JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

THE JEWISH AGENCY FOR ISRAEL Department for Jewish Zionist Education Department of Immigration and Absorption

Teaching to Speak Learning to Listen Hebrew Education for Russian-speakers in the FSU and Israel

Dr. Michael Yedovitzky

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/Des...0learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (1 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

Tevet 5761 – January 2001 Table of Contents 1. Clarifying the Goal

5

2. Clarifying trends that shape the ulpan experience in the FSU and in Israel

11

2.1 Clarifying trends in developing a social ideology concerning aliyah and Diaspora Jewry 11 2.2 Clarifying trends in developing an educational methodology in second language instruction 13 2.2.1 The teaching method 13 2.2.2 Teaching personnel 17 2.2.3 The importance of the native language and the importance of a teacher who speaks his students’ native language 19 2.3 Clarifying the characteristics of the target audience

19

2.4 Clarification of approaches to teaching a second language to children and young people 23 3. THE UNDERLYING Concept of the Policy for Hebrew Language INSTRUCTION 26 4. Components of Implementation 4.1 The Education Shaliach

31 31

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/Des...0learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (2 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

4.2 Mechanism for Systemic Thinking, Planning and Coordination Between the Agencies Participating in the Ulpan Activity

33

4.3 The Organizational Aspect of the Ulpan in the FSU

34

4.4 The Content Aspect of the Ulpan in the FSU

37

4.5 Teachers 39 4.6 Psycho-Linguistic Counseling

42

4.7 Study Material

42

4.8 Pedagogic Center in the FSU 4.9 Ways to expand the community of ulpan students

43 44

4.10 Working with youth

45

4.11 Children 46 4.12 Research and evaluation Bibliography

47 50

From the Generation of the Wilderness to the Generation of Spoken Hebrew “… Thus says the Lord, Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout on the hilltops of the nations; announce, praise and say, O Lord, save thy people, the remnant of Israel. Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the ends of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and she that labors in childbirth together, a great company shall return there…” Jeremiah, 31 file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/Des...0learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (3 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

1. Clarifying the Goal I The dawning of the new millennium invites speculation on what the future may hold. In the opinion of Prof. Yehezkel Dror, an expert in policy planning, “The single most important factor in determining a future for the State of Israel in the long term and realizing the values of Judaism and Zionism is the quantity and quality, including values, skills and knowledge, of the Jews living in Israel. Therefore, admonishes Prof. Dror to the candidate for Prime Minister, you must consider promoting aliyah as well as integration as one of your most critical and historical tasks… I am waiting to see which one of you will position the matter of aliyah as a key election campaign issue. This is an important test of Zionist commitment” (from Weaving a Jewish-Zionist future for the State of Israel: A memo to candidates for the job of Prime Minister, Y. Dror). During the last decade, and for the foreseeable future as well, Jews from the Former Soviet Union (hereinafter, FSU) will be the focus of the momentous aliyah process. The story of their reintegration within the Jewish and Israel world has generally been defined as a success, and rightfully so. In a series of studies, the vast majority of olim express general satisfaction with their absorption in Israel, and their desire to remain in Israel and see their children live and grow in Israel (Lisitza and Peres, 2000; Leshem and Alhaj, 2000). Nonetheless, alongside the successes, difficulties in the social and cultural realm are many and trends characterized by tension, distance and even alienation between olim and the native population have become deeper. “From the point of view of the olim, Israel is perceived has having a provincial and isolating culture (Leshem and Sikroun, 1998“ .(Ten years after the beginning of the wave of aliyah, the olim constitute a socially scrutinized and relatively closed group” (Leshem and Alhaj, file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/Des...0learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (4 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

2000). In terms of native Israeli society, the olim did not meet accepted expectations: They were unfamiliar with the cultural superiority and local norms, nor did they demonstrate a readiness to adapt to what seemed to the natives as ‘reality”’ (Solodkina, 1995). According to Silberg (2000), entire groups among the olim have remained culturally isolated. Nudelman (2000) and Lisek (2000) also describe an “insular” group, with a particularly high percentage of academics, who feel a deep sense of alienation with life in Israel and are closed up within a “ghetto.” Nudelman also notes that as aliyah continues in the coming years, this sub-group will continue to grow in number. Difficulties in integration and the sense of alienation among adults is felt even more strongly among children and young people: a high number of drop outs from the education system and relatively low levels of matriculation eligibility, numerous cases of non-normative behavior and violence, and all these phenomena share a negative dynamic – time is not “healing their wounds.” Unavoidably, the integration problems of olim in Israel have an impact on the rate of future aliyah, which also depends, among others, on the nature of the information arriving from Israel. On the question of willingness to recommend that their friends remaining in Russia come to Israel, the vast majority of olim take a neutral position, with less than one-fourth expressing a willingness to highly or very highly recommend aliyah (Lisitza and Peres, 2000). The special difficulties of olim from the better-educated strata paralleled the change in the characteristics of aliyah during the second half of the 1990s, when the rate of olim from the better educated levels of society and with higher social status began to decline (Horowitz, 1998). This trend places another challenge before all the systems dealing with aliyah, that of creating the atmosphere and conditions that will also encourage the well-educated and socially “stronger” families to link their destiny with the State of Israel. Against the background of the mutual integration problems of both immigrants and file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/Des...0learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (5 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

natives, voices are being raised in theoretical and political circles advocating the concept of Israel as a “stable” sectarian society in attempt to “recruit postSovietism on behalf of post-Zionism.” The process that paralleled the mass aliyah, which also originates in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is the building of communal life among Jews from the FSU. With all of their uniqueness, we can find more and more similarities between the experience of Soviet Jewry to that of Europe and the USA. This means that along with the exposure to and availability of community life, there are also signs of distance and alienation that characterize the Jewish identity crisis. This is seen in the phenomenon known as the “inverted Marrano,” where behind the apparent Jewish exterior, we find a Jewish “interior” devoid of any content. These tendencies are particularly prominent in the larger population centers (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, etc.) where the larger, better educated part (“dictating the general tone”) of FSU Jewry lives. It is clear that the ramifications of this phenomenon are weakening their link to the Jewish people from all aspects, including identification with the State of Israel and the potential for aliyah. II This document is a summary of a project aimed at examining the Jewish Agency’s policy regarding the teaching of Hebrew to Russian speakers in the Diaspora and in Israel. Before discussing the principles of this policy and translating them into practical steps, we must clarify the overall strategic goal, by answering that key question, “For what purpose?” before we deal with the questions of “Why?” and “How?”. The ultimate importance of integrating olim in Israel and the experience of the lives of these Jews in the FSU into the future fabric of Israel, as stated by Y. Dror, particularly in light of the difficulties we described briefly, is what will decide the “spectacles” through which we must look at the educational endeavors of the Jewish Agency. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/Des...0learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (6 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

Accordingly, the main educational goal is: To enable Russian-speaking Jews and those eligible for aliyah under the Law of Return to develop a deep connection of identification and affiliation with the people of Israel, the State of Israel, and with Jewish and Israeli culture. Such a connection will serve as the basis for: 1. Encouraging aliyah in general, and encouraging aliyah by the young and well-educated; 2.

The “quality” of the integration of olim within the fabric of Israeli

society following their aliyah; 3. Empowering the Jewish communities in the FSU, their identification with Israel and as a result of this, their constituting a reserve of future olim.

III Studying Hebrew language is a central axis around which we must build and structure our educational endeavors, for the following reasons: 1.

Language is a key factor in formulating personal identity and social

affiliation, a foundation for and a reflection of human culture and consciousness. Hebrew, for historical reasons, is particularly suited to this symbolic-cultural role. 2. Language study is the central and dominant motivation of those who join the Jewish Agency’s educational frameworks in the FSU and ulpan in Israel. Activities that have no educational value in terms of language are perceived by many students as wasting precious time at the expense of their language studies (Ulpan survey, 1999).

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/Des...0learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (7 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

3.

Language is above the controversies of the political, religious and

ideological realms. In our stormy lives it is the value that unites all parts of society. 4. Israel is the center of development of the Hebrew language and it has “something to offer.” We must restructure content material around the field in which Israel’s strength is genuine. It should be noted that the contribution of Diaspora Jewry is also likely to be genuine – raising the status of Hebrew language throughout the world and the seriousness with which it is studied will enrich the linguistic experience in Israel, which is presently characterized by dilution, slang and isolation from its deeper cultural layers. 5.

According to the perception deeply rooted in the consciousness of

Russian speakers, language is, first and foremost, a cultural asset in its own right and not merely a practical tool. This perception was formulated during the 18th-19th centuries based, inter alia, on a German influence. It became stronger in the days of the “Iron Curtain,” when language studies become merely an expression of a desire to associate with other cultures and observe, through them, the outside world, rather than for any useful communicative purpose which was irrelevant for the vast majority of Soviet society. 6. In the final analysis, it is the most useful and practical thing Diaspora Jews can do in the event they come on aliyah. According to a study conducted by the Falk Institute and JDC-Israel (1998), language difficulties were ranked first among factors that jeopardize the absorption process. Such problems are, indeed, numerous: In a survey conducted by the Absorption Ministry among olim from 1995, only 41% of them could conduct a “simple conversation” in Hebrew 3.5 years after their arrival in Israel; only 35% could read “a simple letter”; and only 25% could file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/Des...0learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (8 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

write “a simple letter.” More than 90% stated that they never or almost never use Hebrew in their lives in Israel. In general, the conclusion that appears from the study on the integration of olim conducted by Leshem and Alhaj is that their degree of Hebrew language mastery is one of three key factors (along with age and number of years in Israel) that influence their satisfaction with their absorption in Israel: “The better the oleh can master the Hebrew language, the more he perceives himself as belonging to a higher social class in Israel” (A. Leshem and M. Alhaj, Research report, Olim from the Former Soviet Union in the 1990s: Ten years after aliyah, 2000).

