Content uploaded by Sandro Caruana
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sandro Caruana on May 15, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
63
IJCCSEC Volume 1, Issue 1, 2014
‘SUPERDIVERSE’ SCHOOL POPULATIONS
IN SOUTHERN EUROPE:
REFLECTIONS ON LANGUAGE USE AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR LEARNING STRATEGIES
Stefania Scaglione and Sandro Caruana1
Abstract: MERIDIUM is an EU-funded Lifelong Learning Project, which involved
primary schools in six countries in Southern Europe: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia and Malta. In this paper we present some results of this project, and we put
forward suggestions in order to adopt strategies in language teaching which may suit the
language use and needs of increasingly diverse students’ populations, favouring
interlinguistic and intercultural awareness. Such an issue is particularly relevant in
Southern Europe, where a “homoglottic habitus” often hinders educational systems from
building on the multi- and plurilingual potential of families and social contexts which
pupils live in.
Keywords: Migration; Primary schools; Language teaching; Interlinguistic
awareness; Multilingualism; Cultural diversity; Superdiversity; Intercultural awareness;
Plurilingual and intercultural education; Integration
1. Introduction
International migration towards Southern European countries has
undoubtedly led to major social changes in these contexts during the last decades,
due to its huge dimensions and considerable growth rate2. Furthermore, unlike
many States in North-Western Europe, Southern European countries have only
recently become an immigration destination. In fact, until the 1970s a number of
these States generally experienced significant mass migration to other European
countries or to other continents.
Due to such a sudden inversion of the migratory trend, as well as to the
ethnic, religious and cultural “super-diverse” features of immigrant communities
(Vertovec, 2007)3, in Southern European countries public discourse on
immigration is traditionally characterized by alarmist tones that amplify any
1 Università per Stranieri, Perugia, Italy and University of Malta
2 According to estimates by the United Nations Population Division (UNDP), over the last
two decades the percentage of the immigrant population in Southern European countries
has risen from 2.9% to 9.5%, compared to the current 10.8% in Northern Europe and 12.4%
in Western Europe.
3 Vertovec, Steven. “Super-diversity and its implications”. Ethnic and Racial Studies 29,
Issue 6, 2007: 1024-1054. Print.
64
IJCCSEC Volume 1
, Issue
1, 2014
problems related to this state of affairs, leaving little room for reflection on how
integration could be better understood (EUMC 2005).4
Immigration is often blatantly branded as a problem, especially in media
discourse (EUMC 2002).5 Even institutional discourse about immigration and
cultural diversity is not free from bias. It is therefore particularly interesting to
analyse what happens within educational contexts, where increasingly diverse
school populations inevitably must lead to reflections both on the challenges and
on assets related to multicultural societies.
Plurilingualism and linguistic diversity brought about by immigration
represent an everyday experience for pupils, and it is at school that they have to be
taught to appreciate the value and potentiality of them. On the contrary, in the
absence of an institutional discourse which legitimises and favours a progressive
detachment from the monolingual habitus6 (Gogolin, 1994), as well as from
traditional homoglottic ideologies7 (Lüdi, 2011) of many educational institutions,
there is the risk that these individual and collective linguistic resources remain
largely extraneous to the school community or are regarded as limitations to
overcome, while only European languages of wider communication taught at
school are credited with status and prestige. Very often, in fact, bilingual and/or
multilingual programmes in schools are equated to the study of English while other
languages, which may be extensively present in social contexts of Southern
European countries, are almost totally excluded. This situation seems even more
incongruous, if we take into consideration that an increasing number of children
who speak many different languages join these educational institutions every year.
2. Research questions
In this paper, we will focus on the educational policies and settings of six
Southern-European countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Malta and
Romania), discussing data gathered through MERIDIUM, a EU-funded Life Long
Learning project8 conducted from 2009 to 2011. On the basis of the above, the
research questions to be discussed in this paper are summarized as follows:
4 European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). Majorities’ Attitudes
Towards Minorities: Key Findings from the Eurobarometer and the European Social
Survey. Wien: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, 2005. Print.
