mehrwert der Mehrsprachigkeit setzen? postcard N° 7 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ OLAT) with “multilingual” ones – known as ALAST (“all the languages at some time”) or ALAAT (“all language at all times”) – and the other axis compares the “exolingual” pole (greatly asymmetrical repertoires) with the “endolingual” one (participants share the same repertoire). Choosing a lingua franca such as English – but also, for example, Spanish used by speakers of Portuguese and Italian, or even North Sami in the polar region – is just one of many solutions; in addition, the form of the lingua franca depends heavily on the speakers’ levels of competence as well as on the “habitus” they assume, ranging from a monolingual-endolingual mode (among speakers who strongly adhere to language standards) to a monolingual-exolingual one (where language standards are disregarded to a high extent), or from a multilingual-endolingual mode (found in highly multilingual communities), to a multilingual-exolingual one (where the speakers draw on a mixture of linguistic resources). Another solution is the lingua receptiva mode, in which everybody speaks his/ her own language and is expected to understand the ones used by the other speakers. 14 ticipants organise their interaction and the specific way in which linguistic resources are mobilised and processed in multilingual situations. In particular, it can be seen how turn-taking and actions are managed so as to maximise or minimise their participation, how linguistic resources are chosen (but also created in a rough-and-ready manner) according to which individuals are to be included (or excluded), and how leadership is constructed. Multilingual repertoires help agreement and disagreement to be managed. In a continuum of possible ways of speaking and behaving, they provide new ideas and views, especially on the development of professional creation. According to our observations, these specific participatory configurations have an impact on the objects and activities involved, and above all on the transmission of information, the construction of knowledge and expertise, ways of negotiating, supervision of interactions, decisionmaking and problem-solving. Our observations show that actors use all these strategies in a very systematically patterned way, based on emerging social knowledge. They have to find a trade-off between two competing principles, both of which are necessary components of efficient communication: speakers have to make rapid progress and to accept a degree of opacity (the “progressivity principle”), but at the same time they must ensure that they understand each other by means of time-consuming reverse movements (repair sequences) and translation (the “intersubjectivity principle”). The former principle is forward-looking and tends to minimise the resources used, whereas the latter is backward-looking and tends to expand them. At work meetings the former principle is reflected in participants’ focus on the shared activity, allowing them to take approximations in stride (“let it pass”). The latter principle is reflected in repairs and use of translation, entailing a return to what has just been said, and hence a degree of redundancy. These various techniques involve “shared resources”. This can be seen as a kind of “do-it-yourself toolbox”. The idea is to use whatever comes to hand – an assortment of tools and materials resulting not from a particular project but from all the occasions on which stocks have been renewed, enriched or maintained using the remains of earlier construction or destruction. This allows participants to conduct a verbal activity in specific contexts in a creative, playful manner. Such practices help the activity to be managed (taking turns, focusing on appropriate topics, etc.), allow the formulation of appropriate utterances for completing the task and to overcome communicative obstacles to communication. The analysis confirms earlier findings suggesting that the use of multilingual repertoires allows various kinds of access to knowledge, and deepens our understanding of the role of interaction in these processes. This was especially observed in the construction and transmission of knowledge through multilingual education in higher educational establishments. Terrain observations indicate that the use of different languages changes our perception of processes and objects, resulting in deepening and “fine-tuning” of conceptual Multilingualism as a cognitive resource 14 15 understanding, enriches conceptual construction, reveals hidden or implicit meanings, and “unfamiliarises” supposedly familiar meanings. This sheds a new light on concepts approached from multiple angles as if they were viewed through a prism or a kaleidoscope. Multilingual practices provide multiple keys to concepts and original ways of handling them. They allow a closer look at words and deeper reflection on the linguistic substance of concepts in the languages used, as well as explicit processing of the relationship between linguistic form and conceptual content, emphasising its symbolic nature. For example, attention to a language problem reflexively leads to the reappraisal of conceptual knowledge; likewise, in order to understand content, students are forced to pay attention to details of the second language. Hence, multilingual practices can be used as resources for accomplishing situated cognitive activities. They help enhance students’ participation and joint construction of knowledge. Effective, balanced use of the multilingual repertoire is linked to differentiated and complex social relationships. Participating in educational events provides such an opportunity: interactions such as those described for seminars, in particular, show that alternation between languages is used to enhance comprehension, foster creativity and the development of original knowledge products with the resolution of terminological conflicts leading to reinterpretation of established concepts. Multilingual practices somehow help challenge the myth of linguistic transparency by revealing the full substance of language and its mediating role, especially as they encourage actors to stand back and see the objects and their representations in retrospect, calling words into question and generating linguistic opacity. Moreover, since they make it possible to work on meaning and form in continuous alternation, multilingual practices highlight certain notions as central to conceptual construction. They help increase output in terms of both quantity (emergence of many different notions) and quality (diversified and differentiated processing). They can also generate processes that span an entire sub-field of a discipline, helping to create broad conceptual networks and new relationships between concepts. For example, learners become aware of wider, interconnected semantic fields, possibly leading to a new kind Créons ensemble avec nos langues: le plurilinguisme permet le passage d’une communauté de pratique à une autre et contribue ainsi au drainage de la diversité de ressources vers l’accomplissement collaboratif de l’activité professionnelle. postcard N° 11 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ 16 In general, multilingualism can be seen as an instrument for