2. Clarifying trends that shape the ulpan experience in the FSU and in Israel In recent years there have been essential changes in the social perceptions of how to integrate olim into Israeli society and the concept of dialogue with Diaspora Jewry. At the same time, international research has developed that has expanded our knowledge and enhanced awareness concerning the processes by which second language skills are acquired. Let us briefly summarize these developments, which have had a formative impact on the ulpan experience.

2.1 Clarifying trends in developing a social ideology concerning aliyah and Diaspora Jewry Since the inception of the State and until recently, we have witnessed the additionadjustment approach (the term coined by Dr. R. Sever) of the “melting pot” as the ideological basis for integrating olim into society. According to this concept, the olim constitute a numerical addition to an existing and cohesive Israel society. This addition requires “first aid” treatment for a limited period of time, until the file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/Des...0learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (9 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

youngsters are absorbed and become Israelis while the adults, the “generation of the wilderness,” attempt to adjust and come to terms with their new situation. This process must involve separating from the past and adopting the prevailing Israeli norms and values. “The melting pot will refine those coming from foreign diasporas, who will be cleansed and purified of their harmful, alien dross,” as BenGurion phrased it. With regard to Diaspora Jewry, the assimilating concept was expressed through the many forms of an approach known as “negating the Diaspora,” which was characterized, inter alia, by a paternalistic attitude towards Diaspora Jewry and a search for “short cuts” to bring them to Israel, with the emphasis on the numericalquantitative side rather than the content-qualitative side: “The purpose of teaching Hebrew in the Diaspora is to enable a Jew to approach the arena of events in which the genuine struggles of Israel’s culture take place, that is, the State of Israel. We can borrow the imagery of Amos Oz, who compares Jews in Israel to actors on a stage, while Jews in the Diaspora are, at best, in terms of language, spectators with front row seats” (from the Introduction to the Graded Ulpan Program for Hebrew Language Instruction, FSU Desk, Ulpan Network, 2000). •

The adjustment approach towards the olim underlies reinforcing the

trends of isolation and “dissenting” separatism by groups of olim in Israel. •

The paternalistic concept of “negating the Diaspora” is the

background for Diaspora Jews distancing themselves from Israel. In recent years we have witnessed a fascinating dynamic of change in the social perception concerning aliyah. It is characterized by accepting aliyah as an essential change (in contrast with a numerical change) in Israeli society as a whole, and understanding the integration process as being lengthy, with multiple stages.[1] file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (10 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

Assimilation among the dominant group and isolation from the “aliyah” has been replaced by an attempt to find a balance between the unique and the unifying and to establish a broad and expanding common “all-purpose Israeli” denominator through a dialogue with the aliyah, giving expression to their cultural world, and viewing this world as an “asset to the evolving Israeli culture” (Prof. A. Shohami). The roots of this social dynamic can be found in the impact of the “multi-cultural” approach of the post-modern world regarding the ways in which immigrants achieve social integration, but particularly in the characteristics of the “Russian” aliyah, which is a unique combination of large numbers, “positive” self-image, and a close connection with their native language and culture. “From melting pot to a ‘Jerusalem combo”’ – this is the process that Israeli society goes through as described in the comprehensive report on pluralism in Israel, prepared by the Israel Center for Social Policy Studies (2000, edited by Prof. Y. Kop). The most important component is the change in the perception of the reciprocal relationship between olim and natives, from “absorbing olim in Israel” to “integrating Israel with the olim.” This process also has an impact on the dialogue between Israel and the Diaspora. Here, too, we increasingly hear about the bi-directionality of the Israel-Diaspora relationship and what Prof. Y. Dror defined as “the integration of the State of Israel within the Jewish people:” “Our shared vision is aimed at strengthening Israel, ensuring the future of Israel as a whole, and enhancing the concept of ‘one nation’ founded upon the centrality of Israel. Since all the partners have much to contribute to this partnership, the relationships will be bi-directional, in a spirit of mutual support and respect. We recognize our differences but we act to built a worldwide community out of separate communities” (from “Strategy for Applying a Common Vision and the Jewish Agency’s Mission Statement, ”1999).

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (11 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

2.2 Clarifying trends in developing an educational methodology in second language instruction The dynamics in developing a social ideology, as well as results of psycholinguistic and socio-linguistic studies, had a decisive influence on the perception of methodological approaches regarding second language instruction, and on the way in which teaching personnel should be trained. We will look at this briefly.

2.2.1 The teaching method There is an extremely wide variety of approaches and concepts regarding teaching a second language. Underlying these differences is the social ideology and the concept of the role of language and culture. On the basis of these we decide on teaching objectives; which linguistic aspects and study skills are to be emphasized; teaching methods; the role of the teacher and the student and the nature of the reciprocal relationship between them; methods for evaluating achievement; the role and importance of the native language and culture in the learning process. Despite the fact that there are numerous teaching methods we can, nevertheless, ascertain two main historical schools of thought: 1. The analytical teaching approach (“grammatical-translation”) This approach is founded on a perception of culture as the result of human creativity that is expressed through literature, art and philosophy, with language nurturing all of these and constituting a cultural asset in its own right. Therefore, the main educational objectives are learning about the second language and acquiring cognitive abilities that enable exposure to the cultural assets for which this language serves as a foundation. This is done through meticulous and indepth deductive study of grammatical rules, and by systematically acquiring a vocabulary. Another important component of the learning process is comparative file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (12 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

analysis of the linguistic forms being learned in the second language with comparable forms in the native language. The native language becomes a important part of the teaching process and the teacher must master it. The teacher is the authority and primary source of information and the main interaction in the class is “from the teacher to the student” and less so in the opposite direction, or among the students themselves. The syllabus is built on grammatical keys and includes a structured evaluation framework that relates to the student’s ability to “translate” the rule into linguistic activity using the vocabulary he has acquired, and paying close attention to proper language usage. 2. The “direct” teaching approach This approach is based on the perception of culture as the daily experiences of individuals in a society speaking the language being learned. Language is, essentially, a tool for communication that facilitates this experience. Therefore, the primary objective is to achieve communications skills in the language being learned. This is done by forming direct associations between the word or sentence in the target language and their meaning. The role of the teacher is “to model the language” and not “to explain it” (to deal with “how” rather than “why”). The immediate learning environment, the different contexts created in the classroom help students become involved in what is taking place through trial and error. The native language is not part of the teaching process and the teacher is not required to master it. In contrast with this, the teacher, as an “authentic” speaker of the language being learned, has an important advantage. Grammar is not the focus and learning is not deductive-systematic, rather it is inductive, in context. Although the teacher is still the key initiator of what takes place during the lesson, the student’s role is much more active compared with the previous approach, and the lesson is usually conducted with less frontal teaching. The syllabus is designed on the basis of a situational/subject-related key and does file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (13 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

not usually include a formal framework for evaluation, which is done through the students’ participation in ongoing activities and is less concerned with language acquisition, rather the ability to communicate. During the second half of the 20th century, processes of globalization and mass immigration of olim, as well as the development of psychological and sociological research on language acquisition, led to an increased and productive occupation with the search for innovative methods for teaching a second language. Using these approaches, their supporters attempted to overcome the students’ various psychological barriers and take advantage of his psycho-cognitive mechanisms and social-cultural characteristics to make the learning process easier and faster. Among the broad range of methods, we can mention suggestopedia, silent method, community language learning, total physical response method, communicative approach, and others. The intense interest in second language instruction methods and the research that fed this interest was often accompanied by controversy between the two approaches, which occasionally became quite extreme. Nonetheless, in many countries around the world it helped to turn second language instruction into a separate discipline requiring the establishment of a comprehensive and wellfounded infrastructure for training professional teaching personnel and academic, multi-disciplinary research (most prominently in Australia, Holland, Canada and the United States). It also led to a broad consensus regarding several important insights, including: a) The critical importance of the affective filter as a result of interaction between motivation, a friendly and supportive learning climate, and the self-confidence of the student (Krashen, 1985), to the success of the learning process; b) The idea that the best way to learn a second language is through content. As stated by Hudelson, “content is a vehicle for language development.” file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (14 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

In recent years, along with numerous didactic approaches and different teaching methods, we gained a greater understanding that each approach usually aimed its efforts at a particular component among the many that formed the process of second language acquisition, while playing down the others, to the point of ignoring them. Therefore, the best teaching method should strive to integrate and synthesize all of the “strong points” of the various teaching approaches: understanding the “picture of the language” and developing the cognitive aspect as emphasized by the analytical approach, creating a “language experience” and developing the communicative aspect of the direct approach, removing emotional barriers as with Suggestopedia, etc. The degree of the relative contribution of each method in the overall balance is derived from the following factors: 1. The student’s style of learning; 2. The primary motivation behind the learning process. Learning style is a cumulative result of the complex integration between socialenvironmental and neuropsychological factors (Alshtein and Kutik). According to the most basic classification we can distinguish the intellectual-logical (noncommunicative) type of student, who needs greater use of the analytical method; and the intuitive-affective (communicative) type of student, for whom the direct approach would be more useful. These styles can be assessed using existing and known psycho-linguistic tests. In Israel, such tests have been developed by Dr. Bella Kutik of the Hebrew University. In an ideal situation, the learning strategy is suited to the individual student, or at least to a group of students with similar characteristics. The primary motivation behind the learning process is the second important file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (15 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

factor that shapes the best method for language learning. Essentially, we may distinguish between instrumental motivation and integrative motivation, but in reality the two are usually combined in varying relative doses. The first is aimed at learning a language, first and foremost, as a useful tool in order to acquire skills for “survival” (employment, education, etc.). The second emphasizes the symbolic, cultural-identification aspect of language in the context of one’s link with the new society. In the case of olim from the FSU arriving in Israel, language also serves as a means of personal movement, but also as a clear tool for establishing a context and a link with the new collective. However with time, as demonstrated by Menachem and Geist, the symbolic function of language becomes weaker (Menachem and Geist, 1999). From this we understand the critical importance of the first exposure to Hebrew language and culture, during the course of which the student formulates the patterns of his relationship and means for dealing with the language learning, which are difficult to change later on. This exposure is liable to strengthen his integrative motivation and maximize its potential in favor of achievement in language learning and in establishing a link with Israel, or it could cause disappointment and the loss of the integrative component.

