Early childhood education and care in Luxembourg. Attendance and associations with early learning performance.

Report (2023)

Luxembourg’s student population is highly diverse in terms of language and family background and shows disparities in learning performances as early as first grade (Cycle 2.1). Achievement gaps might be ... [more ▼]

Luxembourg’s student population is highly diverse in terms of language and family background and shows disparities in learning performances as early as first grade (Cycle 2.1). Achievement gaps might be increased by the high language demands in the traditional Luxembourgish school system. Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) including for instance crèche, précoce and Cycle 1, is one of the possible mechanisms to reduce these gaps that is currently discussed by researchers, policy makers, and the broad public. A lot of international literature points towards a positive association of ECEC and child development. However, findings vary widely with characteristics of ECEC, as well as characteristics of children and their families. For this report, we used data from the Luxembourg School Monitoring Programme “ÉpStan” from 2015 to 2021 including students’ learning performances in three domains in Cycle 2.1 – Luxembourgish listening comprehension, early literacy, mathematics – as well as student and parent questionnaire data. Additionally, data from ÉpStan 2022 on German and Luxembourgish listening comprehension and students’ language exposure at home are presented. Who attends which type of ECEC in Luxembourg? We find that the attendance in ECEC is generally high. On average, crèches were attended at a moderate level of intensity and duration. Family background (socioeconomic status, migration background and home language group) interacts in a complex way with attendance in ECEC. For example, children from families with a high socioeconomic status speaking Portuguese or French at home, attended crèche for more hours a week than children from families with a high socioeconomic status speaking Luxembourgish at home. In regard to language exposure in ECEC, Luxembourgish appears to play a dominant role for most children. How are ECEC attendance and family background associated with learning performance in Cycle 2.1? Most importantly, non-formal (crèche) and formal types of ECEC (précoce, Cycle 1) have positive but small to moderate associations with learning performance in the three learning domains. Looking at crèche attendance in more detail, effects of crèche intensities are different for Portuguese speaking and Luxembourgish speaking children – i.e., only Portuguese speaking children benefit from higher intensity attendance in crèche. As can be expected, all children benefit most in their Luxembourgish listening comprehension if they attended a crèche in which Luxembourgish was spoken. Well-known performance disparities in the three learning domains between children of different backgrounds have been confirmed – with advantages for native, Luxembourgish speaking children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Is the pattern of differences between children of different home language groups the same in Luxembourgish and German listening comprehension? Children’s performances in German listening comprehension show even larger disparities between home language groups than those in Luxembourgish listening comprehension. This argues against the assumption of a transfer from Luxembourgish to German language skills for all children. Conclusively, this report points towards ECEC as a key adjustable parameter to improve learning development and concludes with the call to collect data on ECEC quality. Structural (e.g., child-caregiver-ratio) and procedural (e.g., characteristics of interaction) aspects of quality should be regulated and systematically evaluated to ensure positive child development and equal opportunities for every child. With more monitoring data on diverse quality aspects and language practices in ECEC, important insights on the effects of new reforms in the educational system could be gained. Additionally, the present results reveal a significant negative relationship between children’s learning performance and a previous allongement de cycle in Cycle 1, calling for a thorough revision of this frequently used procedure. Finally, the continuity between languages in ECEC and the successive schooling is important. This alignment is currently not ensured due to more flexible language policies in ECEC and more rigid language practices in formal schooling. For example, the plurilingual education in ECEC promoting Luxembourgish and French, could build a solid basis for a French literacy acquisition, yet explicit promotion of the current instruction language of reading and writing acquisition, German, in Cycle 2 is still missing. A crucial demand therefore arises to revise the language demands in the curricula and policies – to continuously support ECEC’s plurilingual education in formal schooling (e.g., European and international schools or French literacy acquisition) and to explicitly promote German in ECEC to build a solid basis for literacy acquisition in German. [less ▲]

Do learners need semantics to spell syntactic markers? Plural spellings in real vs. pseudowords in a French L2 setting

in Reading and Writing (2023)

Inaudible syntactic markers are especially difcult to spell. This paper examines how 455 fourth graders spell silent French plural markers in a dictation with real and pseudowords after one year of formal ... [more ▼]

Inaudible syntactic markers are especially difcult to spell. This paper examines how 455 fourth graders spell silent French plural markers in a dictation with real and pseudowords after one year of formal French instruction (L2). The Generalized Linear Mixed Model analysis shows frst that noun plural spelling (real and pseudo) is a strong predictor for verb and adjective plural spelling. Second, the performance on real verb plural is higher than the performance on real adjective plural. In con‑ trast, the performance on pseudoadjective plural is higher than on pseudoverb plural. Our fndings indicate the strong infuence of semantics and frequency in instruction input on plural spelling: noun plural is semantically grounded, and nouns are most frequent in the curriculum. Verbs and verb plural are also frequent, and infection is mostly taught by means of memorizing the verb infection paradigm. Adjectives are taught least frequently. The fndings are discussed in the context of French L2 instruction, as the extremely low results on adjectives and pseudoverbs seem to be a consequence of instruction methods. [less ▲]