creativity, in linguistic and cognitive as well as interactional and strategic terms: linguistic creativity, by giving rise to hybrid phonological, morphological, lexical and syntactic varieties; cognitive creativity, by broadening access to information, providing alternative ways of organising thought and perceiving the world, and, more generally, developing potential for creative thinking; interactional creativity, by providing new ways of adapting to new communicational contexts and new ways of intervening (whether by changing the subject or reorganising the participatory framework); and strategic creativity, by providing new ways of negotiating, reaching decisions, solving problems or supervising action. Assuming that multilingual, multicultural speakers enjoy the advantage of greater cognitive flexibility, this asset will be multiplied in mixed teams, which are the ideal place for using multilingual resources in an interactive, rough-and-ready manner. These resources are much more than just the sum total of the resources associated with each of the languages involved. And this will help enrich descriptions, improve understanding of scientific objects and increase creativity in seeking solutions to new challenges and problems. Referring to literature in business studies, but also, in particular, their own experience, the managers interviewed argue that mixed teams have greater resources, knowledge and experience, which makes them more efficient, more dynamic and more innovative and creative. Previous research (part of it mandated by the European Commission) emphasised the cognitive and social advantages enjoyed by multilingual individuals. The experience reported by the managers that were interviewed for the DYLAN project transfers this finding to mixed teams. But this depends on two conditions: (a) mixed teams must take advantage of the intercultural assets linked to linguistic diversity, and make optimum use of the “intermediate space” it creates between different languages and cultures, and (b) “exolingual communication” (communication between people with asymmetrical competence) must be efficiently managed, as shown above. Scientific theories always work with words, images, metaphors borrowed from ordinary language. Because each language opens up new vistas on reality and offers Have you thought that by studying at a multicultural university I. your communicative and cultural competence will be enhanced? II. your creativity will improve? III. you’ll be more open-minded? Our analysis shows that the use of multilingual repertoires serves as a resource for the construction, transmission and use of knowledge, providing various kinds of access to information processing and helping actors retain and classify new information. Multilingualism and creativity postcard N° 29 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ of conceptual dynamism. Thus the use of terminology from several languages in higher education improves the development, processing and stabilisation of knowledge. This, however, requires sharp language awareness and good bridge-building capacities between languages. Several examples show how monolingual English-medium instruction fails to transmit knowledge accurately, for lack of teacher or student skills. The right to use a national, official, co-official, regional or minority language is in practice sometimes questioned, since it raises the issue of communication with teachers who have not learned the language. 16 17 Under what conditions are “multilingual solutions” not just a response to a problem, but a genuine advantage? We have already mentioned several reasons for institutions and individuals to take advantage of individual and social forms of multilingualism. Indeed, many of our observations suggest that institutional and individual multilingualism brings major advantages to the political institutions, companies, universities and individuals that adopt it. However, these various assets of multilingualism will not be effective unless a number of conditions and factors are taken into account. Optimum coherence between conceptual dimensions Conditions and factors must be defined in terms of the kinds of interrelationships between language practices, representations, language policies and linguistic context. The influence of these conceptual dimensions on one another proves to be considerable. But the influence of language policy on practices largely depends on the kind of measures taken at various levels. These include measures to assess and improve staff language skills in order to make the institution more competitive. A particularly important instrument here is the creation and Assuming that multilingual and multicultural speakers enjoy the advantage of greater cognitive flexibility, this can be multiplied in mixed teams where multilingual resources are used in an interactive, rough-and-ready manner. different forms of argumentation, using several languages is profitable for knowledge. Decision-makers at the universities investigated insist on the benefits of multilingualism as a tool for integration, cohesion and mutual understanding, as well as for students’ employability, but in particular because it makes them more resourceful researchers. Je m’appelle Christophe Und ich wohne in Cluj! Buna, ce mai faci? Vieni a trovarmi presto Y que te vaya bien, hombre! 18 preferential treatment of mixed teams (see above). As already mentioned, top-down measures not only alter practices, but also affect actors’ social representations, which will in turn have a political impact in that they help construct the social order. We also observed clashes between conceptual dimensions: practices, policies and representations do not match.Yet these “conflicts” should not be seen as problems, but as areas of fragility in which policy interventions may be possible. A systematic analysis of the impact of language policy in Scotland on language management in companies, and of the latter on bilingual practices, shows that multilingualism will be an asset provided that efficient policies help individuals and organisations develop their ability and wish to operate bilingually, and help create opportunities for the use of several languages. Striking a balance between the use of a lingua franca and multilingualism There are two other conditions: taking account of a particular kind of relationship between a lingua franca and multilingualism, and a coherent conception of the notion of multilingualism, which has gradually developed in the course of the research process. Where language management measures exist in higher educational establishments, they aim to promote national and international languages (mostly English). With the partial exception of Bolzano/ Bozen, they insist upon using one language of instruction at a time, although many cases of simultaneous use of several languages in a teaching event were recorded. Let us take a closer look at this last point. Today, teaching/learning practices that create favourable conditions for the construction of knowledge are not necessarily the result of an institutional project that explicitly implements a bilingual or multilingual curriculum. The reason is that institutions promoting multilingualism see it as an asset for internationalisation rather than construction