Drama in the Margins?
The Common
European Framework of Reference and its Implications for Drama Pedagogy in the
Foreign Language Classroom
This
article examines possible implications of the Common European Framework of
Reference (CEF) for the fields of language learning and teaching, focusing on
the potential role of drama pedagogy. The introductory part focuses on the role
of drama pedagogy in language teaching, followed by a brief outline of the main
objectives of the CEF and the standards it sets for language learning. The
following section discusses some of the underlying assumptions of the CEF
regarding language learning and teaching. I argue that the predominant focus in
the CEF on pragmatic and strategic components of language learning and its
‘output-orientedness’ may pose a problem for language educators who conceive of
language learning as a personal experience which cannot adequately be
conceptualised in terms of scaled competences and strategic behaviours, and
which may often lead to rather unforeseeable results. Subsequently, I discuss
potential impacts of the CEF on the role of drama pedagogy in the foreign
language classroom. Since the use of drama techniques may be considerably
reduced and marginalised within a framework of standardised objectives and descriptors
of language competences, I conclude that it is paramount for language educators
to take subjective and aesthetic dimensions of language learning seriously.
They should therefore be given a major role in the language classroom, and not
consigned to the margins.
0. Introduction
Drama
pedagogy has been increasingly influential in foreign language education in
recent years. Although it is anything but a pedagogic novelty, its importance
in foreign language education has considerably grown within the past two
decades. In the field of German as a Foreign Language, for example, the use of
drama is no longer seen as an extracurricular alternative method only, but many
scholars promote drama as an integral part of language classrooms (e.g. Even
2003; Huber 2003; Schewe 1993; Schlemminger et al. 2000). According to such
views, language learning cannot adequately be conceptualised as a process of
accumulating ‘linguistic formulae’ (i.e. grammar and vocabulary which may
eventually lead to native-like performance), but it should more appropriately
be conceptualised as a very personal process that involves aesthetic, emotional
and intercultural dimensions and that ought to be considered an
identity-related phenomenon (Schwerdtfeger 2000). Hence, there have emerged many
critical views of traditional communicative language classrooms, since the
latter often appear to be based mainly on the assumption that language is a
“fixed system of formal structures and universal speech functions, a neutral
conduit for the transmission of cultural knowledge” (Kramsch 1996: 6).
Taking
a more comprehensive view of language and language learning as a starting point
that acknowledges the fact that language learning is neither a linear process
of knowledge accumulation nor a matter of merely acquiring an additional
linguistic system therefore calls for different teaching methods as well. Drama
pedagogy can in many respects help students to experience language use and
language learning as very personal processes which call traditional boundaries
of self and other into question and which may thus often lead to a heightened
sensitivity and reflexivity of language, cultures, and selves. One important
reason for this is the fact that “drama improves role taking, which is
comprehending and correctly inferring attributes of another person. These
inferences, which include another’s thinking, attitudes, and emotions, are a
function of cognitive perception […]. Growth in cognition is dependent on
growth in role taking” (Wagner 2002: 6).
However,
although drama is thus gaining increasing recognition in the fields of language
learning and teaching, one can hardly ignore the fact that there are other,
more powerful discourses in the current ‘globalised’ world of language learning
that are quite different in focus. In what follows, I will consider the “Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages” published by the Council of
Europe, which aims at setting standards for European language programmes. Which
views of language and language learning does it provide, what role do
intercultural and aesthetic dimensions of language and language learning play
in this document, and to what extent does it help promote drama pedagogy?
1. Aims and objectives of the Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages
Facilitating
communication across national boundaries is one of the most important aims of
the EU. Developing a common European basis for the field of language learning
has therefore been a central aim of the Council of Europe for the past decades.
One of the most important results is now available: The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment (CEF). Published in 2001, it immediately became one of
the most important documents in the fields of language learning and teaching in
Europe. Its basic aims and objectives are stated in the opening paragraphs:
The Common
European Framework provides a common basis for the elaboration of language
syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, textbooks, etc. across Europe.
It describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do
in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they
have to develop so as to be able to act effectively (…). The provision of
objective criteria for describing language proficiency will facilitate the
mutual recognition of qualifications gained in different learning contexts, and
accordingly will aid European mobility. (Council of Europe 2001: 1)
These
lines clearly reflect the political dimension of the CEF: it seeks to help
overcome barriers all too familiar to everybody involved in international
exchange programmes. Most certainly, any attempt to facilitate mutual
recognition of qualifications in the field of languages is well worth an
effort. Yet, trying to find a common ground for a complex field such as
language competences that is potentially acceptable to all parties involved in
Europe is likely to turn out to be quite a difficult, if not an impossible
endeavour. This may be the reason why the authors of the CEF mention the
“objective”, hence “neutral” criteria they have developed in order to describe
language proficiency: they seek to offer criteria that do not clash with
subjective, political, cultural or ideological views of the various EU-members
(curriculum designers, language teachers, textbook authors, etc.).
The
fundamental aim of the CEF, as suggested in the passage quoted above, is
therefore not to provide materials or methods to be chosen in European language
programmes, but to conceptualize learning objectives that may serve as a common
framework of reference for language teaching, learning and assessment in
Europe. To that end, it sets out to establish a descriptive scheme of
competences and proficiency levels that help identify learners’ progress:
A Basic User |
B Independent User
|
C Proficient User |
|||
A1
Breakthrough |
A2
Waystage |
B1
Threshold |
B2
Vantage |
C1
Effective Operational Proficiency |
C2
Mastery |
Figure 1:
Common reference levels (Council of Europe 2001: 23)
The
three levels A, B and C correspond to basic, intermediate and advanced levels,
while their breakdown into six different levels of competence results in the
following general scale:
Proficient User |
C2 |
Can
understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise
information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing
arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself
spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of
meaning even in more complex situations. |
C1 |
Can
understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit
meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much
obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively
for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear,
well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of
organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices. |
|
Independent User |
B2 |
Can
understand the main idea of complex text on both concrete and abstract
topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation.
Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular
interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either
party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and
explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and
disadvantages of various options. |
B1 |
Can
understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters
regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most
situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is
spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of
personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and
ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. |
|
Basic User |
A2 |
Can
understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most
immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information,
shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine
tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and
routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background,
immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need. |
A1 |
Can
understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed
at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and
others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where
he/she lives, people he/she knows, and things he/she has. Can interact in a
simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared
to help. |
Table 1: General
scale (Council of Europe 2001: 24)
These
overall descriptions are broken down into a broad range of additional scales to
conceptualize different language competences as precisely as possible. The CEF
offers various scales that describe the six levels of proficiency in particular
areas of language learning, pertaining both to language skills and to strategic
competences. In total, the CEF comprises 55 scales, ranging from oral
production (plus subscales), written production (plus subscales), production
strategies (several scales), overall listening comprehension (plus subscales),
overall reading comprehension (plus subscales), watching TV and film, reception
strategies (several scales), overall spoken interaction (plus subscales),
overall written interaction (plus subscales), interaction strategies (several
scales), note-taking, processing text, etc.
Thus,
the Framework offers quite a tight net of descriptions of language competences
(can-do descriptors) in a remarkably detailed way. It clearly sets the stage
for a new era of standardisation with respect to language learning achievement.
For
teachers, learners, textbook authors, curriculum designers, etc. it may provide
a basis to spell out particular aims and objectives of a language course as
clearly as possible, allowing them to differentiate between several domains
(i.e. language for the workplace, language for personal domains, education
etc.) or between different areas of specialization (i.e. spoken rather than
written discourse, etc.)[1]. Consequently, the CEF may help
learners (and others) to spell out learning objectives and to describe
individual proficiency profiles quite precisely.
These
profiles, however, will reflect learners’ proficiency only with respect to the competences mentioned in the scales
provided in the CEF. That is why it is crucial to take a closer look at the
views of language and language learning underlying the Framework.
