Adult Newcomers’ Difficulties in Learning Lithuanian: an Ethnographic Case Study ; Atvykusiųjų į Lietuvą suaugusiųjų lietuvių kalbos mokymosi sunkumai: etnografinis atvejo tyrimas

Janete

Sujets

• Adult education
• Critical pedagogy
• Educology

Informations

• Publié par: vilnius_university
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2011
• Nombre de lectures: 25
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

VILNIUS UNIVERSITY








Janete Zygmantas








ADULT NEWCOMERS’ DIFFICULTIES IN LEARNING
LITHUANIAN: AN ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY








Doctoral Dissertation – Volume I
Social Sciences, Education (07S)






Vilnius, 2011




This research was conducted at Vilnius University, from October 2006 to September
2010.


DISSERTATION SUPERVISORS
October 2006 to March 2008
Assoc. Prof. Loreta Vilkienė (Vilnius University, Humanities, Philology - 04H)
April 2008 – September 2010
Assoc. Prof. Tatjana Bulajeva (Vilnius University, Social Sciences, Education -
07S)


DISSERTATION ADVISOR
Prof. Dr. Habil. Sergejus Temčinas, Senior Research Fellow (The Institute of the
Lithuanian Language, Humanities, Philology - 04H)




































ii Table of contents

Acknowledgements 1
List of tables 3
List of figures 4
Introduction 5

1. Research design, orientation and methodology 15
1.1 Research in education during transition: philosophical principles 15
1.2 Understanding the perceived reality in its natural setting 19
1.2.1 Ethnographic case studies and their application to education 21
1.2.2 Data collection & analysis: gathering multiple-sources of 26
evidence

2. A macro-analysis of the socio-cultural context: country, language 34
and educational policies
2.1 The country: Lithuania - Facts & Figures 34
2.2 The evolution of the state language 35
2.2.1 Lithuanian as a system 39
2.3 The educational policies: adult and language education 58
2.3.1 Lithuanian laws and regulations 58
2.3.2 European Union laws and regulations 62
2.4 Concluding remarks 70

3. A meso-analysis of the socio-cultural context: Lithuanian 72
language courses, target groups and educational resources
3.1 Lithuanian language courses and target groups 72
3.2 Educational resources for non-native speakers 73
3.2.1 Lithuanian language course books 73
3.2.2 Lithuanian language supplementary materials 76
3.2.3 Media and online resources 82
3.3 Concluding remarks 86

4. A micro-analysis of the socio-cultural context: the institution, 87
courses, learning materials, lessons and participants
4.1 The Higher Education Institution: Facts & Figures 87
4.2 The physical learning environment: description of facilities 88
4.3 Lithuanian language courses & study programmes for non-native 89
speakers
4.4 Lithuanian language books targeted at non-native speakers - Nė 93
dienos be lietuvių kalbos & Po truputį
4.5 The social learning environment: lesson delivery, content, and actions 104
4.6 The participants: adult learners / non-native speakers of Lithuanian 124
4.6.1 Knowledge of languages 125
4.6.2 Reasons for learning Lithuanian in the host country 127
4.7 Concluding remarks 131



ii i 5. An investigation of adults’ perceived difficulties in learning 135
Lithuanian
5.1 General perceptions of Lithuanian language studies 135
5.2 Perceived difficulties in Lithuanian language studies 136
5.2.1 The learner domain: lack of ability, confidence & effort 136
5.2.2 The learning environment domain: lack of appropriate 145
educational resources, task difficulty, Lithuanian as a system
& non-participation in society
5.3 Attribution theory: explaining the perceived difficulties in language 171
learning
5.3.1 Data classification & preliminary analysis 176
5.4 Concluding remarks 182