2.2.2 Teaching personnel As previously noted, the dynamic of development in the area of second language instruction led to its becoming a multi-dimensional discipline in its own right, and its purpose is different from native language instruction. It requires the establishment of a comprehensive and intensive training infrastructure for professional teaching personnel, such that the level of expertise of the average teacher serves to increase the achievements of research studies and teaching methods and does not become a barrier to their practical application. In the past, having a teacher who was an “authentic” speaker of the language being learned, with some kind of background in education with the addition of a short file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (16 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

course in the principles of teaching a second language were considered a sufficient basis for assuming practical teaching activities, particularly when such teaching was done according to the instrumental-communicative approach. Today it is clear that the training process is long, complex and multi-disciplinary, at the end of which the teacher must: a) Demonstrate knowledge of the language (in the case of Israel, many of the teachers are “burdened” with negative emotions concerning language that remain from their own years in school and thus avoid anything having to do with language. I have met teachers who “boast” about their deliberately ignoring proper language and place greater emphasis on slang: “We teach them to speak, not language.”); b)

Master the “picture of the language” (understanding the structure of

the language, its internal logic, roles of parts of speech) and can look at it out from the “outside” as it appears to the student; c)

Distinguish the logic of the curriculum (which naturally assumes that

such logic exists in the first place); d)

Have experience with teaching methods, including drilling and

motivating the class; e) Understand the psychological and social-cultural aspects of the learning process. And so on. If the teacher is not expert in the areas he must master, he may “connect” with the weaker aspects of the different teaching methods – ignoring the emotion of the analytical approach, ignoring the logic of the direct approach, etc., instead of using the advantages of each one of them (the logic of the first and the experiential orientation of the second).

2.2.3 The importance of the native language and the importance of a teacher file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (17 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

who speaks his students’ native language In recent years we have become more aware of the important role of the student’s native language, particularly in terms of the cognitive aspect of language, where the relationship between the native language and the second language is one of “integrated vessels.” At the same time, we have become more cognizant of the importance of including teachers who speak the students’ native language in the learning process. Among the obvious advantage of having such a teacher we can mention the following (Kouritzin, 1999): a)

Psychologically, he serves as a real model for the student to imitate, as

proof and corroboration that success is possible; b) The personal experience is, for him, a kind of “natural training” especially with regard to “the picture of the language” and looking at if “from the outside” in order to understand the needs of the students and knowing their psychological, cultural and social characteristics; c) Another important advantage is the ability to provide support in the native language, understanding the nature of errors that originate with the structure of the native language, the ability to explain nuances in different contexts and principles of the language being learned through comparative analysis.

2.3 Clarifying the characteristics of the target audience The development of a social ideology and, later on, an educational-methodological ideology of empowering the student and perceiving him as a major formative factor in the learning process necessitates that we clarify the characteristics and understand the needs of the target audience. In the case of Russian-speaking Jews, we must refer to the following features: a) Heterogeneity of the students. In general we can distinguish residents of file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (18 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

the major cities (more than 90% of all Jews reside in about 10-15 major cities, half of whom are concentrated in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kiev), and residents of rural towns or cities located far from the center, in Siberia or the Far East; descendants of Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe; Jews from Bukhara, the Caucasus and Soviet Georgia. Within the sub-groups we also find heterogeneity in terms of social status and education (Prof. A. Leshem, Prof. T. Horowitz). b) In spite of the heterogeneity we can speak, at least in the case of the descendants of Ashkenazi Jews, of an ethnic sub-group of “Russian Jews” which formed over the last 200 years through complex processes of assimilation, Russian acculturation and Jewish traditionalism (Prof. G. Yochanava, Prof. M. Tzelnov). The cumulative result of these process is the creation of a unique group of Russian-speaking Jews who simultaneously belong to two cultures – Russian and Jewish, which are in a constant state of negotiation between them. Therefore, as Pressman and Alstein note, “Most of the stereotypes or cultural and social categories accepted in Israel society (such as ‘traditional‘ ,’secular‘ ,’Zionist,‘ ’religious) were placed on a society for whom these concepts do not apply or who interpret them differently (Pressman and Alstein, 1997). A broad range of studies demonstrate the unique and paradoxical situation in which, on the one hand, we anticipate the loss of Jewish culture in the traditional sense of the concept (“on the surface”), while on the other hand, there is genuine interest in the Jewish world. Thus, in a survey among Jews of St. Petersburg conducted in 1991, 75% of the respondents noted that they had books written by Jewish authors as an important expression of their link with the Jewish people. About 50% of them did affiliate themselves with the Russian culture, but only 6% perceived themselves as Russians (Kogan, 1993). In another study, 62% defined themselves as members of the Russian culture and 5% as Russians (Rivkina, 1996). “Most olim from the 1990s are the second or third generation of file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (19 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

assimilated families. They were raised on the purity of the Russian culture and they lacked any prior knowledge of Jewish history, Jewish tradition, Hebrew language or the development of the State of Israel. Nevertheless, all respondents in the study defined their main identity as Jewish. They mentioned anti-Semitism as a component of this identity, as well as the positive stereotype of ‘being Jewish’, which meant, for them, being smart, intelligent, professional, intellectual, fair, dedicated to family, and in solidarity with other Jews; and the emotional-spiritual aspect (‘something in my heart’), which was related, in part, to memories from their grandparents’ house… According to their positive stereotype of what it means ‘to be a Jew,’ the respondents built their expectations of Israel as ‘a Jewish state’ where people were awaiting intelligent, smart, professional and cultured olim” (Pressman and Alstein, 1997). Hence the paramount importance of the manner in which Russian-speaking Jews are exposed to Jewish-Israeli society and culture in ulpanim in the FSU and Israel. This exposure, insofar as it transcends the “Israeli” stereotypes and suits the expectations, needs and study habits of the students, is likely to strengthen their world of positive images, evoke the “emotional-mental” aspect thereof, and nourish it with the required knowledge base. It might also become a disappointment, which would constitute an obstacle to all future contact with the Jewish and Israeli world. With reference to language it is especially important to note that despite all the caveats regarding the heterogeneity of the students, these are still: 1) Relatively educated students, with a high level of linguistic requirements and a perception of language as a central cultural value, who strive from a symbolic-cultural point of view as well as professionally, to achieve high quality creative control of the language. According to Ulpan survey 99 the high level of student expectations stands out in contrast to those of the teachers, which might amount to a self-fulfilling prophecy. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (20 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

2)

Students with analytical and cognitive learning habits. According to the

ulpan survey, in response to being asked what they considered the most important components of improving the quality of ulpan study, the students emphasized the tutorial methods, while the teachers asked for various teaching aids.[2] As Allstein and Pressman point out, “…Russian-speakers’ characteristic difficulties in learning Hebrew are related to the following factors: - Conservative language learning habits, which place more emphasis on the cognitive and analytic side and are incompatible with the regular teaching method in ulpan (“Hebrew in Hebrew”), which does not stress the structure of the language. The olim remember the ulpan fondly as a “greenhouse” in the midst of a gloomy reality, but criticize the teaching method used in it and in fact regard it as an “absence of method.” They hence try to find alternative frameworks that are cognizant of their learning habits, which require a more analytical approach and which help with translation into Russian, thus lowering their level of psychological tension). - Grammar problems between Hebrew-Russian such as the definite article category which does not exist in Russian, construct state, differences in prepositions and verb tenses, etc. In their opinion, these problems are not stressed nor exercised sufficiently or systematically enough in the ulpan program. They feel that if the students were given an adequate explanation, their would use the differences in speech correctly and stop translating crudely from Russian.” (Allstein and Pressman, 1997) 3) Students who do not have a “western consumer-oriented psychology,” who does not relate to the ulpan as a type of service in exchange for their money (eligibility). According to the Director of the Beit Haam ulpan in Jerusalem, which caters to olim from many countries, the “Russians,” unlike olim from the “West,” are tolerant, do not make demands on the system and tend to blame themselves and not the teachers for their lack of success. The dissatisfaction of ulpan students with their achievements is indeed prominent. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (21 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

According to the “1999 ulpan survey,” some 70% of the respondents said that they were not satisfied with their progress in their studies, some 90% said they were dissatisfied with their level of Hebrew knowledge. Since the olim tend to first blame themselves for their lack of success, they leave ulpan with a lack of confidence, frustration and absence of hope that they will ever acquire the Hebrew language. The distance from here to developing a negative attitude to the language and also to the society that speaks it, the country and its culture, is short.