2. Language learning objectives and their underlying
assumptions about language learning
The
view of language learning which the CEF is based on is revealed in the opening
chapter:
Language
use, embracing language learning, comprises the actions performed by persons
who as individuals and as social agents develop a range of competences, both general
and in particular communicative language
competences. They draw on the competences at their disposal in various
contexts under various conditions
and under various constraints to
engage in language activities
involving language processes to produce and/or receive texts in relation to themes
in specific domains, activating
those strategies which seem most
appropriate for carrying out the tasks
to be accomplished. The monitoring of these actions by the participants leads
to the reinforcement or modification of their competences (Council of Europe
2001: 9; original emphasis).
Evidently,
language is conceptualised with respect to its social functions, hence learning
processes are assumed to be based on general competences and communicative
language competences. The theoretical framework adopted clearly draws on
pragmatic and communicative approaches to language learning and use. The
mentioning of “language activities”, “strategies” and “tasks” further clarifies
the authors’ view of language learning and teaching, as the CEF clearly
subscribes to task-based approaches[2].
Nevertheless,
the authors of the CEF insist that the framework is not intended to be
normative or even suggestive regarding theoretical conceptions of
learning/acquisition processes and teaching methodology.
The role of
the framework in respect of language acquisition, learning and teaching must
however be made clear once more. In accordance with the basic principles of
pluralist democracy, the Framework aims to be not only comprehensive,
transparent and coherent, but also open, dynamic and non-dogmatic. For that
reason it cannot take up a position on one side or another of current
theoretical disputes on the nature of language acquisition and its relation to
language learning, nor should it embody any one particular approach to language
teaching to the exclusion of all others. Its proper role is to encourage all
those involved as partners to the language learning/teaching process to state
as explicitly and transparently as possible their own theoretical basis and
their practical procedures (Council of Europe 2001: 18).
Clearly,
the authors want to avoid getting involved in current disputes about the
psychological, social and cultural aspects of language learning. Whilst this
‘neutral’ stance allows them to escape controversial arguments on the nature of
language learning, it also causes them to remain very vague on methodological
aspects of language learning and teaching:
In general,
how are learners expected to learn a second or foreign language (L2)? Is it in
one or more of the following ways?
a)
by
direct exposure to authentic use of language in L2 (…)
b)
by
direct exposure to specially selected (…) spoken utterances and written texts
in L2 (‘intelligible input’)
c)
by
direct participation in authentic communicative interaction in L2 (…)
d)
by
direct participation in specially devised and constructed tasks in L2
(‘comprehensible output’)
e)
autodidactically,
by (guided) self-study (…)
f)
by
a combination of presentations, explanations, (drill) exercises and
exploitation activities, but with L1 as the language of classroom management,
explanation, etc.
g)
by
a combination of activities as in f), but using L2 only for all classroom
purposes
h)
by
some combination of the above activities (…)
i)
by
combining the above with group and individual planning (…)
Users of the
framework may wish to consider and state which approaches, in general, they
follow, whether one of the above, or some other (Council of Europe 2001: 143).
This
list is arguably very ‘neutral’. Many of the suggestions listed have repeatedly
proven to be less successful than others, a fact that is glossed over due to
their presentation in a multiple-choice manner, suggesting that these
methodological options are equally useful and effective. The options listed may
therefore serve to rehabilitate rather traditional concepts of classroom
language learning (Quetz 2001). Hence, although the options may appear to
reflect a “pluralist democracy” with respect to teaching methods, their
equality could be seriously questioned on the basis of research into language
learning and teaching methodology.
3. Potential impact of the CEF on language learning and
teaching
While
it would undoubtedly be helpful to have a common European framework for
languages, the actual set-up and implementation of such a document is
inherently problematic. Not only is it likely not to be neutral enough to
satisfy various European teachers, learners, textbook authors, curriculum
planners, researchers etc., but such a framework will also be an immensely
powerful instrument that may have a profound influence on language policies and
programmes throughout Europe (and beyond). Thus, there are several questions
arising from the CEF that need further discussion with respect to their
potential impact on language learning and teaching[3], three of which I will briefly
discuss in the following because of their immediate relevance to drama
pedagogy.