5 European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). Racism and Cultural
Diversity in the Mass Media. Wien: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia, 2002. Print.
6 Gogolin, Ingrid. Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster:
Waxmann, 1994. Print.
7 Lüdi, Georges. “Quale integrazione per i parlanti delle lingue di immigrazione?”. In:
Giannini, Stefania and Scaglione, Stefania (eds.). Lingue e diritti umani. Rome: Carocci,
2011: 81-113. Print.
8 LifeLong Learning Program (LLLP), key-action 2 (Languages), project number 143513-
LLP-1-2008-1-IT-KA2-KA2NW.
65
IJCCSEC Volume 1, Issue 1, 2014
1. At a macro-level: in these Southern European countries do official policy
documents promote cultural diversity at school and do they explicitly call
the attention of teachers to plurilingualism and linguistic diversity brought
about by immigration? And if so, to what extent does this occur?
2. At a micro-level: are plurilingualism and linguistic diversity present
extensively in today’s schools, explicitly brought to the attention of pupils
in everyday classroom activities and eventually exploited in order to create
a learning environment which fosters interlinguistic and intercultural
awareness?
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Official policy documents on plurilingualism and linguistic diversity
As far as the first research question in concerned, we have noticed, in the
first place, that in the last few years these countries have made significant progress
in adopting structural measures aimed at supporting the plurilingual growth of the
young generations: as Eurydice reports (EACEA-Eurydice, 2008; 2009; Eurydice
2004; Eurydice-EUROSTAT 2012) clearly demonstrate, foreign language teaching
has been introduced from the very early grades of schooling and methodologies
such as CLIL are adopted by a growing number of schools.9
However, a more careful assessment of the language policies and measures
taken in these countries leads to the conclusion that the exhortations of the
European institutions in favour of pluri- and multilingualism have been transposed,
by and large, according to a pragmatic and instrumental vision, which focuses on
the formally certified acquisition of foreign languages with economic and
professional marketability. The result of this is mainly an increase in the offer of
English courses, as stated earlier. Moreover, although in some of these countries
policy documents do include intercultural dialogue among the general objectives of
school curricula and envisage specific measures for the integration of children
whose L1 is different from the official language of instruction, generally they just
vaguely mention, if ever, the need to support the languages and cultures of origin
of immigrants. Moreover they substantially ignore the Council of Europe
guidelines for the development of policies and curricula for plurilingual and
intercultural education (CoE, 2007; Beacco et al., 2010).10
9 EACEA-Eurydice. Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. Bruxelles:
EACEA, 2008. Web. 14 Nov. 2013 ‹http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/›; ---.
Integrating Immigrant Children into Schools in Europe. Bruxelles: EACEA, 2009. Web. 14
Nov. 2013 ‹http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/›; Eurydice. Integrating Immigrant
Children into Schools in Europe. Bruxelles: Eurydice, 2004. Web. 14 Nov. 2013
‹http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/›; Eurydice-EUROSTAT. Key Data on Edu-
cation in Europe 2012. Bruxelles: EACEA, 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. ‹http://eacea.ec.
europa.eu/education/eurydice/›.
10 Council of Europe. 2007. From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for
the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe. Strasbourg: Language Policy
Division, Council of Europe, 2007. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. ‹http://www.coe.int/t/
66
IJCCSEC Volume 1
, Issue
1, 2014
On the basis of the evidence gathered within the MERIDIUM project, we
can report that this state of affairs holds true both in traditionally monolingual
countries, such as Italy, and in countries where bilingualism is official at state or
regional level: Malta (state level); Spain, Slovenia and Romania (regional level).
Only Portugal seems to be an exception, with ad hoc measures to foster the
maintenance of immigrant languages.