2.4 Clarification of approaches to teaching a second language to children and young people[3] The recent decades have been distinguished by intensive attention to the processes of second language acquisition for children. This has been the result of rising awareness of the critical importance of the period of childhood and adolescence in linguistic-functional development in the psychological, cognitive and social contexts. This attention has shaken some of the traditional basic assumptions with regard to the manner in which children acquire a second language: 1. Modern research has negated the existence of neuro-biological attributes in the brains of children aged five and up that facilitate the learning of a second language via a different mechanism than that employed in adults. Evaluation of students’ readiness for classroom activities on the basis of oral skills is inaccurate because there is a large disparity between speed at which oralcognitive abilities are acquired and the rate of achieving cognitive control. When these children reach high school, the previously undiagnosed and untreated cognitive difficulties can become an obstacle to continued schooling, and a key reason for leaving school. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (22 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

2. The speed of language acquisition is not derived from the exposure to a second language per se: “quality” rather than “quantity” of exposure is important, as are the professionalism of the teaching and a supportive learning environment, which addresses to the child’s emotional filter. 3. There is an extremely high positive correlation between the degree of control of the native language and the second language. Providing support in the first language is desirable and even essential, especially in the more advanced stages of learning a second language. Therefore, the acquisition of a second language by children is a complex longterm process that requires intellectual, organizational and budgetary “investment” – teacher training, awareness of factors dependent on group culture or personal typology, a great many hours, etc. As long as immigrant children’s linguistic state of being does not receive appropriate attention,[4] the result will be a situation where before our eyes we see immigrant children and youth whose linguistic development has been severely disturbed: §0 Their linguistic functional development in their native language has been halted (delayed) prematurely; §•

The society and its education system devote negligible

attention to the development of these functions in the second language. As a result, a large group of young people is emerging in Israel that is characterized by the phenomenon of semi-linguism. It is difficult to estimate the severity of the implications of this phenomenon on the thinking, consciousness, identity, belonging, academic achievements of the olim and their behavioral patterns. As is known, the words “ilmut” (muteness) and “alimut” (violence) are derived from the same root.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (23 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

In the recent past the immigrant child’s loss of the native language and detachment from his previous identity was considered an overt expression of successful social, psychological and identity-based absorption in Israel. On the other hand,. preservation of languages of origin was considered to slow the process of social coagulation and “constitute a living memory of exile.” As a result, and in concert with the perception that there is an essential difference between the generations with respect to the linguistic and identity-related aspects – the young as the “future generation” and the old as the “wilderness generation” – approaches were employed in the past that separated (or at least did not try to connect) the generations in immigrant families in Israel. This also had impact on the educational practice in the Diaspora. The implications of these approaches are: a) Disturbance of relations between generations in this family to the point of alienation, with parents no longer being a cultural, moral, or ethical authority;[5] b)

Damage to the child’s identity and self-image;

c) Damage to the attitude to school and academic achievement: an environment that ignores the child’s family cannot engender identification with it in the deep sense of the word. In recent years there has therefore been increasing understanding of the importance of the “familial” approach, which empowers the family and sees the connection between the generations and also between identities, the parents and children’s identification with a joint family effort to learn a new language and culture, as an essential condition for the success of the learning process.

3. THE UNDERLYING Concept of the Policy for Hebrew Language INSTRUCTION 1.

The strategic goal of the ulpan activity is, as mentioned above, to lay the

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (24 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

foundations for turning the Hebrew language into a central part of the student’s identity, his cultural world and the routine of his everyday life (if he makes aliyah(. 2.

This is only possible when the ulpan environment in the FSU and Israel: A.

Deals with the entire array of roles that language plays in society – a

useful tool for communication, but also a cultural symbol and value; B. Deals equally with all layers of the language – the communicative layer, but also the cognitive layer[6]. 3. The desired ulpan environment is limited by many factors, but it is possible to distinguish between two main types: A. Factors that are a result of the existing policy in the system – social perceptions, methodological approaches, curricula, method of training teaching faculty, textbooks, structure of classes and schedules, evaluation methods and so forth. These factors are “decision dependent” with regard to policy makers. B. Factors that are not dependent on the ulpan system, but have a critical effect upon it. − With regard to the ulpan in Israel, factors that may be included in this category are the shock of aliyah, the frustrations and difficulties of the first months, such as problems of employment and housing, difficulties of fitting children into educational institutions, pressure of study time at the ulpan nearing an end, and more. These conditions have a negative effect on the learner’s emotional filter, self-confidence and motivation, and make it difficult for him to concentrate on in-depth creative study. The cognitive layer and the symbolic-cultural aspect of the language are the main victims of the immediate need to “survive” in the whirlwind of a new life. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (25 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

− With regard to the ulpan in the FSU, the lack of a “natural” Hebrew language environment should be noted, primarily making it difficult to acquire the communicative layer and useful/communication-oriented aspect of the language. The solution, which will enable the achievement of the goal while coping with these parallel factors, is to be found in an approach that structures the entire continuum of Hebrew language instruction, starting from the moment the student joins the ulpan in the FSU up until the moment he finishes the ulpan in Israel[7]. This will enable the time frame necessary for the learning process to reach the desired achievements, especially utilizing the advantages and neutralizing the disadvantages of each of its components: I At the ulpan in the FSU, instruction will be aimed mainly at the cognitivestructural layer of the language, at “laying the foundations and building up its frame.” The familiar and friendly home atmosphere, the lack of immediate pressure associated with the difficulties of initial absorption, which occupy the new oleh and do not enable “emotional and intellectual availability” for in-depth studies, the motivation backed with expectations and dreams for the future, which have not yet conflicted with the complex reality of life in Israel – all these create conditions for comprehensive study, free from tensions. Another important virtue of the ulpan in the FSU is the teaching faculty, most of which is local. The teacher, therefore, has the ability to use the learners’ knowledge of their mother tongue for the purpose of instilling the grammatical foundations of the language and conducting the inter-language comparative analysis (between the mother tongue and the second language) – the essential component for understanding the language and making efficient use of it, which can only be implemented by a teacher who is fluent in the students’ mother tongue. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (26 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

We can see from here that as opposed to the existing situation today, we must strive and make efforts to ensure that the studies at the ulpan in the FSU will be, insofar as possible – A) long,

B) intensive

and C) in-depth.

We should also point out that students who do not intend to make aliyah in the near future do not need the communication skills at all, but are seeking a cultural and identity connection. The approach of the language as culture will fulfill these needs, and will ultimately bring them closer to the decision to make aliyah. At the ulpan in Israel, instruction will be aimed mainly at instilling active communicative abilities, on the basis of the foundations acquired in the FSU. The atmosphere of life in Israel, the increased exposure to a living and flowing language, the immediate need to “mobilize” communication skills for everyday living needs, the characteristics of the typical Israeli ulpan teacher, who is usually an “authentic” Hebrew speaker – all these will require the new oleh to direct his efforts towards acquiring communicative skills, and turning the foundations and frame which he built up in the ulpan in the FSU to a “living, breathing and inhabited building.” It is important to note that understanding the foundations of the language will make it dramatically easier to acquire the useful layer – and this will assure the learner’s self confidence, which constitutes an essential component for success – for “opening his mouth.” We can therefore say that the study conditions at the Israeli ulpan require an emphasis to be placed on the communicative side, whereas the study conditions at the ulpan in the FSU enable an emphasis to be placed on the analyticalcomprehensive side. II At all stages, instruction should be based on the approach of “language as file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (27 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

culture,” which connects the student to cultural assets and the contemporary language reality – language instruction through content and content instruction through language. As mentioned above, this is not only desirable in terms of the goal of Jewish acculturation, but necessary from a purely linguistic viewpoint. On the issue of content as well, a difference in emphasis can be observed between the ulpan in the FSU and the ulpan in Israel: A.

The curriculum in the FSU will enhance the basic characteristics of the

audience of learners – the willingness to touch upon their Jewish roots, the world of positive images tied to these roots and the “Russian” concept of culture as creative assets in the fields of thought, literature and art. B. In the ulpan in Israel, the emphasis will be placed on the “reality” aspect of the modern Hebrew language, which is nourished by the colorful life of Israeli society. The path of Russian Jewry and that of the rest of world Jewry was forcibly separated by the Soviet regime. It is not possible today to bridge gaps that were created during decades of separation by skipping over the past and taking shortcuts, but rather by going back to the roots, to the Jewish world from which they were cut off, and only from there – to go on to the contemporary Israeli era. Therefore, the role of the ulpan in the FSU is to look through the prism of the past, while the role of the Israeli ulpan is to look at the present on the basis of continuity and the connection with the past. III At all stages, the ulpan reality should be constructed according to the following guiding principles: 1. With regard to form: Dialogue and reciprocity on all levels: Between the Israeli headquarters and its representatives on one hand and the local community on the other, between teacher and students. Every effort should be file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (28 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

made so that the very structure of the ulpan activity leaves no room for patronizing, dictating or preaching, which always achieve the opposite of the desired result. There must be an effort to “empower the grass-roots level” – to create conditions that will encourage initiative, variety and competitiveness between the frameworks, and renewal; 2.

With regard to content: High standard of studies. Dialogue and

symmetry will not be established on the basis of the lowest common denominator, as sometimes happens today, but on an intellectually and emotionally challenging basis, while ensuring the relevance of the study material for the learner, his needs and expectations[8]. In order to enable the relevance principle to be upheld, a differential approach must be adopted, which fits the content and methods of instruction to the cultural-social needs and psycholinguistic characteristics of the students; 3. Professionalism: All ulpan activity should be carried out on the basis of perceiving the instruction of Hebrew as a second language as a multidisciplinary and wide sphere of knowledge, which requires professionalism and expertise. A teaching faculty that represents this professionalism and expertise should be cultivated. 4. Family-based approach. No separation should be carried out between the generations, the parents and children, but rather the language instruction should be seen as an experience that bonds between the generations, and the bond itself should be regarded as a condition for the success of the learning process.