3.1 Objectivity of objective criteria
The
scales and descriptors reflect a view of communication and language
learning/language use that is severely limited. Language is assumed to be a
more or less neutral means of communication (for a more detailed account of
this point see, for example, Barkowski 2003; Schwerdtfeger 2003). The
intercultural domain is left out at the level of descriptions (and, hence, at
the level of concrete language learning objectives and competences to be
derived from the CEF). Evidently, the concept of language proficiency
underlying the CEF is that of an entity which can be broken down into
measurable units.
This
point will have implications for drama pedagogy as well as for comprehensive
language/culture/literature programmes in general, since affective, aesthetic,
intentional, intercultural, etc. dimensions of language, communication and
language learning are largely ignored. This may be related to the view of
communicative competences as based on “objective” criteria underlying the CEF.
It is hard to imagine that one could and should develop a scale on, say
‘empathy’, ‘role-taking’ or ‘stereotype alertness’, etc. What could a can-do
descriptor of empathy at the A1-level look like? Or how could one formulate a
descriptor of ‘stereotype-alertness’ at the level B2, or a descriptor of
‘role-taking’ at A2, etc.? Obviously, the “objective” criteria of the framework
do not allow for an inclusion of cultural, aesthetic, emotional or critical
aspects, which is itself an indicator that what appears to be neutral may be
less so. As soon as one takes a closer look at what is included and what is
excluded from the CEF, the asserted objectivity can be seriously questioned.
3.2 The tension between descriptive and normative
dimensions of the CEF
Another important point to be considered is a problem I will call the normativity-problem. Although the Framework offers can-do descriptors, the descriptors in question and their underlying concepts of language learning are inherently normative. It is tempting to re-interpret can-do descriptors in terms of learning objectives, hence ‘can-do-norms’[4]. Once the descriptors have turned into language learning objectives or standards, however, they are likely to dominate language classes in ways that its authors may not have intended. This point is particularly important with respect to drama pedagogy, intercultural learning or critical reflexivity[5], for these dimensions may be entirely neglected in language courses and curricula that are based on the CEF and that are designed to make learners reach the competences required at a certain level. The normativity-problem, therefore, may result in considerable reductions of language curricula, which – alongside the fact that the authors of the CEF remain silent on teaching methodology – may lead to a serious pedagogical backlash, both in terms of methodological diversity and in the contents of language programmes. This, in turn, is likely to have serious implications for the use (or lack of use) of drama in language education. Drama pedagogy may therefore be consigned to the margins.
3.3 Instrumental view of language, communication and
language learning
The
focus on learning objectives leads to strongly output-oriented, instrumental
views of communication, language and language learning through interaction. As
the underlying concept of communication is based on strategic behaviour,
important dimensions of communicative events are left out. As Lothar Bredella
(2003: 45ff) has pointed out, communication with persons requires at least an
interest in the other person’s view and her or his interests, intentions,
feelings, etc., while the view of communication as outlined in the CEF is
purely instrumentalist, reducing communicative behaviour to strategic actions.
It is indeed very telling that the example chosen to illustrate communicative
learning tasks and strategies in the CEF is ‘moving a wardrobe’:
The overall
approach outlined above is distinctly action-oriented. It is centred on the
relationship between, on the one hand, the agents’ use of strategies linked to
their competences and how they perceive or imagine the situation to be and on
the other, the task or tasks to be accomplished in a specific context under
particular conditions. Thus someone who has to move a wardrobe (task) may try
to push it, take it to pieces so as to carry it more easily and then reassemble
it, call on outside labour or give up and convince himself or herself that it
can wait till tomorrow, etc. (all strategies). (Council of Europe 2001: 15)
Apart
from the fact that the ‘moving-wardrobes-strategies’ mentioned can barely be
considered communicative, the example itself uncovers a thoroughly instrumental
and one-dimensional nature of language and communication underlying the CEF.