3.2 Plurilingualism and linguistic diversity in schools
In order to get a better picture of everyday school practice (micro-level),
MERIDIUM researchers have investigated 57 primary schools, located in areas
specifically chosen in each one of the six MERIDIUM countries because of the
presence of a large number of children with foreign background in the school
population. In the case of Romania areas where children had a direct or indirect
migratory experience were considered. The research, carried out in the school-year
2009/10, involved school directors as well as 5th grade teachers, pupils (10 year-
olds) and their parents, as shown in Tab. 1:
Table 1
SURVEY
COUNTRY N OF
PUPILS
N OF PUPILS WITH
FOREIGN
BACKGROUND11
N OF
PARENTS N OF FOREIGN-
BORN PARENTS
Italy 697 242 613 186
Spain 429 122 284 70
Portugal 316 115 316 88
Malta 164 43 164 33
Slovenia 156 52 137 25
Romania 305 37 292 97
TOTAL 2067 611 1806 499
School directors and teachers were interviewed, while pupils and parents
were given questionnaires to fill in. In the first place, it must be observed that no
schools, among those involved in the research, kept any database or archive
concerning languages spoken by pupils and no teachers took any systematic
measure in order to collect information on language biographies of pupils and their
families, with the exception of newly-arrived children of immigrant origin. Such a
lack of attention for the linguistic background of pupils is already particularly
significant, as it means that the linguistic resources of the school population are
dg4/linguistic/›; Beacco Jean-Claude et al. Guide for the development and implementation
of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural Education. Strasbourg: Language Policy
Division, Council of Europe, 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. ‹http://www.coe.int/t/
dg4/linguistic/›.
11 As far as Romanian informants are concerned, numbers refer to subjects with direct
migratory experience.
67
IJCCSEC Volume 1, Issue 1, 2014
“invisibilised” from the outset, particularly as far as so-called “second generation”
immigrant pupils are concerned.
Linguistic repertoires and language use of pupils were therefore investigated
by means of the MERIDIUM questionnaire, in order to assess from a qualitative
and a quantitative point of view the linguistic diversity among the school
population involved in the research. To this end, we distinguished between the use
of “autochtonous languages”, namely those languages which have a historical
presence in the geographical area where data were collected and of “allochtonous
languages”, namely those which do not have a historical presence or tradition in the
states that we included in our research.
In the first place, the use of allochtonous languages has been investigated
within the family context here, 445 subjects out of 1,984 who gave valid answers
(22.4% of the sample) use allochtonous languages with their parents. The use of
these languages alternates frequently with autochtonous ones (243 cases), but in the
case of 202 subjects allochtonous languages are exclusively used. Within each
national sub-sample, the most extensive use of allochtonous languages was
registered in Italy (33.1%), followed by Portugal and Spain (19.1%), Romania
(14.7%), Malta (14.6%) and Slovenia (12.5%).
The use of these allochtonous languages is obviously more widespread
among children who are born outside of the country from where data were
collected (foreign-born) in comparison with that registered among children born
‘locally’ (native-born); however, even in the case of this group, the percentages
registered cannot be ignored as they tally to 15% of the valid responses.
Children’s language use was investigated within the school domain, both
from the point of view of ‘institutional’ interactions with their teachers, and from
that of personal relationships with their classmates. If we consider the pupils whose
responses we analysed above, as far as language use at home is concerned (1,984
subjects), we observe that 1.8% (36 cases) and 1.5% (27 cases) of them state that
they use allochtonous languages (i.e. languages that are different from those taught
at school) with their classmates and with their teachers respectively.12
The clear picture that emerges here is that schools only seem to encourage
students to conform to the countries’ official (mainly monolingual) language use,
anything but encouraging plurilingualism. What, therefore, is not working? The
following are some critical issues, which emerge from the interviews held with
teachers: first of all, teachers rarely encourage activities based on the presentation
of the “languages of the class/school”, even if these activities could be carried out
quite easily by taking advantage of the reading and writing skills which many
pupils with foreign background possess and by involving foreign-born parents.
