Jezikovna integracija otrok priseljencev v slovenski osnovni šoli - Budinoska, Ines (I. Budinoska, 2018)
V pričujoči doktorski disertaciji se osredotočamo na integracijske prakse znotraj osnovnošolskega vzgojno-izobraževalnega sistema. V središču našega zanimanja so otroci priseljenci, ki so se nedavno priselili v Slovenijo in za katere predvidevamo, da so se s slovenskim jezikom srečali šele ob všolanju. Zanima nas njihova jezikovna in siceršnja integracija v okviru vzgojno-izobraževalnega sistema. Na področju izobraževanja učencev priseljencev slovenska zakonodaja v tem trenutku predvideva določene ukrepe, ki pa so tako glede sistemskih rešitev kot izvedbene prakse še daleč od dobrih praks, ki jih poznajo nekatere druge evropske države z daljšo tradicijo priseljenstva. Kot eden glavnih ukrepov za uspešnejšo integracijo je predviden predvsem dodatni pouk slovenskega jezika (vedno več se govori tudi o poučevanju maternih jezikov učencev priseljencev), ki pa je prisoten v omejenem obsegu. Ker menimo, da lahko v trenutno oblikovanih integracijskih strategijah veliko naredijo predvsem učitelji, ki lahko učencem priseljencem z oblikovanjem in prilagajanjem pedagoškega dela, lastno angažiranostjo in pozitivno držo do njihovega vključevanja omogočijo boljšo, predvsem manj stresno vključevanje v novo socialno in šolsko okolje, se v pričujoči disertaciji osredotočamo na pedagoško delo učitelja znotraj rednega pouka. Zanima nas, kakšne strategije uporabljajo učitelji oz. kako dejansko poteka jezikovno in siceršnje vključevanje otrok priseljencev v šolski praksi ter ali prihaja do morebitnega razkoraka med deklarativno izraženimi mnenji učiteljev o vključevanju učencev priseljencev v pouk in praksami, ki jih dejansko uporabljajo. V empirični raziskavi tako ob opazovanju pouka, v katerega so vključeni pred kratkim priseljeni otroci, ter ob rezultatih poglobljenih intervjujev in spletnih vprašalnikov skušamo pokazati na različne dejavnike in vidike vključevanja ali izključevanja teh otrok. Prav tako nas zanimajo tudi stališča učiteljev do vključevanja učencev priseljencev v pouk, stališča do teh učencev in do njihovih jezikov in kultur. Na podlagi pridobljenih podatkov v raziskavi se je pokazalo, da učitelji poročajo o lastni angažiranosti, pomoči, ki jo nudijo, diferenciaciji pouka, ki jo izvajajo, vendar neposreden vpogled v pedagoško prakso ni potrdil njihovih trditev. Učitelji svojega dela niso prilagodili dejstvu, da so v razredu učenci priseljenci, ki jezika še ne poznajo. Svojega govora niso 334 prilagajali % niso upočasnili njegovega tempa, niso ponavljali svojih misli, niso poenostavljali slovnice in leksike. Prav tako niso uporabljali slikovnega gradiva in učencem niso izročili prilagojenih učnih listov. Učencev priseljencev večinoma niso vprašali po razumevanju, prav tako niso ponavljali svoje razlage. Učence priseljence so le v nekaj izjemah popravili v jezikovnem smislu. Učitelji so izražali pozitivna stališča do vključevanja učencev priseljencev v pouk, vendar pa se je na opazovanih urah pouka pokazal indiferenten (ne pozitiven ne negativen) odnos do učencev priseljencev. Kot kaže, so učitelji vse preveč obremenjeni le in izključno s podajanjem in posredovanjem znanja (tudi sami poročajo o zavezanosti učnim načrtom). Učitelji so prav tako izražali pozitivna stališča do drugih jezikov in kultur, vendar tudi tega ne moremo potrditi na podlagi opazovanja pouka, saj na opazovanih urah pouka učitelji niso izkazovali pozitivnih (prav tako pa tudi negativnih ne) stališč do jezikov in kultur učencev priseljencev. Razen v dveh primerih, ko so učencem priseljencem poskušali pomagati z razlago v njihovem maternem jeziku, razlaga priseljencem ni bila v ničemer prilagojena. Prav tako učencev niso spodbujali, da bi kaj povedali sami v svojem maternem jeziku (razen pri eni opazovani uri) ali da bi jih vprašali, kako se čemu reče v njihovem maternem jeziku. Poleg tega v pouk tudi niso vključevali vsebin iz okolij učencev priseljencev. V intervjujih in v odgovorih na vprašalnike pa so nekateri učitelji poročali tudi, da jezikovno integracijo učencem priseljencem otežuje prav raba maternega jezika doma oz. da bi morali starši učencev priseljencev s svojimi otroki govoriti slovensko, da bi se otroci boljše in hitreje naučili jezik. S tem so učitelji pokazali na nepoznavanje pomena maternega jezika v življenju posameznika, prav tako pa so izkazali temeljno nerazumevanje vlog maternega, drugega in tujih jezikov. Prav tako pa zagotovo niso pomislili, kakšno slovenščino se lahko učenci naučijo doma, s starši, ki slovensko ne znajo. Nekateri učitelji pa so menili tudi, da se učencem priseljencem ni treba učiti njihovega maternega jezika, saj ga govorijo doma, oz. da če se že želijo učiti materni jezik, to ni vloga šole. Pri tem pa se niso vprašali, do kakšnega nivoja in za kakšne govorne položaje se lahko učenci priseljenci naučijo materne jezike le doma. Učitelji v raziskavi so poročali, da so tudi sošolci pomembni pri vključevanju učencev 335 priseljencev v pouk. Večinoma so tudi poročali, da sošolci lepo sprejmejo učence priseljence in da so jim pripravljeni pomagati. Povedali so tudi, da učenci z medsebojno komunikacijo nimajo težav. Komunicirajo kar v slovenščini ali le s posameznimi besedami v slovenščini, sicer pa uporabljajo neverbalno komunikacijo. Tudi na opazovanih urah pouka smo večinoma opazili pozitiven odnos ostalih učencev do učencev priseljencev, vendar pa so bili kljub temu nekateri učenci priseljenci vseeno zelo zadržani in se niso vključevali v pogovore in igro z ostalimi sošolci. Ker gre za raziskavo manjšega obsega, omenjenih rezultatov nikakor ne moremo posplošiti, saj veljajo le za opazovane ure pouka in anketirane oz. intervjuvane učitelje. Lahko pa kažejo na določene trende pri vključevanju učencev priseljencev v pouk in vzgojno-izobraževalni sistem. The following doctoral thesis focuses on integration processes within primary educational system. Central points of interest are immigrant children who