of knowledge. The second language is seen as a transparent means of communication rather than as a tool that can be used for scientific questioning. Teachers often see second language learning and learning of subject matter as separate processes, whereas the learning of a language (whether English or any other language), and especially the academic variety of it, is an integral part of the lessons in which it is used. When universities draw up multilingual policies, these are most often based on the “monolingual” view of multilingualism (seen as the addition and division of several languages) rather than the integration of several repertoires (as in the “multilingual” view of multilingualism). Incidentally, the costs and benefits of such measures are not usually assessed. However, our studies show that the most efficient multilingual practices in terms of construction of knowledge implement a wide range of solutions using several languages at the same time. Complex knowledge is affected by the way in which it is formulated, and so multilingualism is a “decoder” of complexity. It should therefore be seen as a “hard” rather than a “soft” skill. Les mondes de la connaissance sont multiples. On peut surfer entre ces mondes et les interroger dans leur diversité. Saviez-vous que globalisation et mondialisation désignent deux phénomènes différents ? La première vise l’uniformité et la seconde l’universalité, la première valorise UN monolinguisme et la seconde LES plurilinguismes. There are two other conditions: taking account multilingualism, which has gradually developed in the course of the create favourable conditions for the construction of knowledge are not necessarily the mondes et les interroger dans leur diversité. Saviez-vous que globalisation et mondialisation postcard N° 26 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ 18 19 Two opposing conceptions within academia have resulted in the implementation of two strategies in a knowledge-based society: (a) surfing on the worlds of knowledge seen as a globality, and (b) questioning the worlds of knowledge seen as an irreducible plurality. These two strategies may be complementary. But how can the twofold requirement – surfing on these worlds and questioning them – be reconciled? The multilingual language mode could be the answer to the paradox that universities face today: their wish to internationalise currently demands the use of English, yet their public mission legitimately demands the use of local languages, and multilingual strategies enhance construction of knowledge. Here again, clashes and contradictions create areas of fragility in which action becomes possible. Le plurilinguisme manifeste la richesse de ces mondes et décode leur complexité. Favourable participatory frameworks and kinds of language management One way to resolve these conflicts between policies, representations and practices not only within universities, but also in companies and European institutions and bodies, is to create a “multilingual climate” in which internal communication is an extension of external communication rather than separate from it, giving the various organisations a multilingual identity by moving from symbolic to functional multilingualism, with multilingual practices inspiring policy, since language policy that is more in line with actual practice is likely to be more efficient. Indeed, there are two more important, interrelated conditions for a “multilingual asset”: types of language management (the “language regime”), and the participatory framework (the “participation regime”) in which the interaction takes place. Organisations can adopt either of two types of language policy: monolingual or multilingual. Adopting a foreign language as a corporate language or as a language for teaching fundamentally means staying in a monolingual (often exolingual-monolingual) mode, with limited adjustment of some problematic means of communication. This approach is intrinsically subtractive, in the sense that it deliberately steers clear of the mother tongue. It therefore overlooks the cognitive potential inherent in the multilingual mode. Practices are more multilingual in companies that have developed an explicit language management plan; and language management measures allowing the use of several languages are more successfully internalised by employees than ones aiming at monolingualism, as demonstrated by a comparison between several international companies in Alsace. As for the participation regime, this refers to the more or less shared organisation of a lesson or a meeting. Activities are conducted either by one participant (the chairperson or teacher) or jointly by all the participants. The analyses show that multilingualism is encouraged by a more participatory framework. Strategies favouring intersubjectivity or progressivity respectively (see above) depend on the type of corporate language policy, as observations in the Lyon region revealed. create areas of fragility in which action becomes possible. One way to resolve these conflicts between policies,conflicts between policies, representations and practices not only within universities, but also in companies and European institutions and bodies, is to create a “multilingual climate” in which internal communication is an extension Indeed, there are two more important, interrelated conditions for a “multilingual asset”: types of language management (the 20 The emergence of a multilingual mode at meetings and in classrooms tends to be linked to less rigid structures, for example small groups, pre-meeting and post-meeting sequences, less public parts of a meeting, etc. It is linked to situated cognition in multilingual communication settings where individuals use their multilingual repertoire to tackle communication tasks locally. Complementary conceptions of multilingualism In classrooms, meetings and interaction at the workplace in companies and in European institutions and bodies, a multilingual mode, encouraged by a policy of multilingualism and linked to an appropriate participatory framework, seems to be one of the conditions for taking full advantage of multilingualism as an asset. Top-down measures can assist multilingual practices, but at the same time they affect actors’ social representations, which will in turn have a political impact in that they help construct the social order. Hence, clashes between conceptual dimensions should not be seen as problems, but as areas of fragility in which policy interventions may be possible. In our terrains, we did not just observe a dichotomy between individual and institutional multilingualism. Clearly there are also two (partly complementary and partly competing) ways of theorising and representing multilingualism as such. The first is rather conventional, and is shared by most of the actors in our terrains (and most probably by the general public). It is an “additive” view of multilingualism, based on the knowledge of official languages (such as French, German, Slovene, or Catalan) that have to be mastered as fully as possible. This “additive” or “monolingual” view on multilingualism, however, has only become conventional with changing representations of language, as shown by the investigation of multilingualism in European history. With the