4. Components of Implementation At the outset of this chapter, we wish to point out that the guiding rule for thinking and action on this issue is based on a “processual” rather than a “revolutionary” concept, which advocates advancing in measured yet steady steps, while file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (29 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

identifying, encouraging and developing positive dynamics and existing successes.

4.1 The Education Shaliach Image of the Education Shaliach The education shaliach is a key figure in the Jewish Agency’s educational activity in the FSU. His qualities, skills, and ideological and educational views in effect shape what is carried out in the field. The education shlichim should meet the following criteria: 1. 2.

Have lived in Israel for over 5 years; Are familiar in depth with the culture in the location where they have

been sent and the life of Jews in the FSU, including fluency in the Russian language; 3. Possess an academic education, with preference for individuals with advanced degrees; 4. Have an academic background and tangible work experience in the field of education in Israel, with preference for individuals with experience in teaching Hebrew as a second language or instruction of Hebrew subjects – Judaism, literature, history and the like; 5. Have a deep emotional connection with the heritage and culture of the Jewish people, be involved in the life of Israeli society, and possess in-depth command of Jewish-Hebrew literacy and organizational-administrative ability. It should be noted that these criteria pose a substantial challenge in locating candidates who meet them. However, there is no doubt that this is achievable. It can be expected that meeting these criteria will make it easier for the shaliach to shape the activity of the educational frameworks according to the guiding principles that we described earlier. Being a native of the FSU, knowing the language and social and cultural characteristics of the target population, as well as their needs and expectations, will assist him: file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (30 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

A.

To build up his relations with the local residents on a basis of reciprocity

and dialogue, without appearing to be patronizing or alienating, as well as create and employ active and forthright connections with local education and community institutions, while language and cultural codes not constituting an obstacle; B. To prepare the instruction content on the basis of relevancy and meeting the expectations and demands of the learners. As mentioned above, a teacher of second language who originates from the community of his students enjoys clear advantages, from the methodological standpoint of teaching Hebrew as well; C. To convey a clear and strong message for encouraging the connection with the Jewish people and aliyah. This is due to the character and personal experience of the shaliach himself, who chose to make aliya in the latest wave and succeeded in fitting into Israeli life, learning and falling in love with the Hebrew language and the Jewish people’s cultural assets, to the point where he was chosen as a representative of Israeli society abroad. Training Shlichim The goals of the educational activity of the shaliach, as well as the fact that he is an oleh from the FSU, require different preparation than exists today for training shlichim. 1. All sections in training current shlichim that deal with “Russian studies” (the Russian language, characteristics of the target audience, etc.) lose their relevance. With regard to Hebrew instruction, there is also no longer a need for basic-level training, since these are people with an academic grounding in the field. 2. The many hours that become available as a result of the paragraph above make it possible to focus the training of shlichim in the two following spheres: −

In-depth and advanced specialization in teaching Hebrew as a second language and Jewish content, according to the objectives and

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (31 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

principles of the activity of the ulpan in the FSU; − 3.

Managing a large education system.

This training should be carried on a university basis. Priority is given here to the Hebrew University, where a true professional

infrastructure for this exists: Experts in Hebrew as a second language and management from the School of Education and the School for Overseas Students, experts from the Center for Jewish Studies in Russian and more. Furthermore, the approach of the heads of the Hebrew University, who regard their institution as the university of the entire Jewish people, may contribute to the symbolic and qualitative side of training the shlichim there.

4.2 Mechanism for Systemic Thinking, Planning and Coordination Between the Agencies Participating in the Ulpan Activity The principle of continuity and the continuum between the ulpan systems in the FSU and in Israel require the establishment of a joint mechanism for all agencies participating in these systems. This mechanism will handle systemic thinking, planning and implementing policy, and coordinating between the system components. Essential partners in this arrangement must be the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, representatives of academia, and the Jewish Agency, including the Department of Immigration and Absorption, the FSU Department and the Department for Jewish Zionist Education. Within the proposed composition of participants, the Jewish Agency should have a unique role, since it is the only one that stands at the juncture between the systems and is a partner both in the activity of the ulpan in Israel and that of the ulpan in the FSU. Representatives of the Jewish communities in the FSU should be included in the partners (from the Committee of Jewish Federations or another representative forum that has the potential to contribute to the issue). file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (32 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

Today, a body already exists called the Ulpan Administration, in which the Ministries of Education and Immigrant Absorption and the Jewish Agency’s Department of Immigration and Absorption are represented. This forum has more of a representative-formal character, and deals only with ulpans in Israel. It is possible that after renewed definition of its roles, spheres of authority and partners, this forum could be viewed as a basis for the required mechanism.

4.3 The Organizational Aspect of the Ulpan in the FSU Before detailing the recommendations, we will first address two types of questions that might arise with regard to the material appearing below. 1“ .The money question” – Implementation of the recommendations would appear to require a significant budgetary increment. The following arguments can be made in response: A. The extent of expenses, including those incurred by the Jewish Agency, for ulpan activity in Israel is far greater than the parallel expenses in the FSU. This is due to the differences in teachers’ salaries (teachers in the FSU receive an hourly wage in the amount of $3-4 per hour – a marginal sum in comparison with the salary of an ulpan teacher in Israel), the living allowance received by the olim during their studies in the ulpan in Israel, operating costs and so forth. Therefore, in the general balance, each “Hebrew hour” in the FSU that comes “at the expense” of a “Hebrew hour” in Israel constitutes a clear financial gain – not to mention that knowledge of the Hebrew language is a critical factor in realizing the occupational potential of the oleh, and determining the question whether he will join the job market and contribute to the best of his ability to the country’s economy, or join those who live from state pensions. Within the framework of the inter-ministry mechanism proposed earlier, it will be possible to find the necessary budgetary balances. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (33 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

B.

The existing framework of expenses also makes it possible to

implement the recommendations, at least partially – by rational budget management, and mainly by planning and executing the learning process itself. For instance, today there is a widespread phenomenon of students who begin their studies anew many times, after leaving due to incompatibility of the framework with their needs or due to a lack of advanced classes. 2“

.The discrimination question” – Some of the recommendations would

seem to be applicable in full only in large concentrations of Jewish population, and this is detrimental to localities with small Jewish communities. The following arguments can be made in response: A. Even in localities with a small Jewish community, it is possible to find creative ways, in each individual case, to construct the educational activity in the spirit of the present document; B. The limitation of implementing some of the recommendations in small localities should not restrict or prevent (and must not prevent!) their implementation in large centers, when it is actually in these centers that the majority of the Jews in the FSU are located – in Moscow alone, according to Prof. Della Pergola, reside 118,000 of the 325,000“ nuclear” Jewish population of Russia (not including non-Jews with Law of Return eligibility), and nearly one hundred thousand additional Jews live in St. Petersburg (Della Pergola, 1997)[9]. In accordance with the guiding principles, the ulpan is required to enable extended and intensive studies. For this purpose, the following steps are necessary: 1. Opening new classes according to a predetermined schedule. Today, it is only possible to open a new class when its number of students is over 20. This causes the dates for opening classes not to be known in advance, and potential students cannot plan their studies and are left in a file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (34 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

state of uncertainty for extended periods (when time is such a precious commodity!). This is particularly critical for people who are about to make aliyah. Their limited time and multitude of arrangements involved in the aliyah process require clarity and advance planning. The lack of a regular schedule for opening classes, the uncertainty and the dependence on the number of students per class also diminish the participants’ motivation and damage the image of the institution and status of the teachers as dependent on the number of students, and this causes unnecessary “unrest” in the system. 2. Holding advanced classes, in which studies are carried out for long periods of 6 months and above. The system must find tools (some of which will be detailed below) to encourage advanced studies as much as possible, to maintain the advanced classes and regard them as an asset that creates a dynamic of seriousness in the ulpan, demonstrates in-depth interest in the Hebrew language and culture, and serves as a model for people’s willingness to invest a protracted effort and also succeed. An advanced class should not be closed due to a decrease in the number of students for reasons not dependent on the ulpan[10]. Both paragraphs refer to “waiving” the quantitative criterion, which is today an absolute condition for opening or maintaining a class. This does not mean that the numerical consideration is not important, but it should be viewed within a wide spectrum of considerations. It is, in fact, this comprehensive, qualitative and nonformalistic perspective that will assure – when supported by initiated steps for expanding the extent of activities, which we will discuss below – a maximum number of students. 3. Offering different study tracks according to the possibilities and characteristics of the students (a differential approach). A. According to the degree of intensiveness. In Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev and other large centers, classes can be held that study a much greater file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (35 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

number of weekly hours than is customary today (5-6 weekly hours). This will enable those who wish to and are capable of dedicating more time to Hebrew studies to have an option to do so. B.

According to the study characteristics and needs of the students. The

goal should be to achieve a maximal level of homogeneity in the classes, with regard to the study styles and habits of the students, as well as their language needs. For this purpose, it is recommended to: − Establish classes according to the individual typology of the students, determined by the results of psycho-linguistic counseling (see below); − Establish special purpose-professional classes (a successful attempt to do this has already been carried out in Yekaterinburg, for instance, and there is also a similar attempt in professional ulpan classes in Israel), which will enable a higher degree of homogeneity and also provide the students with a feeling of prestige.

4.4 The Content Aspect of the Ulpan in the FSU The central concept and guiding principles require the formulation of a curriculum for teaching Hebrew in the FSU. For this purpose, it is necessary to establish a multidisciplinary team of experts. This team will also include experts who are “Russian speakers” in the FSU and Israel, in order to provide an optimal response for the needs of the target population. The curriculum should: 1. Put into practice the concept of language as culture and the concept of the ulpan in the FSU as laying the foundations of the language with in-depth development of its cognitive side (this topic has been described in detail above); 2.