4. The role of drama pedagogy
Let
us finally turn to the role of drama pedagogy as outlined in – or rather as
implied by – the CEF. As indicated in the previous sections, the CEF does not
particularly focus on language learning as a personal and emotional,
identity-related intercultural experience that may enable persons to discover
new and alternative perspectives, new senses of self, etc. The CEF is strongly
directed towards language learning ‘output’, i.e. competences, whilst it does
not offer concomitant reflection on processes and appropriate teaching methods,
i.e. how to help students achieve the objectives set – apart from the repeated
explanation that such processes are strategy-induced. Since elements of drama
in language education as outlined by many authors (see, for example, the
articles of Blankemeyer; Even; Huber in this issue) and their potential aid in
language learning processes cannot be conceptualised in terms of strategic
behaviour, drama elements appear to be barely compatible with the CEF.
The
fact that drama often brings about rather surprising results is thoroughly at
odds with any approach to language learning that is predominantly output-oriented.
In fact, it would be utterly ironic if a language teacher were to embark on
spontaneous improvisation projects in class, whilst having in mind that by the
end of the lesson or the sequence, students will be able to e.g. “use simple
everyday forms of greeting and address” etc. (A2 in conversation). It is
precisely the open-endedness and non-predictability of processes and
experiences which characterise ‘dramatic language classrooms’. Determining
‘communicative outcomes’ and operationalising aims and objectives first,
however, is likely to result in a potentially ‘undramatic language classroom’.
In
the light of these thoughts, however, it is remarkable that the CEF does
include a brief section dealing with “aesthetic uses of language”, and even
though this passage is not referred to in the heart of the CEF, the
competence-scales, it is noteworthy that the authors have indeed included it in
the chapter on “Communicative tasks and purposes”:
Aesthetic
uses of language
Imaginative
and artistic uses of language are important both educationally and in their own
right. Aesthetic activities may be productive, receptive, interactive or
mediating (…), and may be oral or written. They include such activities as:
·
Singing
(nursery rhymes, folk songs, pop songs, etc.)
·
Retelling
and rewriting stories, etc.
·
Listening
to, reading, writing and speaking imaginative texts (stories, rhymes, etc.)
including audio-visual texts, cartoons, picture stories, etc.
·
Performing
scripted or unscripted plays, etc.
·
The
production, reception and performance of literary texts, e.g.: reading and
writing texts (short stories, novels, poetry, etc.) and performing and
watching/listening to recitals, drama, opera, etc. (Council of Europe 2001: 56)
Although
this passage may assign drama pedagogy an implicit role in language learning
programmes, the passage remains rather cloudy. Given the fact that this is the
only section in the CEF that deals with aesthetic uses of language (which
could, of course, only be the beginning of a reflection on the potential role
of aesthetics in language learning), its significance is obvious, for it is
rather short and very general. With respect to drama pedagogy, it is impossible
to generate arguments from the CEF that would help us promote the use of drama
in the language classroom. Drama is mentioned only with respect to potential
literary classics to be read in class – which may be performed as well. In
addition to this, the passage suggests performing scripted and unscripted
plays. No mention is made of possible contexts into which such activities could
be incorporated. Are such performed plays simply to be added to ‘ordinary’
language classes? Or are they to be integrated into literature classes? And if
so, why and how? Since the CEF does not include competence scales on e.g.
aesthetic dimensions of language, literature or culture, and since these
dimensions would, in any case, be thoroughly at odds with communicative
output-orientedness, the above section seems an isolated adjunct to the CEF – in
the margins.
It is
followed by a commentary that deserves further attention:
This summary
treatment of what has traditionally been a major, often dominant, aspect of
modern language studies in upper secondary and higher education may appear
dismissive. It is not intended to be so. National and regional literatures make
a major contribution to the European cultural heritage, which the Council of
Europe sees as ‘a more valuable common resource to be protected and developed’.