language standardisation processes across Europe, standard languages came to be seen as the only “real” languages. Speaking several languages in this first view of multilingualism is a professional soft skill. It is based on a conception of languages as idealised, timeless and decontextualised “objects”, each neatly separated from the other, with language (langue; competence) preceding language use (parole; performance). This can lead to apparently contradictory political positions, for instance measures to protect the dominant position of an official language within its territory versus measures to foster a single working language for the European Union. Obviously, it is on this basis that policies of institutional multilingualism are built. The second is more implicit, more novel and generally less well-known. It corresponds to the “rough-and-ready” notion of languages and multilingualism that has emerged from the preceding sections. Have you ever thought about language as a flexible activity rather than a fixed unit? postcard N° 37 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ 20 21 In this case, language use (“languaging”) precedes language, particularly in the form of “multilanguaging”. Firmly anchored in numerous practices observed in all three of DYLAN’s terrains, it also appears explicitly in the actors’ social representations. For example, a manager who had to chair (for the first time) a meeting attended by ten totally new people told us “so you bring them together, and you find a language, and it is a mixture between German and English, in a way we found our own Esperanto (…) and it was then that creative processes started”. Moreover, it is a view on being/becoming multilingual that was very common before the primacy of standard languages, as the analysis of language learning textbooks from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries shows. This second view draws upon a functional conception of multilingualism, defined as the ability to interact, even imperfectly, in several languages in everyday settings, as Did you know that mixing languages enhances your creativity and innovative thinking? postcard N° 2 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ formulated in the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework. A set of skills in different languages, from perfect to very partial, is seen as an integrated whole which is more than the sum total of its parts. Incidentally, the term multilingual “competence” has been replaced by “repertoire”, defined as a set of “resources” — both verbal (various registers, dialects and languages, mastered at different levels) and non-verbal (e.g. mime and gestural expression) — that are jointly mobilised by the actors in order to find local solutions to practical problems. It is like a do-it-yourself toolbox; the speakers display creativity, and the boundaries between the languages vanish. The focus is on practices and repertoires, on pushing resources to their limits and beyond. However, there is evidence that these multilingual practices are not unshaped, but are the locus of “emergent multilingual grammars” comprising “methods” of interaction such as code-switching, spontaneous translations by peers or ways of using lingua francas – or, to use the plural of what is originally an Italian term, lingue franche. In the follow-up to these analyses, some teams attempted to question the notions of “language” and, in particular, “language boundaries”. On the one hand, they showed that “hybrid words” (words that can no longer be assigned to one language only) emerge as production strategies at language boundaries (and how they do so); on the other hand, they emphasised that views of “language” that are based on the ideology 22 A multilanguaging philosophy The contrast between these two conceptions helps to explain some of the conflicts observed at different levels (practices versus stated policies, divergent practices at the individual and institutional level, etc.). What some people condemn as “lack of mastery in any language” is praised by others as a down-to-earth solution in practical situations. However, if one admits that part of the “multilingual asset” is linked to the “multilanguaging” philosophy, then the analysis (and in some cases deconstruction) of representations evident in decision-makers’ discourses may be a key condition for the promotion of multilingualism. In fact, the public perception of multilingualism varies enormously throughout our terrains. It materialises as a classification of beliefs about language prevailing throughout the various countries and institutions with respect to language policies and multilingualism, as it appears in media discourse. Furthermore, different voices can be heard in the shared social representations in the terrains analysed. This also (and perhaps even mainly) concerns one of the key questions in European language policies: the role of English. Some believe that maintaining full linguistic diversity in Europe paradoxically endangers the policy of institutional multilingualism. Should we really reduce the number of working languages, in the extreme case to one only (at the moment, English) ? One could, on the contrary, put forward the hypothesis that the real problem is the transfer to Europe of the monolingual nation-state ideology. It will be recalled that the latter hardly allowed regional languages to survive under pressure from official languages. Should other European languages be permitted to suffer the same fate? In all three terrains, actors and observers insist on the importance of English. English is perceived as essential not only by international companies, but also by regional companies operating in cross-border markets, by universities and by European institutions. At the same time, daily reality is perceived as very multilingual, as confirmed by the observer of the Danish context quoted above and by many hours of audio- and videotaped communicative events throughout the three terrains. From the perspective of the “multilingual asset”, a possible response to this paradox could be a new “partnership” between the use of a lingua franca and multilingual interaction. Many observations support the assumption that such “multilanguaging skills” are a precondition for success in all three terrains; but, of course, multilanguaging does not cover all the situations in which people do not share the same language, among other things because it entails the risk of misunderstandings. It therefore cannot replace professional interpretation and the crucial work of translators as mediators between people and institutions speaking different languages. Wussten Sie, dass die Grenzen zwischen Sprachen bei deren Gebrauch im Alltag oft verwischt werden? postcard N° 8 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ of “standard languages” as it was developed in Europe during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries cannot account for these forms. We will come back to this. 22 23 Obviously, numerous voices in the EU institutions are calling for a more interconnected view of Europe’s linguistic diversity, at the same time drawing on institutional multilingualism and the corresponding practice of translation and interpretation, as well as on situated and practical