Be modular – provide a suitable response for different study tracks and

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (36 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

types of learners. It must also provide a response for people who are interested in extended study over a long period and in intensive study, as well as students in professional-special purpose classes and more. 3. Be clear and intelligible to the implementers (Education shaliach, teachers and students), both on the level of the program’s conceptual rationale and on the level of clarity of teaching content and the program’s specific demands. This is not yet another non-binding paper that is ultimately detached from what is carried out in the field, but a program that will indeed serve as a practical basis for the ulpan’s activity. 4. Be supported in a detailed manner by study material, books and other educational aids, which constitute part of the curriculum and are readily accessible to teachers and students in the field[11]. From a structural standpoint, the curriculum will be built on the basis of levels of fluency in the language – a principle applied today in ulpans of the schools for overseas students at universities in Israel (Level A to Level F, at the end of which the students receive an exemption from additional Hebrew studies). At the end of each stage and in the transition from one stage to another, the student will be required to pass evaluation testing, using standardized tests that are an integral part of the curriculum. This component of the curriculum: 1. Will clarify and standardize the study requirements for all parties – teachers and students; 2. Will encourage students by making the learning process serious and orderly, with objectives known in advance, in accordance with the study habits and teaching patterns accepted in the Russian education system; 3. Will encourage teachers by presenting them with a clear standard that they have to meet; Upon leaving the ulpan in the FSU, the student will receive a certificate which will state, among other things, the level which he succeeded in reaching. It is particularly important that the accepted curriculum in the FSU constitute an file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (37 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

integral part of the overall study continuum, the second part of which takes place at the ulpan in Israel. The achievement levels and evaluation methods should be valid and accepted in the ulpan system in Israel as well. A new oleh who finishes ulpan in the FSU will begin his studies at the ulpan in Israel from the level that he achieved previously. Students who reach a high level of fluency, beyond the customary standard at the ulpan for olim in Israel, should be given an opportunity for advanced studies, or alternatively enabled to take enrichment, training or vocational re-training courses at their own choice. This will be at the expense of hours at the beginners’ ulpan in Israel, from which they are exempt. This rule will encourage the students to join the ulpan in the FSU and invest maximal efforts in their studies in order to save time and money in their professional path in Israel. It will also clarify to all those involved in the activity of the ulpan in the FSU – shlichim, teachers and students – that their work has recognized value in the eyes of the absorbing system in Israel. The student at the ulpan in the FSU should be enabled to receive the maximum amount of information regarding the ulpan system in Israel – types of ulpans, their location, schedules of opening classes, the pedagogic approaches applied in different ulpans, information on vocational classes and more. This is essential for planning aliya dates and choosing a place of residence, as well as a sense of security and certainty towards the future of the potential olim, for continuity of the study process. This information should be distributed in a variety of ways, including booklets, web sites and the like, and updated regularly.

4.5 Teachers Training ulpan teachers in the spirit of the proposed policy is a component of critical significance. Today it is possible to identify three main types of Hebrew teachers in the FSU[12]: 1“

.Professional Jew” – a type that emerged during the period of the Soviet

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (38 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

regime in the Jewish underground. This is a teacher who identifies deeply with the Jewish people and the Hebrew culture. The Hebrew language, its study and imparting it to others, constitutes the fundamental and central expression of this identification. This leads to treating the language primarily as a cultural Jewish value on the symbolic and cognitive level. Today, despite the fact that the conditions of the Soviet regime are a thing of the past, it is still possible to meet many teachers, among the younger generation as well (including students and graduates of Jewish universities in the FSU), who hold this as their basic and principled outlook. The fact that such a teacher comes to teach Hebrew at the ulpan is not coincidental, and the primary motive is not material. 2“ .Professional philologist (scholar of Middle Eastern studies)” – this type is an expert in Semitic languages or Semitic cultures, the graduate of a relevant department at one of the universities in the former Soviet Union, usually not of Jewish origin. For this kind of teacher as well, the Hebrew language is a cultural and linguistic value. This is based on the professional approach characterizing the academic world. Teaching Hebrew is primarily part of the teacher’s professional life and not a “sideline” occupation. 3. A teacher who has arrived at Hebrew teaching primarily as a way of earning a living. In some of the cases these are former Israelis, or graduates of youth programs such as Na’aleh who did not remain in Israel. It should be noted that among these teachers there are a substantial number of high level teachers. However, for some of them this is an incidental occupation, with the Hebrew language serving as a useful tool, in more ways than one. Their willingness and especially their ability to meet the goal we defined at the outset is doubtful in many cases. Under conditions where the activity of the ulpan in the FSU is aimed mainly at the communicative-useful layer of the language, it is actually the teacher of the third type who gets along most easily with the approach. For the teachers from the first two types, conversely, it constitutes a type of “concession” with regard to the file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (39 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

conceptual or professional principles. The basic concept proposed by this document should strengthen the teachers from the first two types who still remain in the ulpans, and return those who have left to the ulpans. These teachers should constitute a professional nucleus upon which the teaching at the ulpan will be based. We should emphasize that these are teachers who are already part of the system or have worked in it in the recent past. Some of the necessary concepts and approaches were in the past and are still serve today as a basis for their work, and this makes it possible to begin implementing the policy without delaying it due to lack of appropriate personnel. In general, outstanding teachers in the FSU constitute a unique body of experience, knowledge, creativity and understanding towards the needs of the students. Therefore, all existing means should be exhausted (and new ones created) in order to include them in a maximal and equal fashion in the processes of designing all components of the system – designing the curriculum, in-service training sessions and training new teachers, as well as including them in all the forums and teams who will deal with the topic. As a main reserve for the expanding this personnel base, we should look first and foremost at students in Jewish higher education institutions. Today there is a wide variety of such institutions in the FSU. In Moscow alone, there are at least five institutions, universities and colleges. Some operate in highly intensive cooperation with Israeli institutions, especially the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Together they could create a system that is coordinated and unified in its educational conceptions (As noted above, we recommended training the shlichim through a university framework), which should be regarded as a basis for training professional teaching personnel for the ulpans. The Jewish Agency must exhaust all options for cooperating with this system at the highest level: Its professional potential is extremely high, and the budgetary expenses are relatively low. In addition, this cooperation also has symbolic value in file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (40 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

the spirit of the Jewish Agency’s vision[13], which speaks of “one people” on the basis of partnership, reciprocal relations, mutual support and mutual respect. One possible way of realizing this potential is by the participation of the Jewish Agency in granting scholarships to students of Jewish universities in the FSU, who will meet Jewish Agency criteria and commit themselves to work after graduation in the ulpan system in their place of residence. This way, it will be possible to train professional teaching staff for localities removed from the center as well. Professional-academic training will gain the teacher a higher salary, according to predetermined salary rates. In general, an examination should be carried out of the evaluation methods of the teachers and the means of rewarding them in accordance with professional achievements, experience and formal education[14].

4.6 Psycho-Linguistic Counseling Psycho-linguistic achievements could make a unique contribution to creating optimal study conditions. For this purpose, ulpan students and the teaching faculty should be provided with instruction in this sphere. This will include lectures and classes for developing self-awareness and guidance for creating individual learning strategies, carrying out tests to clarify the student’s personal typology, according to which he will be placed in an appropriate class, and more. In the large ulpans, there should be ongoing supervision by an expert psycho-linguist. In smaller locations, this can be carried out through a regular schedule of meetings. The tests can be administered using interactive computer software.

4.7 Study Material An assessment of the situation in this sphere is part of the overall design of the educational activity in the ulpan. Choosing didactic material from the existing selection or issuing new material will be done with the preparation of the curriculum, and according to its needs. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (41 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

We would like to reiterate the immediate need for an effort to expose ulpan students to the cultural assets of the Jewish people and the varied cultural life of the State of Israel. Repeated use of the dozen songs known in popular parlance as “Jewish Agency songs” is insufficient and at times could be detrimental. It is essential that the use of videotapes, CDs, computer software and other aids be integrated into the formal and informal activity at the ulpan, in order to introduce local residents to the best of Israeli creative works. The use of computers is particularly important, due to their vast potential and considering the development of the infrastructure in this sphere in the FSU countries, which is gradually expanding people’s accessibility to computers: •

The computer as the best and most accessible means for distributing study material, guided or independent exercises, administering study tests and psycho-linguistic tests; •

E-mail and the Internet is a way of forming a living connection with Israel; •

Classes for computer studies in Hebrew and Hebrew studies by computer, as a way of increasing the motivation of potential students, among them youth and young adults, to join the ulpan, as well as raising the quality of instruction at the ulpan based on the principles of hands-on learning and relevance; •

Technologies for distance learning in real time as a way of conducting lessons and in-service training sessions given by experts from Israel, and as a way of reaching small and distant communities. In this context, serious consideration should be given to the options of setting up computer classrooms for these communities, as an efficient and relatively inexpensive solution from the teaching standpoint (as opposed to recurrent expenses for shlichonim and other expenses).

4.8 Pedagogic Center in the FSU file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (42 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

As an important component in implementing the recommendations of this paper, we propose establishing a pedagogic center in the FSU. This center will serve as a connecting and bridging link between most of the agencies operating in the sphere of Jewish education in the FSU – Israeli (academic bodies, government ministries, etc.), local Jewish (institutions of higher education, schools, community institutions, etc.) and Jewish bodies from abroad. It will serve: 1. 2.

As a framework for pooling resources, knowledge and information; As a center for training and in-service training sessions;

3.

As a center for computerization and telecommunications.

The Jewish Agency will serve as an initiating and coordinating agency in the establishment and operation of the center, due to the fact that it stands at the juncture between the State of Israel, the Jewish world and the communities in the FSU, and given its professional experience in teaching Hebrew and the Jewish culture. A central role has been allocated to the Telecommunications and Pedagogy Center of the Department for Jewish Zionist Education.