Literary studies serve many more educational purposes – intellectual, moral and
emotional, linguistic and cultural – than purely aesthetic. It is much to be
hoped that teachers of literature at all levels may find many sections of the
Framework relevant to their concerns and useful in making their aims and
methods more transparent.
Users of the
Framework may wish to consider and where appropriate state:
·
which
(…) aesthetic uses of language the learner will need/be required to make.
(Council of Europe 2001: 56)
In
this commentary, we are confronted with a very reduced view of aesthetics:
basically, aesthetic products are limited to literature, which in turn is
conceptualised as part of European cultural heritage. This view of literature
as something one has to preserve (cultural products as ‘high culture’) is
rather at odds with other potential roles aesthetic uses of language (including
literature) could play in language classrooms. For example, a view of
literature as something which triggers processes of identification, dialogue,
identity constructions, self-reflection etc. requires a much more detailed
reflection on language, language learning and its interrelatedness with
personal, social and cultural dimensions.
Apart
from that, the final sentence of the above passage, which is addressed to users
of the CEF, refers only to “which aesthetic uses of language learners will
need”. No other ‘pragmatic’ function of aesthetic uses of language in language
learning processes is mentioned. Yet a ‘learner-needs-analysis’ with respect to
the potential use of aesthetic language seems to me to be thoroughly
inappropriate. This phrasing suggests that dealing with aesthetic uses of
language is relevant only to those students who are going to be poets or
actors. Clearly, there is much more to think about when it comes to aesthetics
and language learning – both on the part of literature teachers and of language
teachers.
In
asserting that literature is indeed an important part of European cultural
heritage, the authors mainly seem to pay mere lip service to all those who
insist on integrating aesthetic dimensions (not to be limited to “literature”)
into modern language courses. The crucial question as to how and why ‘dealing
with literary texts and cultural heritage in general’ may be integrated into
European language learning contexts is not addressed.
5. Conclusion
In a
special issue on drama pedagogy in language education, it is particularly odd
to conclude that we have to face the fact that educational drama is not
mentioned in the most important document on European language policy. Moreover,
the CEF does not encourage teachers to use drama techniques, let alone drama
pedagogy, as a principle of language learning and teaching. In fact, the
instrumentalist view of language and language learning processes may prevent textbook
authors, curriculum designers, teachers, etc. from taking drama pedagogy more
seriously and seeking to integrate drama into language programmes and
materials. Hence, the CEF might encourage what Schewe (1993) has termed
“undramatic dialogues”, the kind of dialogue prevalent in many communicative
language classrooms, textbooks and other materials, often depicted as a
pseudo-communicative event in which ‘students talk a lot but have little to
say’.
Dramatic
dialogues, on the other hand, would be characteristic of a classroom which
allows students and teachers to interact in different ways. The potential roles
and positions available to learners and teachers can be considerably enhanced
in a drama classroom, a point that has repeatedly been made with respect to
drama and its role in developing communicative competence (Schewe 1993; Huber
2003), in intercultural awareness (Axtmann 2002; Fels & McGivern 2002) or
in critical pedagogy (Doyle 1994; Kao & O’Neill 1998).
The
CEF does not provide for a framework that helps strengthen personal, aesthetic,
interpersonal and intercultural dimensions as well as critical reflections on
these in language learning environments. As Wagner (2002: 5) reminds us:
When a
person learns another language, something is “undergone”. We “undergo” when we
allow our encounters to modify our established conceptions. When we undergo an
experience, we ultimately have to change ourselves and our way of looking at
the world. This is what true learning is – a modification of our very selves.
No instructional strategy is any more powerful than drama-based education for
creating situations in which students undergo an experience that has the
potential of modifying them as persons.
Similarly,
Schewe (2002: 89) argues that if students are to become “potential mediators
between cultures”, drama concepts of teaching and learning foreign languages
are essential: “Foreign- and second-language education, after all, consists of
more than learning how to speak, listen, read, and write”. Accordingly, he
suggests that “in Europe, […] language teaching and learning needs to be seen
within a broader context of an ‘Education for Citizenship’” – a central goal of
which is to use language in order to, in Wringe’s words, get “access to
knowledge at social, cultural, administrative and political levels and
participate actively in transnational concerns” (Wringe 1996: 77; cf. Schewe
2002: 89).