day-today bottom-up experiences which are well described by modern sociolinguistic theory. DylanHauptbahnhof Guete tag Pardon Brasilia Pincode? Merci, obrigado OK Pardon oui oui? Oh, je ne parle pas português Okey. Italien ou français oui oui? Duos passagem para Freiburg deutsch Freiburg jä okey! Voilà, si vous faire la carte à la machine? Oui va bene Dylan C'est sans une code, si vous fais votre signature pour cinquante huit? Voilà. Il prossimo treno, binario cinco hm? Dodici diciotto Je parle português Bitteschön, service 33Policy relevance of findings 24 As shown in the preceding sections, the DYLAN project has delivered detailed knowledge of actual communication in a variety of multilingual settings, highlighting the complex interplay between observed practices, actors’ representations regarding language, and contextual elements, which all contribute to our understanding of realworld communication processes. Let us recall, however, that one of the aims of the DYLAN project is to provide stakeholders (the European Commission, businesses, educational authorities, and, of course, the general public) with guidance on how to deal with multilingualism, not as individuals, but as decision-makers steering private or public sector organisations towards collective goals. This means that the preceding results must be linked up with an analytical perspective on how choices are made, and how they can be improved by using the knowledge acquired. The goals pursued are of course very diverse: in the case of European institutions, they are spelled out in fundamental policy documents; businesses usually seek to create market value for shareholders; universities may be public or private, but they usually aim to ensure high-quality teaching and research, along with a positive social impact. No matter what the goals are, however, the way in which diversity is handled will affect the results that these very diverse actors actually achieve. Hence, The goals pursued are of course very diverse: in theThe goals pursued are of course very diverse: in the case of European institutions, they are spelled out in fundamental policy documents; businesses usually seek to create market value for shareholders; universities may be public or private, but they usually aim to ensure high-quality teaching and research, along with a positive social impact. No matter what the goals are, however, the way in which diversity is handled will affect the results that these very diverse actors actually achieve. Hence, 24 25 providing guidance presupposes that we have criteria for comparing possible courses of action, for assessing their respective advantages and drawbacks, and, on this basis, helping stakeholders make better choices and take full advantage of multilingualism in order to perform better. The term “perform” should be understood in the broadest sense, in line with the objectives of the “Europe 2020” strategy, which refers to smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. People constantly make decisions about language. They choose between different ways of using their linguistic repertoires, which can be seen as a resource. But the weighing-up of advantages and drawbacks which actors perform, usually informally, when deciding what languages to use (taking account of the specifics of every given interaction), has to be re-examined when it is analysed at the aggregate level of language policies and language strategies adopted by businesses, European institutions and higher educational establishments. For convenience we will refer to all these as “language policy”. Language policy evaluation can use the tools of policy analysis, an approach routinely adopted when drawing up decisions on environmental, health or transportation policy, for example. However, its application to language choices is more recent. In the DYLAN project these well-established policy concepts have been thoroughly re-examined with regard to language-related choices, and confronted with relevant observations gathered in various terrains, as well as with discourse regarding such choices, in order to bridge the gap between formal policy frameworks and the practical conditions for their implementation. Language choices can also be approached using the tools of policy analysis. This is useful in the selection and design of language policies by different types of actors. Criteria for making choices Sound policy choices can only be made by comparing possible courses of action, identifying their respective advantages and drawbacks, and opting for the course of action that seems best on the basis of such a comparison. Policy analysis can be arranged according to two basic criteria, namely efficiency and fairness. Course of action ‘A’ is more efficient than ‘B’ if it makes better use of scarce resources, whether material, financial or symbolic. Course of action ‘C’ is fairer than ‘D’ if the resulting distribution of resources (whether material, financial or symbolic) is more in line with socially and politically acceptable principles of justice. One of the products of the DYLAN project is the transposition of these meta-level concepts to the practice of multilingual communication – at a sufficiently general level for the instrument to be valid across situations, yet with sufficient flexibility to be able to accommodate the richness and complexity of communicational processes observed in real-world settings: we now have a set of tools with which we can gauge different communication strategies and compare them in terms of efficiency and fairness. This provides a logically rigorous and practice-informed basis for language policy choices, consistent with recognised principles of policy analysis. Taking account, in such comparisons, of the intricacies of multilingual communication, as well as the distance between organisations’ professed goals and actual behaviour, challenges widespread but clichéd views regarding the relative virtues of multilingualism and monolingualism. Diminuer les dépenses de traduction et d’interprétation dans une institution multilingue n’est pas forcément une économie. Cela revient en fait à un transfert de charges qui peut mettre les citoyens dans une situation inégale. postcard N° 33 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ 26 For example, the apparent savings generated by the attempt to use one language only may be cancelled out by the concomitant costs of language learning by actors, defective communication, linguistic insecurity among some speakers, etc. What looks like a saving may turn out to be nothing but a shifting of costs to other groups. Deciding which option is best is an empirical question to be examined in each specific setting; but the DYLAN project provides a general method for addressing it through the systematic comparison of alternatives. “Efficiency” and “fairness” are well-established, general criteria for comparing options. The challenge is to clarify what they mean in the context of communication. The DYLAN project proposes ways of operationalising communication in multilingual settings so as to make rigorous and consistent comparisons possible. “Comparing options” and then “choosing the best one” may seem like a pretty obvious guide for action. However, reality often proves untidier, sometimes to the point of