have just recently moved to Slovenia and are considered to have come into contact with the language only upon entering school. The thesis analyses their language as well as overall integration into the educational system. The Slovenian legislation is momentarily inclined toward taking certain measures regarding the education of immigrant pupils. For the time being, however, the solutions to the problems within the educational system, as well as their realization, are still a far cry away from effective practices known to European countries with longer immigrant tradition. One of the main steps toward a more successful integration is considered to be the introduction of additional Slovene language lessons (as well as implementation of lessons of immigrant pupils' native tongues), the scope of which is, however, quite limited. Regarding the already established integration strategies it is believed that teachers are the ones who have the biggest impact - with the development and adaptation of their pedagogical work, their own initiative and positive attitude toward integration they enable a better and most of all less stressful integration into new social and scholastic environment - and this thesis therefore focuses on pedagogical work of teachers during regular school lessons. The interest of the thesis lies in strategies that teachers implement, or rather, in the actual realization of language and overall integration of immigrant children in schools. It is focused on the possible discrepancy between declaratory opinions of teachers regarding the integration and their actual practice. The empirical research based on observation of classes with recently arrived immigrant children as well as the results of in-depth interviews and online questionnaires will show different factors and aspects of integration and exclusion of said children. The standpoints of teachers regarding the integration of immigrant children into classes, their opinions of such children, their languages and cultures, are also brought to the attention. The data collected through research have shown that teachers report being personally invested, offering help and differentiating their lessons. The direct insight into their pedagogical practice, however, did not confirm such statements. The teachers did not adapt 337 according to the fact that there were immigrant pupils, without prior knowledge of the language, present in the classroom. Their speech was not altered the pace remained the same, thoughts were not repeated, nor were grammar and lexicon simplified. Pictorial material was not used nor were pupils given adapted hand-outs. The immigrant pupils were mostly not asked whether they understood what was being said, neither were explanations repeated. Only rarely were immigrant pupils corrected when making a linguistic error. Although the teachers expressed positive views toward integration of immigrant pupils, the observation of lessons nevertheless showed indifferent - neither positive nor negative - attitude toward such pupils. It seems that teachers are all too burdened with and only with the presentation of knowledge (teachers themselves report being bound by the curriculum). The teachers also expressed positive views toward foreign languages and cultures. The said, however, cannot be confirmed based on the observation of lessons, for during those the teachers did not display any positive nor negative views concerning the cultures and languages of immigrant pupils. Apart from two occasions on which pupils were helped by being given the explanation in their mother tongue, nothing was done to facilitate their comprehension. The pupils were also not encouraged to communicate in their own language (except in one observed lesson) nor were they asked what certain taught subjects were called in their mother tongue. Similarly the lessons did not include contents from immigrant pupils' native environment. In interviews and questionnaires some teachers labelled the usage of mother tongue in home environment as the chief problem of language integration. In their opinion immigrant parents should speak Slovene with their children so that those could learn the language better and more quickly. However, by expressing such views the teachers showed their inability to recognize the importance of mother tongue in the life of an individual, as well as their lack of understanding the importance of first, second and foreign languages. Alongside that, it seems they also did not consider the outcome of a child learning Slovene from parents who do not speak it. Some teachers were also of the opinion that immigrant children do not have to learn their own mother tongue since they speak it at home. More exactly, they believe that if one wants to learn one's mother tongue, the task should fall on the family and home rather than school. At 338 the same time, however, the question of to what extent and for what kind of speaking situations a child can be prepared at home, was not raised. The teachers included in the research reported the importance of peers in the process of integration. In most cases they emphasized that immigrant pupils are well received by their peers who are willing to help them. It was also brought to the attention that children do no experience difficulties communicating among themselves. They communicate in Slovene or with individual Slovene words, and in other cases resort to non-verbal communication. In general, a very positive attitude of Slovene pupils toward immigration pupils was noticeable throughout observation lessons, although it was in some cases clear that immigration pupils were reserved and did not participate in conversations and play with other peers. Since this is a research of a smaller scope the results cannot be generalized as they apply only to the observed lessons and interviewed teachers. They can, however, point toward certain standards regarding the integration of immigrant students into lessons and educational system.