Reformulating
the aims of European language policy in this way would bring them closer to
what Kramsch (1998: 27) has termed the ideal of the “intercultural speaker”,
who is able to operate “on the border between several languages or language
varieties, manoeuvring his/her way through the troubled waters of
cross-cultural misunderstandings”.
To
that end, teachers, researchers, curriculum designers, etc. will have to
co-operate and develop scenarios and more comprehensive common frameworks so as
to pave the way for establishing alternative views of language learning, which
ought to be less ‘pragmatic’ and ‘instrumental’ but which may help learners to
become truly intercultural mediators.
Bibliography
Axtmann, Ann (2002):
“Transcultural Performance in Classroom Learning”, in: Bräuer, Gerd (ed.), pp.
37-49.
Barkowski, Hans (2003): „Skalierte Vagheit – der europäische
Referenzrahmen für Sprachen und sein Versuch, die sprachliche
Kommunikationskompetenz des Menschen für Anliegen des Fremdsprachenunterrichts
niveaugerecht zu portionieren“, in: Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (eds), pp.
22-27.
Bausch, Karl-Richard (2003):
„Der gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: Zustimmung – aber…!“,
in: Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (eds.), pp. 29-35.
Bausch, Karl-Richard; Christ,
Herbert; Königs, Frank; Krumm, Hans-Jürgen (eds.) (2003): Der Gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen in der
Diskussion. Arbeitspapiere der 22. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des
Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Blankemeyer, Marie-Louise
(this issue): “Drama and Authentic Movement as Intercultural Communication
Skill”.
Bräuer, Gerd (ed.) (2002): Body and Language. Intercultural Learning
Through Drama (Advances in Foreign and Second Language Pedagogy, vol. 3),
Westport, CT/London: Ablex.
Bredella, Lothar (2003):
„Lesen und Interpretieren im ‘Gemeinsamen Europäischen Referenzrahmen für
Sprachen’: Die Missachtung allgemeiner Erziehungsziele“, in: Bausch,
Karl-Richard et al. (eds.), pp. 45-56.
Byram, Michael; Fleming,
Michael (eds.): (1998) Language Learning
in Intercultural Perspective. Approaches Through Drama and Ethnography.
Cambridge: CUP.
Council of Europe (2001): The Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Doyle, Clar (1993): Raising Curtains on Education. Drama as a
Site for Critical Pedagogy. Westport, CT/London: Ablex.
Even, Susanne (2003): Drama Grammatik. Dramapädagogische Ansätze
für den Unterricht Deutsch als Fremdsprache. München: iudicium.
Even, Susanne (this issue):
“Dramagrammar in Theory and Practice”.
Fels, Lynn; McGivern, Lynne
(2002): “Intercultural Recognitions Through Performative Inquiry”, in: Bräuer,
G. (ed.), pp. 19-35.
Huber, Ruth (2003): Im Haus der Sprache wohnen. Wahrnehmung und
Theater im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Huber, Ruth (this issue):
„Persönlichkeit als Ressource: Rollenaushandlung und Gruppendynamik in
theaterpädagogischen Prozessen“.
Kao, Shin-Mei; O’Neill, Cecily
(1998): Words Into Worlds: Learning a
Second Language Through Process Drama. Stamford, CN/London: Ablex.
Kirchner, Hildegard (2002):
„Umsetzung der Eurodidaktik des Gemeinsamen Europäischen Referenzrahmens in den
Sprachkursen der Goethe-Institute in Deutschland“. GFL 3, pp.77-90.
Kramsch, Claire (1996): “The
Cultural Component of Language Teaching”. Zeitschrift
für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht [Online], 1(2), 13 pp. http://www.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/projekt_ejournal/jg_01_2/beitrag/kramsch2.htm
Kramsch, Claire (1998): “The
priviledge of the intercultural speaker”, in: Byram, Michael; Fleming, Michael
(eds.), pp. 16-31.