12 Of course, the possibility of having two or more children in the same class who
potentially could use the same allochtonous language to communicate varies according to
the state in which data were collected: while this possibility is frequent in Italy (29 classes
out of 36) and Slovenia (5 out of 6), it is much less frequent in Romania (7 out of 13), and
more so in Spain (8 out of 21), Portugal (6 out of 17) and Malta (4 out of 10). Nonetheless,
in each one of the countries involved in the research the tendency to shift towards the
language of schooling is very clear, also when interacting with classmates.
68
IJCCSEC Volume 1
, Issue
1, 2014
Secondly, didactic activities directed toward the stimulation of metalinguistic
reflection by means of languages other than those included in the curriculum are
very rare: in fact, forms of cooperative learning exploiting the linguistic resources
of pupils with a foreign background were not registered in the schools under study.
This difficulty is particularly pronounced as there is a lack of practical teaching
materials which encourage the use of different languages and which foster
linguistic and cultural diversity. Thirdly, there is an emphasis, by ‘immigration-
receiving’ countries, on the fact that migrants are to gain competence in the
country’s official language/s. While acknowledging the importance of the above,
such an outlook may narrow the teachers’ perspective, as they encourage these
students solely to acquire the language used in schools.
In most cases, all of these aspects are related to a diffuse lack of in-service
training for teachers, who generally do not possess an adequate theoretical
preparation to deal with linguistic diversity from a psycho- and
sociolinguistic point of view. Besides seriously prejudicing the efficacy of
their teaching strategies, this lack of adequate preparation may perpetuate
negative attitudes and convictions about bilingualism and/or
multilingualism (e.g. that an allochtonous pupil may be hindered by his/her
L1 while learning the L2).
The super-diversity that characterises school population is therefore
concealed in everyday activities, with two main consequences: increasing negative
perceptions (and self-perceptions) towards alloglossia (the so-called “deficit
theory”) and favouring a “schizophrenic” and partial approach towards
intercultural education: schools promote the knowledge of “other cultures”, but it
ignores the linguistic aspects of them.
Moreover, the two negative aspects outlined above are transmitted as
implicit messages not only to children, but also to their families, thereby
legitimising, in adults, any prejudices and reservations towards linguistic diversity.
The considerations raised above clearly warrant the need for activities serving to
assist teachers to confront themselves with the linguistic diversity of pupils and to
learn how to exploit it as a resource to improve their teaching practice both from an
affective and a methodological point of view.
4. Initiatives to promote awareness about plurilingualism and linguistic
diversity
4.1. The MERIDIUM booklet: Babel and languages
With the aim to give teachers some concrete suggestions on how to promote
awareness about plurilingualism and linguistic diversity among pupils,
MERIDIUM researchers have created a booklet (Babel and languages) conceived
as a tool to stimulate children’s curiosity on language diversity around them.13 The
13 The booklet is available on the official MERIDIUM website: ‹http://meridium.
unistrapg.it/›.
69
IJCCSEC Volume 1, Issue 1, 2014
booklet is designed as a sort of travel diary written by an alien, Babel, landing on
Earth from his planet Multilingua, where languages of the universe are studied in
order to communicate with the inhabitants of other planets. Babel relates what he
has learned during his trip, writing in six languages (the ones examined by the
MERIDIUM project: Italian, English, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovenian and
Spanish); he also asks pupils to help him in order to collect new information. The
text is composed of six sections, concerning respectively linguistic diversity in the
world; individual bilingualism; official vs. non-official languages and collective
bilingualism; language families; writing systems and language learning.
The sequence of arguments is organised on the basis of increasing
complexity and aims to create a discourse-space where plurilingualism and
linguistic diversity are “naturalized” at a discourse level, that is represented as
“normal” and taken for granted, and not conceived - as usually happens in
Southern-European counties - either as a by-product of migration, or as an
extraordinary phenomenon. Through the materials pupils are encouraged to talk
about their experiences and feelings concerning the languages they speak and hear
around them, reflecting on the socializing function of languages. They are also
called to reflect consciously on the way in which they learn a language, focusing
on the different language abilities, on transfer phenomena, lexical cognates etc.
Occasions are offered to observe and compare the structure of different languages,
starting from those which are spoken within the classroom.