4.9 Ways to expand the community of ulpan students Most responses to the question of how to increase the number of people learning in ulpan, reduce the drop out rate and expand the range of public who apply, have already been stated in the course of this document. In the main they advocate turning the ulpan in the FSU, in practice, into a unique and essential stage (for which there is no alternative) in the process of acquiring the Hebrew language and restructuring the form and contents of ulpan teaching in accordance with the needs of the various types of students. In addition to what has already been said, we should note essential components of the effort to expand the range of ulpan students: 1.

Wide and structured information dissemination that will focus in

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (43 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

particular on the critical importance of Hebrew studies prior to aliyah. The guiding principles of the information apparatus are similar to those of the entire system: dialogue, relevance, a differential approach, etc. 2.

Expanding and enhancing the connection with the local community.

The best way to expand and strengthen the ulpan is to “go out” into the Jewish and non-Jewish communities and institutions that facilitate access to potential students – synagogues, charity organizations, institutions of higher learning, etc – and create language study centers on those bases. A shaliach who is formerly of the FSU, Russian-speaking, and connected to the fabric of local life can contribute to developing the connection with the community. 3.

The principle of family is especially important. The parents of

children who attend the various Jewish schools and kindergartens, parents of youngsters in the mini-courses and those involved in clubs and camps, and on the other hand children of parents studying in adult ulpanim, are the accessible target population that is in need of a family study framework. This population should be involved in Jewish Agency Hebrew activities in the form of joint learning, for parents and children. Some of the teaching will take place in separate parallel classes15 and some, including culture and tradition, etc., together. The Yahalom (Children and Parents Learning) Association directed by Derek Perlman has a lot of experience in the “family-based” approach.

4.10 Working with youth 1. Considering the particular importance of inculcating language in youth, maximal efforts should be directed to ensure that language teaching, both formal and informal, is a central practical axis (not merely proclamatory) of all educational activity with youth in youth clubs, summer and winter camps, counselors’ seminars, etc. By virtue of this axis and the contents constructed file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (44 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

around it, it will be possible to identify the Jewish Agency’s educational work with youth as Jewish-Zionist. To this end a professional team should be established to examine the pedagogical and organizational means of implementation. This should be on the basis of the principles of dialogue, relevance, professionalism, a high academic level and language as culture, which we elaborated upon above. Hebrew language studies and progress in these studies should be one of the key criteria in screening and selecting local youth counselors.16 2.

All the principles of FSU ulpan activity that we proposed in this

document are equally valid with regard to Hebrew teaching in mini-courses for youth as well. 3. It is especially important to aspire to opening ulpan classes for youth and students who do not intend to take part in Jewish Agency youth programs. Without taking a stance in the present document, it should be noted that the separation of the formal roles of the education shaliach and the youth shaliach that is in place today requires reexamination.17

4.11 Children As noted previously, the state of affairs with regard to teaching Hebrew to school age children in Israel requires an extensive systemic effort that simply cannot be delayed. At present the Israeli Ministry of Education holds the bulk of the responsibility and authority for teaching Hebrew to children in Israeli schools and Jewish schools in the FSU. The Jewish Agency’s potential to contribute to this effort as an initiator and a catalyst for activity in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and other bodies (Ministry of Absorption, local government, etc.) must be examined. This is especially so in light of its status as an agency positioned at file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (45 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

the crossroads between Israel and the Diaspora, one that has rich experience in the field. This experience should be harnessed in the following directions: 1. Training teachers to teach Hebrew as a second language in schools; 2.

Designing curricula and developing didactic methods and study

materials; 3. Establishing study frameworks to reinforce Hebrew teaching and Jewish and Israeli subject matter. With regard to the activity in the FSU, effective Hebrew teaching in various learning frameworks, first and foremost Jewish schools,18 can provide a partial solution to difficulties teaching the language to olim in the education system in Israel. The establishment of a pedagogic center and its special emphasis on aspects of working with children may be a policy tool with tangible influence on the situation. As part of the Jewish Agency’s present authorities, as noted above, family learning frameworks must be expanded, and the Jewish Agency’s important projects for early childhood and youth be added.

4.12 Research and evaluation An integral part of the above-mentioned activity should be an ongoing research and evaluation facility with various agencies. The aim of this is to constantly streamline and improve the quality of work, and to utilize the historical opportunity that aliyah from the FSU to Israel poses in order to study the processes of language acquisition and changes in the spheres of identity and language. Among the activities: 1. Ongoing feedback among the teachers, students and shlichim; 2. Conducting seminars for thinking and evaluating, and taking advantage of advanced technologies to hold long-distance discussions; file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (46 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

3.

Conducing research studies in cooperation with research and

development units being formed within the Education Department and the Aliyah Department’s Evaluation Division; 4.

Initiating efforts to conduct studies in cooperation with academic

institutions in Israel and the FSU. Among the potential directions for research, we can mention in particular an indepth, comparative examination of: A.

Teaching Hebrew to olim in Israel compared with teaching Hebrew to

various communities in the FSU; B. Teaching Hebrew in the FSU as compared with teaching Hebrew in other countries; C. Teaching Hebrew to olim in Israel in contrast with teaching second languages to immigrants in other societies; D. Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speaking olim in Israel compared with teaching other second languages (English, German, etc.) to Russian-speaking immigrants in the USA, Australia, Canada, Germany, etc. It is particularly important that there be interaction at all levels between what the Jewish Agency is doing in the FSU and what is being done in other parts of the world, and to view FSU Jewry in the broader context of world Jewry and as an integral part thereof. Successful models for teaching language in the FSU are likely to contribute towards our search for ways to bring other Jewish communities closer to Hebrew language and culture and to the State of Israel.

CONCLUSION “Not Yet” – this is the English name of a highly influential Jewish organization operating in St. Petersburg – not yet in Israel. This is one more expression of the file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (47 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

painful transition in which Jews in the FSU continue find themselves. Both the spiritual-identity and the geographical dimensions of this transition (Who will remain and who will leave? Who will go to Israel and who to Germany?) are closely intertwined and cannot be separated. This is a sensitive and delicate process, and its future depends on a host of factors, the bulk of which cannot be anticipated. But among those that do not “rely upon heaven” – are the educational activities conducted by the Jewish Agency. Through the intelligent and sensitive formulation of this educational endeavors, by reading the map correctly, by virtue of the emotional and practical weight of these activities, and with humility and a willingness for genuine dialogue – all these may decide to a large extent whether “not yet” may one day become “Yes, now” or “No, never.” An essential part of the sensitivity to what is going on relies on moving from an approach of “saving lives in a distressed Diaspora” to one of “saving the people’s Jewish spirit.” The significant decline in the pace of aliyah in recent months illustrates this over and over. And here, there is nothing like Hebrew language. The first line of the well-known song, “I Have No Other Country” represents the educational goal of all our activities among Russian-speaking Jews – to ensure that their connection with the Jewish people, its country and its culture, shall be a crucial part of their identity and their identification. The second line of the song, “… a Hebrew word penetrates my veins, into my soul” symbolizes the way in which we can achieve this goal.

Bibliography Sources published in Hebrew: Bar-Lev, M., Mendelson, M. (2000). Graded Ulpan Program for Hebrew Language Instruction. Jerusalem: Jewish Agency for Israel, FSU Desk.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (48 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

Damien, N., Rosenbaum-Tamari, Y. (1998). The first two years in Israel: Followup study of olim absorbed in a direct absorption program. Jerusalem: Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, Planning and Research Division, Report No. 12. Dror, Y. (1999). Letter on the Jewish-Zionist future of the State of Israel: Memo to candidates for the job of Prime Minister. Israel Zionist Council. Horowitz, T. (1998“ .(Immigrant children and youth in the education system..” In: Sikroun and Leshem (Eds.), Portrait of Aliyah: The absorption process of olim from the FSU. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Ilouz, S. (1997). Locus of control and coping methods employed by new olim from the FSU from different periods following their aliyah. Bar-Ilan University. Kop, Y. (Ed.) (2000). From Melting Pot to Jerusalem Combo: A comprehensive report on pluralism in Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Center for Social Policy Studies. Kotik, B. (1996“ .(Individual differences in language skills and psychological support in the demands of a second language.” Hed Ha-Ulpan, 70. Kotik, B., Olstein, I. (1999“ .(Treating students based on individual variables.” Hed Ha-Ulpan, 77. Leshem, A., Alhaj, M. (2000). Research report – Olim from the FSU in the 1990s: Ten years after their aliyah. Haifa: Haifa University, Center for Multiculturalism and Educational Research. Lisitza, S. Peres, Y. (2000). FSU olim in Israel: Formulating identity and integration processes. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University and The Rabin Center. Menachem, N., Geist, E. (1999“ .(Language, employment and the link to Israel among olim from the FSU during the 1990s.” Megamot, 40(1).