6. A critical analysis of adults’ perceived difficulties related to 183
Lithuanian language materials, activities and tasks
6.1 The role of materials and activities in adult education & learning 183
6.1.1 Organization and presentation of information: impacts on 190
perceived lack of ability
6.1.2 Classroom activities: a bridge to participation in society 196
6.2 The role of materials and tasks in foreign & second language 199
education
6.2.1 The evolution of foreign & second language education 199
6.2.2 The underlying principles of ‘task’ 204
6.2.3 Recent applications to foreign & second language education 213
6.3 The relation between task design & perceptions of task difficulty 215
6.4 Data analysis: Lithuanian language materials, activities, and tasks 220
6.5 Concluding remarks 229

Discussion of Results 230
Final conclusions 235
Hypotheses 238
Recommendations 239
References 240
Appendix I: List of abbreviations 249
Appendix II: The questionnaire 250
Appendix III: The lesson observation sheet 252
Appendix IV: Lithuanian language paradigms – a few examples 253
Appendix V: Visual aids in Lithuanian language materials 254
Appendix VI: Adults’ perceived difficulties in learning Lithuanian 256
in the host country: a breakdown of categories






iv Acknowledgements
The completion of my dissertation has been a long journey. I would like to thank the
following organizations, as without their support, this endeavour would have not been
possible. Firstly, I wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania while doing my doctoral studies at Vilnius University.
Secondly, I would like to express my thankfulness to the Faculty of Philology for
having supported me during the initial years of this scientific study and to the Faculty
of Philosophy for allowing me to continue such an investigation during the final
stages until the defense of this dissertation in 2011. Besides, the financial supported
granted by the European Union, through its Commission, was essential: the five-
month period spent in Belgium, as an Erasmus student in 2009-2010, at the
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, allowed me to investigate issues in the realm of adult
education and learning and those related to foreign & second language education.
This inquiry would not have been possible without the expert guidance of my
supervisor, Associate Professor Tatjana Bulajeva, from the Department of Education,
Faculty of Philosophy, who patiently guided me towards reaching a better
understanding of the principles on which this study was based. Similarly, I would
like to express my gratitude to Associate Professor Loreta Vilkienė, from the
Department of Lithuanian Studies, Faculty of Philology, whose supervision played an
important part at the very beginning of my studies.
My gratitude is also extended to Professor Sergejus Temčinas, Senior Research
Fellow at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, who played the crucial role of
advisor throughout the period of my studies, by providing me with useful information
on issues concerning the Lithuanian language that allowed me to reflect on better
ways to address my research questions.
Moreover, Associate Professor Lilija Duoblienė, Head of the Department of
Education, and Professor Vilija Targamadzė, from Vilnius University, deserve a
special thanks for their critical questioning and insights. Without their informal
guidance, the final destination of this journey would not have been reached.
My deepest gratitude goes to all teachers, lectures, professors and administrators at
the Department of Lithuanian Studies, Faculty of Philology, at Vilnius University,
who always welcomed me to their classrooms whenever a lesson was observed.
1 Furthermore, I am deeply indebted to Professor Palmira Jucevičienė, Head of the
Department of Educational Systems at Kaunas University of Technology, for having
accepted me in the discussions at the international conferences firstly held in Kaunas,
Lithuania (Uniqual 2007) and then in Trondheim, Norway (Uniqual 2009). My
participation in both conferences allowed me to disseminate the developments and
findings of this research through the publication of two articles.
These acknowledgements would not be complete if I did not mention Professor
Giedrius Subačius, Endowed Chair of Lithuanian Studies at the University of Illinois
at Chicago, and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language,
Vilnius, whose lecture on the History of Standard Lithuanian, in July 2005, and
further contacts on this issue, inspired me to make the decision to conduct this study.
In my attempt to investigate the latest developments in foreign & second language
education, I got acquainted with participants from European mulitlateral projects,
who patiently answered all my questions. A special thanks is given to them: the
general coordinators of the POOLS project in Denmark – Lone Olsen and Kent
Andersen; Aldona Vosiliutė and Jolanta Valiaugienė, project coordinator and team
member, from Kaunas College, and Rasa Zygmantaitė – project coordinator at
Marijampolė