Each section begins with information about a specific language-related topic
and is completed, on the next page, by three simple exercises. On these grounds,
teachers may further elaborate the topic and organise students’ work, depending on
the composition of the classroom and on the experiences and interests of the pupils.
The booklet has been evaluated positively not only by the European Commission,
but also by teachers and school directors who took part in some seminars organized
by the partner universities of MERIDIUM in their respective countries14; in many
cases, further initiatives have arisen, in order to design complete teaching modules.
In particular, we will account for a 20-hour training course for primary and lower-
secondary school teachers held during the school-year 2011/12 by the research unit
of the University for Foreigners of Perugia, Italy.
4.2. “MERIDIUM experimentation” in Italian primary schools
Assuming as a starting point the booklet Babel and languages, researchers
and teachers have collaborated in order to plan six teaching modules concerning
plurilingualism and linguistic diversity. These modules have been subsequently
tested in 12 classes of 7 primary (5th grade) and lower-secondary (6th grade)
schools (10 to 12 year-old children), where a 25-hour slot on the class schedule had
been reserved to the “MERIDIUM experimentation”. It is worth noting that both
14 Cfr. Čok, Lucija, and Zadel, Maja. Slovenska Istra med politico sožitja in priseljeništvom
/ Slovenian Istria between coexistence policy and immigration. Koper: Univerzitetna
Založba Annales. 2012. Print.
70
IJCCSEC Volume 1
, Issue
1, 2014
Italian language and literature teachers and foreign language teachers took part in
this experimentation.
Although limitations of space render it impossible to provide a detailed
report of the activities carried out in each school, it suffices to say that pupils,
parents and teachers welcomed the initiative with interest and participated actively
in it: they were also eager to enrich the learning contents by accounting for their
own personal experiences. The extracts quoted below are drawn from the
“MERIDIUM register” of a fifth grade teacher after the end of the project. The
class where this teacher works is composed of 19 pupils: 10 of them (8 foreign-
born and 2 born in Italy) have foreign-born parents, representing 7 different
nationalities, while 9 pupils were born in Italy from Italian parents:
«Children have spontaneously inferred that bilingualism is an asset. At this
age, they are perfectly capable of understanding its importance, and they feel
admiration for a class mate who can speak, read and write in two languages. They
also became aware of the fact that knowing a language means much more than
simply attending curricular classes of a foreign or second language. […]
Conclusions which pupils have come to at the end of the project reveal a
deep enrichment, not so much on the cognitive side, as on the emotional side,
especially for children who can speak two languages and who sometimes, during
their schooling, experience difficulties. Becoming aware of their ability to do
something that others are not able to do, such as speaking two languages, has
increased their self-confidence. On the other hand, this project has provided
children born in Italy from foreign-born parents the occasion to better appreciate
the value of the different cultures with which they are in contact.»
The following are some of the remarks made by pupils:
• «Thanks to this project, I understood the meaning of “bilingual”.
“Bilingual” means that a child can speak more than one language, and I
am one of them, as I can speak two languages: Italian and Romanian.»
(Iulian, born in Romania of Romanian parents, arrived in Italy in 2004)
• «This project has allowed me to discover that, in the school I attend,
bilingual children are more numerous than children who speak just one
language.» (Filippo, born in Italy of Italian parents)
• «Thanks to this project, I have discovered languages I did not know and I
found out that all languages are valuable.» (Leonardo, born in Italy of
Italian parents)
These few remarks are but an example of the positive feedback received,
which shows that this MERIDIUM didactic activity was indeed useful in a
multilingual classroom, such as the one we have taken as an example. Feedback
indicates that teachers have found a new way to discuss bilingualism and
multilingualism, without being somehow “forced” to frame it within the discourse
about “immigrant children’s problems”. Moreover, in a vast number of cases they
proved capable of overcoming their fear to show their “ignorance” about the
languages spoken by the pupils: they assumed a more open stance towards the
possibility of learning from children and integrating their own knowledge by using
web-resources. Children of bilingual families, and the families themselves, clearly
71
IJCCSEC Volume 1, Issue 1, 2014
perceived their languages of origin as resources and assets, regardless of whether
or not they are used within the schooling context. They were proud to show how
similar (Romanian) or different (Chinese) their language of origin is compared to
Italian, and have become aware that their language knowledge, far from being an
obstacle, can be exploited as a tool for learning Italian as well as other languages.