Quetz, Jürgen (2001): „Der
Gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen“. Info
DaF 6, pp. 553-563.
Schewe, Manfred L. (1993): Fremdsprache inszenieren. Zur Fundierung
einer dramapädagogischen Lehr- und Lernpraxis. Oldenburg: Zentrum für
pädagogische Berufspraxis der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg.
Schewe, Manfred L. (2002):
“Teaching Foreign Language Literature: Tapping the Students’ Bodily-Kinesthetic
Intelligence”, in: Bräuer, G. (ed.), pp. 73-93.
Schlemminger, Gerald; Brysch,
Thomas; Schewe, Manfred L. (eds.) (2000): Pädagogische
Konzepte für einen ganzheitlichen DaF-Unterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen.
Schwerdtfeger, Inge C. (2000):
„Anthropologisch-narrative Didaktik des fremdsprachlichen Lernens“. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 29, pp.
106-123.
Schwerdtfeger, Inge C. (2003):
„Der europäische Referenzrahmen – oder: Das Ende der Erforschung des
Sprachenlernens?“, in: Bausch, Karl-Richard et al. (eds.), pp. 173-179.
Wagner, Bette Jane (2002):
“Understanding Drama-Based Education”, in: Bräuer, G. (ed.), pp. 3-18.
Wringe, Colin (1996): “The
role of foreign language learning in education for European citizenship”. Evaluation in Research in Education 10
(2/3), pp. 68-77.
Biodata
Dr
Barbara Schmenk is a lecturer of German as a Foreign Language/Applied
Linguistics at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Seminar für Sprachlehrforschung.
Formerly, she was a DAAD lecturer for German language, literature and culture
at Trinity College Dublin. Her research interests include gender and language
learning, intercultural learning and learner autonomy.
[1] Additionally, it may in many respects offer learners a basis for differentiated self-assessment, since the tables and scales can serve as self-assessment grids (e.g. Council of Europe 2001: 26f). Self-assessment is one important objective of the European Language Portfolio (ibid. 20), enabling learners to get quite a detailed picture of their language competences and, consequently, to learn more about what they can do in a second or foreign language (as opposed to the type of assessment they are often accustomed to: a summary of what they lack and cannot do). For example, they may be at level C1 in understanding conversation between native speakers, B2 in listening as a member of a live audience, C1 in listening to announcements and instructions, B1 in reading instructions, B1 in reading for information and argument and so forth.
[2] The following passage explains this in more detail: “Communication and learning involve the performance of tasks which are not solely language tasks even though they involve language activities and make demands upon the individual’s communicative competence. To the extent that these tasks are neither routine nor automatic, they require the use of strategies in communicating and learning. In so far as carrying out these tasks involves language activities, they necessitate the processing (through reception, production, interaction or mediation) of oral or written texts” (Council of Europe 2001: 15; original emphasis).
[3] For a very controversial discussion of the Common European Framework see also the volume edited by Bausch et al. (2003), a collection of papers on the CEF and its potential implications for institutionalised language learning by German foreign language researchers.
[4] This is what is currently happening in many language learning and teaching contexts: textbooks for German as a foreign language, for example, have rapidly redesigned their covers and added a few passages which identify the level of competence that learners will achieve when using a particular textbook. The levels themselves, therefore, remain global, e.g. textbook x announces that it will lead to level B1, without any differentiation between different areas of learning, skills and potential sub-competences (Bausch 2003). This indicates that the can-do descriptors seem to have triggered the belief that the Framework sets standards for language learning that have to be achieved within a language course. As a result, the descriptors serve as norms against which language performance can be measured rather than as helpful descriptions of what a learner can already do in a second or foreign language (for an example of immediate implementation of the CEF to language programmes see also Kirchner 2002).
[5] Due to
space constraints, I have to limit the discussion to drama pedagogy. However,
apart from possible implications for drama pedagogy, this point would, of
course, be worth investigating with respect to other domains related to
language and culture in foreign language education as well.