preventing social actors from choosing the best – or in any case better – option available. The difficulty of making sound decisions is reflected in the interplay of representations, overt and covert policies, and the infinite variety of actual practices influenced not just by policies and representations, but also, of course, by the range of settings with which individual actors and institutions are dealing. Time and again, the examination of actors’ choices in the various terrains by the various teams in the DYLAN project (usually involving qualitative approaches) has shown that they were confronted with three recurring problems: lack of clarity, lack of guidance and lack of support. The project helps increase clarity and transparency, for instance by offering a richer, deeper definition of the notion of multilingualism. Among other things, this makes it possible to identify the risks of confusion between internationalisation and multilingualism, which is related to the varied nature of the representations that underpin references to multilingualism, particularly in European institutions. These representations, which change over time and refer to different arguments, form part of the basis for public ideas and expectations about multilingualism; but they may also be institutionally specific, differing from one institution to the next. Although it is often assumed that such institutional specificity is not a problem (giving rise, for example, to differences between “internal” and “external” language regimes), there is in fact a high degree of mutual influence, which further complicates the situation for civil servants and citizens who have to navigate the waters of linguistic diversity. Divergence between professed policy and actual practice may blur even supposedly clear notions such as “working language”. Policies and practice, policies in practice The tools developed in the project will help to identify and process these problems in a variety of settings. Such tools can contribute to more consistent and more inclusive approaches to policy development, in order to reconcile the notions used to address European-level and national-level language policy issues. 26 27 The DYLAN project has made it possible to review existing language policy frameworks, sharpen them by taking account of the fine-grained observations collected in the various terrains, and use such broadened frameworks to draw up a set of proposals for the development of a fullfledged system of linguistic indicators for Europe. Indicators may adapt to changes of context and the variability and dynamics of communicational situations. They need to make sense with respect to not only observed language practices but also the goals pursued, and they also need to be connected with actual modes of policy intervention. For example, many important language issues can be addressed using the “policyto-outcome path”, a policy analysis tool which has been reviewed by the DYLAN project and adapted in order to highlight the role of policy deliberation and implementation. The adapted policy-to-outcome path can embody more open notions of communication, as well as essentially multilingual views of multilingualism (departing from the received view of multilingualism as the mere juxtaposition of sharply separated language skills), thereby taking account of the issues addressed in the “Main findings” chapter. At the same time, it provides a benchmark for assessing action plans. What are the overt and covert components of a given plan? Are these compatible, and do they generate unambiguous policies? Do the latter genuinely contribute to the three conditions that must be met in order to ensure that multilingualism is indeed an asset? More specifically, do they help build up actors’ linguistic repertoires? Do they give them opportunities to use them? Are actors’ attitudes adequately taken into account when designing a policy plan? made it possible existing language policy frameworks, sharpen them by taking account of observations collectedobservations collected in the various terrains,in the various terrains, and use such broadened frameworks to draw up a set of proposals for the development of a fullfledged system of linguistic indicators for Europe. Indicators may adapt to changesIndicators may adapt to changes of context and the variability andof context and the variability and dynamics of communicational POLYPHONY is a funny, creative and innovative game that brings you consistent benefits in your everyday life postcard N° 27 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ Providing flexible policy development tools DYLAN provides stakeholders with well-designed policy development tools which take due account of actual language practices should encourage them to clearly identify where they are, where they intend to go, and why. 28 The DYLAN language indicator system provides a theory-backed connection between various language practices and their efficiency and fairness. It is thus a tool that identifies possible ways of managing linguistic diversity in a democratic knowledge-based society. Towards a system of linguistic indicators for Europe In order to assess the relative advantages and drawbacks of multilingualism (also distinguishing between different forms of multilingualism) and monolingualism, the project provides the conceptual and methodological basis for the future gathering of quantitative data capturing the magnitude of these advantages and drawbacks; the latter may also be referred to as “benefits” and “costs”, if one bears in mind that both of these include the non-material, symbolic dimensions of more or less multilingual ways of communicating. The distribution of those benefits and costs between groups of stakeholders also needs to be taken into account, since not all policy choices result in equally fair distribution. By combining theoretical perspectives on language policy analysis and detailed terrain observations, the DYLAN project provides an approach to the design of linguistic indicator systems, as well as a set of over 200 indicators that may be fitted into a system matching the specific questions and needs of different types of actors, such as companies, European bodies or educational institutions. In order to create an effective indicator system, the data collected must be processed so that the resulting indicators display a number of desirable features: validity, reliability, sensitivity, stability, adequacy, feasibility, representativeness, intelligibility, timeliness, comparability and power. Managing multilingualism is a complex endeavour, and one that requires the backing of the authorities. The Commission and Member States are now in a position to (i) select priority indicators, (ii) “populate” the indicators selected through large-scale data gathering, (iii) use them to gauge and monitor multilingualism in Europe, and (iv) adopt policies that encourage efficient and fair communication. Earlier language indicator systems, as developed in specific minority language contexts, tend to be mostly contextual or to focus on traditional information about language skills and language use in different domains. Our indicators, by contrast, take account of findings on the richly patterned complexity of actors’ actual language use, as observed in the various terrains. In addition, they go beyond recent or current endeavours at the European level focusing on actors’ foreign language skills. 