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (49 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

Nudelman, R. (1997“ .(The search for ourselves.” Soviet Jewry in Transition 18(3). Olstein, I., Ben-Rafael, A., Geist, E. (1994). Aspects of identity and language in absorbing olim from the FSU. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Educational Promotion Research Institute, Publication No. 137. Olstein, I., Pressman, R. (1997“ .(Identity, attitudes and language acquisition among olim from the FSU in Israel of the 1990s: Reciprocal relations.” Hed HaUlpan, 73. Rubenstein, S. (1997“ .(Contemporary Hebrew language instruction: Dilemmas and directions for development.” Hed-Ha-Ulpan, 73. Sever, R. (1997). As if everything was alright. Intercultural liaison in school: Why is it necessary and how is it done? Jerusalem: Hebrew University School of Education, Educational Promotion Research Institute, Publication No. 142. Sever, R. (1998). Matriculation: Scholastic framework for granting matriculation certificates to immigrant youth who have dropped out. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Sikroun, M., Leshem A. (1998). Portrait of Aliyah: The absorption process of olim from the FSU, 1990-1995. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Smith, H., Smith, R., Olstein, I. et. al. (1999). Ulpan Survey: A research study. Jerusalem: Ministry of Immigrant Absorption and Ministry of Education. Solodkina, M. (1995“ .(Non-material factors and their impact on the community.” Soviet Jewry in Transition 17(2). Solomonik, A. (1988). Basic concepts in teaching a second language. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education, Adult Education Division. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (50 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

Strategy for implementing the common vision and the Jewish Agency’s mission statement. 1999. Ulman, H., Tetter, M. (1999). Self-identification, self-evaluation and satisfaction with life among native and immigrant adolescents from the FSU in Israel. Jerusalem: Hebrew University School of Education, Educational Promotion Research Institute, Publication No. 157. Zilber, N., Lerner, Y., Curtiss, J. (1996). Olim from the FSU one year and five years after their arrival in Israel: Psychological status. Jerusalem: JDC Israel and Falk Institute.

Sources published in Russian: Chelnov, M. (1999“ .(Judaism in the system of civilization.” Tefutzot 1. Cohen-Zedek, Y. (1995). Why are the ulpanim quiet? Ergotonic, Inc. Ravakina, R. (1996). Jews in post-Soviet Russia: Who are they? Moscow. Wigotesky, L. (1996). Cognition and language. Moscow: Labyrinth. Yochanava, N. (1999“ .(Between Tradition and Assimilation (the phenomenon of Russian Jewry).” Tefutzot, 1.

[1] This can be a process that maximizes the opportunities inherent in every aliyah and the encounter between olim and the native society, or a process of accumulating the risks and turning them into dangers to proper social development. In Israeli society, where some 80% of its Jewish citizens are first- or second-generation olim, the serious social issues of polarization and social or cultural gaps constitute the cumulative and complicated result of not being prepared to integrate with the various waves of aliyah because of the addition approach. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (51 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

[2] During a lesson I observed in a beginner class in one of the Jerusalem neighborhoods, the students asked which system (or ‘systema’ as they put it) of Hebrew study they should choose. The immediate response of the director of the ulpan, who was sitting next to me, was “Did you see them?! They’ve only been in the country two weeks and they already want ‘systema’!!! What systema do they want?! How can we Israelis learn languages, listen, imitate and somehow communicate, as long as we’re understood! These people won’t open their mouths without a systema!” (M.I.) [3] This chapter is a summary of the discussion regarding the inculcation of the language in olim – school students, from the summery of M. Yeduvitsky’s personal project conducted at the Mandel School of Educational Leadership. [4] The profession of “teaching Hebrew as a second language” does not actually exist in our education system. There is no framework for training teachers in this field. The teaching of Hebrew to immigrant children below the age of 12 when they come to Israel takes the form of an “extra” lesson added into the general curriculum. Usually these lessons are sparse (2-3 weekly hours per student) and given by teachers supplementing their positions, who often have no training (short in-service training courses in this case amount to “a drop in the ocean”). Children over 12, albeit not everywhere in the country, receive continuous Hebrew ulpan studies for five months, after which there are placed in various schools. For most students this period is insufficient even for a basic level of communication. Language difficulties, the trauma of entering, alone, a regular class which is sometimes welcoming and sometimes hostile, the interruption of the learning continuum of school subjects for a long period beforehand – all “contribute” their share to immigrant students failure to acclimatize and their dropping out of the system. At all ages there is no structured expression of the principle of supporting the native language in any form and manner. A Hebrew teacher working with immigrants who is himself an immigrant is still considered a detractor. The teaching of Hebrew today is not directed at the “maximum” – bringing the students to full (creative) control of Hebrew, its connections, roots, sources, deep dimensions, – but at a “minimum” level where they will be able to survive, communicate (“get by”) in the immediate environment. [5] In her book As If It’s All Alright, Dr. R. Sever describes many cases that illustrate the severity of the damage to child-adult relations, for example an immigrant child from the FSU who stopped speaking to her grandmother, who was the only person in the home for most of the day and knew only Russian, because her teacher “told her not to.” Often the educational staff perceive the student’s embarrassment at their parents as “proof of the correctness of the integrationist approach: “you see, the children want to be Israelis!” file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (52 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

[6] Today, Hebrew language instruction in the FSU is mainly directed towards a thin

communicative layer of useful Hebrew, and the attitude towards the language is economic and communicative – an instrumental attitude. This is based on the view that more in-depth learning will take place after making aliya: “The goal of Hebrew instruction in the ‘Diaspora in distress’ [this refers to the FSU] is to provide the learner with an efficient tool that will facilitate his arrival in Israel and his first steps there” – from the introduction to the gradated plan for Hebrew instruction at the ulpan in the FSU, 2000. The problem is that in Israel as well, the instruction of the language is limited to acquiring the same communicative and survival-oriented layer. This is so with regard to the curriculum offered in the ulpan, and especially in light of the conditions encountered by the new olim in their first months, which constitute a psycho-sociolinguistic obstacle to in-depth learning (shock of aliya, economic, social, occupational difficulties and more). Ultimately, the olim learn how to survive (“lehistader” – to get by) with the meager level of the communicative-minimalist language, and never reach the deeper levels of the Hebrew language, nor do they understand of the mechanisms by which it operates, comprehend its inner rationale, or achieve an ability to cope with original literary texts and “cultural” language-dependent challenges (theater, film, television, and more). This is fertile ground for developing a negative emotional attitude towards the Hebrew language and culture, to the point of hostility, disdain and condescension towards Israeli culture, isolation and separatism. You cannot love what you do not understand truly and in depth! FSU olim are generally accused of having an instrumental attitude towards society and culture in Israel. But it is actually the conception of Hebrew instruction at the ulpan that guides them towards an instrumental attitude of “getting by.” Today the ulpans in the FSU and in Israel operate as two completely separate systems, without any coordination or reference to one another. [7]

Today, in many cases the first meeting of the educated adults attending the ulpan with the world of Judaism and the Israeli culture is held in the format of a “first grade Hanukkah party.” This does not serve to bring them closer to the issue but rather distances them from it. Judaism and Israeli culture receive a “stable” image of something extremely superficial and primitive. The hours of social and cultural activities are regarding by many of the olim as a waste of time, at the expense of learning the language. “It is important to note the fact,” state the authors of the 1999 ulpan survey in their conclusions, “that the ulpan teachers are the ones who regard the social activities as important, and this is much less prominent among the students.” [8]

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (53 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

The perception of the Russian Jewry as a “Diaspora in distress” is deeply rooted in the consciousness of a substantial part of the system personnel. The current state of the large Jewish communities of Moscow, St. Petersburg and others does not fit the accepted image of a “community in distress.” Jews in Moscow and other large centers, on their part, do not regard the Jewish Agency representatives as “saviors from the enlightened West.” The contradiction between what the expected reality and the actual reality, instead of serving as a creative-intellectual challenge, undermines the motivation to invest efforts and find a way to the hearts of these communities (where, as already mentioned, the great majority of Russian Jewry resides), and at times even arouses a type of irritation at “the smug, condescending and bad Moscow Jews” as opposed to the “poor, good” Jews from the distant provinces. [9]

[10] At one of the ulpans in the FSU, I met a cohesive class with 8 advanced students

that had been studying at the ulpan for about 7 months. I was impressed by the level of achievements and the special atmosphere that was noticeable in the lesson. In the conversation after the lesson, however, the learners complained of the intolerable situation, with the threat of closure constantly hanging over their heads. This was due to the number of students in the class (it had dropped since several participants made aliya) and as a result of the general lack of interest by the ulpan in enabling advanced studies: “They say to us – You have studied enough. Either make aliya or join the beginners’ classes again to keep from forgetting what you have learned.” [11] Today, despite great efforts, there is a shortage of updated study material. [12] The description of the types of teachers is a summary of a lecture by Shimon

Paritzky, a Fellow of the Mendel School (Jerusalem Fellows), which was given at a meeting of the experts’ committee supervising the current project. [13] As this vision is defined in the document “Strategy for Implementing JAFI’s

Shared Vision and Mission Statement, 1999”. [14] Today the teacher’s salary is almost completely unrelated to his level of education

or experience, and this lowers the motivation to improve his professional credentials. 15 Today many families suffer from a “separation” problem, with parents having to

leave their children alone to go to ulpan and children having to go to Jewish school instead of being with their parents. This is especially evident on Sundays, which are family leisure days and also when intensive activities in ulpanim and “Sunday schools” takes place. 16 Today in most cases the language does not enjoy its worthy place in the priorities of

youth. Counselors, including “advanced” counselors who have been dealing in informal activities for years, are not committed to learning the language and the vast majority of file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (54 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]

JAFI-FSU - Teaching Hebrew to Russian-speakers

them do not know the Hebrew alphabet. 17 This reexamination is, commendably, already being conducted by the FSU Desk

(see position paper on the subject by Or-Li Rosenbaum).

18 Teaching of Hebrew and Jewish subjects in Jewish schools in the FSU falls under

the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. Cooperation with the Ministry and local agencies in the FSU (e.g. forum of principals of Jewish schools in the FSU) should be examined, as should the methodical approaches currently employed, among them the “whole language” approach, in order to achieve maximal realization of the framework’s potential.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/MarianaKr/De...learning%20to%20listen,%20michael%20yedovitzky.htm (55 of 55) [23/12/2002 14:46:38]