Monolingual national children gained awareness, not only of the unimagined
abilities of their “foreign” classmates, but also of their own abilities to speak,
understand and reflect on foreign languages and Italian dialects. Moreover, they
learned several interesting facts about important international languages (e.g.
Arabic) that in Italy are viewed with suspicion and sometimes even looked down
upon. Before we formulate our conclusions, a clarification is in order: this
MERIDIUM didactic experimentation was not intended to be an alternative to
other more systematic educational approaches fostering language awareness and
bilingualism that have been successfully promoted and implemented by European
organizations and academic institutions over the years (e.g. CARAP, CLIL). On
the contrary, one of the goals of our research was to inquire whether these
approaches were known, and possibly assumed as models, by teachers.
Unfortunately, this was not the case, and we may safely say that, in spite of the
resources available on the Internet, school personnel is still largely not aware of the
proposals put forth by the Council of Europe concerning plurilingual and
intercultural education. This happens because central educational authorities have
publicized insufficiently, if ever, these initiatives, and because scarce resources
have been devoted to in-service teacher training. However, one must admit that,
beyond these factors, a role is also played by an ideological background, largely
shared by the society at large, geared to assimilate immigrant children as quickly as
possible and conceiving of the school system as the instrument of assimilation par
excellence even though it may dismiss their language and culture of origin.
5. Conclusion
Before adopting plurilingual and intercultural education as a practice in
schools, its core values - equal opportunities for all, social cohesion, enhancement
of individual linguistic and intercultural resources - have to be incorporated in
everyday discourse practices, uncovering and recognizing the linguistic and
cultural background of pupils and, in so doing, “de-naturalizing” the
(assimilationist) assumption that at school pupils have to “function” in one and the
same language (the language of instruction). Such a goal can be obviously reached
by means of various strategies, and the MERIDIUM project has been a worthy
occasion to become aware of other initiatives which have been taken in
MERIDIUM countries by other researchers.15
15 Amongst these, it is worth mentioning a project conducted by Antoinette Camilleri
Grima in a Maltese school: see Camilleri Grima, Antoinette. “Fostering Plurilingualism and
Intercultural Competence: Affective and Cognitive Dimensions”. In: Caruana, Sandro;
72
IJCCSEC Volume 1
, Issue
1, 2014
Dissemination of MERIDIUM results has been met favourably both in local
schools and in the wider community. During the discussions held as part of the
dissemination it emerged clearly that educators view schools and classrooms as
places which offer opportunities to students with different backgrounds to reflect
on linguistic and cultural diversity. The presence of foreign students is considered
to be enriching, despite the challenges it creates. Although the body of research in
the field has increased recently, head-teachers, teachers and school staff still
complain about the lack of practical resources necessary to address students’ needs,
especially when faced with newcomers who start attending school throughout the
course of the year and with students who have difficulty understanding the
language of schooling. A question which features regularly is whether didactic
tools are readily available for the needs of today’s multicultural classrooms. Such
queries clearly spell out the urgency of devising educational policies and teaching
materials which address these needs and take into consideration practical
experiences in different settings (as outlined in Kenner and Hickey, 2008) and an
“adjusted” curriculum (Olshtain and Nissim-Amitai, 2004).16
In conclusion, the results show that, in the six countries involved in the
MERIDIUM Project, at present, educational institutions seem to dismiss the issue
of linguistic diversity brought about by migration: they are often silent about it, as
if language were not a fundamental component of culture, or an indispensable
instrument for living and learning.