28 29 Examples of Indicators: Potentially hundreds of different indicators may be proposed. Some basic indicators are little more than direct observations – provided the latter are systematic, meet a precise definition and are presented according to some explicit rules. For example, the number of different languages in which members of a team have a clearly defined degree of self-declared competence could serve as a simple indicator of the linguistic capital of the team. Other indicators are much more elaborate, and require combining or processing raw data. Selecting an appropriate indicator depends on the questions asked. Suppose we are interested in who gets to speak at a meeting. This can be observed through conversation analysis, and indicators offer a synthetic way to summarise the observations made. Consider for example two different meetings (A and B) in the same firm, each bringing together participants with different linguistic repertoires and, in particular, different mother tongues. Suppose that in meeting A the use of a wide range of languages is encouraged, while in meeting B the group leader insists on the use of a single language. Is speaking time more equally shared between speakers in meeting A or in meeting B? Or do we observe that, on average, native speakers of the privileged language(s) of the meeting tend to monopolise speaking time? To answer this question, both meetings can be taped, and the speaking times of participants recorded in seconds. The total duration of the meeting can therefore be analysed in terms of the share of speaking time tj used by each participant j (j=1,….,N); we can use this information to compute a compact indicator of “evenness of speaking time” (let’s call it “EST”) given by: Comparisons between different meetings, in terms of how speaking time is shared among participants with different repertoires, will now be very easy, because this information is captured by a single figure. The value of EST will be closer to 0 if one speaker takes up most of the speaking time, and closer to 1 if the speakers share speaking time more equally; it is an indicator of the fairness of distribution of speaking time among persons participating. Participants at these meetings may also be asked to assess their usefulness (for example in terms of the actual amount of information they consider to have acquired and understood) on a scale from 0 to 1; let us call the resulting average value “IUM” (for “informational usefulness of the meeting”). IUM provides a metric for comparing the effectiveness of different meetings (which is a stepping-stone towards the evaluation of efficiency). Now, recorded data also make it possible to assess the relative degree of multilingualism (“RDM”) of the two meetings. A wide range of observations can be used to quantify RDM. We could, for example, compute the number of repair sequences involving code switching per period of time; alternatively, we could cut up interaction time in small units and assign different units to different languages, where the total for each language could then be treated in the same way as respective speaking times in indicator EST above. The choice of a metric for RDM will very much depend on what actors themselves perceive as “more” or “less” multilingual. We can then not only compare many meetings (not just A and B, but a large number of meetings) in terms of their respective degree of multilingualism, effectiveness and fairness, but also study possible correlations between these indicators, to see how various manifestations of multilingualism are, in general, related to efficiency and fairness. Let us observe that effective and fair meetings are not automatically more (or less) multilingual; working with indicators, however, is a tool for establishing in a systematic fashion trends emerging from a large number of meetings. 44Conclusions 30 The project produces three different outcomes: The three questions » Answers to three questions » Instruments for answering these and new questions » Tools for implementation and assessment 1. How are organisations, especially companies, European institutions and higher education, as well as individuals responding to the challenge of growing linguistic diversity in Europe? 2. In what way are “multilingual solutions” not just a response to a problem but also a genuine advantage for organisations and individuals? 3. Under what conditions can multilingual responses actually be an advantage? 30 31 Tools for implementation and assessment Selection of relevant strategies Language strategies can now be selected and designed in order to take account of the complexity of actual practices in the workplace, in political institutions and in educational systems, as well as the requirements of both organisations and individuals. Language policies can be informed by effective language practices. Tools for assessment The project provides indicators for assessment, comparison, and monitoring, as well as a methodology for deriving additional indicators. It also offers a toolkit for the efficient and fair management of multilingualism in a number of different settings. Furthermore, it generates a tangible basis for developing a strong and coherent field of scientific research on multilingualism that can help formulate new questions and create the conditions for answering them. New forms of partnership The project brings together researchers from different theoretical and epistemological traditions, in a new kind of partnership with society (in the sense of an “enacted science”) opening avenues for the involvement of partners in the actual research process, generating a pilot project for the human and social sciences. An integrative and flexible framework for analysis This framework operates from the standpoint of scientific research and the practical standpoint of economic, political and educational actors in selecting, formulating, implementing and evaluating language policies. It provides a conceptual, methodological basis for addressing future issues. Relationship between qualitative and quantitative tools Fine-grained observations of actors’ language practices, and how these practices mesh with representations, deliberate plans, and contextual elements, have also been related to well-established criteria of efficiency and fairness. This fine-grained analysis opens the way for better-targeted further research, including quantitative approaches. Instruments for answering the three DYLAN questions - and emerging questions Vous êtes-vous déjà demandé si communiquer d’une façon multilingue peut être plus efficace que communiquer dans une seule langue? postcard N° 34 dylan-project.org/ postcards/ 32 How are organisations, especially companies, European institutions and higher education, as well as individuals responding to the challenge of growing linguistic diversity in Europe? Manifold responses by organisations This variability can be observed for both private sector companies and public sector institutions; well beyond a simple dichotomy between mono- and multilingualism, they range from: » one language only (an “OLON” strategy); » one language