Spelling patterns of plural marking and learning trajectories in French taught as a foreign language

in Written Language and Literacy (2021), 24(1), 81-110

Although French plural spelling has been studied extensively, the complexity of factors affecting the learning of French plural spelling are not yet fully explained, namely on the level of adjectival and ... [more ▼]

Although French plural spelling has been studied extensively, the complexity of factors affecting the learning of French plural spelling are not yet fully explained, namely on the level of adjectival and verbal plural. This study investigates spelling profiles of French plural markers of 228 multilingual grade 5 pupils with French taught as a foreign language. Three analyses on the learner performances of plural spelling in nouns, verbs and pre- and postnominal attributive adjectives were conducted (1) to detect the pupils’ spelling profiles of plural marking on the basis of the performances in the pretest, (2) to test the profiles against two psycholinguistic theories, and (3) to evaluate the impact of the training on each spelling profile in the posttest. The first analysis confirms the existing literature that pupils’ learning of French plural is not random but ordered and emphasizes the role of the position for adjectives (pre- or postnominal) on correct plural spelling. The second analysis reveals the theoretical difficulties of predicting spelling of adjectival and verbal plural. The third analysis shows that strong and poor spellers both benefit from a morphosyntactic training and provides transparency and traceability of the learning trajectories. Together, the descriptive analyses reveal clear patterns of intra-individual spelling profiles. They point to a need for further research in those areas that have empirically provided the most inconsistent results to date and that are not supported by the theories: verbs and adjectives. [less ▲]

Schreiben mit Legos. Die Bausteine Grammatik für das Untersuchen von Sätzen im Luxemburgischen, Deutschen und Französischen.

Report (2021)

Grammatische Strukturen im mehrsprachigen Kontext sichtbar und begreifbar machen: Vorstellung des grammatikdidaktischen Materials Bausteng Grammatik – Bausteine Grammatik

in Langlotz, Miriam (Ed.) Grammatikdidaktik – theoretische und empirische Zugänge zu sprachlicher Heterogenität (2020)

Distinguishing Syntactic Markers From Morphological Markers. A Cross-Linguistic Comparison

in Frontiers in Psychology (2020), 11(2082),

This brief review summarizes findings about syntactic markers, i.e., graphemic elements that indicate syntactic relations, such as inflection morphemes. Current spelling models subsume inflection with ... [more ▼]

This brief review summarizes findings about syntactic markers, i.e., graphemic elements that indicate syntactic relations, such as inflection morphemes. Current spelling models subsume inflection with derivation and stem alternations under “morphological spellings.” They hence consider inflection only in relation to the orthographic word. This paper argues that syntactic markers are a specific category as they are part of the orthographic word but also systematically tied to the presence of syntactic features above the word level. Syntactic spelling refers thus not only to the correct spelling of a syntactic marker but to its correct application within a given syntactical context. In syntactic reading, (proof)readers must notice the marker and interpret it correctly to understand the sentence. Syntactic spelling and reading have hence been found to be highly demanding in many languages. Syntactic information is not decisive for sentence understanding in many cases, since the information can be deduced from the context. In order to focus the definition of syntactic markers, this paper restricts them to those graphemic elements that convey syntactical but no lexical features and are further unrelated to phonology. The paper concludes that syntactic markers and spelling should be distinguished from morphological spelling. Examples are given for English, French, Dutch, and German. [less ▲]

Clara Mortamet (dir.), L’orthographe. Pratiques d’élèves, pratiques d’enseignants, représentations

Article for general public (2020)

compte rendu / report

Schon alles gesagt zur satzinternen Großschreibung? Perspektiven auf die aktuellen Diskussionen in der Sprachdidaktik

in Deutschunterricht (Der): Beiträge zu seiner Praxis und wissenschaftlichen Grundlegung (2020), 2020(2), 44-52

Literacies in contact: Forms, functions, and practices

in Written Language and Literacy (2020), 23(2), 133-153

Research on language contact has so far mainly focused on oral situations, although standardization and language ideologies always have an important influence on multilingualism in both its written and ... [more ▼]

Research on language contact has so far mainly focused on oral situations, although standardization and language ideologies always have an important influence on multilingualism in both its written and its spoken form. This raises the question of which theoretical models are most suitable for the description of written language contact. The present paper recalls linguistic investigations of written language. Some research on multilingual writing shares concepts with research on oral language contacts, always adapting them for writing. Other research develops new concepts for investigating multilingual writing. Within the framework of research on multilingualism, some concepts approach language contact as a question of systematic interactions between linguistic systems (e.g. borrowing, code-switching, graphe¬mat¬ic matrix, schriftdenken), other concepts envisage language contact as a multilingual practice (e.g. translanguaging, multimodal analysis, biliteracy). Written language contact is an especially fruitful field of study for pointing out major differences between these two research traditions and for bridging them. [less ▲]

Morphosyntactic spelling German and French as second (written) languages in the Luxembourgish context

Presentation (2019, April 05)