Within society at large, on the other hand, the strong relation between
intercultural education and plurilingual education is not sufficiently perceived, and,
especially in countries such as Spain, Italy, Slovenia and Malta, it is not unusual to
hear people affirming that “allowing” immigrants and their children to maintain
their languages could hinder their integration or that the languages “of others” are
not “our business”. The fact remains that the enthusiasm and promptness with
which schoolchildren, in particular, participated in the educational initiatives
referred to in this paper, irrespective of their nationality, is an undeniable indication
of their eagerness to express themselves and their willingness to learn more about
languages. In this sense, it becomes obvious that understanding more fully
linguistic diversity and multiculturalism in schools is indeed necessary in order to
address issues that are encountered in these institutions in Southern Europe today,
thereby moving towards more inclusive systems which are vital to create reflection,
acceptance and involvement while putting aside prejudice and fear.
Coposescu, Liliana; Scaglione, Stefania (eds.). Migration, Multilingualism and Schooling
in Southern Europe. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013: 74-94.
Print.
16 Kenner, Charmian, and Hickey, Tina. (eds.). Multilingual Europe: diversity and learning,
Staffordshire: Trentham Books Limited, 2008. Print; Olshtain, Elite., and Nissim-Amitai,
Frieda. “Curriculum decision-making in a multilingual context”. International Journal of
Multilingualism, 1/1, 2004: 53-64. Print.
73
IJCCSEC Volume 1, Issue 1, 2014
Bibliography
Beacco Jean-Claude et al. Guide for the development and implementation of
curricula for plurilingual and intercultural Education. Strasbourg: Language
Policy Division, Council of Europe, 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
‹http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/›.
Camilleri Grima, Antoinette. “Fostering Plurilingualism and Intercultural
Competence: Affective and Cognitive Dimensions”. In: Caruana, Sandro;
Coposescu, Liliana; Scaglione, Stefania (eds.). Migration, Multilingualism
and Schooling in Southern Europe. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing, 2013: 74-94. Print.
Čok, Lucija, and Zadel, Maja. Slovenska Istra med politico sožitja in
priseljeništvom / Slovenian Istria between coexistence policy and
immigration. Koper: Univerzitetna Založba Annales. 2012. Print.
Council of Europe. From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for
the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe. Strasbourg:
Language Policy Division, Council of Europe, 2007. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
‹http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/›
EACEA-Eurydice. Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe.
Bruxelles: EACEA, 2008. Web. 14 Nov. 2013 ‹http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/
education/eurydice/›
---. Integrating Immigrant Children into Schools in Europe. Bruxelles: EACEA,
2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2013 ‹http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/›
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). Racism and
Cultural Diversity in the Mass Media. Wien: European Monitoring Centre
on Racism and Xenophobia, 2002. Print.
---. Majorities’ Attitudes Towards Minorities: Key Findings from the
Eurobarometer and the European Social Survey. Wien: European
Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, 2005. Print.
Eurydice. Integrating Immigrant Children into Schools in Europe. Bruxelles:
Eurydice, 2004. Web. 14 Nov. 2013 ‹http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/
education/eurydice/›
Eurydice-EUROSTAT. Key Data on Education in Europe 2012. Bruxelles:
EACEA, 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. ‹http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/ education/
eurydice/›
Gogolin, Ingrid. Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster:
Waxmann, 1994. Print.
Kenner, Charmian, and Hickey, Tina. (eds.). Multilingual Europe: diversity and
learning, Staffordshire: Trentham Books Limited, 2008. Print.
Lüdi, Georges. “Quale integrazione per i parlanti delle lingue di immigrazione?”.
In: Giannini, Stefania and Scaglione, Stefania (eds.). Lingue e diritti umani.
Rome: Carocci, 2011: 81-113. Print.
Olshtain, Elite., and Nissim-Amitai, Frieda. 2004. “Curriculum decision-making in
a multilingual context”. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1/1, 2004:
53-64. Print.
Vertovec, Steven. “Super-diversity and its implications”. Ethnic and Racial Studies
29, Issue 6, 2007: 1024-1054. Print.