at a time (“OLAT”); » many or potentially all languages at the same time (“ALAST”). Responses by individuals Actors use multilingual repertoires as a communicative resource in interaction and use multiple multilingual strategies in a systematically patterned way. They face a trade-off between two competing principles: » the “progressivity principle”; » the “intersubjectivity principle”. Both are necessary components of efficient communication. Answers to the three questions 1. In what way are “multilingual solutions” not just a response to a problem but also a genuine advantage for individuals and organisations? Cognitive asset The use of multilingual repertoires is a resource for the construction, transmission and use of knowledge: » by providing various kinds of access to information processing and helping actors retain and classify new information; » by changing our perception of processes and objects; » by deepening and “fine-tuning” conceptual understanding; » by revealing hidden or implicit meanings, and “unfamiliarising” supposedly familiar meanings; » by shedding new light on concepts approached from multiple angles; » by allowing for a closer look at words and a deeper reflection on the linguistic substance of concepts residing in the languages used. 2. 32 33 Under what conditions can multilingual responses actually be an advantage? Creativity of mixed teams Many of our interviewees concur that: “Dealing with a team that displays cognitive diversity and truly different ways of encoding and sensing has a direct correlation with the effectiveness of that team. This is the most concrete driver of creativity and innovation.” Strategic asset The use of multilingual repertoires: » affects the way in which participants organize their interaction; » influences the extent of their participation; » has an impact on the construction of leadership. The use of multilingual repertoires also has an impact on: » ways of negotiating, agreement and disagreement, the construction of expertise, problem-solving and decision-making. Ensuring coherence between conceptual dimensions The influence of language policy on practices largely depends on the kind of measures taken at various levels. If clashes arise between policies and practices, however, such tensions (or perhaps even conflicts) should not be seen as problems, but as areas in which policy interventions may be possible. Favourable participatory frameworks and kinds of language management are required. In classrooms and at work (in both private-sector companies and European institutions), a multilingual mode seems to be one of the pre-conditions for taking full advantage of multilingualism. But it must be encouraged by a policy of multilingualism and linked to an appropriate participatory framework. Striking a balance between different ways of handling multilingual communication This implies a new partnership between different strategies, among them the use of a lingua franca and the use of multilingual repertoires, in order to resolve complex and paradoxical situations. A functional conception of multilingualism Multilingualism can be defined as the ability to interact, even imperfectly, in several languages in everyday settings. A multilingual repertoire can be used as a set of “resources” — both verbal and non-verbal — that are jointly mobilized by the actors in order to find local solutions to practical problems. Multilingualism can be approached as a “do-it-yourself ” toolbox. A “multilanguaging” philosophy If one admits that part of the “multilingual asset” is linked to the “multilanguaging” philosophy, then the analysis (and in some cases the questioning) of “common-sense theories” emerging from widely held opinions may be a key condition for the promotion of multilingualism. 3. 55Epilogue 34 Language dynamics are caught between two contradictor y forces: on the one hand, progressivity and efficiency, related to immediacy, economy and simplicity and, on the other hand, inter-subjectivity and fairness, related to participation, collaboration and the decoding of complexity. Both of them are necessar y components of efficient communication. DYLAN proposes to handle them in a perspective of complementarity and synergy, as a kind of key for a new partnership between lingua francas and multilingualism, in order to achieve a new management of unity in diversity. 34 35 Written by Anne-Claude BERTHOUD UNIL François GRIN UNIGE Georges LÜDI UNIBAS on behalf of the DYLAN consor tium and in collaboration with Kevin Cook (language editing & translation) Designed by Filippo Gander SCIPROM Anne-Claude BERTHOUD Laurent GAJO Stéphane BOREL Xavier GRADOUX Anne GROBET Jérôme JACQUIN Gabriele MÜLLER Jeanne PANTET Cecilia SERRA Gabriela STEFFEN UNIVERSITÉS DE LAUSANNE ET GENÈVE Kirsten LEUFGEN Filippo GANDER Véronique GOBRY Dominique STÜCKER Peter ULRICH SCIPROM SÀRL Georges LÜDI Lukas BARTH Moira GAMMA Carmela GARIFOLI Linda GRIMM-PFEFFERLI Katharina HÖCHLE Fee Steinbach KOHLER Patchareerat YANAPRASART UNIVERSITÄT BASEL François GRIN Till BURCKHARDT Klea FANIKO Michele GAZZOLA UNIVERSITÉ DE GENÈVE Lorenza MONDADA Vassiliki MARKAKI Sara MERLINO Florence OLOFF Véronique TRAVERSO CNRS - UNIVERSITÉ DE LYON 2 Ulrich AMMON Jan KRUSE Michael SCHLOSSMACHER Verena WIMMERS UNIVERSITÄT DUISBURG-ESSEN Luci NUSSBAUM Eulàlia BORRÀS Laia CANALS Eva CODÓ Víctor CORONA Melinda DOOLY Dolors MASATS Emilee MOORE Adriana PATIÑO-SANTOS Virgínia UNAMUNO UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA Matthias HÜNING Olivier MOLINER Ulrike VOGL FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN Douglas CHALMERS Lindsay MILLIGAN Hugh O’DONNELL GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY Patrick RENAUD Luca GRECO Roxana TAQUECHEL UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 3 Sharon MILLAR Sylvie CIFUENTES Mikkel FLYVERBOM Astrid JENSEN SYDDANSK UNIVERSITET Stefan OLTEAN Diana COTRAU Delia MARGA Manuela MIHAESCU Noémi GÀL Liana POP Paul SORIN TITA Ioana VELICA UNIVERSITATEA BABES-BOLYAI Arlette BOTHOREL-WITZ Thirésia CHOREMI Dominique HUCK Claude TRUCHOT Irini TSAMADOU-JACOBERGER UNIVERSITÉ DE STRASBOURG Daniela VERONESI Rita FRANCESCHINI Lorenzo SPREAFICO Cecilia VARCASIA Alessandro VIETTI LIBERA UNIVERSITÀ DI BOLZANO FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BOZEN Marko STABEJ Jordi MAGRINYÀ I DOMINGO Mojca STRITAR UNIVERZA V LJUBLJANI Barbara SEIDLHOFER Heike BÖHRINGER Cornelia HÜLMBAUER UNIVERSITÄT WIEN Piet VAN DE CRAEN Laure ALLAIN Evy CEULEERS Eva MIGOM Jill SURMONT Lilith VAN BIESEN VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL Manuel Celio CONCEIÇÃO Alexandre DUCHÊNE Saara HAAPAMÄKI Stefania MARZO Claude SPRINGER DYLAN ASSOCIATED MEMBERS Tom MORING Sebastian GODENHJELM Jan LINDSTRÖM Jan-Ola ÖSTMAN Mirja SAARI Jenny SYLVIN HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI The DYLAN Project Members and Research Teams Ruth WODAK Bernhard FORCHTNER Michał KRZYŻANOWSKI LANCASTER UNIVERSITY Wolfgang MACKIEWICZ Eric FROMENT Noël MUYLLE Srikant SARANGI PROJECT ADVISORY BOARD DYLAN receives funding from the European Commission as an Integrated Project under Framework Programme 6. Coordination: Anne-Claude Berthoud, Université de Lausanne, Switzerland info@dylan-project.org © DYLAN Project, 2011. w w w. d y l a n - p r o j e c t . o r g